BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:50 AM

Re abortion.....Isn't "abortion on demand" an even worse option than the two you have cited?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:41 AM

There are many sections of society who's "rights" are curtailed due to their behaviour....I am saying this for the millionth time!
"Liberals" would have us believe that "rights" are universal, but they patently are not....nor should they be.

The homosexual lobby is strong and controls media and entertainment, they have bullied and coersed the public into a tacit tolerance of homosexual practice and will continue to do so....with the help of "liberal" activists until all voices against have been silenced.

Unfortunately for them, the health statistics tell a very different story.....that there is something very wrong with the homosexual lifestyle.

What I am saying is that any further integration of homosexuality into mainstream society should be put on hold 'till a serious and far reaching medical inquiry into the link between Aids and homosexuality is thoroughly investigated.

Why is homosexual life expectancy so low compared to heterosexuals?
Why do homosexuals have such a much greater risk of contracting the disease than heterosexuals?
Is it as Don claims......simply "happenstance"?

If you dont care, and want to continue integration regardless....you are doing no service to homosexuals, your political ideals mean more to you than the deaths of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

Akenaton, I've never referred to you as a homophobe -- I have no idea if you are or not, since I can't see inside your head. Just as you don't know anything about my mindset in an Orwellian sense.

The names I have called you have been, in my world, names you have earned by your statements. I believe that denying civil rights to a group of people is bigotry. I believe that advocating government intrusion into people's marriages and sex lives, as you do by calling for gay marriage to not be legalized, is a form of perversion. I believe you have thereby forfeited the right to have your own sex life kept private. The names you have called me and the conclusions you've drawn about me are not supported by anything I have said.

Trying again, just because you seem like an intelligent person who thinks he's doing the right thing:
You have never addressed the civil rights issue at all. In this life we often have to compromise between two mutually exclusive ideas. Even if you think that gay marriage is a very bad idea for whatever reasons you have, isn't the denial of civil rights an even worse idea? It's sort of like abortion -- no one thinks abortion is ever a good idea, but most of us have concluded that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is an even worse idea, as is government interference in intensely personal decisions, like who you get to marry. We are asking you to conclude that the denial of civil rights is worse than the hypothetical danger of admitting homosexuals into normal society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 08:43 PM

LOL amos thanks i needed that!!!!

love and hot water bottles are the same thing!!!!

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 08:16 PM

Hell, I'vw been married for 30 years ands have survived both sides of the Red Moon's Passage, so, no, you haven't made me uncomfortable. You live with your miracles, and I live with mine! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 07:28 AM

ake, i have tried very hard not be derogatry and i am sorry if you feel that i have been, i had hoped that we could be friends but thought that since i hadn't heard from you that you just weren't interested.

the problem is i fail to understand that people are very busy because i am not!!

i am thinking that i may not be as confident as i come across as.
although in a debate it is hard for someone to hurt my feelings, in real life i am a softy and like most folks need alot of reassuring.

it doesn't help that it is it TOTM and my emotions are running wild!!!!LOL

anyway now i have made all the men feel really uncomfortable i will go.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:49 AM

John....You have referred to me as a homophobe, bigot and even pervert since our first encounter on the "Gay parents" thread I have responded from time to time by using derogatory language to you, which I think you fully deserve. Like Little Hawk, I see people of your mindset as the real "bigots" in society, though I do not generally use the word.

When Orwell's 1984 does finally come to pass, I expect to see you as one of the chiefs of staff in the "Dept of Love"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:35 AM

Jeddy I do not dislike you, in fact from what I have learned about you, I think I would like you quite a lot...in the real world.

I don't like discussing PMs on the open forum, but you know I have written to you to apologise for my earlier rudeness. It is difficult to strike up a relationship with someone who continually posts derogatory comments but I did not willfully ignore your latest PM, I simply have not had the time.
Nor have I the time to respond to questions which can be answered by a quick view of my posts
I have spent a lot of time explaining my position here, this is not a simple issue as others would like us to think, understanding the issue fully demands a bit of work, a bit of reading and most importantly a large measure of independent thought.....Now away ye go and practice.....:0) xx Ake

Froggie and John....you're playing games again!...Naughty boys!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM

There is no need for an apology from you my friend at any time, I respect every opinion that you hold, no matter how opposed I may be to it, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs with no hidden agendas.

Like a very few others here, you wear your heart on your sleeve and it is a badge of courage!
Just for the record Bruce, I at no time thought that you made the statement you refer to. Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 12:37 AM

Ake has been and continues to be my friend. He, like most folks has ideas that he has considered and conclusions he's reached on this and other controversies of our times. He's a good man despite our views differing (as they do on this and one other issue). He may be the guy many folks need to single out as the 'bad' guy, but that doesn't make him bad. He's just another one of us with a view. And no, I do NOT recall Ake saying AIDS (HIV) was a gay disease. If anything I said indicated that, my apologies, Ake.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

Ake: Do you or do you not believe that if homosexuals are accepted into the mainstream of society, they will spread aids to the mainstream of society?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM

OK, I need a break from this. Akenaton, I assume that your membership on Mudcat means you're into folk music of some kind. Are you a musician? What instrument do you play? Do you play Scottish music? Sing?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM

Little Hawk, you seem determined to side-step the issue, miss the point, fail to respond to points that other people make, and come to unsupported conclusions. Be sure to let us know when you have something new to say.

Akenaton, no one is asking you to defend your leftist socialist credentials. Just to explain why you think, in the face of so much contrary evidence, that AIDS and homosexuality are inextricably linked. And even if they were, why that means that having homosexuals be part of the cultural mainstream is a bad thing. I know you think you've explained it over and over, but every explanation you've made has been refuted multiple times, and you haven't answered any of those objections. I can see that the whole thing seems blindingly obvious to you, but please keep in mind that the obviousness is lost on a whole bunch of very intelligent people. When I am confronted with that much well-reasoned opposition to my ideas, the first thing I do is check my logic, my facts, my assumptions, and my emotional state. You?

I know that we are having two different discussions, which are using two different sets of values and two different sets of basic assumptions.

You have never addressed the civil rights issue at all. In this life we often have to compromise between two mutually exclusive ideas. Even if you think that gay marriage is a very bad idea for whatever reasons you have, isn't the denial of civil rights an even worse idea? You obviously don't think so, and this is why you are seen as a bigot, where bigot is defined as someone who wants to deny normal rights to people based on their membership in a specific group. It's sort of like abortion -- no one thinks abortion is ever a good idea, but most of us have concluded that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is an even worse idea, as is government interference in intensely personal decisions. We are asking you to conclude that the denial of civil rights is worse than the hypothetical danger of admitting homosexuals into normal society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM

i am not trying to shut him up either, i have,as others have asked him numerous questions and he has not asnwered a single one whilst demanding answers from others.

i have tried to understand where he and others that think like him are coming from and guess what?.. no reply.
i have even tried to be his friend and have PMed him on a personal level, thinking we could put our differences aside, guess what?... no reply.

i get the hint ake, you don't like me and that is fine i can handle that without falling to pieces, but nobody can accuse me of not trying to be reasonable.

i have called him a homophobe because his in posts on here have been unable or unwilling to see the side of the arguement
that said i respect his regilious views, and am not trying to change them.

take care ALL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:41 PM

No time to fully answer at the moment, Ake. Busy tonight

But let me just point out that the Dems did not support the Iraq invasion "en masse." There were a large number of them that were bamboozled by the phonied up intelligence reports, and there were, indeed, some who favored the invasion--mostly on the rather naive basis of removing Hussein and establishing democracy in Iraq. Yes, a distressing number of Democrats did support the war. But they were outvoted by Republicans in Congress in giving Bush war powers.

And beyond that, a feature of American politics that may have escaped you is that currently the Democratic Party is essentially centrist, not Liberal. The practical reason that most Liberals vote Democratic is because of the locked-in two party system. The Democrats are the most liberal party that has a remote chance of winning. It's a "lesser of two evils" situation, which genuine Liberals in this country are not happy with.

Third party candidates rarely get more that three or four percent of the general vote, so other than "making a statement," voting for a third-party candidate is essentially wasting your vote. In this advertising-driven country, third parties simply don't have the money it takes to run a sufficiently powerful campaign.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that what the Democrats do necessarily reflects the wishes of American Liberals.

More when I have time. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

Bruce.....Don linked to the Avert website near the top of this thread, I looked up the site and found it very biased, Any figures which question homosexual practice are ignored, the obvious linkis never mentioned....the site is very pro homosexual.

There are many such sites, some fundamental Christian and some pro homosexual .....both are to be treated with suspicion.

For truly independent data use CDC (Centre for Disease Control).Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 06:46 PM

I am simply intolerant of people launching personal attacks on other people on these political threads, specially if they make personal attacks that use words such as "bigot" or "anti-semite" or "nigger" or "faggot" or "asshole", etc.... What's so hard to understand about that? You've done it to Akenaton and he's done it to you. Other people here have done it to Akenation and GfS and they have retaliated in similar fashion, and around and around it goes forever and ever, and people get more and more short-tempered and het up over it, and their rhetoric gets nastier and more accusatory. I encourage all of you not to launch personal attacks over your political differences...but just discuss the issues calmly and give your reasons for having the opinions you do on those issues.

To put it briefly, just stop trying so hard to prove that the other guy is a "bad" person...or that his opinion is "evil".

Now, tell me. How much time do you really wish me to spend daily on this thread? How many more of my statements will you conveniently misinterpret in some way in order to have something to fight with me about? How many more frenzied and intemperate questions will you ask me that are not founded in anything I really thought in the first place? And when will the Fat Lady sing? Soon, I hope... ;-) It's only curiosity as to what happens next that brings me back...a form of common mental addiction that we all fall prey to...plus I find it amusing at times. It's fun. I know perfecly well that I'll never reach any peaceful or reasonable resolution with you guys...so what do I come here for? Laughs, I guess.

Oh...thaks for reaching 1900 posts. I am now the proud owner of one of these:

Oh boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 06:39 PM

Little Hawk has given a concise summary of my meaning, he is perhaps the most insightful person that I have ever had the good fortune to encounter.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, to denigrate someone so obviously fair minded and pacific.
He is a much better person than I.....you bite him and he will patiently attempt to explain his meaning or defuse the aggro with a touch of the whimsical humour that is all his own.
You bite me.... and I bite your fuckin' head off.
That's how I am, brought up the hard way; and try as I might I dont I'll ever change.

I don't really think you are stupid people always requiring explanations, you all know what I mean, your stance is just another way of giving yourselves the opportunity to twist my words and meaning.

Mr Peekstock says that I stated "AIDS was a gay disease" that is a downright lie. I cited a group of homosexuals in Los Angeles who were campaigning to have AIDS re- designated as a "Gay disease", so that funds and energy can be concentrated on the link between homosexual practice and Aids,and hopefully a cure related to that link, found.

What I did say, was that the link was obvious, Keith earier produced figures which suggested that if homosexuals comprised 10% of the population, they were 400 times more likely to contact the disease.
Homosexuals in fact, make up 2-3% of the population, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I am indeed familiar with Phil Ochs excellent song, he expresses the same sentiments as I do, yet I hear not a word against him from the "mob".

"the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society."
We are travelling full steam ahead integrating homosexuals into mainstream society, without any medical study being undertaken as to why the link between homosexual practice and aids is so massive, homosexual marriage, fostering of children by homosexuals ect are all devices to normalise homosexuality, before we know anything about the medical consequences. As I have said before on many occasions, people who engage in incest or polygamy are refused their "right to marry", the first group on health grounds....are they basically any different from homosexuals?

Don.. correct me if I am wrong, but did the Dems not support the invasion of Iraq en masse and did they not continue to support funding of the war well after it became obvious that Saddam had been "set up" and the prosecution of the war had become a disaster?
After it had become obvious that there would be no WMDs and no new sparkling "democracy"?
After it had become obvious that we "Liberals" would leave Iraq in a much worse state than when we entered it?...and that was after eight years of sanctions.

In conclusion, I don't need to defend my left wing credentials to you people...you only play at politics, you wear the liberal label, but in reality you are more wedded to the system than the neocons you despise so much.
I've lived and bled for socialism, risked losing my job and my home for being a "Commie"......just like some of the old time folkies to pretend to revere....Hawk is so right! you are a half dozen Don Quixotes on your knackered steeds tilting at windmills.....and if you need anyone to explain that analogy just go ask yer maw!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

And by the way, Little Hawk, if I am intolerant of people who want to restrict the freedom and civil rights of others, and you are intolerant of me for being so—what does that say about you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Another thing, John. It is facile to assume that being a "leftist" automatically means that one wants to give freedom, equality, and civil rights to all people. There have been some extremely authoritarian and oppressive leftists in the history of the world. Authoritarian and oppressive people are found on both the Left and the Right.

Yes, yes, yawn. Everything is a circle and opposites end up right next to each other. This is really basic stuff, and doesn't, of course, represent anything about what I think, or what I (or anyone else) generally means when they talk about someone being on the political left. But you know that. You always throw out this sort of silly misdirection when you can't think of anything real to say.

If I were putting as much energy into trying to prove that his opinions are "bad" and therefore that HE is "bad"...if I were doing that, which is what you and Don are doing, then I doubt I'd have much attention or energy left to understand his reasoning...

Earth to Little Hawk: I suspect that Ake has some very positive things about him, but on this topic his opinions ARE bad. He wants to deny civil rights to a group of people. By any ethical standard that makes any sense, this is bad. He has, so far, failed to come up with any reasons that stand up to any logical or factual analysis, despite repeated requests that he do so. You saying that I think this means he is bad in general or ALL bad is disingenuous and, dare I say it, an example of lazy thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM

bigot   Function: noun
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

####

Note, Little Hawk, that the definition found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says "members of a group." And in no way in hell does it apply to me or to others on this thread the way you are trying to say it does. Or that any given person is "nothing but a bigot" as you claim. A person can be prejudice against one particular group, and beyond that, love everyone else and be a generally all around fine person. BUT—regarding that one group, he is a bigot.

If I, and others, have shown "utter intolerance" for Ake's views on this thread, it is not because they are bigots, it is because he advocates restricting the freedom and civil rights of a particular minority group. YES, I am utterly intolerant of people who want to do that sort of thing!

And if that makes me—us—bigots, then, Little Hawk, make the most of it!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Little Hawk, perhaps you should spend less time worrying about the dictionary definition of bigot and try to wrap your mind around how the word is commonly used in our society. But be that as it may, yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. Someone way up-thread pondered what to do about that, but I'm not sure there's a good answer. Suffice it to say that my intolerance goes toward trying to get people to not force others to live in a certain way. The people I am intolerant of want to get other people to live the way they think they should -- like denying a group of people normal civil rights.

Oh, and calling someone a bigot does not mean one is saying that person is nothing but a bigot. What an idiotic idea! You need to re-visit the lazy thinking idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM

Yawn.... I wish there was a Reader's Digest version of this thread... weekly.

I can't be arsed to read all the posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:24 PM

Little Hawk, you are, of course, once again, barking up the wrong tree. Please read what I said again, especially the part where I said, "Rather like Akenaton, in this thread at least". Do you get the nuance? I was not trying to make Akenaton guilty by association with Limbaugh. I don't think he holds the same opinions as Limbaugh on every topic. What an idiotic idea! I didn't say that, I didn't mean it, and accusing me of lazy thinking sounds like the pot calling the stainless steel pan black. Learn to read before you start mouthing off.

Yes, Akenaton has been accused of being a homophobe. Not by me, but when someone makes so much noise about how normalizing homosexuality is dangerous, one does get the idea that they don't like homosexuals. He has also, often, referred to homosexuals as if they were all the same. That may not be homophobia, but it looks a lot like its little brother. Since homophobia is a reactionary stance, and since reactionaries usually reply to being asked for logic and facts by calling people names, surely even you can see how Akenaton appears to fit the description.

You seem to be confusing confronting bigotry with an attempt to silence. Too bad for you. Ake has the right to say whatever he wants, and the rest of us have the right to let him know what we think of it. It seems to me that you have spent more time than anyone on this thread trying to silence people. It is actually fairly easy to avoid being called a homophobe or an anti-semite: don't act like one. If someone calls you that, demand that they prove it from your words and actions. You've been asked several times, without, of course, answering: What if someone was saying that black people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us, simply because they are black. Would you still chide people for referring to them as bigotted? Would you still try to defend them?

I also notice that ALL of the complaints you have made about how people are acting on this thread have been directed at me and Don. I agree that one should be able to have a debate without denigrating other people. The names that Akenaton has been called are all supportable by the available evidence. On this thread he is acting like a bigot, a homophobe, and a pervert. Also illogical and unwilling to support anything he says with any facts. I can support all these characterizations with quotes from him. In fact, I have done so. He, on the other hand, throws around names like moron, fucker, bottom-dweller, and anti-liberal. If you think you are being fair-minded in your complaints, take to heart the "lazy thinking" thing. Or maybe it's just selective reading.

You still haven't explained what it is about Akenaton's positions that Don and others don't understand, even though you imply that you have some deeper understanding than what is available by reading his words. Please stop making statements you are unwilling or unable to support. That's Ake's game.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM

I was simply using the term "anti-semite" as an example, Don. An example of a common tactic used to silence people (and, in the case of some people, like politicians or authors, to ruin them professionally. That last part obviously doesn't apply here to Akenaton.)

I've explained before what the word "bigot" means. It means someone who is utterly intolerant of opinions, beliefs, or creeds that do not match his own. It does not mean someone who hates gays or some other minority.

Most of the people on this thread have shown utter intolerance to opinions that do not match their own. Therefore, they have behaved in a bigoted manner on this thread. That includes you, Don.

I do not, however, call you a "bigot", because that would be an all-or-nothing label of you...it would imply that you are nothing BUT a bigot, which is not so...and all-or-nothing labels are almost never true when it comes to individuals.

I simply say that your utter intolerance of Akenaton's views on this thread is a form of bigotry in itself...as would be someone's utter intolerance of your views as well.

It's not political opinions that concern me here. It's attitude that concerns me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:54 PM

Little Hawk, you're waffling! Ake is in the same camp as Limbaugh and Coulter on this issue!. THAT is what I have been saying. I have never, at any time called Ake an "anti-Semite."

And regarding homophobe and/or bigot: I think that is exactly what he is. He certainly talks like one in this thread and a similar one that was running about five years ago. This is not an attempt to silence him, it is, if anything, and attempt to get him to re-examine his own position. Granted, from what I've seen so far, this is a totally futile hope.

But how can I silence someone like Ake, who is bound and determined to spew is hate for homosexuals no matter what I, or anybody else, calls him?

And as far as having a discussion is concerned, Ake doesn't discuss:    he makes the same pronouncements, over and over again, no matter how many times they have been shown to be wrong. And he doesn't respond to questions.

"Demons" haunting my "anxiety closet?" Now you are getting insulting. Leave the pseudo-psychology to Gfs.

Get real, Little Hawk!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

Another thing, John. It is facile to assume that being a "leftist" automatically means that one wants to give freedom, equality, and civil rights to all people. There have been some extremely authoritarian and oppressive leftists in the history of the world. Authoritarian and oppressive people are found on both the Left and the Right.

Matter of fact, if you go far enough either to the left or the right, authoritarian people are the ones you will find at those extremes.

Akenaton strikes me, after long acquaintance, as a non-authoritarian leftist atheist radical who is indeed in favor of freedom, equality, and civil rights for everyone. He is very opposed to capitalism and to organized religion.

He has reasons for opposing gay marriage, and he has articulated those reasons over and over again in the hundreds of posts on this thread. I'm not going to waste time trying to recap them all. What good would it do if it hasn't registered on you and Don yet? It would not register the next time either.

I agree with some of his reasons to some extent and I disagree with others, but I do understand his reasoning. If I were putting as much energy into trying to prove that his opinions are "bad" and therefore that HE is "bad"...if I were doing that, which is what you and Don are doing, then I doubt I'd have much attention or energy left to understand his reasoning...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM

As of 2007, it was estimated that there are 33,000,000 people living with HIV. That is equal to the population of Canada.

Science now suspects that AIDS first entered the human population somewhere between 1884 and 1924. There is an excellent article via this link: http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm

To say that HIV is a 'gay' disease is to ignore the research. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM

No, John, he isn't in the same camp as Limbaugh or Coulter. He just happens to disagree with you and Don on ONE single specific social issue...gay marriage. That does not place him "exactly" in the same camp with anyone such as Coulter or Limbaugh...because if it did, he would agree with them about EVERYTHING.

And he doesn't.

It is silly to assume that because a person disagrees with you on one single issue that he must therefore be identical with some extreme nutcases among whatever political enemies you have. To imply that he is identical with your favorite neo-conservative stereotypical demon figures is to attempt to establish Akenaton's guilt by association, when in fact there probably is no association between Akenation and those people...and not bloody much common ground either.

It's lazy thinking and it's gross stereotyping to do that. Better to deal with someone as a unique individual than to try to shoehorn him into your favorite all-purpose "bad guy" stereotypes, don't you think?

When you call someone a "homophobe" or an "anti-semite" in today's society, you ARE attempting to silence them through their fear of the accusation itself. There is no way a person can prove he is NOT a "homophobe" or an "anti-semite" when he has been accused of it. It is about the same tactic as calling someone a "witch" in medieval times...there is no adequate defence against the charge, no matter what the circumstances. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one is NOT a homophobe or an anti-semite.

Akenaton has been accused of homophobia a number of times on this thread. It is that accusation which I am objecting to. It's not that I agree with Akenaton on all his opinions on this thread...I don't. I am not opposed to gay marriage. I don't care about it one way or another. It makes no difference to me if gay people get married.

But....I DO care if people on this forum label other people on this forum as "homophobes", I DO consider it an attempt to stigmatize and silence another person when that is done, and I feel there is no place in a respectful and rational debate for those sort of labels to be put on people. It's as if you called him a "nigger" or a "commie", as far as I'm concerned. It carries a similar emotional intent which is to totally dismiss the other person as being a worthless character who has no good qualities whatsoever.

It's not people's opinions on gay marriage that I'm objecting to here...it's their personal attacks ON those people they disagree with that I'm objecting to...and their use of gross stereotypes to label the people they disagree with.

That's the only stake I have in participating in this discussion. I am not here either to defend or to oppose gay marriage.

One should be able to have a discussion without personally denigrating the people on the other side of the argument and equating them with extreme fanatics like Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh....or whatever other demon haunts your particular anxiety closet.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

Little Hawk: Well, if you did understand him you would not for a moment dream that he is in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.

Dude, he is exactly in the same camp as Limbaugh and Coulter: presenting, with no facts or logic or sympathy, extreme positions that tend to demonize another group of people. I care less that Limbaugh et al are far right conservatives than that they are loud-mouthed know-nothings who are full of hate. Rather like Akenaton, in this thread at least. How you can call someone a far-left true liberal who wants to deny civil rights to a group of other people is beyond me. I'm sure, like most of us, he has some stances would be considered liberal and some that are conservative, but on this topic he is a knee-jerk reactionary anti-liberal.

And: It's a form of liberalism devoted to silencing anyone who doesn't parrot the going party line, whatever the going party line may be. That is what Akenaton is criticizing in modern "liberalism".

I've asked you this before and didn't get an answer. What makes you think anyone here is trying to silence anyone else? Akenaton has said that several times, and you've said it at least twice, but I've yet to see any actual evidence of it. Also, Akenaton has been referring to anyone who disagrees with him as one of these "modern liberals." Since the basic premise seems to be that "modern liberals" are complete assholes, don't be surprised when people who really are liberals get a bit hot about it. I actually don't know anyone who fits the modern-liberalism-as-anti-true-liberalism mold. Do you? Can you provide some examples? I understand that every movement has its jerks, but do you really believe that fair-minded individual pays any attention to them?

And: You seem not to have the will or the inclination to bother actually trying to understand what he is saying.

I've also asked this before without getting an answer: Haven't you noticed that most everyone on this thread has been asking Akenaton to explain himself? He hasn't done so, of course, because he doesn't have any real basis for the things he's been saying.

If you understand him so well, perhaps you could let the rest of us know what it is he's really saying. So far it's been "normalizing homosexuality is dangerous" and "AIDS is a gay disease." Can you rationally support either of those statements, or explain them from your position of superior Ake-understanding?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 03:24 PM

Hi Little Hawk,
Thanks for agreeing with me. I knew you would even as I was typing it, actually. The reason you seemed to me to be presenting statements that were pertinent to the discussion and meant to temper or modify what I had said was because you prefaced those comments with The only thing is, though . . . and One must remember that . . .

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:35 PM

It may very well be, Little Hawk, that I'm seeing nuances that you are missing. How come you seem to think that you're so much wiser than everone else?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM

Well, if you did understand him you would not for a moment dream that he is in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:28 PM

I think I understand him perfectly well, Little Hawk, and I really don't need you to translate for me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM

Frogprince, that's the question that Ake keeps ducking. He just doesn't have an answer that won't blow his whole argument.

Sad, really.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

Akenaton is on the same side of the great political divide as you are, Don, only I think he's a bit farther left. You are misconstruing his criticism of modern "liberalism".

Are you familiar with Phil Ochs' song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal"? Rhetorical question! ;-) I know you must be familiar with the song. That song points out a form of liberalism that is very hypocritical and self-serving, very enamoured of its own "liberal" rhetoric, but not at all in the interests of genuine liberty, freedom, and equality...and in fact deeply opposed to genuine classical liberalism. It's a form of liberalism devoted to silencing anyone who doesn't parrot the going party line, whatever the going party line may be. That is what Akenaton is criticizing in modern "liberalism".

You seem not to have the will or the inclination to bother actually trying to understand what he is saying.

You're reacting to the crudely rote definitions of words like "conservative" and "liberal", and you're not paying attention to more subtle nuances.

You're thinking, again, in all-or-nothing terms when you say something to Akenaton like:

"You're attributing all the Evils of the World to "Liberals" in exactly the same way people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News do and generally talking the same hysterical lin "

What nonsense. Akenaton is deeply opposed to the neo-conservative political movements and to people like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. For you to act like you don't know that is either quite disingenuous on your part...or else you're getting a bit carried away with your own rhetoric. Or you're losing your grip on reality. ;-)

Which is it?

Can you not grasp the concept that some, indeed many people who characterize themselves as "liberals" and indeed think they are liberals nevertheless act in such a way as to betray classic liberalism?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

"the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society."

What consequences... of doing what ? Do you believe that the health problems of the homosexual population will be better addressed if they are "quaranteened" from the "mainstream"? Do you believe that, if homosexuality is less stigmatized, more people will want to become homosexual, or try a little homosexual experience, thereby spreading HIV more widely? Do you believe that if homosexual males are no longer stigmatized your daughter may want to marry one?
How would allowing same sex marriage increase the danger to anyone's health, or any other aspect of their well being?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:59 PM

Once again, you've got the wrong end of the stick, Ake.

In the United States, it was the ultra-Conservatives (Neo-Cons) who wanted the war in Iraq, and it was they, along with their propaganda mouthpieces such as Limbaugh and Fox "News" Service who flooded the media with the administration's (Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) lies to support it. This, along with such things as muzzling news correspondents and intelligence agents who knew the real situation. It was the propaganda blitz and the inability of the American populace, along with many politicians, to get accurate information.

One notable exception was the Congressional Representative from my legislative district, Jim McDermott (Democrat), who had been to Iraq and knew that Sadddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and in fact that Hussein and Osama bin Laden hated each other's guts. He tried to spread the word. The administration coulden't muzzle him, so they tried to slander him instead. Called him "Baghdad Jim." And then tried to sue him when he caught Newt Gingrich (Republican) in some illegal behind-the-scenes political hanky-hanky and exposed him (after all, McDermott was on the Congressional Ethics Committee, and that sort of thing was his job). And they tried to do the same thing to one of my Senators, Patti Murray (Democrat), who spoke out against the impending war: they dubbed her "Taliban Patti."

That's the kind of cheesy, lying government the Bush Administration was running.

The Junior Senator from Washington State, Maria Cantwell (also Democrat), went along with the administration, but she is a bit more experienced now and has seen the error of her ways.

The vast majority of Liberals saw through the whole thing:   the establishment of a military presence in the Mid-East to safeguard American oil supplies, and, of course, the U. S. oil companies—and also to keep a hand on the tap and be able to determine which other countries (such as China) would get a share of the oil the U. S. would then control, and how much, depending on how nice they were to the U. S.

In the United States, it was Liberals, not Conservatives, who opposed the Iraqi war.

There must be vast differences in terminology between American and British politics. Unless, of course, you, Ake, have things completely turned around.

You're attributing all the Evils of the World to "Liberals," in exactly the same way people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News do and generally talking the same hysterical line And nobody but nut-cases and arch-Conservatives take those shriekers and bellowers seriously.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM

"Bush went to war, and the "liberals" supported him, in all likelyhood through cowardice and "being hung by their own petard" ake

The liberals supported him? ?? Just who were you listening to?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:23 PM

Yeah! ;-) I've always wondered about that myself, Ake. Why would anyone want to join the military? Really, the mind boggles at the thought of it. First they tell you what a good guy you are for joining up and defending your country....THEN the torture begins.

They process you like an animal for the slaughterhouse. They cut off most of your hair and make you wear bloody uncomfortable clothing. A sadistic pit bull of a sergeant puts you through basic training, doing his best to completely humiliate and break you and crush any tendency you have toward independent thought or action. You go through that hell for an extended period until you are thoroughly cowed and regimented to obey every order without hesitation. They also feed you crummy food and make you live in crummy accommodations with your fellow sufferers.

When you have survived and passed basic training they congratulate you for having been turned into a mindless, emotionally battered automaton with severe hostility issues simmering somewhere down in your tortured psyche...and then, if you're not too lucky, there will be a war somewhere that they can send you to. In that war you will face short intervals of sheer terror and long intervals of boredom in some foreign land. You will get to be hated by people who are from a different culture, and you may get to kill some of them...or be killed by some of them. You will see towns destroyed, homes burnt, young women raped, children blown up, and valuable equipment turned into scrap. You will see friends getting their arms and legs blown off. You may presently come home missing various parts of your own body, and you will find when you do that very few people care and that your society doesn't really have a lot of time to deal with your personal problems.

You might recover. You might not.

"There's No Life Like It!" (the old Canadian forces recruiting slogan...)

****

In Canada, most of the young people who join the military do so because they can't find a job...and it seems like one good way to solve that problem. So they are mostly coming from economically and socially disadvantaged families or localities.

Then there are the "military families"...meaning families where there's been a long tradition of serving in the forces...and that's where you'll find quite a few of the officer types coming from, I would think. For them, it's seen as a noble career. I can understand that, from their point of view. I don't share that point of view, but I can understand it. It's like any other kind of career: if you believe in the basic concept, then you can see it as a noble career.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

On the military issue.....why the fuck would anyone in their right mind, homosexual or heterosexual want to join the military?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM

Amos...don't put words into my mouth, I was not defining Bush war policy, but the "liberal" agenda of Mr Anthony Blair.

Bush went to war, and the "liberals" supported him, in all likelyhood through cowardice and "being hung by their own petard"

The American Neocons certainly knew how to use "Liberalism" for their own purposes, The "liberals" could hardly object to the removal of Saddam regardless of the consequences, that would be questioning the "liberal" mantra.....and there you have it ...."Doublthink"

In the same way, they cannot bring the homosexual health figures, life expectancy, or promiscuity into the equation, oh no that would be anti- liberal, regardless of the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM

No need to overreact, John. It's not that I'm attacking or attempting to dismantle your position. It just got me thinking about another aspect, that's all. You know...one thought leads to another. I'm just thinking out loud as one thought leads to another.

I'm not trying to fight a battle with you here, I'm simply discussing various things that come to my mind because I find them interesting in some way.

Did you miss the part where I said I fully agreed with most of what you had said? ;-)

***

Amos, do you remember that sarcastic song Phil Ochs once wrote called "Love Me, I'm A Liberal"?

I think that is the sort of liberalism that Akenaton is troubled by. If so, I would agree with him on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:58 AM

Little Hawk, you're blathering. We're not talking about a soldier arguing with a superior officer during a fire fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:43 AM

With all respect , to define bush war policy as a liberal agenda is newspeak doublethink, and double ungood, semantically . It is very clear you are using the term in your own private sense.

And isn't your legal position of reduced civil rights for some and not others an Orwellian gem of thought-twisting in itself??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:03 AM

ake, having ideas and wanting to debate things turns someone into a non person..... oh shit, i have been talking to no one,all this time i thought i was real, thanks for putting me right.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 03:18 AM

Blair himself was another example of not being "what it says on the tin."
Labour in name only, Blair could not even bring himself to use the word socialism, a protege of Thatcher(Cons) and Clinton(Dem), Blair moved the Labour Party(re-labelled as "New Labour") from a left of centre organisation to a position well to the right of the UK Liberal Party.
He was a stereotypical "liberal" who used the Orwellian ideas of "Newspeak" and "Doublethink" to his great personal advantage, until the "proles" finally realised what he and his administration really were.....they are now in the process of removing from power the remnants of the Blair/ Brown project.

Seems to me "liberalism" has much more of a hold in the US than the UK and may be much more difficult to remove. Having watched its progress from inception to decline in the UK I believe it to be a sort of communal madness.

The supreme irony being that if the right wing Conservatives had been in power in the UK instead of Blairs "liberals", we would certainly never have followed America into Iraq.

The Labour Party would have opposed it in opposition, and the Conservatives would never have been capable of the machinations required to coerse the British public or their own rebel MPs.

"Liberalism" stifled the debate on Iraq, most people believed that the "liberal" agenda of regime change was reason enough.

"newspeak " and "doublethink" had triumphed in a "liberal" society, George Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

We see the same scenario in race, emmigration, homosexual "rights"
dare to discuss these issues and you become a "Non person".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:04 AM

You made some good points there, John P. I would agree with most of them.

I'm not sure about military officers making an oath to be "honest", though...

Honest about what? Everything? I bet there has hardly been a single military officer in history who's been honest about absolutely everything....

As for upholding the Constitution...yeah, they swear to do that. The only thing is, though, that what they usually serve in any given moment is the order they just received from some superior officer and he may be violating the Constitution when he gives the order, but that may not be evident to the soldier obeying it (since his knowledge of the Constitution may be quite limited), and anyway, there usually isn't time enough to sit around and mull over whether the order you've just been given is constitutionally valid or not.

One must remember that these military oaths are idealized formal and ceremonial notions which don't always jibe so accurately with the real situation on the ground where people are damn short of time and must act at once upon receiving an order. Most of us are not constitutional lawyers and we're not really equipped to evaluate every situation on that basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:57 PM

Very well put, John!

####

"Silly fuckers."

Been taking a vocabulary building course, there, Ake?

####

". . . two countries divided by a common language."
                                       —George Bernard Shaw

Tony Blair (born in Edinburgh in 1953) did not belong to the Liberal Party, he belonged to the Labour Party. Not being up on British politics all that much, I'm not too sure what that all entails, but among other things, he did establish the Scottish Parliament, for which I would expect that Scots would be pleased. Other than that, many "liberal" Americans (and British, too, I've been told) regarded Blair as George W. Bush's lap dog. George W. Bush (himself, not the sharpest knife in the drawer) was regarded by many Americans as the lap dog of the ultra-Right and, among other things, Dick Cheney's hand puppet. Being something of a dunce, Bush was easy to manipulate.

As I understand it, the British Liberal Party is a whole different breed of cat, and rather a paper tiger compared to classical Liberalism. But according to a website I encountered, the British Liberal Party's most recent incarnation, the Liberal Democrats, has an official policy statement that sounds quite good in relation to classical liberalism. But as I say, British politics (other than that outlined in the British comedy, "Yes, Minister" and its sequel, "Yes, Prime Minister") is not my area of expertise.

In any case, from my limited knowledge (of British politics), there is no correspondence between Tony Blair and what knowledgeable Americans would regard as "liberalism."

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. The Magna Carta (signed in England, 1215 CE) is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Germaine to the last sentence in the John Stuart Mill quote, the legalizing of same-sex marriage, rather than causing harm to others, would discourage promiscuity and promote the establishment of stable relationships among same-sex couples, thereby decreasing the spread of HIV. That would be an example of the rightful exercise of power for the self-protection of the community that Mill spoke of.

Interestingly enough, Ake, Scottish thinkers and scientists of the period known as the "Scottish Enlightenment" during the 18th century were Francis Hutcheson, Alexander Campbell, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, Robert Burns, Adam Ferguson, John Playfair, Joseph Black and James Hutton, all advocates of what is subsumed under classical liberalism as outlined above. You might want to spend a little time learning something about your own history.

The terms "liberal" and "liberalism" have fallen on hard times due to those people who simply cannot accept the concept that, in a nation that wishes to claim that it is civilized, ALL people must be "equal before the law," and that everyone, including the rich and powerful, are bound by those same laws, and that all people must be treated as equals regardless of their race, national origin, ethnic background, gender, or gender orientation, or the size of their bank account. Particular enemies of the whole concept of Liberalism are many members of the ultra-Right, with spokes persons such as the frothing-at-the-mouth Rush Limbaugh and the sneering, spittle-spraying Ann Coulter (who equates liberalism with treason). I cannot see a rational person wanting to ally themselves in any way with the views of those two.

Many liberals in America tend to prefer the term "progressive." However, I would prefer to stand my ground and defend the term "liberal," harking back to the true philosophical meaning of the word and the concepts to which that word actually refers, not the loose and deceptive way some news commentators (and unfortunately you as well, Ake) are wont to use the word.

When I was quite young, my mother used to say," Before you use a word, be sure you know what it means."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM

Forgot: Appreciated what John T said.