BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 17 May 09 - 08:13 PM

I said, "DOCTORRRR, is their sometin I can take? To cure this belly ake?"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 09 - 09:41 PM

Whew! Been away for awhile. I have to say I have never seen a skunk fight that lasted as long as this one. I'm now predicting that this thread will reach 1300 posts. Don't fail me. I've got a bet riding on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:42 AM

Don T: "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.

I'll bet money you argue the other side, saying church and state separation...the state isn't granting anything to a church, if you believe that. They are separate!(or were supposed to be)

Amos:(I'd rather post music)...but in light of this present dilemma, I could post a shitload more..probably better ones, but I went for the shortest.

Ebbie: See above, to Amos.

Don: "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."

Up yours! No tap dancing, but I guess you had to get off a snappy piece of rhetoric. Feel better now?

Don(again): "he supports civil unions, and it's up to religious institutions whether or not they would recognize the union as marriage."

Don T..read Don Firth's above quote..Does that answer your question?

Don(again): "...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."

When myself or Little Hawk or Ake, say that, you call us 'bigots'..should I 'go figure', and waste more time?

Look, What will probably happen is that some states will agree, some not. Others for religious reasons will not. Some sects will. The more spiritual, who are not church goers, but spiritual, will shake their heads with bewildered disgust. The 'spiritualists' will agree with 'whatever', as long as they are perceived as 'heavy'. The educated will reason it away, then predict when it will go the way of the hula-hoop. The entertainment world will promote it as long as there is 'shock value' to it, and prolong it way past its 'chique-ness d' jour'. Amos will change his mind, once he finds out Obama's position was his all along. You are stuck with it, hoping the genetics of it were on her side, and you were framed. Don T is going to re-arrange thoughts of posts, to suit his eloquence, and perfect grammar...but to real no effectiveness, because its all based on a political opinion, and re-act to his own perception of a good rebuttal! Meanwhile, the public will have to have their noses rubbed in it, as an issue, that most of the time, they couldn't give a flying fuck about, just don't teach my kids about the wonders of it,..Joe Offer, is going to wonder when his patience runs out, and him stretching the parameters, by not yanking off some of these posts..*(but at the same time realizes that it has been a hot, entertaining thread..more posts than the Obama Administration one)...By the way, Joe, Thank you!..and I'm going to hope for the best, insofar some good things were presented to think about(like we need it!?)...but I hope you will. Nobody is going to convince anyone else, of jack doodlie squat,.....and let's just hope that the selfishness that produced this coming generation might be overcome their parents selfishness...ok?


But if you want.................
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:20 AM

GfS, I didn't notice anywhere that you said you find same-sex marriage acceptable. In fact, you've been saying the opposite all along.

Have you suddenly changed your mind?

(And "up yours?" Now, really! The very soul of wit!)

You're starting to sound a bit frantic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:53 AM

Acceptable??? To whom? me? No..I think its lame, unnecessary, dysfunctional, dishonest to one's own self, lying to himself about his own gender, and sad...and I understand it! Absolutely tragic!..from both sides. Acceptable?..Maybe to you ..but then you have given yourself little option...and intentionally stay comfortable in your lack of knowledge or understanding. That, too, is sad.

Personally, I think that unless a man, mounts a woman, and with her hearty help, at least one time in their life, for the soul purpose of bringing forth a life, and willing to raise that child with her, keeping LOVE as the central focus of their family, you can take all the mystics, politicians, religious fanatics, and used car salesmen, and go bark and howl at the moon, for anything they want...and it won't take away the fact, of the wonder of that miracle, nor will they argue it away. Doing that, is the hottest experience humans can do well, on this planet!...Now if you haven't done that...what did you want to say???



I can't hear you.........
(Don't even post it)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: polaitaly
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:09 AM

"A man mount a woman??????" What are we, animals to be "mounted"??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:20 AM

""Don T..read Don Firth's above quote..Does that answer your question?""

NO! My question was addressed to AKE, not Don Firth, and NOT YOU.

--------------------------------------------------------------

""I'll bet money you argue the other side, saying church and state separation...the state isn't granting anything to a church, if you believe that. They are separate!(or were supposed to be)""

You would lose! I live in the UK where there is an established church (i.e. NOT separate from the state). The US pays lip service to separation (though republicans like G W Bush don't seem to know that), and I really don't give a shit either way.

My comment stands as I phrased it. It is not the business of religious organisations to force their views on others, especially when the argument is about civil rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------

""Don T is going to re-arrange thoughts of posts, to suit his eloquence, and perfect grammar...but to real no effectiveness, because its all based on a political opinion, and re-act to his own perception of a good rebuttal!""

Could you run that by me again please, preferrably in ENGLISH this time?

As far as I can recall, eloquence and perfect grammar have never been accepted as reason for disqualification from debate. Rather the reverse in fact.

The rest of your comment makes NO sense at all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 05:02 AM

I'll put it to you this way....You so very well, in your grammar and eloquence say a bunch of bullshit nonsense...got it? ..and vent your emotions that you work yourself up selectively misreading posts you can re-arrange their meanings.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 09 - 09:40 AM

My mind is not going to change, dingbat, regardless of Obama's position. I am fortunately not in the crucible of pressure he is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:51 AM

Amos, I believe you..I think you probably have more integrity than he does!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:15 PM

GfS, I was a little dissapointed to not be mentioned in your post of 18 May 09 - 01:42 AM. What am I, chopped liver?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:18 PM

Of course I meant disappointed. How embarrassing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:49 PM

People who are absolutely determined to find something offensive in whatever another person posts are seldom disappointed... ;-)

Those who most need to apply that observation to themselves, rather than to the person they're continually arguing with on this or some other thread, will not do so...because the concept of self-criticism does not even enter their thoughts.

They will think I was just referring to "the other guy", not them!

And the thread will go on.

And on.

And on.

And I will win my bet when it hits 1300!

Life is good. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:59 PM

"People who are absolutely determined to find something offensive in whatever another person posts are seldom disappointed... ;-)"

I find that comment to be highly offensive. Take it back - right now. And if you don't I'll continue to beat this old dead horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:07 PM

Yeah??? Do your worst, Wesley! Just wait till you see the 9,000 word reply I will post in response. You will crawl off licking your wounds, overwhelmed by my wit, sarcasm, and brilliant use of language and vocabulary. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:20 PM

And I take umbrage with that, Little Hawk. How are you going to use language without utilizing vocabulary?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:35 PM

Ah, yes, Ebbie...but there is mere common vocabulary...and then there is VOCABULARY, the language of the intelligentsia! A person of great intellect can immediately detect the difference. Bobert, for example, uses (cough!) vocabulary of, well, the most primitive sort....

But Don Firth and Amos use VOCABULARY!!!!!!

Then there are those who can seamlessly move from mere vulgar and common vocabulary into the true heights of VOCABULARY and back again in the wink of an eye! To do that enables one to comfortably exist, like an amphibian, in both worlds. It's a useful survival tactic. Johnny Depp is a good example of someone who can do that with consummate ease, and that's why he gets such good roles in the movies.

I aspire to being more like Johnny Depp. Who knows, I might still get to date Winona Ryder one of these days... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:44 PM

VOCABULARY - from Canada? The country that gave us "Eh"?? I figure if you're from Canada and use a VOCABULARY then it's proof you're gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:51 PM

LOL! You are walking on thin ice, Wesley. Just watch it, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:54 PM

Oh, LH, your infinite capacity for transcendental meta-analysis just gives me frissons!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:57 PM

Ha! I betcha. ;-) I love rambling on in that fashion, as you well know.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:06 PM

As far as 'vocabulary'(among other things) goes, its not size..but how you use it!...."When loving comes to giving, some people stop at nothing!".......(mine)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:17 PM

"One Dachshund is entertainment. Two is a carnival!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:19 PM

..and three is a voyeur?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:50 PM

No it's a menage-a-mutt

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:52 PM

I don't care what Obama thinks about same-sex marriage as long as he is opposed to trying to prescribe marriage with a Constitutional amendment. That is what I find "acceptable."

One of the characteristics of a liberal, which Guest from Sanity (!?), Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter don't seem to have the grey matter to grasp, is that liberals often don't agree about many things. This idea that liberals are robots walking in lock-step is pure reactionary fiction (wishful thinking, actually). After all, the Democratic Party (which, frankly, I don't find all that liberal) has been described as "a firing squad formed in a circle." In the meantime, the Republican Party is trying to decide who best exemplifies the ideals of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney.

I have never met a bigot who believed he was a bigot. Nevertheless, I have met a number of people who think they have the right to deny rights to minority groups they disapproved of.

GfS, I mention above that you're sounding a bit frantic. Let me amend that. You're beginning to sound a bit like THIS.   Or THIS.

####

You want vocabulary, Little Hawk? Here's a man with a vocabulary:   BEWARE (this is not "G rated").

By the way, for those who are concerned about kinky sex (and for GfS, who claims to know all about "hot experiences":    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:03 PM

Don T ...I have answered your question about a dozen times in this thread and I could answer it again in one sentence,
but I believe that your inability to comprehend what is written for you, will provide those who read this in months to come, with a better guide to the validity of your argument.

All that I have written here has been accomplish despite having a very limited vocabulary. I rarely write anything other than on mudcat. I try to be honest and highlight hypocrisy when ever i see it, the fact that Homosexual "rights" has become a political issue has attracted hypocrites from throughout the political spectrum and as far as I can see the last people they care about are the homosexuals themselves....encouraging them to think that their deadly lifestyle is healthy and normal is in my book a form of abuse.

I may be poorly educated, but have the intelligence to see beyond the political spin, or the madness of fundamentalism.

Interestingly, there is a group of homosexuals who wish Aids to be designated as a "homosexual disease" in the hope of a proper medical inquiry and perhaps some guidelines on the practice of homosexuality.

When I have time, I will post the details....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:11 PM

Homophobic homosexuals

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:50 PM

Ake, try to be careful not to bump into yourself as you go in and out the door simultaneously.

First, you characterize AIDS as a "gay disease."

Then, when a group of gays in Los Angeles claim that it is a "gay disease," you deny that it is.

What do you really believe? Or does it depend entirely on who says what?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:00 PM

Ake - I read the article you linked to and then went to it's home page. What really suprised me was that the US armed forces attacked a UFO over Los Angeles in 1942. That's for that tidbit. That homepage a wealth of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:08 PM

Well, well, well!   The straight skinny from the Flat Earth Society . . . again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:11 PM

The webpage has no real effect on my argument, I just though it might be of interest to some here.
The writer, who tries to refute what the homosexuals are saying is obviously a conspiracy theorist who believes the US govt tried to exterminate homosexuals by the use of Hiv/Aids.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:38 PM

"The webpage has no real effect on my argument, I just though it might be of interest to some here." ake 18 May 4:11

"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." GtS 17 May 3:42

So now the both of you are posting links that mean nothing? Even though both articles linked to refute your core arguments?

lol Incoherency is a sad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:47 PM

Yes, there was a rather extraordinary "air intruder" incident over southern California (the L.A. area) in 1942 and a lot of AA guns were fired and searchlights directed at something in the sky which was assumed to be of "Japanese" origin at the time, not surprisingly, but it was definitely not of Japanese origin nor was it of domestic origin. It's in the records. There is no confirmation to this day as to just what it was that was seen and fired upon. The reports suggest what is nowadays termed as "a UFO" by most people, but the terminology changes. They were intially called "flying disks" or "flying saucers" by most people. What you call it is usually whatever you have heard someone else call it in the media. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you call something...its essential nature remains unchanged regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:55 PM

Thank you, Ake, for the post, and link. Apparently the two Dons didn't get it, but what else is new? Since the 1980's I had gotten information alluding to the story, along with documentation, that AIDS was, in fact, man made. Your link seems to coincide with the information, I had gotten, back then. Do you think the story about the military attacking a UFO, over L.A., possibly with green men from Mars, were actually green monkeys from Africa???(wink)
..And by the way, Ake, you're self flagellation, about 'not being very well educated', can go out the window. You've shown more 'common sense' that those who are actually well educated, in denial! ..or indoctrinated in political excuses, and cover-ups!!!

Oh, and KB in Ohio, Your post reminded me of an old episode of the T.V. show, 'Who do You Trust' with Groucho Marx. However it was said to a couple from Nebraska, instead of Ohio. Groucho was well known for his insults, to the guest contestants,(in fact, that was the vehicle for his comedy, on the show). Nervously, tittering around a bit, the very straight and conservative husband(married contestants were the norm), said to Groucho, in the opening few words, before the quiz part began.
"My wife has been waiting for weeks to come on this show, and be insulted by you.
To which, Groucho, leaned a little back, looked the wife up and down, and looked back at the husband, and quipped, "Judging from the looks of your wife, I'm surprised you couldn't think of your own insults!"
Got both of them, in one shot! None the less, KB, you only came on briefly, and I found nothing to indicate that you were a 'bonehead', and in fact, asked a reasonable, non-contentious question. Whether my answer was in your agreement or not, was certainly no reason, to, as you indicated, 'put you in my cross hairs'...that's reserved for contentious 'knowologists'(know-all-o-gists), who, in their lofty rhetoric, are void of understanding, ..OR..grasping and considering another side, of the same subject...See?..You got spared, as requested.(wink)...unless you want to start it up, for shits and grins.
Regards To All,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 07:17 PM

Hey Ebbie, when you get done rolling your whole wheat flour, while looking out over the canyon with glazed eyes, I found something for you,...and it was only a fraction of what was there! You read, and you decide..there are both sides posted!

netowne.com/conspiracy/konformist/manmadeaids.htm

www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/aids_origin.htm

www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

www.boydgraves.com/timeline

www.eaec.org/dove/IsAids.htm

www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/6.Strecker Memo.html

www.biblebelievers.org.au/46a.htm

www.rense.com/general71/gaycancer.htm

aidsbiowar.com/page1.htm

www.rense.com/general75/mmo.htm

www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/Aids.html

www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1597.shtml

www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc754a.html

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/AIDS3.html?q=AIDS3.html

www.cultural-expressions.com/thesis/aidstheory.htm

www.straightdope.com/columns/read/941/is-aids-a-manmade-disease

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origins_opposed_to_scientific_consensus

www.righto.com/theories/strecker.html

whatsthecrack.net/AIDS-origin-is-Man-Made

scheria.it/Members/aidsmanmadevirush

mosaicvirus.blogspot.com/2005/10/is-aids-man-made.html

www.originofaids.com

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 08:21 PM

DISCLAIMER:

No homophobes or bigots
were injured in the making of this thread.
Many did, however, become quite annoyed,
some irritated to the point where they,
rhetorically speaking most assuredly,
but in some cases in actuality,
ran around in ever-decreasing circles
and vanished up their own
imploded into black holes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 09 - 09:48 PM

A sullen retreat to the fringe, where the wild memes can eat you alive...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:15 PM

DISCLAIMER:

No homophobes or bigots
were injured in the making of this thread.
Many did, however, become quite annoyed,
some irritated to the point where they,
rhetorically speaking most assuredly,
but in some cases in actuality,
ran around in ever-decreasing circles
and vanished up their own
imploded into black holes.

I didn't see any, did you??
Beauty, as well as ugly, is in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:29 PM

GfS, I am overwhelmed by your keenness of your wit!

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:40 PM

It's totally obvious what GfS means.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 12:41 AM

Gosh...umm..I'm not sure..wanna' take a stab at it??
I mean you re-interpreted everything else I posted, to suit you, therefore, ..nothing I post should upset you.....(or something like that)

Satire aside, all that is in here are 'Mudcatters' having a discussion, and sharing ideas. Though I may not agree with all of them, perhaps, at times even you, I wouldn't go as far as to call them 'bigots'....would you? ..Perhaps maybe I'd call them part time musicians, or wannabees, but not haters of mankind, or themselves. Perhaps, less informed than others, but I don't think, in real life there is a 'Mudcatter' in here that would wish anyone any real harm..well, maybe a little embarrassment, or chagrin,..maybe....but I think these here are all pretty far out folks...even TIA, when it sports a new poodle cut..but if they were real ass holes, would they be on here, SHARING their thoughts, no matter how ugly, or ridiculous??..Besides, if I thought that, I wouldn't try so hard, for those I feel need the input....right?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:09 AM

Beauty? Ugly?

I know a warthog when I see one. Beautiful only to another warthog.

But it's still a warthog.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:13 AM

By the way, I'm going to bed. That'll give some highly dedicated soul the opportunity to cop the 1200th post.

Don't say I didn't do you any favors, Little Hawk.

Nighty night.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:22 AM

2000.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:40 AM

..V peace

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 04:11 AM

I thought folks like Don Firth etc were meant to be well educated and possess huge vocabularies. If so, why is it that we "numpties" on the anti side are so often asked to explain what we post in words of one syllable?
The link which I posted has been commented on by Amos, Ebbie and Don Firth so far( Don T will doubtless be along when he catches up. They seem to think that the article counters my argument, which it does not,

The article concerns a large group of homosexuals in Los Angelese, who see the only hope of ending the aids epidemic in America is by admitting that homosexual practice "triggers" the disease and to impliment a serious medical study into homosexuality and AIDS.
If any of you have been paying attention,you may remember that this is exactly the view I have been expounding for months.

The guy who has written the article, is very much against this view, assuming that it will lead to "increased homophobia". He goes on to promote a conspiracy theory about the US govt trying to extermiate homosexuals by the use of the AIDS virus.

His denial of common sense echos the views of Don Firth, Amo, and Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 05:19 AM

He, like Don, Amos and Ebbie, sees Homosexuality as a normal healthy lifesyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:12 AM

""If any of you have been paying attention,you may remember that this is exactly the view I have been expounding for months.""

Is it really only months? It seems like a bloody lifetime.

And it still doesn't address the issue of how refusing same sex marriage will HELP to improve anything.

Nor does it take any interest in the MUCH larger number of heterosexual HIV/AIDS victims.

Same old same old! Try changing the record, because that on is worn out.


GfS, Still as incomprehensible as ever, running round in circles and veering erratically between bad science, and mad conspiracy theory.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:01 AM

Having been away for a few days, I note that (a) this is turning into a very circular argument, (b) I was 'name-checked' a couple of times and my viewpoint even praised, but nobody even remotely engaged with what I was saying.

C'est la vie...........