BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

Amos is correct.

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control freaks, screw them all.

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call the Wah-bulance!

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then to explain again.

And then to explain again.

And ....

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

Talk about people who continue to repeat themselves Ake.

*ahem*

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

Ake:

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

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

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

That is where the bigotry lies.

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth on 'rubbing it in your face':

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

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

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

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

GTS:

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

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

The mind reels.

A

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

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

One response: Please Don't Divorce Our Friends.

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


A

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

Guest from Sanity either missed or discounts this thought:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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


A