 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 May 09 - 05:28 AM ""All I am doing is pointing out the serious health risks associated with homosexuality,and most importantly of all,the madness of denial and the pretense that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, safe, healthy and a suitable environment in which to bring up young children."" Not quite all you are doing Ake. In addition, you are seeking to deprive a section of the community of the protections afforded, as of right, to heterosexuals, by marital status. Incidentally, you, who are so worried about the health issue, are opposing the very measure best calculated to save lives, by promoting long lasting, stable,and healthy relationships. The thrust of my "ridiculous question", ignoring the ironic references to obviously impossible remedies, was, as you well know an invitation to you to offer some sensible basis for your assumption that refusing to allow same sex marriage would somehow have a positive effect on the health risks, and save lives. You claim to answer questions honestly, to the best of your ability, and that, I have found to be true, WHEN YOU DO ANSWER THEM. This one you have ignored. Any chance of one of those honest answers. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 09:36 AM Ake jogged loose an interesting question..might as well ask it here.... How come the same people who are opposed to gun ownership, second amendment rights, because 'guns are dangerous'..are in denial about AIDS, which is far more fatal? One, requires safe behavior to avoid getting it..and the other requires safe behavior, once you have one. Maybe behavior needs to be looked at, eh? Another 'jogged loose' question, How come all the ballyhoo over water boarding, and torture,... then we have to watch Pelosi on the news? What's the difference?...matter of fact, you can add all the lame, contrived excuses about the blessings, and wonderful benefits of living a sexually dysfunctional lifestyle, and inundating us with it? Amos, To answer your puerile question, for the umpteenth time, Homosexual 'marriage' is not a civil right based on race, color, creed or religion. What is it based on??..let's do it that way. Equality?? of what??? Doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want? Well, a lot of things fall under that category, and a lot of stupid, most illegal, and other dangerous activities fall into that category!!..Hey, if its so great, and Obama is your hero, and idol..why isn't he for it..and has stated his opposition toward it? (You keep dodging that one) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 10:28 AM To answer Joe Offer's great question, (which also steers the thread back to the main topic), California has been under Democratic, liberal 'representative' state government for a long time. The passed prop. 187, which cut off funding for benefits for illegal immigrants, only to have it over turned by their 'representatives', and other things that they directly spoke out either, for or against..only to have it overturned as well. They keep getting taxed beyond belief, by slick shysters who get around the taxing laws, by using the terms like 'surcharge' 'user fees' so on and so forth...so that the actual voice of the people can't even be heard any more. Also, they have the entertainment industry there, which promotes all sorts of 'ills' for 'entertainment' value, as well...making the homosexual question, far more promoted, than proportional to the actual practice, or acceptance. So, where it would be a 'shock' that the ban was passed, the actual will of the people got heard finally...and resoundingly. Now the highly vocal minority political activists, are whining with a deafening roar. Pelosi, the crazy bat that she is, and Feinstein, crooked politician that she and her husband are, are finally getting exposed, co-incidentally at this same time. If California could free itself from the shoddy, crooked non-representative government that it has, this might not be such a hot topic. Frankly, I'm proud that the people have tried to stand up, once again, and tell the politicians, and the entertainment industry, whose state this really is..and to take their hype, and shove it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 16 May 09 - 11:12 AM "All I am doing is pointing out the serious health risks associated with homosexuality,and most importantly of all,the madness of denial and the pretense that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, safe, healthy and a suitable environment in which to bring up young children. "The more people who become informed on the hiv statistics, the more chance there is of affecting a change in homosexual behaviour. "As I have said from the start of this thread, "rights" should be conditional on the behaviour of any sector of society, and the effect of these "rights" on all other sectors." ake If you fear the "serious health risks associated with homosexuality" just don't do it. It is difficult for me to believe that your concern is for homosexuals' shortened lives. The sooner they die, the better off they'll be. Right? "Incidentally, you, who are so worried about the health issue, are opposing the very measure best calculated to save lives, by promoting long lasting, stable,and healthy relationships." Don T I too would like to hear your answer to that. "How come all the ballyhoo over water boarding, and torture,... then we have to watch Pelosi on the news? What's the difference?...matter of fact, you can add all the lame, contrived excuses about the blessings, and wonderful benefits of living a sexually dysfunctional lifestyle, and inundating us with it? " GfS You know, Guest from Sanity, I no longer believe that you are a licensed counselor or psychiatric worker of any kind. Far more likely, in my opinion, is that you have been/are in therapy yourself and have picked up a smattering of terms. (I would send you a PM to this effect but guests can't receive that courtesy.) Incidentally, if it weren't for our laws that protect our rights to say anything we please about public figures, you'd be in deep doo doo. You say: "Pelosi, the crazy bat that she is, and Feinstein, crooked politician that she and her husband are, are finally getting exposed, co-incidentally at this same time." Please document your libel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 12:10 PM Ebbie, If you had been following the news, about Pelosi, water boarding and the CIA, you wouldn't be asking that question. Pelosi lied about her knowledge of the water boarding issue, and is presently in hot water over it. Feinstein lobbied for moneys to fund her husband's business, and got it, of selling foreclosed homes..its on the news. California has slipped immensely due to their 'leadership' in their state senate... and as far as your 'doubts'...well they're only your doubts...so what? You haven't missed a lick as far as coming on here to smear me, and to contradict anything I say, or to try and discredit me. You and TIA would make a great couple, regardless of your genders! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 16 May 09 - 12:32 PM Ebbie I fear you have "lost the plot." The legality of "marriage" whether homosexual or heterosexual, is no guide to the promiscuity of the "marriage" partners. I know people who live together, unmarried, and are completely monogamous, I also know of others who have been married for many years yet attend "swingers" parties. The danger appears to be male to male penetrative sex, whether done in a monogamous relationship or a promiscuous one. I have always suspected that homosexual "marriage" was a device to attempt to normalise the practice in much the same way as the word "gay" has been used to deflect public disgust with the homosexual act. I have absolutely no belief that a piece of paper granting marriage "rights" to homosexuals will cause them to become,as a group, less promiscuous. From the statistics, promiscuity goes with the lifestyle Let us begin to be honest, The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous, as dangerous as drug or alcohol abuse and very much more dangerous than other unusual sexual behaviour such as incest....so why not scream for the rights of incestuous couples or drug addicts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 16 May 09 - 12:41 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 01:09 PM Here Here!!..or is it Hear Hear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 16 May 09 - 01:13 PM Dangerous to whom, ake? As I said, don't indulge in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 02:15 PM "How come the same people who are opposed to gun ownership, second amendment rights, because 'guns are dangerous'..are in denial about AIDS, which is far more fatal?" Two small problems there, GfS. First, your assumption that it's all the same people. You are doing the "liberals are idiots" thing again. Pigeon-hole thinking. And the second problem: since when is possibly exposing oneself to AIDS more "fatal" than a bullet between the eyes? There are people infected with HIV who have been alive for years because they can keep the virus in check with drugs. I don't know of any palliatives for having one's brains splattered all over the street. And a question for Ake: I have no quarrel with the statistics from the CDC. I do have questions about your interpretation of them. If AIDS is a "homosexual disease," then why is it that homosexuals are not the only people to get it? And if you are so concerned about the spread of AIDS, why, then, are you so opposed to attempting to confine it by discouraging promiscuity and encouraging stable relationships? Answer me that, please. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 16 May 09 - 02:27 PM Yap, yap, yap. Seven posts later, and still flapping away without establishing that credibility. Hint: I only join in when *you* invoke my name in your immature snipes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 02:49 PM And just for the hell of it, can someone tell me what Pelosi and Feinstein have to do with this discussion? Other than a feeble attempt to change the subject, hoping that we "idiotic liberals" are actually so idiotic that we'll rise to the bait? . . . delusional. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 16 May 09 - 02:54 PM Yo... just stopping by for my usual delusion.... TIA.... "Yap, yap, yap. Seven posts later, and still flapping away without establishing that credibility." Seven? Hahahahahaaaaaaa... hehehehee. I seem to check in at rather appropriate moments.... See you again sometime. Play nice. Well, some of you, IF you can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 03:21 PM If you'd read, and comprehend, Joe Offer asked why the people in California would have surprisingly voted for the ban. I was offering an explanation to his question. Since Pelosi and Feinstein are the quack 'liberal' senators from California, who have had their way in screwing the state up, and since they are part of the control of NOT representing the people, but rather their own agendas, it seemed like an appropriate answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 03:45 PM Nancy Pelosi is a Congressional Representative from California, and is currently Speaker of the House. Dianne Feinstein is one of two Senators from California. Civics lesson (since you seem to have slept through civics classes in high school): these two ladies are in the National Congress and National Senate. They are not currently involved in the legislature of the State of California. How are they relevant to the current discussion about laws regarding same-sex marriage in California? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 16 May 09 - 04:11 PM Ake: The dangers of MMS are many, and AIDS is only one of them. Clearly not a choice I would make. Why, though, do you think it is all right to legislate against a group of adult humans because of their sexual practices? Would you feel better if marriage was denied any couple who did anything other than missionary-position? Would you feel this was a "benefit to society"? The issue is not sexual practices. No-one here is endorsing a lifestyle except for the life-style of legal equality without prejudice or bias. How someone gets their rocks of is nobody's business but their own and you keep dragging it into this dialogue as though it were a legal issue. Equal rights under the law IS a legal issue. Viva la difference. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 16 May 09 - 04:13 PM Don Firth....Did you not read and comprehend my answer to Ebbie? You have run out of ideas and are simply being obstructive. The alternative is that you are an idiot "If Aids is a "Homosexual disease"why is it not just homosexuals who get aids".....Tut Tut Don, I DON'T think you are an idiot, no matter how many idiotic questions you pose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 16 May 09 - 04:21 PM Amos ..the issue of Aids is everybody's business,and until we have a proper public inquiry to determine why so many homosexuals conract the disease, we have no right to promote the practice as normal or healthy. Incestuous couples are deprived of rights and criminalised for their sexual behaviour which is deemed abnormal and unhealthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 04:34 PM Amos: "Would you feel better if marriage was denied any couple who did anything other than missionary-position? Would you feel this was a "benefit to society"? Now we are getting to the real meat of their agenda....??? Jeez, , and Don's(rolls eyes) And yes, I misstated about who was in the senate, and congress. Thanks for reminding me...they're both corrupt because of their ilk! Feinstien represents the San Fransisco district..(relevant to Joe's question...oh yea-a-ahh) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 16 May 09 - 04:44 PM You guys are acting even denser than you could possibly be. There is nothing in the issue about "approving AIDS" or establishing MMS as normal or healthy. When you bring sexual practice into it, you are twisting the issue. The issue is simple: exclusionary laws? Or equality under the law? There are a lot of other sexual practices that are harmful and, according to the straitest mind, perverse. Chains, leather, whips, oxygen deprivation, acrobatic practices without safety nets, to name just a few. None of these are attractive to me, but if you are going to start legislating for Sexual Safety for Everyone, you are opening a can of worms that goes way beyond STD and homosexuality. Meanwhile the core issue --equality or exclusion--continues to be ignored and bludgeoned into the corner by all this irrelevant armwaving. I think it is somewhat sickening to see such a desperate scramble to defend the indefensible. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 04:45 PM That's all you have left, eh, Ake? Insults? Your problem is that you don't have any rational responses to my perfectly reasonable questions. And yes, I did read your "answer" to Ebbie and fully understood that you are trying to say and I reject it. The basis of my rejection is knowing something about the "life styles" of the same sex couples that I am acquainted with. I don't know whether you are married or not, but the fact is that whenever a relationship becomes a bit rocky, it is very often the public commitment and the public acknowledgement thereof that keeps a couple together and prompts them to work out their difficulties. And this holds true for committed same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples. Your arguments are based on ignorance of the subject, not to mention a very large dollop of prejudice. Homosexuality does not cause AIDS, as you seem to be trying to claim. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 05:20 PM It's interesting to note that those who are not, themselves, in a committed relationship seem to be under the impression that couples who are, are constantly going at it like hyperactive rabbits. [I believe this stems from their own rich fantasy lives.] The same-sex couple whom I have known the longest, and who have been together the longest—somewhat over thirty years (despite the fact that society and the law does not recognize their commitment to each other)—are as stable and monogamous as any heterosexual couple I am aware of. They each have their own professions and activities, but like any married couple, they do most things together, including taking a yearly extended vacation to England (where one of them is invited year after year to come and give lectures on theater arts—stage and costume design). They are as devoted to each other as any heterosexual couple could ever be. And interesting enough—for those whose primary focus seems to be on the more prurient aspects of interpersonal relationships—one of the fellows mentioned to Barbara (he and Barbara were old friends, having known each other since high school) that he and his partner had been quite active sexually at first, but they have not had intimate relations for years. They are together, not for the sex, but because they love each other. The same holds true for the same-sex couple who often join us for holiday celebrations. For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex. You might have that made into a sampler and hang it on your wall as a reminder. People make a lot of assumptions based on their own vivid imaginations, and then, on that basis, want to dictate to others how they should or should not live. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 09 - 05:28 PM "I don't know whether you are married or not, but the fact is that whenever a relationship becomes a bit rocky, it is very often the public commitment and the public acknowledgement thereof that keeps a couple together and prompts them to work out their difficulties. And this holds true for committed same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples." OH!!..DON'T FORGET CHILDREN FROM THE SAME TWO PARENTS!! (touchy subject, I know) AND: "For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex"..So what else is the difference between room mates and same sex partners?????? Can same sex DOMESTIC union room mates be granted the same rights as homosexual marriages?????????????????????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 07:00 PM GfS, not all heterosexual married couples have children, some because they can't and some by choice. Yet what I said still holds true. It isn't always a matter of staying together "because of the children." If you were any kind of counselor at all, you should be fully aware that when a couple really should separate, but stay together "because of the children," this can frequently become hell-on-wheels for the children. You can't be much of a counselor if you aren't up on things like that. And by the way, the subject is not touchy at all with me. Barbara and were in our forties when we got married, we both have careers, and we discussed the matter before getting married and decided not to have children. So you can just get of your snide little bus. Don Firth P. S. By the way, your question-mark key seems to be stuck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 09 - 07:28 PM For someone who tries to project a measure of authority on the genesis and spread of AIDS, Ake, you don't really know diddly-squat about epidemiology. In the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, Europeans presented Native Americans with the gift of smallpox. Native Americans returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. The European explorers brought it back to Europe, where it spread quite rapidly, and became known as "the French disease," more because of the stereotype of the French being particularly horny, whereas the disease was mostly likely brought back by the Spanish. But it would have been equally dumb to have called it "the Spanish disease." ("How do you know you have the French disease?""AIDS" means "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome," which one catches through being infected with the HIV (the Human Immunodeficiency Virus). It is neither HIV nor AIDS that kills. HIV, as described in my post above (you did read it, didn't you?), was transmitted from African primates to humans. It is not specifically a "homosexual disease" any more that syphilis is a "French disease. Get that straight! AIDS does not kill. What it does is shut off the immune system, leaving one defenseless against any contagious disease that happens to come along. It's not unlike going onto the internet with no firewall or anti-virus software. You might get away with it for a time, but sooner or later, you're going to get got by whatever comes along. And once you have something, you don't have a functional immune system to fight it with. And I have already outlined the means by which HIV is transmitted—not necessarily through sexual activity and not necessarily from male to male or female to female—but through contact with an infected person's bodily fluids, particularly blood. So to single out homosexual males as the sole vector of the AIDS virus means, not that you are barking up the wrong tree, but that you have selectively chosen one single tree to bark up out of an fairly large forest. (Shite!! Why do I even bother!??) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 May 09 - 08:05 PM ""Let us begin to be honest, The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous, as dangerous as drug or alcohol abuse and very much more dangerous than other unusual sexual behaviour such as incest....so why not scream for the rights of incestuous couples or drug addicts?"" Don't be bloody disingenuous Ake. As you well know, incest is illegal, and for that reason is dealt with by the legal authorities. Drug abuse is a physical addiction, rightly dealt with by the medical profession, and where crime is provable, by the legal authorities. Homosexuality between consenting adults, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, HAS BEEN LEGALISED in most civilised countries. So putting aside those utterly specious red herrings, and taking on board your comment that allowing same sex marriage, will not reduce promiscuity (I would dispute that, and argue that marriage in general has militated against casual sex for most responsible heterosexuals, and would presumably do the same for gays), perhaps you would tell me how you come to the conclusion that refusing it WOULD reduce promiscuity, and save lives? I'm sorry to keep repeating the question, but without an answer from you, your whole argument based on health lacks any credibility. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 16 May 09 - 11:03 PM Yup, there is a huge credibility issue here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 09 - 02:47 AM Why is president Obama opposed to same sex marriage???..and the 'so called' liberals, who just love him, are for it??? Who is wrong here?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Barry Finn Date: 17 May 09 - 03:23 AM Here's a link to AIDS-Free World (my sister-in-law's web site, proud to say she's Paula Donovan) There are some here that have not the slightest idea about the origins, prevention or how AIDS is being spread or what's happening today in the world of AIDS & the battles that are ongoing (which make same sex marriage pale by comparsion). All they can wrap their tiny brains around is homosexuality & same sex marriage, how it is seen through the eyes of the religious, the voting machines of the sexually biasis, by the slump in their own penises & their fears & insecurities in their own sexuality. It's a shame that we can't outlaw stupidity, stop the idiots from intermarrying & keep the dumb from having children. I don't see why not as long as we still have all these other draconian laws dictating our lifestyles. There oughta be a law, oh that's the problem. Government in the bedroom is as bad as Government on horseback, thanks Ronnie! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 May 09 - 04:25 AM Don T my friend, I remember very well when homosexuality was illegal. Only a short time ago in real time. Laws are made and changed by politicians, and we in the UK have seen recently how "incorruptible" politicians are. Also, when the law on homosexuality was changed, Aids and its obvious link to homosexual practice was not an issue, perhaps the huge increase in homosexual activity since the change in the law, contributed to the current epidemic. However on all counts your question is spurious, as you certainly knew that Aids was not even medically recognised when the law was changed. Incestuous relationships are deemed to be illegal on grounds of public health and more importantly the effect on "social morality and public decency"...The very grounds that made homosexuality illegal just a few years ago. Drug addiction is a behaviour in the same manner as homosexuality is, addicts are refused the "right" to foster children on safety grounds....I feel this is correct, and I would also be in favour of removing addicts own children to a place of safety when required. Homosexuality has been proved statistically to be even more dangerous in general terms than addiction.......Draw your own conclusions! Don't try to maintain from what I have written that I believe in the criminalisation of sexual behaviour...I do not, I am simply giving an answer to your question. The simple reason that you are all skipping around the "elephant in the room" is that in percentage of population terms, Homosexuals are massively affected by AIDS.....WHY?? Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 09 - 04:40 AM http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=afam&Number=233892&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 17 May 09 - 11:50 AM "The simple reason that you are all skipping around the "elephant in the room" is that in percentage of population terms, Homosexuals are massively affected by AIDS.....WHY?? "Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage". ake Ake, I am glad to see that your reasoning exempts women from condemnation. AIDS is not statisticly a problem for them. Good for you. It's a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 17 May 09 - 01:14 PM Checking back: I see I didn't make it clear that I was referring to homosexual women. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 May 09 - 01:38 PM It seems to me that the problem of AIDS, like the problems of other STDS, needs o be addressed as a public health issue, not a civil rights issue. Using the curtailment of rights as a lever of advantage in a public health issue is a bad tactic being used as a bad strategy. It is philosophically repugnant. And, it must be clearly pointed out that the two are independent variables, independent issues, and should not be conflated simply to create pushbutton arguments. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 09 - 01:50 PM Amos, Did you read my link? Makes you wonder just how much the government will treat it like a public health issue, though, you are correct. (don't faint) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 09 - 02:11 PM GfS, the link you posted 17 May 09 – 04:40 a.m? You really are losing it! Do you also believe that the earth is hollow and that's where UFOs really come from? Or in the Illuminati? How about pinning down the day when Atlantis will rise again and world peace will prevail on the planet? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 May 09 - 02:33 PM Ebbie, very early on I made it clear that I exempted Lesbians from my public health argument. Statistically Lesbians are even less promiscuous than married heterosexuals. It has always amazed me why lesbians have chosen to ally themselves with homosexuals. They are totally different in behaviour and psychology and I would certainly have no objections on health or promiscuity grounds to Lesbians becoming foster parents. Of course there are still the "rights of the religious community to consider...Ake Ebbie... I was most disappointed to see you imply that I would be pleased to see homosexuals die young. Nothing could be further from the truth, they require compassion,counciling, in an attempt to persuade them to alter their lifestyle; and certainly no encouragement to carry on with their dangerous sexual practice. If I have misunderstood your meaning, would you please PM me, as I respect much of what you say on many subjects here.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 09 - 02:43 PM Why? Do you like green monkeys? I have lot's of info on that. The green monkey bit was a cover story...but at least you bought it! Hey, maybe the next pseudo civil rights issue will be whether transgenders can marry green monkeys...when it's voted down in Tennessee, maybe you can post a new thread on Mudcat, to moan and bewail that your family is being denied their rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 May 09 - 02:49 PM I guess you mean the link that starts out "Proof that AIDS is a race-specific bio-weapoon. " from 2007. "Throughout the 1960's and 1970's, the United States was involved a EUGENICS programs in which AFRICAN AMERICANS, and others deemed as 'undesireables' were being INVOLUNTARILY SYSTEMATICALY STERILIZED to quell their population growth (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/02/virginia-eugenics.htm ) Also during this period, the United States was involuntarily conducting SYPHILIS EXERIMENTS on BLACK MEN http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/tuskegee_5-16.html While the United States was commiting these acts against it's black population and others, the Department of Defense was seeking to create a biological weapon for which there was no known cure. (Dept. of Defense request for Appropriation for 1970, HB 15090, from page 129. Quoted is Dr. MacArthur from said Pentagon, speaking to Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, about the need for the above mentioned "synthetic biological agent" ...". Some people have very wobbly standards for the term "proof". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 09 - 02:56 PM Green monkeys, eh? You must get all excited when the neighbor's dog tries to hump your leg. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 May 09 - 03:15 PM ""Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage"."" The question was How do you think that refusing same sex marriage will IMPROVE the situation? You talk of the elephant in the room, and others skirting round questions. HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THIS ONE? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 09 - 03:42 PM ""Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage"."" The question was How do you think that refusing same sex marriage will IMPROVE the situation? Actually, refusing it or not won't really do anything. Homosexuals are going to do what they do,'married' or not. That being said, just what is the point of pretending to be married? The link I posted was just one, there were even better ones, but this one was also the shortest. ..and I never said it was 'proof' of anything. I just posted the link, with nothing else. You've done that a lot with me, 'reading in' to what I post, then re-acting to what you read in. Same with context. Remember the 'pea brain' comment?..You wrote in 'liberal pea brains'..when I was referring to those who get into the name calling...and even that the 'pea brains' were the ones who resorted to the name calling. Also, on my longer post, in regards to the the 'go fuck yourself' comment....OR....'consider another side'(you misquoted by omission that the emphasis was to consider another side...which, of course, radicals never do |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 09 - 03:53 PM In your last post, GfS (17 May 09 - 03:42 p.m.), you are doing some pretty flashy tap-dancing to back off from some of the links to dumb web sites you've offered and from some of your posts where you've obviously lost it, but you're still stumbling over your own feet. Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers you are not. #### Obama has stated in several interviews that he supports civil unions, and it's up to religious institutions whether or not they would recognize the union as marriage. And there are a substantial number of churches that are not only willing to recognize such unions as marriage, but will also perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. It was not that long ago that the Catholic church would not recognize a marriage that was performed in any church other than Catholic, even though secular law did recognize it. And last I heard, they still don't recognize the legality of divorce. A divorced person who remarries is considered guilty of adultery (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). Recently it sounds as if Obama has changed his position on same-sex marriage, stating that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, BUT—he has stated that he opposes any Constitutional amendments on the subject, and he also came out against California's Proposition 8. Basically his legal position is consistent with liberal philosophy. He has his personal beliefs regarding marriage, but he does not agree that the government, either national or local, should interfere in the matter one way or the other. I find that perfectly acceptable. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 17 May 09 - 04:23 PM Well. I did a lot of reading in the link provided and followed further ones throughout. I watched videos, I followed patents and speeches and messages. I found this alarmist, misleading and paranoid. Alarmist, in that it is presented as being factually informative on what our government not only is capable of but has done; misleading, in being deceitful in stating certain things while expecting no one to go to the source; and paranoid, in being a rehash of old fears of racial genocide. (Incidentally, implying one posted a certain site for no particular reason is kind of silly, don't you think? Futile, even? A waste of space?) Ake, I wasn't really charging you with desiring the early death of homosexuals but rather trying to jar you into facing the implications. By the way, "homosexual" means 'same sex'. In that sense lesbians are as homosexual as gay men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 May 09 - 05:08 PM The link itself, in its headline, styles itself as "Proof". GtS--it wasn't about you, except insofar as you poted the link. It is not always about you, genera;;y speaking, no matter how unbelievable that seems. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 May 09 - 05:21 PM ""Of course there are still the "rights of the religious community to consider...Ake"" As far as I know, the ONLY right accorded to ANY religious grouping is the right to worship freely as they see fit, as long as their activities do NOT cause harm to others. I cannot recall seeing ANY legislation endowing religious organisations with the right to force their views on others. ------------------------------------------------------------- Re my health issue question:- Having asked that question four times now, without any response, it has become clear that you have no logical answer to offer, and that your objections are NOT based, as you assert, on health matters. From that, I can only conclude that your reaction to the idea is rooted more in the kind of mindset that once prevented black/white marriages. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 May 09 - 05:41 PM The highest known rate of HIV infection occurs among Swazis - with women disproportionaly affected (60% of cases). Should, perhaps, Swaziland outlaw marriage for women? Snide question, yes. But I really am trying to follow the logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 17 May 09 - 05:44 PM Just stopped in to see what condition my condition is in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Jeri Date: 17 May 09 - 05:55 PM Didn't the guy who sang that song go on to work with a woman with really humongous hits? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 09 - 08:00 PM Lemme see, now. . . . Was that "hits?" Or "hips?" Or was it sumthin' else? Don Firth |
