BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM

GfS:

I don't recall dodging any questions relevant to this thread. I ignored about fify red herrings between there and here, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 07:33 PM

My bona fides are solidly established, GfS, by the fact that I have been a regular on these threads since 1999, and am well-known by many Mudcatters, including a fairly large number of people here whom I have met in person, and even more who, on one occasion or another, have been present when I performed somewhere (such events as the Northwest Folklife Festivals, one of which is currently running). Some of these people also know my wife, Barbara.

In fact, one regular Mudcatter is the daughter of late John Dwyer, a former guitar student, good friend, and the best man at our wedding in 1977.

And who might you be? You haven't even registered, and word has it that when you wear out the credibility of one identity with your deplorable ideas, you simply bail out and come back with a new identity.

So who, exactly, is the "phony" here?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM

Yes, GFS, I am married. Have been since December 17, 1977. To a woman. Most definitely a woman.

And you, sir or madam as the case may be, are really showing the level of your desperation. In fact, your last post is downright contemptible.

You have really revealed yourself!

In times past, people with physical or mental disabilities were considered a matter of shame, to be locked away in a back room or institutionalized and never spoken of—when in actuality, they were perfectly capable of leading full, satisfying, and useful lives. Fortunately, civilization has advanced to the point where this is no longer true.

Yet, there are still people out there who are so medieval in their outlook who, when they see someone with a limp or with a speech impediment (or, God forbid, both!), automatically assume that they are mentally deficient as well. Or someone who needs to use crutches or a wheelchair. There are people who assume that, because parts of the body don't work well, that the mind doesn't either, failing to realize that the person may be a college professor, an artist, a musician, or—seventy years ago, the President of the United States.

"As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big foreheads, too!

"You are so phony..it staggers the imagination!"

No one ever suggested that someone, be it a sports team or a construction company or an accounting firm, should be required to hire someone who is physically or mentally incapable of doing the job. I know a woman, the daughter of a good friend, who is developmentally disabled and who works for a local Ikea store. Her comprehension is not keen, but she has a very tenacious memory, and she knows where everything in the store is. She works as a greeter, asks people what they are looking for, then directs them to where they can find it. She enjoys the job, feels (and is) useful, pays her own rent, and pays taxes.

And you would lock her away in a back room somewhere, out of sight of the rest of the world? It sounds to me like you would favor rescinding the Americans with Disabilities Act. It sure sounds like it.

You? A psychological counselor? I don't think so! You are grossly in need of psychological counseling, GfS. And a major dose of general humanizing!

The level of your vitriol sprayed in my direction undoubtedly comes as a result of the palpable hit I scored regarding your fear of the very DNA that you carry yourself.

As far as having anything worthwhile to say on much of anything, you have just committed suicide with the same weapon that Samson used to slay the Philistines.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM

My guess is that you, sir, are not long for this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:01 PM

... And just a little reminder:   neither GfS nor Ake has answered my question as to how same-sex marriage adversely affects Barbara's and my marriage. Or affects it in any way whatsoever.

Who said you were really married to a woman..for all we know that is a ruse...

As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big foreheads, too!

You are so phony..it staggers the imagination!
Amos, you dodged my questions about Obama...........AGAIN!

I guess a minority is defined as anyone who makes a choice, that everybody doesn't make..according to you!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 03:16 PM

"Blind Lemming." Wasn't he a blues singer from days gone by?

I find GfS's last post really kind of pitiful. His/her efforts to write off all the scientific evidence that has been cited here as presented by "a frothing band of mob mentality" and a "flock of babbling parrots" is pathetic. Simply asserting that the evidence that yanks the rug out from under his/her position is merely propaganda from scientists who have been bought off by "the gay lobby," without ever trying to substantiate that claim, is in the ream of the message T-shirt and the bumper sticker—a flat assertion with no substantiation whatever. It's like screaming and stamping one's feet.

It reminds me of the woman from the Flat Earth Society who got into an argument with a young astronomer. When asked what her flat earth rests on, she responded, "on the back of a huge turtle." To which, the young astronomer started to ask, "And what does the turtle rest on?" when she interrupted him, saying, "That's no good, young man! It's turtles all the way down!" then turned on her heel and stalked away.

Amos is right. It is a civil rights issue. A matter of discrimination against a minority.

And what are people who insist on doing that generally called?

Don Firth

P. S. And just a little reminder:   neither GfS nor Ake has answered my question as to how same-sex marriage adversely affects Barbara's and my marriage. Or affects it in any way whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:22 AM

Calling something a fact--even vehemently--does not make it one. Your posts have continuously tried, for example, to invoke lifestyle choice as a basis for supporting proposition 8. You assert repeatedly that this is the key behind homosexuality.

You do this in sheer despite of evidence. "LIfestyle choice" is a straw man..

Ake has sturdily and steadfastly brought the conversation to another straw man, health issues and STDs. But marriage has not hinged on health issues for decades. I don't know if anyplace still requires the blood test for a marriage license. And in any case, that was not the core issue of the thread.

Nor have either of you spoken seriously to the actual issue, which is discrimination against minorities.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 09 - 06:21 AM

I have to echo Akenaton's post, and add one more thing. The people from California, have democratically voted twice, to ban homosexual marriage, and for the non stop whining of the LOSING side, whose banner is FALSELY accusing the electorate of 'bigotry' and not being as 'smart' as they are in this matter, shows that the freedom's that we have enjoyed, as being a FREE country, of self determination, are nearing their end...not just on this matter, but other things as well. A lot of you just won't 'get it' until you finally see, that when it is all said and done, and all the policies that you so ignorantly, and foolishly bought into, are implemented, and the quality of your lives, go into the toilet, will you scratch your heads, and ask, "What happened?"
When you see that the rhetoric from Washington, is directly OPPOSITE from their ACTIONS, when you finally are trapped, because you believed, the lying propaganda, that has indoctrinated you into WHAT to think, and like a bunch of blind lemmings, you so recklessly followed, without questioning, or educating yourselves.
I, in NO WAY, know that what I've posted on here, was motivated by hatred, bigotry, or anything less than sound facts, proven time and time again...only to be ignored by the frothing band of mob mentality, flock of babbling parrots. Your posts, and you know who you are, are, in the nature, and content, MORE than proof, that what I've said, all along is absolutely true. But, as Akenaton, has said, nothing new is being posted, and that which is sound, is not being addressed..so why try to turn on a bunch of rocks? I'll be checking in, once in a while....
By the way, when you see, that the mindset that you have, demonstrates to you, once in for all, that voting will effectively be 'useless' when the will of the people is ignored, and deferred to by a 'political' committee, to make your decisions FOR you, and TELL you what is 'good for you', then it may occur to you, that YOU are the people, that the civil rights movement, were trying to be free from! After that, its just a matter of who makes what policy..right?
And one more note, especially for Amos, who was mostly a lightweight in this issue, so that issue is not a biggy, Amos, note the difference in what Obama SAYS, and what he actually is doing..this is a continuation of the policies, that we've had, no accountability, no paper trails of the money, that he promised we could follow, online, foreign policy the same, continuing the 'bailouts' started under Bush, and virtually a take over of the private sector..Yes my dear friend, the was no change, as I said earlier, during the campaign..but to his blind 'supporters', at least he can make you FEEL good, while he's ripping you off, from the freedoms you once enjoyed...just as his predecessor. See you around..maybe even on this thread, if anyone posts something new, and enlightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 09 - 02:31 AM

Little Hawk has won his bet, everything worth saying on this subject has been said, endlessly repeating the same stuff and becoming more and more abusive proves nothing.

This could have been nothing but a cheerleading thread for homosexual marriage, garnering in a few mindless votes for the Dems in the process, but thankfully a few here like Guest from Sanity have turned a taboo subject into a thought provoking article.
Little Hawk's defence of free speech was also valuable.

Indirectly, the abusers played a valuable role, showing future readers how not to conduct a debate, and the real nature of the abusers themselves.


I intend to say no more on this thread other than to thank GfS for his/her support and contributions.....Little Hawk as always for his admirable fair mindedness...and to absolve my friend Amos from any abusivness and congratulate him on a well thought out and conducted debate.
To many this must have been a long and boring thread, but I think Mudcat is a better place for allowing every voice to be heard
Thank you for that Joe......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 12:55 AM

I think prejudice has everything to do with it, and the rest is just crass rationalization and justification.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 09 - 11:22 PM

Prejudice has nothing to do with it. Common sense these days is about as elusive as being apolitical! Sanity has nothing to do with either side of the political wings....Hop aboard the 'clue train', boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 09 - 04:21 PM

""You Amos and Don Firth probably don't deserve to be given this information, you would all certainly be more at home in the company of Mr Peekstock, the foul mouthed idiot who now posts under John P.""

Thank you Ake, for confirming that your argument is based purely on prejudice, and making it obvious to anyone who reads your post, that, without any knowledge of who or what we are, you feel qualified to make judgement of the sincerity or otherwise of our thoughts.

We are simply Mudcat members posting under monikers which may or may not bear relationship to our real world identities. You know just as much as we have told you about our lives, and that small amount may or may not be true, and yet YOU profess to know what we are thinking.

Talent for mindreading?.........I THINK NOT!
Talent for mindless prejudice?..........DEFINITELY!

I WILL tell you this. My views come from an absolutely sincere abhorrence of prejudice and bigotry, and as a result YOU are a person with whom I shall NOT communicate in the future.

Ditto Guest Gone from Sanity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 09 - 02:29 PM

GfS, get a brain! And get a pair of reading glasses. You claim I have said things that I haven't said at all, such as "You argue that churches must accept the 'affirmation' dealy..when churches DO NOT HAVE to accept anything of the sort..."

I do not argue that at all, which you know perfectly well, but you do have a penchant for putting words into other peoples' mouths and then attacking them on that basis ("straw man" fallacy, Philosophy: Logic 101). You are grossly disingenuous.

A substantial percentage of Christian churches have already signed on to the "Affirmation of Welcome" of their own volition, after a vote of their congregations. Get that through your thick skull! Other that participating in the discussion and the voting in one congregation, I had nothing to do with it. I am in no position to dictate to any religious persuation.

Your invoking of the American Idol thing (I never watch the show) is really pretty pathetic, and yet another example of non-thinkers fixing on the unimportant, both on your part and on the part of those who voted.

As far as the many scientific studies that I have cited and linked to, your blanket claim that they were all funded by the "gay lobby" (including the Swedish study) is just plain asinine, and you know it.

Let's cut to the chase here, GfS:

Face it, counselor. The reason you are so adamant about gender orientation being matter of choice rather than a genetic predisposition is because your father lived most of his earlier life in denial, then finally gave in to his genetic nature and embraced his true gender orientation. The thing that has you trembling in your boots is the possibility that you may be carrying that genetic time-bomb yourself.

That's called "denial," counselor. And my suspicions about you are more that supported by your passionate devotion to trying to convince others of the rightness of your position in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. The fact is that you are trying to convince yourself.

Methinks you protest much too much.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:47 PM

PShaw, GfS. You must lead a shallow life indeed. Thousands of perfectly heterosexual, married couples have little or no sex. They are wed, share their lives, and turn their energy to other things.

Focus on the core importance: two adult, free human beings choose each other for a permanent partnership.

There is no fraud that a same-sex couple could claim, that has not already been discovered by hetero couples--marrying, for example, to change their tax rules or manage their citizenship or work permits. Sex is a wholly independent variable, which I think hs been pointed out frequently on this thread.

The right to claim marriage with another for life is the key, and it is typically supported socially by priveleges of mutual representation, certain insurance priveleges, right of survivorshoip, right of co-ownership, and so on.

There is no rational reason why that status and those rights should be denied a minority because you disapprove of their orientation, no matter how histrionically you voice you disapproval.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 09 - 01:07 AM

Don, Get a life! There are articles, and there is reality. This issue, can be argued forever, if you base your 'proof' on the trend d'jour, or what really is. Here's a tidbit for you....I mentioned a while back, that the majority of people were tired of getting their noses rubbed into the over hyped wonders of homosexuals. Little Hawk weighed in and agreed...so I'm not alone in this. I've said repeatedly, though it somehow escapes your one tracked mind, that equal rights are there because of our citizenship, in a country that believes in it, so we all have them...and not because a person CHOOSES his or her sexual preference, for one reason or another. You argue that churches must accept the 'affirmation' dealy..when churches DO NOT HAVE to accept anything of the sort...That's YOUR DEAL. Whether or not, a church accepts homosexual marriage is irrelevant in California, anyway...so it is a non issue here. Either way, your argument is based on giving homosexual marriage some sort of legitimacy, and therefore bringing acceptability to homosexuality into the mainstream, which of course, Hollywood is trying overtime, too. That being said, here is a little bit of something that has happened over the last few days that you should, of all people take notice to. Note, this may sound trivial, but it DOES point out my point in case. (I can't believe I'm citing this, but it's true, nonetheless. In regards to the American public's response to homosexuality being so acceptable...this week, an infinitely more talented showman, singer, dancer and personality lost on 'American Idol' due to one simple thing....He flaunted his homosexuality...and it cost him winning to another lesser performer who came across as wholesome, married, and a church going Christian, with family values. Why?..Because of exactly what I've been telling you, as well as Ake, in the beginning...That society, as a whole rejects the whole idea, as far as being 'acceptable' or desirable. With 100 MILLION votes cast, THAT'S HOW IT SHOOK DOWN. So you may be impressed with all the so called 'studies',(refer back to what I said of who was funding those 'studies'), and or anything you want, but you will NOT VOTE IN RESPECTABILITY!! ..and as I said, and you should have noticed BY NOW, people really are tired of having their noses rubbed in it!..Like it or not.
Not only that, Obama has favored the 'Don't ask, don't tell policies' in the military, he does not support it, will not endorse it(unless it becomes politically expedient), and even in your state, there is going to be a challenge to it, whose results will be of interest to both sides, as to the outcome. Hilarious Clinton has done an about face on it('Why?' would be interesting to find out..I doubt it has anything to do with 'personal conviction'). Numerous 'celebrity's) careers, have tanked out, because of it, when they 'come out of the closet'(some have done better than others), but on the most part, they took a hit. Now don't get pissed off at me, because I merely point this out to you, and others..but take an objective look at it. Even with the ramming down our throats, on the subject, and the hyping of it, the most that the majority is going to go for ir, AT THIS TIME, is placating them, by throwing them a 'bone' of 'Civil Unions'. That, my dear pal, is the plain and simple truth, as to THE WAY IT IS!
And, by the way, a question I've asked, a few times on here, but it gets 'conveniently' ignored, is, 'if two, same gendered people live together as room mates, and NOT sexually active with each other, how does the homosexual community feel about them being able to claim certain 'benefits' as a 'married' same sex couple?..(as in tax dependencies, insurances, so on and so forth). Shoe goes on the other foot now, doesn't it? Just what, and how does that issue get resolved, without infringing on the 'rights' of a same sex couple, living as 'married'.
No, my opinionated fellow Mudcat poster, married is a different ballgame as live in lovers, homosexual or hetero,..and marriage, IS and should be continued to be regarded as the union between a man, and a woman...not 'role play' pretenders...it just doesn't work.
Anyway, think about it, first, before you jump on the keyboard. Think about the lost revenues, as tax deductions, that the politicians think about before they endorse such nonsense. Think about the fraud, that anyone could claim....and think about the fact, that the majority of the public, not only disrespects homosexual behavior, but resents having to be force fed a steady diet of it, and their children, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:09 AM

As usual, you lose all accuracy when you start deploying rhetorical devices. Obama has not offered any position about Proposition 8. Although he personally prefers marriage, as a term, be reserved for hetero breeding, and civil union be used for other cases, he has never suggested enforcing this with a Constitutional amendment, as his dim-witted predecessor once did.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:15 PM

GfS, there are men who have had the same sort of relationship with there fathers that you describe in you post above, who did not become homosexual, and there are men who have perfect fine relationships who did grow up homosexual. So all you have is anecdotal evidence.

Read the Scientific American article.

####

'Twould appear that this thread is pretty well winding down. Little Hawk won his bet that it would go to 1300 posts, so there must be great rejoicing in that quarter, with Chongo buying the beer all around and all of the world's dachshunds wagging there tails and smiling broadly.

It's pretty hard to quarrel with the overwhelming weight of the latest scientific evidence published in those Scientific American articles on the origins of gender orientation, establishing that discrimination on that account is, indeed, a civil rights issue, and there is just no rational response to the argument that stable same-sex marriages should greatly reduce the transmission of HIV.

Sorry, guys. But life can be a bitch sometimes.

Get a more defensible cause next time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:34 PM

John P, The post I was referring to was, From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:28 PM

"Overturning Prop 8 would reaffirm basic American rights"
Hogwash!..You mean to tell me president Obama, is on the side of not "reaffirming basic American rights'????????
Amos, how dare you??..Are you two breaking up?

John P: "On the matter of choice, aside from all the scientific findings, have any of the anti-gay folks here actually talked to a gay person about it?"
Did you just come upon this thread?...if so, scroll back..there is a long post by me, explaining a story, about Dale and Mark. It might be on the previous page...I'll see if I can find it for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:25 PM

John:

A wonderful idea. But I suspect even if the only driver was individually selected change, it would be impossible to teach the art, or replicate the emotional pressure leading to the choice; even if it were NOT for the purely biological drivers that dictate it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:56 AM

On the matter of choice, aside from all the scientific findings, have any of the anti-gay folks here actually talked to a gay person about it? From the standpoint of the people experiencing puberty, it usually doesn't feel like there was any choice.

Think back to when you were 12 or 13 and started getting interested in members of the opposite sex. Did you decide to be interested in little girls or little boys? If you're anything like I was, and like everyone else I know, you were single-mindedly focused on one or the other. What makes you think it is any different for anyone else?

If it is a matter of choice, perhaps we should hire gay people to teach our children how to control their sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:31 AM

Done.


"Overturning Prop 8 would reaffirm basic American rights

If the California Supreme Court overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage in the next few days, it would give renewed strength to two fundamental and deeply cherished American ideals and operating principles.

The first is that though majorities rule in democracies, majorities cannot tyrannize minorities, deny them rights, criminalize their very existence on subjective grounds or religious grounds, or on any grounds whatsoever, nor turn them into second class citizens.

This fundamental principle applies to everyone and every group, save criminal gangs and conspiracies, because all of us are potential victims of the tyranny of the majority. All of us — women, people of all colors, all races, cultures and religions, the disabled, people who hold dissenting political views, and members of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered community.

Because the founders understood that everyone is a potential victim of some majority's prejudice against their ideas or communities, the U.S. Constitution was designed to safeguard all of us through the principle of equal protection under the law.

The second fundamental principle is that when you are a citizen of the United States you are entitled to the full rights and privileges of citizenship. There is no hierarchy of citizenship. We are all equally citizens and all equal under the law. That is why laws that discriminate against minorities, of any kind, are unconstitutional, including any statute anywhere that supports mandatory segregation or diminished citizenship for anyone.

In this country, there isn't one group which gets all privileges and other groups who are cheated of their equality and denied their basic rights. And though the founders made mistakes in the Constitution regarding the so-called superior rights of property owners, and the status of African Americans as property, American principles of equality and fairness have worked to correct those errors so that no caste system, no social hierarchy, no aristocracy exists in the Constitution.

The California Supreme Court's decision to overturn Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage late last year, would almost certainly do so on the grounds of equal protection under law, which would make any kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. Such a decision would also indirectly reject the overwhelmingly religious nature of Proposition 8's support. As the First Amendment makes clear, religion cannot be used to deny full citizenship to minorities either.

Proposition 8 supporters would be aghast at such a judicial decision, decrying that the voice of the people, expressed in the referendum, would have been denied. But the courts are the voice of the people too.

Elections can't be used to turn minorities in American culture into pariahs, into second rate citizens, into legal serfs and untouchables. That kind of thinking, associated with many contemporary conservatives, is based on old views of hereditary hierarchy which hold that some people are inherently better and more deserving than others...." (from Examiner.com).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:06 AM

I dunno, Wes. Little Hawk kinda said we had to break 1300, so we're trying to find something more to say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:01 AM

Wesley S, Probably...its wide open go for it!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:00 AM

Peace, Yeah, we use to call that 'aerosol mouth'...it's great when you can get someone to do that in a restaurant!..sometimes, when they try real hard to 'hold it in' and try to laugh with a bunch of drink in their mouths, it just dribbles out..Love it!..Even better when they are formally dressed,..and there with their date!!..Shit, it's really cool if they try real hard, and it comes out of their noses!!!....Then the restaurant calls the ambulance, and all the crew stumbles out of the back of the ambulance.......and goes into a different building....What a score!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:50 AM

I have to wonder why y'all are still discussing an cuss'n this issue. It should be plain now that no one is going to change their mind. No one is going to have a V-8 moment and slap their forehead and say - "Now I understand - he's been right all along and I was wrong". So is there a point here other than getting the post count up over 1300?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:28 AM

Seems like it wasn't "selective comprehension" so much as "slap-dash inaccurate impressionism", GfS.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 09 - 01:18 AM

GfS: Despite that we seem to differ on this issue, I gotta tell ya, you have a great sense of humour. I read your remark to my last post and if I'd had a mouthful of coffee, I would have sprayed it all over everywhere. Thank you. I needed the laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 May 09 - 12:54 AM

GfS, you add greatly to the contention that you have some sort of reading comprehension problem. I just did a search on the word "Christian" on this thread and other than a couple of people who are characteristically anti-religion, no one here, particularly "pro-homosexuals," have said anything to support what you are saying. If I missed one or more that do support what you are saying, you're going to have to point them out.

I am indeed against the fundamentalist Christians who feel they have the right to restrict the freedom of others on the grounds of their particular beliefs, but even if they are louder than more liberal Christians, they are most assuredly not representative of all Christians—although they want you to think they are.

Have you not read anything I've posted on the main stream churches who have adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome?" Or others here on this thread who, one way or another, have identified themselves as Christian who support same-sex marriage?

Apparently not.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:19 PM

I am sure it feels that way, but its not an uncommon delusion.

Can you cite one specific point where someone tried to infringe on the civil rights of a Christian or Christians because they were "pro-homosexual"?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:04 PM

Am I the only one who reads the posts from ALL the posters?..Jeez, scroll down and read the 'anti-Christian' rhetoric. Just another case of 'selective comprehension'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:58 PM

A short excerpt from the SciAm link above:

"Researchers using brain scans have found new evidence that biology—and not environment—is at the core of sexual orientation. Scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that gay men and straight women share similar traits—most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala—an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. The same is true for heterosexual men and lesbians.

Study author, neurologist Ivanka Savic–Berglund, says such characteristics would develop in the womb or in early infancy, meaning that psychological or environmental factors played little or no role.

"This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there's a biological reason for sexual orientation," says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. "It's not just a reflection of people's behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it's something that people are born with.""

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:33 PM

Just got back from my local Safeway store, where, among other things, I browsed the magazine stand.

GfS and Ake, you two experts* might like to take a look at a special issue of Scientific American which is currently on the stands. Several articles on sex, the sexual brain, matters of sexual orientation.

Then again, you might not. Here, from the Scientific American web site is one of the articles, CLICKY, with links to several other articles on related subjects.

I think I just heard your tenny-runners screech to a halt.

But there are the latest findings, guys. Do you want to know? Or would you rather not?

*Footnote:   the word "expert" comes from two Latin words. "Ex" meaning "has been" and "spurt" being "a little drip under pressure."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 May 09 - 07:07 PM

Ake, you didn't share any details of your sexual practices with us. From this, I assume you are a hypocrite as well as a bigot, since you want privacy that you deny to others. I shouldn't be surprised, since you enjoy civil and human rights that you deny to others.

Unless you are willing to have your privacy invaded, you shouldn't invade the privacy of others. Unless you're willing to live without basic rights, you shouldn't deny them to others. It's not hard to understand. I'm just talking to you the same way that you talk to gay people. Deal.


Little Hawk, get real. Why do you think gay folks get to live their lives without fear? Look up Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King. A gay friend of mine recently had his house burned down by an anti-gay person. He came out of it owning half a pair of pajamas. Have you heard about all the gay folks who lose their belongings when their partner dies, because the family of the deceased comes in and just takes things? And this is after being barred from the hospital room because of not being "family". Do you really think gay folks don't get discriminated against in the job market?

The bigotry won't end until it is illegal and deeply frowned upon by society as whole. That was true of discrimination against blacks and women, and I see no evidence that it's not true for homosexuals as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 06:39 PM

Not too much time right now, but I'll reply to John P. who asked me:

"Aren't you glad folks didn't settle down about civil rights for black folks in the 60s, or for women in the 70s?"

Of course. I'm very glad of it. I'm also glad that gays can now openly be who they are in this society without fear. I am not suggesting for a moment that people should not fight for the rights of others who are discriminated against. I am not suggesting being aloof or standing apart from social issues. My greatest heroes are among those who did not stand aloof and apart. Joan Baez and Gandhi, for instance. They didn't stir up negative energy, however, by name-calling and insulting their opposition.

I suggest you listen to Barack Obama's entire address at Notre Dame, note how he conducts himself (specially when someone heckles him from the crowd), note what he advises people in any cultural or political debate to do in order to keep that debate productive, and take a few pointers from it. Accusing other people of being perverts and bigots is no useful contribution to a discussion.

And that's all I have time for right now. I'll get back to the rest later.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:34 PM

And I have a horse in that same race, Ake. In Washington State where I live, Governor Gregoire has signed a domestic partnership bill into law. And the forces that put forth Prop 8 in California are now gathering to do the same thing here that they did in California.

It is, as Amos just said, another "mass effort to vote to deny certain core liberties to a certain minority."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:09 PM

Ach, AKe, let us drop the ad hominem aspects of this discussion, as LH has asked; they add no merit. I felt John was being sincere, if impassioned, and see no reason to call him a liar. THere are many people in Mudcat town who resort to name calling much, much more readily than he.

I would point out for example that this thread was fairly civil until 30 Dec 08, when GfS began to assert that those who did not see things her way were stupid idiots, assholes, ignorant and arrogant, etc. Since then there have been lots of civil posts and a handful of uncivil ones, some of them from me, for which, as usual, I apologize.

I have no objection ifg, in your view, the unproven dynamics behind the phenomenon of honosexuality seem to be aberrations and even if they seem to be "chosen".   I don't think the existing evidence p[oints that way, but it is not a hard-proven issue, so extrapolate and hypothesize whichever way you like, for all o' me.

But you will not change the issue that Prop 8 was a mass effort to vote to deny certain core liberties to a certain minority. That's cut and dried.

'Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:52 PM

And you, Ake, know absolutely nothing about Mr. Peekstok, save that he does not suffer fools gladly.

You are full of insults for people who do not agree with you or who call you on your faulty logic and biased interpretation of statistics, so your remarks about rational debate are a bit hollow. And then you bellow like a goosed moose when someone indicates thet they get the impression that you have your alimentary canal in backwards. You get especially nasty when someone calls it like it is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:30 PM

Yes Don there is something special about Barry....he is absolutely sincere.
I 'm sure he won't mind me saying that we have corresponded by PM on a few occasions, and I find him one of the best people on this forum.

We agree about many things but I am really sorry that this is one which we cannot agree on....I feel I may be losing somone who could have been a valued friend.

You Amos and Don Firth probably don't deserve to be given this information, you would all certainly be more at home in the company of Mr Peekstock, the foul mouthed idiot who now posts under John P.

He has a trunk full of second prizes on threads like these, he cannot debate and relies on personal abuse to try to intimidate the opposition.
He says.."Sorry, I don't usually resort to name calling"...he's a liar as well as an idiot. Check the other "gay" threads for a quick look at his M.O.
Really surprised at you Amos, as someone who understands debate, what do you have in common with that clown?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:01 PM

GfS, your ignorance of various matters is reaching monumental proportions.

"Ironic, how pro homosexuals find no problem discriminating against Christianity, even to the point of hatred. . . ."

You make a blanket statement like that, displaying total ignorance of the large number of main-line churches in the United States who have signed on to the "Affirmation of Welcome" statement. I'm sure you include me in your "pro homosexual" category, and yet you can say something like that after I have posted several bits of information on the Affirmation of Welcome.

Are you just not reading what I post, or do you have reading comprehension problems?

Educate yourself! Here is one example (out of legions) of a church who has adopted the affirmation. READ THE STATEMENT and stop yammering on about things you know nothing about.

####

Little Hawk, let me ask you this:

What would you say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi?

Also, I presume that you are familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller. If not, HERE IT IS.

What would you say to Pastor Neimöller?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:48 PM

""I'm sorry you feel that way about me Barry. I can only say that you are wrong, not in holding strong views, but in your assessment of me,as a person.
I don't include you among the egoists I described earlier, I know you care deeply about every word you write on this subject.....What more can I say?...Ake""


So, are you going to tell each of us who individually takes you to task that you know we care deeply about......etc., or is there something special about Barry?

Tell me pal, just how do you decide who is sincere, and who is an egoist? I'd really like the lowdown on how long you've had this undisclosed talent for telepathy.

Perhaps you could enhance it by developing some EMPATHY for your fellow man, but I doubt that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:30 PM

Thanks, John. Let me chime in with this: LH, you may bemoan this thread is overlong, overzealous, or overwrought, but standing up for the kind of human decency and equality I am advocating is not something you settle down on, as John points out. Being aloof is great relaxation but it does not chop any wood or draw any water.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, Little Hawk, settling down in the face of injustice is just another way of supporting the injustice. We really shouldn't be settling down about this. Aren't you glad folks didn't settle down about civil rights for black folks in the 60s, or for women in the 70s?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:13 PM

Jeez, we have perverts right here on Mudcat! Anyone who shows such an interest in other peoples' sex lives is really sick. Any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. Really, really sick.

Perhaps we should talk about the sex lives of the homophobes here. GfS, what sorts of sexual activities do engage in? Please be very specific, since you seem to think it is OK to be specific about the sex lives of others. Akenaton, what about you? Are you a man or a woman? (and yes, it is my business, as much as anyone elses' sexuality is your business). Do you engage in oral sex? What about anal? Dress up? Any interesting fetishes?

Oh, you don't want to talk about your sex lives? Then shut the fuck up, you bigoted, sick bastards. I'm about sick to death of people trying to justify their bigotry with all sorts of weak arguments. It all just comes down to the fact that you don't like it. Hardly a good basis for making laws.

Sorry, I don't usually like resorting to name calling, but bigotry is bigotry and I refuse to countenance it. If you don't want to be called a sick bigoted bastard, don't be one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:48 PM

I am debating the notion of what payment you could send, Amos, and I have not yet decided what would be best. I wouldn't be so crass as to ask you for money! Hmmm. How about some fresh California fruit sent by air for each bit of sage advice I can offer? I like pineapples and mangos.

I really think we need Barack Obama here to chair this discussion and get people to settle down a little. It would help a lot. I suspect, however, that he's got more important things to do... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:14 AM

I would like you to substantiate your wild-eyed remark by naming one instance where "pro-homosexuals" (whatever that means) sought to establish some kind of discriminatory infringement of the civil rights of Christians. I doubt you can find any. You are blathering and tossing about sweeping conclusions not supported by substance.

Unless I am wrong, in which case I am sure you will be able to speak specifically about what you mean.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:47 AM

Ironic, how pro homosexuals find no problem discriminating against Christianity, even to the point of hatred, yet want to be accepted and sanctioned in their churches....slaps self on head...and all this time I was under the impression that they were so much against bigotry.
Makes you go 'Hmmmm'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:32 AM

I'm sorry you feel that way about me Barry. I can only say that you are wrong, not in holding strong views, but in your assessment of me,as a person.
I don't include you among the egoists I described earlier, I know you care deeply about every word you write on this subject.....What more can I say?...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:07 AM

"religious conviction, I do see that they have a valid point of view"

What has civil & human rights got to do with religion? Civil & Human rights have been trampled on by Religions as well as Governments!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:04 AM

"There is a massive link between aids and the practice of homosexuality....Even large numbers of homosexuals are now saying this."

Recently a large group of politicians have been claiming that God speaks through them too, but it doesn't make what he say true of fact

Homosexuality is not just a civil rights issue, it has long been a human rights issue, so much so that they needed the protection under law (protection under genda basis & gay bashing), granted by the same law that denies them their right to same sex marriage. Can the law protect & discriminate at the same time? Can the law be an umbrella only when it rains? "NO"!

Your "normal" society has tried, after granting civil rights, to force Blacks to behave White, Woman at work to hide their idenities as Mothers (as well as asking them to act as men in the work place & then call them bitches when they do) & Gays to (don't ask, don't tell) act straight. "Your Normal" society does not really protect the minorities because "Your Normal Society" is bigoted, just as you are but to you that is "normal". What it is, is unjust, unfair & IMHO criminal.
As I mentioned in my privious post gay woman, by your logic must lead healthy lifestyles, they are low on the AIDS meter so they sould be able to marry, but wait that's a same sex issue too.
Is it that their "normal" sexual acts may meet with a more exceptable view in the eyes of a homohater as opposed to "2 guys takng it up the ass"?
Call yourself what you are.
You are who Blacks had to struggle to survive from, who Jews had to run from & who woman had to vote against. You are no different now than what you were 50 or 100 or 150 yrs ago. You make the lives of those who are different from you a course in survival trainning.

Barry