BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

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: 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: 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 - 03:35 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 - 03:12 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: 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: 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: 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(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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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
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 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...........

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: 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: 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: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:40 AM

..V peace

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:11 PM

Homophobic homosexuals

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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:17 PM

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