BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

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 - 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: 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 - 01:51 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: 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 - 01:35 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: 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 - 01:07 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 08:00 PM

Lemme see, now. . . .   Was that "hits?" Or "hips?" Or was it sumthin' else?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:55 PM

Didn't the guy who sang that song go on to work with a woman with really humongous hits?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:44 PM

Just stopped in to see what condition my condition is in.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:41 PM

The highest known rate of HIV infection occurs among Swazis - with women disproportionaly affected (60% of cases). Should, perhaps, Swaziland outlaw marriage for women?

Snide question, yes. But I really am trying to follow the logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:21 PM

""Of course there are still the "rights of the religious community to consider...Ake""

As far as I know, the ONLY right accorded to ANY religious grouping is the right to worship freely as they see fit, as long as their activities do NOT cause harm to others.

I cannot recall seeing ANY legislation endowing religious organisations with the right to force their views on others.

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

Re my health issue question:-

Having asked that question four times now, without any response, it has become clear that you have no logical answer to offer, and that your objections are NOT based, as you assert, on health matters.

From that, I can only conclude that your reaction to the idea is rooted more in the kind of mindset that once prevented black/white marriages.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:08 PM

The link itself, in its headline, styles itself as "Proof". GtS--it wasn't about you, except insofar as you poted the link. It is not always about you, genera;;y speaking, no matter how unbelievable that seems.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:23 PM

Well. I did a lot of reading in the link provided and followed further ones throughout. I watched videos, I followed patents and speeches and messages.

I found this alarmist, misleading and paranoid. Alarmist, in that it is presented as being factually informative on what our government not only is capable of but has done; misleading, in being deceitful in stating certain things while expecting no one to go to the source; and paranoid, in being a rehash of old fears of racial genocide.

(Incidentally, implying one posted a certain site for no particular reason is kind of silly, don't you think? Futile, even? A waste of space?)

Ake, I wasn't really charging you with desiring the early death of homosexuals but rather trying to jar you into facing the implications.

By the way, "homosexual" means 'same sex'. In that sense lesbians are as homosexual as gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:53 PM

In your last post, GfS (17 May 09 - 03:42 p.m.), you are doing some pretty flashy tap-dancing to back off from some of the links to dumb web sites you've offered and from some of your posts where you've obviously lost it, but you're still stumbling over your own feet. Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers you are not.

####

Obama has stated in several interviews that he supports civil unions, and it's up to religious institutions whether or not they would recognize the union as marriage.

And there are a substantial number of churches that are not only willing to recognize such unions as marriage, but will also perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

It was not that long ago that the Catholic church would not recognize a marriage that was performed in any church other than Catholic, even though secular law did recognize it. And last I heard, they still don't recognize the legality of divorce. A divorced person who remarries is considered guilty of adultery (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Recently it sounds as if Obama has changed his position on same-sex marriage, stating that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, BUT—he has stated that he opposes any Constitutional amendments on the subject, and he also came out against California's Proposition 8. Basically his legal position is consistent with liberal philosophy. He has his personal beliefs regarding marriage, but he does not agree that the government, either national or local, should interfere in the matter one way or the other.

I find that perfectly acceptable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:42 PM

""Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage".""

The question was How do you think that refusing same sex marriage will IMPROVE the situation?

Actually, refusing it or not won't really do anything. Homosexuals are going to do what they do,'married' or not. That being said, just what is the point of pretending to be married?

The link I posted was just one, there were even better ones, but this one was also the shortest. ..and I never said it was 'proof' of anything. I just posted the link, with nothing else.
You've done that a lot with me, 'reading in' to what I post, then re-acting to what you read in. Same with context. Remember the 'pea brain' comment?..You wrote in 'liberal pea brains'..when I was referring to those who get into the name calling...and even that the 'pea brains' were the ones who resorted to the name calling.
Also, on my longer post, in regards to the the 'go fuck yourself' comment....OR....'consider another side'(you misquoted by omission that the emphasis was to consider another side...which, of course, radicals never do

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:15 PM

""Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage".""

The question was How do you think that refusing same sex marriage will IMPROVE the situation?

You talk of the elephant in the room, and others skirting round questions. HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THIS ONE?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:56 PM

Green monkeys, eh? You must get all excited when the neighbor's dog tries to hump your leg.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:49 PM

I guess you mean the link that starts out "Proof that AIDS is a race-specific bio-weapoon. " from 2007.
   

"Throughout the 1960's and 1970's, the United States was involved a EUGENICS programs in which AFRICAN AMERICANS, and others deemed as 'undesireables' were being INVOLUNTARILY SYSTEMATICALY STERILIZED to quell their population growth (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/02/virginia-eugenics.htm )

Also during this period, the United States was involuntarily conducting SYPHILIS EXERIMENTS on BLACK MEN http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/tuskegee_5-16.html

While the United States was commiting these acts against it's black population and others, the Department of Defense was seeking to create a biological weapon for which there was no known cure. (Dept. of Defense request for Appropriation for 1970, HB 15090, from page 129. Quoted is Dr. MacArthur from said Pentagon, speaking to Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, about the need for the above mentioned "synthetic biological agent" ...".


Some people have very wobbly standards for the term "proof".



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:43 PM

Why? Do you like green monkeys? I have lot's of info on that. The green monkey bit was a cover story...but at least you bought it! Hey, maybe the next pseudo civil rights issue will be whether transgenders can marry green monkeys...when it's voted down in Tennessee, maybe you can post a new thread on Mudcat, to moan and bewail that your family is being denied their rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:33 PM

Ebbie, very early on I made it clear that I exempted Lesbians from my public health argument.
Statistically Lesbians are even less promiscuous than married heterosexuals.
It has always amazed me why lesbians have chosen to ally themselves with homosexuals. They are totally different in behaviour and psychology and I would certainly have no objections on health or promiscuity grounds to Lesbians becoming foster parents.

Of course there are still the "rights of the religious community to consider...Ake

Ebbie... I was most disappointed to see you imply that I would be pleased to see homosexuals die young. Nothing could be further from the truth, they require compassion,counciling, in an attempt to persuade them to alter their lifestyle; and certainly no encouragement to carry on with their dangerous sexual practice.

If I have misunderstood your meaning, would you please PM me, as I respect much of what you say on many subjects here.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:11 PM

GfS, the link you posted 17 May 09 – 04:40 a.m?

You really are losing it! Do you also believe that the earth is hollow and that's where UFOs really come from? Or in the Illuminati? How about pinning down the day when Atlantis will rise again and world peace will prevail on the planet?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:50 PM

Amos, Did you read my link? Makes you wonder just how much the government will treat it like a public health issue, though, you are correct. (don't faint)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:38 PM

It seems to me that the problem of AIDS, like the problems of other STDS, needs o be addressed as a public health issue, not a civil rights issue.

Using the curtailment of rights as a lever of advantage in a public health issue is a bad tactic being used as a bad strategy. It is philosophically repugnant. And, it must be clearly pointed out that the two are independent variables, independent issues, and should not be conflated simply to create pushbutton arguments.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:14 PM

Checking back: I see I didn't make it clear that I was referring to homosexual women.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 09 - 11:50 AM

"The simple reason that you are all skipping around the "elephant in the room" is that in percentage of population terms, Homosexuals are massively affected by AIDS.....WHY??

"Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage". ake

Ake, I am glad to see that your reasoning exempts women from condemnation. AIDS is not statisticly a problem for them.

Good for you. It's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:40 AM

http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=afam&Number=233892&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:25 AM

Don T my friend, I remember very well when homosexuality was illegal.
Only a short time ago in real time.

Laws are made and changed by politicians, and we in the UK have seen recently how "incorruptible" politicians are.
Also, when the law on homosexuality was changed, Aids and its obvious link to homosexual practice was not an issue, perhaps the huge increase in homosexual activity since the change in the law, contributed to the current epidemic.
However on all counts your question is spurious, as you certainly knew that Aids was not even medically recognised when the law was changed.

Incestuous relationships are deemed to be illegal on grounds of public health and more importantly the effect on "social morality and public decency"...The very grounds that made homosexuality illegal just a few years ago.


Drug addiction is a behaviour in the same manner as homosexuality is, addicts are refused the "right" to foster children on safety grounds....I feel this is correct, and I would also be in favour of removing addicts own children to a place of safety when required.
Homosexuality has been proved statistically to be even more dangerous in general terms than addiction.......Draw your own conclusions!



Don't try to maintain from what I have written that I believe in the criminalisation of sexual behaviour...I do not, I am simply giving an answer to your question.

The simple reason that you are all skipping around the "elephant in the room" is that in percentage of population terms, Homosexuals are massively affected by AIDS.....WHY??

Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:23 AM

Here's a link to AIDS-Free World (my sister-in-law's web site, proud to say she's Paula Donovan)

There are some here that have not the slightest idea about the origins, prevention or how AIDS is being spread or what's happening today in the world of AIDS & the battles that are ongoing (which make same sex marriage pale by comparsion). All they can wrap their tiny brains around is homosexuality & same sex marriage, how it is seen through the eyes of the religious, the voting machines of the sexually biasis, by the slump in their own penises & their fears & insecurities in their own sexuality.

It's a shame that we can't outlaw stupidity, stop the idiots from intermarrying & keep the dumb from having children. I don't see why not as long as we still have all these other draconian laws dictating our lifestyles. There oughta be a law, oh that's the problem. Government in the bedroom is as bad as Government on horseback, thanks Ronnie!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:47 AM

Why is president Obama opposed to same sex marriage???..and the 'so called' liberals, who just love him, are for it???
Who is wrong here??????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 16 May 09 - 11:03 PM

Yup, there is a huge credibility issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 09 - 08:05 PM

""Let us begin to be honest, The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous, as dangerous as drug or alcohol abuse and very much more dangerous than other unusual sexual behaviour such as incest....so why not scream for the rights of incestuous couples or drug addicts?""

Don't be bloody disingenuous Ake. As you well know, incest is illegal, and for that reason is dealt with by the legal authorities.

Drug abuse is a physical addiction, rightly dealt with by the medical profession, and where crime is provable, by the legal authorities. Homosexuality between consenting adults, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, HAS BEEN LEGALISED in most civilised countries.

So putting aside those utterly specious red herrings, and taking on board your comment that allowing same sex marriage, will not reduce promiscuity (I would dispute that, and argue that marriage in general has militated against casual sex for most responsible heterosexuals, and would presumably do the same for gays), perhaps you would tell me how you come to the conclusion that refusing it WOULD reduce promiscuity, and save lives?

I'm sorry to keep repeating the question, but without an answer from you, your whole argument based on health lacks any credibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 07:28 PM

For someone who tries to project a measure of authority on the genesis and spread of AIDS, Ake, you don't really know diddly-squat about epidemiology.

In the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, Europeans presented Native Americans with the gift of smallpox. Native Americans returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. The European explorers brought it back to Europe, where it spread quite rapidly, and became known as "the French disease," more because of the stereotype of the French being particularly horny, whereas the disease was mostly likely brought back by the Spanish. But it would have been equally dumb to have called it "the Spanish disease."

("How do you know you have the French disease?"
"I can tell by its accent!")

"AIDS" means "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome," which one catches through being infected with the HIV (the Human Immunodeficiency Virus). It is neither HIV nor AIDS that kills. HIV, as described in my post above (you did read it, didn't you?), was transmitted from African primates to humans. It is not specifically a "homosexual disease" any more that syphilis is a "French disease. Get that straight!

AIDS does not kill. What it does is shut off the immune system, leaving one defenseless against any contagious disease that happens to come along. It's not unlike going onto the internet with no firewall or anti-virus software. You might get away with it for a time, but sooner or later, you're going to get got by whatever comes along. And once you have something, you don't have a functional immune system to fight it with.

And I have already outlined the means by which HIV is transmitted—not necessarily through sexual activity and not necessarily from male to male or female to female—but through contact with an infected person's bodily fluids, particularly blood.

So to single out homosexual males as the sole vector of the AIDS virus means, not that you are barking up the wrong tree, but that you have selectively chosen one single tree to bark up out of an fairly large forest.

(Shite!! Why do I even bother!??)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 07:00 PM

GfS, not all heterosexual married couples have children, some because they can't and some by choice. Yet what I said still holds true. It isn't always a matter of staying together "because of the children." If you were any kind of counselor at all, you should be fully aware that when a couple really should separate, but stay together "because of the children," this can frequently become hell-on-wheels for the children.

You can't be much of a counselor if you aren't up on things like that.

And by the way, the subject is not touchy at all with me. Barbara and were in our forties when we got married, we both have careers, and we discussed the matter before getting married and decided not to have children. So you can just get of your snide little bus.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, your question-mark key seems to be stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 05:28 PM

"I don't know whether you are married or not, but the fact is that whenever a relationship becomes a bit rocky, it is very often the public commitment and the public acknowledgement thereof that keeps a couple together and prompts them to work out their difficulties. And this holds true for committed same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples."
OH!!..DON'T FORGET CHILDREN FROM THE SAME TWO PARENTS!! (touchy subject, I know)
AND: "For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex"..So what else is the difference between room mates and same sex partners?????? Can same sex DOMESTIC union room mates be granted the same rights as homosexual marriages??????????????????????????