BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:19 PM

. . . and a quiet drifted over the thread . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:38 PM

Don, I answered your question. Somehow you missed it, probably because you had other things on your mind, or where ever.
As so far as your links, citing Tim LeHaye,('Left behind', series) I think was a little on the flimsy side, but that's how you wanted to portray it. By the way, the way you treat the 'Christian perspective', umm, you wouldn't classify that as just a little on the 'bigoted' side, would you? I mean, that DOES seem to be a concern of yours, isn't it?
And so far as your practicing, in public, (like Dr. Phil), you're the one who jumped into it. If you don't want people to respond to your sacred thoughts about the subject, then just keep your thoughts to yourself!..and for Pete's sake, why are you arguing? Can't I reply to your recitation of homosexual propaganda??
Don T. still has ventured into still, one of the best questions yet. This other stuff just smacks of 'all about me'...which, of course, it is. It is not my fault, that, (to quote another adage), 'Once you strike the bell, you can't just take away the ring'.
Dr. Richard Cohen and his son, the link I put twice, I believe, just blows your 'studies' away...especially toward the end, when upon the son, giving his commencement address, all the jaws dropped open. Why do you dismiss that so easy?? Because it contradicts what you WANT TO BELIEVE!!
Other than that, we're done with your responses. You omit whole thoughts, phrases, presuppose what you PERCEIVE we are saying, and lash out, you re-arrange anything you want, from a number of posters, to make up shit, that isn't what is even said! Your hostility to truth is staggering!
Think what you may, of me, and what I've SHOWN,(actually several of you have shown it), but if you want to be, support, believe, that homosexuality is for all of us to swallow(no pun intended), then head on. Sorry, if there are those out there, who don't subscribe to your outlook.
I'd welcome an intelligent dialogue on it, in which cooler heads prevail.
And while you're thinking about it, just why did all those jaws drop?? Could it be because he was a living testimony, that what is presently being 'taught' in our colleges and universities, AT THIS TIME, about the subject, just got busted, for being the poppy cock, misinformation that it is?? So keep your fallacious 'studies' to your group. I'm sure it will soothe you.
Don't even reply with a rebuttal, you're wasting both our time and talents!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:45 PM

A quiet? 900 posts?

I did not read ANY posts since I said this was not for me.

Did not have to... yer still going on about a basic human drive.

Fact is, ya just don't seem to realize, most of you, that what's good for the Goose ain't necessarily good for the gander. Needer side of the arguement is ever gonna "win" what is simply a matter of choice.... especally when it is NOT yer fucking choice.

Youse are still here? Debating the master of all subjects? 900 posts? Go.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 05 May 09 - 08:11 PM

Dr. Richard Cohen and his son: proof by an anecdote, from a therapist whose curative treatment for gays consists, at least in some significant part, of having them pound on furniture with a tennis racket.
" By the way, the way you treat the 'Christian perspective', umm, you wouldn't classify that as just a little on the 'bigoted' side, would you?" Don has repeatedly expressed his respect for the Christian perspective of the deeply rooted Christian church he attends with his wife. A substantial number of Christian churchs today maintain much the same perspective. Congratulation, Gfs,on being one of those who are qualified to define what a true Christian perspective is. By the way, how do you feel about the Christian perspective of Fred Phelps? Oh. am i being preposterous and offensive, now? Fred and his family are very convinced that their's is a true Christian perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 09 - 08:36 PM

You answered my question? Not so anyone would notice. You've made a few general comments about same-sex marriage being detrimental to the concept of marriage, but I want you to get down to specifics. You didn't have any trouble with that when you decided to dissect my brain and show its diseased parts to the world at large.

And just how is it that I treat the "Christian perspective?" You'll have to be a bit more specific on that also, because there is more than one "Christian perspective" on the matter of gender orientation, or haven't you been paying attention? I am hardly bigoted. There are may differences of opinion on what constitutes the most important aspects of Christian theology. Timothy LeHaye's argument is one of the most succinct examples of the "homosexuality is a sin and it can be cured" perspective, which is why I linked to it. To allow people to compare his approach with the scientific approach.

I am not "reciting homosexual propaganda," I linked to comprehensive articles by authorities on the subject for the enlightenment and edification of those with minds open enough to consider all sides of the matter. There can't be two sides to this, GfS, both "a matter of choice" and "predisposed." One of them has to be wrong. You are so locked into your own position that you won't even consider other opinions, no matter how authoritative. Unscientific and illogical, verging on the irrational.

And just WHO is practicing in public like Dr. Phil? Are you having an identity crisis? You seem to be loosing track of who is who and who said what on this thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 11:54 PM

Dr. Cohen's therapy of beating the chair with a tennis racket, was merely an example of how one could, take his built up rage out. John Lennon used 'scream therapy'..whatever works, ok?
As far as anecdotal, a son, bio-med graduate giving a speech, and saying his father used to be gay, etc etc, is hardly anecdotal...unless of course you want to minimalize that..which of course father/son bonding in a positive way, homosexuals do. Usually it is a source of great pain, that they didn't. Anecdotal???

Here, in case anyone is interested at all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:38 AM

Again, from the 'For what its worth Department': (If you want the link, I'll post it.


Resolved Question
Show me another »
When are those that are trying to prove there is a gene that causes one to be gay going to give up?
Billions of dollars have already been spent to no avail. No one experiment has proved and concluded that there is a "gay gene," and no one ever will.

Additional Details
By the way, all of those who think that I have no experience with this, and that I'm just spouting from no experience with this issue, you should know that my father CHOSE a homosexual lifestyle after he had 6 children with my mother.


Not to get to personal, but to squash any type of statement about my father already being gay, I'll explain this. He was molested when he was a child by his father and uncle. He learned how to deal with the shame and pain of this act by storing it inside and never talking about it. This, undoubtedly, led to prolonged psychological effects that plagued him and eventually chose him to choose his lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:45 AM

Still no sight of the elephant then?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:01 AM

""By the way, all of those who think that I have no experience with this, and that I'm just spouting from no experience with this issue, you should know that my father CHOSE a homosexual lifestyle after he had 6 children with my mother.""

If true, that would certainly explain the degree of bile in your attitude.

It is still not, however, proof that would stand up in any court, of your father's "lifestyle choice", as opposed to his "predisposition".

Many gays have had hetero relationships before coming out.

One thing YOU might like to ponder, though.

If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin, but learned behaviour, does it not NECESSARILY follow that heterosexuality is also a "lifestyle choice" in the opposite direction?

If this is so, then the question of "normality" or "deviance" surely does not arise.

In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law.

You can't have it both ways, you know.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:55 AM

"Still no sight of the elephant then?"


               Yes, it's comprised of a bunch of people who want to involve themselves in something that is none of their business.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:28 AM

To remain steadfast, in an opinion, while IGNORING FACTS presented, is being WILLFULLY IGNORANT! You, all, holding onto your bent on homosexual activity, being the same as ethnicity, is ignorant.
Equating the two, is spitting in the faces of those who suffered, were denied rights, and fought, and even died, during the REAL civil rights movement.
There is NO homosexual gene, never was, never will be. That is your own CHOICE. Pointing that FACT out, and having it IGNORED, equals the same as trying to get an immature child to stop sucking his thumb. It is by CHOICE..therefore, cannot be considered a right, other than to choose. To be deceived, willfully, or to deceive willfully, speaks for itself, as to your characters. Choosing to suck your thumb, as a child, is it genetic?..or behavior?
Also, throwing tantrums, when a parent pulls the thumb out of the child's mouth, as seen just a few posts back, when Don First, wanted more attention drawn to himself(repeatedly), is nothing more than what it really is...EMOTIONAL IMMATURITY! In reality, it has no power, just a tantrum.
Does he have a right to be, 'the way he is'..sure...but must we make laws, changing definitions, family structures, child rearing,(as if he knew what that was), and laws to accommodate, such immaturity? No, but if he, and others, scream, kick, and wail loud enough, perhaps, they think the parent will let him put his thumb back. It won't change the FACT, that the child is still 'just sucking his thumb'.
So sally forth, gung-ho!...Let's be immature, ignorant, and pass legislation to try to 'dignify' our BEHAVIOR, and for God's sake, make sure those who are able to see this for what it really is, are silenced, because if others are helped out of it, that becomes an indictment for how really helplessly lame and corrupt, our ATTITUDES GOVERNING OUR BEHAVIOR, really are!!!! SUCK AWAY!!!..Kill the truth!!!..Discredit any lifestyle, that preaches otherwise, because as long as we can suck our thumbs, we, at least can feel the power, of being like 'grown ups', by being fascist pigs, to the rest of real world!
Talking about seeing the elephant??...nor the forest ,for the trees?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 06 May 09 - 10:43 AM

The writer in Don's link recent link #4 is definitely writing from a conservative Christian perspective. He clearly states his own "understanding that the cause of homosexuality is a highly complex combination of various factors, some genetic and some environmental". This is from someone conservative enough to cite Timothy LeHaye, an extremely onservative Christian, for support.
As to LeHaye, some of the environmental factors he lists would seem credible; a couple of others would be laughable if they weren't sad: "Youthful masturbator and fantasizer"; it's a wonder males aren't at least 98% gay. "Permissive childhood training", which could mean anything from not ruling with an iron hand to truly inadequate parenting, instilling no values or self-discipline; I would wager that that would in fact correlate with a tendency to promiscuity, but why would it determine what gender the developing child is attracted to?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 09 - 01:37 PM

Regarding your most recent post, GfS, you are starting to rave.

And I'm beginning to understand why you are so dead-set against acknowledging even the possibility that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.

Dawn begins to break. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 May 09 - 01:49 PM

"There is NO homosexual gene, never was, never will be."


How do you know that when scientists who spend every day studying human genes don't know it for sure?
Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:32 PM

"Still no sight of the elephant then?"


               Yes, it's comprised of a bunch of people who want to involve themselves in something that is none of their business.

Rig....would you care to explain that remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 03:21 PM

Dawn may be beginning to break, but I feel it will be a long old time till the light of reason makes it through to the Firth thought processes

As it seems to be "question time" on Mudcat, I would like to ask any here who have taken the time to read the statistics for people living with AIDs
Do you really think that there is no link between homosexual practice and AIDS?

If you answer Yes, could you please give the reasons for that belief.

If any Mudcatters are unaware of the statistics, I shall be pleased to post them for your perusal.

If you think it is none of your business.....go sit in the corner with Rig...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:15 PM

Stuff it, Ake. I'm familiar with all the statistics, both true and bogus.

I've been through all these arguments before--in the real world--so I'm not reading anything here that I haven't heard or read before. Yes, of course there is a link between homosexual sex and AIDS. There is also a link between heterosexual sex and AIDS. There is a link between blood transfusions and AIDS too. It is a contageous disease.

It is not exclusive to homosexuals as homophobes like to claim.

Also, Ake, when you have to resort to attacking the intelligence of obviously intelligent people, you're acknowledging the weakness of your own arguments.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 05:17 PM

Don...If you cannot see what the statistics indicate very clearly,
then I would have to call your"obvious intelligence" into question.
Homosexuals make up only 2% of the population, yet 45% of "people living with AIDS are homosexual.
In every country in the world, AIDS in humans was first diagnosed among the homosexual community.

Your weasely reference to blood transfusions is a "red herring", as the infection is not behavioural.

The disease can of course be transmitted by heterosexual intercourse,
but if it were simple a disease of "hapstance" the hetrosexual sector of these statistics should be massively larger

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:27 PM

Ake, it looks like your statistics came from font color=blue>freerepublic.com, and arch-conservative web site. The Baptist Press publishes the same statistics.

As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

####

Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

####

How can you avoid infection?

1)   Abstinence: Do not have sex (anal, vaginal or oral). This is the only sure way to avoid contracting the virus by this means.
2) Mutual Fidelity: Stay with one partner who has sex only with you.
3) Correct and Consistent Condom Use: Use a new latex condom every time you have sex. When used correctly and consistently, condoms can help prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
4) Do not share needles and syringes.

So, Ake, what is your objection to same-sex marriage if it encourages stable, single partner relationships? Since neither you, nor all the king's horses and all the king's men can put a stop to homosexuality, one would think that attempting to minimize the spread of AIDS by advocating same-sex marriage would be something that any intelligent person should favor. N'est-ce pas?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:33 PM

Maine joined in today. It's the end of religion. YAAAA!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:44 AM

Don...the figures cited are your own.

They were taken from the statistics of the Centre for Disease Control which you linked to. Personally, I feel they may be a little on the conservative(with a small c) side, but surely you cannot brand your own figures "lies".

I think a couple of days away from this thread would help you regain your equilibrium.

I have explained countless times why I am against homosexual "marriage", why do you keep asking the same question?

If you are really as intelligent as you would have us believe, why do you refuse to acknowlege the "elephant in the room", even to the extent of denying your own figures?

I left school at fifteen with virtually no formal education, yet I can manage to use my powers of reason when the evidence is laid before me. You Don, rely on emotive claptrap, outright distortion and bullying to force through your opinions......well it ain't gonna work on this thread!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:01 AM

I know this is a 'side note', but Rig has been asked a few times about his posts, with no response, so let me venture this, as far as your 'end of religion' posts, I, as well as many others draw a distinction between the 'Great Spirit' of God, and 'religion'...as in...'Religion is man's way of reaching God', but who listens to God, trying to reach man????
In the beginning, God created man,..and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:32 AM

Good morning to you Guest.....Do you never rest..:0)

As a BTW to Don.....I do not "hate" anyone, I am sorry for homosexuals in the same way that I feel sorry for anyone with psychiatric "conditions", but before I start to promote homosexuality as a "normal healthy lifestyle",and bring that lifestyle into mainstream society, some questions require answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:40 AM

Sorry Guest, I meant to congratulate you on your last post(thumb sucking)....excellent!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:53 AM

"In the beginning, God created man,..and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!"


                If it were true, maybe man is just trying to get even!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:09 AM

Rig, God, as defined, by most all, is the origin and giver of life. Just because 'religions' think it is merely a way to 'self righteousness', doesn't mean you are dead, does it? In the Bible, 'God is Love', is a quote. In America, God is materialism, (as once listed as the U.S.'s predominate 'religion' at the U.N.)..but then, in America, people confuse the 'pursuit of happiness' with the pursuit of material gain!
But this might be for a different thread.
Ake, Thanks , I guess...in addition to that, to be 'WILLINGLY IGNORANT', is to be STUPID...and I guess that proves true, to the old saying, "You can't FIX stupid!'
Don't know if you caught this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:23 PM

When people chose to engage in snide personal insults, they know they're hanging in mid-air. All Ake and GfS seem to be able to do in response to verifiable facts they don't like is to resort to personal attacks.

By the way, Ake, you can blow off the idea that AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions if you want, but it's a fact. If you ever have an accident or need an operation and require a blood transfusion, you'd better by damned sure your doctor knows where the blood came from.

This thread has passed it's "sell-by" date. It's starting to reek.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:44 PM

Of course Aids can be transmitted by blood transfusions, I never denied that, but as the transmission is not behavioural it does not affect this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:08 PM

It most certainly does. That's what you're missing.

And Ake, that sort of argument is "begging the question" (a recognized fallacy). You are assuming that what you say is true because you assume it's true. Circular argument.

You just flunked Logic 101.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:40 PM

Gobbldegook! you have lost the debate, please have the grace to retire.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:24 PM

Only according to you. Grow up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:27 PM

Same-sex couples have been getting married in Iowa for ten days now. Our lilacs are blooming and smell terrific, so does the crabapple tree. The robins are in great voice and I heard an owl last night. My rhubarb patch looks the best it ever has, I have made two pies so far and they were both fabulous.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:57 PM

My statistics come from the World Health Organization.

Neither Ake nor GfS have an answer to the questions I have asked them.

To Ake:

Since "Mutual Fidelity: Stay with one partner who has sex only with you," is an obvious way of markedly decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS, why would you be opposed to same-sex marriage when it would encourage homosexuals to form stable, permanent relationships and thereby do exactly that?

Or would you prefer that all gays contract AIDS and die so your won't have to obsess about the matter anymore?

To GfS:

In what manner does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?

Or is it that you know perfectly well that it would have no effect at all on any conventional marriage, and there goes one of your (and others') major objections?

When some people don't have an answer, they resort to insults and abuse. A sure sign that they have nothing but their own prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 05:39 PM

That's funny, KB. Sounds like earth shattering news.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:43 PM

"Deck the halls with boughs of holly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Tis the season to be jolly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la.
Troll the ancient Yule tide carol,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

See the blazing Yule before us,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Strike the harp and join the chorus.
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Follow me in merry measure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
While I tell of Yule tide treasure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Fast away the old year passes,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Hail the new, ye lads and lasses,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Sing we joyous, all together,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Heedless of the wind and weather,
Fa la la la la, la la la la."

This is where the subversion started . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM

It's been awhile since I heard the San Francisco version:

"Don we now, our straight apparel..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM

KB: has society in Iowa collapsed yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:54 PM

Back in 1966 or 1967 I did a fund raiser at McGill University for the students who'd formed a Gay/Lesbian Society. They and their supporters provided an audience of about 750 people. Had a good time and I got a great laugh from the audience when I told the following with an English (UK) accent.

"Have you heard? Basil's living in Africa with an ape?"

"Male or female ape?"

"Why female of course; nothing queer about Basil."


People's people, folks. I am glad that these new laws are coming into effect. It's about time, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 07:05 PM

I've heard that one too, Peace, only it was "Carruthers", not "Basil". Great joke! ;-) It says so much about the Pukka Sahib, stiff upper lip mentality of the British during their great imperial phase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 07:45 PM

The history of HIV/AIDS.    Where did it come from? How does it spread?

Other deadly diseases:   CLICKY #1.    CLICKY #2.    CLICKY #3.    CLICKY #4 (Today it's estimated that two billion people — or approximately one-third of the world's population — carry one of the three bacteria that causes this).    CLICKY #5.    And there are others.

It would be quite a boon to humanity if a way could be found to alleviate these diseases as easily as legalizing same-sex marriage would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. But that would violate the fine sensibilities of those who are hyper-fastidious about the private sexual practices of others, and we can't allow that, now can we!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 09:33 PM

Don First,
Re-read my post where I answered your stupid question...and quit bugging me about it. Maybe its your 'non compos mentos', selective comprehension(?) Do you want me to 'cut and paste' it for you???? Or is this just another attention ploy??
And as long as you're at it...aw, never mind, I'll save that one, for when the 'polite gloves' come off!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 09:42 PM

Serious question, GfS:

I have read all of your posts and I don't recall seeing an answer to my question. I suppose it is possible that I many have missed it. If you can supress your animostity for a moment, would you kindly indicate the date and time of the post in question?

Thank you.

Don Firth

P. S. And as to it being a "stupid question," this is another example of your letting your emotional involvement cloud your judgment. The question, I am sure all here with an I.Q. above that of a brussel sprout, would agree that it is a perfectly reasonable question and goes directly to the crux of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:51 PM

GfS, surveying your posts after I first asked the question, I found what you apparently assume was an answer that would get me to stop pressing the matter, but it struck me as pure tap-dancing. I initially phrased the question making it specifically about Barbara's and my marriage. You responded by asking about our life history, then went around Robin Hood's barn, including an attempt to psychoanalyse me and counsel me about begging my son for forgiveness and commenting on my bitterness toward religion (it took me awhile to figure out who you were talking about), then responded by saying that since both Barbara and I are in our seventies and we have no children together, particularly children who might "choose" to adopt the "homosexual life style," it would probably not affect us.

Good imitation of Fred Astaire.

But that was not the nature of my question. Upon noting your evasion, I asked it again, phrasing it more generally:   how would anyone's same sex marriage affect anyone's conventional marriage? From that point on, I find nothing by way of response from you. I can only conclude that you either don't have an answer, or the only answer you could provide would reveal far too much about you own prejudiced attitudes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:32 PM

I don't think that GfS's main concerns regarding the subject of discussion revolve around how the marriage of homosexuals would presumably affect anyone's heterosexual marriage, Don (F). His or her concerns are in other areas entirely. So are Akenaton's for the most part, since it appears to me that Akenaton is primarily concerned about the possible physical health issues of the male homosexual lifestyle rather than about how a gay marriage would theoretically affect someone in a heterosexual marriage.

It's plainly obvious to all of us that a gay marriage does not in any way directly affect the marriage of some heterosexual couple, so there's no point even arguing about it in the first place.

And that makes me wonder why you would even bring it up? I mean, what does it have to do with Akenaton's or GfS's real concerns? It is a pointless question. It's not relevant to the issues that Akenaton and GfS have about the homosexual lifestyle and its possible repercussins on those practicing it...but certainly not on other people who are in a heterosexual marriage.

In short, it's pretty much a non-sequitor.

Taoist teachings (from ancient China) on the subject are quite interesting. The Taoists did not regard people's sexual choices and sexual practices as being a moral issue at all, providing there was mutual consent between adults. They regarded it strictly as a health issue. (They were not burdened with any of the typical Judeo-Christian-Muslim baggage about sex being "sinful" unless it is done thus and so...)

So...here's what they said about health and sex:

1. Sex is natural, good for you, and it's very healthy to practice it in reasonable moderation, but it's unhealthy to overdo it to the point where it becomes, in effect, an addiction or an obsession, because it then begins to damage your physical and psychological health.

2. Sex between men and women was clearly the most common form in their society, as in ours, and that was obvious...but lesbian sex and male homosexual sex were also recognized as choices people could freely engage in, and there was no moral stigma or judgement attached to either.

3. Lesbian sex was described as "polishing mirrors", and was said to have no ill effects on the health, and was thought to be useful to keep women happy in the palaces, for example, where many women might be left alone much of the time when the men were away at war.

4. Male to male sex was described as "dragon yang". While it was not considered morally wrong in any way, it was considered a (moderate) health risk by the Taoists because male energy is aggressive, not receptive, and they felt that two aggressive energies being brought against each other could in time cause damage to bodily systems and deplete the life force. So...while the Taoists did not proscribe or condemn the practice, they did caution against possible health hazards and recommended not engaging in too much "dragon yang" if you wanted to stay healthy.

I'm not mentioning that to prove anything to you or convince you of anythibg...(That would be very optimistic of me, to say the least!)

However, I think it's quite interesting. Taoists always sought moderation, balance, and Nature's way of maintaining happiness, good health, and long life.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:33 PM

And that leaves only 56 posts to reach 1000 on this thread. 55 with this one. Can we do it? Oh, I'm sure we can manage... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:08 AM

Little Hawk, Thank you for your post. Once again, you have the brain, to cipher what others can't seem to.
Don, Your 'perception of any animosity, toward you is ridiculous. Once again you err in assuming you are the center of the universe....not only that, you are not that close to me, that you should assume I have any 'feelings' other than, maybe a little annoyance, that you keep falling on the trivia, as to avoid commenting on the harder, more direct, and obvious.
One more thing, as long as we're at it, I'm not so sure, that your insistence on me commenting on your marriage, also isn't a ploy, to comment into a trap. What trap, you might ask? ..As i said before, if you can read a whole post through, objectively, is that I said, I needed just a little more information, but I had a hunch about something, remember that? I think there is something far bigger that, not only did you not say, but there is something you are hiding, big time...but, as I said, it was only a hunch..and educated hunch, ok?
So, back off!....That being said, I'm not in the least, anxious, or upset,..in fact, I'm quite fine thinking about more creative things, as I do, most of the day! Normally, until this topic came up, and I began posting, I don't give homosexuality much thought. My field was in marriage and family counseling, and only occasionally did I even have to deal with it, at all. Unfortunately, for you, it might not be such a casual interest.
So, it may occur to you, to lighten up, on wanting me to qualify, and re-qualify, and reiterate my answer, over and over...you might not like the answer! ...but, I'm used to that, too..no big deal. Your call....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 01:21 AM

Damn! How 'polite' was that!?!!?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:32 AM

""As it seems to be "question time" on Mudcat, I would like to ask any here who have taken the time to read the statistics for people living with AIDs
Do you really think that there is no link between homosexual practice and AIDS?""

HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?

Grow up for God's sake, and learn to see beyond your personal prejudice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:04 AM

Don T., Good question, at least an honest one....I've heard, as you may have too, that the HIV virus was released originally to homosexuals, and in Africa. It would not be hard to assume, that once the virus was out, that it could, and has, spread to, and throughout anywhere bodily fluids, are exchanged..either blood, semen, or otherwise. Since the HIV virus has been out there, most all health care professionals (dentists too), emergency workers, police, and fire, now are required to wear gloves, when required to touch or handle other people, in the execution of their services.
So, it is not confined to primarily the homosexual community, but it is certainly, the largest segment of our society, that is a carrier, outside of Africa...where they are dying by the thousands.
Akenaton, is quite correct, however, in his concerns. Not admitting that, or even resisting that fact, is just denial, and a dangerous denial, as well. Actually, it's good you brought it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:36 AM

"KB: has society in Iowa collapsed yet?"

Not just yet but I keep checking out the window.



"Akenaton is primarily concerned about the possible physical health issues of the male homosexual lifestyle rather than about how a gay marriage would theoretically affect someone in a heterosexual marriage."

Well, LH, back in the "On Same-Sex Marriages" thread Ake seemed mostly concerned with how same sex-marriage would affect the institution of marriage.