 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 09 - 06:07 PM Regarding the genetic predisposition (or not) argument, Don, I really don't have an opinion about that. Why? Because I don't know enough about it at this point to have an opinion. I think there are probably a great number of factors which can play a part in whether someone is inclined to be gay...some intrinsic to the person, some acquired through environment, culture, etc. I happen to believe that people reincarnate, and that one human soul can live many lives as a man and many as a woman...so if that is the case, then why wouldn't people get a bit confused about their gender roles at times? And why should it matter if they do? I think that the human soul is equally male and female, Don...every human soul...but that when you are born you must find yourself in either a male or a female body at that time...and then you come under the influence of your culture and your family and whoever else is around...and so it goes. Anything can happen. So what are you gonna do with that? Probably nothing, right? ;-) Because you don't even consider it in your argument. The argument about genetic predisposition (or not) is simply not what concerns me in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to argue about it one way or the other. I have no basis for arguing about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Sorcha Date: 01 May 09 - 06:10 PM YOU RULE, Little Hawk! What I've thought all my life but couldn't put it into words! YOU did!!! Bless you on this May Day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Sorcha Date: 01 May 09 - 06:12 PM And what IS it with people who simply can't seem to change their minds when presented with FACTS? Do they just ALWAYS have to be 'right'? But I was wrong once too..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 May 09 - 06:18 PM NEWS ALERT: SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE FOUND A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY! Details at ten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 01 May 09 - 06:50 PM "A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY!" To isolate it, they would first have to find at least one middle aged man who has a computer but has never exhibited that behaviour. A quadropoligic wouldn't do, for reason that should be obvious. Then they would have to waterboard the subject a few times, to determine if he was telling the truth. Then they would have to find at least one more, and start over, to replicate the findings. Just about an exercise in futiltiy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 01 May 09 - 06:53 PM Thats Futiltiy South Dakota, where the research in this field is being conducted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 01 May 09 - 07:02 PM GtS: I don't think I've heard such a moderate position from you before on this issue. The fact of gays marrying or not marrying is, indeed, as tempest in a teapot. The fact of them being denied the RIGHT to do so is a serious matter and it would be so whether the basis of the bias was freckles, or elongated earlobes, or skin color, or any other non-germane excuse to exercise bias. This really has nothing to do with homosexuality as such. It has to do with knowingly excluding a set of humans from a legal right on spurious grounds. Why make them sit in the back of the bus? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 May 09 - 07:06 PM Well, sorry, Little Hawk, but that's the way you come on, as if standing in a neutral corner and remarking on the "human weaknesses" of the participants in the discussion without really getting involved in the discussion itself. Then you return from time to time to take pot-shots without actually stating an opinion of your own. And by the way, if you don't know enough about something to venture an opinion, you might consider not taking those pot-shots at people who have spent considerable time researching the matter and have facts upon which to base their opinions. "The argument about genetic predisposition (or not) is simply not what concerns me in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to argue about it one way or the other. I have no basis for arguing about it." Okay, then why are you here, other than to snipe? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 01 May 09 - 07:30 PM Thanks to all of you for a spirited and interesting (if a bit repetitive) discussio. I am away for a week. Don't take advantage. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 May 09 - 08:00 PM Sounds good, Amos. I've got a busy weekend ahead of me also. Enjoy! Don Firth P. S. If anyone is curious about my views on this matter, just reread (or read for the first time) my many posts above. TTFN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 01 May 09 - 08:22 PM I am here, Don, to remind certain people over and over again, that they have no moral authority or right to judge other individuals (whom they are in dialogue with) or to make sweeping statements that sum up another individual whom they are in dialogue with as a "racist", a "bigot", a "sexist" or anything else like that. We do not have the right or authority to pass that sort of judgement on other people when we're discussing something with them, in my opinion. Also, it inevitably derails the discussion and turns it into an ugly exchange attack/defence/counterattack. I go by an ancient spiritual teaching, Don: "Judge not, lest ye shall BE judged (and found wanting)." I say that not as a Christian, not as a Muslim, not as a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Pagan or indeed any other such designation, but as a free thinker who believes in the principles being expressed in that spiritual teaching. We are not equipped to pass judgement on another human being, in my opinion, and we should resist the temptation to do so most strenuously. We never know enough about anyone else to be equipped to judge them in that fashion. As for passing judgement on people's actions...well...that's another matter entirely. ;-) If I see someone taking an action that is destructive in some way, then I judge the action itself, and I deal with it accordingly (as does civil law). I do not pass judgement on the person but on what the person did or is doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 May 09 - 10:52 PM Little Hawk, I'll be gone for awhile, but here are some selected readings: #### The expectation that men should abandon their judgment is the desire that men reject their ability to reason. In fact, when the Bible states "Judge not, that ye be not judged," the implicit motivation to refrain from judging is the fear of someone else's judgment. Many believers may say that this means we should not condemn others, but this verse makes no mention of either condemning or others. Besides, there are times when it is morally proper to condemn others. I would never expect or ask others to "judge not" or to suspend their ability to reason. In fact, I purposefully seek those who are not willing to abandon their intellectual and moral judgment. I delight in the use of my mind, which means I delight in my ability to pass sound judgments about things and people. Also, I fear neither the judgment nor the condemnation of others, because I do not accept the implicit assumption that others are in some way superior to me, such that their judgment and/or condemnation is be something I should fear. Rather, I adopt the principle: Judge, and be prepared to be judged. #### We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence. I've been in a number of social situations where I've heard these phrases all too often: • "Everyone is entitled to their own truth." • "There's no such thing as good and evil." • "Judge not lest you be judged." These statements are not the product of critical thinking. Arguably these statements result from a LACK of critical thought. While part of being critical is to thoroughly examine all aspects of any statement, fact, or opinion, the essence of being critical is NOT to withhold judgement, but to render it. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. Don't you find it strange that people associate judgment or the act of judging with a negative connotation? This is a product of society and a natural tendency for many people to be neutral fence-sitters, and abdicate responsibility by not rendering any judgment whatsoever. The goal of exercising critical thought is not to strive for absolute neutrality—which doesn't benefit anyone. We don't become critical thinkers just for the sake of criticism. The goal is to strive for the truth, and to reject untruth. The goal is to strive for the good and to reject the evil. This is a very difficult goal to attain, but it is the motivation that should inspire us to continue to question ourselves, our world, our existence. It will always be an ongoing process, and one fraught with mistakes–but that should not frighten us into becoming fence-sitters who sanction anything. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer "Why?" and to prove one's case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer. So to the statements above, this is how critical thinkers would rephrase them • "Everyone has a right to seek the truth." • "We should seek the good and reject the evil." • "Judge, and be prepared to be judged." #### I refuse to remain impartial between the fire brigade and the fire. —Winston Churchill The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. —A. A. Milne Those who choose to not participate in politics will be ruled by their inferiors. —Plato Are those who declare "Judge not that ye be not judged" willing to allow others to act immorally so that they may do so also? —No mercy for the Devil #### "Judge, and be prepared to be judged." Let's compare that to the Bible. The bible says "Judge not, least ye be judged" (or words to that effect). The bible tells you not to judge others because doing so will likely result later in you being judged. We could argue all day long over the nuances and meanings of the word "judge". I am not going to do that. I am just going to assume the meaning that most of us would, when we use the word "judge". It is generally used to mean "analyze". The act of "judging" is the act of "analyzing." In our society it has become politically correct to say "don't be judgmental." Are they saying "don't be analytical?" No. What they are really saying is "do not criticize." No one is ever going to complain because you give them too many compliments. They mean "do not criticize me." In the world we live in today, religion is finally being exposed to the same criticism as science and all other human activities. People do judge. They analyze, and if they feel it's warranted, they criticize. That is called thinking and expressing yourself. Everyone judges, it's called thinking. Everyone criticizes when they feel justified, it's called freedom of expression. And, everyone judges their judger, as is their right. #### You say that one risks his personal integrity if he chooses to stand on a particular side of the fence. That is not true. You might end up finding you were wrong. But being wrong does not necessarily mean being dishonest, ergo you can be wrong and still be a man of integrity. The real reason why it is not true is because if you don't choose, you have no integrity. Integrity is the consistent practice of virtues such as honesty, productivity, justice, etc. To practice those, you have to make choices - both moral and practical. In order to be just, you sometimes need to make a choice on whether a person is or is not guilty for say a crime. There is no middle path here. Your end conclusion might be wrong, but if you have seen the evidence, considered it all and if you have found no inconsistency with one of the verdicts, then you can honestly make that verdict without the breach of integrity. You cannot go through life without making choices and judgments. Judge and be prepared to be judged. —Nikola Novak Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 May 09 - 11:15 PM Addendum: Judge, and be prepared to be judged. And remember that you can be judged for the judgments you make—and for the judgments you avoid making. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 May 09 - 11:27 PM 'Seek you, the truth, and the truth shall set you free'..as long as you're quoting the Bible,..don't forget that one, boys! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 02 May 09 - 12:09 AM I know one particular source whence forth I can be sure that truth does not issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 12:20 AM And "Even the Devil quotes Scripture." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 12:45 AM Tia, there you go again..can't you ever say something original, ..umm..like an a original thought, instead of these feeble attempts at 'bagging' on someone?? Look up the word 'constructive'...I mean as long as you're not reading this thread, any longer. Don, Even the truth is in there too....but then, maybe the devil has gene issues. ..or claims he does..who knows? It says he's a liar too. Take a chance, and bet on reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 12:54 AM We don't really disagree, Don, you'd just like to think we do. ;-) You are again thoroughly misunderstanding what I mean when I speak of not judging another human being. For instance, I do not agree with the propositions you suggested I would that: • "Everyone is entitled to their own truth." • "There's no such thing as good and evil." Nope. I don't agree with those in the least. People are not entitled to a truth, for example, that makes them think they can wantonly harm others, for instance. They may think they are entitled to it, but they're not. And there is such a thing as good or evil. And I am not even slightly afraid of "taking sides". I know it would be convenient for you, Don, if I believed all the silly things you would like to think I believe in order for me to make a good target for your argument, but I don't. I said...judge the action, not the person. That is what the law does, if it's a sensible law. It judges the action, not the person. It does not sentence a robber to jail because he's an unpleasant fellow, a jerk, etc., it sentences him to jail because he has committed robbery. That's a judgement on the action, and that's what I mean by judging the action. The robber pays the penalty of his crime...he does not go to jail because he's Black, gay, Muslim, atheist, mean or just plain unfriendly and generally not nice. He does not go to jail because he's "evil". He goes to jail because he committed robbery. He didn't control an evil tendency. That's a judgement upon his actions, and that's the kind of judgement I'm in favor of....the normal course of enforcing the law. I am no moral agnostic whatsoever. I know what is right and what is wrong. I'm simply not the person you imagine me to be at all. I'd waste more of my time here trying to prove that I'm not the silly unrealistic moral agnostic prat you wish I was, but why bother? It gets boring and after all, it is my time. Why should I spend it that way when there are better ways? Why allow YOU to make ME waste my own time defending what needs no defence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 01:31 AM Little Hawk, a lot of what I posted above are from essays on ethics. I am not accusing you of these things, I put those essay excerpts there as a reminder of a lot of things that need thinking about from time to time. Including by me. And I am not trying to make you the target of any argument. As to the matter of judging the action, not the person, I can most certainly judge what a person advocates, even though they may not have taken action on it—yet. If someone advocates something that I consider unethical, I have a moral obligation to speak out against it. I do not have the right to muzzle him or lock him up. But I most certainly have the right to express my opinion. And endeavor to stop him before he translates what he advocates into action or manages to talk other people into doing it. And that includes telling someone who has shown all the signs of being a flaming bigot that that is what he seems to be exhibiting, and telling him why I think so. There is even the outside chance in such situations that the person might take it to heart and do some soul-searching. As I have suggested a few people here might do. I most certainly hope that you are not a silly, unrealistic morally agnostic prat, but if you do not wish to be regarded as one, it would really help if you would stop sounding like one. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 01:54 AM Well, Don, again I do not see any area where we disagree in what you just said. I think you have possibly misinterpreted what I was referring to when I spoke of not judging a person. Language is the tricky part here. You and I are, I think, in agreement about ethics and about how to respond to unethical behaviour, but we are not interpreting what I mean by the phrase "to judge a human being" in the same way. It has nothing to do with letting people get away with bad behaviour. That's not what I'm speaking of. Suppose someone does something idiotic... If you say to him, "That was a stupid thing to do!" you are on solid ground. He can maybe do something useful with that advice. You have judged his behaviour, and behaviour can be changed. You have not judged him, in the sense of who he is as a living being. You have not judged his intrinsic worth. If you say to him, "You're an idiot!" you are not saying anything useful at all to him, and he can't do anything useful with it. He can just get angry or humiliated. That would be judging HIM, not his actions. See? Try the above two approaches on a child while he's growing up. If you keep telling him he's stupid, he's an idiot, he's lazy, and he's no good...well, it gives him no useful input at all, and it may convince him that he really is stupid, an idiot, lazy, and no good, in which case his life is headed for no place good at all...or it may fill him with a sense of bitter injustice and hatred for you. This has happened to many children while they were growing up. They had judgement brought down on them their parents who meant well perhaps, but who had no idea how to use words. It was not expressed as judgement of their actions, but of their intrinsic worth as a human being. That's what I'm saying we shouldn't do. That's the kind of judgement I'm saying we shouldn't bring down on people. But we should certainly tell them that their behaviour is unacceptable or inappropriate or illegal...if it is. And they should meet the normal consequences of that behaviour. As I said, behaviour can be changed. To inform a person of wrongful behaviour can be useful. To inform him that he's an idiot, a bigot, a racist, a fool, etc....is useless. He will either believe you...and forever hate you for it. Or he won't believe you...and forever hate you double for it. Believe me. I know how it works, having been on the receiving end of that sort of thing when I was young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 02:16 AM I don't have time to comment right now, Little Hawk, other than to point out something about the way I usually attempt to phrase things. When GfS asked me how I would feel if one of my children, presuming I had any, "decided" to become gay, I pointed out that his question ". . . is a minor variation of a question one used to hear a lot a few decades back, and it is the unmistakable hallmark of the bigot: 'Would you want your daughter to marry one?'" I was suggesting that perhaps GfS didn't fully realize what kind of question that sounded like, and might like to think about it a bit and possibly reevaluate the ideas that prompted it. I did not flat-out call GfS a "bigot." It's still GfS's call. Bedtime for Bonzo. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 02:25 AM Not sure I got it all..its my 'call'..for what?..(promise to be fair) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 May 09 - 03:29 AM Don... the information you printed does not refute what I have been saying! Aids was first diagnosed among the homosexual communities in North America, Africa, India, Europe(France, UK, Germany....The list goes on. Transmission of the disease is quite different, it can be transmitted by intravenous injection, heterosexual intercourse etc and once it crosses over into mainstream heterosexual society it can take off. The important thing is in which sector of society Aids is first diagnosed, and this is in every country, among homosexuals.....now, you are not going to tell me that is just an unlucky coincidence? In percentage terms,homosexuals remain by far the largest sub group living with AIDS. I never at any time said "Aids was invented by homosexuals" but what I will say is that you are a fucking weasel! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 May 09 - 08:35 AM The purpose of "Avert.org" the website linked by Don Firth seems to be to provide information on the transmission of AIDS/HIV and to deflect questions on homosexual practice and HIV/AIDS. In their pages, they make almost no comment on the "elephant in the room" which is homosexuality and the link to AIDS, while devoteing pages to oft repeated advice on blood products, drug users and burgeoning heterosexual transmission. The website appears to be run primarily as a PR machine for the "Gay Lobby" I would advise you all to spend some time going through the pages and make up your own mind about the content. The statistics which they provide for Aids infection are flawed, in that although they admit homosexuals are the largest group, they fail to say that in real percentage terms, the difference is massive even allowing for the chance of a much greater volume of transmission among a vastly greater heterosexual population There are plenty of good independent statistics available elsewhere on the web. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 11:06 AM When AIDS first came out, if anyone remembers, we were told, that it originally came from a monkey..anyone remember that?? What they didn't tell you was, those 'monkeys' were wearing white lab suits, at Fort Kendrick(holding forefinger over lips....'SHHHHH')...and like Forrest Gump... "And that's all there is, to say about tha-yat" (Actually, there is more to say about it, but its a moot point), nobody's interested if it dispels whatever bullcrap they've gotten comfortable with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 12:16 PM "nobody's interested if it dispels whatever bullcrap they've gotten comfortable with" That, sad to say, is the story of the human race in a nutshell. They defend their most familiar assumptions, and they resist unfamiliar propositions or viewpoints. Dogs are like that too...they insist on sticking to the normal routines. ;-) Matter of fact, it's probably typical of all lifeforms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 03:22 PM "Don... the information you printed does not refute what I have been saying! Aids was first diagnosed among the homosexual communities in North America, Africa, India, Europe(France, UK, Germany....The list goes on." WRONG, Ake. HIV/AIDS was first diagnosed among African apes. And like the swine flu and bird flu, the virus jumped to humans, as many viruses do. Once a human had it, it could move from human to human by any of several ways, including heterosexual intercourse and blood transfusions. And acquired immune deficiency diseases (AIDS) of You have a history of dismissing any web site or other source of information if it disagrees with your prejudices, no matter what its credentials, as "part of the 'Gay Lobby.'" Two profiles of AVERT.ORG, taken from other independent web sites: AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity based in the UK, with the aim of AVERTing HIV and AIDS worldwide. AVERT provides AIDS & HIV information, including information about HIV/AIDS infection, HIV testing, prevention, global and African information, AIDS treatment, statistics and personal stories. AVERT has a number of overseas projects, helping with the problem of HIV/AIDS in countries where there is a particularly high rate of infection, such as South Africa, or where there is a rapidly increasing rate of infection such as in India.By the way, as long as we are engaging in pleasant banter, let me just mention that I have never fucked a weasel in my life! Since you seem to be so fascinated by sexual relations with livestock and other animals, that's your department. I have a mental picture of flocks of sheep stampeding in panic as you race around the moors after them with a tilt in your kilt. #### And frankly, GfS, on the matter of whether or not you are a bigot being your call, it looks to me like you just called it. Your denial of established science in order to support your position pretty well settles that matter. Merriam-Webster. bigot: 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. And particularly when those views are either challenged, or proven to be false, or are not universally applicable or acceptable. Is "bigot" always an ad hominem attack in an effort to refute an argument? Not necessarily. "Bigot" can be a valid description of a person. There are distinct, recognizable characteristics of bigotry. It is no more an ad hominem attack than describing someone as liberal, conservative, or ignorant (in its true meaning of "unknowing"). A major characteristic of bigotry is the rejection or denial of clearly available and independently verifiable proof. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 05:09 PM Pardon me. Wrong analogy. "Lowers the drawbridge." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 06:46 PM Must be 'genetic'..you know, like one who has blond parents, but the kids, or one of them came out brunette...what's the matter with that brat?...didn't anyone tell her that she must be obedient to her genes?? I remember, that I posted a post, with the actual numbers, (and I don't feel like scrolling through them), about how the nearest thing to finding a gene that makes one a homosexual, was something like 1 in .02%, of all homosexuals, but 98% of homosexuals claim they have it, and that's why they are hopelessly, (and conveniently so) bound to be homosexuals...and it was never proved, conclusively that the gene they think might have been linked, actually was anything of the sort at all. Believe me, if it was, it surely would have caught my eye, or anyone's eye, who deals in the behavioral sciences. Actually, proving there is or isn't a gene, doesn't do anything, especially when it has no bearing, on 'overtaking' one's will to survive, or reproduce...but that is another, topic for a less biased, group....all this stuff about disproving or proving, anything, is just the foundation, they use to put themselves, in a class, likened unto 'race' or 'ethnicity'..give me a break!..Why don't they just come out and tell them the truth, and deal with it from there?? I've said, repeatedly now, but too many deaf ears, because they only listen to the drumbeat, of the 'excuse parade' that rights should be granted(as if rights need to granted, at all, we're born with them), based on at least, being a citizen.....not because of behavioral exceptions, or group preferences. It is, and always will be an issue, for homosexuals, to be 'accepted' by an 'authority figure'...ummm...such as to replace a resentment they've foster toward their fathers(for guys), and resentment of the mother figure, and resenting their femininity, for women. Sometimes either side, has a frustration with dealing with the opposite sex, and rather that actually finding out 'why?', to possibly correct it, it becomes easier, just to blame it on someone else, and claim to have a predisposed genetic disposition, noting that it couldn't possibly be a need to feel innocent, and victimized. That way they avoid, "Hmm, maybe its me, maybe I need to know something, about the opposite sex, and myself. Hmm, If that's true, maybe, just maybe, I've had this focus on some unforgiveness toward, my parent for far too long, and maybe, just maybe, while I was hostile, fermenting in this emotional unhappiness, perhaps, certain things, that SHOULD have been maturing, have been put on hold." Oh well...there is so much more that I could go on about this topic, things that are true, and effective,...I'll wait to see the 'over saturation' point of understanding, before I go any more.. The reason I even went into this, is because refuting something, is not the same as shedding light, as to WHY a refutation is valid. To some, of very little understanding, of the topic, and therefore a closed mind, to any thing else, guarded by an 'opinion', they can exercise, their lazy, apathetic, insensitivities, and remain blissfully ignorant. Those people are usually the name callers, and accusers of others being 'bigots', 'homophobes', and such. Could it be, that someone you call that, actually has more information, and compassion, and understanding, than you even CARE about learning?? A novel thought, eh? Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 07:01 PM I'm not all that sure that you do have more information, GfS, and most certainly not more compassion. Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether. Another characteristic of gays or lesbians who have been "cured" by one method or another are frequent bouts of depression and anxiety. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University claimed to have developed a "cure" for homosexuality through therapy he had devised, and published a study on his results. He called it "reparation therapy" and claimed that it worked successfully, thereby proving that gender orientation is not "hard wired." However, a follow-up study by John Bancroft of the Kinsey Institute a few years later found that Only six of the 202 "gay" men and lesbians who had been through counseling reported changing their sexual preference to heterosexuality. According to the interviews, 178 failed to change their orientation and 18 reported adopting celibacy or becoming conflicted about sex.Other methods of "treating" homosexuality involved so-called "aversion therapy." These treatments involved tactics such as pairing homosexual imagery with electric shocks to induce feelings of revulsion. So much for the claimed "cures." The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it. There is also the discovery—in identical twins, who should be genetically identical—that occasionally one will be heterosexual and the other will be homosexual. Rather than supporting the idea that gender orientation is a matter of choice, this unexpected phenomenon has been traced to imbalances in the infusion of hormones in utero during a crucial stage in the development of the fetuses. So—no matter how you slice it, there is every reason (supported by physical evidence) to believe that gender orientation is "hard-wired" one way or another, and not a matter of choice. Also there is the phenomenon of very young children behaving like, even wanting to dress like, the other gender. These children almost invariable become homosexual when they sexually mature. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 07:09 PM " "I'm not all that sure that you do have more information, GfS, and most certainly not more compassion." Knock that shit off, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 08:56 PM No shit, Sherlock. You've mentioned a couple of times that you're a counsellor, but beyond that, no substantiation. Do you have a degree in psychology, and if so, from what institution? Or did you just watch Dr. Phil a lot? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 09:36 PM My goodness...all these reams of weighty facts and info! If only I had the time for it. ;-) Don, I don't recommend fucking weasels. It's a big letdown. You haven't missed much, I assure you. At least, that's what this guy from way north of Wawa told me...it gets lonely on the traplines! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 09:37 PM Don, Glad you asked. Given what information I've gotten, I cannot help but come, to see some interesting observations, based on my knowledge and experience. Though, I admit, I usually wait for just a little bit more than I have, sometimes we go by an educated 'hunch', then pursue further insights to help the situation, that is, if the client wishes to. Do you want the short version?....or more detailed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 09:55 PM I think there are a great number of psychological factors which can cause a person to become either gay...or bisexual. I think it's so bloody obvious that there are, that I don't even know why I would have to say it! ;-) Now then, are there some genetic factors that can come into play too in some cases? Yeah, maybe. Quite possibly. So? I seriously doubt that it's ALL of one and NONE of the other in every single case. Seems unlikely to me. And I don't think there's even any point arguing about it. It doesn't matter. It's a tiny side-issue of staggeringly little real importance, in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 10:06 PM Yes, Little Hawk, (yoho), that is true to a large degree, but Don has a greater issue, to him, that he cannot let go of. It is mighty important to him, no matter how much we agree on 'rights', that he argues beyond that point. There is something else he wants, especially from yourself, and me. He can, in his mind, dismiss Akenaton, at least at this time, who paints the broader social issue, but there is something really important to him, that he gets validation and perhaps vindication, that it is genetic based. Take a wild guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 10:17 PM Yes, I see it's important to him. (shrug) I can't help that, but it sure as hell isn't important to me. To me, it's like arguing about which wallpaper shall we use in the municipal building hallway? The one with the little white flowers or the one with the little blue birds? (zzzzzzzzzz...falling asleep while I try to decide...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 10:31 PM Yoho, Yes, I know. The issue of homosexuality, is not really focused on, by those who are personally not affected by it, usually only by those who it has personally touched. I'm being polite, giving an out, Don. Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 11:22 PM Obviously you two are a match made in heaven. I'm going to get a good night's sleep. TTFN. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 11:23 PM Sweet dreams. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 03 May 09 - 06:25 AM Don....again you misrepresent what I write. I didn't say you were "fucking a weasel", but that you were "a fucking weasel"......is this misrepresentation to go on throughout the life of this thread? However, I feel that I have overstepped the mark and that an abject apology is deserved. Since my ill considered words were broadcast on the internet, my Mudcat message box has been innundated with posts from highly offended weasels all over the UK and even further afield, apparently my stupid comment has caused real pain and suffering amongst the weasel population. It has variously been described as "bigotry against weasels"...."weaselphobia"..."lowering the status of weasels in society...etc. There have been numerous examples of victimisation....."even the rabbits are sniggering behind their whiskers", and one heartrending message from a weasel who had been living a solitary life under the roots of an old tree and is now contemplating suicide , he writes...."I used to live a life of peace and tranquility, loved by all save a few vermin further down the food chain, now I am awakened every morning by a vindictive flock of small birds, who perch on the branches of my tree and chirrup unceasingly....Don Firth!!...Don Firth!!....Don Firth!!" So taking all into account, I would ask Joe to strike my cruel jibe from the record.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 03 May 09 - 12:00 PM Still, those of us who remember the "Lunch Counter" sit downs in the 1960's and the law suits that resulted from them, are convinced that once gay marriage is legal, some same-sex couple will go to a Pentacostal Church and demand to be married. When the pastor refuses, the fight will be on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 May 09 - 01:47 PM Important? Well, yes. Injustice, denial of civil rights, and other forms of oppression against minorities are indeed matters of considerable importance, not just to me, but to vast numbers of fair-minded people. And, of course, I do have a tendency to get involved in such matters (see Niemoller quote). Someone has to. As to your credentials, GfS, be as short or as detailed as you want. Truth to tell, frankly, you've said all that I really need to know about your counseling skills. I don't care if you sat at Jung and Adler's knees and taught B. F. Skinner everything he knows. No matter how much training and education you may have had, what is significant is the fact that you are willing to brush recent scientific findings aside in order to maintain your own prejudices. I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything. If I persist in countering your arguments, it's not with any idea of changing your mind, because it is obviously cast in concrete. And, in fact, I have said pretty much all I really wanted to say on this subject, and I have provided links to articles providing evidence and further information to back up what I've said, which, of course, you attempt to blow off as "Gay Lobby" propaganda. But—if people will check it for themselves, they can make up their own minds rather than simply accepting what either of us say on the matter. Sorry, but I do not have much more time to waste on the futile task of attempting to educate the ineducable. I have a busy afternoon in the 3D world. Concert. In the meantime: Little Hawk, do something useful. Go walk your dog. And Ake, there's a cute little ewe out there batting her eyes at you. But if you prefer weasels, well, each to his own taste. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 May 09 - 01:57 PM Oh! By the way: 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong:" 1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 2) Gay marriage will encourage people to become gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing (it already has a license) and all it needs to do is sign the marriage contract. 4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be compromised. 6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of the one true religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 03 May 09 - 10:21 PM Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL! Well, maybe if they were really gluttons for attention, I guess...or in the mood for a fight. Yeah...there are people who will do crazy things like that now and then to satisfy some emtional need. ;-) **** Don! You offend me. I have done several useful things today! Now, having done them, I feel like doing some trivial and completely useless stuff on Mudcat (like posting on this blowhard thread here) and you put me down for it!!! You, sir, are heartless. I hope you get attacked by outraged weasels. *** akenaton - You did the right thing to apologize to the world's weasels. Good man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 03 May 09 - 10:26 PM Oh, Don? With all those loopy ideas you just expressed there about the supposed pitfalls of gay marriage, the thought occurs to me that you and Anita Bryant would have made the perfect couple! Now there would be a "marriage made in heaven" if ever there was one... ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 May 09 - 10:54 PM Anita Bryant claimed that God had his hand on her. I know that's untrue, because if God had His hand on her, it would have been over her fat, flappin' mouth. Great concert this afternoon. Not me, but a young classical singer doing her senior recital. Beautiful! I think she has a great future (she already sings in the Seattle Opera chorus, and she's on her way up). Actually, I'll let you in on a secret (don't tell Ake). Weasels are my friends. I am to them as the Wicked Witch of the West is to the Flying Monkeys. So--BEWARE!! Don Firth (Peal of insane laughter!!!) P. S. Gone again. Masterpiece (PBS) is starting Dickens' "The Old Curiousity Shop" tonight. Being a curious fellow, I thought I'd give it a look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 03 May 09 - 11:36 PM "Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!" Okay, say the first gay couple goes to a Methodist Church to get married, and the folks there, worried about their tax-exempt status agree to go though with it. That, of course, sets a precedent, and a second couple goes to a Pentecostal Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 12:06 AM Don: .."I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything..." Maybe that's been your, and your son's problem. It's all been about YOU. Perhaps, recognizing that, imagine how he felt, excluded, while the little engine in him, kept longing for a loving father's attention, and approval..... A boy gets his masculinity from his father, not his mother. Men, can't face the admission of failure, much like women can't own up to, 'It's my fault, I was wrong.' Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets. I gathered from your posts, that you had a religious upbringing, and since, have turned bitter at that too. Suggestion: Let your son know, that you're sorry, for not being there, when he needed you, and how truly important he is to you, and ask him to open up to you. Give him a hug, and hold onto him/each other, as if for dear life. Let him cry on your shoulder. There may be a lot more that he'd like to say to you...probably how much he wanted you..if you'd open up in that way. Pull out the guitar, sing him a song..let him know HE was more important to you, than YOU were to being about YOU. See what happens. And Don, this isn't about imagining winning anything, in a blog. Its about the love between those who we love, and love expressed, to each other.. Must we have heartbreaks, BEFORE we fall to our knees? Truly Don, The Best, for both of you, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 09 - 01:48 AM GfS - "Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets." Yeah. Well, it was a confusing time. All the old ideas were falling and the young people were grasping for new ones...and trying to be "cool" at the same time. I took a good look at the whole thing of raising children, doing the nuclear family thing, building the "nest", and decided that: 1. I'd be no good at it. 2. I didn't want to do it. 3. I wasn't going to do it. And I held to that. I have produced no progeny nor have I ever married, but I've certainly been in love a few times. I don't know about Don, but I got brought up by atheistic parents. We NEVER went to church unless it was somebody else's wedding or something like that. Kind of handy, because it left me free to investigate any and all religions without necessarily being tied to any one of them. And I did so. A lot of good stuff there behind all the outward structures and rules and hierarchical stuff which I can do without. **** As for homosexuality, I had no significant encounters with that at all as a young person, but I have known a few gay people here and there amongst various friends and associates in my 30's and since. I can't say for sure, but I have the impression that their romantic/emotional/sexual lives are even more complex on average than with heterosexuals. (well, in the case of the men anyway...the lesbians' lives seem a lot more stable to me) The gay men I've known (a handful of them) have all been extremely articulate, wonderful talkers!, witty, and usually involved in the arts in some way. They were all highly intelligent people, but with damnably complicated personal lives from what I've seen. Those, of course, are mere generalities I'm stating...and someone here may object to that. Okay. All I can say is, that's what I've observed amongst a few specific people I've known. I have no idea if it is any kind of rule of averages, it's just what I've personally observed, that's all. |
