Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Amos 02 Nov 08 - 07:25 PM
MAG 03 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM
Amos 03 Nov 08 - 01:43 PM
ClaireBear 03 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM
Amos 03 Nov 08 - 02:40 PM
ClaireBear 03 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM
Amos 03 Nov 08 - 02:51 PM
MAG 03 Nov 08 - 09:24 PM
Amos 03 Nov 08 - 10:25 PM
ClaireBear 04 Nov 08 - 12:45 AM
Amos 08 Nov 08 - 11:39 AM
Riginslinger 08 Nov 08 - 12:18 PM
gnu 08 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Nov 08 - 12:51 PM
gnu 08 Nov 08 - 12:53 PM
pdq 08 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM
Riginslinger 08 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Nov 08 - 02:55 PM
Joe Offer 08 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Nov 08 - 03:32 PM
Big Mick 08 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM
Joe Offer 08 Nov 08 - 03:58 PM
katlaughing 08 Nov 08 - 04:26 PM
Amos 08 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Nov 08 - 05:11 PM
Joe_F 08 Nov 08 - 09:38 PM
Riginslinger 08 Nov 08 - 10:26 PM
GUEST,Steve in Idaho 08 Nov 08 - 10:31 PM
katlaughing 08 Nov 08 - 11:23 PM
Barry Finn 09 Nov 08 - 02:25 AM
Barry Finn 09 Nov 08 - 02:37 AM
Riginslinger 09 Nov 08 - 07:55 AM
Amos 09 Nov 08 - 09:11 AM
Bobert 09 Nov 08 - 09:34 AM
Uncle_DaveO 09 Nov 08 - 10:51 AM
Uncle_DaveO 09 Nov 08 - 11:19 AM
Bobert 09 Nov 08 - 11:23 AM
Riginslinger 09 Nov 08 - 12:28 PM
Amos 09 Nov 08 - 12:58 PM
gnu 09 Nov 08 - 01:20 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Nov 08 - 01:30 PM
Joe Offer 10 Nov 08 - 12:59 AM
katlaughing 14 Nov 08 - 09:49 PM
Riginslinger 14 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM
Amos 17 Nov 08 - 11:24 AM
olddude 17 Nov 08 - 11:32 AM
Amos 18 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM
Joe Offer 05 Dec 08 - 01:43 AM
JohnInKansas 05 Dec 08 - 02:54 AM
Big Mick 05 Dec 08 - 03:04 AM
Amos 05 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM
katlaughing 05 Dec 08 - 10:06 AM
Wesley S 05 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM
JohnInKansas 05 Dec 08 - 11:45 AM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Dec 08 - 12:28 PM
Amos 05 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM
Amos 20 Dec 08 - 11:01 AM
kendall 20 Dec 08 - 12:59 PM
Amos 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM
pdq 20 Dec 08 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Dec 08 - 02:23 PM
Amos 20 Dec 08 - 04:13 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 08 - 04:17 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 08 - 04:29 PM
Riginslinger 20 Dec 08 - 09:33 PM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM
akenaton 21 Dec 08 - 05:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 08 - 06:23 AM
akenaton 21 Dec 08 - 06:40 AM
Ruth Archer 21 Dec 08 - 06:43 AM
JohnInKansas 21 Dec 08 - 07:25 AM
akenaton 21 Dec 08 - 11:33 AM
LilyFestre 21 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM
Amos 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 08 - 04:34 AM
Sleepy Rosie 22 Dec 08 - 06:19 AM
Amos 22 Dec 08 - 07:42 PM
Amos 22 Dec 08 - 08:46 PM
M.Ted 22 Dec 08 - 10:31 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 08 - 03:05 AM
akenaton 23 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM
bubblyrat 23 Dec 08 - 07:31 AM
Amos 23 Dec 08 - 09:29 AM
Sleepy Rosie 23 Dec 08 - 11:17 AM
katlaughing 23 Dec 08 - 11:24 AM
akenaton 23 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM
Amos 23 Dec 08 - 01:20 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 08 - 01:43 PM
Amos 23 Dec 08 - 02:13 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Dec 08 - 02:27 PM
akenaton 23 Dec 08 - 02:37 PM
Riginslinger 24 Dec 08 - 09:24 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 07:23 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Dec 08 - 01:33 PM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 02:19 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 08 - 03:52 PM
MMario 30 Dec 08 - 04:06 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 08 - 05:30 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 08 - 05:42 PM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 05:55 PM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 07:20 PM
Riginslinger 30 Dec 08 - 10:05 PM
Amos 30 Dec 08 - 10:18 PM
Riginslinger 30 Dec 08 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Dec 08 - 11:17 PM
Amos 31 Dec 08 - 01:21 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Dec 08 - 10:25 AM
Amos 31 Dec 08 - 10:37 AM
Ebbie 31 Dec 08 - 10:42 AM
Amos 31 Dec 08 - 10:55 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM
Riginslinger 31 Dec 08 - 11:23 AM
Amos 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Dec 08 - 11:59 AM
TIA 31 Dec 08 - 01:54 PM
Amos 31 Dec 08 - 03:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Dec 08 - 03:48 PM
gnu 31 Dec 08 - 04:16 PM
gnu 31 Dec 08 - 04:31 PM
Don Firth 31 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM
gnu 31 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM
gnu 31 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM
Amos 31 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM
akenaton 31 Dec 08 - 05:50 PM
Riginslinger 01 Jan 09 - 01:06 AM
akenaton 01 Jan 09 - 04:51 AM
Don Firth 01 Jan 09 - 01:27 PM
Amos 01 Jan 09 - 01:39 PM
gnu 01 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Jan 09 - 06:01 PM
gnu 01 Jan 09 - 06:15 PM
Amos 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Jan 09 - 10:28 PM
Riginslinger 01 Jan 09 - 11:32 PM
Don Firth 01 Jan 09 - 11:41 PM
akenaton 02 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM
Riginslinger 02 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM
Amos 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM
Don Firth 02 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 Jan 09 - 02:44 PM
Ebbie 02 Jan 09 - 02:51 PM
Jeri 02 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM
akenaton 02 Jan 09 - 03:18 PM
Amos 02 Jan 09 - 04:47 PM
Don Firth 02 Jan 09 - 05:59 PM
akenaton 02 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM
Amos 02 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 Jan 09 - 11:47 PM
fumblefingers 02 Jan 09 - 11:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Jan 09 - 12:10 AM
Amos 03 Jan 09 - 12:52 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Jan 09 - 01:00 AM
Riginslinger 03 Jan 09 - 01:24 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Jan 09 - 01:44 AM
Amos 03 Jan 09 - 02:51 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Jan 09 - 03:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Jan 09 - 04:40 AM
Riginslinger 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 AM
Jeri 03 Jan 09 - 09:12 AM
Amos 03 Jan 09 - 12:22 PM
Joe Offer 03 Jan 09 - 02:45 PM
Don Firth 03 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 09 - 04:04 PM
Don Firth 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM
Amos 03 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM
Riginslinger 03 Jan 09 - 11:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 12:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 12:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 12:47 AM
Ebbie 04 Jan 09 - 02:58 AM
Joe Offer 04 Jan 09 - 03:48 AM
akenaton 04 Jan 09 - 06:07 AM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 03:40 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 04:19 PM
gnu 04 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 04:49 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 05:18 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM
akenaton 04 Jan 09 - 05:36 PM
Riginslinger 04 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM
akenaton 04 Jan 09 - 06:42 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 06:46 PM
gnu 04 Jan 09 - 07:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 07:20 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 07:27 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 07:37 PM
Donuel 04 Jan 09 - 07:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 07:40 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 07:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jan 09 - 07:45 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 07:58 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM
Riginslinger 04 Jan 09 - 09:04 PM
Don Firth 04 Jan 09 - 09:20 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 09:27 PM
Riginslinger 04 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 10:12 PM
Amos 04 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM
Ebbie 04 Jan 09 - 11:46 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Jan 09 - 02:45 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Jan 09 - 03:53 AM
Amos 05 Jan 09 - 10:39 AM
TIA 05 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM
Amos 05 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM
Riginslinger 05 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM
Ebbie 05 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM
Ebbie 05 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM
Riginslinger 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM
akenaton 05 Jan 09 - 08:18 PM
Amos 05 Jan 09 - 08:27 PM
Nick 05 Jan 09 - 08:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM
akenaton 05 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM
akenaton 05 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM
Amos 05 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM
Don Firth 05 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM
Ebbie 05 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM
pdq 05 Jan 09 - 10:05 PM
Ebbie 05 Jan 09 - 10:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Jan 09 - 03:39 AM
GUEST,TIA 06 Jan 09 - 06:28 AM
Nick 06 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM
Amos 06 Jan 09 - 01:24 PM
gnu 06 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM
Amos 06 Jan 09 - 03:06 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 09 - 04:27 PM
Don Firth 06 Jan 09 - 06:12 PM
akenaton 06 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM
gnu 06 Jan 09 - 07:51 PM
Don Firth 06 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM
Joe Offer 07 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM
akenaton 07 Jan 09 - 12:45 PM
Amos 07 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM
akenaton 07 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM
Don Firth 07 Jan 09 - 09:18 PM
Joe Offer 07 Jan 09 - 09:49 PM
akenaton 08 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM
akenaton 08 Jan 09 - 05:08 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 09 - 10:32 AM
Amos 08 Jan 09 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,hg 08 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM
akenaton 08 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM
Riginslinger 08 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM
akenaton 08 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM
Ebbie 08 Jan 09 - 08:35 PM
Amos 08 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM
Riginslinger 08 Jan 09 - 10:04 PM
GUEST,hg or haggard or whatever! 08 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM
Amos 09 Jan 09 - 10:37 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 09 - 01:28 PM
Riginslinger 09 Jan 09 - 01:56 PM
GUEST,hg 09 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM
Riginslinger 09 Jan 09 - 10:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 09 - 10:58 PM
Amos 09 Jan 09 - 11:06 PM
Riginslinger 09 Jan 09 - 11:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 09 - 11:24 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 01:13 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM
Riginslinger 10 Jan 09 - 09:54 AM
Amos 10 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 09 - 05:23 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 09 - 05:42 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 05:44 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM
Ebbie 10 Jan 09 - 06:02 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM
Don Firth 10 Jan 09 - 06:43 PM
akenaton 10 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM
Don Firth 10 Jan 09 - 08:14 PM
Don Firth 10 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Jan 09 - 08:41 PM
Riginslinger 10 Jan 09 - 08:46 PM
Don Firth 11 Jan 09 - 08:28 PM
fumblefingers 11 Jan 09 - 10:10 PM
Don Firth 11 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Jan 09 - 02:10 AM
MMario 12 Jan 09 - 11:53 AM
akenaton 12 Jan 09 - 01:12 PM
Don Firth 12 Jan 09 - 01:52 PM
akenaton 12 Jan 09 - 06:23 PM
Don Firth 12 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM
Amos 12 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM
akenaton 12 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM
akenaton 12 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM
Amos 12 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM
Don Firth 12 Jan 09 - 09:40 PM
akenaton 12 Jan 09 - 09:43 PM
Don Firth 12 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM
Riginslinger 13 Jan 09 - 05:09 PM
Amos 13 Jan 09 - 07:05 PM
akenaton 14 Jan 09 - 03:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Jan 09 - 02:23 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Jan 09 - 05:21 AM
Amos 17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Jan 09 - 09:34 AM
Amos 18 Jan 09 - 10:09 AM
Ebbie 18 Jan 09 - 10:43 AM
Riginslinger 18 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM
Ebbie 18 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM
akenaton 19 Jan 09 - 02:57 AM
Amos 19 Jan 09 - 10:40 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM
Riginslinger 19 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM
Ebbie 19 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM
Amos 19 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM
Riginslinger 19 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM
akenaton 19 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM
Ebbie 19 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM
akenaton 19 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM
Amos 19 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM
Don Firth 19 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM
Riginslinger 19 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM
Don Firth 19 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Jan 09 - 05:14 AM
akenaton 20 Jan 09 - 05:28 AM
Amos 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM
akenaton 20 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM
Don Firth 20 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM
Amos 20 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Jan 09 - 06:06 PM
akenaton 20 Jan 09 - 07:10 PM
Amos 20 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Jan 09 - 08:01 PM
akenaton 20 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM
Amos 20 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM
Riginslinger 20 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM
Don Firth 20 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Jan 09 - 10:36 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Jan 09 - 07:16 PM
Don Firth 21 Jan 09 - 10:13 PM
Ebbie 21 Jan 09 - 10:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Jan 09 - 01:30 AM
Ebbie 22 Jan 09 - 02:20 AM
Joe Offer 22 Jan 09 - 02:53 AM
akenaton 22 Jan 09 - 03:02 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Jan 09 - 05:29 AM
akenaton 22 Jan 09 - 09:02 AM
Amos 22 Jan 09 - 10:24 AM
akenaton 22 Jan 09 - 11:21 AM
Amos 22 Jan 09 - 11:30 AM
Ebbie 22 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Jan 09 - 03:23 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM
Amos 22 Jan 09 - 04:36 PM
akenaton 22 Jan 09 - 04:51 PM
akenaton 22 Jan 09 - 04:58 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 09 - 05:07 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 09 - 05:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM
Don Firth 22 Jan 09 - 06:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Jan 09 - 06:16 PM
Amos 22 Jan 09 - 07:13 PM
Amos 22 Jan 09 - 07:49 PM
akenaton 22 Jan 09 - 07:55 PM
Amos 22 Jan 09 - 10:33 PM
akenaton 23 Jan 09 - 07:24 AM
Amos 23 Jan 09 - 08:11 AM
GUEST,TIA 23 Jan 09 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 09 - 12:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jan 09 - 12:26 PM
GUEST,TIA 23 Jan 09 - 01:14 PM
Don Firth 23 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM
akenaton 23 Jan 09 - 04:41 PM
Amos 23 Jan 09 - 04:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 09 - 01:15 AM
Don Firth 24 Jan 09 - 01:29 AM
Don Firth 24 Jan 09 - 01:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 09 - 01:40 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 09 - 01:41 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Jan 09 - 05:59 AM
goatfell 24 Jan 09 - 06:51 AM
akenaton 24 Jan 09 - 11:54 AM
akenaton 24 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM
Amos 24 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM
Don Firth 24 Jan 09 - 02:35 PM
Don Firth 24 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM
Amos 24 Jan 09 - 03:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 09 - 03:52 PM
Don Firth 24 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM
akenaton 24 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM
akenaton 24 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 09 - 06:07 PM
Don Firth 24 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM
akenaton 24 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM
Amos 24 Jan 09 - 07:32 PM
Amos 24 Jan 09 - 10:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM
Amos 24 Jan 09 - 10:42 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 12:16 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 09 - 12:18 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 12:36 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 09 - 01:19 AM
Don Firth 25 Jan 09 - 01:33 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 09 - 02:06 AM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM
Don Firth 25 Jan 09 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 09 - 12:37 PM
Don Firth 25 Jan 09 - 12:54 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Jan 09 - 02:21 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 02:43 PM
akenaton 25 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM
Ebbie 25 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM
Don Firth 25 Jan 09 - 04:56 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM
Ebbie 25 Jan 09 - 05:34 PM
akenaton 25 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM
Amos 25 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM
akenaton 25 Jan 09 - 06:48 PM
Ebbie 25 Jan 09 - 07:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Jan 09 - 01:33 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Jan 09 - 01:50 AM
akenaton 26 Jan 09 - 02:55 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM
Don Firth 26 Jan 09 - 06:13 PM
Ebbie 26 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM
Don Firth 26 Jan 09 - 06:42 PM
Ebbie 26 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM
Don Firth 26 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Jan 09 - 03:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Jan 09 - 03:25 AM
Ebbie 27 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM
Don Firth 27 Jan 09 - 12:26 PM
Riginslinger 28 Jan 09 - 10:33 AM
GUEST,curious reader 28 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM
Ebbie 28 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM
Don Firth 28 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM
Ebbie 28 Jan 09 - 10:34 PM
bubblyrat 29 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM
Don Firth 29 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM
Amos 29 Jan 09 - 02:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM
TIA 29 Jan 09 - 05:26 PM
Riginslinger 29 Jan 09 - 05:45 PM
Don Firth 29 Jan 09 - 06:10 PM
Amos 29 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM
Ebbie 29 Jan 09 - 06:47 PM
akenaton 29 Jan 09 - 06:53 PM
akenaton 29 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM
akenaton 29 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM
Ebbie 30 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM
TIA 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM
akenaton 31 Jan 09 - 03:34 AM
katlaughing 09 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM
frogprince 16 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM
akenaton 17 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM
Amos 17 Feb 09 - 07:19 PM
Amos 03 Apr 09 - 10:31 AM
katlaughing 03 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Apr 09 - 08:16 PM
Amos 05 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Apr 09 - 12:38 PM
Amos 05 Apr 09 - 10:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM
Amos 05 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM
KB in Iowa 06 Apr 09 - 10:23 AM
Amos 06 Apr 09 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Apr 09 - 11:41 AM
KB in Iowa 06 Apr 09 - 11:49 AM
Amos 06 Apr 09 - 12:13 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Apr 09 - 01:37 PM
Amos 07 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM
Big Mick 07 Apr 09 - 12:11 PM
Amos 07 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM
Amos 16 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM
akenaton 17 Apr 09 - 03:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Apr 09 - 12:23 AM
akenaton 18 Apr 09 - 03:22 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Apr 09 - 04:21 AM
Peace 18 Apr 09 - 04:38 AM
akenaton 18 Apr 09 - 04:42 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Apr 09 - 06:34 AM
Amos 18 Apr 09 - 11:59 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM
akenaton 18 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM
akenaton 18 Apr 09 - 02:30 PM
Don Firth 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM
akenaton 18 Apr 09 - 06:06 PM
frogprince 18 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM
Amos 18 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 09 - 10:49 PM
Amos 18 Apr 09 - 11:33 PM
akenaton 19 Apr 09 - 01:49 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Apr 09 - 02:10 AM
Peace 19 Apr 09 - 03:55 AM
Peace 19 Apr 09 - 04:25 AM
Jeri 19 Apr 09 - 08:29 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Apr 09 - 09:50 AM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 11:28 AM
akenaton 19 Apr 09 - 11:51 AM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Apr 09 - 03:24 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 03:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Apr 09 - 03:40 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 03:40 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 03:48 PM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 04:03 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 05:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Apr 09 - 05:39 PM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 05:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Apr 09 - 05:54 PM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 06:24 PM
Amos 19 Apr 09 - 06:30 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 06:52 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 07:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Apr 09 - 10:08 PM
Don Firth 19 Apr 09 - 11:05 PM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 09 - 11:10 PM
Don Firth 19 Apr 09 - 11:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 12:03 AM
GUEST,TIA 20 Apr 09 - 12:43 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 01:16 AM
akenaton 20 Apr 09 - 03:23 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Apr 09 - 05:46 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 01:04 PM
KB in Iowa 20 Apr 09 - 04:11 PM
Don Firth 20 Apr 09 - 04:48 PM
KB in Iowa 20 Apr 09 - 05:26 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 06:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Apr 09 - 06:46 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 07:04 PM
Don Firth 20 Apr 09 - 07:20 PM
akenaton 20 Apr 09 - 08:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 08:34 PM
Don Firth 20 Apr 09 - 08:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 09:22 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Apr 09 - 10:17 PM
Amos 20 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM
Don Firth 20 Apr 09 - 11:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Apr 09 - 11:43 PM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 09 - 12:41 AM
Don Firth 21 Apr 09 - 01:13 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Apr 09 - 01:24 AM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 09 - 01:41 AM
akenaton 21 Apr 09 - 02:58 AM
Peace 21 Apr 09 - 06:01 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Apr 09 - 06:17 AM
Amos 21 Apr 09 - 09:36 AM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 09 - 01:15 PM
Amos 21 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 09 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Apr 09 - 04:36 PM
Don Firth 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Apr 09 - 07:01 PM
gnu 21 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM
Amos 21 Apr 09 - 07:43 PM
Barry Finn 21 Apr 09 - 08:38 PM
Don Firth 21 Apr 09 - 08:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Apr 09 - 09:53 PM
Don Firth 21 Apr 09 - 10:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Apr 09 - 10:44 PM
Amos 21 Apr 09 - 10:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Apr 09 - 10:58 PM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 09 - 01:27 PM
Peace 22 Apr 09 - 01:31 PM
Jeri 22 Apr 09 - 01:38 PM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM
Peace 22 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM
Peace 22 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 09 - 01:50 PM
Peace 22 Apr 09 - 01:55 PM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 09 - 02:54 PM
Amos 22 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Apr 09 - 07:18 PM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM
Peace 22 Apr 09 - 07:53 PM
Don Firth 22 Apr 09 - 07:54 PM
Peace 22 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM
Amos 22 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 09 - 08:34 PM
akenaton 23 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 03:36 AM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 08:53 AM
KB in Iowa 23 Apr 09 - 12:52 PM
Don Firth 23 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM
akenaton 23 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM
Don Firth 23 Apr 09 - 06:22 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 06:32 PM
Don Firth 23 Apr 09 - 06:54 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 06:57 PM
Don Firth 23 Apr 09 - 07:16 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 07:24 PM
Don Firth 23 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 07:30 PM
Don Firth 23 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 07:55 PM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 08:12 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 09:13 PM
Desert Dancer 23 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Apr 09 - 11:08 PM
Amos 23 Apr 09 - 11:31 PM
Little Hawk 23 Apr 09 - 11:52 PM
Amos 24 Apr 09 - 12:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 02:17 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 03:30 AM
akenaton 24 Apr 09 - 03:35 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 04:10 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Apr 09 - 06:04 AM
Amos 24 Apr 09 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM
KB in Iowa 24 Apr 09 - 01:03 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 09 - 01:07 PM
Amos 24 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM
Don Firth 24 Apr 09 - 01:58 PM
Amos 24 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 09 - 02:18 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Apr 09 - 08:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 08:07 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM
Don Firth 24 Apr 09 - 08:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 09:59 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Apr 09 - 10:42 PM
frogprince 24 Apr 09 - 10:48 PM
Don Firth 24 Apr 09 - 11:01 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 09 - 11:14 PM
Amos 25 Apr 09 - 12:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Apr 09 - 04:44 AM
frogprince 25 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Apr 09 - 10:05 AM
Don Firth 25 Apr 09 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Apr 09 - 08:20 PM
Don Firth 25 Apr 09 - 09:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Apr 09 - 09:17 PM
Amos 25 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM
Don Firth 25 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Apr 09 - 11:27 PM
Don Firth 25 Apr 09 - 11:47 PM
Amos 26 Apr 09 - 12:55 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Apr 09 - 11:47 AM
Amos 26 Apr 09 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM
Amos 26 Apr 09 - 12:39 PM
Don Firth 26 Apr 09 - 02:03 PM
Don Firth 26 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Apr 09 - 02:31 PM
Don Firth 26 Apr 09 - 03:14 PM
Little Hawk 26 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM
Little Hawk 26 Apr 09 - 05:19 PM
Amos 26 Apr 09 - 10:15 PM
Don Firth 26 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM
Little Hawk 26 Apr 09 - 10:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Apr 09 - 10:34 PM
Little Hawk 26 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM
akenaton 27 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM
Amos 27 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM
Little Hawk 27 Apr 09 - 01:14 PM
Amos 27 Apr 09 - 01:23 PM
Little Hawk 27 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM
Don Firth 27 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM
Amos 27 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM
KB in Iowa 27 Apr 09 - 03:26 PM
curmudgeon 27 Apr 09 - 03:27 PM
Amos 27 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM
KB in Iowa 27 Apr 09 - 03:38 PM
Little Hawk 27 Apr 09 - 03:39 PM
Little Hawk 27 Apr 09 - 03:43 PM
Don Firth 27 Apr 09 - 03:48 PM
Amos 27 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM
Don Firth 27 Apr 09 - 03:58 PM
KB in Iowa 27 Apr 09 - 04:18 PM
Little Hawk 27 Apr 09 - 04:23 PM
Don Firth 27 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM
akenaton 27 Apr 09 - 05:41 PM
KB in Iowa 27 Apr 09 - 05:42 PM
akenaton 27 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM
curmudgeon 27 Apr 09 - 05:47 PM
akenaton 27 Apr 09 - 05:56 PM
akenaton 27 Apr 09 - 05:59 PM
Don Firth 27 Apr 09 - 07:17 PM
Don Firth 27 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM
DebC 27 Apr 09 - 09:13 PM
Riginslinger 27 Apr 09 - 09:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Apr 09 - 10:28 PM
frogprince 27 Apr 09 - 11:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Apr 09 - 11:56 PM
Amos 28 Apr 09 - 12:36 AM
Amos 28 Apr 09 - 02:15 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Apr 09 - 03:33 AM
akenaton 28 Apr 09 - 06:15 AM
frogprince 28 Apr 09 - 10:39 AM
Little Hawk 28 Apr 09 - 11:22 AM
katlaughing 28 Apr 09 - 11:38 AM
Riginslinger 28 Apr 09 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM
Amos 28 Apr 09 - 12:42 PM
Amos 28 Apr 09 - 01:02 PM
akenaton 28 Apr 09 - 03:11 PM
Don Firth 28 Apr 09 - 04:28 PM
Amos 28 Apr 09 - 04:37 PM
katlaughing 28 Apr 09 - 07:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM
gnu 28 Apr 09 - 07:38 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Apr 09 - 08:06 PM
Amos 28 Apr 09 - 08:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Apr 09 - 10:11 PM
Riginslinger 28 Apr 09 - 10:36 PM
TIA 28 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM
Little Hawk 29 Apr 09 - 01:26 AM
akenaton 29 Apr 09 - 02:49 AM
Amos 29 Apr 09 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Apr 09 - 11:01 AM
Amos 29 Apr 09 - 01:38 PM
Don Firth 29 Apr 09 - 05:26 PM
Amos 29 Apr 09 - 07:32 PM
Don Firth 29 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM
Peace 29 Apr 09 - 07:42 PM
Amos 29 Apr 09 - 08:15 PM
Peace 29 Apr 09 - 08:17 PM
Amos 29 Apr 09 - 08:18 PM
Little Hawk 29 Apr 09 - 08:55 PM
akenaton 30 Apr 09 - 01:42 AM
Amos 30 Apr 09 - 05:16 AM
KB in Iowa 30 Apr 09 - 11:04 AM
GUEST,TIA 30 Apr 09 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM
Little Hawk 30 Apr 09 - 12:33 PM
frogprince 30 Apr 09 - 01:12 PM
Amos 30 Apr 09 - 01:42 PM
Don Firth 30 Apr 09 - 04:09 PM
akenaton 30 Apr 09 - 04:11 PM
Don Firth 30 Apr 09 - 05:07 PM
akenaton 30 Apr 09 - 05:17 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Apr 09 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Apr 09 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Apr 09 - 07:10 PM
frogprince 30 Apr 09 - 07:43 PM
Don Firth 30 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM
Don Firth 30 Apr 09 - 08:03 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Apr 09 - 09:27 PM
Amos 30 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 May 09 - 01:01 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 May 09 - 05:04 AM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 05:47 AM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 06:14 AM
Amos 01 May 09 - 08:31 AM
frogprince 01 May 09 - 10:54 AM
frogprince 01 May 09 - 10:55 AM
Amos 01 May 09 - 11:08 AM
Amos 01 May 09 - 11:50 AM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 12:13 PM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 12:34 PM
Amos 01 May 09 - 12:37 PM
Little Hawk 01 May 09 - 01:38 PM
Amos 01 May 09 - 01:52 PM
frogprince 01 May 09 - 02:02 PM
frogprince 01 May 09 - 02:08 PM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 02:22 PM
Little Hawk 01 May 09 - 03:17 PM
Amos 01 May 09 - 03:21 PM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 03:39 PM
akenaton 01 May 09 - 03:51 PM
Amos 01 May 09 - 03:53 PM
Don Firth 01 May 09 - 05:04 PM
Don Firth 01 May 09 - 05:36 PM
Little Hawk 01 May 09 - 05:56 PM
Little Hawk 01 May 09 - 06:07 PM
Sorcha 01 May 09 - 06:10 PM
Sorcha 01 May 09 - 06:12 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 May 09 - 06:18 PM
frogprince 01 May 09 - 06:50 PM
frogprince 01 May 09 - 06:53 PM
Amos 01 May 09 - 07:02 PM
Don Firth 01 May 09 - 07:06 PM
Amos 01 May 09 - 07:30 PM
Don Firth 01 May 09 - 08:00 PM
Little Hawk 01 May 09 - 08:22 PM
Don Firth 01 May 09 - 10:52 PM
Don Firth 01 May 09 - 11:15 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 May 09 - 11:27 PM
TIA 02 May 09 - 12:09 AM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 12:20 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 12:45 AM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 12:54 AM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 01:31 AM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 01:54 AM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 02:16 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 02:25 AM
akenaton 02 May 09 - 03:29 AM
akenaton 02 May 09 - 08:35 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 11:06 AM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 12:16 PM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 03:22 PM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 05:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 06:46 PM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 07:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 07:09 PM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 08:56 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 09:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 09:37 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 09:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 10:06 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 10:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 May 09 - 10:31 PM
Don Firth 02 May 09 - 11:22 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 09 - 11:23 PM
akenaton 03 May 09 - 06:25 AM
Riginslinger 03 May 09 - 12:00 PM
Don Firth 03 May 09 - 01:47 PM
Don Firth 03 May 09 - 01:57 PM
Little Hawk 03 May 09 - 10:21 PM
Little Hawk 03 May 09 - 10:26 PM
Don Firth 03 May 09 - 10:54 PM
Riginslinger 03 May 09 - 11:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 May 09 - 12:06 AM
Little Hawk 04 May 09 - 01:48 AM
akenaton 04 May 09 - 02:10 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 May 09 - 03:12 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 May 09 - 07:16 AM
Riginslinger 04 May 09 - 09:08 AM
akenaton 04 May 09 - 01:29 PM
KB in Iowa 04 May 09 - 01:41 PM
Riginslinger 04 May 09 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,hg 04 May 09 - 01:56 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 May 09 - 02:41 PM
akenaton 04 May 09 - 04:06 PM
Riginslinger 04 May 09 - 04:17 PM
Don Firth 04 May 09 - 04:18 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 May 09 - 05:17 PM
Little Hawk 04 May 09 - 05:32 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 May 09 - 05:39 PM
akenaton 04 May 09 - 06:43 PM
Don Firth 04 May 09 - 07:01 PM
Peace 04 May 09 - 07:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 May 09 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 May 09 - 08:02 PM
Don Firth 04 May 09 - 08:48 PM
Don Firth 04 May 09 - 09:30 PM
frogprince 04 May 09 - 09:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 May 09 - 10:01 PM
Don Firth 04 May 09 - 10:10 PM
Riginslinger 04 May 09 - 10:15 PM
frogprince 04 May 09 - 10:28 PM
Riginslinger 04 May 09 - 10:35 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 May 09 - 10:36 PM
Little Hawk 04 May 09 - 10:37 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 May 09 - 10:40 PM
Little Hawk 04 May 09 - 10:47 PM
Joe Offer 04 May 09 - 11:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 12:27 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 01:20 AM
akenaton 05 May 09 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 09:30 AM
frogprince 05 May 09 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 11:27 AM
Don Firth 05 May 09 - 01:50 PM
Little Hawk 05 May 09 - 03:46 PM
Don Firth 05 May 09 - 04:36 PM
Little Hawk 05 May 09 - 05:19 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 May 09 - 05:37 PM
akenaton 05 May 09 - 05:43 PM
akenaton 05 May 09 - 05:47 PM
Barry Finn 05 May 09 - 05:55 PM
Don Firth 05 May 09 - 05:56 PM
Little Hawk 05 May 09 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 06:55 PM
Peace 05 May 09 - 07:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 07:38 PM
gnu 05 May 09 - 07:45 PM
frogprince 05 May 09 - 08:11 PM
Don Firth 05 May 09 - 08:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 May 09 - 11:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 May 09 - 12:38 AM
akenaton 06 May 09 - 02:45 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 May 09 - 04:01 AM
Riginslinger 06 May 09 - 06:55 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 May 09 - 09:28 AM
frogprince 06 May 09 - 10:43 AM
Don Firth 06 May 09 - 01:37 PM
SINSULL 06 May 09 - 01:49 PM
akenaton 06 May 09 - 02:32 PM
akenaton 06 May 09 - 03:21 PM
Don Firth 06 May 09 - 04:15 PM
akenaton 06 May 09 - 05:17 PM
Don Firth 06 May 09 - 09:27 PM
Riginslinger 06 May 09 - 09:33 PM
akenaton 07 May 09 - 02:44 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 May 09 - 03:01 AM
akenaton 07 May 09 - 03:32 AM
akenaton 07 May 09 - 03:40 AM
Riginslinger 07 May 09 - 06:53 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 May 09 - 10:09 AM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 02:23 PM
akenaton 07 May 09 - 02:44 PM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 03:08 PM
akenaton 07 May 09 - 03:40 PM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 04:24 PM
KB in Iowa 07 May 09 - 04:27 PM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 04:57 PM
Riginslinger 07 May 09 - 05:39 PM
Peace 07 May 09 - 06:43 PM
frogprince 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM
Peace 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM
Peace 07 May 09 - 06:54 PM
Little Hawk 07 May 09 - 07:05 PM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 07:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 May 09 - 09:33 PM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 09:42 PM
Don Firth 07 May 09 - 10:51 PM
Little Hawk 07 May 09 - 11:32 PM
Little Hawk 07 May 09 - 11:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 May 09 - 12:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 May 09 - 01:21 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 May 09 - 06:32 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 May 09 - 10:04 AM
KB in Iowa 08 May 09 - 11:36 AM
Don Firth 08 May 09 - 12:52 PM
akenaton 08 May 09 - 05:55 PM
Little Hawk 08 May 09 - 06:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 May 09 - 06:17 PM
Little Hawk 08 May 09 - 06:23 PM
Don Firth 08 May 09 - 06:40 PM
Peace 08 May 09 - 06:48 PM
Don Firth 08 May 09 - 07:01 PM
Don Firth 08 May 09 - 07:12 PM
Little Hawk 08 May 09 - 08:05 PM
Emma B 08 May 09 - 08:47 PM
Riginslinger 08 May 09 - 09:51 PM
Emma B 08 May 09 - 10:05 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 May 09 - 11:13 PM
Peace 09 May 09 - 12:13 AM
Little Hawk 09 May 09 - 12:46 AM
Peace 09 May 09 - 01:22 AM
akenaton 09 May 09 - 06:28 AM
Riginslinger 09 May 09 - 09:09 AM
Little Hawk 09 May 09 - 01:12 PM
Don Firth 09 May 09 - 02:25 PM
Peace 09 May 09 - 02:51 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 May 09 - 07:38 PM
Little Hawk 09 May 09 - 11:54 PM
Don Firth 10 May 09 - 12:26 AM
akenaton 10 May 09 - 05:30 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 May 09 - 09:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 May 09 - 10:01 AM
Little Hawk 10 May 09 - 10:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 May 09 - 01:01 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 May 09 - 01:12 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 May 09 - 01:19 PM
akenaton 10 May 09 - 02:45 PM
Don Firth 10 May 09 - 02:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 May 09 - 03:22 PM
Don Firth 10 May 09 - 03:30 PM
Amos 10 May 09 - 03:43 PM
akenaton 10 May 09 - 06:08 PM
Amos 10 May 09 - 06:16 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 May 09 - 07:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 May 09 - 10:21 PM
Peace 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM
Peace 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 May 09 - 10:36 PM
Peace 10 May 09 - 10:38 PM
Little Hawk 10 May 09 - 10:47 PM
Amos 10 May 09 - 11:39 PM
Little Hawk 10 May 09 - 11:46 PM
Little Hawk 10 May 09 - 11:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 May 09 - 11:55 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 12:19 AM
Don Firth 11 May 09 - 01:13 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 01:26 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 01:45 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 01:50 PM
Amos 11 May 09 - 02:16 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 02:21 PM
Don Firth 11 May 09 - 03:00 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 03:58 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 04:49 PM
Amos 11 May 09 - 04:56 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 04:59 PM
GUEST,Guest From Sanity 11 May 09 - 10:14 PM
Little Hawk 11 May 09 - 11:02 PM
Don Firth 12 May 09 - 12:17 AM
Don Firth 12 May 09 - 12:19 AM
Peace 12 May 09 - 12:29 AM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 01:10 AM
akenaton 12 May 09 - 02:36 AM
Amos 12 May 09 - 04:26 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM
Smedley 12 May 09 - 08:38 AM
Amos 12 May 09 - 09:53 AM
KB in Iowa 12 May 09 - 10:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 May 09 - 11:27 AM
KB in Iowa 12 May 09 - 12:07 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 12:42 PM
Ebbie 12 May 09 - 12:47 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 12:54 PM
KB in Iowa 12 May 09 - 01:06 PM
Amos 12 May 09 - 01:08 PM
KB in Iowa 12 May 09 - 01:21 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 02:26 PM
Amos 12 May 09 - 02:30 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 02:37 PM
KB in Iowa 12 May 09 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 May 09 - 02:41 PM
Don Firth 12 May 09 - 03:14 PM
Amos 12 May 09 - 03:30 PM
KB in Iowa 12 May 09 - 03:57 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 05:19 PM
Don Firth 12 May 09 - 05:26 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 09 - 05:33 PM
akenaton 12 May 09 - 06:13 PM
gnu 12 May 09 - 06:48 PM
Amos 12 May 09 - 06:58 PM
Ebbie 12 May 09 - 08:51 PM
Don Firth 12 May 09 - 09:06 PM
frogprince 12 May 09 - 09:07 PM
frogprince 12 May 09 - 09:12 PM
Little Hawk 13 May 09 - 01:56 AM
Peace 13 May 09 - 02:27 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 May 09 - 02:58 AM
akenaton 13 May 09 - 03:36 AM
Smedley 13 May 09 - 04:49 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 10:12 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 10:21 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 10:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 10:33 AM
Little Hawk 13 May 09 - 01:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 01:07 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 01:20 PM
Don Firth 13 May 09 - 01:22 PM
Little Hawk 13 May 09 - 01:31 PM
Don Firth 13 May 09 - 01:37 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 May 09 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 May 09 - 02:08 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 May 09 - 02:08 PM
Don Firth 13 May 09 - 02:22 PM
Amos 13 May 09 - 02:28 PM
Little Hawk 13 May 09 - 02:31 PM
akenaton 13 May 09 - 06:30 PM
Don Firth 13 May 09 - 07:43 PM
GUEST 14 May 09 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 May 09 - 04:22 AM
GUEST,TIA 14 May 09 - 09:04 AM
TIA 14 May 09 - 09:52 AM
Amos 14 May 09 - 10:40 AM
Little Hawk 14 May 09 - 12:12 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 May 09 - 01:07 PM
Amos 14 May 09 - 01:16 PM
TIA 14 May 09 - 01:50 PM
Don Firth 14 May 09 - 02:56 PM
Amos 14 May 09 - 03:00 PM
Little Hawk 14 May 09 - 03:02 PM
Amos 14 May 09 - 03:46 PM
Don Firth 14 May 09 - 04:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 May 09 - 06:12 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 May 09 - 08:00 PM
Amos 14 May 09 - 08:20 PM
Joe Offer 14 May 09 - 08:38 PM
Don Firth 14 May 09 - 08:43 PM
akenaton 15 May 09 - 05:47 PM
Don Firth 15 May 09 - 06:44 PM
Don Firth 15 May 09 - 06:57 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 May 09 - 08:16 PM
Riginslinger 15 May 09 - 11:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 01:18 AM
Amos 16 May 09 - 03:03 AM
akenaton 16 May 09 - 03:19 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 May 09 - 05:28 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 09:36 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 10:28 AM
Ebbie 16 May 09 - 11:12 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 12:10 PM
akenaton 16 May 09 - 12:32 PM
akenaton 16 May 09 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 01:09 PM
Ebbie 16 May 09 - 01:13 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 02:15 PM
TIA 16 May 09 - 02:27 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 02:49 PM
gnu 16 May 09 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 03:21 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 03:45 PM
Amos 16 May 09 - 04:11 PM
akenaton 16 May 09 - 04:13 PM
akenaton 16 May 09 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 04:34 PM
Amos 16 May 09 - 04:44 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 04:45 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 05:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 May 09 - 05:28 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 07:00 PM
Don Firth 16 May 09 - 07:28 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 May 09 - 08:05 PM
TIA 16 May 09 - 11:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 May 09 - 02:47 AM
Barry Finn 17 May 09 - 03:23 AM
akenaton 17 May 09 - 04:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 May 09 - 04:40 AM
Ebbie 17 May 09 - 11:50 AM
Ebbie 17 May 09 - 01:14 PM
Amos 17 May 09 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 May 09 - 01:50 PM
Don Firth 17 May 09 - 02:11 PM
akenaton 17 May 09 - 02:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 May 09 - 02:43 PM
Amos 17 May 09 - 02:49 PM
Don Firth 17 May 09 - 02:56 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 May 09 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 May 09 - 03:42 PM
Don Firth 17 May 09 - 03:53 PM
Ebbie 17 May 09 - 04:23 PM
Amos 17 May 09 - 05:08 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 May 09 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,TIA 17 May 09 - 05:41 PM
Peace 17 May 09 - 05:44 PM
Jeri 17 May 09 - 05:55 PM
Don Firth 17 May 09 - 08:00 PM
gnu 17 May 09 - 08:13 PM
Little Hawk 17 May 09 - 09:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 01:42 AM
Don Firth 18 May 09 - 02:20 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 02:53 AM
polaitaly 18 May 09 - 04:09 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 May 09 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 05:02 AM
Amos 18 May 09 - 09:40 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 11:51 AM
KB in Iowa 18 May 09 - 12:15 PM
KB in Iowa 18 May 09 - 12:18 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 12:49 PM
Wesley S 18 May 09 - 12:59 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 01:07 PM
Ebbie 18 May 09 - 01:20 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 01:35 PM
Wesley S 18 May 09 - 01:44 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 01:51 PM
Amos 18 May 09 - 01:54 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 02:06 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 02:19 PM
Wesley S 18 May 09 - 02:50 PM
Don Firth 18 May 09 - 02:52 PM
akenaton 18 May 09 - 03:03 PM
akenaton 18 May 09 - 03:11 PM
Don Firth 18 May 09 - 03:50 PM
Wesley S 18 May 09 - 04:00 PM
Don Firth 18 May 09 - 04:08 PM
akenaton 18 May 09 - 04:11 PM
Ebbie 18 May 09 - 06:38 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 06:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 06:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 07:17 PM
Don Firth 18 May 09 - 08:21 PM
Amos 18 May 09 - 09:48 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 May 09 - 11:15 PM
Don Firth 18 May 09 - 11:29 PM
Little Hawk 18 May 09 - 11:40 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 12:41 AM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 01:09 AM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 01:13 AM
Peace 19 May 09 - 01:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 01:40 AM
akenaton 19 May 09 - 04:11 AM
akenaton 19 May 09 - 05:19 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 May 09 - 06:12 AM
Smedley 19 May 09 - 08:01 AM
Amos 19 May 09 - 08:03 AM
Amos 19 May 09 - 08:10 AM
Amos 19 May 09 - 10:53 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 01:16 PM
KB in Iowa 19 May 09 - 01:16 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 01:20 PM
Ebbie 19 May 09 - 01:32 PM
frogprince 19 May 09 - 02:01 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 02:13 PM
akenaton 19 May 09 - 02:15 PM
Wesley S 19 May 09 - 02:26 PM
Paul Burke 19 May 09 - 02:31 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 May 09 - 02:41 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 02:46 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 02:48 PM
Amos 19 May 09 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 03:12 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 03:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 03:49 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 03:54 PM
akenaton 19 May 09 - 04:12 PM
akenaton 19 May 09 - 04:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 05:00 PM
GUEST,gunshowsigns 19 May 09 - 05:48 PM
Little Hawk 19 May 09 - 05:52 PM
Amos 19 May 09 - 06:10 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 06:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 08:04 PM
frogprince 19 May 09 - 08:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 08:40 PM
Peace 19 May 09 - 08:48 PM
frogprince 19 May 09 - 09:01 PM
frogprince 19 May 09 - 09:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 May 09 - 09:58 PM
Don Firth 19 May 09 - 10:41 PM
TIA 20 May 09 - 12:40 AM
akenaton 20 May 09 - 02:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 May 09 - 03:28 AM
Smedley 20 May 09 - 04:01 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 May 09 - 06:15 AM
Amos 20 May 09 - 08:48 AM
GUEST,TIA 20 May 09 - 09:42 AM
Little Hawk 20 May 09 - 12:52 PM
Don Firth 20 May 09 - 12:58 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 01:00 PM
akenaton 20 May 09 - 01:37 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 02:14 PM
Don Firth 20 May 09 - 02:23 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 May 09 - 02:26 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 May 09 - 02:45 PM
Little Hawk 20 May 09 - 03:34 PM
Don Firth 20 May 09 - 03:56 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 04:31 PM
Little Hawk 20 May 09 - 04:38 PM
Emma B 20 May 09 - 04:57 PM
akenaton 20 May 09 - 05:23 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 05:34 PM
Don Firth 20 May 09 - 07:00 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 07:21 PM
Don Firth 20 May 09 - 07:58 PM
Little Hawk 20 May 09 - 08:25 PM
Little Hawk 20 May 09 - 08:29 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 10:06 PM
Little Hawk 20 May 09 - 10:14 PM
Amos 20 May 09 - 10:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 May 09 - 01:58 AM
Peace 21 May 09 - 02:03 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 May 09 - 02:38 AM
Barry Finn 21 May 09 - 03:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 May 09 - 03:17 AM
akenaton 21 May 09 - 03:55 AM
Barry Finn 21 May 09 - 04:04 AM
Barry Finn 21 May 09 - 04:07 AM
akenaton 21 May 09 - 04:32 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 May 09 - 04:47 AM
Amos 21 May 09 - 10:14 AM
Little Hawk 21 May 09 - 01:48 PM
John P 21 May 09 - 02:13 PM
John P 21 May 09 - 02:17 PM
Amos 21 May 09 - 02:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 May 09 - 02:48 PM
Don Firth 21 May 09 - 03:01 PM
akenaton 21 May 09 - 04:30 PM
Don Firth 21 May 09 - 04:52 PM
Amos 21 May 09 - 05:09 PM
Don Firth 21 May 09 - 05:34 PM
Little Hawk 21 May 09 - 06:39 PM
John P 21 May 09 - 07:07 PM
Don Firth 21 May 09 - 10:33 PM
Amos 21 May 09 - 10:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 May 09 - 11:04 PM
Amos 21 May 09 - 11:19 PM
Don Firth 22 May 09 - 12:54 AM
Peace 22 May 09 - 01:18 AM
Amos 22 May 09 - 10:28 AM
Wesley S 22 May 09 - 10:50 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 May 09 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 May 09 - 11:01 AM
Amos 22 May 09 - 11:06 AM
Amos 22 May 09 - 11:31 AM
John P 22 May 09 - 11:56 AM
Amos 22 May 09 - 03:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 May 09 - 09:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 May 09 - 09:34 PM
Don Firth 22 May 09 - 10:15 PM
Amos 23 May 09 - 12:09 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 May 09 - 01:07 AM
Amos 23 May 09 - 12:47 PM
Don Firth 23 May 09 - 02:29 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 May 09 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 May 09 - 11:22 PM
Amos 24 May 09 - 12:55 AM
akenaton 24 May 09 - 02:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 May 09 - 06:21 AM
Amos 24 May 09 - 09:22 AM
Don Firth 24 May 09 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 May 09 - 04:01 PM
Ebbie 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM
Don Firth 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM
Don Firth 24 May 09 - 07:33 PM
Amos 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM
Don Firth 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM
Little Hawk 25 May 09 - 03:34 PM
Amos 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM
Don Firth 25 May 09 - 04:39 PM
Little Hawk 25 May 09 - 04:51 PM
akenaton 25 May 09 - 05:35 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM
Ebbie 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM
Don Firth 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM
Little Hawk 25 May 09 - 11:19 PM
Don Firth 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM
GUEST 26 May 09 - 06:57 AM
Amos 26 May 09 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 May 09 - 11:05 AM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 11:09 AM
Amos 26 May 09 - 11:12 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 May 09 - 11:15 AM
Amos 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM
John P 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM
Joe Offer 26 May 09 - 01:28 PM
Amos 26 May 09 - 01:46 PM
Joe Offer 26 May 09 - 02:01 PM
Amos 26 May 09 - 02:08 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 May 09 - 03:33 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 26 May 09 - 03:44 PM
akenaton 26 May 09 - 03:48 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 04:02 PM
GUEST,Gust from Sanity 26 May 09 - 05:11 PM
akenaton 26 May 09 - 05:18 PM
Amos 26 May 09 - 05:39 PM
Don Firth 26 May 09 - 06:02 PM
Ebbie 26 May 09 - 06:34 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 06:42 PM
Don Firth 26 May 09 - 06:47 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 06:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 May 09 - 07:09 PM
Don Firth 26 May 09 - 07:17 PM
Don Firth 26 May 09 - 07:23 PM
Amos 26 May 09 - 07:38 PM
Don Firth 26 May 09 - 08:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 May 09 - 12:06 AM
Amos 27 May 09 - 11:10 AM
John P 27 May 09 - 11:51 AM
John P 27 May 09 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 May 09 - 12:24 PM
akenaton 27 May 09 - 02:39 PM
Don Firth 27 May 09 - 02:53 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 03:11 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 03:22 PM
M.Ted 27 May 09 - 04:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 May 09 - 05:23 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM
Ebbie 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM
Little Hawk 27 May 09 - 06:26 PM
Don Firth 27 May 09 - 06:46 PM
akenaton 27 May 09 - 07:05 PM
Little Hawk 27 May 09 - 07:06 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 07:09 PM
akenaton 27 May 09 - 07:21 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 07:36 PM
Little Hawk 27 May 09 - 07:41 PM
Amos 27 May 09 - 07:43 PM
Little Hawk 27 May 09 - 07:50 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 08:02 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 08:10 PM
Don Firth 27 May 09 - 08:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 May 09 - 09:03 PM
Jeri 27 May 09 - 09:23 PM
John P 27 May 09 - 10:10 PM
Don Firth 27 May 09 - 10:38 PM
Amos 27 May 09 - 11:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 May 09 - 01:42 AM
Little Hawk 28 May 09 - 02:57 AM
Smedley 28 May 09 - 05:28 AM
Emma B 28 May 09 - 06:00 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 May 09 - 06:43 AM
KB in Iowa 28 May 09 - 09:27 AM
KB in Iowa 28 May 09 - 09:42 AM
John P 28 May 09 - 10:40 AM
John P 28 May 09 - 11:04 AM
Amos 28 May 09 - 01:05 PM
Amos 28 May 09 - 03:18 PM
akenaton 28 May 09 - 04:25 PM
KB in Iowa 28 May 09 - 04:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 May 09 - 04:38 PM
Don Firth 28 May 09 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 May 09 - 09:25 PM
Amos 28 May 09 - 10:03 PM
Don Firth 28 May 09 - 10:29 PM
Don Firth 28 May 09 - 10:47 PM
akenaton 29 May 09 - 03:11 AM
Amos 29 May 09 - 04:06 AM
KB in Iowa 29 May 09 - 09:25 AM
Emma B 29 May 09 - 10:37 AM
akenaton 29 May 09 - 10:53 AM
KB in Iowa 29 May 09 - 11:01 AM
Amos 29 May 09 - 11:28 AM
Don Firth 29 May 09 - 01:02 PM
Don Firth 29 May 09 - 02:18 PM
Don Firth 29 May 09 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 May 09 - 01:30 AM
Barry Finn 30 May 09 - 03:36 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 May 09 - 04:28 AM
Barry Finn 30 May 09 - 01:43 PM
Barry Finn 30 May 09 - 01:49 PM
Don Firth 30 May 09 - 02:17 PM
akenaton 30 May 09 - 04:26 PM
Don Firth 30 May 09 - 06:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 May 09 - 01:23 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 May 09 - 07:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Jun 09 - 01:41 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM
frogprince 03 Jun 09 - 08:58 PM
Barry Finn 03 Jun 09 - 09:08 PM
Amos 04 Jun 09 - 10:29 AM
Amos 04 Jun 09 - 12:08 PM
curmudgeon 04 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM
Joe Offer 04 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM
Amos 04 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM
Don Firth 04 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Jun 09 - 08:24 PM
Amos 05 Jun 09 - 11:17 AM
Don Firth 05 Jun 09 - 01:48 PM
John P 05 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM
Amos 05 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM
Joe Offer 06 Jun 09 - 03:14 AM
akenaton 06 Jun 09 - 03:34 AM
Paco Rabanne 06 Jun 09 - 03:35 AM
Barry Finn 06 Jun 09 - 04:12 AM
Don Firth 06 Jun 09 - 04:05 PM
Ebbie 06 Jun 09 - 04:54 PM
Amos 06 Jun 09 - 05:05 PM
Little Hawk 06 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM
Don Firth 06 Jun 09 - 07:19 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM
frogprince 06 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM
akenaton 07 Jun 09 - 07:11 AM
Don Firth 07 Jun 09 - 01:34 PM
Amos 07 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM
Barry Finn 07 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Jun 09 - 01:29 AM
Don Firth 08 Jun 09 - 01:57 AM
akenaton 08 Jun 09 - 02:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Jun 09 - 02:53 AM
Barry Finn 08 Jun 09 - 04:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jun 09 - 05:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jun 09 - 05:04 AM
Amos 08 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM
John P 08 Jun 09 - 12:24 PM
akenaton 08 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM
akenaton 08 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM
John P 08 Jun 09 - 07:41 PM
Don Firth 08 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jun 09 - 02:57 AM
Amos 09 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM
Don Firth 09 Jun 09 - 04:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jun 09 - 08:55 PM
Barry Finn 09 Jun 09 - 09:07 PM
Don Firth 09 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM
Amos 09 Jun 09 - 10:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jun 09 - 11:27 PM
Don Firth 10 Jun 09 - 12:55 AM
Don Firth 10 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM
gnu 10 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM
akenaton 10 Jun 09 - 04:53 PM
KB in Iowa 10 Jun 09 - 04:57 PM
Don Firth 10 Jun 09 - 05:03 PM
Wesley S 10 Jun 09 - 05:06 PM
Don Firth 10 Jun 09 - 05:07 PM
gnu 10 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM
akenaton 10 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jun 09 - 05:51 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jun 09 - 05:53 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Jun 09 - 05:55 PM
akenaton 10 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jun 09 - 06:34 PM
John P 10 Jun 09 - 07:07 PM
Don Firth 10 Jun 09 - 08:32 PM
Don Firth 10 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 02:58 AM
John P 11 Jun 09 - 12:09 PM
TIA 11 Jun 09 - 12:10 PM
John P 11 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM
Amos 11 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM
John P 11 Jun 09 - 01:34 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jun 09 - 01:42 PM
Amos 11 Jun 09 - 01:43 PM
John P 11 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 02:56 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Jun 09 - 02:58 PM
Don Firth 11 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM
Amos 11 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM
Don Firth 11 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM
KB in Iowa 11 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM
Ebbie 11 Jun 09 - 05:01 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 05:08 PM
KB in Iowa 11 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM
KB in Iowa 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM
TIA 11 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM
Don Firth 11 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM
akenaton 11 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM
John P 11 Jun 09 - 07:58 PM
Don Firth 11 Jun 09 - 08:53 PM
TIA 11 Jun 09 - 10:49 PM
akenaton 12 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM
Amos 12 Jun 09 - 05:55 AM
Little Hawk 12 Jun 09 - 12:40 PM
akenaton 12 Jun 09 - 02:00 PM
Amos 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM
KB in Iowa 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM
John P 12 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM
TIA 12 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM
Amos 12 Jun 09 - 05:18 PM
Ebbie 12 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jun 09 - 07:09 PM
John P 12 Jun 09 - 07:24 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM
Don Firth 12 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM
Amos 12 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM
jeddy 12 Jun 09 - 10:08 PM
akenaton 13 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM
akenaton 13 Jun 09 - 03:03 AM
jeddy 13 Jun 09 - 07:35 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Jun 09 - 11:20 AM
Amos 13 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM
jeddy 13 Jun 09 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Jun 09 - 02:09 PM
Amos 13 Jun 09 - 02:27 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Jun 09 - 02:55 PM
Don Firth 13 Jun 09 - 04:07 PM
jeddy 13 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM
Amos 14 Jun 09 - 12:41 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Jun 09 - 01:24 PM
Don Firth 14 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM
Don Firth 14 Jun 09 - 07:07 PM
jeddy 14 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM
Don Firth 14 Jun 09 - 09:10 PM
Amos 14 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM
akenaton 15 Jun 09 - 04:52 AM
Don Firth 15 Jun 09 - 01:53 PM
Don Firth 15 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM
plnelson 15 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM
jeddy 15 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM
Don Firth 15 Jun 09 - 09:12 PM
Don Firth 15 Jun 09 - 10:03 PM
frogprince 15 Jun 09 - 11:21 PM
Barry Finn 16 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM
jeddy 16 Jun 09 - 11:15 AM
frogprince 16 Jun 09 - 12:34 PM
frogprince 16 Jun 09 - 12:46 PM
Little Hawk 16 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM
akenaton 16 Jun 09 - 03:38 PM
Amos 16 Jun 09 - 03:47 PM
jeddy 16 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM
frogprince 16 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Jun 09 - 02:27 AM
Smedley 17 Jun 09 - 03:30 AM
akenaton 17 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM
KB in Iowa 17 Jun 09 - 10:30 AM
frogprince 17 Jun 09 - 10:44 AM
jeddy 17 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM
Amos 17 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM
akenaton 17 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM
Riginslinger 17 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM
Amos 17 Jun 09 - 07:32 PM
John P 17 Jun 09 - 08:04 PM
Don Firth 17 Jun 09 - 08:14 PM
jeddy 17 Jun 09 - 11:19 PM
akenaton 18 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM
akenaton 18 Jun 09 - 02:34 AM
akenaton 18 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM
jeddy 18 Jun 09 - 06:57 AM
akenaton 18 Jun 09 - 07:31 AM
Amos 18 Jun 09 - 10:21 AM
jeddy 18 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM
John P 18 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM
Don Firth 18 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM
Little Hawk 18 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM
KB in Iowa 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM
Amos 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM
Little Hawk 18 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM
frogprince 18 Jun 09 - 02:22 PM
jeddy 18 Jun 09 - 03:55 PM
Wesley S 18 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM
Don Firth 18 Jun 09 - 04:36 PM
Wesley S 18 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM
Don Firth 18 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM
akenaton 18 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM
curmudgeon 18 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Jun 09 - 05:58 PM
jeddy 18 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM
Don Firth 18 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM
John P 18 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM
Amos 18 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM
jeddy 18 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM
jeddy 18 Jun 09 - 08:35 PM
TIA 19 Jun 09 - 01:25 AM
TIA 19 Jun 09 - 01:28 AM
akenaton 19 Jun 09 - 03:14 AM
jeddy 19 Jun 09 - 07:17 AM
Amos 19 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM
jeddy 19 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM
John P 19 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM
Don Firth 19 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM
Don Firth 19 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM
Amos 19 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM
akenaton 19 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM
Don Firth 19 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM
Don Firth 19 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM
jeddy 19 Jun 09 - 06:26 PM
akenaton 19 Jun 09 - 06:47 PM
Amos 19 Jun 09 - 08:34 PM
jeddy 19 Jun 09 - 11:18 PM
akenaton 20 Jun 09 - 02:45 AM
jeddy 20 Jun 09 - 07:50 AM
jeddy 20 Jun 09 - 11:36 AM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 11:44 AM
gnu 20 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM
jeddy 20 Jun 09 - 12:35 PM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 12:49 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 02:13 PM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM
Amos 20 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM
akenaton 20 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM
Barry Finn 21 Jun 09 - 01:28 AM
Ebbie 21 Jun 09 - 02:05 AM
Peace 21 Jun 09 - 02:07 AM
akenaton 21 Jun 09 - 05:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Jun 09 - 07:43 AM
Amos 21 Jun 09 - 10:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Jun 09 - 11:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Jun 09 - 11:17 AM
Amos 21 Jun 09 - 12:09 PM
jeddy 21 Jun 09 - 12:24 PM
akenaton 21 Jun 09 - 02:17 PM
Don Firth 21 Jun 09 - 02:48 PM
Don Firth 21 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM
Amos 21 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM
akenaton 21 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM
Don Firth 21 Jun 09 - 04:11 PM
jeddy 21 Jun 09 - 04:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Jun 09 - 04:25 PM
Amos 21 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM
akenaton 22 Jun 09 - 03:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Jun 09 - 03:16 AM
Amos 22 Jun 09 - 10:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Jun 09 - 10:28 AM
Smedley 22 Jun 09 - 11:10 AM
frogprince 22 Jun 09 - 02:06 PM
Barry Finn 22 Jun 09 - 02:12 PM
Wesley S 22 Jun 09 - 04:02 PM
jeddy 22 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM
Don Firth 22 Jun 09 - 06:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM
jeddy 22 Jun 09 - 06:57 PM
Emma B 23 Jun 09 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Jun 09 - 12:57 PM
Amos 23 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM
KB in Iowa 23 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM
Don Firth 23 Jun 09 - 03:26 PM
GUEST,TIA 23 Jun 09 - 04:13 PM
Don Firth 23 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM
akenaton 23 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM
Amos 23 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM
akenaton 23 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM
Don Firth 23 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM
Paco Rabanne 23 Jun 09 - 05:56 PM
akenaton 23 Jun 09 - 05:57 PM
Paco Rabanne 23 Jun 09 - 06:01 PM
Little Hawk 23 Jun 09 - 06:03 PM
Don Firth 23 Jun 09 - 06:20 PM
Don Firth 23 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM
akenaton 23 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM
Emma B 23 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Jun 09 - 07:37 PM
Don Firth 23 Jun 09 - 07:40 PM
frogprince 23 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM
GUEST,paco rabanne 23 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM
jeddy 23 Jun 09 - 09:20 PM
GUEST,jOhn 23 Jun 09 - 10:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Jun 09 - 03:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jun 09 - 03:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Jun 09 - 03:40 AM
TIA 24 Jun 09 - 08:26 AM
TIA 24 Jun 09 - 08:30 AM
jeddy 24 Jun 09 - 10:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jun 09 - 10:41 AM
KB in Iowa 24 Jun 09 - 11:58 AM
Amos 24 Jun 09 - 12:25 PM
frogprince 24 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM
KB in Iowa 24 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Jun 09 - 08:55 PM
Peace 24 Jun 09 - 09:03 PM
Don Firth 24 Jun 09 - 09:08 PM
jeddy 24 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM
Don Firth 24 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM
Amos 24 Jun 09 - 11:02 PM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 02:35 AM
Emma B 25 Jun 09 - 06:39 AM
jeddy 25 Jun 09 - 07:44 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Jun 09 - 08:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Jun 09 - 08:24 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Jun 09 - 09:11 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Jun 09 - 09:16 AM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 09:34 AM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 12:52 PM
jeddy 25 Jun 09 - 01:51 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 04:43 PM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 05:06 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 05:07 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM
Peace 25 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 05:37 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM
Don Firth 25 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM
Peace 25 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM
Peace 25 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM
Jeri 25 Jun 09 - 06:09 PM
Peace 25 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM
Emma B 25 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM
jeddy 25 Jun 09 - 06:27 PM
Peace 25 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM
Don Firth 25 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM
akenaton 25 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM
KB in Iowa 25 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM
Peace 25 Jun 09 - 08:42 PM
Don Firth 25 Jun 09 - 08:45 PM
jeddy 25 Jun 09 - 09:06 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Jun 09 - 11:33 PM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 02:30 AM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jun 09 - 06:09 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jun 09 - 06:21 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jun 09 - 06:24 AM
jeddy 26 Jun 09 - 06:53 AM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 07:19 AM
KB in Iowa 26 Jun 09 - 09:18 AM
jeddy 26 Jun 09 - 09:44 AM
Don Firth 26 Jun 09 - 12:30 PM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jun 09 - 06:08 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM
Don Firth 26 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM
akenaton 26 Jun 09 - 07:14 PM
jeddy 26 Jun 09 - 08:24 PM
Amos 27 Jun 09 - 10:57 AM
TIA 27 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM
akenaton 27 Jun 09 - 03:39 PM
jeddy 27 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM
TIA 27 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM
Don Firth 27 Jun 09 - 07:42 PM
frogprince 27 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM
frogprince 27 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM
Don Firth 27 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM
jeddy 27 Jun 09 - 08:22 PM
GUEST,TIA 27 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM
jeddy 27 Jun 09 - 09:04 PM
jeddy 27 Jun 09 - 09:09 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jun 09 - 09:12 PM
jeddy 27 Jun 09 - 09:18 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM
jeddy 27 Jun 09 - 09:40 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jun 09 - 11:17 PM
Amos 28 Jun 09 - 12:36 AM
Ebbie 28 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Jun 09 - 05:52 AM
Little Hawk 28 Jun 09 - 07:36 AM
Ebbie 28 Jun 09 - 12:04 PM
gnu 28 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM
Little Hawk 28 Jun 09 - 12:34 PM
jeddy 28 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM
Don Firth 28 Jun 09 - 02:56 PM
akenaton 28 Jun 09 - 04:44 PM
jeddy 28 Jun 09 - 05:48 PM
jeddy 28 Jun 09 - 05:53 PM
Don Firth 28 Jun 09 - 08:27 PM
Don Firth 28 Jun 09 - 08:33 PM
Dorothy Parshall 28 Jun 09 - 09:06 PM
Don Firth 28 Jun 09 - 09:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Jun 09 - 09:43 AM
TIA 29 Jun 09 - 09:57 AM
TIA 29 Jun 09 - 11:06 AM
akenaton 29 Jun 09 - 12:38 PM
Don Firth 29 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM
Amos 29 Jun 09 - 02:01 PM
Little Hawk 29 Jun 09 - 02:05 PM
Don Firth 29 Jun 09 - 02:08 PM
Little Hawk 29 Jun 09 - 02:24 PM
akenaton 29 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM
jeddy 29 Jun 09 - 04:04 PM
Don Firth 29 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM
Amos 29 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM
Ebbie 29 Jun 09 - 05:14 PM
akenaton 29 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM
TIA 29 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM
Don Firth 29 Jun 09 - 05:35 PM
jeddy 29 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM
Don Firth 29 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM
Amos 29 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM
Peace 29 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM
GUEST 29 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM
GUEST,TIA...confused 29 Jun 09 - 08:39 PM
akenaton 30 Jun 09 - 03:03 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM
Smedley 30 Jun 09 - 06:49 AM
jeddy 30 Jun 09 - 07:10 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Jun 09 - 07:23 AM
TIA 30 Jun 09 - 08:16 AM
TIA 30 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM
akenaton 30 Jun 09 - 11:26 AM
Amos 30 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM
Amos 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM
Emma B 30 Jun 09 - 01:02 PM
Don Firth 30 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM
Emma B 30 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM
Don Firth 30 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM
Peace 30 Jun 09 - 06:37 PM
jeddy 30 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM
akenaton 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 PM
Ebbie 30 Jun 09 - 08:59 PM
frogprince 30 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM
Emma B 30 Jun 09 - 10:23 PM
Amos 30 Jun 09 - 11:13 PM
akenaton 01 Jul 09 - 05:48 AM
Emma B 01 Jul 09 - 06:13 AM
jeddy 01 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 01 Jul 09 - 09:41 AM
Ebbie 01 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM
Emma B 01 Jul 09 - 11:33 AM
Ebbie 01 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM
Emma B 01 Jul 09 - 11:58 AM
Amos 01 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM
Ebbie 01 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM
Don Firth 01 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM
Amos 01 Jul 09 - 09:06 PM
Little Hawk 01 Jul 09 - 09:18 PM
Amos 01 Jul 09 - 09:34 PM
Don Firth 01 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM
Little Hawk 01 Jul 09 - 09:53 PM
Riginslinger 01 Jul 09 - 10:05 PM
Little Hawk 01 Jul 09 - 10:09 PM
Amos 01 Jul 09 - 11:20 PM
Little Hawk 01 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM
Amos 01 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM
Little Hawk 01 Jul 09 - 11:46 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Jul 09 - 12:00 AM
Amos 02 Jul 09 - 12:15 AM
Dorothy Parshall 02 Jul 09 - 12:24 AM
akenaton 02 Jul 09 - 03:15 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM
akenaton 02 Jul 09 - 07:19 AM
Emma B 02 Jul 09 - 07:31 AM
akenaton 02 Jul 09 - 07:55 AM
Jeri 02 Jul 09 - 09:08 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Jul 09 - 09:14 AM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM
Amos 02 Jul 09 - 10:10 AM
frogprince 02 Jul 09 - 10:13 AM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 10:18 AM
Little Hawk 02 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM
frogprince 02 Jul 09 - 10:45 AM
curmudgeon 02 Jul 09 - 10:51 AM
Little Hawk 02 Jul 09 - 10:52 AM
Emma B 02 Jul 09 - 11:02 AM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 11:04 AM
Little Hawk 02 Jul 09 - 11:08 AM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 11:13 AM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 11:15 AM
Amos 02 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM
Emma B 02 Jul 09 - 11:27 AM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 11:32 AM
Jeri 02 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM
Emma B 02 Jul 09 - 12:35 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jul 09 - 02:02 PM
Amos 02 Jul 09 - 02:35 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM
John P 02 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM
jeddy 02 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM
Dorothy Parshall 02 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM
Dorothy Parshall 02 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM
Don Firth 02 Jul 09 - 06:57 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 01:04 AM
akenaton 03 Jul 09 - 03:18 AM
jeddy 03 Jul 09 - 09:03 AM
Amos 03 Jul 09 - 09:43 AM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 09:58 AM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM
akenaton 03 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM
akenaton 03 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 01:23 PM
Ebbie 03 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 01:59 PM
frogprince 03 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 02:28 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 02:35 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 03:24 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM
Peace 03 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 04:54 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 05:24 PM
gnu 03 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM
akenaton 03 Jul 09 - 06:39 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jul 09 - 06:46 PM
akenaton 03 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM
Don Firth 03 Jul 09 - 07:41 PM
jeddy 03 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM
John P 03 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM
frogprince 03 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM
Peace 04 Jul 09 - 12:37 AM
akenaton 04 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM
akenaton 04 Jul 09 - 03:35 AM
akenaton 04 Jul 09 - 03:49 AM
jeddy 04 Jul 09 - 07:28 AM
Amos 04 Jul 09 - 08:16 PM
jeddy 04 Jul 09 - 08:43 PM
John P 05 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM
akenaton 06 Jul 09 - 05:41 AM
akenaton 06 Jul 09 - 05:50 AM
John P 06 Jul 09 - 09:18 AM
Ebbie 06 Jul 09 - 09:24 AM
Amos 06 Jul 09 - 10:31 AM
John P 06 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM
jeddy 06 Jul 09 - 11:17 AM
akenaton 06 Jul 09 - 01:26 PM
Amos 06 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM
TIA 06 Jul 09 - 03:35 PM
Don Firth 06 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM
Ebbie 06 Jul 09 - 04:22 PM
Don Firth 06 Jul 09 - 06:23 PM
akenaton 06 Jul 09 - 07:03 PM
jeddy 06 Jul 09 - 07:30 PM
Don Firth 06 Jul 09 - 07:58 PM
jeddy 06 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM
akenaton 06 Jul 09 - 08:06 PM
Amos 06 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM
Don Firth 06 Jul 09 - 09:26 PM
Riginslinger 06 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM
Amos 06 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM
Dorothy Parshall 06 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM
frogprince 07 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Jul 09 - 04:38 PM
KB in Iowa 09 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM
Ebbie 09 Jul 09 - 04:44 PM
Amos 09 Jul 09 - 04:52 PM
Wesley S 09 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM
Amos 09 Jul 09 - 06:32 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 08:49 PM
jeddy 09 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 10:15 PM
Amos 09 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM
jeddy 09 Jul 09 - 11:59 PM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM
Royston 10 Jul 09 - 02:52 AM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 02:56 AM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 AM
Emma B 10 Jul 09 - 05:26 AM
Emma B 10 Jul 09 - 05:52 AM
Emma B 10 Jul 09 - 06:05 AM
GUEST,TIA 10 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM
John P 10 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM
MMario 10 Jul 09 - 10:48 AM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 10:53 AM
Emma B 10 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM
John P 10 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM
Ebbie 10 Jul 09 - 12:07 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM
jeddy 10 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM
frogprince 10 Jul 09 - 12:21 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 12:39 PM
Amos 10 Jul 09 - 12:42 PM
jeddy 10 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 01:18 PM
TIA 10 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM
John P 10 Jul 09 - 03:31 PM
Amos 10 Jul 09 - 03:35 PM
Ebbie 10 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM
akenaton 10 Jul 09 - 04:48 PM
KB in Iowa 10 Jul 09 - 04:57 PM
Don Firth 10 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM
TIA 10 Jul 09 - 05:30 PM
Ebbie 10 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 05:58 PM
frogprince 10 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM
TIA 10 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM
John P 10 Jul 09 - 07:03 PM
John P 10 Jul 09 - 07:22 PM
frogprince 10 Jul 09 - 07:31 PM
Amos 10 Jul 09 - 07:34 PM
Don Firth 10 Jul 09 - 07:51 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 10:44 PM
Amos 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 11:52 PM
akenaton 11 Jul 09 - 02:08 AM
akenaton 11 Jul 09 - 03:12 AM
akenaton 11 Jul 09 - 03:27 AM
Ebbie 11 Jul 09 - 03:31 AM
Ebbie 11 Jul 09 - 11:31 AM
Amos 11 Jul 09 - 12:06 PM
Don Firth 11 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM
Peace 11 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM
Ebbie 11 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM
Amos 11 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 05:00 PM
Amos 11 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM
Ebbie 11 Jul 09 - 06:29 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 06:34 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM
Amos 11 Jul 09 - 06:58 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM
Don Firth 11 Jul 09 - 10:53 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM
Peace 11 Jul 09 - 11:49 PM
Amos 12 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM
Ebbie 12 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM
gnu 12 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 01:36 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM
Amos 12 Jul 09 - 02:27 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 02:33 PM
Don Firth 12 Jul 09 - 03:21 PM
Don Firth 12 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM
Don Firth 12 Jul 09 - 07:37 PM
Amos 12 Jul 09 - 07:46 PM
jeddy 12 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM
Peace 12 Jul 09 - 08:36 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jul 09 - 01:09 AM
akenaton 13 Jul 09 - 03:50 AM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM
Little Hawk 13 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM
jeddy 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 12:00 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM
Don Firth 13 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM
gnu 13 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM
akenaton 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM
Don Firth 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Jul 09 - 06:14 PM
akenaton 13 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM
akenaton 13 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 06:51 PM
akenaton 13 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM
John P 13 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM
Ebbie 13 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 10:34 PM
Don Firth 13 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 02:44 AM
John P 14 Jul 09 - 08:49 AM
Ebbie 14 Jul 09 - 11:26 AM
TIA 14 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM
John P 14 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM
John P 14 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM
Ebbie 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM
TIA 14 Jul 09 - 02:31 PM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 02:52 PM
TIA 14 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM
TIA 14 Jul 09 - 03:00 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 03:40 PM
akenaton 14 Jul 09 - 03:51 PM
TIA 14 Jul 09 - 03:58 PM
John P 14 Jul 09 - 04:50 PM
Ebbie 14 Jul 09 - 05:34 PM
Ebbie 14 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM
jeddy 14 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM
Don Firth 14 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM
Don Firth 14 Jul 09 - 06:07 PM
jeddy 14 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM
akenaton 15 Jul 09 - 02:57 AM
KB in Iowa 15 Jul 09 - 09:55 AM
TIA 15 Jul 09 - 10:17 AM
TIA 15 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM
John P 15 Jul 09 - 10:39 AM
akenaton 15 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM
akenaton 15 Jul 09 - 11:35 AM
Amos 15 Jul 09 - 11:55 AM
Don Firth 15 Jul 09 - 12:19 PM
John P 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM
John P 15 Jul 09 - 12:36 PM
Don Firth 15 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM
TIA 15 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM
Amos 15 Jul 09 - 01:48 PM
Don Firth 15 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM
TIA 15 Jul 09 - 03:34 PM
akenaton 15 Jul 09 - 05:40 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Jul 09 - 05:57 PM
gnu 15 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM
John P 15 Jul 09 - 06:06 PM
akenaton 15 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM
John P 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM
jeddy 15 Jul 09 - 07:17 PM
Ebbie 15 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM
akenaton 15 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM
jeddy 15 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Jul 09 - 10:46 PM
Don Firth 15 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM
jeddy 15 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM
akenaton 16 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM
akenaton 16 Jul 09 - 03:26 AM
Smedley 16 Jul 09 - 06:45 AM
jeddy 16 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM
John P 16 Jul 09 - 08:56 AM
Smedley 16 Jul 09 - 10:05 AM
jeddy 16 Jul 09 - 11:46 AM
TIA 16 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM
Don Firth 16 Jul 09 - 06:05 PM
akenaton 17 Jul 09 - 02:42 AM
akenaton 17 Jul 09 - 04:19 AM
akenaton 17 Jul 09 - 05:21 AM
jeddy 17 Jul 09 - 06:57 AM
TIA 17 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM
Amos 17 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM
akenaton 17 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 12:49 PM
Amos 17 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM
akenaton 17 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 04:18 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 04:22 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 04:57 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 05:04 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 06:06 PM
Amos 17 Jul 09 - 06:11 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 07:07 PM
jeddy 17 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 08:51 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 09:14 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 09:23 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM
Don Firth 17 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jul 09 - 09:58 PM
akenaton 18 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM
akenaton 18 Jul 09 - 03:12 AM
Little Hawk 18 Jul 09 - 07:38 AM
akenaton 18 Jul 09 - 09:57 AM
Amos 18 Jul 09 - 10:44 AM
Don Firth 18 Jul 09 - 12:32 PM
TIA 18 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM
Don Firth 18 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM
Don Firth 18 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM
Amos 18 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM
Little Hawk 18 Jul 09 - 09:52 PM
Little Hawk 18 Jul 09 - 09:55 PM
akenaton 19 Jul 09 - 07:02 AM
GUEST 19 Jul 09 - 08:19 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Jul 09 - 08:23 AM
gnu 19 Jul 09 - 10:06 AM
Ebbie 19 Jul 09 - 10:35 AM
jeddy 19 Jul 09 - 10:54 AM
Ebbie 19 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM
Don Firth 19 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM
Little Hawk 19 Jul 09 - 01:55 PM
Little Hawk 19 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM
Amos 19 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM
jeddy 19 Jul 09 - 03:39 PM
Little Hawk 19 Jul 09 - 03:52 PM
Don Firth 19 Jul 09 - 04:13 PM
akenaton 19 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM
Don Firth 19 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM
akenaton 19 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM
akenaton 19 Jul 09 - 04:45 PM
Don Firth 19 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM
Ebbie 19 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM
Little Hawk 19 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM
Amos 19 Jul 09 - 06:23 PM
jeddy 19 Jul 09 - 06:52 PM
Don Firth 19 Jul 09 - 07:43 PM
Don Firth 19 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM
akenaton 20 Jul 09 - 04:27 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Jul 09 - 08:24 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Jul 09 - 08:35 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Jul 09 - 08:45 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Jul 09 - 08:47 AM
Amos 20 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM
Ebbie 20 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM
Amos 20 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM
akenaton 20 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM
Amos 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM
akenaton 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM
Don Firth 20 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM
John P 21 Jul 09 - 10:32 AM
jeddy 21 Jul 09 - 10:57 AM
Don Firth 21 Jul 09 - 04:59 PM
Amos 21 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM
akenaton 22 Jul 09 - 02:47 AM
jeddy 22 Jul 09 - 05:39 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 AM
John P 22 Jul 09 - 05:09 PM
gnu 22 Jul 09 - 05:29 PM
John P 22 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM
Don Firth 22 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM
Amos 22 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM
akenaton 23 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM
Amos 23 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM
akenaton 23 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM
Don Firth 23 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM
jeddy 23 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM
katlaughing 17 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM
frogprince 17 Sep 09 - 10:36 AM
Amos 17 Sep 09 - 11:19 AM
Amos 11 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM
Don Firth 11 Oct 09 - 02:33 PM
Amos 14 Oct 09 - 11:00 PM
akenaton 08 Nov 09 - 07:40 PM
Amos 08 Nov 09 - 10:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Nov 09 - 11:23 PM
Amos 18 Dec 09 - 04:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM
Leadfingers 01 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM
Amos 01 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM
mousethief 01 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM
Amos 09 Jul 10 - 09:09 AM
Amos 04 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM
Ebbie 04 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM
GUEST,David E. 04 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM
Amos 04 Aug 10 - 08:14 PM
Amos 04 Aug 10 - 11:40 PM
Amos 04 Aug 10 - 11:46 PM
Don Firth 05 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM
mousethief 05 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM
John P 05 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM
Amos 05 Aug 10 - 01:18 PM
Joe Offer 05 Aug 10 - 02:57 PM
KB in Iowa 05 Aug 10 - 04:30 PM
akenaton 06 Aug 10 - 03:11 AM
akenaton 06 Aug 10 - 03:16 AM
mousethief 06 Aug 10 - 04:06 AM
John P 06 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM
GUEST,TIA 06 Aug 10 - 10:05 AM
Amos 06 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM
Amos 06 Aug 10 - 12:01 PM
Ebbie 06 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM
akenaton 06 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM
akenaton 06 Aug 10 - 05:16 PM
akenaton 06 Aug 10 - 05:23 PM
Ebbie 06 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM
Don Firth 06 Aug 10 - 06:16 PM
Amos 06 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM
Amos 07 Aug 10 - 12:18 AM
mousethief 07 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM
akenaton 07 Aug 10 - 02:37 AM
akenaton 07 Aug 10 - 02:59 AM
Ebbie 07 Aug 10 - 03:10 AM
mousethief 07 Aug 10 - 11:28 AM
Amos 07 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM
GUEST,David E. 07 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM
Amos 07 Aug 10 - 02:41 PM
akenaton 07 Aug 10 - 03:29 PM
Amos 16 Aug 10 - 11:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM
Amos 16 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM
John P 16 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 01:27 PM
gnu 16 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM
John P 16 Aug 10 - 01:45 PM
Amos 16 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM
Amos 16 Aug 10 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM
Amos 16 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM
Don Firth 16 Aug 10 - 03:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 07:05 PM
Don Firth 16 Aug 10 - 07:26 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM
Bill D 16 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM
Ebbie 16 Aug 10 - 10:32 PM
Don Firth 16 Aug 10 - 11:08 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Aug 10 - 11:35 PM
Amos 16 Aug 10 - 11:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Aug 10 - 11:36 PM
Amos 17 Aug 10 - 11:56 PM
Ebbie 18 Aug 10 - 02:03 AM
GUEST,Patsy 18 Aug 10 - 08:47 AM
John P 18 Aug 10 - 10:18 AM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM
Amos 18 Aug 10 - 11:31 AM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM
Amos 18 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM
Bill D 18 Aug 10 - 12:48 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 03:10 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 03:21 PM
Bill D 18 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 04:57 PM
mousethief 18 Aug 10 - 05:08 PM
Amos 18 Aug 10 - 05:09 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM
mousethief 18 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM
Don Firth 18 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 10 - 07:07 PM
mousethief 18 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM
Don Firth 18 Aug 10 - 09:27 PM
akenaton 19 Aug 10 - 02:45 AM
mousethief 19 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM
GUEST,Patsy 19 Aug 10 - 04:21 AM
akenaton 19 Aug 10 - 07:01 AM
Amos 19 Aug 10 - 09:32 AM
akenaton 19 Aug 10 - 11:04 AM
Amos 19 Aug 10 - 11:06 AM
Don Firth 19 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM
mousethief 19 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM
Don Firth 19 Aug 10 - 09:58 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 10 - 12:20 PM
Amos 20 Aug 10 - 01:51 PM
Ebbie 20 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM
Ebbie 20 Aug 10 - 02:19 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 10 - 03:38 PM
Amos 20 Aug 10 - 04:12 PM
Little Hawk 20 Aug 10 - 04:47 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Aug 10 - 05:35 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 10 - 06:25 PM
mousethief 20 Aug 10 - 07:11 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 10 - 08:49 PM
Ebbie 20 Aug 10 - 09:49 PM
akenaton 21 Aug 10 - 03:00 AM
Ebbie 21 Aug 10 - 10:38 AM
akenaton 21 Aug 10 - 06:20 PM
Ebbie 21 Aug 10 - 06:49 PM
Ebbie 21 Aug 10 - 06:55 PM
akenaton 21 Aug 10 - 08:00 PM
Ebbie 21 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM
Desert Dancer 22 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM
Desert Dancer 22 Aug 10 - 11:55 AM
Don Firth 22 Aug 10 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 10 - 03:07 AM
akenaton 23 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM
katlaughing 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM
Amos 28 Feb 11 - 10:44 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:25 PM

IF there is any chance yoou will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed rightwing Ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls.

This could have a serious, even life-changing impact on someone you love.

Or someone you could learn to.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: MAG
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM

I'm nowhere near California by choice, Amos.

I do think it would behoove Californians to remember the upshot of Pros 13: mental patients dumped out on the street, cahos in social services which gets blamed on Latinos ("illegal" or not), a state where the infrastructure is in serious trouble.

Your current governor, campaigning on a NO TAXES rhetoric, I believe has floated bonds to "solve" the financial crisis -- i.e., postponing the problem and helping rich people make money off the state.

Good luck, Californios. Let's hope the current anti-republican sentiment gets some good results all over.

P.S.: the rest of my family is staunch republican, and they are horrified at what has happened to the GOP. The right-wingers really have split the party. (hurrah.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:43 PM

I don't see the connection, MAG--as far as I know prop 8 has no fiscal impact on the state except perhaps increasing reveues from marriage licensing.

Far more important is the impact Prop 8 has onthe hearts and minds of Californians and Americans.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love,
I am but a sounding gong, a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of all prophecy,
And understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith,
so that I could remove mountains,
Yet have not love,
I am nothing.
And though I share all my good among the poor,
And though I give my body to be burnt,
But have not love,
It profits me nothing.

Love is patient and kind;
Love is not envious, nor vain,
She does not behave herself unseemly,
Seeks not her own good,
Is not easily provoked,
Keeps no account of her wrongs,
Rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth,
Always charitable, always trusting,
Always hopeful, always steadfast.

Love shall never pass away,
But prophesy shall cease,
The gift of tongues shall end,
And knowledge shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Faith, Hope and Love,
These three abide;
And the greatest of these is Love.


I Corinthians Chapter 13


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

Amos, your eloquence often astounds in its clarity and simplicity, never more so than this morning. Bravo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:40 PM

Thanks so much, Claire, but the eloquence belongs to St. Paul and his elegant translators from the days of King James! :D


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM

I agree, but eloquence depends equally on knowing how to craft your own words to make your point and on knowing how to support your point of view with just the right quotes.

You can be marvelously adept at both, and I salute you for it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:51 PM

Awww, thank you so much. Made my day, you did!!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: MAG
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 09:24 PM

I guess my point, Amos, is that I hope people vote for what's right, and not what they perceive to be in their (short term) self-interest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 10:25 PM

My point exactly, MAG, and I agree with you.

I will never contest the right of a church to marry whom they please.

But to bleed their moralisms into the lives of others is entirely discreditable and a violation of our deepest propositions as a country.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:45 AM

Good grief! The Google ad is pro-8, here and on the main forum page.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 11:39 AM

On Tuesday, California, Arizona, and Florida voted to ban marriage equality. A fourth state, Arkansas, voted to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt children, widely seen as a way to prevent gay couples from adopting. The success of such prejudiced ballot measures on Tuesday was a narrow, but significant victory for the radical right and constituted the "most potent ingredient making Tuesday's election bittersweet" for the progressive cause. Of the four measures, the most high-profile was California's Prop. 8, which for the first time in state history repealed a previously-recognized right. Californian's voted 52 percent to 47 percent in favor of amending the state constitution to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." The measure, while initially opposed by a majority of Californians, attracted enormous amounts of money from out of state. The well-funded "Yes On 8" campaign flooded the state with misinformation and false claims about the effects of gay marriage on communities, children, and the economy. It is unclear whether the measure will survive a series of fresh legal challenges, which argue that Prop. 8 violates other provisions of the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

LGBT RIGHTS IN AMERICA: Gay couples can marry in just two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut. New York recognizes marriages from couples married in other states, and New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington all offer gay couples the ability to form civil-unions that grant couples varying rights and benefits under the law. With the passage of Tuesday's ballot measures, 30 state constitutions now ban same-sex marriage, while a total of 37 states have passed legislation defining marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage equality is needed to establish for gay couples the same rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples are given. Unfortunately, legalizing gay marriage at the state-level offers no rights or benefits to couples at the federal level. Indeed, at the federal level same-sex couples are unrecognized as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which "defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws" and "provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex." Gay couples are prohibited from adopting children in six states: Michigan, Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida. In 30 states, employers are allowed to fire employees just because of their sexual orientations.

BUYING PREJUDICE: California's Prop. 8 overturned the California Supreme Court ruling that "declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection." According to polling, California's Prop. 8 was initially opposed by a majority of the state's residents. Just 40 percent of Californians in May 2008 believed the state should ban gay marriage via Constitutional amendment. But as Nov. 4 approached, enormous amounts of money supporting the ban poured into California. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, gave $1.25 million, while James Dobson's Focus on the Family contributed more than $400,000 to the Yes On 8 campaign. The Mormon Church dedicated millions more, giving an estimated 40 percent of the $15.4 million dollars raised for the effort by June of 2008. In all, the "Yes on 8" campaign raised $35.8 million. The funds went to disseminating misinformation through the Internet, TV ads, and direct mailings. The supporters of the ban falsely claimed that if it did not pass, gay marriage would be "taught in schools," churches would lose their non-profit status, and people could be sued for their "personal beliefs." The Yes on 8 campaign masked its bigoted efforts, claiming, "I think we won because we stuck to our guns of being pro-marriage and not anti-gay." 

THE WAY FORWARD: The one bright spot is that Prop. 8 was opposed at significantly higher rates among California's youth. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, a poll taken before the election showed that 59 percent of likely voters aged 18 to 34 opposed the anti-gay measure. Indeed, young Californians "from high schoolers -- some of them not even old enough to vote themselves -- to college students" worked to educate the public about the discriminatory effects of Proposition 8. It's unclear, however, exactly what will happen to California's gay couples who already married. The state's attorney general maintained yesterday that their marriages would still be valid, but others are not so confident. Despite its narrow approval, Prop. 8 is not final. Yesterday, "gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday -- including one by the ACLU -- asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8." The suits claim, "Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection," the LA Times notes. (The Progressive)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:18 PM

The odd thing they were talking about on NPR--on more than one program, it seems--was that the black vote went for Proposition 8 by over 70 percent, and the Hispanic vote was even higher than that. Apparently civil rights is very selective in some quarters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM

I thought youse fellers voted by secret ballot, no??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:51 PM

Am I wrong in understanding that this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word "marriage", rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:53 PM

The Mormons? Don't they believe in polygamy? Don't they have their own state?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: pdq
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM

"...this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word 'marriage', rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?"

essentially correct statement

"The Mormons? Don't they believe in polygamy?"

no, not for a hundred years or more (if I recall corectly)

"The Mormons? ...Don't they have their own state?"

of course not...anyone can live in any state the choose, although Utah has a large Morman population because some cities there were started by Mormans


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

"Am I wrong in understanding that this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word "marriage", rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?"


             McGrath - That's an interesting dilemma. Some efforts were made to establish "Civil Unions," which it seemed to me gave gay couples all of the advantages of marriage without calling it that. But the gay community contiues to press for the right to "marry," period, and they simply won't have it any other way.

             Where I see this getting sticky is, if a church has in its doctrine that it will not recognize gay lifestyles of any kind, and a gay couple comes to that church to be married, can the pastor of that church refuse to perform the ceremony?
             I can see litigation coming down the road where gay couples will demand that ordained ministers marry them under the same mandate of law that prevents a resteraunt from seating a black customer, or refusing to rent a minority couple a motel room.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 02:55 PM

In the UK "Civil Unions", as the legal term, with completely equivalent legal status to "marriage" seems to have been accepted generally, so far as I know.

So far as talking about it, people can of course use whatever words they prefer to use anyway, and do so. If gay couples prefer to say they are getting married, and send out "wedding invitations", as they sometimes do, that is entirely up to them. And I would assume that the same would apply in California, whatever happens in the way of "propositions".

As for the matter of church weddings, churches do what churches do. I'd imagine that trying to impose rules like that on a church in the States would be perilously close to overstepping the constitutional division between state and church.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM

People criticize the Mormons as "outsiders from Utah" who interfered with a California election. I suppose you could pin the same thing on Catholics, "outsiders from Rome" who interfered. But this page (click) shows that there were half a million Mormons in California in 1990 (I couldn't find more recent statistics). This page says that in 2005, 11.1 million of California's 36.6 million people were Catholic.

Like the Mormons, the Catholic Church in California took a fairly strong stand in favor of Proposition 8. As stated above, the Catholic Knights of Columbus gave $1.25 million in support of the measure, and I think the Catholic bishops gave $200,000. I see I'm in a very small minority, with my "Another Christian Voting NO on Proposition 8" bumper sticker. This week the Sacramento Bee's poll says 32% of the California electorate attend church services weekly, like I do - and only 16% of us voted "No" on Propostion 8. Guess I should feel lucky my car didn't get vandalized in the church parking lot.

I work with a number of nuns, at a women's center and at a retreat house - all of the nuns I know joined me in voting "no" on Proposition 8. I'm sure many of the priests I know also voted "no." One Irish-born priest who's an old friend gave his sermon last week and explained what the bishops had instructed him to say in support of Proposition 8, and then ended his sermon saying, "But I don't think it's right for me to tell you how to vote, so you make your own decision." Catholics don't applaud sermons very often, but my friend got applause for that sermon. [But hey, that parish applauded ME for a sermon once.]

On election night, I had dinner with about six nuns and our newly-appointed bishop, who is Hispanic and just over 50 years old, and an outspoken proponent of Proposition 8. Before the bishop arrived, we agreed it might not be a good idea to dicuss the election, so we didn't.

In our parish, we have a priest from Rwanda who's about 40 years old. He is a very fair-minded and gentle person, but he told gay marriage was something he couldn't accept at all. He said the taboo against homosexuality is very deeply ingrained in his culture, and homosexual marriage is completely unthinkable in Rwanda.

It seems to me that homosexuality is not well-accepted in African-American and Hispanic culture in the United States. I suppose you could write this off as narrow-minded prejudice, but I think I'd prefer to call it a cultural taboo. When I've heard people talk against homosexuality, it usually doesn't seem to be from a position of hatred. It's more a deep sense that "something just isn't right" about homosexuality. Oftentimes, people seem to have a fear for their children mixed in with their own feelings.

I can't say I'm all that comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but my sense of fairness tells me I don't have a right to interfere with the right of people to do what they believe they should do. A gay marriage has a profound effect on the two people getting married, but I can't see how it has any significant effect on society as a whole. But other people seem to have a real dread of the effects of gay marriage, and I think we need to have an understanding of that deep-seated fear if we are to have any hope of changing the cultural taboos that brought about this ban on gay marriage.

Personally, I don't think it will be long before gay marriage is legal again in California - but I think it's important for us to understand that those who oppose gay marriage may not be horrible bigots. It may just be that they're afraid and uninformed, and understanding and patience may be a far better way to win their votes than aggression and condemnation would be.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:32 PM

But surely people in California still have the perfect right to refer to their relationship as marriage if they choose to. So if the legal status is the same, what's the real issue?

It's a bit like arguing about whether it's a musical instrument should be called a quattro or a four-string guitar... What matters is what kind of music it makes, not what you call it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM

This whole thing is a matter of semantics and definition. I get tired of splitting hairs on it, I am tired of the religious fundies trying to control others, and I am tired of the LGBT fundies trying to force their will on religious communities. Before you start jumping, let me take those one by one.

Semantics/definition - All marriages that are legally recognized are civil unions, whether they are performed in a church or on the courthouse steps, by a member of the clergy or by a Justice of the Peace. The civil union confers upon the parties rights of survivorship, transference of estate, responsibilities for debt, sharing in gained/earned wealth, etc. The marriage rite, as performed by various churches, simply is that religious organization putting it's stamp of approval on the union. This is an important distinction.

Religious/LGBT fundamentalists - Religious fundamentalists are trying to keep their religious beliefs codified under law. Since they don't believe in the marriage of two folks of the same sex, and since it is not legal, they are trying to keep it that way. It is my opinion that they should live their lives as they choose and according to whatever code they choose, but they shouldn't have the right to force others to accept that "religious" code. They are not making the distinction between the civil, which confers rights as in any other union, and religious. I have never been able to understand how my marriage, and the love and respect it is founded on, is threatened by other folks living as they choose.

LGBT fundies are just as bad. They simply will not be satisfied until everyone accepts their belief that they have a right to be "married". Same thing applies. It depends on your definition of "marriage". If you are saying the Roman Catholic Church must accept your marriage as in keeping with their faith, that is none of your business. You have no right to enforce on the church that which flies in the face of the dogma of the church. If, on the other hand, your definition of "marriage" is that you have all the same legal rights and recognition by the State, I am with you all the way. But you may not tell a Priest that he cannot hold views, based on his religious beliefs, that it is wrong. And in the civic arena, he may not discriminate. But he has every right to not recognize the marriage within his church. The concern is that someone would then bring suit to force a church to conduct a ceremony against their will.

I believe that clarity in the law, and a full granting of the same protections that any other couple has in their "civil union/marriage" is entirely possible and should happen.

All the best,

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:58 PM

In many respects, "Civil Unions" in California are very similar to marriage - but there are many areas where it's unclear how a civil union should be treated. I suppose a huge part for the reason for wanting same-sex marriage is psychological - wanting the respectability that marriage gives to a union. Opponents often say, "they can have all the rights they want, as long as they don't call it 'marriage.'" I don't know how often I've heard people say, "Why can't they just call it by another name?"

I think the main reason for opposing gay marriage is the same as the main reason for supporting it - the term "marriage" gives respectability, and helps to ensure that society treats a married couple like a family, not just partners in a legal relationship.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 04:26 PM

The LDS Church does have its own state and that is Utah. Of course anyone can live there, but speaking from experience, if you want to own a business there and make a living at it, you'd be a lot better off if you have some connection to the LDS. They didn't just start some cities there, Salt Lake City is the international headquarters of the Mormon Church and its building, holdings, etc. dominate the downtown landscape and beyond.

Times may be changing there, too, though. Wonder of wonders, I was really pleasantly surprised to read the following (FULL ARTICLE):

Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage
By Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune

Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
    More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
    A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, "I didn't vote on your marriage," "Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors," and "Jesus said love everyone." Others read, "Proud of my two moms" and "Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM

Traditional marriage in some parts of our culture DID ban divorce, up until WWII. It was a social black mark to be divorced. Much looked down upon by the very best people.

Civil rights include equal treatment. If the state is going to offer a different name to their couple-blessing, such as "civil union", they will have to apply it uniformly, to hetero AND homo-sexual marriages. That would leave the various religious organizations to do what they want with the label "marriage".

But this is unlikely since the term is so deeply established.

Which leaves the only outcome that is conscionable to have the civil event labeled marriage, and let the churches and temples have the problem of calling their something else if they wish to do so.

The only REAL difference between the two is the sanctification by religious authorities, which is, really, insignificant to most people. But when the civil recognition gets bullied about by moralizing religious loudmouths, it's time to draw a line. It is unconscionable.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 05:11 PM

All a bit like arguing about "what is folk" as if anyone was going to take any notice of how the argument went...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe_F
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 09:38 PM

This whole controversy seems to me to miss the point. It should not be within the power of government to define or dilute the notion of marriage. The real way to protect the sanctity of marriage is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

When church & state were separated, marriage got stuck on the boundary. At the time, that was probably reasonable: marriage had existed longer than the state, everybody knew more or less what it meant, and it made sense for government to recognize, certify, and take into account that status. But by now there is quite a variety of cohabitation deals between & within the sexes, and it makes no sense for the state to discriminate among them. Where the state has a legitimate interest in making a distinction (e.g., in defining dependence for tax purposes), it can do so without reference to marriage. If a couple or larger group want to stiffen their cohabitation agreement with legal guarantees, let them write a contract (by & with the advice of their church, if they choose) on a par with any other partnership, subject to reasonable public-policy restrictions, and let the courts enforce it according to its terms.

If you are a Christian, it seems to me, then for you it is God who makes a marriage valid, and you should not give a hoot what the state of California says about it, one way or the other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:26 PM

The root of trying to define marriage probably has a lot to do with the rights and proper care for minor children under the law. I would think religious interests would take a back seat to that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:31 PM

Actually, Joe F, Christianity is the foundation for this country's laws on marriage and how it is defined. And homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, stealing, not respecting your parents, and the other Ten Commandments.

As a Christian I have not been able to understand why folks get so spun up about gays. We ALL have our cross to bear. But as one who does his best to be a Christian, walking as Jesus did, in my own failing way, I am impacted by all sins that are legalized.

God sanctifies my marriage. But the ceremony is under civil law. Jesus was quite clear when he said, "Render under ceaser what is ceasers and unto God what is Gods." And civil law should not, in my opinion, be changed to accomodate a sin.

So to gently bump back, why would gays give a hoot about what I think and go ahead and form a union legally, get an attorney (we have lots of those) and draw up a contract.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 11:23 PM

Well, Steve, it is a sin in your opinion and that should not govern the rest of us who may disagree with you. Seems to me there was something about judge not lest ye be judged, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:25 AM

The church & the state should be totally seperate & both should stay out of the public's bedroom. If you want to follow some church doctrine, you're free to do so but you don't have a choice about following the law of the law & that's where the church is trying to build power to influence the law. The church has no right by law to influence law one way or another that is up to the governing system & the citizens of that republic. A civil Union does not grant all the same rights under law that a legal marriage does, I maybe wrong here & feel free to correct me. Civil Unions in all cases is not the same by the IRS everywhere (state & federal), by insurance companies, by adoption agencies, by international commerce, by credit companies & credit rating companies, by real estate law (just look at the difference in common law between states & feds) & by confict of state & federal law. Well, I'm not sure about ALL of that but look it up see.
It was once said that in this nation we were all created equal, well, we weren't but we are by law supposed to be ALL treated equal, not matter what any religion or church declares, that was the basis of the founding fathers. Free from religions & religious zelots.

We've always kept someone out of the loop, First Nation people, Blacks, Women, bfore that it was Irish, Jewish, waht's next, Alaskan Hockey Moms?
If abortion is a sin by someone's religion either jion & agree if you are religious or find one you can agree with but it's legal as long as the law allows & that's the way it stays as long as that's what the nation's peolple want. Because a religion or religious people want it different doesn't matter, it only matters what the people pass into law & the church by law needs to refrain from gathering & using power to influence the law. The law doesn't interfere with religion or it shouldn't. If a church sees fit to violate the seperation of church & state then they should forego all rights as a no profit & start paying taxes & lose their tax exempt status, they may feel a bit more charitable towards those they're fighting in the courts & polls with now.
I have no beliefs in churchs or religions at all, why should they govern me & my family with their beliefs as long as I obey the laws of the land. I don't seek to influence how they operate but if they want to push why shouldn't I push back. Demand that they operate only on Saturdays & Sundays, the rest of the week they need to earn their tax exempt status by manning the homeless shelters & food banks full time, start working in the VA's as nighingales - full time & not just the Sisters of Mercy all of them. If you are a prest or Nun & you are supported by the church you need to perform 40 hrs a week public charity & your retirement plan will equal the state or the federal plans.
If the churchs & religions want to try to dictate law then as they have been, espically these last 8 yrs then


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:37 AM

The above should've ended with
"If the churchs & religions want to try to dictate law then THEY SHOULD BE RULED BY THE SAME LAWS" as everyone one else because they put themselves on equal footing as the rest of US.

When they claim to serve & be held accountable to a higher "whatever" then they can continue to act & behave as if they they are seperate from government, that is their 'granted' freedom to practice as they preach!

Sorry, I hit some button that deleted the rest of it. By that & my even worst than usuall spelling I know it's way to late

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:55 AM

Barry, I guess I was misinformed about Civil Unions. I thought they did work to allow the couple to take advantage of tax exemptions and deductions, and did allow for the working member to insure the non-working member (if there was one), and so on.
                I'm not sure about the adoption of children. It certainly wouldn't bother me personally. I would think the child would be better off with decent people than in an institution, by I can see why the religious folks get worked up over that.
                The other element of the whole discussion that keeps coming to mind, and I don't see a lot in print about, is the Civil Rights element of same-sex-marriage. If I own a string of motels, for instance, and I'm a member of one of these religious groups, and I mandate that my places of business cannot rent rooms to same-sex couples, can I be brought up on civil rights charges for that? Or can I stand on my rights as a member of a church?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:11 AM

The state has an interest in many contracts and transaction of a civil nature, because they are the basis of torts and offenses.

The state has an interest in preventing abuse of unsuspecting victims, in this case, children.

The state has an interest in public health and in some states marriage used to require blood tetsts under civil law,

The state also regulates who is responsible for children, the nature of dependence, the duty of child support, etc. It also maintains public records of birth, death, marriage, etc.

So for all these reasons, the state gets involved with these things and with marriage.

The fact that the traditional heterosexual form of marriage has been outmoded by a higher order of honesty about relationships that could once not even be named, means that any definition of marriage in terms of the sex of the participants is a simple act of discrimination on those grounds. Which,, by rights, should be illegal.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:34 AM

Well, so much for the Dems wanting to "kill yer babies, burn yer flag and make yer kids marry 'a queer'"???

Guess the Repubs are down to just killing babies and burning flags when it comes to the Dems...

Who would have thunk it???

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 10:51 AM

Amos, you said,

Arkansas, voted to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt children, widely seen as a way to prevent gay couples from adopting.

"Widely seen as"?? Of course; that's exactly what it is. Where does "widely seen as" come in? How could it be seen otherwise? On its face.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 11:19 AM

Maybe someone else has said essentially this (I skipped part of the thread, mea culpa) but here's my thought:

The State--ANY AND EVERY state--ought to stop issuing "marriage licenses". Instead, they issue "civil union licenses" to all couples.

If Johnny and Suzy are to join under State sponsorship, they would apply for a "civil union license". They'd go before an appropriate state-authorized individual (they could choose a preacher, judge, etc., just like now), who would join them pursuant to the license. But if they want religious sanction, presumably they'd have a preacher do it, so that they get two-for-one, so to speak.

Any two individuals, of whichever sex or combination thereof, if they wanted to have the legal support of the State rather than shacking up, would have to get and exercise their civil union license. The officiating individual, as now, would certify to the State that on such and such a date Johnny and Suzy (or Tom and Dick or Laura and Mary) came before him/her in the presence of witnesses representing the community and got officially stapled together (I'll avoid the familiar phrase "tied the knot" because it's so associated with past practice and understanding).

Under this scheme, the distinguishing word "marriage" is separated from State recognition, but different churches may attach the word and concept to the happy couple, of whatever mix, if that church sees things that way.

YMMV.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 11:23 AM

Good luck with that idea, Dave...

Rational thinkin' ain't gonna be part of the discussion on this issue until it's time has come which it clearly hasn't...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:28 PM

Still, it's a good idea, Dave!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:58 PM

Exactly, Dave. When I mentioned that idea earlier, I commented that because the roots of the "marriage" notion run so deep, it is unlikely the Churches will want to adopt a different name for their version. So the STate should.

The differentiation between the civil and "sacred" versions is really, really important and the Godmongers should be, by rights, pushed out of the corridors of civil administration.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:20 PM

I think I read most of the above with reasonable comprehension, but I had the dial turned up to "Sped reddin" on accounta it's "Are you ready for some footBALL?" time.

Seems to me that a BIG deal is the fact that the accountants don't want Jack to share John's employee benefits... health insurance and the like. No?

Oh yeah... I have said this on other threads. I don't care what gay people do regarding marriage, but I definitely have a problem with their parades. Call me a prude, but public displays of sexuality irritate me, no matter what sexuality. It confuses small children and dogs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:30 PM

I rather hope we never have Straight Pride rallies along similar lines...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:59 AM

Somebody in our song circle said they saw a big banner ad in this thread, promoting the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage in California. Must have been something in this discussion that prompted a Google ad about the measure. Just so you know, Mudcat is not in the business of promoting any political cause. It's just a coincidence that most of us are liberal.....
Just now, the Google ad is one that promotes gay marriage, published by the Unitarians.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:49 PM

This is not going to go away - there are protests planned in all fifty states, tomorrow. There is also a petition folks can sign which may help. Here's the scoop, I thought Olbermann's comment was terrific:


Have you seen Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" about Prop 8? Keith eloquently expresses why the passage of Prop 8 is so tragic, and he addresses supporters of the proposition directly.

Here is a link to watch a YouTube video of Keith's comments. Please check it out and then join me and over 100,000 other people in signing a pledge from the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile to repeal Prop 8 and restore marriage equality to California:

Click Here

Usually, discussions of political issues wind down after elections, but Prop 8 is not about politics. It is about love, equality and civil rights. That's why we cannot let the passage of Prop 8 stand.

We all need to talk to our family and friends about the importance of restoring marriage equality to California.

That is why I am asking you to watch what Keith Olbermann said and then sign the pledge to repeal Prop 8.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

So how can the LDS church give money to a political agenda like Prop. 8, and still maintain a tax exempt status, or are the reports wrong? Did they not do that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 11:24 AM

A good question, Rig.

A recent commentary makies an interesting argument for the complete privatization of marriage.

"...When the Supreme Court did away with sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, Justice Antonin Scalia objected in his dissent:

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.

"Scalia may disapprove, but he agrees that court decisions of the past have set the stage for recognition of gay marriage in the future.

"But ... There are those majority votes against gay marriage in states including California of all places. Majorities capable of passing state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage may well be capable of sparking a federal constitutional battle that might even culminate in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A favorable Supreme Court decision in a year or two might well turn into yet another culture war that produces a very unfavorable legal environment thereafter.

"What to do? Well, how about taking marriage entirely off the table as a legal issue?

"In the New York Times, last year, Professor Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State College wrote:

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state's permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn't, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

That may provide a road map to an approach for defusing the passionate battle over same-sex marriage, involving as it does deeply emotional issues of religion and personal life. Why not take marriage out of the hands of government and turn it into a purely private matter among people who love each other, their families, their friends, and whatever religious institutions to which they might belong?

Writing in Slate in 1997, the Cato Institute's David Boaz said of marriage:

So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.

"As a private institution, marriage would no longer need to be a matter of public debate. The legal aspects of marriage, such as inheritance and child custody could be handled by simply filing a simple civil union form with the state that has no romantic connotations. It could as easily involve friends or relatives who want to share assets or ease child care. Such arrangements could be boilerplate or tailored-to-fit, as the parties prefer.

And people with deeply held beliefs about what marriage really means could join religious institutions that extend their recognition only to traditional arrangements. They'd be free to turn up their noses at anything else, without actually compromising non-traditional marriages made by others.

Not everybody would be made happy by a solution that doesn't involve cramming a victory down the other side's throat. But privatized marriage could bypass years of legal battles and heartache.

If marriage had been privatized a decade ago, social conservatives would today be free to roll their eyes at Beth Bye's and Tracey Wilson's long-ago formalized relationship.

And we could find something else to fight about."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: olddude
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 11:32 AM

Amos
as always you speak the truth, clearly and thoughtfully
We can only hope that the people do the right thing. Maybe today that is asking too much. Somehow right thing to do seems to be falling through the cracks. I can only hope and pray they get their hearts and minds in gear and start thinking of others.

Dan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

If you would like to join thousands of people who are refusing to accept a California in which legal discrimination is embodied in the State Consittution, add your signature here. Every voice helps.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:43 AM

The fight isn't over yet. Sooner or later (probably sooner), gay marriage will be legal in California. My friend Mrs. Lev sent a link to this video (click).
Moderately clever, eh?

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:54 AM

There are only two options:

1. The "marriage" licensed by states is a protection of a sacred rite.

2. ALL "MARRIAGES" licensed by the states are "civil unions."

If 1. applies, then all marriage licenses are in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, ...."

If 2. applies, then there is no valid reason, that has been shown, that justifies that "only heterosexuals" (or only white couples, or only Republicrats) are entitled to the equal protection of the law that regulates CIVIL UNIONS, accidentally called "marriage" in state statutes.

Any two citizens who wish to join into any form of lawful CIVIL contract should have the same right to do so as any other two citizens. The states have (or should have) NO interest in the sex, belief, or INTENT TO HAVE OR NOT HAVE SEX, of the persons entering into such an agreement.

I do not believe it is TO THE ADVANTAGE of any religion, in the US, to have "sacred rites" come under the control of civil statutes, since that places the belief and practice of one's religion SUBSERVIENT TO the CIVIL LAW.

Rather than demanding that civil law must "protect their sacred rights," persons of "true religious conscience" should be SCREAMING that the requirement to get any kind of license to engage in any rite held "sacred" within their belief is a VIOLATION of their right to the free and UNRESTRICTED practice of ther religion, and (if they're really that ignorant) should be DEMANDING the repeal of all requirements that "sacred marriages" of any kind be licensed.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:04 AM

John, you and I are pretty close in our assessment, you just said it better than I did earlier. The State shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning anything other than a civil union. And the State has no business as to whether or not a religious group sanctifies it according to their own beliefs. The legal ability to join one's life with another legally is the only thing the State has a say in. And it should not discriminate on matters that are none of its business, such as who one has sex with, provided said folks are of legal age to make such decisions.

Solid piece of analysis, buddy.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM

ABout time. But, there are limits. The practice of religion in a ccommunity IS subordinate to the boundaries of civil conduct imposed by the community in some respects. You cannot slaughter roosters in public places and for hygeine reasons even in some private places even if Kwandazoomuckalot requires it in his scrolls.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 10:06 AM

Thanks for the link, Joe. We've watched that on msnbc and I wondered if anyone would post it here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM

What a joy to find out that there is another follower of Kwandazoomuckalot and his scrolls here. Amos - when did you find the One True Path? And have you reached level 3.144 yet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:45 AM

Amos is correct.

You can't have human sacrifices - but only because all of the people, regardless of their religious belief, are prohibited from committing murder.

You can't slaughter animals (in most cases) because that violates both health laws and animal cruelty laws that apply to all of the people, regardless of their religious belief.

You can't force anyone to marry against their will, because slavery is prohibited for everybody.

You can't smoke that funny stuff and chaw on them fungi in your rituals because -- oops, I think there's an exemption there (for some religions). [We gotta look at whether that's fair to the rest of us.]

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 12:28 PM

"You can't slaughter animals" - but surely doing that is a major industry. So evidently it's OK to kill animals, but not if you call it sacrificing them. But religious rituals associated with the slaughter are OK (kosher/halal).

Evidently another of these linguistic issues which people,seem to regard as so desperately significant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM

The foodchain is exempt--food is the one religion which must be obeyed by all. Oh, and the High Temple of Space-Time, also exempt, whose commandments include Thou Shalt Heed Gravity, Entropy Wins, and Thou SHalt Not Unconserve Energy.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:01 AM

Saying Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, even as supporters filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day.

In a brief filed with the high court, the state top's lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded" by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now.

"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:59 PM

I wish someone would explain to me why they care who marries who. It's none of my friggin' business.I married whom I chose, for love of another human being, not because she has the opposite plumbing setup!

Control freaks, screw them all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM

Jerry Brown is right; we cannot afford a civil institution that draws its definition from one or two religious groups and ignores the rights of individuals to the civil status as other citizens. It plants the seeds of mighty fractures in the national spirit.

If Congress were to make a Federal law defining marriage in terms of civil benefits and identity, as a common civil right, it would leave the churches to bless or condemn whom they please, as they have always busied themselves doing.

The whole thing is a bunch of ugly noise in a teacup.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM

I think one very important thing is being overlooked. The will of the people has spoken now twice in California in regards to this matter, and it has been voted down. Speaking about a minority forcing their will on the people... doesn't that matter anymore????..or do we make exceptions based on....ummm.. what?

Personally, I don't care how a person takes their sex....but that should be a personal matter..and not rub it in all our faces, and force us to accept it as law!!...even when it goes against the majority will of the people.

Have more thoughts on the matter, ....but this is just one point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: pdq
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:18 PM

Will someone who says it is OK for two men to get married please explain why it is illegal for a man to have two wives.

It seems like the latter constitutes telling others who they can and cannot marry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:23 PM

The name of this thread is, 'Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban'...what about, 'MORE Californians don't oppose 'Prop 8', Gay marriage Ban'?

Call the Wah-bulance!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:13 PM

Personally, I know a man who does have two wives, and he seems relatively okay to me. None of my business. But the matter of choosing an individual spouse is surely a different question than the polyamory versus monogamy issue. One is the right to choose "whom" and the other the right to choose "how many".

It is not the case that this is "the minority telling the majority what o do". It is a case of a minority desiring the same rights as the majority under the civil code of law. This, as Jerry Brown points out, is a case of rank discrimination. You can bet your boots that the majority of voting Virginians would not have voted to end slavery; yet it was an abomination viewed from the point of view of fundamental human rights.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:17 PM

McGrath is of course right. This is all about definition and the "normalisation" of homosexuality.

How many times have we debated this... and when will you so called liberals get it through your thick heads that homosexuality will never be normalised while the vast majority view it as a disgusting practice.

Homosexuality is "tolerated" in this society and all "liberals" and homosexual activists should remember not to push the silent majority too far.
Strident promotion of homosexuality has gone just about as far as it should, if homosexuals want to live together with all legal safeguards, let them form a civil union and not attempt to reconstruct the world in their image....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:29 PM

Just in case anyone mistakenly believes that I have a political axe to grind on this issue, I am far to the left of any Mudcat "liberals"...excluding Bobert of course, who has all the makin's of a mighty fine revolutionary........If he can shake this bloody Obama thing!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:33 PM

So now Jerry Brown, California's AG, is refusing to allow his staff to defend challenges to the proposition in court. It would seem to me--and I'm no attorney--that his course of action would give the pro-Prop-8 factions grounds for immediate appeal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM

You may not have an axe to grind politically, Ake, but you certainly have an inflated view of what other people think is disgusting or not. I suspect your "vast majority" is a delusion. Furthermore, the core question is not how many, but what the fuck business is it of theirs? Why should it be any of your business whom another chooses to love or how? Who gave you the right to be "disgusted" at someone's private life? Or are you actually reacting to a bunch of false images about it that was drummed into your puir haid by child-molesting Fathers or crucifix-abusing nuns?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:22 AM

The insults don't bother me Amos, I've had worse on the "Gay parents" thread, but for fuck sake try and get the Scots accent right!...Ya daft auld gommerel......:0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:23 AM

From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM

'Jerry Brown is right...............'

Since when is denying the public due process of law, right!!!???
If the situation was reversed, you'd be screaming bloody murder, and think, perhaps we are living in a totalitarian state!...Well guess what? As I've posted before, the duopoly is doing just that. Let's not forget the rights we still have, and that is of due process(among others), and uphold those,....or the structure, which (used) to guarantee your freedoms, will be further taken away. Just think, what could be next?..Freedom of speech....and even on here, what you are doing,..NOW!!

Regards, GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:40 AM

It's already happening Guest, anyone who even questions the homosexual agenda is painted as a bigot.

Only ones who are safe are the completely illiberal "liberals"!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:43 AM

"You may not have an axe to grind politically, Ake, but you certainly have an inflated view of what other people think is disgusting or not. I suspect your "vast majority" is a delusion. Furthermore, the core question is not how many, but what the fuck business is it of theirs? Why should it be any of your business whom another chooses to love or how? Who gave you the right to be "disgusted" at someone's private life?"

Exactly. the other thing that bewilders me is the oft-repeated "they can do what they like as long as they're not rubbing my face in it."

I fail to comprehend why two people getting married is rubbing their sexuality in anyone's face, unless of course they are having a post-wedding sex party, in your house, and inviting you to join in. It seems unlikely. In fact, i think most of the people who express these sentiments are unlikely to even receive an invite to the wedding. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:25 AM

Back around 1963 or '64, a guy running for sheriff in Wisconsin published the "rumor" that his opponent had "weird sex" in "unnatural positions."

He was quite handily defeated when the opponent asked: "How would he know - is he a peeping Tom or somethin'?" (There was also a logo resembling "Kilroy was here," with very big eyes that appeared mysteriously on a few building walls, power poles, and other "public information" outlets, bearing the complainant candidates name ...)

When the CIVIL registration and licensing of CIVIL MARRIAGES first began to become common in the US, it was LOUDLY PROTESTED by the churches, to whom keeping the records of THE SACRAMENTS OF MARRIAGE had previously been left.

It was necessary to explain that the MARRIAGE LICENSE was only concerned with the CIVIL UNION by which persons could join together for the joint ownership of property and the obligation to accept JOINT CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY for obligations pledged by either - just as is done for "registration" and "licensing" of a business partnership.

And then to explain again.

And then to explain again.

And ....

Under the US Constitution and the laws of this nation, any religion that would willingly ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT to require a license for ANY SACRED RITE "ain't worth a squirt of piss in a tin cup."

If people in this country would cease half the effort now devoted to their demands to "punish everybody not like me" and devote it instead to learning and understanding the meanings, significance, and proper observance of the rites and rituals of their OWN FAITHs, and the limitations placed on the civil governments authority and obligation to regulate their observance of their own faith there would be NO ARGUMENT about allowing ANY PERSONS qualified and willing to make agreements between them having the SAME CIVIL FORMS OF AGREEMENT as all other persons are permited (or required) to observe.

If you can't state an objection without using the words "Holy Matrimony" or "Sacred Covenenants" or "The Bible Says ..." - in matters of CIVIL LAW - then you are a bigot.1

1 But of course, no one is born that way. It's just something they choose to do. That makes it okay to despise them. (They're probably an abomination to somebody's god(s). And they're not like me, so they should be punished.)

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:33 AM

Hi Ruth...I know that you're off on the old trick of personalising the discussion...its wearing a bit thin these days :0)
but if the don't know that there is a general distate among hetero-sexual (alright Ebbie?) men, about the homosexual act, then with respect, you are not living in the real world.

I, not even going to bother responding too John, who is as full of shit as ever...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: LilyFestre
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM

Talk about people who continue to repeat themselves Ake.

*ahem*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

Ake:

You are woefully off the mark here. John's assertions are exactly the issue.

It matters not a whit what your own emotional reaction is to the mental image of two men blowing each other or two women making themselves happy. Your feelings of anipathy toward others' choices are irrelevant.

If there is to be a civil state called marriage, you have yet to state on what grounds you dare to select one or another group of people as entitled to that civil state and another not. Your arrogance based on your lizard brain sense of disgust is crude and unbecoming, to put it mildly. What is truly disgusting is not what strangers do to strangers in privacy, but the alacrity with which you choose to demean categories of human beings based on your imaginary antipathies.

That is where the bigotry lies.

As for GtS I will not respond to your posts until you start saying something that makes any sense at all.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 04:34 AM

From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

"......As for GtS I will not respond to your posts until you start saying something that makes any sense at all."

Well, I understand......if you just can't keep up, I'm sure that you are glad not to respond!!

Just because certain subjects don't fit into a very myopic 'liberal' view, I'm sure you're absolutely lost, and 'working without tools'.

Too bad, I was just starting to wonder what you played, and stuff.....Your choice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 06:19 AM

Ruth on 'rubbing it in your face':

"unless of course they are having a post-wedding sex party, in your house, and inviting you to join in. It seems unlikely."

Exactly, and of course there's a really simple way to stop other peoples lewd, orgasmic, writhing sexual behaviour affecting you: simply stop fantasising and obsessing about it all the time. The choice is of course yours. No-one can tell you what to do with your own imagination in your own head.

For my own part, I tend to spend my time thinking about sexual acts which please me personally. And sometimes even doing them.
Don't know about anyone else here....?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 07:42 PM

GTS:

Horseshit. You made statements that are nonsensical and don't even notice.

For example, what would "the roles being reversed" possibly consist of? Some bizarre sci-fi dystopia where gays had been elevated to power because they were not contributing to the huge population explosion, and breeding was a capital offense, hunted down in the slums and rounded up and rubbed out? Thus, only those who would never breed would be allowed the civil status of marriage, and this anti-hetero discrimination was made into law?

The mind reels.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:46 PM

Ken Starr, hero of Monicagate, now wants to nullify all marriages in California that were legal and valid prior to Proposition 8 between people of the same sex.

One response: Please Don't Divorce Our Friends.

I spit at this Grundyesque, small-minded, bitter-hearted meddling among fellow citizen's lives.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 10:31 PM

Guest from Sanity either missed or discounts this thought:

"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."


Akenaton is mistaken in his view that this issue somehow or another has something to do with Liberalism. The idea that government should neither know nor want to know about the sexual orientation of it's citizens is a firmly conservative one--Conservatives believe that the powers and interests of government need to be limited if the citizens are to remain free.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:05 AM

The right to behave exactly as we would personally like, has always been subject to what is in the "common good"

I normally view statistics with extreme care, but the latest batch from independent sources indicate Hiv/Aids levels rising more quickly percentage wise among male homosexuals, than among heterosexuals. this must surely say something about the homosexual lifestyle, yet you all ingnore these statistics.....Why?
For all you Catholic "Liberals"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM

PS....the statistics which I won't cite from the Baptists and other religious organisations are much more alarming, considering that we now routinely place very young children to be fostered by male homosexuals. Not only health issues, but numbers of sexusl partners, duration of sexual contacts, divorce/separation rates etc.

As a society we have taken "Liberalism" and the rights of "selected" minorities to truly dangerous levels...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: bubblyrat
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:31 AM

I agree !! What next ?? Shall we permit a man to marry his horse ?? Or legalise paedophilia ?? I mean, these people are "born like it ", they "can't help it", they have got "human rights" , so why don't we just legalise EVERY form of aberrant sexual behaviour and be done with it ?? ( God Forbid ! ).Roll on Armageddon, I say !!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:29 AM

Arrant nonsense. You are comparing extreme outliers with a significant population.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:17 AM

Holy cow! You mean some of you people were the product of the consumation of a sacred Christian marriage contract between consenting heterosexuals? What a disgusting thought.
Now *there* is a bloody good reason to ban something.
Simply cannot believe some of the vile ugly pestilance being spewed here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:24 AM

Amos, thanks for the link to the Don't Divorce Us.

ake, you get more vile by the day - I wish Jude were here to give you a proper Glaswegian *blessing* as I know she would. As it is, you'll feel better if you dinna fash yerself so about others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

Come on Kat, I think you know me better than that!
I bear no ill will to anyone other than stinking Capitalists.
I also draw a distinct line between male homosexuals and Lesbians.
I see no statistics which would suggest health risks or overly promiscuous lifestyles pertaining to Lesbians.
I also think that they would make excellent parents


Rosie ... If you have nothing to add to this discussion but invective, save your breath.   I have heard it all before and am sigularly unimpressed.
This forum has a good percentage of numpties already, another is hardly going to set the heather on fire!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM

Anyway....why should I care....I've got the POPE on MY side!!...:0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:20 PM

Add a dime to that and you can buy a chip, Ake.

It is quite one thing to have ap ersonal distaste for the subject, practice or participants of male homesexuality. I sympathize.

But to make a categorical imperative of reduction of civil rights out of such a personal dislike is unmanly in itself, and reactionary.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:43 PM

Hi Amos...Could you explain the line about dimes and chips....we don't haveit over here, but it sounds as if it could be a good one.

As you well know, I have no personal dislike of homosexuals, or any wish to deprive them of "human rights"....no sane person would.

What i am against, is an agenda to "normalise" a minority lifestyle which could have profound effects on the rest of society.

As my friend the POPE says...Humanity has a right to defend itself!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:13 PM

A dime is a coin worth about a shilling, I suppose, a tenth of a dollar.

There was an old joke about people expressing good intentions or such: "Put would've, could've and shouldl've in onehand and a dime int he other and it'll get you a doughnut." I used a chip because I don't think you make a deal about doughnuts over yonder.

There is no offense being offered to humanity. The offense to humanity is the invitation to hate itself.

People who are homosexually oriented are not destructive, in general, and there is no reason to marginalize them as though they were not human, which you do when you characterize their existence as a threat to humanity.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:27 PM

What's the difference between a civil union which is called "a marriage" and one with all the same legal implications which isn't? There is the linguistic difference of course, but generally dictionaries decide that kind of thing according to how people use language.   

Sooner or later, no doubt dictionaries would modify their definition of the word to match how people actually use language.

Why on earth does anyone want to make a fuss about it either way?...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:37 PM

:0) That's cool A......think I like the traditional version better tho'


I dont see their existence as a threat to humanity.....Homosexuals have always and will always exist, without being any sort of "threat"

It is the agenda of normalising what I see as a destructive lifestyle which concerns me.
Some of the statistics which I read last night, gave life expectancy for male homosexuals as over twenty years less than hetero sexual men. If this is anything like the truth, questions must surely be asked.
I will be perfectly honest Amos, I have never seen or studied these stastistics before.....Have you, and if so why are you not asking the questions?

There are also some from homosexual websites, but they all fail to give comparisons in death rates, life expectancy,no of sexual partners etc.
I don't want to get too involved in this, as I hate basing my argument on statistics......but surely they must be taken into account?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:24 AM

This whole Proposition 8 thing is kind of ironic. It was able to pass because the wing-nut community was able to raise huge gobs of money for advertising.
                  It certainly demonstrates how fickle the American voter is.
                  But many of the folks who oppose Proposition 8, supported Barack Obama both in the primary and general elections, and he won by the same method, massively outraising his opponents.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM

Thank God for natural selection! When the stupid idiots don't get it, let nature step in and give them a clue!! Personally, there is no need to legislate a thing! This whole thing is a backlash to the homosexuals pushing their agendas down everyone's throat...and excuse the majority for objecting!!!!!
Whether you like it or not, homosexuality (until the politically 'correct' assholes, pushed it onto the medical community), has always been listed as a dysfunctional behavior, where one gender, through one of several reasons, develops a sense of inability, to resolve understanding and communication differences with the opposite sex, usually from hostility, emotional focus, and unforgiveness towards a like gender parent and reverts to a pubescent experimental stage, of sexuality, which causes little or no challenge to expand beyond immature behavioral patterns.....Much the same behavior is seen in younger girls who like to 'dress up like 'mommy'(which is normal for pre-pubescent girls), homosexuals like to dress up like 'married'. To actually push that agenda onto a functioning society, is the product of a group of people who have physically matured, and not emotionally matured as well.....And if you don't like it, that is only a product of your political bent...which of course, is not to be confused with mental health.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:23 AM

Scratch a socialist and there's a frightened Republican trying to get out...


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM

Sorta a disconnected post from Amos. What does that have to do with the price of eggs??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM

My point, obtuse Guest from Paranoia, is that you are acting like a blustering right wing nutball, despite all your enlightened talk of new socialism, or whatever you think of it as. PErhaps you need to get out more.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 01:33 PM

So it was "scratch a particular 'socialist' I have in mind" rather than being a generalisation about socialists in general, Amos?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 02:19 PM

That's okay. I am sorry for mine, also.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 03:52 PM

If this post is to be exhumed, I would much rather see some sensible debate on the homosexual lifestyle statistics than the personal abuse that has taken the place of reasonable discussion.
At least we might be able to acertain whether the normalisation of homosexuality is in the interests of all of the people.

Are these statistics true?.....Why do pro homosexual groups not give comparitive statistics? Is there a link between the homosexual lifestyle and HIV?
Why do supporters of homosexual "normalisation" fall silent or resort to abuse when statistics are mentioned?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:06 PM

And what do those statistics have to do with whether or not two people can form a legal marriage with all the appropriate rights?

In the long run; the only people effected in a marriage are the couple and their legal heirs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM

Sorry about that!

M Mario....the discussion has broadened a little.

If homosexuality is found to be hazardous to health, for example, resulting in lower life expectancy etc, that would have an effect on how the general public viewed homosexual marriage sanctified by the church, or the fostering of young children by homosexual couples surely?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM

GfS:

Don't be too hard on yourself, duck. We have all stirred a rasher in our day! :D

Ake: You're chasing a red herring, mate. The issue is defining civil rights under the law. STDs can be handed around to and by anyone who is reckless, which is a different matter. in fact it stands to reason that encouraging monogamy would lower the incidence thereof regardless of the polarity of the couple. Homosexuals are not lepers, and do not deserve to have their humanity degraded by this kind of low-brain categorical thinking.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:30 PM

No one is suggesting that homosexuals are lepers.....what have you got against lepers by the way?

I was simply asking why do these statistics exist?...are they true?
If they are true why are they not more widely known?
Is there some sort of conspirisy of silence on this issue?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:42 PM

Whether homosexual marriage would encourage more responsible sexual behaviour is certainly not a given. Any homosexuals who wish monogamy can have it within a civil union....the "marriage" part is simply a push for "normalisation" a re-defining to suit the homosexual agenda.

"do not deserve to have their humanity degraded by this kind of low-brain categorical thinking"

I am at a loss to know what this statement means.
This discussion is politically incorrect and off limits perhaps?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:55 PM

It is not a "redefining to suit the homosexual agenda". It is the extension of civil right to people who have done nothing to have it taken from them except run afoul of bias and reaction.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:20 PM

Family/Relationships

In a 1992 study, 55.5% of gay men and 71.2% of lesbians were in steady
relationships.

As of November 1997, all 50 states denied gay men and lesbians the right to
marry.

An estimated 6 million to 14 million children have a lesbian or gay parent.
Courts in 11 states have ruled that gay men and lesbians, on the basis of
their sexual orientation, are unfit to receive custody of their children.
A review of 9 studies of aspects of personal development--such as
self-concept, moral judgment, and intelligence-revealed no significant
difference between children of lesbians and gay men and children of
heterosexuals.

Violence

In the five major U.S. cities that have professionally staffed agencies
that monitor anti-lesbian and antigay violence--Boston, Chicago,
Minneapolis and St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco-- reports of anti-gay
and anti-lesbian incidents increased by 172% between 1988 and 1992;

In 1988, 697 incidents were reported

In 1990, 949 incidents were reported

In 1992, 1,898 incidents were reported

The most common perpetrators of anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence-responsible for 50% of all reported incidents--are youths ages 21 or under; 94% of the perpetrators are male. About two-thirds of the perpetrators are unknown to the victims. 89% of all incidents reported to the New York City Anti-Violence Project in 1992 resulted in no arrest.

Youth

As many as 7.2 million Americans under age 20 are lesbian or gay.

45% of gay males and 20% of lesbians experience physical or verbal assault
in high school; 28% of these young people feel forced to drop out of school
due to harassment based on sexual orientation.

According to Kinsey, 28% of boys and 17% of girls have one or more same-sex
experiences before age 20.

80% of lesbian and gay youths who took part in a 1987 study reported severe
isolation.

Every day, 13 Americans ages 15 to 24 commit suicide. In 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youths; 53% of transsexual youths surveyed in 1981 had attempted suicide. Lesbian and gay youths account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among youths.

In December 1993, Massachusetts became the first and only state in the country to outlaw discrimination against lesbian and gay students in public schools.

Public Opinion, and other stuff

In 1965, 82% of men and 58% of women said that homosexuality represents a
"clear threat" to the American way of life.

In 1977, 56% of Americans said homosexuals should have equal rights in
employment. By 1992, that number had risen to 74%.

11% of Americans would object to having a gay airline pilot.

55% of Americans would object to having a gay elementary school teacher.

49% of Americans would object to having a gay doctor.

In 1993, 66.3% of the American population believed that sexual relations
between two consenting adults of the same sex were always wrong.

In a 1993 U.S. News and World Report poll of 1,000 registered voters, 53%
said they knew someone who is gay of these, 73% supported equal rights for
gays. 46% said they do not know someone who Is gay or lesbian; of these, 55
% supported the same rights.

Among world religions, Buddhism is notable in that it does not condemn
homosexuality.

The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian
Bible until 1946. There are words in Greek for same-sex sexual activities, yet they never
appear in the original text of the New Testament.

In 1972 the United Church of Christ b




601,209 total gay and lesbian families were reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. 304,148 gay male families and 297,061 lesbian families.
Over 40 percent of same-sex "unmarried partner" couples have lived together in the same home for more than five years. Nearly one in four of the couples raise children. Two-thirds of these children live in the 43 states where "second parent" adoption is not guaranteed.
More than one in 10 gay and lesbian couples includes a senior over age 65. Nearly two-thirds of these couples have lived together for more than five years. If a partner dies, gays and lesbians, unlike their married counterparts, get no Social Security or other retirement-plan survivor benefits.
According to recent Gallup Polls, nearly nine in 10 Americans want bans on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ninety-two of the Fortune 100 companies ban such discrimination on the job, and nearly two-thirds of them offer health benefits to same-sex partners.
An estimated 1 million veterans in the United States are gay men or lesbians. Recent surveys suggest that four percent of U.S. adults are gay or lesbian and that 17 percent of gay men and eight percent of lesbians have served in the military.
Source: 2005 Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:05 PM

What are the statistics in Utah?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:18 PM

Hell, Rig, I dunno!!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:24 PM

Maybe they don't keep any!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 11:17 PM

I did not post that last post..so someone, stop using my name!!!

Amos, I am neither right wing, nor left. Your suppositions are clearly wrong.
The post I gave prior(Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM) was straight from 'textbook'!....although, I did editorialize in using the word 'assholes'. That being said, I used that, not to describe homosexuals, but rather those who spin the laws and definitions of their language, to manipulate, their unlawful wills upon the descending majority rule! Spin that anyway you want...but it doesn't alter nor change the fact!!
Hey, Happy New Year!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:21 AM

The fact you seem to be avoiding is that the people you are talking about are human beings.

You insist on dividing them out and painting them as something repulsive to you; that in itself is a repulsive thing to do. You make them into "a minority" trying to force an agenda on the majority. Well, so were African Americans, clearly disadvantaged by a genetic accident and all too ready to push their agenda on the god-fearing monority who wanted them kept separate.

There are some standards of humanity you mustnot let yourself be driven from, methinks.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:25 AM

One can assume that you are a Democrat..How is it, then, that you seem to support the pushing through policies, that circumvent the Democratic process?? I would think you'd be outraged, that a minority would be overturning our system with the legal shenanigans, of some slick and twisted lawyers...and furthermore, to compare homosexuals and their agenda with blacks, is absolutely ludicrous! Nobody is saying homosexuals(who elected to be homosexuals) is the same as blacks, nor do they have the same heritage, of being forced from their homelands, to be slaves, and now having multitudes of offspring, born here, are at all the same thing!! Neither is it fair to say homosexuals, should force religions to change their beliefs, because their sexual preference, which is opposed to that same existing belief system, wants the legitimacy and recognition,...by those who elect not to recognize, that lifestyle. Perhaps they should form their own 'religion', rather than coerce, and subvert, thereby corrupting, an EXISTING religious way of life, which is opposed to those principles, and tell them that they can't believe that way, any longer! That is completely ridiculous!
Same with the political system. Twice, now Californians have voted this down, only to be, 'overturned', by legal jargon, legalese...and then, denied(Jerry Brown), due process, to challenge???????????
You are in support of the destruction of our very legal process, that this society is made of...Although, our 'celebrity elect' will take office, at that point, he will be my president, whether I voted for him or not..That is the will of the majority vote....and until he screws up beyond repair, I will support him, and route for him to be not only a good president, but a great one.....because that is the will of our people!!..Why can't you see this principle applied to our democratic process??????

P.S. I DID NOT vote for McCain, either, nor am I a Republican right wing nut. There are both 'liberal' AND 'conservative' principles that I agree with, because I do my homework, and am opposed to certain corruptions of our system....this, my friend, is one of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:37 AM

This is not an issue of majority "rule".

If it were I would shutup entirely and drop the issue.

It is about whether citizenship and the common rights belonging thereto can be compromised by opinions about sexual propriety, and whether or not all men are created equal.

These are human beings who love and cry just as you do, for the same reasons. Let the majority react to whatever buttons they will, this fact will not change. As such they have the God-given right to love by choice, not by law.

You are not defending democracy under the law, but mob rule. Viva la difference.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:42 AM

"choice"
"preference"
"lifestyle"
"believe"

Yep. One day in each homosexual person's life he or she told his or herself, Well, now, I do believe that I will be homosexual. It is such an appealing way to live, so safe and so well respected. Everybody likes homosexuals.

**********

Ignorant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:55 AM

Injecting religious notions into issues of law is a dangerous, foolish path, by the way.

It is also illegal under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Or are you really interested in re-living those parts of history you are ignoring? Perhaps you have forgotten what it was like to burn at the stake or see babies born to the wrong religious sect put to the sword.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM

Ebbie, your post is silly

Amos, I was not interjecting religion into the issue of legislation, only using it as an analogy, as to one crashing their way into an EXISTING institution, and demanding it change to allow for their personal disposition. ...and it is a matter of the majority being denied due process, of both the democratic processes, including the right to appeal. That IS the issue that pisses me off, and should you, too!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:23 AM

That's the spirit, Ebbie. Then, years after somebody has chosen to go down that road, and they decide they want to change, and maybe live like the Cleavers, somebody could develope a 12 step program to help them recover. Rick Warren, possibly, or somebody a-political like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM

It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something.

Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like the Mormon Church--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some genetic characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot."

Marriage is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable marriages would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew.

Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe.

Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:59 AM

From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM

It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something.

Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like MOVE ON.ORG(Tax free status?) or ACORN(--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some ACQUIRED characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry AND CONCEIVE CHILDREN whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot. "
CIVIL UNIONS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable ROOM MATES would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew.

Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe. LIKE CIVIL CORPORATIONS!

Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural. WORKS BOTH WAYS!

YES AMOS, IT IS ABOUT OVERTURNING THE MAJORITY RULE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS...AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS ABOUT MARRIAGE, OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT, DOES NOT ALTER, OR CHANGE THAT FACT!!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:54 PM

Just curious GfS - how old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? Such an important decision in life should be pretty easy to recall.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:21 PM

There's no need to yell, GtS. I understand you have a different point of view, one about which you feel very assertive.

The "conceive and reproduce" aspect of marriage is often touted as the primary rationale behind formalizing civil coupling at all. But there are plenty of childless couples, whose marriages should not be annulled because they didn't obey the Pope and the Old Testament about multiplying. In this day and age of overpopulation, the ability to reproduce is hardly a major recommendation for honoring choices of partner.

The fact is the entire movement against gay marriage is an invented issue, blown up out of all proportion in order to give the right wing an issue to boil up about. The core function of the marriage proposition is the choice of two individuals, an exercised freedom that is inherent in their nature as human beings, regardless of their color, creed, choice of sexual practice, or shape of plumbing. Any two humans deserve the complete untrammeled right to make such a decision with their lives and to have it acknowledged socially as a legal civil state.

Or else, none do, and all legal propositions predicated on married versus unmarried states should be struck from the books forthwith. But this "separate and different" shtick does not work in civil codes of law.


A



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:48 PM

Amos, ..using the caps as I did was only done to highlight the changes to your text..sorry if you had the impression that I was yelling...I wasn't.......

As to the other complete asshole using my name...Joe, can you check the IP address on that person, and inform 'it', that using one name per user, is the correct protocol here...and to that asshole in particular, if you have something to say, use your own name(once again).

Will get back to you...I have somewhere to be right now...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:16 PM

Amos.... are you actually saying that ALL citizens are equal under the eyes of the law?

Wow, dude. Concept!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:31 PM

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Re majority rule. Ah, mob rule sucks, dude. Just because a majority of people who may not have the intellignce, the education, the experience, the wisdom... need I go on???... or any reasonable combination thereof, THINK they have the right to limit other peoples rights don't make it so. The right to swing one's arms freely in the air ends where the other fellow's nose begins.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM

Apparently, it can't be repeated often enough.

The voters can vote for or against something a hundred times over if they want, but that doesn't make it right.

Democracy? Yes, but a democracy with certain essential limitations. These limitations are there to protect such things as fundamental human rights and prevent "the Tyranny of the Majority."

A good example of what can go wrong with "pure" democracy—majority rule—is a lynch mob.

And wisely, we have laws against such things.

So just because something got the majority of the votes, that doesn't make it right. Or wise. Or moral, in the widest sense of the word.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM

Don be da man! And, we need some good wo/men these days.

Perhaps if we had a test for voter participation. Not necessarily knowledge of the issues... so many issues... I mean, who has time to keep oneself informed about the issues? Maybe it could be a simple test, like, say, be of average intelligence or above? And, that would then preclude religion from being a bias, too. Two dodos with one stone?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM

Seriously... what if we had a vote that did the the same thing to the stunned? Denied them a basic right?... denied them the right to vote based on their lack of intelligence? Makes more sense than mob rule, don't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM

LOL! That is another slippery slope indeed, Good Gnus. Scientific analysis by the very best people as to who shall be qualified to participate and who not? Oh, my!!

Oh, I know!! Let's impose a genetic screening!! Ban reproduction of life devoid of value!! Ooooo!!!! An enlightened Eugenic society, but this time, we can do it right!! With SCience!!

(Sorry, I wasn't aiming my sarcasm at you. )

I am afraid the best we can hope for is having to haul the whole lot of us up hill with ourselves. We have met the enemy, and he-R-us!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:50 PM

And who exactly comprise the "mob" on this issue?
The people I know and live beside are certainly no mob, they are quiet folks who mind their own business, none of them are evangelical not even very staunch church goers yet they believe in the traditional definition of marriage and have a strong sense of injustice when their beliefs are attacked by a mob of so called "liberals".

Every issue becomes politicised by the homosexual lobby,to oppose their agenda is to be branded right wing.....or worse, as can be seen on any thread which questions what is really happening to society.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:06 AM

"And who exactly comprise the "mob" on this issue?"


                      Mormon Tabernacle Choir


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:51 AM

"The fact you seem to be avoiding is that the people you are talking about are human beings.

You insist on dividing them out and painting them as something repulsive to you; that in itself is a repulsive thing to do!"

That statement Amos, is the crux of your argument and is completely nonsensical.

All minorities with different sexual orientations are "human beings"
Do you suggest we include some of the catagories mentioned by "bubblyrat" above?
If not, your statement is hypocritical as well as simplistic...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:27 PM

The knee-jerk reaction of the typical homophobe to the idea of same-sex marriage is to invoke the idea of someone wanting to marry his pet camel, warthog, or octopus. One wonders what other dark spiders grow in the dank recesses of their souls. . . .

Scene – South Africa, early twentieth century. British soldier runs into the captain's tent.
"Captain," he says excitedly, "Chumley is having sex with an ostrich!"
"Good Lord!" says the Captain. "Is the ostrich a female?"
"Of course, sir! There's nothing queer about old Chumley!"
Barbara and I are acquainted with few same-sex couples. In fact a nearby mainline church has married a number of same-sex couples. They're nice folks. In stable relationships. In fact, most of the same-sex marriages I've heard of are one helluvalot more stable than a lot of heterosexual marriages.

And I don't see how their marriages, in any way, affects Barbara's and my marriage.

Ake, why do you care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:39 PM

That's the shortest version of that joke I've ever seen or heard!! It usually meanders through several pages.

If the folks you are talking about are minding their own business, Ake, why do they seem so anxious to reject other people who would like to be able to mind their own business in the same peace?

What right do you--or they--claim to define the legal and civil state of union by choice and then assert it should not be available to a significant minority of citizens?

If you and your friends want to defend certain kinds of marriage as blessed or not blessed by one or another priest, church, or spiritual being, feel free--that is a religious issue. It should have nothing to do with the legal and civil status of couple-hood.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM

Ake???? "Do you suggest..." "If not, then..."

Oh my. That game can be played all day long and serve only to detract from logical debate.

What I suggest is rather a simple arguement: Homos want to participate in civil union. Both are legal. Heteros have no right to deny homos participation in civil union. Debate that and leave the rest of the crazy crap out of it.

I'll "suggest" one more thing about mob rule. We have government and legal systems that, among other things, protect the rights of individuals. These systems are based on decision making by experienced, knowledgible, intellignt... well, elected elders and those appointed by the elders. To ask Joe The Plumber to install your new electrical entrance panel is just stunned. Same deal with asking the general public to form appropriate legislation to deal with issues they have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to address. That is just stunned.

Now, if there WAS a vote to ban Gay Parades....

Have fun kids. gnightgnu.

BTW... I am in Canuckistan. We don't allow mob rule here... yet??? We'll see after Jan 26 how it goes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:01 PM

Amos, Are you suggesting that Obama was elected because of mob rule????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:15 PM

"are you suggesting..." again?

"... that Obama was elected because of mob rule."

I KNOW you didn't ask ME, but....

Not even close. The man earned it... over many years of hard work... amongst his peers in the fight to be considered for office.

I think I had better TRY to leave it to you kids... once more... have fun.

Once I get wound up... I cain't never stop... never stop....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM

I have no idea what I may have said to suggest that.

The election of a candidate to elective office is a normal function of democratic count. It does not endanger a minority in itself, except to disappoint them.

Bush's election is a study in what happens when the democratic count then empowers someone determined to undermine the rights of citizens.

The populus does not have the right, under the Constitution, to dirtectly vote away the civil rights of a minority--or of themselves. To change that would require a Constitutional Amendment, including ratification by the states. This means while it is not impossible, it is subject to a process that should give plenty of time for dialogue and reflection. As Franklin said, we have a republic IF we can keep it.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:28 PM

From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM

I have no idea what I may have said to suggest that.

I'm sorry ,Amos, the question belonged to Don Firth.

"A good example of what can go wrong with "pure" democracy—majority rule—is a lynch mob."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:32 PM

If they had all of the same rights, all the way down the line, but they decided to call if something other than marriage, I wonder if the gay community would buy that? Or is it just the fact that they want to call it "marriage?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:41 PM

Um . . . Guest from Bewilderment, how do you come up with that?

The election of a candidate is a normal, legal, Constitutionally mandated process, and it does not violate anyone's civil rights. This is an appropriate process. Consider it "mob rule" if you want, but it is perfectly legal and ethical, and the way this country choses its leaders. It may not be smart (see 2000 and 2004 elections), but it is Constitutional.

Voting to violate the civil rights of a minority is neither ethical, nor legal, nor Constitutional.

It strikes me that you're grasping for a straw that has insufficient bouyancy to keep your argument afloat.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM

Amos and Don the dynamic duo......You always cite beastiality as the get out clause when folks question the "normality" of homosexuality.

What about incest? I think that is a much better example. Do you think that two "human beings" who happen to be closely related should be deprived of the "right" to marry?.... and dont blabber on about health risks or I'll post the health statistics relating to homosexuality.........Your whole "liberal" PC stance is spurious and I suspect you both know it.

The real difference is that the homosexuals have a strong and well organised pressure group in the media with much more clout than they deserve....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM

Yeah, the beastiality proponents need to get their shit together.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM

Ake:

You are being a bit of an ass, by failing to differentiate between relationships which are genetically dangerous--such as inbred marriages--and those which have no genetic risk at all, such as lesbianism and homosexuality.

You are also throwing persiflage by arguing about the health risks of homosexual promiscuity in an argument about the civil rights to marriage. If anything, marriage as a commitment reduces promiscuity.

The core and key question in this cloud of stink is the matter of whether or not a civil status should be exclusive of some citizens who are capable of exercising it responsibly and enjoying its priveleges. You say this right should be exclusively limited to those who share your sexual persuasion.

This, at bottom, is pure bigotry.

The issue has nothing to do with public health, which is an independent variable.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM

Marriage increases promiscuity? And spreads sexually transmitted diseases?

Not on this planet.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:44 PM

From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM

Ake:

You are being a bit of an ass,....

How come when far left loons, when they can't answer a simple, logical question, based on fact, do they have to rely on name calling??..as if that resolves, or answers the question??

Ok, Then give a name to two people who proclaim publicly that they want to live together, and have children that they conceive themselves, and raise that family together. HINT: Its a name they use world over, from Samoa, to Tibet, Europe, Asia, China, Russi, Australia, South, and Central America, North America..and recognized globally. Then ask yourselves, is this the same situation that warrants the same name of two people who have an inability to do that, because of their sexual orientation.

It's called 'Marriage'...and I KNOW, so you don't have to beat a dead horse, that not all couples who get married, don't do it, for the reason of having children..however, that IS the model, and families ARE the basic fabric of civilizations and societies. It is no wonder, why 'redefining' what that basic building block is, that some people, whether religious based, or not, see that eroding away of that foundation, see it as a threat to their nations, culture, or society...especially when they are so vehement, in their attacks! If they want a different sexual 'preference'..they don't have to advertise is and throw it in everyone's face!..In like manner, nobody, inquires on here as to their sexuality to deny them of any dialogues or rights! Do we have to know how your wives squeak, or how you groan, or where you like it????...I do-o-o-n't think so!!

So, if they want to do what they do, the way they do, then call it whatever they want...but it is not 'Marriage' as known the world over, by every established society....any more than when a little girl dresses up in mommy's dresses and wears her high heels, makes her a woman or mother!!!
GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:51 PM

GfS, from your previous posts, I infer that you are a counselor; I would NEVER infer it from your statements. I do believe that you are sick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know, YOU have a problem. I'm sure the heterosexual sex act disgusts many homosexuals, but they have the common decency to not go on about it in public. You fantasize about who squeaks or groans and where they like it. They don't stick it in your face so much as you stick your face in it, and that's more than a bit perverted.

In any case, this thread has pretty much gone back to everybody's usual scripts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:18 PM

I'm sorry Amos....I don't usually name call and it was meant in fun, but this is quite a serious subject; not homosexuality (the rights and wrongs), but the way in which a minority can subvert the majority without them even realising what is going on.

Now you and Don both maintain that Guest and I are homophobic bigots because we don't share your views, I can't speak for Guest but by his/her other writing I would say we more or less agree on this subject. For myself, I would submit that I am less of a bigot and more of a libertarian than both of you put together.

If anyone wants to fuck their sister, their auntie,or another man, I say good luck to them let, them get on with it as long as the sister, auntie, or other man wants the same as they do. What they do in private is their business, but there is no bastard in the world going to tell me, Mudcat, or society at large, that their business is normal human behaviour and we must give up our long held traditional beliefs to accomodate it,or hand over very young children in a bizarre social experiment......Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 04:47 PM

There are many marriages that have no offspring; there are many offspring who have no marriages. Marriage is not a commitment to breed; it is a commitment to partner for life.

Ake, I do apologize for spouting names, but this has gone roundy-round a few many times, and I think that the core issue is being ignored.

You and GfS both seem to think that the civil rights accorded to marriage are about reproduction, although you have no qualms extending those civil rights to non-reproducing heterosexuals, or asexuals.

This is just self-contradictory with other statements about your liberal nature.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 05:59 PM

Ake, I used the word "homophobe" not ncessarily in relation to you or anyone specific here, but if you want to put the shoe on and announce that it fits, that's your choice.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

"Now you and Don both maintain that Guest and I are homophobic bigots because we don't share your views, I can't speak for Guest but by his/her other writing I would say we more or less agree on this subject. For myself, I would submit that I am less of a bigot and more of a libertarian than both of you put together"

Shoe?...Fit?.....Bullshit!!.....:0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Not a homophobe, then, Ake.

Just willing to rule them out roundly without a second thought from your circle of marital privilege?



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:47 PM

From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know,.....blah blah blah....
......Ever seen a 'Gay Pride Parade'????????????

I am glad to see, though, that the bigger issue is finally being addressed. Ake's post is correct..as mine is, as well...and, The post I gave prior(Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM) was straight from 'textbook'!...a post that the ideologues seem to just slough off, to spout some erroneous talking points from a lame political 'point', that is founded on completely uneducated nonsense!!!!

Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights. They are, however not being deluded enough, though to call how they want to live 'Marriage', though...because its not, nor will ever be!
    Sanity, your use of copy-paste quotations bothers me, particularly since it's unclear what you're quoting and what you're saying yourself. I'd suggest you quote less often and address the issue rather than the person - it keeps the animosity level down if you don't make things personal. If you do quote, use <i>italics</i> to show what's what. Thanks.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: fumblefingers
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:57 PM

Get the rest of the world to agree to and to put it into actual practice and maybe I'll take another look at it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:10 AM

Most of the rest of the world already does...sweetheart!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:52 AM

Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights.

Really? They have the legal right to declare themselves married to a person of their choice and have it recognized under the law?

Well, that's all right then.

If not, whether you care to face it squarely or not, you are in fact denying them a civil right, because of their minority status. Are you saving up for dual-system drinking fountains too?



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:00 AM

Amos, that is silly. I have the right to declare myself married to a camel..so what???
Somehow, you must have missed a few prior posts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:24 AM

"Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights."

             They're being denied civil rights if they can't name a partner on a health insurance policy, or own community property, or any number of other benefits that are afforded married couples.

             If they could have those things, would that satisfy them, or would they continue to push to force churches to marry them in the same manner that minorities bring suits against motels for not renting rooms, or sue resaurants for not serving them.
             At that point, it seems to me, you would have two aspects of the constitution in conflict. The government involving itself in religion, as opposed to a public business refusing service for irrational reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:44 AM

Rig, anyone can name anyone else on a policy, if they want to pay for it, just not as a 'married' couple. Anyone can own anything they want as joint owners,..just put both names on the title. Never heard of a restaurant refusing to serve them.......
However, (and the other hack jobs at PETA will back me on this one) they won't serve me and my camel...not even at the 'Tavern on the Village Green', in New York, no matter how much I tipped the Matre'D. Think I should sue???? I mean PETA thinks animals should have the same rights as humans, right???? My camel will make a wonderful spouse!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:51 AM

You're spinning hard, girl, but I don't believe you're making the turn. You keepignoring the core fact: the status "M" has certain legal rights of inheritance, tax, and insurance rights that come with it.

Those are the specific rights your policy denies people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

To do so is unjust.

Camels have nothing to do with it.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 03:11 AM

A will and a trust, or living trust can be drawn up any way one wants to, Mr. Bright


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 04:40 AM

See, what some of you don't get, is that homosexuals can do just about anything they want to do, or mimic, or imitate any domestic living situation they want, with any of the rights afforded normal married couples. But, that is not what they want, nor is it the goal, of those exploiting their grievances, with all the ballyhooing about their rights being 'denied'!..and if it wasn't for the emotional immaturity that is inherent, in their nature, they'd be doing just that...and no one would hardly notice or care...Have you ever seen a 'hetero pride' parade, where functioning, married, hetero couples flaunt their sexuality????...especially in the manner the homos flaunt theirs??? Why do you think that is?? What is with the 'shock value' that goes along with the disgusting, and lewd behavior these people parade around in public?? Are you so naive to think this is a 'celebration' of their 'hip liberated' mentalities??? ..Come on, reach deep. Both myself, and Ake, along with a few others, see it and call it for what it really is....and neither of us have broached any 'religious' or spiritual moralization, on the matter. Why is it, that homosexuals feel such a need to have established religions change their beliefs, to accommodate their deviance??...So they can worship God better?????? Come on, get past your political, persuasions, and ask yourselves, 'Why?' Considering they can do, and in all practicality, do, do what they want, just what is it they want???
For those who go as far as getting trans gender operations, do any of you know the massive and intensive amount of counseling, and re-orientation that goes with it, before the final operation is performed????? You think its just a matter of preference??? Or elective surgery, done on a whim????!! or even done as cavalierly as liposuction or breast augmentation?? You think this is as lightweight as where someone wants to stick it, or be stuck by it??? You think because a guy or a woman decides to be the other sex, its just a matter of 'I think I'll do it this way, or that way'? Do you actually think men and women think and feel intuitively alike?????
No, dear Mudcatters, this is far more of a derailment, than I think many of you have pondered...and its NOT just a political question or answer. To even think it is, is just a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, not to mention a lack of compassion, and understanding, of the psyche and emotional damages that accompany, those who have found it 'convenient' to disregard their own gender and traits...and now seek acceptance, in lieu of help!!
Like I've said before, however anyone wants to slice it up, re-hash it, redefine it, or go through the motions of it, 'marriage' it will never be, and certainly not by the majority, of not only this country, but the rest of the world (or Heaven, if you will).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 AM

If I'm covered by health insurance at work, I can add a spouse and children under my care. I can't include anyone else. Those are the options.

                  In states with community property laws, if I own a house, my spouse owns the house as well. I can't exclude her/him, and I can't sell the house without her/his cooperation. Those rights only pertain to a spouse.

                  I won't try to second guess homosexual goals, but the government is treating them differently than other citizens. That's unconstitutional.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:12 AM

I said I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know,.....

Mart... I mean GfS said ......Ever seen a 'Gay Pride Parade'????????????

So THAT'S your problem--watching Gay Pride parades all the time. (You must have videos because they don't happen all that often.) We don't have them in my area, we have actual gay people who mostly don't act like horny drunk people during Mardi Gras. I can't imagine what they must be doing during those parades, but you might consider not going to so many if they upset you so, and not continuously replaying the videos. If your opinion comes solely from obsessing over a parade, well... the things I could say about that stupid Pink Panther, or Wile E. Coyote! Hmff!

Sooner or later, the scorpion does what a scorpion must do
This thread has jumped the shark and I'm out. (We need a term that means the same basic thing but is more appropriate to the internet.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:22 PM

Running out to the extremes to make an argument that is not applicable to the majority of same-sex people is pretty butt-ugly logic. I am sorry for your constant state of near-nausea, but you're gonna have to grow up some day.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:45 PM

    Sanity, your use of copy-paste quotations bothers me, particularly since it's unclear what you're quoting and what you're saying yourself. I'd suggest you quote less often and address the issue rather than the person - it keeps the animosity level down if you don't make things personal. If you do quote, use <i>italics</i> to show what's what. Thanks.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM

If you are upset by Gay Pride parades, don't go to them.

And if you are upset at the thought of someone humping with their pet camel, stop thinking about it.

Or, deep down, does that really excite you a bit?

I'm really suspicious of those who object the most strenuously to same-sex marriage, or who are concerned at all with what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Why do you care? Look into a mirror and ask yourself, "Why do I care!??"

Or would that be too frightening?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 04:04 PM

My god!! No sane person cares! Do you really not understand what this discussion is about?
I think you do know, but are reduced to making simplistic personal comments rather than address the real points raised by his discussion.
I don't just mean you Don...jeri's post was disgraceful.
At least Amos attempts to address the issues most of the time...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM

Jeri's post was right on the money. It's the comments of a few other people on this thread that's disgraceful.

Yes, Ake, I fully understand the real issues here.

Do you?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM

The issue is nothing to do with churches or any of your precious, albeit bewildering, religions.

The issue is LAW. In this country law and religion are separate matters. Under LAW a minority is denied privileges available to a majority purely on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the disputed Proposition. By fundamental principle this is an unconstitutional action, or effort.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 11:19 PM

Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. If you ain't got that, you ain't got nothin'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:11 AM

Sorry I took so long..I've been watching the news quite a bit today..

Ok..down the line: Rig, the law isn't restricting homosexuals from being homosexuals or the practice thereof. Actually, there is more laws restricting smokers, but non-smokers have their objections to them. Are you suggesting that people don't have the right to be offended, or being concerned about homosexuals, and their behavior in public,that draws attention to their 'orientation' as you call it??..A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Amos, The same can be applied to your reply, however you brought in the religious issue. I don't think you seem to understand that to the religious community, the 'law' that governs them is vastly more strict about this issue than secular law. There is a difference between trying to force them to change the tenets, of their beliefs by attacking them, and churches, just not wanting to sanction the permissiveness that they deem immoral.
P.S. to that: I found it interesting that Mormons, who still hold to polygamy, (though discreetly), should help finance opposition to homosexuality. Perhaps more attention to 'Love thy neighbor, as theyself' should be in order, and garner more attention!
Don, That as I saw, with her link, may be true...but those comments were not made by me....On your first post, I don't go to them nor watch them, other than what comes up on the news,.they are a disgrace! The camel analogy was used to illustrate, that somewhere, someone,(in this case PETA, who believes that animals should be given the same rights as humans) could ridiculously raise the same bullshit about discrimination...and in their minds, they'd feel justified...though in reality, their just whacked out. Sorry, you needed that explained to you, at least that's my clue, that you don't have much of one!
Joe, I didn't 'cut and paste'!...hope everyone knows what they wrote before that I'm commenting on...their positions vacillate in logic so much, I wasn't sure if they could remember!
Jeri, As pointed out to you by another post...well yours just too stupid, to comment on. Try again after some coffee and ginkgo biloba, and a few years.
and back to Rig, I guess smokers are discriminated against, too..because they have to pay higher rates..if accepted at all. For anyone's information ONLY.02% got that??..2/10,000, are born, with a gene that is claimed by 97% of homosexuals claim they are born with, that makes them 'unable' to be attracted to the opposite sex, and in fact, gives them the 'attributes' of being a female being trapped in a male body, and vice versa!! I guess the smokers analogy, just isn't that far off, then, is it???
Ake, Do you play an instrument, or write lyrics, I'd love to hear them! At least your brain works, and if it was 'protest songs', or something creative, at least it promises not to be the same dribble and drivel, as driven by media talking points. I've wondered if you were a fan of Frank Zappa, who was of course, the satirical voice of conscience of his generation....
The rest can join together in a chorus of Kumbayah', as long as they delete all references, and lyrics to 'Lord'...just to be 'politically correct'!....Bet you I made no friends on this post....unless the sky broke open, and a bolt of lightning hit someone, causing them a new experience, called 'thinking, and reason'!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:19 AM

Oh, I nearly forgot,
Ebbie, I left out a lot of commas, just for you. Being as you'd rather count commas, than read text,(or understand it), so,I thought I'd do you the favor!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:47 AM

Akenaton,
   I thought I'd post this for you. Though it is 'satirical', there's a lot more truth to this, than one might think. The progression of the story/lyrics, resembles the truth, a lot closer than the lame explanations used to excuse it!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIoLr8CJzk0&feature=related


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 02:58 AM

GtS, thank you for the revelations. I've decided that you are more to be pitied than censured so carry on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 03:48 AM

Sanity - your posts regularly border on personal attacks, and I have received a number of complaints about you. Like I said, address the issues, not the people. And yes, it's clear that you continually copy-paste excerpts of posts from others. If you cannot refrain from insulting people, I will be forced to begin deleting all posts from you that address individuals. It's good to hear your opposing point of view, but stick to the issues.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:07 AM

Come Joe, be fair, since when have the pro homosexual marriage brigade stuck to the issues.....they unfailingly resort to personal abuse when their opinions are questioned. If you don't agree you are branded a bigot or much worse....They don't look at statistics, or listen to alternative arguments, they just reach for the tar brush!

I have been one of you strongest supporters here in the difficult job you do....although we rarely see eye to eye.

I never take up your valuable time by complaining when I become irritated by the childish abuse levelled at me by long term forum members, so they feel free to use words like "vile", "Homophobe", "bigot", etc to describe my views. The only time I was tempted to complain was when one young lady sggested that I probably abused my own children.....this without any comment from moderators or clones!

However, if guest is to be censured for his/her posts....which dont seem personal,unless in response to a snidey insult,....then Don, jeri, and even wee Kat deserve a word of criticism.....Ake
    Ake, note that I do not question "Sanity's" right to express an opinion. What I question is the practice of including unclearly-distinguished quotations in posts; and addressing individuals in a confrontational manner, instead of primarily addressing issues. This makes for a troublesome, provocative tone to these posts.
    -Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:43 PM

The issue is LAW. In this country law and religion are separate matters. Under LAW a minority is denied privileges available to a majority purely on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the disputed Proposition. By fundamental principle this is an unconstitutional action, or effort.

Two free, adult human beings decide to marry. They fill out the forms, are duly ceremonied and witnessed, and the form is filed with the county or state. They are married.

In consequence these people have certain rights of inheritance, certain tax statuses, certain spousal rights to represent each other, certain health benefits, and sundry other bits and pieces of status allowed by laws.

According to current law, this process may not be overridden by other people on the basis of race, religion, blood type, hair color, skin color, pH level, political preference, metaphysical viewpoints, ear-size, shoe size, eye color, number of digits remaining, height, habits of tobacco, vulnerability to alcohol, left-handedness, epithelial folds, rate of hair curl, facial asymmetry, or degree of spine curvature.

Yet in your high wisdom and sanctity, you decree that sexual yearning alone, of all the attributes men and women have, should serve as a completely sufficient basis to deny this privilege to an individual.

Of course, there have been, in more repressive times, many cases where a homosexual man married a heterosexual woman. Should these marriages, then, be searched out and nullified? Perhaps a special police force organized?

There have been many cases where heterosexual men married women who turned out to be lesbians. Would you like to offer a resolving decree for these cases?

Or do you not care at all about the sexual proclivities as long as one Dongle and one Vagina are correctly distributed amongst the participants, regardless of what they do with said shapes?

Oh, and may they invite their friends over later? Please? For some experimental activities? Oh, please? They will fill out the forms if you want....do you need triplicate plans?

Pfffffft. This is clearly bigotry, no matter how much the Defenders of Purity insist it is not.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 03:40 PM

Ok, then let's get this straight, using nothing but the cold hard facts! Homosexuality is NOT a political issue. It is, in FACT, A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE!! ...and can, and as has been treated effectively, as such! This is not an 'opinion', but a reality. To just throw money,(other people's I may add) at it, is just an indication, of how far the disconnect, between reality, and certain political agendas, who dig up anything to champion, and bitch about, rather than those very same people, lifting an understanding, and compassionate heart to deal realistically, about it!

   Yes, I know some homosexuals, who are very gifted and creative people, who in my opinion, border on genius, some who have taught, and worked with me, in both music, sound, and laser engineering, but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up. I know of which I speak, and what I just posted, is indeed accurate!

Unless any of you that understand that, I guess you're stuck with turning it into a political issue, and with sterility, just accept them in large numbers, and stay uninvolved, and placate them to launder your own lack of understanding, care, or involvement...and still convince yourselves that you're doing 'something'!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 04:19 PM

Your opinion of their mental health --which you offer as a cold hard fact--is cold enough, but it is neither hard nor fact. It is an amateur piece of psychobabble.

Deep sadness? What else is new? Everyone has their own, I suppose, at some level, if only by reason ofbeing bound to the Earth.. It is quite judgemental of you to sweep every same-sex person into a mental health category because you have met some sad ones. I know some who are generally bright, productive, loving and happy with their lives. People who, I would say, are in better mental health than you are!

Is it possible you are projecting here?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM

"Come Joe, be fair, since when have the pro homosexual marriage brigade stuck to the issues..."

I have. (Even tho it is NOT marriage... it IS CIVIL UNION!!!!... when are you gonna get with the fuckin program????... pun intended)


And I am not a pro. The only kinda pro I am is a master debater.

As someone who masters (I have a degree to prove it) in logical debate and analysis, I must say that the lot of you antis seem to misunderstand elementary debating.

Fact... being a homo is legal.

Fact... civil union is legal.

Fact... all persons are equal under the law.

Fact... your arguement is completely fucked up.

Now, even tho I dislike many of the ramifications of the obvious outcome of this debate...

Fuck off and leave these people alone. They are not hurting YOU. You are hurting THEM.

gnightgnu


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 04:49 PM

Amos, you have just shown me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about. It appears to me, that you argue issues armed with uninformed 'opinions', and nothing else. You have further convinced me, though, that you merely spout off, opinions adopted by a political bias, that in itself, is not grounded in fact, reality, or anything of sound mind. My advice to you, is that you seek professional help, as this narrow mindedness probably affects other parts of your life, and happiness, as well.....and that is the 'opinion' of someone who is educated, and highly so, in this field.
GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 05:18 PM

Guest from Insanity, your post above is way out of line in any rational discussion. It's simply rude, insulting, and just plain wrong.

####

There is a correlation between same-sex orientation and a particular lobe of the hypothalamus (for verification, do some googling yourself—it's there: "homosexuality" + "hypothalamus").

There are several implications of this discovery (made in the 1990s, I believe). One is that there may be a genetic component to same-sex orientation. Another is that it is based on the structure of the individual's hypothalamus, hence it is not a matter of choice as some try to claim. Nor is it a mental health issue.

Since it may very well have a genetic component, that means that discrimination against folks with same-sex orientation is like discrimination against people with blue eyes, or different shaped eyes, or differently shaded skin.

It is a civil rights issue.

Case closed!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. I need professional help, and so does every homosexual human under the sun. Having been advised in this analysis by a true expert, there's no way out. I will seek the help of a professional.

Say, GfS, are you one, yourself? A professional, I mean. I'm looking for a highly qualified jolly walker, or maybe a sex therapist. Obviously, I have a lot to learn.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 05:36 PM

Well, the people who reject civil union are the homosexual fundies.
As Mr McGrath said long ago it does all boil down to redefinition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

Would they reject civil unions, if civil unions gave them all of the entitlements of marriage?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:42 PM

As far as I am aware, in the UK civil union has all the legal entitlements,but of course it is the word which is important.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:46 PM

Getting in to semantic horseplay is not going to clarify anything.

All marriage-under-law is civil, by nature. The other hankypanky--blessings from old wankers in pointy hats or whathaveyou--is of no interest to anyone, I am sure.


So are you saying, there must be two separate but equal versions of the same union? One for opposite-poles, one for like?

That's an awful waste of harumph and paper and office space given that it is an identical function being subdivided by a superficial opinion. Why would anyone need to maintain separate but equal facilities for filing papers?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:08 PM

Over the top, eh? Yeah. I kinda figured that. But, it's true.

Oh, got a PM... figured I would save any others some tine.... no, I am not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

Don, As I posted in an earlier post, political pressure was applied to get the medical community, and its training, in the professions, to change homosexuality from a dysfunction, as all living things on this planet primary attribute is to survive and reproduce, to merely an 'orientation' or 'preference'. Though alternative debates have arisen, yours and Amos's are an offshoot, stemming from the highly publicized, politically motivated, claims, the are founded on 'junk science', not accurate and proven treatment, of this treatable condition. The figures I gave you, are accurate, and whatever website you researched, may be just a product of 'politically pressured' re-adaptations, of 'junk science'...which is no science, at all.....Sorta' like global warming is caused by SUV'S.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM

Me neither, If I were, it would come as one helluva surprise to both me and my wife.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM

P.S...Don, those pressures, I spoke of, on my prior post, just to clarify, were done in the mid seventies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:20 PM

Cross posted.

Sounds to me like you're positing an International Gay and Lesbian Conspiracy, there, Guest from Bewilderment. Right up there with the Illuminati, eh?

They now control the scientific community?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM

So, GfS: you view homosexuality as an elective lifestyle, perhaps a desperate solution to deep unhappiness or intolerable stress in life?   

Wonders never cease--the whole body of evidence on genetic (non-elective) causes of homosexuality is bogus??? Politically generated BS? Wow!!!

I am really glad you tipped me off before I said anything embarrassing.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:27 PM

Look Don, I shot it to you straight...you are entitled to believe what you like..or make up your own stuff, and believe it...it's up to you...but to try to convince me that what is, isn't, is a waste of both our time. It's really very simple....I'm right....and your wrong. I have a working history with results, and you don't. It's really simple.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:37 PM

C'mon, folks, get a clue!

A few years ago, in a conversation with a friend whom I knew to be gay, on the idea that being gay was a matter of choice, he said, "When you consider that being gay can get you ostracized from friends—and even your own family—can get you fired from your job, and can even get you repeatedly beat up in a dark alley—or killed—who in his right mind would choose to be gay?"

Don Firth

P. S. On television a couple of days ago, I heard an interview with a member of Congress. When the interviewer alluded to some political issue he was trying to deal with (relating to the economy) and asked him if he anticipated a hard time with it, he remarked, "Hey, I'm gay, I'm Jewish, and I'm left-handed! How much harder can it get!??"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:39 PM

it seems to me...

When scientific doctrine tries to hit religious dogma, it wrongly aims at the head, believing that reason resides there.

When religious doctrine hits scientific observation it always aims for the groin.




I think Rev. Ted Haggard should have the lifestyle he wants.
That is one dude that proves that "if it quacks like a dick...I mean duck...its a duck."

Same goes for J Edgar Hoover or King David in Bible who was a real queen at times.

Obama has some good quotes similar to RFK on the subject.
You might even google an Obama Quote generator and have some fun.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:40 PM

True wisdom begins with hearing a person with more wisdom than you, and listening to that person, the way you'd want that person to listen to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM

Re: your last post addressed to me, GfS, it sound to me like you're getting a bit desparate. If I'm wrong and you're right, Let's have some documentation.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:43 PM

Are you afraid that gays are going to outbreed us and take over the world?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:45 PM

Homosexuals out breed...what?????....I think you just said it all...Don't bother.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:58 PM

So--no documentation then. . . .

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM

""But, that is not what they want, nor is it the goal, of those exploiting their grievances, with all the ballyhooing about their rights being 'denied'!..and if it wasn't for the emotional immaturity that is inherent, in their nature, they'd be doing just that...and no one would hardly notice or care...Have you ever seen a 'hetero pride' parade, where functioning, married, hetero couples flaunt their sexuality????...especially in the manner the homos flaunt theirs??? Why do you think that is?? What is with the 'shock value' that goes along with the disgusting, and lewd behavior these people parade around in public??""


And these are the words of a person who claims NOT to be bigotted.

Words which positively DRIP malice and prejudice.


""For anyone's information ONLY.02% got that??..2/10,000, are born, with a gene that is claimed by 97% of homosexuals claim they are born with, that makes them 'unable' to be attracted to the opposite sex, and in fact, gives them the 'attributes' of being a female being trapped in a male body,""


And the words of a person who refers to "junk" science, while being unable to distinguish between a homosexual, and a transexual.

That reall helps your argument GfS

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM

This is the kind of thinking of people who are obsessed with the subject. So over the top it verges on the silly, if it weren't for the harm it can do.

Look up "gay conspiracy" on google. You'll run into a lot of the same kind of anti-gay, anti-same-sex marriage nonsense that's being spouted on this thread.

And these folks are saying that it's gays who are sick. . . .

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:04 PM

"'Hey, I'm gay, I'm Jewish, and I'm left-handed! How much harder can it get!??'"


                Nothing you can do about being gay, or left handed, but being Jewish is a choice, so it doesn't belong in there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:20 PM

Yeah, but that's a whole nother subject.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:27 PM

Rig:

You crack me up sometimes, man. :D



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM

It's important to inject some gaiety into the conversation sometimes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 10:12 PM

Borrowed from another post on another forum, some excerpts:

"Family fears of catching homosexuality, or of being recruited at school or elsewhere are utterly without scientific foundation." ~ Dr. Jack Weinberg, President American Psychiatric Association, October 6, 1977.

"Sexual orientation is deep-seated and not something one chooses to be or not to be." ~ Dr. Alan P. Bell, senior author of "Sexual Preference", Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, Indiana University Press, 1981.

Gays and Lesbians are not recruted into homosexuality and are not brainwashed into it: "Gay and lesbian children are often aware of being different at a very early age. They generally become aware of their sexual orientation during adolescence or early adulthood. ~ R.R. Troiden, "The Formation of Homosexual Identities", The Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 43-73.

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." ~ The American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association, July 1994.

"Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments." ~ Taken from the American Psychological Association Statement on Sexual Orientation, July, 1994.

"No scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any therapies that attempt to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals." ~ John C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich, eds., Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, Newbury Park, Calf.: Sage, 1991.

"All attempts fail when gay people try to become heterosexual." ~D. C. Haldeman, "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, p.221-227, 1994.

"Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help."" ~Dr. Raymond Fowler, American Psychological Association Executive Director

"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." ~American Psychiatric Association

"1. According to scientists at the University of Texas, the cochlea (a structure in the inner ear) in lesbians is different than in heterosexual women.

2. This difference was discovered by using a test which measurs the sound that the cochlea makes while responding to a soft clicking sound.

The results show that lesbians have weaker click responces than heterosexual women and are more like those of men (the cochlea in heterosexual women is more sensitive than in men).


Dennis McFadden, who was the lead conductor of the study, believes that the cochlea of lesbians might be affected by hormone exposure from before birth and presumes that unknown sites of the brain which influence sexual orientation might also be affected.

3. In 1991, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, Simon LeVay, examined the brain tissue from 41 people.

He found that a structure within the hypothalamus called the INAH3 of heterosexuals was twice the size of the INAH3 of homosexuals, thus pointing to a bilogical origin of homosexuality.

4. J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura from the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada, compared the number of ridges on the index finegr and thumb on the left hand with the number of ridges of the thumb and index finger on the right hand.

The study found that 30% of homosexuals have more ridges on the left hand while 14% of heterosexuals shared the same trait.

This indicates a genetic origin of homosexuality, perhaps even before birth, since finger prints develop during the 17th week of the fetus stage.

5. Dean Hamer from the National Cancer Institute led a study which compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. They discovered that nearly all shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (which is one of the two sex chromosomes), thus pointing to the conclusion that homosexuality has a genetic component.

6. Scientists have observed homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
Gay chimpanzees, gay sheep, gay fruit (no pun intended) flies, and gay penguins. While some may argue it is simply animal lust, the gay penguins counter this... gay penguins have been seen in lifelong relationships thus indicating loving feelings and not just animal lust (which we all have in us).

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a given and cannot be changed by doctors; and trying to do so is harmful to the patients and often leads to suicide attempts, and sadly some of the attempts are successful.


Sources of the information in this essay:

http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/studies.html

www.qtonline.com/columns/birdsandbees/penguin.asp

www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/961212behavgene.html"

(All cited at
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayrelig/743.html



I include these not to bolster the legal case, which stands alone, but to rebut some of the kneejerk homophobic mealy-mouthed twitterpates.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM

To be fair, there is a good deal of opinion amongst professionals that essentially says it is the particular confluence of genes, experience, environment and education which combine as formative elements in individual cases of homosexuality.

One group of such quotes can be found on this page. None of which changes the legal issue a whit.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:46 PM

Two questions arise:

1) If those who so vehemently denigrate the gay "lifestyle" were to discover irrefutably that homosexuality is caused by physical differences, would they then change their views? Or would they insist that those who are homosexual must deny themselves and remain celibate all their lives?

2) Would these same people be willing to deny themselves?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 02:45 AM

Well, now that mob rule has once again gone a muck.......and all you are so sure, as to put your best 'arguments' on the line(because some argue for arguments sake).....check this out....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:53 AM

Amos, I read carefully your lengthy and researched post. Because I shouldn't 'paste and cut' and answer each of the assertions, one by one, to completely debunk them, I hope you may have watched the video, which certainly refutes the erroneous 'findings' (which dates, I noticed began exactly when I said political pressure was put on the medical and psychiatric community). This video, I'm surprised you didn't come across in your search...or maybe you did, but nonetheless, I found it on my first try. His assertions are near identical to what I told you before..and I had not seen it, until moments before I posted it. Though his techniques differ from mine, it is based, as I said before, on understanding, compassion and sensitivity toward his clients...not a political stance or proving a point, to justify bogus claims.

Therefore: All finding and policies based bogus data, are in part, or in it's entirety, erroneous!!!!

Sorry!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:39 AM

Interesting thesis about bonding with the opposite-gendered parent. I have only seen the first few minutes of the gentleman's interview. I am not sure what quality of evidence a talk-show clip is. Is his bok, and its research, available on line?

The debate over etiology is really not germane, imho, to the proposition that legal marriage should be uniformly applicable to any couple regardless of their orientation.

Under the law, how do you apply the doctrine that all humans are created equal with the Orwellian porposition that heteros are "more equal" than non-heteros?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM

From GfS:
"'junk science'...which is no science, at all.....Sorta' like global warming is caused by SUV'S"

At the request of GfS that anyone not expert in the field should not debate him or her on the causes of homosexuality, I have stayed out of this.

In the interests of reciprocity, this would be the time to request that non-experts in earth systems science should stay out of the climate change debate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM

The Southern Medical Journal reports (Aug 1980) that "the range of expression of homosexuality and its association with certain cultural, environmental, and genetic factors are most consistent with the concept of a multifactorial trait. Additionally, genetic heterogeneity in this phenotype (alternative mutants corresponding to a single phenotype) is highly probable. In certain nonhuman and presumably in human species the normal sexual development of the hypothalamus is guided by an appropriate exposure to androgen at a critical early stage, and this in turn presumably contributes to sociopsychologic sex development. Particularly instructive in this regard have been the monogenic experiments of nature in man--XY females with insensitivity to androgens, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and male pseudohermaphrodites (5-alpha-reductase deficiency). Additionally, in the human, sociopsychologic sex also appears to be molded by sex assigned at birth and sex of rearing. Several of the intersexuality syndromes and psychoses are accompanied by increased homosexuality, but a majority of homosexuals are not in these categories. A limited number of family studies, including twins, tentatively suggests a heritable risk, at least in some families." (Italics added).

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM

I wonder what all of that would mean if it were written in Hemingway-esque sentences?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM

Good one, Rig!

Get to work on it, Amos. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM

Or in the style of Mickey Spillane - Amos or Rapaire could do it, I know.

Or Norman Mailer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM

Rig, To answer you question, they would be short sentences.
Amos, ok, I see you are really trying to ferret out the truth..so, because of that, which I respect, if you want to get to the bottom of the discrimination, I would certainly look in the direction of the insurance lobbyists, and their connection with the medical community, and who fund the 'studies', and the politicians, who legislate the laws. It is in that direction that the misinformation is sent out, and exploited. Ever notice, that through a home owners policy, everyone in your home can be covered, whether they are related or not, even renters, if you rent a portion of your home...but not, a homosexual, through your employer, as one poster correctly posted. This is not a matter of laws, and civil rights, this is a matter of the insurance industry's policies. So, all those who look to the civil rights issue, are barking up the wrong tree, which, of course, is where they want you barking! In several posts I have posted, I have repeatedly sounded off about corruption. This is just one area to which I am referring. Because of these lobbyists, we have an unaffordable health care system, which is also in shambles. I am sure they will vehemently oppose any heath care reform, and certainly oppose a one payer system, as proposed by Obama, during his campaign. Fortunately, there ARE some physicians, and counselors, in the field who understand this, and will work with a client. Ever notice new medicines coming out for never heard of diseases???..who's side effects are worse than what is being treated??..I think it would be safe, to include the pharmaceutical, companies as well(duh)! Many doctors, only back up the false studies, because, they get paid from the insurance companies..who in turn only pay out a fraction of what is being paid in, on premiums!!..So there you have it in a nutshell. Instead of 'shooting the messenger'(me..or Ake, who understands what I'm saying), I thank, and am grateful for Mudcat Forum, for a place, to give you accurate information..about what has been a devastation of our medical community, and corrupt politicians...for which we all have fallen victim to.

Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land...(Pete Seeger)

'You've been lied to for so long, that when I come and tell you the truth, you do not believe me'...(Jesus of Nazareth)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM

Sometimes Norman Mailer doesn't make a lot of sense, though! I'd settle for Raymond Chandler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM

Heinlein, is pretty good too


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:18 PM

The Pope, leader of the worlds billions of Catholics, has said that the practice of homosexuality is as much a danger to humanity as the destruction of the rain forests.
Pope Benedict is reckoned by the experts to be the most learned Pope in history, but I would disagree with his opinion. My view is that homosexuality is in our society, strongly promoted by a vociferous pressure group and we must accept that fact and try to deal with it fairly. However society should not allow the practice to become "normalised" through apathy, fear, or coercion, The male homosexual life expectancy and health statistics should be a warning to society that "normalisation" as in "marriage" (the word), or the fostering of children, is not in the interests of all.
AS no proof whatsoever has been brought forward on a genetic link, I am inclined to agree with guest that the condition is largely psychological in nature, and a symptom of a society in decay.

That is my view as an atheist....not a religious fundamentalist and if you "liberals" don't like it I dont give a flying fuck. If you think either guest or myself bigots, what is your opinion of the leader of the Catholic Faith?

If my friend Benny had said "Liberals" are a bigger danger to humanity than deforestation, I would certainly have agreed with him....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:27 PM

It is not a question of "liking it", Ake. It is a question of pinning down the truth as well as we can.

The point where civil rights become involved is when the public seeks to set aside the State Constitution in order to express a bias against a minority. Your moral indignation, or nausea, or your sweeping generalizations about the decline of society, have no bearing on the issue. Let me point out that there were just as many homosexuals per capita during the more-conservative Fifties--but they were suppressed into hiding in fear. You think that would be an improvement, I suppose?

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Nick
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:38 PM

>>Don, As I posted in an earlier post, political pressure was applied to get the medical community, and its training, in the professions, to change homosexuality from a dysfunction, as all living things on this planet primary attribute is to survive and reproduce, to merely an 'orientation' or 'preference'<<

What a wonderful post.

A lot of zoologists would agree with you that the urge to survive and reproduce is pretty fundamental. At the same time they marvel at the choice that living things have to choose not only their orientation but also their sex and reproductive choices - eg sex choices

I presume that means one of a few things

* they are wrong
* they are misguided
* the clownfish and wrasse have political friends in very high places
* to generalise ("all living things on this planet...") is to invite others to test your hypothesis/ theory / blanket statement and test it with obvious things first and more detailed criticisms after
* the zoologists have been nobbled
* the theorists evolved to confuse things

Or that you didn't mean what you said.

My name is Nick by the way and I at least have the wherewithal to not hide behind the sadness of a guest. If you believe in something at least have the bollocks to stand up for it.

As an aside from somewhere in this thread - "most Mudcatters are liberals". That came as a shock to me. Is that an American liberal or a proper British one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM

Ake, Jeez, I thought I was the last person on the planet still using that expression..'Flying fuck'!!
In addition to your post, history shows us, and shows us clearly, for those scholars of world history, as you have alluded to. that homosexuality, and the open acceptance of it, has ALWAYS proceeded the fall, of world powers, and powerful nations. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, do your homework, (as Amos so wisely did) and argue with history...not me.....(I've gone through enough of this shit to bring to you the truth)

Oh, by the way, TIA, I just drove my SUV to the Pacific Ocean, about 1500 miles west, off the coast of South America, where the ocean floor has been heating up, so I could re-fuel up, to bring that 'warmth' back to the continent, and deliver a fresh batch of 'global warming'...but that's a different subject for another thread!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM

I have written the truth as I see it Amos, and if homosexuality is in part psychological and in part learned behaviour,do you really think that there were as many homosexuals around in the forties and fifties?....Just look at the high profile homosexuals in the entertainment media, and the effect they have on confused youngsters.
I have no nausea or indignation personally towards homosexuals and the decline of society is surely accepted by everyone....would you like a few examples?
I have said on many occasions that the criminalisation of homosexuals was wrong....so try to confine yourself to the truth...evenwhen your argument hits the rocks.

And your opinion of Pope Bednedict is???.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Nick...to answer your question, it is not a liberal of any known species, but more akin to a genetically modified vegetable!

Guest.....I dont just say it!!:0)

Sorry but the link you left didn't work, perhaps you could re-post....thanks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

My opinion on Pope Benedict is that he is an old man in a funny hat, and if you think the people in Gay Pride parades dress strangely, I think the high jinks of the Council of Bishops and Cardinals doing their ritual obeisance to His Holiness is easily on a par.

Let me point out that bemoaning the decline of society has been a favorite pastime since the days of Socrates.

As for the illogical assertion that tolerance toward homosexuals has preceded the fall of every historical civilization, I would argue that this is an absurd statement. The Incans did not condone their homosexuals, although I am sure they had them. The Greeks did. In both cases, through political miscalculations, they lost their lands to invaders.

Obviously homosexuality is not the common denominator here.

But let me make myself perfectly clear: I do not give flying fuck if you welcome or shun homosexuals in your personal lives.

I DO care that you choose to deny them a civil status which you are happy to grant to the most perverted heterosexual pairings.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

A google search on Richard A. Cohen shows that this "gay-conversion therapist" was expelled in 2002 from the American Counseling Association for six violations of its ethics code, which bars members from actions which "seek to meet their personal needs at the expense of clients, those that exploit the trust and dependency of clients, and for soliciting testimonials or promoting products in a deceptive manner."

Of course, he claims that he was expelled from the American Counseling Association because of its—as Cohen maintains—adherence to the "gay agenda."

Quelle surprise!

Cohen claims that he was gay until twenty years ago, but now he is now straight.

One phase of Cohen's treatment is to "cuddle" his male clients.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM

Adams, Henry E. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105(3), pp. 440-445.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:05 PM

GUEST,Guest from Sanity ...perhaps you are a slow learner.

You persist on spending your Mudcat time tilting at windbags.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:35 PM

Clever wordplay, pdq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:39 AM

pdq, thanks for your observations.....now for something you may never see from those 'windbags'>>>>>>>> 'Perhaps you're right!'
Ake, Really????????....give me a call!!!!! come fly with me..(as the song says)..or,....Fly the friendly skies of United.........
Don, (and I wasn't going to reply to your nonsense anymore, after your ridiculous statements before) bot, I'm sure he was censured, it wouldn't surprise me. Do you actually think the medical organizations are free from bias, from those whose message runs contrary to their policies, and corruption????? Whoops! there goes another pig flying overhead....and it has 'restless leg syndrome'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:28 AM

I have observed male nautiloids inserting their spermatophores into other males. Clearly the nautiloid lobby has joined the conspiracy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Nick
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM

>>In addition to your post, history shows us, and shows us clearly, for those scholars of world history, as you have alluded to. that homosexuality, and the open acceptance of it, has ALWAYS proceeded the fall, of world powers, and powerful nations. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, do your homework, (as Amos so wisely did) and argue with history...not me.....(I've gone through enough of this shit to bring to you the truth)

The fall of nations has always been preceded (I presume you meant something that comes before not something that "moves on in an orderly fashion". Proceed is going forward. Precede is something that happens before. It makes a nonsense of your comment) by an increase in the price of fruit as well. You are confusing coincidence with causality. Alternatively you are trying to link unconnected things to try and prove your argument. It doesn't work.

If you are going to dispense or present 'truth' you need to firstly hone up your logical skills, secondly try to use the correct words, and thirdly try to come to terms with the use of the humble comma; especially the difference to sense that a malformed sentence makes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:24 PM

By the way, GfS, it is most disingenuous of you to pose as one who rings the bell of freedom and the hammer of justice in order to squash a group of people of whom you have a derogatory opinion.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM

Just thought I would poke me head in the door and see if youse all are still having a pissing contest.

Ahyupah. Nearly got wet!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:06 PM

Nah, I yam done here, Gnuzer.


These folks don't speak Civil Rights.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 04:27 PM

Amos.....You are neither "civil" nor "right".....:0)

How's that for a double homo....graph missus!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Guest from WHERE!??

See ya, folks. I'm outta here.

(You know, when I suggested that some folks look in a mirror and ask themselves "Why do I care?" I guess I really hit a raw nerve.)

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM

You flatter yourself Don, you couldn't hit a "coo on the erse wi' a stick.....if ye were haudin' it by the tail"...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 07:51 PM

I guess the lads are like me. Can't be arsed any more.

Pun definitely intended.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM

But it seems that I did get up somebody's nose. Hence the quite savage responses. Such as yours and Guest from Paranoia's.

But—

Some astronomers are carefully following the orbits of several ECA's (Earth Crossing Asteroids), of which there are many. The earth has been struck before with cataclysmic results, and Near-Earth Asteroid (99942) Apophis [2004 MN4] is considered very dangerous, dangerous enough to cause a number of astronomers to urge preparing for an asteroid rendezvous mission in order to alter its orbit enough so that it will miss the earth when it approaches in 2029.

Wolf-Rayet-104 is a gamma ray burster. It's highly unstable, ready to explode-implode into a supernova at any time, and when it does, it will emit an intense burst of gamma rays jetting out from its poles. This could extinguish life on any planet in line with either pole. And the earth is in line with its axis of rotation. We are staring down the barrel of the gun that could kill us all. At any moment.

But forget all that! There are more imminent, more catastrophic dangers!!!

There are gays among us who want their civil rights recognized!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM

My opinion of Pope Benedict is that is is indeed an old man in a funny hat - but he is generally a very wise and rational old man who speaks in well-reasoned paragraphs that frequently get condensed and sensationalized by reporters into irrational sound bytes. Reuters really got this one wrong, I think. Ake paraphrased it, "that the practice of homosexuality is as much a danger to humanity as the destruction of the rain forests." That's not exactly what Reuters said, but it's close. Here's the exact quote:
    Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.(click for entire article)

Google says this horrendous misquote appears in 750 places on the Internet, and it most probably appears in countless newspapers. I found the cited speech at the Vatican Website, www.vatican.va. I also found This San Francisco Examiner article, which provides a view of the speech that is quite different from the Reuters perspective. See also this Irish Times article. No, it's not a speech in favor of homosexuality, but neither is it the silly statement that Reuters attributes to him.

My summary of what the Pope said is that we have to practice an ecology of humankind as much as we practice ecology of nature - that we must treat both humanity and nature as sacred. That includes our attitudes about many aspects of human life, including marriage. The message does make it clear that the Pope believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it certainly is not the strong statement against homosexuality that Reuters portrays.

Ake, I'm sorry, but I don't think that the Pope would agree with your extreme position. He wouldn't agree with the extreme on the other side, either.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 12:45 PM

Thanks for that Joe, I did wonder what your take on Pope Benedict's comments would be......Pretty measured, as I would have expected from a man with his feet in both camps.
I of course disagree with some of what you have said,the speech is unequivocally against the practice of homosexuality...any speech which condemns homosexuality in today's social/political climate, is a strong statement.
I agree with your other comments on the "ecology" of humanity, as i grow older, I find myself becoming disgusted by the way in which "life" is viewed by most people, from disgarded foetuses to disgarded octogenarians.

I am disappointed that you find my position on this issue "extreme" I did not intend it to be so.
It is certainly less extreme than the position held by Pope Benedict
Perhaps my views seem extreme because they are opposed by so many here who on this issue are motivated more by political expediancy than common sense....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM

Ake:

You've added a lot of weight of your own to what the Pope said.

"Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public.

In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.

It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not outdated metaphysics when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.

This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man's self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God's work itself.

That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term 'gender' effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.

The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its condition.

The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.

Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God.

One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation.


Note the complete absence of the words "transsexual" and "homosexual" or anything about "saving the world from gays."

Maybe Reuters balked at having to report the stuff denouncing "manipulation.""

(SF Examiner)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM

Amos....I believe you are an atheist like myself, so you should know that these guys speak in code, the code in this address is pretty easy to decipher.................."One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation."

Well done Amos, you homed in on the biggie, "Manipulation" is the word which cuts through all the bullshit like a hot knife through butter...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM

I find myself smiling tolerantly at the mental image of a committed atheist, adducing support for his views from the supreme representative of an entity in which he does not believe.

The blind leading the blind is a phrase that springs instantly to mind.


""Perhaps my views seem extreme because they are opposed by so many here who on this issue are motivated more by political expediancy than common sense....Ake""

Not political expediency, Ake, more a respect for the LAW in this country, and the Constitution in the US, both of which forbid the discrimination you espouse.

Until either or both are repealed, you do not have an argument. End Of Story.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:18 PM

It would seem to me that it is more "politically expedient" to come down on the side of supporting Prop 8. Especially for politicians who want to get re-elected.

But there is the matter of the Constitution. That is the check on the abuses of the majority, and Prop 8, since it discriminates against a minority, is clearly unconstitutional.

And supporting and preserving the Constitution is just common sense.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:49 PM

I have to say that during one of the presidential debates, I was surprised to learn that both Barack Obama and John McCain opposed gay marriage. I can't say I really believe in gay marriage or that I like the idea of it, but I don't think it is something that should be prohibited by government. If gay people want to get married and aren't hurting anybody by getting married, then I don't think the rest of society has a right to stop them - even if a majority votes against gay marriage. I think of both McCain and Obama as moderates, and I thought they would agree with me.
I guess they're more closely aligned with the Pope than I am.
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM

I was of course referring to the expediency of "pro-homosexual marriage" posters to this forum, who,due to the way this issue has become politicised, feel the issue is an excellent chance to throw shit at "conservatives"

Unfortunately the penny has not yet dropped with these people, that they themselves are the "reactionaries" on this issue....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:08 AM

Don...I am indeed an atheist, and I don't need your arrogant sort of tolerance.
The fact that Benedict Ratzinger has been made leader of the Catholic Faith does not mean that he is incapable of addressing social issues with commonsense and reason.
I will listen and learn from anyone that I think is talking sense, be he a Pope or a tramp.
Pope Benedict has gone further than I would in his perception of the destructive nature of homosexuality, but his fears about humanity's view of the life force and for our place in the future of the planet stand up to scrutiny...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:32 AM

Ake, I am puzzled at the vehemence of your "non bigotted" opposition to something which has absolutely NO impact on YOUR life, health, well being, nor in fact your financial condition.

In general, I am uninterested in how others conduct their lives unless affected in one of those areas by their actions. I don't understand why the decisions made about THIS ONE SUBJECT should elicit the fiercely emotional response we see from you and GfS.

What, I wonder would be your response to that kind of interference, were you on the receiving end?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 12:02 PM

As I have striven to make clear over and over here, Ake, I support equality under the law, and the granting of equal civil rights.

You interpret this as being "pro" homosexual marriages, but you are mistaken. I am "pro" marriage, in general, but I do not care, and I do not think anyone should care, what the plumbiong of the participants looks like. I think there is a lot of rather perverse obsession with the subject and in some ways it reminds me of the equally obsessive interest and equally perverse in racial eugenics which once informed so much dialogue in this country, before it was exported to Germany in the first decades of the 20th century.

The compulsion to categorize other human beings into "bad" pigeonholes is a deep human neurosis, out of which we all must somehow grow; even you.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

Why are you all arguing with a troll whose fake identity is a bigoted Christian, homophobe? Nothing else to do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM

If you are referring to Akenaton, Harpgirl, he is a long standing and respected member of the Mudcat, and while I very often disagree with his point of view, he is most emphatically NOT a troll.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM

Harpgirl.....Ma dear ah didnae ken it wis you....Is yer erse still hingin' thegither??

Amos....Godwins law already!....and it's only Thursday...I take it
your last message was typed with "hands held high" :0)

Don....Thanks mate,you are a Conservative and a gentleman...a rare breed!
In answer to you query, I often get "het up" about things which don't affect me personally, I think it's something to do with my political up-bringing, a hangover from the days when I thought socialism and I could change humanity. However I promise to try to kick the habit, I don't suppose you've ever been troubled by this sort of thing so no point in asking advice??

For the umpteenth time.....no one can be "against" homosexuality it is a fact of life!
I am against the agenda of "normalisation" "manipulation" and "subversion" by a small but very powerful minority and the "useful idiots" who support that minority...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

I think you're picking on the wrong group, Ake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM

Trouble is Rig, we keep thinkin' in groups,
I don't "believe", but I like the way some of the "believers" are thinkin'
We've got to start learning how life actually feels again, we have lost contact with reality.
We have two extremes which in real terms are actually quite close together and in the middle a great heap of shit.
Political speak, psycho-babble, outright lies, misinformation etc and in this shitheap live the "liberals" burrowing and digesting deaf and sightless, but ready to devour any "extremists" who recognise shit by the smell.

They fuck us up!....our "Liberals"!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:35 PM

Question: Since you, ake, are Scots, in what way are you using the term 'liberal'? I suspect that your nuts and bolts are metric.

Also, to all: I don't think Akenaton cares a whit about the American Constitution. Why would he?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM

AYe, Ebbie, he's not using it in the American tradition. Canny wee bugger, he.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:04 PM

Ake - I agree. Tribalism is at the root of a number of problems. Root out tribalism, and the world will be a better place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg or haggard or whatever!
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM

I'm talking about GFS not aken.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:37 AM

"Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, especially David Hume, whose influence is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic." (Excerpted from Wikipedia)

The present issue is a classic instance of factionalism as a danger to individual rights.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:28 PM

Hg, and you are disguised as....ummm, what?

Haven't been on much the last few days, but after going over the posts, a lot of you have seemed to drifted from the topic, into thinking that those who oppose homosexuals 'marrying' is a direct affront, of your political views, as a whole. This is a singular issue. No where, on here, do I see any compassion for the individuals, who are confronting the inside ins and outs, of the turmoil that lives within them. Nor do I see ANY of the ideologues, caring about anything, but how THEY are perceived, by 'like minded', cold, and uncaring debaters. You care about your opinions(maybe), but not one ounce about the fellow human beings that you pretend to be arguing about. To me, if that is an indication of a particular 'party', that you subscribe to, and that 'party', reflects you, then a re-examination of your motives, and your 'party's' motives, is certainly in order! Amos, is the only one, who, in his opposing arguments even alluded to, homosexuals having 'God given' feelings, or anything of the sort...yet, if there is a separation between church and state, or 'God given', and humans, then I have to ask, just who makes up this 'party', and the' party line'...a bunch of inanimate objects???? Because that is the way a lot of you act!! Akenaton, on the other hand, a self described 'atheist', has quoted another point of view,(the Pope's), demonstrating an openness, that you 'self thought of' liberals, should be applauding. However you have become more closed off, and more closed off than the, furthest conservative, right wing nuts. Look at what you've become!!! Though Amos and I have had our disagreements, and probably still will, I sense that he, at least, does 'some' research, in regards to his viewpoints....which, may indeed, allow him to change his position, IF, he finds supporting data, to another point of view. This other personalized nonsense, of attacking each other, by some on here, armed with nothing but an uneducated opinion, with no research to back up anything you spout off, is indicative of the 'mob rule', that was brought up, earlier. Unless many of you, just don't stop...take a breath...and think that considering any other data, would enlighten you, into caring more for your fellow humans, then you've become hard, brittle, and certainly not 'liberal'..but rather more like fascistic,..more than you'd ever admit! Your opinions, then become, just mental chewing gum, rather than, anything resembling care!!!
Also, Amos, in light of this post..compare that to your post,.."By the way, GfS, it is most disingenuous of you to pose as one who rings the bell of freedom and the hammer of justice in order to squash a group of people of whom you have a derogatory opinion."...Not only are you arguing my point.....I am the one who favors freedom and justice..but basing on truth...not a mob, of uninformed, uneducated, heartless clones.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:56 PM

"However, he (Madison) thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

                But the Neo-Cons beat the system by convincing large numbers of poor people that if the pray hard enough, they too will have large holdings of property. So they support the property holders in spite of the fact that they are beggers themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM

From GFS:

"To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest'   In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you.

...and a bigoted musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, soundtrack author, and marriage and family counselor at that....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM

Is that as 'intelligent' as you get????...You must not have read earlier, where name calling is used to avoid an intelligent reply. Then again, you haven't posted one, anyway....I've already got your act.
Some people never get a clue. Say something, on topic, that relates an idea for further discussion, rather than childish name calling. You are embarrassing both yourself, and your "tragically 'liberal'(?)" political bent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:51 PM

The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters are simply not capable of thinking for themselves. Whoever raises the most money wins. This is a much greater problem than the proposition itself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:58 PM

The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters....knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass, and now the losing side is whining!
Rather arrogant, don't you think that you think ALL the voters in California don't know what they are doing?????? ...I know, "It's not me, it's the rest of the world is crazy," right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:06 PM

RIght, GfS. Exactly right. In this case. Go back and check that Federalist 10 discussion up thread.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:14 PM

"...knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass,..."

               They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:24 PM

" They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge! "

I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:13 AM

Ye gods. There is more scraping and scratching and digging going on - "...since it appears that didn't work, let me try this..." S/He/It has gone the gamut from disgust and fear and exhortation to patronizing pleas.

Heckfahr, as an elderly friend of mine used to say. For your edification, Gohsofarfromsanity, I don't feel sorry for my gay friends. good lord. They happen to be happy, productive, talented people. Among them is a singer/guitarist who also is a boat pilot who holds the rank of Captain and in her spare time makes furniture; another is her singer/guitarist/mandolinist partner who teches nature sketching in the field and composes fiddle tunes in her spare time; another is a manager of an upscale hotel who is an excellent boss with great people skills.

There are others. Why should I feel sorry for any of them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM

Ebbie, I think I said pretty much the same thing, in an earlier post, when I said, " Yes, I know some homosexuals, who are very gifted and creative people, who in my opinion, border on genius, some who have taught, and worked with me, in both music, sound, and laser engineering, but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up."
Now, for all of those who mistakenly call me a 'bigot, or homophobic' try reading that with some comprehension, instead of, rose colored preconception. IF, in the course, of discussions, with a homosexual, which I've had quite of few, they honestly admit that the reason they felt more compelled to be attracted to the same sex, was because of certain events, and feelings that they have experienced, in their youth, coupled with alienation, towards a parent(or lack of one), and because of that attraction to the same sex, they become homosexual, and now feel they are compelled to remain that way, even if it means that their sadness, includes, the fact, that they may never be able to have their own biological children, and they are offered a way out, they tend to paint a complete different picture of being homosexual, than most of you even begin to understand.....and it's not a happy, political one!!! Nor, does it champion, a 'civil right' issue...which 'calling' it marriage, satisfy the deeper inner needs, that most of you are not even addressing!...nor care about, as fellow human beings! To you, you just exploit them to bolster a political stance, which you assume incorporates this issue...when in reality, never even approaches it!!! Now before you get ultra trigger happy, with your name calling, and pigeon holing, consider, if you are able, that position. Consider another person's emptiness, in certain areas. It might be a life changing experience, for you!!!!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 09:54 AM

"I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?"


                      Yes! Absolutely!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM

EXPLOIT? Of all the consarned bass-ackwards inverted head-in-lower digestive tract propositions I have heard, that about takes the cake. It is simultaneously profoundly stupid AND insulting, a neat trick.

The fact that you have some emotional insight into some gay's inner sadness is a nice testament to genuine communication, GFS, but it has no fuindamental bearing on the issue as a legal, consitutional, civil rights question--which it is. Nor does it provide any universal insight into homosexuality, because it is an uncontrolled observation on a very small population. Surely you can see that.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM

but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up."


Two thoughts:

1) Feeling deep sadness - in anyone's life - is nothing unusual. You can probably scratch the skin of anyone = even you - and find that there are elements of frustration and a sense of "Is this all there is?" and "Why haven't I accomplished more?"

2) Is it surprising that living a life that so many others - even you - denigrate and don't accept should create sadness?

Incidentally, I don't think it is necessary to cite 'genius' in some gay people; simple acceptance will do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM

Well said GfS!


I think you've pretty well nailed it with that post. I've worked for a few homosexual couples who have moved into our area and they all seem to suffer from a neurosis of some sort. I feel very sorry for them, no matter how our "liberal" friends here try to spin my thoughts.

I don't think the "liberal" agenda of "normalisation" of Homosexuality, is actually in the interests of homosexuals if their happiness and well being is what we are talking about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM

I'm speechless - almost. Ake, you mean to tell me that you are not neurotic?? I would never have guessed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

believe it or not Ebbie, you couldn't meet a less neurotic guy than me in real life....I walk around spreading sunshine and happiness wherever I go..:0) I try to go out of my way to spend time and have a crack with everybody, especially the old folks! I love hearing their stories, and a smile or a joke makes all the difference to them.
My job as a builder takes me into their homes and some of them haven't seen a friendly face for weeks at a time.

I feel a happy person and a contented one, in that I think I understand what life is about. I know the world is imperfect but the secret of personal happiness is to understand what the imperfections really are.

On Mudcat, I just like to debate....to show all the different ways of looking at things...opening minds....bet you think that's a laugh! but most minds are fitted with ten lever locks!! and they only allow to enter whatever fits their political views.

Go on Ebbie crack a smile...you know it's the best medecine...Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM

Not so fast, Ebbie,....if you perceive Ake is neurotic,...and you have a running dialogue, such that you have, and the nature that it is...perhaps the need for a neurosis feeding need in you, may be your clue, that you in fact have the symptoms, projected......in 'everyone else'......consider another's feelings, and their reality, before you accuse them of your motives!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM

sheesh I wouldn't give a dime for somebody with no neuroses that they have recognized.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:23 PM

How's your finances?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM

Pretty good, because I've never met anyone without neuroses. Thanks for asking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:42 PM

Well, I'm quite sure you haven't...........(wink)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:44 PM

Another sheesh. For a certified (?) counselor, GtS, you seem pretty dense and uninformed. Check out the prevalence of neuroses and health.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM

I could send you a photo Ebbie?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:02 PM

Your neurosis is visible, Ake? :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM

I'm certainly not neurotic about THAT Ebbie :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:43 PM

Okay, Ake and GfS, here's a different take on this:   Since you seem to be maintaining that homosexuality is a form of physical or psychological disability, do you favor withholding civil rights from people who are, say, victims of post-polio syndrome, or cerebral palsy, or have Asperger's syndrome, or are manic-depressive, or who are subject to anxiety attacks?

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), someone with a disability (including psychological problems) has the same civil rights as any other citizen.

In certain ways, we're a lot more civilized than we used to be. But we have a way to go yet.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

All depend what "rights" your talkin about Don.
I certainly wouldn,t be in favour of allowing two herion addicts or people with serious mental health problems to foster young children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:14 PM

Fair point. But that still leaves the matter of whether homosexuality is either a physical disability or a mental condition, OR part of inherent brain structure which may have a genetic factor.

I know an extended family in which one of several brothers was gay. He never married. But one of his cousins and two of his nephews (not siblings) were also gay. And, no, they didn't really have that much contact with each other. The nephews grew up in a different part of the country from their uncle. That's a statistical anomaly, which tends to indicate a genetic factor within that family.

As to the adoption of children, I know one gay couple (two men), who, incidentally were married in a nearby mainstream church, which, of course, recognizes their marriage whether the state does or not, who have adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Got them as infants. As they grow up, they get plenty of feminine attention from the sister of one of the men, plus a number of women friends. So growing up with females around is no problem.

And no, the two guys are not molesting the kids! [Knee-jerk response of most homophobes] They (the two men) are fully aware that brain scientists maintain that sexual orientation is inborn and that the boys will be what they will be. They're still pretty young yet, but the oldest one is showing signs of being "all boy," and he's quite interested in girls.

The lads are also fully aware that their family situation is regarded by some as "unusual," but they take it in stride. These two are normal, healthy kids, and believe me, they are certainly better off here, with two fathers (one they call "daddy" and the other "papa") than they would be if left in a Chinese orphanage.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM

By the way, these two fellows are both attorneys, and they're loaded. The boys are going to highly rated private schools (in the UK, I believe that would be "public schools"). So, as I said, their futures are much brighter than if they had been left in China.

Incidentally, one of the boys is now an acolyte in the church in which his adoptive parents were married. Lutheran church, woman pastor.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:41 PM

Don, your premise is not accurate as to my position, nor am I suggesting that homosexuals do not deserve the same 'rights' as heteros. On the contrary, they already have the rights that all have, but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions), and re-naming that arrangement, is not 'marriage'. Suppose two room mates, of the same sex, or not, find it 'financially advantageous' to claim marriage, and therefore want equal rights..wouldn't that be defrauding the company that the one who works for them, their rights of protection, from paying out benefits?? The room for abuse, by others, looking for a free hand out, would drive up medical premiums, to those honestly receiving it, even more astronomical than they already are.,,and so far, that argument was the best presented on here so far. To avoid that dilemma, all insurance companies would have to do, is to place prerequisites, and physicals on those couples,..and even provide funded counseling, to get them off their pay out lists!...or cancel them outright. Another plan should be offered, as to include 'households'....but that to would be a tangled up mess too. No, stick to the traditional marriage and family units, and perhaps a different accommodation for other situations.
Still, the motivational force difference, between hetero family units, and homosexual couples are different, in priorities, purpose and function. They really are not the same thing, at all.
GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:46 PM

"...but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions),..."

                   If you leave religion completely out of it, is it still marriage?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 08:28 PM

So, GfS, explain to me if you please, what's the difference? Both same sex and mixed sex couples could "defraud" the system. Why would sleeping in the same bed or in different beds make any difference?

How can you tell if it's a true marriage (having sex) or a marriage in name only (no sex), and what difference would the gender of the people involved in this "fraud" make?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: fumblefingers
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 10:10 PM

I agree with what Amos said about a possible genetic factor along with other factors being the cause. It's also been my experience that almost always, it is the youngest child that becomes or is a homosexual. Not always, but in most of the homosexuals I have known.

I disagree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. They have the same right to marry as everyone else. They are demanding a change in the rules. But unless it is scientifically possible that the union can produce an offspring, then it cannot be marriage. I'm not going to split hairs and talk about geriatric marriages and other such factors that preclude making babies. The sexes must be opposite or it cannot be marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM

I don't think that's written in stone anywhere.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:10 AM

Dear Don and Fumbles, The difference is, that families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce. Families, communities, towns, cities, states, and nations were built up by, and primarily for them. It would suffice to say, that those who would oppose that basic structure, would, could, and most likely should be seen as a threat to the very society, whose 'prosperity' has made allowances and room, for those whose self indulgences now wish to dictate to them, what, how to change those rules. Now, being as the family structure, is in the majority, not just here, but globally, so much, that 'unions' that wish to re-invent those mores, are frowned upon, or seen as 'freaks' and 'queers'. (Now, for all the fast draw, trigger happy, I am not using those terms, in a personal derogatory way, just describing how they are seen.) You may wish to notice, that during these economic harder times, the national divorce rate has gone down as well. Why is this?? ..Because people, when they know the chips are down, and things get more serious, that the 'lesser things', that one or the other, tend to bitch about, begin to not be so 'all important', next to surviving. In other words, its time to buckle down! In recent years, in this country, we have seen frontal attacks on the family, and the family unit..not to mention the ridiculous 'war of rights' waged between men and women, and now even their children. When a state or even a church, starts dictating to the parents, what they can and can't do, in raising their families, when corporations, for their own greed, begin changing the roles of men and women, even to the point of both parents working their asses off just to provide a roof, clothes and food, for their families...but end up ceasing to be a family, just to do it, then it becomes just a matter of time before their will be a backlash, that even threatens that society. You will see, as time goes on, that the harder things get, the LESS tolerance their will be for a lot of things, that are seen as threats to the basic structure, that people gave their lives to have. It almost is a matter of 'cause and effect'. When things that work pragmatically for generations become accepted, as opposed to what doesn't work, and they become the rule, as time goes on they are seen as 'morals'... When people of the majority, see what they deem, as a 'breakdown of the morality', which is the framework of 'safety' to raise their families, well, you are going to get resistance...and stiff resistance at that! Now, for the nuclear families, that are still out there, functioning as one dad, one mom, with their own original family, see where the country is at now, and where it is going, well, they will attribute that to the moral breakdown of the family structure. I hope that answers your question, as to the sociological, profile of what is going on..and why. Much the same, can you imagine, parents, as per aforementioned, raising their children to adopt a homosexual lifestyle??..I d-o-o-on't think so..do you??........and why not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 11:53 AM

GfS - you don't have any background in biology or in anthropology, do you? Because " families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce" is not a correct statment according to either the anthro or biology courses I've taken.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:12 PM

Sometimes,you don't get basic common sense from a university course!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:52 PM

GfS and Ake, what you folks don't seem to get is that same-sex marriage is NOT an "attack on the family."

Among other things, the relatively small percentage of same-sex marriages would have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. The only people it would affect are those who are outraged by the idea of homosexuality per se. And that's their hang-up.

The marriages of Steve and David, Paul and Philip, Herb and Michael, Nancy and Virginia, Susan and Gwen, and Luanne and Tamara have do not affect in any way the marriages of Bob and Judy, Martin and Shannon, Melissa and James—or Barbara and me.

In fact, the marriage of these same-sex couples means that they are in a much more stable relationship than they would be otherwise. They have a stated commitment, which is recognized by their friends, and in a couple of cases, their church. Two of the couples I mention (they are real people) have bought houses, are involved in community activities, and one of them was recently elected to the state legislature. They sound like solid citizens to me.

The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage. And since that is the case, why do you care?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 06:23 PM

"The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage"

Don...Making statements like that, as if they were absolute and incontravertible truth, does nothing for your credibility on this issue!

Who hasn't been reading the posts then? Tut...Tut!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM

Credibility with whom, Ake? I have been reading the posts, and I understand the issue thoroughly, much better that most people posting here, because I am acquainted with some of the people involved in the issue, both pro and con.

And the vociferous responses of those who object to my asking "Why do you care?" merely proves that I've hit the real source of the more strident objections.

I've been around a bit, Ake, seen a lot, and I know people pretty well. It's just sound psychology.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM

Ake:

Are you, yourself, married? Or have you been in the past?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM

Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month"

It really would do you some good to re-read and try to understand the words of Benedict Ratzinger.

"we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation"

Especially "the future against the exclusive claims of the present"

Get it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM

Amos...What the fuck's wrong with you? I've freely given personal information on other threads when it came up in discussion,but I don't like the tone of your request.

I dont ask personal questions of you, or make assumptions like Don.
If you volunteer personal information fine, but I will never request you to make your status public.

If I misunderstand your motives, I apologise, but reserve the right to give personal information when "I" wish.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM

Motives? It's a perfectly ordinary question. I am happily married, thirty years next April.

I was just curious.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:40 PM

I understand a helluva lot more than you seem to think I do, Ake.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:43 PM

Sorry Amos,,,I think I was a bit annoyed after reading Dons Post full of idiotic assumptions.....Peace!

Congratulations BTW....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM

And as far as "minority of the month" is concerned, I can guarantee you that this isn't going to go away, Pope Benedict notwithstanding, so you'd better get used to it.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 05:09 PM

What minority would it be this month, white males in America?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 07:05 PM

It seems to me that "believing in rights for all" is a bit contradictory when you support a system wherein same-sex couples cannot have the same civil status as opposite sex couples under the law. That strikes me as very hypocritical.

But you knew that.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:08 AM

Yes I know Amos...but we're not really talking to each other any more...just posturing.
Thanks for the discussion as ever....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 02:23 AM

A change of pace!

http://www.flixxy.com/validation-short-film.htm?a=0
    I deleted your previous message. You failed to set off quotations from the rest of your post so it was clear what the quotation was; and your reference to someone's "semi-literate diatribe" was an unnecessary insult. Address issues, not individuals, or I will increase deletions. If there is even a hint of animosity or insult in any or your posts, the post will be deleted.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM

Wow!..You pulled, what I thought was a most, powerful post to bring a resolve to the whole debate, and bring people together.....that's really interesting.
    Then I think you have something to learn about the rules of civil discussion. If you insult or attack people, you get deleted. I suggest you "depersonalize" your posts and address issues instead of people. Further violations will be deleted without explanation.
    -Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:21 AM

With all due respect, 'semi-literate diatribe' was not entirely meant as an insult, just that if you looked up the actual definition,(posted),
it was the most accurate, descriptive word to describe what I was talking about.

Semi-literate, ...half learned, or half read

Diatribe
Di"a*tribe\ (?; 277), n. [L. diatriba a learned discussion, Gr. ?, prop., a wearing away of time, fr. ? to rub away, spend time; dia` through + ? to rub: cf. L. terere, F. trite: cf. F. diatribe.] A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic.

Perhaps, you misread my tone, as I was not in the last heated exchange that was going on....nor have I been 'sarcastic' on this issue....(well, not as sarcastic as I've been on occasions)
GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM

Here's a marriage of true minds -- who would to it admit impediment?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:34 AM

""Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month""


Not quite all, it would seem, and that reference to the minority of the month is very telling, if only because it exposes in you a propensity to deny the rights of ANY minority which is rocking YOUR boat by claiming, and campaigning for, equality.

Not, in fact, the Akenaton that you would have us believe we are debating with.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:09 AM

Here's the kind of love story that should be suppressed, according to the keepers of the Prop 8 mindset.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:43 AM

Thanks for the story, Amos. It kept striking me how very typical a love story it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM

I don't see any reason to suppress the story, but I'll have to tell you, it seemed really, really weird to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM

Rig, think of it as a love story. That is what it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:57 AM

For fuck's sake Amos, are you reduced to citing individual cases(with pictures) now?    It'll be pink lace and fluffy rabbits next!

If you cant post decent debate, just hoist the white flag.
And I agree with Rig BTW.....weird is the word, and if 99% of the men on this forum were being honest, they would agree also.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 10:40 AM

Nothing like an honest example to make the case. I was particularly impressed by the trans-species affair, weren't you?



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM

Trans species???? So are you saying, from that model, that homosexuals are another species???...and if so, is it still a 'so called' 'civil rights' issue??? Your nonsensical arguments and 'examples' are running out of steam....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM

Mules should have all the rights and opportunities that horses and jack asses have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

Ah, Rig, they do. The fact that most mules cannot procreate doesn't affect their right to food, shelter, training and tlc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

GfS:

Unfortunately, it is you, yourself, who are missing the scene in this thread. The first example I posted (17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM ) concerned a deep and lasting friendship between a retired elephant and an injured dog.

Apologize at once. ;>)


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM

Sorry!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM

Well Ebbie's response was very funny, but there is a serious side...please dont equate friendship or even love with a sexual relationship.
It is possible to have both but not obligatory


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM

There ya go, ake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

Que?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

It is not obligatory, and is not a prerequisite for civil marriage; we've done this loop before.

I think the elephant and the dog should be allowed by the state to marry, if they can sign for the license. It would be a shame to make them go all the way to Massachusetts.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM

I am acquainted with a couple—formerly a couple (relax, Ake, the couple consisted of one man and one woman), but no longer, since the man passed away recently. They had been good friends for years. Let's call them Penny and Steven. Penny was in her late sixties, Steven was well into his eighties.

He had some descendants who were of the "they'll be glad when their old pa dies" school. They had never got along, largely because the kids (all grown up and old enough to know better) were constantly getting into financial difficulty and relying on Steven to bail them out. They were waiting for the substantial wad in money and property they knew their "old pa" had and which they assumed they would receive in due time.

But he hadn't made out a will yet, because he didn't feel the kids either need it or deserved it. So—keeping in mind that Washington is a community property state (unless otherwise arranged, on the death of one spouse, the other spouse inherits automatically), he asked Penny to marry him and she accepted. The main reason, they mentioned quietly, was that they enjoyed each other's company, and that was that. True, but also, Steven wanted to leave his worldly goods to Penny.

Much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth among his descendants. But when Steven passed away recently, Penny was left, not rich, but well provided for for the rest of her life.

Did they have sex? I haven't a clue. Since she was well past menopause, there would certainly not have been offspring, nor did they want any. But that was completely incidental. They lived together for some years before he died, and assuming that they did have sex, there are those who would consider a woman in her seventies and a man approaching ninety having sex as "weird," if not downright disgusting.

I, personally, think it's kinda cute!

Now—under similar circumstances, why should couples Paul and Steven, or Penny and Stephanie, be denied the right to make similar arrangements?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Kind of a bad deal for the kids, I'd say!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM

Not really. They all had good jobs, security and all that, so they didn't really need Steven's inheritance. Much of it consisted of Steven's writings and art works. He was an oceanographer, maritime historian, and artist. They would have just sold them for what they could get. Penny knew what they were worth in more than just money, and she had the knowledge and skill to make sure that Steven got proper credit for his rather monumental life's work.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:14 AM

Well, first of all, the posts with the references to animals, getting along, with each other, is one of the most ridiculous arguments justifying why it's 'normal' to be homosexual, that has been used, and really quite a stretch! Perhaps, the folks at PETA, might be impressed.. or it 'suggests' why people, of different..ummm..'species' can get along, but it has little or nothing to do with the price of eggs.
As so far as the person, who being an oceanographer, artist, etc, etc.., again, you are showing us, or at least me, that once again, you completely fail to see, or comprehend, what it is that being homosexual is about. I think these illustrations are so far removed, from what it is, that they are used, by 'supporters' of the 'political' stance, because they lack the compassion and understanding to grasp the internal makings, of being a homosexual.
....and, as long as the subject has been broached,just for what its worth, our 'Celebrity d'jour, elect', also opposes same sex
'marriage'. It's a little surprising to me, that those who consider him 'God', would be arguing the opposite way, against him(?).
Turning this into a political issue, is nothing more than insurance lobbyists, pressuring the psychiatric, and 'medical' community, to come up with studies, and findings to avoid paying out for therapy, and or, just turning their backs, on an expensive correction,...to yet another backlash, that has gained political steam, from other politicized issues gone wrong! (I'd site which ones, but that would open up another can of worms, and being as the simple is so much of a 'controversial' subject on here), why start up on untangling another 'widely accepted misconception'?....especially, when the evidence of the truth, presented on here, overwhelmingly blows away, why the majority, who is opposed to same sex 'marriage', doesn't have the right to vote that way...or why the courts(ninth judicial) can legislate from the bench, against the majority....and base their findings on bogus 'research'! Like it or not, or which ever way it's spun, that's the way it is!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:28 AM

I thought the buggers had banned you Sanity!!
Good to see you back. Yes I have wondered about the double standards too......We are the scum of the earth and Mr Obama is a hero, yet we hold the same opinions on this issue.....or maybe it's just politics and Mr Obama doesn't really mean what he says?

If that is the case then all our "Liberal" tormentors are in for a nasty shock....Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM

Jaysus, what a lot of armwaving.

First of all, no-one considers Obama "God:.

Second of all it is not precisely accurate that he "opposes" marriage rights for same-sex couples. He does not agree with it personally but he's a wise enough man to understand that rights have to be uniform.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM

But if I am a "bigot" and Sanity is a "bigot" why is Mr Obama not a "bigot"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM

Jaysus! The sewage being spouted by a couple of people here is reaching the top of my hip-waders! I'm getting out of here!

Don't understand? I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is why do you guys CARE!??? What difference does it make to YOU???

You still haven't answered that.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home -