BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Gust from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:11 PM

Winona?..ride her?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:18 PM

Amos... what the hell is "mass reactionary thinking", you have the audacity to accuse Little Hawk of "psychobabble", yet come out with nonesense like that.
For over thirty years, the popular media and the entertainment industry have busily promoted the homosexual lifestyle to the extent that the "mass" of the population are unable to question the health statistics or the "rights" of other sections of society without being branded bigots...or worse

Any reactionary thinking has come from groups who promote what is clearly a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle and coerse the mass of the population into believing that it is safe and healthy.

Clearly you hold to the "liberal" view that any line of thought which you disagree with is "reactionary"

The good thing about this thread, is that the questions are finally being asked, forcing creatures like our resident "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" Mr Peekstock, out of the woodwork.....allbeit late in the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:39 PM

Altogether off the mark, Ake. The words have particular meaning.

Mass means held by large numbers of people in agreement, with connotations of thinking as a group, not as individuals.

Reactionary means responding to a stimulus, without inspection, on a somewhat blind response basis rather than by differentiating and discriminating.

The push-button reaction is based on fear. For example, believing that there is something dangerous about allowing adult individuals to legally marry, because they belong to a different life-style set than oneself. There is no danger inherent in such a freedom.

There is nothing unhealthy about legally honoring individuals who wish to make a permanent commitment to each other. Believing that the act of marriage is the "same" as any health vectors involved in sexual practices in a large unmarried population is a clear example of blind associations, reacting to categories instead of the actual elements being discussed. This "categorical association" as a basis for what one feels "must happen" or "must not happen" is just reaction, not analysis.

As to what line of thought I hold, I will thank you not to tuck it into your neat little boxes. I have explained myself completely clearly to you over and over again, and you persist in ignoring my insistence that things which are different be differentiated.

If that is your actual choice, then go on your way--knowing you have chosen to think automatically instead of consciously, because you could not be arsed to look clearly at what you saw.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:02 PM

GfS, I hope you had a lot of fun screwing around with YouTube, but all it accomplishes is to more than amply demonstrate that you have no answers to what I've said, and you can't come up with an answer to the question I keep asking.

You're toast!

####

And Little Hawk—

Back in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement was at it's peak and the anti-Vietnam war was building, I knew people who were into magic mushrooms, read Carlos Castaneda, got involved with Eastern religions, hung out at their local Vedanta center, dinked around with the I Ching, "tuned in, turned on, and dropped out," although not always with drugs. While other people were getting involved in the Civil Rights movement and were protesting the war, marching, demonstrating, writing or talking to their political representatives and were generally indicating their level of concern, catching the attention of our political leaders and basically forcing them to do something about these matters, there were others who would not sully their pristine souls with such earthly matters, looking askance, and "tut-tutting" and "tsk-tsking."

When such struggles for human rights manifested themselves in their vicinities, they would retract their landing gear into the lotus position and rise above it all, sometimes levitating to really impressive altitudes, to the point of pissing off the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board by cluttering up the flight control radar. But—they were above it all.

Aloof. Uninvolved. Neutral. Smug. And feeling quite superior, but adamantly denying that they felt that way because that would be inconsistent with the purity of their souls.

If they ever did tune in on the discussions of world affairs to the point where they actually did get a grasp of what was really going on, they would be in dire danger of abandoning their neutrality and forming an opinion. They frequently grow so upset when they found themselves in danger of getting involved in the real world, they lost their powers of levitation and wound up with their feet all braided around their knees, head down in a potted plant.

Some became so uninvolved that they shaved their heads, donned saffron robes, and became "hairless Krishnas," bugging people in airports for small change. This, while many genuine Buddhists who wore those saffron robes were so concerned with the plight of their fellow humans that they registered their protest, not through violence to others, but by self-immolation.

No, Little Hawk. I've heard your kind of kibitzing many times before. It's easily recognized for what it is. It's nice and safe up there near the ceiling as you look down on those who are not afraid to express their viewpoint and then defend it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:34 PM

"The good thing about this thread, is that the questions are finally being asked, forcing creatures like our resident "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" Mr Peekstock, out of the woodwork....." ake

I can't let that statement go by without clarification. For the record, I am another "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" (whatever that is). I agree with John Peekstock. He may be blunter than I but I assure you that does not denote a difference in our core beliefs.

Also for the record: Whether ake and/or GfS are bigots I can't say with finality. For all I know they are yanking chains with all their might. I will say, however, that the terminology and code words they have chosen to employ are the same ones used by bigots.

They remind me of a young (white) man who, a few years back in Juneau, shaved his head, donned a perpetually grim look on his face and walked around wearing camo clothing. He then complained to a friend of mine that people were putting a label on him, that - for no reason! -they treated him as though he were a white-supremicist skinhead.

He evidently didn't recognize that he had chosen the uniform, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:42 PM

As usual, Don Firth, you're talking about someone else, but not me. Whoever it is you're talking about, I was just as fed up with those dippy types back then as you seem to be now, I still don't like them, and not surprisingly! I do not resemble them.

You completely fail to understand what I am saying in this thread or where I am coming from or what my concerns are. You sound to me like a blind man attempting to describe a rainbow.

Watch the Obama speech at Notre Dame again and pay close attention to what he says.

****

Ake, Amos is so very good at psychobabble himself that he resents it when he thinks someone else like me is horning in on his turf. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:47 PM

Well, maybe not, Little Hawk, but the way you've been sort of sarcastically trying to take people with strong opinions to task certainly sounds familiar.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:56 PM

What I am taking people to task for, Don, is NOT their opinion, but their penchant for making personal attacks on other people who have a different opinion and defining them as "perverts", "bigots", "homophobes", and bad people.

As Mr Obama so eloquently pointed out in his speech at Notre Dame, that is what we must not do if we wish to have any kind of productive debates over divisive issues.

You know my opinion on this issue. I have no objection at all to gay couples getting legally married.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:09 PM

From: Don Firth
"GfS, I hope you had a lot of fun screwing around with YouTube, but all it accomplishes is to more than amply demonstrate that you have no answers to what I've said, and you can't come up with an answer to the question I keep asking.
You're toast!"

Toast??..You're not trying to butter me up, are you?

From: Amos
"Altogether off the mark, Ake. The words have particular meaning.
Mass means held by large numbers of people in agreement, with connotations of thinking as a group, not as individuals".....OH!, you mean a meaningless bunch of people called the majority electorate??..Those stupid, know nothings!!!..Shit, they even elected your guy too!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:17 PM

By the way, Little Hawk, I'm quite familiar with Barack Obama's speech at Notre Dame and I think you should be directed GfS and Ake to it.

Does the contempt displayed by that barrage of YouTube links GfS posted—along with his (or her) accompanying remarks—not to mention the abuse and insults he/she and Ake have thrown at Amos, myself, and others who don't share their viewpoint—look like "good faith" to you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:23 PM

No, Little Hawk, these two are beyond hope and I'm not trying to convince them. I know they will never come around. Nothing will change their minds.

This phenomenon, too, I have encountered before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:38 PM

GfS:

You are sticking words into my posts and then refuting them, which is terribly clever, if somewhat onanistic of you.

The narrow majority you speak of was not based on clear reflection, any more than your and Ake's reactions are--they were bought with fear and false advertising that had no solid connection to the central issue. The votes were cast from superstition.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the process was sufficient to change the state's constitution, but has not made any decision on the merit of the law itself, acceding, as you have, to the will of numbers.

There will be another count, at another time, and we will see who can raise the most persuasive rhetoric. The national Constitution has a thing or two to say about inquality under the law. Pushbuttons or no pushbuttons. Your reactive field of loathing is fated to be over-ridden by a more reasonable voice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 08:41 PM

If one objects to being characterized as a bigot, there is a sure-fire way of avoiding it.

Don't act like one.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:06 AM

"There will be another count, at another time, and we will see who can raise the most persuasive rhetoric."
You are probably right on this one...as to your other part of your post about 'sticking' words, and re-acting to them...(cups hands around mouth, and yells across the canyon).."Did you hear that, Don??"

Don:"If one objects to being characterized as a bigot, there is a sure-fire way of avoiding it."

What's a bigot?.O-O-O-h-h, one of those people who accuse myself and Ake of being one....because of our beliefs??...Oh, I got it now!

Hey Ake, I just figured out that we are 'bigots' because we believe in the right to believe in morality, and are not ashamed of it...even though we have compassion and understanding to the people who we are accused of being 'bigots' toward.....and those accusing us of it, are claiming NOT to be those people!
They have such a way with words!
I'll explain my position in another post, just why I see it the way I do....then you can agree, or disagree, and decide to call me one too, ok?
Until then, I found this song, performed by a close friend of the family. He died last year, though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7YjCdNT27c&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:10 AM

(CBS/AP) In choosing sides over the legality of gay marriage, two of the nation's top lawyers are saying, "I do."

Opposing attorneys in the 2000 election fight for Florida - David Boies, who represented Al Gore, and Ted Olson, George Bush's lawyer and later the U.S. Solicitor General - are teaming up to ask a federal court to throw out California's ban on same-sex marriage.

The two filed a lawsuit Friday on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is a federal question," he said. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

And they may go up against Ken Starr, the former prosecutor who almost got President Clinton removed from office over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Starr successfully argued before the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8.

Dustin Lance Black, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of the film "Milk" about the late gay activist Harvey Milk, said the case would seek to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage not just in California, "but sea to sea."

"Like so many civil right battles before the gay and lesbian movement, it's only clear we can win our full and complete right [in federal court]," Black said on CBS' The Early Show. "There will always be states and counties that will have to be pulled to full equality."

Black said part of the reason opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in passing Proposition 8 last year was that activists did not look to history and reach out to those outside the gay community.

"Harvey Milk understood we need to reach out, educate," Black said. "Thankfully, we've now identified the community that voted against us, thanks to Proposition 8. We need to reach out to them, educate them and tell our personal stories."

In their decision, the Justices emphasized the legal issue before them was not same-sex marriage (which they voted last year to legalize) but rather the right of California voters to change the state's constitution. .."(CBS)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:51 AM

Little Hawk, you object to my tone, but you don't actually respond to what I said.

What is your definition of bigot?

In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted?

Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed?

Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?

Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women?

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?

You can disparage my tone all you want -- I am certainly sick of yours on this topic -- but you should also explain yourself better than by saying "I know they aren't bigots". You sound a bit like George Bush looking into Putin's eyes and "knowing" the man.

Yes, I'm asking you to take a stand on this issue. Don's story from the 60s fits you like a glove. You sound like one of those who stood back and let McCarthy run wild in the 50s.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:00 PM

we believe in the right to believe in morality

GfS, I can't believe you pulled out this old chestnut. "I want my morality to extend to everyone, so I will force them all to live according to my morality, and I'll claim to be discriminated against if I don't get to tell everyone else how to live their lives." If you don't want to be gay, don't be gay. If you don't want to catch AIDS, don't have sex. It really isn't complicated. Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?

Why don't you just go live in Saudi Arabia? You'd probably like it there. In the USA, thankfully, we believe in freedom.

Please, please, please answer the question:

Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:24 PM

And John P writes:
"Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?"
And John P answers his own question:
"Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?"

GfS points out: Now, was that very 'moral' of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:39 PM

One of the most important points to come out in this thread has been virtually ignored.
It concerns the group of homosexuals from the San Fransisco area, who wish Aids in America to be regarded as a disease mainly affecting homosexuals,in their words, they want to "own" AIDS.

These brave people are accused by "activists" like Peekstock(I refuse to bracket you with this person Ebbie) of encouraging homophobia.....but only one thing matters to these people, they want to stop this horrific disease from killing thousands of their brethern and from their point of view, denial of the truth is adding to the deaths. Only by coming out and saying openly that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the disease can they hope for a nationwide medical investigation concentrating on why so many homosexuals become affected by AIDS.

People like Peekstock and "liberal" opinion have another agenda, they don't really care how many homosexuals die from the disease by being simply allowed to live with it and die with it.
What is important to these people, is the "normalisation" of homosexuality in every area of life. The current concentration on "human" rights is a disgusting con being perpetrated on the very people these "activists" are supposed to represent,They deny the link that some homosexuals are imploring society to recognise, it is an exercise in cynicism, like most "activists", they are more interested in their ego than their cause. Some use the issue as a badge of their "liberal" credentials and denying the link as it may impede the drive for normalisation, again condemning more young men to an early death in the furtherance of a political "ideal".

Neither GfS or I are "bigots" we do not hate homosexuals....we hate premature death, whereas many on the other side of the fence seem prepared to leave those whom they supposedly care for to fend for themselves, against one of the most savage diseases ever to inflict mankind.

Personally I don't really care what anyone calls me....there are only a handful here that I have come to respect, most of them have different views from myself on various issues but these differences are insignificant when I know them to be sincere and decent people.

I have no respect for those who take social and sexual politics before the premature deaths of our brothers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:53 PM

How is what other people do in the privacy of their own homes affect you in any way, Gfs?

Oh, I see! So you really are that interested in other people's sex lives!

Yes, that IS sick!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:11 PM

Akenaton,
Go write a novel, since you're so good at making up stories about people. Your statements bear no relationship to truth, logic, or common sense. If you can find any posts I have made that supports the bullshit you're spreading around, please share. If not, please explain why you think it's OK to make libelous statements. Incidentally, telling lies about people is not a good way to act if you're also trying to pretend that you are on high moral ground.

As for me calling you a bigot, I see you denying civil rights to a whole class of people. That's being a bigot in my book. If you're a friend to gays, I hope they never have any enemies!

Why do you keep talking about AIDS? Do you really think it has anything to do with civil rights? Maybe we should stop letting cancer victims vote? Maybe people with diabetes should be segregated in their own communities? Who cares if a group of gay folks in SF is making stupid statements?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:22 PM

Akenaton,
Try telling the millions of straight AIDS victims in Africa that AIDS is a gay disease. As I understand it, many of them would be insulted to the point of violence at the suggestion that they are homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 May 09 - 04:57 PM

I wonder what Akenaton has done to prevent "the premature deaths of our brothers"--besides ranting in internet forums, that is--

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:23 PM

Don writes:"How is what other people do in the privacy of their own homes affect you in any way, Gfs?
Oh, I see! So you really are that interested in other people's sex lives!
Yes, that IS sick!!"

GfS: You're losing it Don, get some rest, ok?

John P writes:...AND I AGREE!!..."Why do you keep talking about AIDS? Do you really think it has anything to do with civil rights? Maybe we should stop letting cancer(a physical illness) victims vote? Maybe people with diabetes(a physical illness) should be segregated in their own communities? Who cares if a group of gay(an emotional illness) folks in SF is making stupid statements?".....You mean stupid statements like, "Because I can't 'get it on' with the opposite sex, and rather choose to have my daily rump rogering, let's call it marriage?'
(Ohh boy, that's going to draw ire!)..but so what? If you REALLY want to know, if I'm being 'crass'...talk to an ex-homosexual. He, or she, will be far more direct..and crude!!...and they will go on to explain about the degrees of denial he, or she used to expound on, about how they rationalized their former BEHAVIOR...but as of right now, we've only heard from the currently practicing homosexuals.
ASK a former one!!!
As so far as AIDS being a homosexual illness, (which it is not altogether, but they ARE the largest group of people here in America of spreaders),All you have to do, is go into ANY clinic, that caters to the homosexual community, and plastered all over the walls are warnings about AIDS. In 1985, L.A. passed an ordinance, where 'bath houses' had to display warning signs, in regards to homosexual sex, and the dangers of AIDS.
If you minimalize this FACT, you are in FACT endangering those to whom you wish to..ummm....not offend(?)....jeez!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM

gay(an emotional illness)
OK, GfS, I'm adding "willfully ignorant" to "bigot" and "pervert".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM

Only by coming out and saying openly that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the disease can they hope for a nationwide medical investigation concentrating on why so many homosexuals become affected by AIDS.

Ake, there, in your own words, is your answer as to why some homosexuals are trying to "own" AIDS.

If you don't see that, your eyes are shut.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:26 PM

I object to almost everybody's tone on this thread, John P, not just yours, because all that most of you are busy doing here is suspecting the very worst of anyone who has a divergent opinion of any kind and seeing only evil and nastiness in everything they say. You are seeing them as the cardboard stereotypes of something bad you imagine in your mind. You're so busy looking for evil that I doubt you would ever find time to concentrate on anything good in the other person. If you want to improve society and find freedom and equal rights for everyone, gays included, you must get off this attack-dog mode of continual demonization of others in a debate and start finding something in common with them instead.

That was what Mr Obama was talking about in his speech.

Most of you here are continuing to project your own fantasies of evilness on the various people you are arguing with here. They are then (presumably?) obliged to waste their own time in trying to prove to YOU that they're not evil...a thankless task! And a task that can never be met, by the way, because you'll never believe them. So it isn't even worth trying to meet it.

The degree of blind prejudice that people are displaying here toward each other on a personal basis....not toward gays, necessarily...is blatant.

It's a sad joke. It prevents you from having a useful discussion. You're all just out to hurt someone as far as I can see (and I don't mean hurt gays).

That's what has caused me to come back again and again to this thread. I hope to divert your frenetic little attack-dog energies toward something more productive than mutual character assassination.

Your questions? (sigh) Oh, I'll get to those presently, John, I suppose. Yes, I will. But they are not my real concern here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:46 PM

Bloody hell, Little Hawk, aren't you reading what some of these folks are writing!??

". . . because all that most of you are busy doing here is suspecting the very worst. . . ."

"Suspecting" hell! No suspicions about it. They're saying it flat out!

What Mr. Obama was not saying in his speech was that you have to shut up when people promote the suppresion of other people's civil rights. To do so is to abdicate any kind of moral responsibility. And when you do that, you're resigning from the human race!

I asked you once before about what you would say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, or if you were familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller and never got an answer. If you don't know who these people are, then I suggest you look them up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:05 PM

Ebbie we don't seem to be disagreeing about anything in your last post.I can see very well why those courageous people would want to "own" the disease.....to save the lives of many of their number!

If we agree on that, why do you agree with Peekstock that I am evil/bad/bigotted?
The homosexual "activists" and "liberal" political aparatchiks, with their policy of denial, are the ones who deprive homosexuals of a proper medical investigation of the current situation in developed countries in regard to AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:06 PM

Okay, John...

"What is your definition of bigot?"

It's the dictionary definition. Here it is it its entirety, straight from dictionary.com: bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

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

Now, isn't that interesting? ;-) By golly, I think we have a whole collection of suspected at least part-time bigots on this thread, because most of you here ARE utterly intolerant of those whose opinion differs from your own! My, my. However, I am certainly not going to call you "bigots", because I hardly see how it would help encourage you to be more tolerant of one another. It would just get your backs up.




In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted?

I don't think bigoted is the right word for that at all, going by the dictionary definition of the word "bigot". I would say that denying basic rights to anyone...gays or otherwise...is unjust, and in the case of the USA, it is also unconstitutional. This did not, sadly, keep Americans from denying certain basic rights to Blacks, women, Indians, Orientals, Hispanics, poor people, and gays for a very lengthy historical period.



Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed?

Why would I wish to refute it? It's a conversation about other people's sexual preferences and habits, obviously.


Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?

It depends on how the interest expresses itself and toward whom and under what specific conditions. Buggery was an illegal act for a long time, probably due to religious beliefs, possibly also due to health concerns. Now it is not illegal in most places, in fact it seems to be enjoying much popularity among porn merchants.

All society is deeply concerned about the sexual abuse of children...and there is good reason for such concern.

All society is concerned about rape and other forms of sexual violence, and there is good reason for such concern.

On the other hand, I think people have no business peering into other people's bedrooms, as it were, and bothering them about their private sexual lives...whether or not they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place.

Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women?

Yes. I would be objecting to the blind personal prejudice being demonstrated by various people IN the discussion toward various other people IN the discussion...but not necessarily toward blacks or women.   I would be objecting to character assassination, insults, sneering, contempt, name-calling, and personal invective directed toward the people IN the discussion.


Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?

Yes, I do.

*****

You are behaving like someone in the Spanish Inquisition, John. You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them. That is what poisons the discussion. The anger it causes in those you target results in some of your opponents attacking you back in a similar manner. That further poisons the discussion.

You are like two sets of people at a party pissing in the same punch bowl, then complaining bitterly that the punch is no good, and that it's all the other guys' fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:09 PM

Little Hawk, the anti-gay people around here might be perfectly nice folks in most ways, but when they are denying a class of people basic rights based on who sleeps with who, they are, on this topic, agents of evil. I'm not really so much an attack dog as I am completely FED UP with people poking their noses and their laws into places they don't belong. I've been putting up with it in various ways all my life, and now I'm angry.

While I think Obama is the best president we've had in a long time, I also strongly disagree with him on several topics, with gay marriage being close to the top of the list. At some point, someone has to just say "Enough is enough" and take a strong stand.

When we finally win, and all the gay bashers are relegated to the dustbin of history, who will we demonize next? My problem is not only with the details of the fight for gay rights, but with the concept that it is in any way appropriate to treat any group of people like second class citizens. I was raised to think that the United States is greater than that. Freedom, Truth, Fairness, that sort of thing. What I see from the anti-gay crowd are a lot of lies that curtail freedom, as long as it's others who are having their freedom curtailed.

I keep reminding myself of Gandhi's statement:
First they ignore us.
Then they laugh at us.
Then they fight us.
Then we win

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:21 PM

My impression of you has always been as a thoughtful independently minded woman, with good powers of reason and the sparkling sense of humour of a young girl.

I would be very disappointed to think you had much in common with Mr Peekstock

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:36 PM

Sorry, my last post was being written when Little Hawk posted.

Little Hawk: You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them.

Yes, I have already decided that it is bad to deny civil rights to a group of people, and to pass laws about what they do in the bedroom. By every ethical and moral precept I can think of, these people are greatly overstepping the bounds of decent behavior. I don't have any interest in whitewashing that fact. I have no concern with catching them or punishing them. They have already, by their words and actions, condemned themselves. They will eventually silence themselves, in the same way that the anti-black and anti-women folks have mostly learned to keep their strange ideas to themselves.

As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:41 PM

Well, John, I applaud your efforts to follow Gandhi's path and to struggle peacefully for freedom, truth, fairness and equal rights.

I also think that Obama is the best president in a long time...and I do disagree with him on some things, same as you. I would be astounded if I agreed with him on everything. ;-) Politics is the art of the possible. Accordingly, Obama must deal with the hand he's been dealt and the conditions around him in the USA and in its government, and he'll have to compromise between this and that extreme to do so. He has to walk the tightrope and watch out not to fall. It's inevitable that we will all disagree with him on some of his policies and decisions.

****

One thing you must keep in mind, John, when assuming someone on the other side of a debate is "evil"...is this: They may, unbeknownst to you, be motivated mostly by a desire to defend something that they love rather than by some form of hatred toward someone else. They're focusing from a different angle than you, that's all.

An example: Take a German soldier who fights for Germany in WWII. Is he necessarily an evil person? No. He is most likely fighting for something he loves...the country he was born in, his town, his family, his culture, the men in his unit beside him, his ideas of tradition and service and duty, everything he has known and been familiar with from the day he was born. That's not evil. He fights on account of love, not hatred. Is he fighting for an evil political cause? YES! But he probably is quite unaware of that, or he may become partly aware of it at some point...but still he is caught up in what's happening right in front of him day by day on the ground, he's doing the best he can in a terrible situation, and he's doing the very same thing all the other soldiers out there are doing....fighting for his country and trying to survive.

Now take a Russian soldier in WWII. He too is fighting mainly for the things he loves....the country he was born in, his town, his family, his culture, the men in his unit beside him, everything he has known and been familiar with from the day he was born. That's not evil. He fights on account of love, not hatred.

Is the Stalinist regime he fights for evil? YES! But the Russian soldier is not primarily fighting for that regime, he's primarily fighting for the things I mentioned in the above paragraph. Furthermore, even though the regime is undoubtedbly evil, it's legitimately defending itself against an outside invasion by Germany, and that's a good thing for a Russian to do.

So...do not be hasty in assuming that a person who is on the other side of the debate is evil just because you think they are supporting a cause that you may consider evil. They are probably in their own minds defending something they legitimately love, and not trying to do anything evil whatsoever. They probably have high ideals, just as you or I do, but their attention is fixed on another angle of the situation.

We're all standing around the elephant. Some of us see its trunk. Some of us see its tail. Some of us see its back. Some of us see its ear.

Who can see the whole elephant? Whoever can, he's the one best qualified to fully understand the situation. I think Gandhi saw the whole elephant, and that's why he espoused non-violence.

If all Germans and Russians had fully understood the situation, they would never have ended up being ruled by vicious dictators like Stalin and Hitler, would they? Most people are basically good people at heart, but their awareness is limited to whatever they are most familiar with, and they can and do make mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:43 PM

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

bigot - one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigot

The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm

bigot - A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion ...
www.iyfradio.com/reference.htm

---

The intolerance of people who are homosexual expressed in this thread has been pr"etty rigid, with respect to the civil right to marry.

MArriage:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

---

Oddly enough none of these definitions include the sexual criterion as a critical standard in the definition.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:50 PM

Don F, you said: "I asked you once before about what you would say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, or if you were familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller and never got an answer. If you don't know who these people are, then I suggest you look them up."

I know only a little about Aung San Suu Kyi at thie time, but enough to think she is a very brave person living under a very bad government. I have to do more reading about her before I can say more than that.

And Pastor Martin? I know nothing much about him at this point, and will again have to do some reading before I can offer any useful comments about him.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 08:02 PM

Little Hawk says: So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place.

One of the points here is that it is not a complex subject. I disagree that my questions doesn't address it in a relevant manner. It's really simple to understand: They shouldn't be involving themselves in what other consenting adults do in bed. I'm not crafting a question to presuppose anything -- I really do think these people are kind of sick, and if you take all references to homosexuality out of the discussion, most other people would think so, too. I suppose maybe one intention behind the question is to try to bring the anti-gay folks some of the public disapprobation that they have spent so many years bringing to others. OK, you're right, maybe that's a desire to punish them. But I see myself more as an agent of the Golden Rule.

As I said before, the main cause of my strident tone is that I'm really sick of putting up with people who want to impose their beliefs on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 08:10 PM

The famous Martin Neimöller poem:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 08:24 PM

I was just about to post the Pastor Martin Niemöller quote, but John beat me to it. The Gandhi quote that John posted is the positive side. But Pastor Niemöller graphically illustrates what happens when you remain passive and apathetic in the face of those who feel it's perfectly all right to try to deny the civil rights of others.

I posted a link to information about Aung San Suu Kyi above, but here is some more:   CLICKY.

She had the bad judgment to speak out against the forces of repression. And she has been back in the news during the past week or two. Wouldn't life have been easier for her if she had not written what she wrote and just generally kept her mouth shut? Or said, "I don't want to get involved?"

Speaking of quotes, here's a good comment by the great newsman Edward R. Murrow:
If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants.

And from Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.:
For most Americans, the Constitution has become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions, but forgotten in the daily transactions of life.

Think about it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 09:03 PM

My, my my..things heated up...but the discussion is getting better!
Look, let me say this, without the encumbrance of some people's misguided, interpretations...ok?
People can, and will do, anything they want, with whomever they want(or at least to whom they get to agree), and there should be no legislation one way or another about it, as long as it does not infringe on the personal freedom of another, property of another, or well being of another..etc etc., okay??
However, that being said, there are personal consequences for the actions we wish to do, whether it be sexual in nature, or otherwise.
Rights, as guaranteed by our form of government(or supposed form of government), are there for all citizens(unless convicted of a felony), to enjoy, and do what they want, freely.
Now, if a person wants to have sex, with as many people as he, or she can, for fun, or working out fantasies, or just to prove to themselves that they can, ..they will and can do that, under our form of government, and do..all the time....BUT, because he or she can, and do, they should know, (and mostly don't care), that there are consequences, as to cause and effect, that they will set in motion. This is true, in any case, hetero, or homosexual. Here's a couple of examples, that most all are aware of, by now.
Musician plays a gig, some girl digs his act, he's horny, see an opportunity to get laid, he has or knows a place, takes the girl there, gets laid, maybe or not pretty good sex, has a smoke, and goes off to the next place to play, not a thought given one way or another, except he had a good night, or not as good as others,..ok?
After a series of those, he gets bored with it, either concentrates more on his music, or not..not the point. He gets desensitized to a certain type of woman, who is the type who is the kind he finds arousing, but who wants to settle down. Because of that, his choice as to the type of woman that is 'good' for him, in the long term is effected...Just cause and effect.
The girl, perhaps had hopes, and is blown off, after all, she was only a lay, and she availed herself, for either fun, or reassurance, or whatever, could be to hook someone she feels will lift her reputation, doesn't matter..she was willing, or not to pay an emotional price, for availing herself, to someone who really, only wanted to get laid. After a series of those, he self esteem lowers, she makes excuses to herself,..good guy comes along, not interested, because he sees her as 'loose'..bad investment, only will bring heartache,..blows her off, She is left with even lower self esteem, perhaps depressed, and needy, as time goes on...Cause and effect.
Perhaps she gets pregnant. Has baby, or gets it aborted. She has baby, needs support, turns to the guy, who doesn't want to support it, sees her as a 'dumb bitch who was stupid enough to get knocked up', and blows her off, AND his child..to pursue his 'career' as a musician, till he's either 'not into' playing gigs anymore, and takes a day job, and tries to settle down, and pay bills...maybe enough time to jam with the guys when they come over.
If the baby is aborted, the woman WILL and DOES pay an emotional cost, to that too!!...Meanwhile, the guy is relieved, that she didn't have it.
Down the road, in life, they're 'still' looking for love.
Okay, not too much controversial argument about that?..(Well, except for folk singers)..but , you know what I mean.
Homosexuality, also has its 'cause and effect' consequences, as well. One of them, is walking away, from having ones own blood offspring, with the child's own 'Mommy AND Daddy'...and for the homosexual, to have his/her own natural child, in lieu of having, and keeping their relationship, with a same gendered partner....EVEN THOUGH, ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS MIGHT HAVE MADE AN EXCELLENT PARENT!!! That need, may not be as easily disposable, as assuming the role of the opposite sex, and or, being so much in 'love' with your partner, who they cannot conceive natural children with, (each other, that is),
that they are willing to sacrifice being in that role, to their natural born children, in pursuit to living a life, that 'imitates a family'. Eventually, they will want to legitimize their decision, at least part way, by wanting to be socially acceptable, as married. ..Cause and effect.
Can we all agree on that? Not saying good or bad..no value judgment..just cause and effect....and there doesn't have to be any bickering, name calling, reading into, presupposing where its going..just cause and effect. Now in saying that, there are other examples, but a couple listed here should do for now, ok.
Let's go there, if you will...and leave out the nasty comments...
Anyway, there it is....let's discuss THAT...and the latest in California, in relation to THAT.


(besides, I think it unfair if I get into a battle of wits, with unarmed folks).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 27 May 09 - 09:23 PM

Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 10:10 PM

GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 10:38 PM

GfS, can't you see that the situation you describe, particularly when you get to your scenario about the homosexual walking away, is no different from what can happen when a heterosexual couple with children break up?

That has no bearing on anything specifically having to do with same-sex relationships. Whether a man leaves his wife for another woman--or for another man--the situation is the same as far as the children are concerned.

Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general.

Wouldn't you say, counselor, that that's a distinct possibility?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:47 PM

Excerpt from the FOurteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified 1868:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


That "equal protection" clause is a far-reaching postulate indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 09 - 01:42 AM

Well, I was hoping to draw some scenarios, to show 'cause and effect'. I chose one for each person, with NO value judgments, to establish a common ground, that should be easy to follow, and easy for any, and everyone to relate to. I figured there might be a little nit picking, but I thought it would be self evident, that doing that would be ridiculous. So, to address the nit pickers, and address the valid questions, here we go..

Jeri: "Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods."

With a post like that, you probably can be expecting another period,..within 72 hours!

Don: "Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general."

Yes, or possibly immolate him, depending on what he has created about him, in his mind. He will, however, have questions as to his own worth, if he feels his love for his father, is unrequited. That could turn to bitterness toward his father, if left unresolved. I could expound, but let's go on. If you want more on that, I'll be happy to do so.

Guest: "143 commas
105 periods
855 words "

How many grooves were on The Beatles 'Abbey Road' LP? when you get done counting them, you might enjoy listening to it, too! Never mind, I'll save you the trouble, there is one.

John P: "GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California."

John, Oh dear John, I'm going to cut and paste something for you, to make your life easier.."Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban". That is the topic of this thread. Perhaps you meant to be in the "Pros and cons of conflict resolution thread"
Pay attention.

Amos, Your post was a BIG BINGO! The case is NOT being argued, on the merits of race, creed or color...Because if they argued it on the 'genetics' issue, it would fail immediately!! (Did somebody say that in here, before?) It is, as you stated, going to be under the 'protection' clause...Which can be argued, by those determinations of CHOICE! (Shit, didn't that get mentioned in here too?...somewhere in the previous posts).
So, Amos, in your penchant for 'cut and paste', ..'you done good'!

Now there was a part of a post, before I was going to address..hold on, I'll get it....(tippy toe..tippy toe)...ok, back..

John P:"As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better."

Okay, let's rephrase that question, to read the other way around, and you will see the crux of the merits of the case...

"As soon as someone says that STRAIGHT folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose MARRIED lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better."

That IS the controversy..both sides....CAUSE AND EFFECT.

So, in keeping of NOT telling you WHAT to THINK, but HOW to think, think about this openly and freely in your minds, because one side feels 'oppressed' and the other feels 'threatened'...and vice versa. If you promote EITHER side, with false data reports, to back your argument, you will lose!..unless there is a bias, in the court...in that case, who knows?

Note: The one vote that did uphold the ban, came from a Democrat! (scratches head)

So, in closing, the civil rights, will be determined by equality, due to citizenship, NOT by any other factor, so get over it! Use the last analogy, posted by JohnP, and my re-write together,..and think about it.
See ya'!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 09 - 02:57 AM

Ah, yes, Don F., I am quite familiar with Martin Niemöller's poem. I have read it many times in the past, many times on this forum over the last 10 years or so, and it's a good one. It makes a fine point. I just had forgotten his name for the moment, that's all.

It applies well as a warning against any and all repressive regimes or societies or groups or social movements that are setting out on a witchhunt against someone...anyone...whomever they have decided to target for the time being. Such people are often, in fact almost always, found on both sides of a highly divisive issue. They are the zealots and the haters. They accuse, they condemn, they attack, they hate, they do not forgive, they do not seek any accomodation, they do not look for common ground, they do not admit to their own faults and errors, they are proud, they seek total 100% victory over all those whom they hate and despise and feel morally superior to.

But the targets keep changing, that's all.

Here's another great quote I've seen many times on this forum: "even the devil can quote scripture"

Anyone can quote scripture. But do they live up to it? Do they do unto and for others as they would wish others would do unto and for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:28 AM

Are you people still having these circular & insoluble arguments?????

To those on the (excuse the simplification) pro-gay side, when will you realise that your opponents on this thread are never going to be swayed by what you say. They are people who sincerely seem to believe that there is such a thing as an 'ex-homosexual', or that being gay is an illness of some kind. They are unable to distinguish between particular sexual acts and lifelong cultural identities. They are going to listen to you just after hell freezes over. Give up !! They are beyond help !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:00 AM

A recent (26 March 2009) report:

'The response of mental health professionals to clients seeking help to change or redirect same-sex sexual orientation'

from UCL and St George's, University of London indicates that a significant minority of psychiatrists and therapists still attempt to help lesbian, gay and bisexual clients become heterosexual, despite a lack of evidence that such treatment is effective or even safe.

However, it was found that the reasons given by these psychiatrists and therapists for offering this kind of assistance ranged from the counsellor's own moral and religious views on homosexuality to a desire to help patients who were suffering stress as a result of discrimination.

Professor Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at UCL Mental Health Sciences said
"There is very little evidence to show that attempting to treat a person's homosexual feelings is effective, and in fact it can actually be harmful, so it is surprising that a significant minority of practitioners still offer this help to their clients."

In fact the research found there was a degree of ignorance among the practitioners about the lack of evidence surrounding the efficacy of such therapies – in particular, that no randomised control trials showing that therapy is effective have ever been conducted.

Professor King believes that it is important to raise awareness among both therapists and the wider public about homosexuality and its so-called treatments:

"The best approach is to help people adjust to their situation, to value them as people and show them that there is nothing whatsoever pathological about their sexual orientation.'

He concludes

'Both mental health practitioners and society at large must help them to confront prejudice in themselves and in others.'


Wellcome Trust Audio: Interview with Professor Michael King.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:43 AM

""(besides, I think it unfair if I get into a battle of wits, with unarmed folks).""

Are you going to pay me royalties for pinching MY comment, which I, earlier in this thread, applied to YOU?

Very poor form. Work out your own jibes if you wish to be thought witty and erudite.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 28 May 09 - 09:27 AM

1400