 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 19 May 09 - 08:03 AM Godammit, Ake, don't you dare go putting owrds in my mouth. I have never said "normal" or "healthy". That's your shtick. You aren't listening either, pal. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 19 May 09 - 08:10 AM While bigot is a strong word, it needs to be faced squarely that the desire to legally exclude some humans from equality under the law is bt definition a categorical prejudice (judging a head of time), and is the kind of prejudice that bigotry is made of. It is also a categorical reaction that violates our fundamental legal principles of equality under the law. That's not the way citizenship under law works. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 19 May 09 - 10:53 AM LEt me add this: I have never faulted Ake for seeking a traditional-marriage culture, and the correct source of that tradition is a church; he does not have the right to require others to comply with his nostalgia or his cultural bent as a legal matter. Of course it is understandable, just as it is understandable to prefer Mom and Pop neighborhood stores to Walmart, or to prefer all-white small schoolhouses where one kindly schoolmarm teaches five grades, or to prefer a world where penny candy still costs a penny, and where Christmas still evokes fantasies about flying saints. Preferring it, or yearning for it, does not make it legally right or fair. Hungering for injustice that is favorable to oneself is not hard to "understand" but it is hard to condone, and should be abjured as public policy. The bias for these things may not qualify as bigotry, but it comes very close, to the point where it is a semantic quibble of a distinction. It would be pleasant (by some rose-tinted standards) if we all lived in a world where homosexuality had never come out of the closet and could be suppressed by "normalcy" the way it once was. Mayberry may be pleasant but it is not honest, just or truthful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 01:11 PM DonT: "And it still doesn't address the issue of how refusing same sex marriage will HELP to improve anything." It was voted DOWN, in California.,,to which the pro homosexual crowd is trying to circumnavigate our system, to ram it through anyway. I suppose there are a few more people, for various reasons, of that issue alone, who have their reasons for opposing it, based on that. DonT, The people IN THE WORLD, by a huge majority, see homosexuality as a bit on the 'abnormal' side of things, not to mention most all religions, with sects excluded, who also see it that way. Homosexuals make up just a very small percentage of populations. We've gone around and around on this, but homosexuality, is not based on any Constitutional grounds, as religion, race, color, or anything covered by that. Now you, being a Brit, or U.K, citizen, may not fully understand why that is relevant..but here, it is. Homosexuality, IS, either a choice, or the product of victims of circumstances. It is NOT, genetic, as pro homosexuals would like to argue, or you to think...not only that, it CAN be reversed, and has been. Being black, or Red, or white, on the other hand, can not. Societies, are based by the norms set up by either 'common law', traditions, or legislated law, morals, or common sense. So far, homosexuality has not fit into any of those categories. Though I can see why some would want to differ, and argue that point. Marriage, is an institution that dates back THOUSANDS of years, though in form, it has taken several incarnations, ie, polygamy, etc etc..but, in this society, the norm is one man, one woman, based on the traditions of family. If some people want to have a union, based on sexual preference, and pass it off as the same function as a nuclear family, it just isn't going to fly. Though men and women, usually get together for one reason, or another, the product is USUALLY going to PRODUCE offspring. That, in itself, separates the difference between their relationship, and a homosexual living arrangement. Equality, should be based on citizenship, not what you do with your genitalia...or any other part of your body, or brain. Actually, equality, is, according to our founding principles, were 'Endowed by our Creator'..not by the King, not by the government, not by privilege, not by ancestry. The people in California, voted the ban, much to the surprise, of a lot of people, due to the WILL of the people, to vote what they really though, and turning aside from the over hyped, over promoted notion, that this train was going to run them over. They didn't buy it. Now, I could have listed a list of reasons that bring on homosexuality, based on the psychological profiles of homosexual root causes, but so far, some in this grown, you in particular, along with a few others, have been predisposed to believe the political press on this. The political press, on this issue, is NOT based on fact, biologically, psychologically, sociologically, nor religiously. You can jump up and down, wave your arms frantically, scream at the top of your lungs, and it will NOT change that FACT! The other side, may wish to be 'tolerant' of what they may wish to view as an 'aberration', but at this point, they, which comprise the majority, do not wish to see the union of two same sex people, given equal status legally, as those of two different sexes, who see this issue quite differently, as so far as PRODUCING, a family, and raising their natural children, Now, this last generation, through various self absorptions, and selfish behaviors, have raised the divorce rate, to where the traditional nuclear family, is now almost a rarity...yet even through break-ups, one or the other, still looks to restore that model, but with perhaps a different person..but still usually, with a Mommy and Daddy. PRETENDING to ROLE PLAY THE OPPOSITE SEX, IS NOT, BY ANY SHAKE OF THE IMAGINATION NOT THE SAME!!! Women and men are wired different from birth, and those two HALVES make the whole of the unit... So get mad if you want, pout, write another 'almost' eloquent post..it will not change men into women, and women into men...for the sake of a sexual CHOICE they make!..ok??..Get it? Got it? Good! However, Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 01:16 PM Typo: fouth paragraph...."some in this grown,'' meant to type, " some in this crowd" Sorry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 19 May 09 - 01:16 PM You got spared, as requested.(wink)...unless you want to start it up, for shits and grins. I'm guessing, GfS, that when you addressed 'KB in Ohio' you were actually referring to me (As an aside, I used to have a T-Shirt that said "Universtiy of Iowa - Idaho City, Ohio. Ha ha, we certainly are a jovial bunch!). Anyway, no I do not want to start it up. I was just shitting you :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 01:20 PM Ake, we wouldn't have to ask you what the hell you are trying to say so frequently if your reasoning (or whatever it is) were not so convoluted and obscure. Rational ideas tend to be fairly clear and easily understood, at least when they are stated in plain English. ". . . homosexual practice "triggers" the disease. . . ." I don't think there is a competent health care practitioner or researcher in the world who would make such a claim. That posits the "spontaneous generation" of a virus. This is the medieval belief that piles of garbage spontaneously generated rats and mice, because if you leave a pile of garbage somewhere and come back later, chances are that you will find rats, mice, and other vermin in evidence. Believers in "spontaneous generation" weren't able, for some strange reason, to grasp the idea that the garbage attracted the vermin, because they hadn't see them arrive. So obviously—the garbage spontaneous generated the rats and mice. Some homosexual--and heterosexual--practices can transmit the virus from an infected person to a previously uninfected one. But homosexual practices do not "trigger" the existence of the virus! Join the 21st century, guy! #### Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire signed the domestic partnership bill into law yesterday, and already the dark forces are gathering. The "Faith and Freedom" ("Freedom!??") coalition is assembling to get up a proposition modeled after California's Proposition 8 in order to get the law rescinded. To these people, the idea of same-sex marriage is totally beyond the pale, and they won't even tolerate the existence of domestic partnerships. The screaming and caterwauling is only beginning. I find that analyzing the arguments that Guest from Sanity (?) and Akenaton put forth and checking them for facts (if any) and seeing how they try to interpret those facts to favor their own position, gives me a very good idea of what I am undoubtedly going to encounter in the Real World as I argue the case against whatever proposition the "Faith and Freedom" folks will come up with. Thanks for the opportunity to get some practice and exercise before I join the battle in the Real World. I never was deluded that there was even the slightest chance of converting either GfS or Ake. Their minds are made up and all the scientific evidence in the world will not jar them loose from their position. But as I say, it was good exercise. So long, folks, and thanks for the fish! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 19 May 09 - 01:32 PM "He, like Don, Amos and Ebbie, sees Homosexuality as a normal healthy lifesyle." ake You presume too much. You are putting words in my mouth that I never spoke or even thought. For ME, it would not be a 'normal, healthy lifestyle.' That is because homosexual is not what I was born to be. "It was voted DOWN, in California.,,to which the pro homosexual crowd is trying to circumnavigate our system..." GtS You still don't get it, do you? We're not "pro homosexual" on this thread, we are pro-LAW. Ake, not being American, may not understand the American concept of constitutional law which governs rights but you, imo, have no excuse. "Now, this last generation, through various self absorptions, and selfish behaviors, have raised the divorce rate, to where the traditional nuclear family, is now almost a rarity...yet even through break-ups, one or the other, still looks to restore that model, but with perhaps a different person..but still usually, with a Mommy and Daddy." GtS Have you ever been married? Ever been divorced? Have a happy marriage? You may be part of today's problem. (Given your proclivities, I would hazard a guess that you have been through at least one marriage. Perhaps more. That is because I would most certainly not have stayed married to you. And I am the only person I can speak for.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 02:01 PM Is this tangental, or not? What of a person born physically intersexual, who has been surgically conformed to one sex so far as outward appearance and function? Assuming, for the discussion, that the individual is infertile. Should that individual be allowed legal marriage? And if so, to whom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 02:13 PM Good question, frogprince. To whomever they wish, presuming full disclosure and mutual consent. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 May 09 - 02:15 PM Smedley...I apologise, your views deserved more respect than they were given, in fact we could have started a whole new thread based on the points you mentioned. Unfortunately there are only two of us (and occasionally Little Hawk) trying to defend our opinions against a pack of rabib weasels, so many good points get overlooked. Of course the onus should be on the weasels to defend their position, but that would almost certainly be beyond them. Perhaps if you were to start a new thread setting out your ideas you may get a very good reaction. Regarding Ancient Egypt,what we now call incest was common among the ruling class but I have never read anything connecting Akhenaton with same sex practice. In fact the first representations of Royal family life,depicted Akhenaton with his wife and daughters, engaged in common pursuits like listening to music and behaving like a modern family. Amos ...I'm sorry, but i cannot apologise to you. If you really believe that those who practice homosexuality should be able to "legally marry" then you MUST believe the lifestyle to be normal, safe and healthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Wesley S Date: 19 May 09 - 02:26 PM Most of us rabib weasels think that onus is a dirty word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Paul Burke Date: 19 May 09 - 02:31 PM If you really believe that those who practice homosexuality should be able to "legally marry" then you MUST believe the lifestyle to be normal, safe and healthy. Yes. Whyever not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 May 09 - 02:41 PM ""DonT, The people IN THE WORLD, by a huge majority, see homosexuality as a bit on the 'abnormal' side of things, not to mention most all religions, with sects excluded, who also see it that way. Homosexuals make up just a very small percentage of populations. We've gone around and around on this, but homosexuality, is not based on any Constitutional grounds, as religion, race, color, or anything covered by that. Now you, being a Brit, or U.K, citizen, may not fully understand why that is relevant..but here, it is. Homosexuality, IS, either a choice, or the product of victims of circumstances. It is NOT, genetic, as pro homosexuals would like to argue, or you to think...not only that, it CAN be reversed, and has been. Being black, or Red, or white, on the other hand, can not."" 1. One hundred years ago the people of the World (by which, I suppose, you mean the Western world) thought it fair to classify black folks as subhuman, and keep them as slaves. Fifty years before that, the people of the world saw no evil in sending small children to work down coalmines. We have, I hope moved on quite a bit since those halcyon days when people just like you went to war against their own countrymen in order to preserve their right to buy and sell human beings for profit. 2. Being British does NOT preclude an intelligent grasp of current affairs, nor does it reduce the ability to understand the relevance, or the logic, of an argument, so please desist from trying to patronise me, my friend. In a battle of wits, it would be advantageous for you to arrive better than half equipped. 3. That description of homosexuality is the one espoused by yourself, and a number of pseudo scientific cranks. Serious scientists and doctors have a totally different slant, and many might feel that you are more in need of a cure than gays. ------------------------------------------------------------ ""Homosexuals make up just a very small percentage of populations. We've gone around and around on this, but homosexuality, is not based on any Constitutional grounds, as religion, race, color, or anything covered by that."" That's very nearly an exact parallel to what Hitler said about Jews in the thirties, and from what I can see, is a rationalisation designed to permit you to suggest that homosexuals should have NO rights under the constitution, NO rights in law, and NO human right to legally exist. What a piece of work you are. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 02:46 PM Define "normal," Ake. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 02:48 PM For that matter, also define "safe" and "healthy." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 19 May 09 - 02:50 PM Ake: 1. I am not a weasel. 2. I am not rabid. 3. Your assertion about what I must believe is erroneous. I know that homosexuality is a fact among human beings and among various other species. I know that public health is not the topic under scrutiny here. Sometimes I get the impression you would like to bury both these facts in other concerns. As a right under law, the right to claim partnership for life with another human, and have it legally recognized with any priveleges or processes usually accorded that status, is not defineable by gender or preference in sexual practice. I think there may well be churches who on religious grounds would not sanction same-sex marriages, but that is no reason for the commons defined by civil law to be bullied into the same exclusionary stance. To the contrary it is all the MORE reason for the civil codes to be firmly opposed to exclusion, because they represent the universality of the civil code without regard to individual quirks or opinions or idiosyncracies such as color, religion, gender or the like. The CIVIL code of law, starting with the Constitution, cannot be allowed to be discriminatory in the rights it establishes for citizens of the commons. A brief survey of the history of the Jewish people will demonstrate why. I am neither JEwish nor homosexual, myself, but even if I were both, the principle would still be independently sound. If you will not learn the history of your kind, including the misery that is brought about by civil discrimination against minorities, you will find yourself re-experiencing them sooner or later, my friend. All the arguments about "them" not being "normal" are exactly the kind of thing that people have used for centuries to discriminate and oppress each other. Our hope in establishing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to bring about a civilization which could do better than that. We're still working on it, in spite of the many hurdles. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 03:12 PM Good Grief!! Speaking about 'brain lock'!! .. As to its a matter of law.....yes????? Which one are you referring to? Certainly not majority rule, so explain your point. As to no scientific proof, I unlike yourself, and your cohorts, have definitely STUDIED it. I have come to the conclusion, that you are full of 'it'....yourself(?) As for practicing, don't forget to spit out the bones of that fish..or you might choke. What a weasel! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 03:35 PM Never mind the definitions I asked for. That is irrelevant. And so are the arguments being put forth by GfS and Ake. Amos's most recent post, and what he has been saying all along, is that it is a matter of the civil rights of a minority. An often oppressed minority. And in civil rights issues, "majority rule" is also irrelevant. One of the purposes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect individual and minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. Why does this seem to be so hard for you two to grasp!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 03:49 PM Because the minorities that you speak of, are not ones by choice, but rather, race, creed, color. This other stuff is hogwash! People who engage in voluntary choices of lifestyle or sexual fantasies, are not exactly what the framers of our form of government had in mind. Shoulod we have special rights for sado masochists, or infantilism? Swingers? Pedophiles? Those are not the same thing as RACE...CREED...COLOR..ETHNICITY....GENDER..You are just blocked, if you can't understand that!..Sorry for your personal situation. .but sexual practices are just not an issue of equality, under the law..nor under natural law. Now here comes the shit about animals.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 03:54 PM You are denying substantial recent scientific findings. From your locked-in position, you have a vested interest in ignoring those findings. Bogus! And that goes for your pet weasel, too. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 May 09 - 04:12 PM OK Amos...would you say that we should scrap the incest laws and make incestuous "marriage" legal? Why do a large group of homosexuals wish to "own" Aids? (see my last link) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 May 09 - 04:20 PM Sorry about the rabid weasel thing Amos, my mind was on someone else when I wrote that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 05:00 PM " "You are denying substantial recent scientific findings. From your locked-in position, you have a vested interest in ignoring those findings." I am rejecting any and all POLITICALLY BASED propaganda, not based on actual FACT. 'Truth is what works'..and homosexuals who have gone through therapy, OR, decided to come out of it ON THEIR OWN, are testimony that what I've posted is accurate. Sorry to disappoint you..if it was any other way, and I knew about it, I'd post it in a heartbeat....but your views are that of ardent, radical homosexuals....and for that, there is no 'equality' issue. Grow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,gunshowsigns Date: 19 May 09 - 05:48 PM Gay judges should resign or be recalled. I hope they throw out 8 so we can recall them then go after civil unions. This will force the northeast to withdraw from the Union and SF gays out of CA. Gays said it Civil Rights or Civil War. I prefer Civil War in the literal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 09 - 05:52 PM Dang! That should throw some gasoline on the fire...as if this thread hadn't got combative enough already. Look, if you do decide to have a civil war, try and keep it south of the US-Canada border, okay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 19 May 09 - 06:10 PM The incest laws, which are NOT the subject of this thread, are a different issue. The only reason for prohibiting incest as a form of sexual congress is that it produces offspring who are a burden on the public, at least probably. So it became, over the centuries, a moral code to prohibit it. Aside from that risk, there is no reason to mess with cousins or siblings who want to screw each other. I certainly don't want to screw my own siblings, but that may just be canalized cultural bias, but more importantly it is none of my business. Gay couples not only never have offspring, they often take on excess offspring produced by others who are emotionally ill equipped and raise them well. As far as I can see the only core reason for your energetic rejection of the idea of civil rights in marriage for gays people is that you despise the thought of their carnal activities. Have I missed some other factor? Leave STDs out of it--they are a direct function of promiscuity, and marriage is a palliative to promiscuity, not an aggravator of it. Aside from that, then, the issue becomes a desire to pass judgement on others' private affairs. Its not the marriage itself you protest, but the sexual congress that accompanies it. If you were to see those as independent factors--in the realization that gays, like heterosexuals, have sex whether they are married or not--wouldn't it seem that you were promoting an injustice against hum,an beings you have never met and about whose strengths and weaknesses you know absolutely nothing? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 06:44 PM "I am rejecting any and all POLITICALLY BASED propaganda, not based on actual FACT." Then why do you keep spouting it? I posted this before, GfS, but either you didn't read it, or chose to ignore it. I'm guessing the latter, because it contains facts that blow your contention out of the water. Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether.The above material is derived from well researched and peer-reviewed studies and is NOT "politically biased." Unless, of course, anything that disagrees with what you WANT to be the case is, ipso facto, "politically biased." Which, it is becoming clearer all the time, seems to be the case. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 08:04 PM ..and others report way better therapy results. Also your mention of..here, I'll copy it..... "Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether." Talking someone into a religious belief, is a FAR cry, from those having a very real spiritual experience. Ever tried 'talking' someone OUT of their favorite sexual fantasy?? It too, would only last a short while. Your post, is better than your childish rants, but still far too lacking. Perhaps it is only enough to keep you going, in your mind, but it still is not enough to raise the bar, as far as a legal or valid civil rights issue! I suppose that Obama won't sign on to it, but rather appoint a judge who may, washing his hands of this hot topic issue. So take heart, you won't have to hide, any more! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 08:09 PM Gfs, This came to mind, and I asked it, yesterday. I was particularly interested in your answer, but you didn't get back for awhile, so you may have missed it: What of a person born physically intersexual, who has been surgically conformed to one sex so far as outward appearance and function? Assuming, for the discussion, that the individual is infertile. Should that individual be allowed legal marriage? And if so, to whom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 08:40 PM I don't set the policies...but, wouldn't you consider that a bit of a 'freak of nature'? At that point, I would defer to someone, who deals with that issue MEDICALLY, not politically. Wouldn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 19 May 09 - 08:48 PM "Civil War" I don't get it . . . . Kinda like Jumbo Shrimp, Vegetarian Meatballs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 09:01 PM Yes, that would be a "freak of nature", rare but by no means unknown. None of us here have the individual right or ability to set the policies; I just wondered how you would feel about it. What you do have, from what you've said, is the ability and credentials to do counselling. So let me turn the thought this way. The individual was born intersexual, and surgically assigned (so far as that is possible) to one gender. That person later identifies him-or-herself psychologically as the other gender, with desires for the "opposite" sex. How would you be counsel that person to resolve the personal delimna? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 19 May 09 - 09:02 PM ...after removing the "be" from that last sentence... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 09 - 09:58 PM Frogger, you ask a good hypothetical question...and I think I would answer it this way, but leaving some room for more consultation. I'm sure that tests would be run, to determine one over the other gender, BEFORE the operation was performed. With consideration of the parents, their clergy, (if one was requested), and the family. I'm sure that if that operation was performed, there would be counseling that could be referred to, by the physician, or facility responsible for the operation. I've never been in that situation, and could counsel possibly, but, again, I'd rather defer to those more suited and qualified. That being said, I feel strongly, that I could counsel the parents, as to other related issues. I'll tell you, if, that ever arises, which I'm pretty sure it won't, I'll think of you, and your question. I, mostly, have taken on any more counseling, for marriage and family, and presently work pro bono...though I assure you my results have been astonishing, as to percentage of recovery. Good question, though. My answer is certainly not 'etched in stone' infallible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 09 - 10:41 PM "Far too lacking" in what, GfS? Scientific facts that you approve of? That appears to be the way of it. You've rejected as "politically biased" or "gay lobby propaganda" well documented and peer reviewed studies that contradict your thesis that gender orientation is a matter of choice. I do have my theories as to why, but I'll let that lay. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 20 May 09 - 12:40 AM You are a counselor, and I am the King of France. Having a little trouble finding the links, aren't we Cecil? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 May 09 - 02:25 AM Amos...that answer is a complete cop out. As you well know incestuous relationships can involve much closer members than cousins. As ever, your core argument comes back to the point that other peoples behaviour is none of our business, I strongly disagree with that contention on several grounds public health being one. Homosexual behaviour and incestuous behaviour were viewed in much the same way by the public in general, before the large number of homosexuals inthe entertainment industry and in the media began to push back the boundaries against a voiceless majority. I notice that you refused to answer my point about the homosexual group who believe that Aids is a "homosexual disease"(their words not mine")and who believe the disease can only be irradicated when evertone accepts that contention and medical research is concentrated on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 09 - 03:28 AM Don First, Because I answered honestly, ONCE AGAIN you take the opportunity to attack me! ..as with the poodle yapper. Not very many people, in the medical fields have had to deal with the question 'frogger' asked. If I wanted to find a link, I would have done that. I didn't even try...Why?..because most everything I've answered you and your homosexual com padres, has been off the top of my head....I did my homework! So do go try to put me on the defensive for nothing more, than someone pulling the thumbs out of your mouth. That includes the non reader, TIA. You want an intelligent discussion, keep it mature. Once again you resort to your little games of trying to kick the grownups in the shins. Once again, grow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Smedley Date: 20 May 09 - 04:01 AM Three brief observations: (a) It is naive to place medicine/science and political views as some sort of polar opposites. Medical & scientific discourses have always existed in social, cultural and political contexts and been influenced by them (b) Heterosexuality isn't normal, just common. (c) The Bible (that great & influential work of fiction) prohibits and condemns all kinds of behaviour & activities, yet same-sex love is the one which seems to trigger the most virulent response from conservatives/fundamentalist quarters in the USA. As a Brit, this intrigues me & I wonder why it is so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 09 - 06:15 AM Smedley, You posted opinions, which is ok, but can you support them. They are pretty polarized emphatic statements. Don, "The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it." Note the question at the end of that paragraph you posted"The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it." So it appears you were able to answer that question all by your lonesone...and it was only a question that was raised...proving absolutely nothing! Don, you are wasting our time! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 08:48 AM Ake: It is not for me to go to bat every time some dingbat group comes up with yet another air-brained concept. I really don't care if some gang of homosexual supporters want to name AIDs as a homosexual disease anymore than I would if a whacky gang of women decided to claim headaches as a female disorder. It doesn't change the vectors or the realities involved. The thing is, though, the health vector would actually be reduced by less promiscuity, an effect that marriages would tend to bring about, generally. As you seem comfortable generating moral codes for other people, you might do more good in the world if you confronted the tough items like moral codes for politicians and business executives, a bit trickier than "thou shalt not fuck" postures. The bottom line, though, is that you wish to reserve a civil, legal status for a perceived "us" and deny it to a perceived "them". The usual word for this very human impulse is discrimination. And as the people of Mississippi learned, every individual has to face that dark stain of the soul on their own and decide for themselves whether to be for it or agin it. Me, I'm agin it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 May 09 - 09:42 AM Like I said, I only appear when my name is invoked in your immature snipes. So, why do you keep summoning me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 20 May 09 - 12:52 PM Why do people keep hitting the ping pong ball every time it comes at them across the net? Same reason, TIA. They get caught up in the game, and they want to win. To "lose" would diminish their sense of self. This is just as true of you or me as it is of GfS or Don Firth or anyone else who keeps coming back here....but we all have our own characteristic style of play, of course. ;-) And a year from now? It won't matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 12:58 PM GfS, you are a real piece of work! I am the one who included the sentence "This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it" in an above post, and I did so in the interests of scientific objectivity. It is you who is claiming to have the only true and final word on the matter. I am calling for "benefit of the doubt." You are being a complete absolutist. You, sir or madam as the case may be, are the one who is wasting everybody's time! But this still does not address the civil rights issue. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 01:00 PM Leave STDs out of it--they are a direct function of promiscuity, and marriage is a palliative to promiscuity, not an aggravator of it. Aside from that, then, the issue becomes a desire to pass judgement on others' private affairs. Its not the marriage itself you protest, but the sexual congress that accompanies it. If you were to see those as independent factors--in the realization that gays, like heterosexuals, have sex whether they are married or not--wouldn't it seem that you were promoting an injustice against hum,an beings you have never met and about whose strengths and weaknesses you know absolutely nothing? Ake: Have you considered the possibility I mention, that you are actually promoting an injustice against people you have never met and which is actually suppressing their lives and well-being? If so, what do you think about it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 May 09 - 01:37 PM I think Amos, that you and those who think like you, are the ones who are suppressing the lives and well being of homosexuals. You appear to be content to let homosexuals live with a disease which has decimated their community and will continue to kill hundreds of thousands, through the denial of "liberals" everywhere that AIDS is strongly linked to homosexual practice. You deny not only the truth, but the chance of a proper medical study which may determine the link and save millions of lives! Now GO! and lecture me no further. If Mr Firth is still off on his daily sulk, I would address the same to him, only in much stronger terms!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 May 09 - 02:14 PM Ake: Come off it. I did not deny anything of the sort. I denied this thread was about health issues. I denied that AIDS is "a homosexual disease" in the sense that homosexuality causes it in some mysterious way. That ain't so. It is probablky true that the practice of anal penetration is a significant vector in transmitting AIDS. But aside from that I expect it transfers as readily to an opposite-sex partner as to a same-sex partner. You seem uncomfortable though. Did my question about discrimination strike a bit close? Sorry. I really do think it deserves careful thought. Do you believe that if two sexual partners are the same gender, that fact alone can bring about AIDS if neither of them is previously infected? Or, that that fact alone can increase the probability of transmission, without the added complication of anal sex (not to put too fine a point on it). When anal sex IS added in, do you think same-sex transmission of AIDS is more probable than opposite-sex transmission of AIDS if one is already a carrier? ANd what do you think the effect of marital status being allowed to same-sex couples would do to the rate of promiscuity (multiple short-term partnering) in the same-sex community? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 09 - 02:23 PM No reason to sulk, Ake. I'm in fine fettle. You seem to be the one who is all flustered. Interesting observations, Smedley. "(c) The Bible (that great & influential work of fiction) prohibits and condemns all kinds of behaviour & activities, yet same-sex love is the one which seems to trigger the most virulent response from conservatives/fundamentalist quarters in the USA. As a Brit, this intrigues me & I wonder why it is so." This is because there are people in the conservative/fundamentalist quarters in the USA (but not confined to the USA, it's just that there seems to be a lot of them here, probably due, historically, to the immigration of Puritans a few centuries back) who compulsively fasten less on the positive aspects of religious, but on the many prohibitions the can dredge up out of "cherry-picking" Biblical verses out of context. What it boils down to is that there are people in this world who stay up nights, pacing back and forth, repeatedly pounding one fist into the other palm and agonizing over the possibility that somebody, somewhere in the world, might be having fun! Sex, being a most enjoyable activity, tends to be the focus of these sad folks. And unless sexual activity directly addresses the matter of procreation (after all, God commanded, "Go forth and multiply," so they can't forbid sex altogether), they feel they have a religious duty to attempt to prevent anything resembling "recreational" sex (sex for the fun of it). Even in your country, this attitude at least used to exist. Sex was to be for procreation, and enjoying it was to be avoided, discouraged. Remember the admonition to brides on their wedding night to "Grip the headboard firmly and think of England!" Since same-sex activity, by its very nature, cannot produce offspring, it becomes a major target for these folks. I believe I noted somewhere above that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sinful ways. Those of a fundamentalist bent immediately leaped to the conclusion that, in Sodom at least, the Sodomites practiced homosexuality, even going so far as to call anal intercourse "Sodomy." Yet, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about this! (Does that mean that "Gomorrahmy" is Lesbian sex?) Evil to him who evil thinks!! There are some interesting aspects in the Bible in this context. For example, Paul never explains the "thorn in his flesh" that gives him so much spiritual distress. An Episcopal bishop (retired) wrote a most interesting book on saving the Bible from fundamentalists in order to better emphasize the more spiritual and humane teaching of religious principles, such as caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, comforting the suffering, etc. The bishop notes that Paul was the major voice in the Bible to speak against homosexuality. Could it be, asks the bishop, if the thorn in Paul's flesh is that he knows himself to be homosexual, but is doing his utmost to repress it? The bishop has some fairly compelling arguments to support his thesis. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 May 09 - 02:26 PM ""Shoulod we have special rights for sado masochists, or infantilism? Swingers? Pedophiles?"" NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS, YOU PRAT. EQUAL RIGHTS! And your ploy of lumping homosexuals in with groups of lawbreakers (Paedophiles) is in keeping with your presentation of spurious crank scientific "evidence" as FACT, and EQUALLY POINTLESS. Many S & M practitioners already have an equal right to marry, and I believe you might find it's the norm for swingers. And YOU say I'M full of it. Go look in the mirror, and you'll see what an enemy of democracy looks like. Don T. |
