BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 02:51 PM

History of AIDS to 1986--article worth reading.

Calling AIDS a homosexual disease is a misnomer. Hell, stories that first came out suggesting that Ebola--which does in 10 days what AIDS does in 10 years--was first brought into the human population because someone had sex with a green monkey. Fact is a child was bitten on the arm by a green monkey and THAT transmitted it to the human population at that time. But, various 'phobes will not pass any opportunity to target the objects of their hatred. (That is not a reference to anyone posting to this thread.)

Read the article; it's worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 09 - 02:25 PM

Congratulations, GfS and Ake. You win!

No, not the discussion. Not on your bogus data. Not on your convoluted use of illogic. Not on your wit and charm. No, not at all. You win on sheer bull-headed endurance. And the realization that not all the substantiated scientific data in the world will ever change your minds (Flat Earth syndrome).

But at least sparring with you two has given me a good look at the kind of shoddy data, tangled reasoning, and sham studies (including that video denying the genetic connection, which leaves out a crucial piece of information that would negate the message of the video) that I will be meeting in my endeavors in the real world. Thanks for the exercise.

Rather than wasting my time here trying to reason with people, one of whom can't even get my name right, and all of whom a filled to the gills with acrimony and display all the potential for opening-mindedness of tree stumps, I'm going to use my time and energy to lend my support to the cause of same-sex marriage in my state. The law has been passed by the legislature, but the goons are gathering to get up a California-style referendum, so I'm talking with my local state legislator (who lives just a couple of blocks away when he isn't in Olympia, the state capital, and who goes to the same church my wife and I do—and who voted for the same-sex marriage bill) to find out what I can do in the real world to help block the referendum and get the bill permanently adopted. I've already talked to him once, but I'm meeting him again tomorrow at coffee hour after church.

Besides, a wise old uncle once told me, "Young man, don't waste your time arguing with a bull that has diarrhea. He can produce it much faster than you can shovel it away."

Don Firth

P. S. I may look in from time to time to see if this thread is still going. As I said before, it's well past its "sell-by" date.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:12 PM

I would be pleased if people in general would stop their knee-jerk labelling of other people as "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "anti-semites", and other such damning labels in today's society....all of which totally preclude having any chance of a meaningful discussion.......and that is the primary real purpose of those kind of terms. They are meant to silence people on the other side of a debate. They are a form of savage emotional intimidation of other people.

I would be pleased if people would stop that kind of crude labelling of others and would instead try to actually listen and understand the concerns that others have and grasp why they have those concerns. If they did so, instead of engaging in name-calling, they would discover that those others are usually not nearly so far away from them philosophically as they think. They would discover (surprise!) that people on the other side of the argument are also rational, sane, idealistic, and desirous of freedom and happiness for all humanity.

I am pleased by the fact that the overall discussion has become a little more reasonable in most of the more recent posts.....

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

"I did not intend this digression to result in any attack on anyone's religious beliefs..."


                   It's not really a digression, Emma. I would attack anyone and everyone's religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are what cause most of the problems in the world, and religioius beliefs are what is causing all of the problems with gay marriage.

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

Don Firth....I recommend that you read Little Hawk's clarification of the paragraph you linked to.
It represents my position exactly, I am simply giving my opinion against homosexual "marriage" and listing the reasons for holding that opinion.

None of the reasons I have given have been satisfactorally answered by you or any of ther others who have attempted to defend Homosexual marriage.

The position of being against homosexual marriage has been widely presented in the populal media as "homophobic" or "bigoted", this makes proper debate almost impossible, and forces people like myself and GfS immediately on the defensive, when it should really fall to the Pro homosexual group to prove the desirability or safety of promoting homosexuality as a normal and safe lifestyle.

My point about the link between homosexuality and Aids has not been answered at all, as I said before it is the "elephant in the room" a glaring black hole in your argument.

You misrepresent my words regularly, now I see you have taken to misrepresenting Little Hawk......I'm sure he will not be too pleased to be used as a "touchstone" for your aggresive syle of argument.

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

The whole thing about turbans is a bunch of crap, imo. I'm with you on this one 100% LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:46 AM

Turbans don't strike me as a problem. ;-) If I was the chief of Canadian police, I'd say, "Sure. Wear your turbans on duty. No problem with me."

Sikhs have a long military tradition serving the British Empire in its glory days, and they make excellent soldiers and cops. I hardly see how wearing turbans would make them any less effective at carrying out their duties.

A majority of Canadians, however, seem to disagree with me on that. Again, it's a subjective matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:13 AM

Re turbans. Make them out of Kevlar if they have to be bullet proof. However, that won't stop yer skull from shattering when .357 gives ya a little tap.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:13 PM

Peace: "I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page"

Yes, and was standardized in the early 80's. Before that, one could go to a doctor, or dentist, and they would not..But you are correct.
I happen to be in UCLA, Hospital(Westwood) at the time when, the first, yes, the FIRST, exam was going to given to a patient(outpatient), who had something that no one had a bulletin on yet. It was called AIDS/HIV, but there was absolutely nothing released about the disease yet, and three of the doctors we're afraid, at that time (1982), to administer the physical, and were debating how, who, and what to do, as a precautionary measure. They (two) finally performed it wearing environmental suits! Within two weeks of that time, more information came out about this new, and strange disease. Since that time, the standard operating procedure, was to wear gloves, patient to patient. Later that year, the dentists, at UCLA, were refusing to work on patients with either, Hep, or AIDS. Saw it with my own eyes! Heard it with my own ears. Any one here can remember, not that long ago, when the doctor would merely wash his hands, but not wear gloves, except for certain things.

Don T.: "I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.
On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers....

Don, If Akenaton hasn't posted enough on that yet, then you ain't reading!

"HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?"

Another stupid question, Bi-sexuals, promiscuity, etc etc...(ohhh ye-a-a-ahh, I forgot..)

"(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin,....Blah blah blah" Here, watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

"In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law."

Behavior is not covered the same as ethnicity etc. etc.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)
Neither can you! re-read my post on the civil rights,regarding real civil rights..its just a little scroll away!
Now 79% of blacks opposed Prop 8 in Calif....Ever wonder why????
Maybe they have a better clue about what civil rights is really about, ok?? Oh, Obama does not support it either..pretty far out, for the leftist of the left!(Voting record in the Senate)

So, if it not genetic, which it isn't, not ethnic, not about age(YET), or born with gender, or religious, what the fuck is your basis for harping about it being a civil right????
I've already stated, a bazzillion times, that all should be equal under the law, and all rights are endowed by our creator, etc etc(not by the state), and not based on what genital you put where!..and trying to get acceptance of that behavior, for whim's sake. If two guys, women, goats, pigs, amoebas, etc etc want to live together, fine! They do all the time. If they want to put their sex organs up each others nose, that's their business. I hope they conceive a lot of snot, but to turn this into a Civil Rights issue, of entitlement, and use it to further a political agenda, is ridiculous. Marriage it is not.
Maybe your parents forgot to explain why you are you, how you got here, and what they had in mind, when they got together.

Don First, Yours is coming..set it aside, just for you!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:05 PM

I did not intend this digression to reult in any attack on anyone's religious beliefs as I would not attack anyone's 'disbelief'

In the UK there is no problem with Sikh police officers wearing a turban
A Home Office spokesman said on Thursday: "The Government wants a police service that reflects the diverse communities it serves."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 May 09 - 09:51 PM

Somebody simply needs to develop a 12 step program to help the Sikhs get over their addiction. It would be better for them, and it would certainly be better for the tax paying public.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:47 PM

I don't want to get involved in this argument, I have my own opinions about civil partnerships and marriage - however if I might be excused a small 'thread drift' in reply to LH's post....

Sikh police want bullet-proof turbans

'Sikh police officers in Britain want the government to develop bullet-proof turbans to allow them to serve as firearms officers without having to remove their headwear
Inspector Gian Singh Chahal, vice-chairman of the newly formed British Police Sikh Association, said the Home Office needs to make provisions for Sikhs to recognise their role in the police force, the Guardian reported.'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:05 PM

Okay, Don (F), I'm glad you understand my position. ;-)

I do think that people have a right to object to same-sex marriage being legalized if they feel it offends their traditional sense of what the term "marriage" means. If so, then they should inform their Congressman or whomever of their opinion, and vote accordingly at election time. I would not automatically characterize them all as "bigots" or "homophobes", however, because many of them may be nothing more than conventional traditionalists...they may not hate gays at all, they may just love the old traditions they grew up with...and it's not a sin to be a traditionalist (whatever the tradition may be).

We've had a continuing brouhaha in Canada, for example, about whether Sikhs who are enlisted as police officers should be allowed to wear their turbans while in uniform. I don't have a problem with it if they do, but the vast majority of Canadians feel that it's not appropriate and that the Sikh police officers should wear the same hats and headgear as all the other Canadian police officers do, because that's the uniform and the tradition in this country. So...it remains a dispute here.

Traditions change, but they usually change slowly. I've seen many change in the last 60 years. I may regret some of those changes, but I have no problem with most of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:12 PM

A whole catalog of diseases can be spread through contact with someone else's bodily fluids by whatever means. Person wipes nose, then a moment or two later, shakes hands with someone. Turning a doorknob or using a banister.

And aerosols! A good, enthusiastic sneeze can do a very large room in not more than a few seconds.

Life is fraught (past tense of fright?) with hazards that are many and varied.

(Pianos falling out of windows. . . .)

Don Firth

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

I don't think I've ever been to a doctor or dentist who did not put on rubber gloves before even the most cursory examination. Standard Operating Procedure, whether operating or not.

It never occurred to me to take it personally. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:48 PM

I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:40 PM

Excellent, Little Hawk! I find myself in agreement with everything you just said. In both your most recent posts.

Ake, I recommend that you read what Little Hawk has written. I especially recommend the paragraph that begins "People's opinion's about whether or not same-sex marriage could 'somehow undermine the institution of marriage' are mostly subjective. . . ."

And as to my posts becoming "so desperate, and nonsensical, that they can no longer [be] taken seriously," that's only your opinion, just like your misgivings about same-sex marriage.

By the way, did you even bother to look at any of the material I linked to in my post of 07 May 09 - 07:45 p.m? I didn't think so. Well, don't bother. You'll undoubtedly just blow them off as usual as "gay lobby propaganda," despite the authoritativeness of the sources.

Don Firth

P. S. And bullseye, Don T! Right on target!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:23 PM

We cross-posted, Akenaton. Are your fingers as tired as mine? ;-D

You know, Don (F), I wouldn't even object to someone marrying their dog or their sheep....provided that it could be somehow verified that the dog or sheep fully umderstood the arrangement and was in favor of it! ;-D Mutual consent, in other words.

It cannot, however, be verified. Therefore, Don (F), I am not in favor of legalized marriage between a human being and a dog or sheep.

Note to the two Dons: It is Don (F) whom I am directly addressing in these last two posts (aside from one sentence above to akenaton), not Don (wysiwyg) T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:17 PM

""Don T., Good question, at least an honest one....""

I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.

On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers.


""Since the HIV virus has been out there, most all health care professionals (dentists too), emergency workers, police, and fire, now are required to wear gloves, when required to touch or handle other people, in the execution of their services.""

And this proves your point about homosexual AIDS carriers because.........................?
I think you'll find gloves are worn in treating ALL patients.

And while we are on the subject of honest questions, was the following from my earlier post TOO difficult for you?:-

(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin, but learned behaviour, does it not NECESSARILY follow that heterosexuality is also a "lifestyle choice" in the opposite direction?

If this is so, then the question of "normality" or "deviance" surely does not arise.

In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)


I've noticed that, whenever anyone posts something you find difficult to answer, you simply ignore it. Why then should any of the rest of us be required to take your comment seriously?

Care to give an HONEST answer?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:03 PM

"Little Hawk, apparently you haven't been following the discussions about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not me who brought the matter up. One of the standard arguments voiced by those who oppose same-sex marriage—or even domestic partnerships—is that it would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and jeopardize the marriages of "normal" people.

But you can never get an explanation out of them as to how it would do this."

I am aware of that side of the discussion, Don, but it doesn't concern me too much (if it concerns me at all...which I don't think it does). I'm more concerned about health issues related to anal sex. I do not consider it a moral issue, but I do consider it a health issue, whether or not that form of intercourse is being used on men OR women.

People's opinion's about whether or not same-sex marriage could "somehow undermine the institution of marriage" are mostly subjective, just as subjective as their opinions about how a change in dress code, for example, could affect public schools or sports or the morale of the police force. It's perfectly legitimate for people to question things like that and wonder about the ramifications of making a change in some traditional custom. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they are "bigots" or "homophobes", it simply indicates that they are traditionalists, and we are all traditionalists about some things in life.

Therefore, I see no particular reason why individuals should be pilloried and personally attacked for having an opinion on either side of the issue of whether or not to institutionalize same-sex marriage.

As for me, I'm in favor of freedom and personal choice, so I have absolutely no objection to same-sex marriage. It doesn't bother or threaten me in the least, and I'm not worried about the tradition being threatened by it. That's my opinion. It doesn't bother me that Akenaton does not share that opinion....and I DO agree in the main with his concerns about the health issues...but that's not a moral issue, as I've said before, it's strictly a health issue.

I also think it's okay for people to do unhealthy things to themselves if they really want to, because I believe in freedom of choice...as long as they aren't affecting others by their actions.

So....although I think smoking is stupid and destructive, I will not take away people's right to do it, although I will take away their right to inflict secondhand smoke on other people inside an enclosed public area. And I will not take away their right to drink, but I will penalize them if they do it while they're driving or if they commit crimes while drunk. And I will not take away anyone's right to have a same-sex relationship or to have a same-sex marriage...because they are perfectly free to do that if they want as far as I'm concerned, and I wish them all happiness....nevertheless I do consider the practice of anal intercourse in ANY relationship to be an unwise and health-endangering practice, and I would advise anyone against it if I were their doctor.

There's nothing physically harmful about anyone kissing someone else or showing affection...opposite sex or same-sex. There's nothing physically harmful about engaging in oral sex (unless you're already carrying an STD of some kind). There's nothing that shocks me about a man doing any of those things with another man, although I don't find it personally appealing, that's for sure. ;-) It's not to my taste particularly, but why should that matter to me if I don't have to do it myself or watch someone else do it? So it doesn't matter to me.

But...anal sex is physically harmful over a period of time (mostly to the recipient) because the human rectum was simply not designed by nature for that sort of activity. It was designed to expel bodily waste, not to have an erect penis shoved up it repeatedly.

Frequent anal intercourse causes damage to the anal musculature and in time can result in incontinence. It can also cause damage to the intestinal wall, internal bleeding, and sometimes some small abrasions to the penis as well, and given the fact that the inside of the rectum is anything but a clean area of the body, that can lead to further health problems. It's an extremely unclean habit to engage in.

These are not reasons, Don, for banning gay relationships nor are they reasons for banning same-sex marriage, but they ARE a health issue in themselves, and that's my concern.

Another concern I have...and it's a big one...is how politicians, demagogues, and special interest groups and fanatics on both the Right and the Left have siezed upon this issue for their own gain, with the intention of dividing and conquering a confused electorate... They BOTH have the gall to pretend to be occupying some kind of "moral high ground"...they BOTH have no respect for anyone with an even slightly divergent opinion...and they are BOTH continually inflaming this issue in the media. My reaction to that is: "A pox on both their houses!"

Those are my concerns.

Now, if Akenaton feels that a change in a tradition...ANY tradition... is upsetting to him, he has a right to feel that way without being termed a "bigot". And if he feels that it's a health issue, he's right, in my opinion...as regards anal intercourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:55 PM

A huge number of moderate Christians worldwide believe in the traditional definition of marriage, they find it ridiculous that marriage can be redefined to accomodate homosexuals.
Traditional marriage was always linked to the process of reproduction and believers in the traditional view feel they are being coersed into the acceptance of a definition which devalues one of their core beliefs. Is there any form of relationship that liberals would ban from the marriage club? to many homosexual "marriage" is simply the thin end of the wedge
THAT is how homosexual "marriage" affects conventional marriage, as I have explained four or five times already

As can be seen from this thread, Homosexual marriage has been seized and used as a political device by "liberals"...something which the traditionalists view as the worst form of manipulation and hypocrisy.

When the very real and serious health issues on homosexual practice are added to the mix, I cannot believe that the self- confessed, "obviously intelligent" people on this forum consider homosexality to be simply an alternative, normal and healthy lifestyle.

Don there is no need for you to back off, as your posts have become so desperate, and nonesensical, that they can no longer taken seriously

PEASANTS 1.......INTELLECTUALS 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:52 PM

People, this is not a trivial question.

Little Hawk, apparently you haven't been following the discussions about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not me who brought the matter up. One of the standard arguments voiced by those who oppose same-sex marriage—or even domestic partnerships—is that it would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and jeopardize the marriages of "normal" people.

But you can never get an explanation out of them as to how it would do this.

I would like someone to give me an explanation of just how same sex marriage would do this, because, frankly, I don't see how it would have any effect whatsoever, and I would like to hear the reasons—the logic, if any—that endeavors to support this assertion.

Ake claims that if I don't see it, it's because I don't take my own marriage seriously, which is just plain silly. So maybe Ake is the one I should ask to give me his reasons for believing what he apparently believes.

And GfS, your comments that I might be "hiding something" is another of your attempts to undercut the credibility of my arguments and negate whatever I have to say.   But I believe my credibility is pretty well established with Mudcatters who have been around long enough and who have read many of my posts on various subjects, and who know me pretty well, some, in fact, face to face.

"Hiding something." Is it that you are implying that I might be homosexual myself, and that's why I'm advocating for same-sex marriage? That seems to be the thrust of your last paragraph. If not that, then what do you speculate I might be hiding?

No, behind all the psychobabble, GfS, you are one very rude person, and not just a little sneaky.

And I won't be backing off any time soon. Be assured of that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:36 AM

"KB: has society in Iowa collapsed yet?"

Not just yet but I keep checking out the window.



"Akenaton is primarily concerned about the possible physical health issues of the male homosexual lifestyle rather than about how a gay marriage would theoretically affect someone in a heterosexual marriage."

Well, LH, back in the "On Same-Sex Marriages" thread Ake seemed mostly concerned with how same sex-marriage would affect the institution of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:04 AM

Don T., Good question, at least an honest one....I've heard, as you may have too, that the HIV virus was released originally to homosexuals, and in Africa. It would not be hard to assume, that once the virus was out, that it could, and has, spread to, and throughout anywhere bodily fluids, are exchanged..either blood, semen, or otherwise. Since the HIV virus has been out there, most all health care professionals (dentists too), emergency workers, police, and fire, now are required to wear gloves, when required to touch or handle other people, in the execution of their services.
So, it is not confined to primarily the homosexual community, but it is certainly, the largest segment of our society, that is a carrier, outside of Africa...where they are dying by the thousands.
Akenaton, is quite correct, however, in his concerns. Not admitting that, or even resisting that fact, is just denial, and a dangerous denial, as well. Actually, it's good you brought it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:32 AM

""As it seems to be "question time" on Mudcat, I would like to ask any here who have taken the time to read the statistics for people living with AIDs
Do you really think that there is no link between homosexual practice and AIDS?""

HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?

Grow up for God's sake, and learn to see beyond your personal prejudice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 01:21 AM

Damn! How 'polite' was that!?!!?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:08 AM

Little Hawk, Thank you for your post. Once again, you have the brain, to cipher what others can't seem to.
Don, Your 'perception of any animosity, toward you is ridiculous. Once again you err in assuming you are the center of the universe....not only that, you are not that close to me, that you should assume I have any 'feelings' other than, maybe a little annoyance, that you keep falling on the trivia, as to avoid commenting on the harder, more direct, and obvious.
One more thing, as long as we're at it, I'm not so sure, that your insistence on me commenting on your marriage, also isn't a ploy, to comment into a trap. What trap, you might ask? ..As i said before, if you can read a whole post through, objectively, is that I said, I needed just a little more information, but I had a hunch about something, remember that? I think there is something far bigger that, not only did you not say, but there is something you are hiding, big time...but, as I said, it was only a hunch..and educated hunch, ok?
So, back off!....That being said, I'm not in the least, anxious, or upset,..in fact, I'm quite fine thinking about more creative things, as I do, most of the day! Normally, until this topic came up, and I began posting, I don't give homosexuality much thought. My field was in marriage and family counseling, and only occasionally did I even have to deal with it, at all. Unfortunately, for you, it might not be such a casual interest.
So, it may occur to you, to lighten up, on wanting me to qualify, and re-qualify, and reiterate my answer, over and over...you might not like the answer! ...but, I'm used to that, too..no big deal. Your call....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:33 PM

And that leaves only 56 posts to reach 1000 on this thread. 55 with this one. Can we do it? Oh, I'm sure we can manage... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:32 PM

I don't think that GfS's main concerns regarding the subject of discussion revolve around how the marriage of homosexuals would presumably affect anyone's heterosexual marriage, Don (F). His or her concerns are in other areas entirely. So are Akenaton's for the most part, since it appears to me that Akenaton is primarily concerned about the possible physical health issues of the male homosexual lifestyle rather than about how a gay marriage would theoretically affect someone in a heterosexual marriage.

It's plainly obvious to all of us that a gay marriage does not in any way directly affect the marriage of some heterosexual couple, so there's no point even arguing about it in the first place.

And that makes me wonder why you would even bring it up? I mean, what does it have to do with Akenaton's or GfS's real concerns? It is a pointless question. It's not relevant to the issues that Akenaton and GfS have about the homosexual lifestyle and its possible repercussins on those practicing it...but certainly not on other people who are in a heterosexual marriage.

In short, it's pretty much a non-sequitor.

Taoist teachings (from ancient China) on the subject are quite interesting. The Taoists did not regard people's sexual choices and sexual practices as being a moral issue at all, providing there was mutual consent between adults. They regarded it strictly as a health issue. (They were not burdened with any of the typical Judeo-Christian-Muslim baggage about sex being "sinful" unless it is done thus and so...)

So...here's what they said about health and sex:

1. Sex is natural, good for you, and it's very healthy to practice it in reasonable moderation, but it's unhealthy to overdo it to the point where it becomes, in effect, an addiction or an obsession, because it then begins to damage your physical and psychological health.

2. Sex between men and women was clearly the most common form in their society, as in ours, and that was obvious...but lesbian sex and male homosexual sex were also recognized as choices people could freely engage in, and there was no moral stigma or judgement attached to either.

3. Lesbian sex was described as "polishing mirrors", and was said to have no ill effects on the health, and was thought to be useful to keep women happy in the palaces, for example, where many women might be left alone much of the time when the men were away at war.

4. Male to male sex was described as "dragon yang". While it was not considered morally wrong in any way, it was considered a (moderate) health risk by the Taoists because male energy is aggressive, not receptive, and they felt that two aggressive energies being brought against each other could in time cause damage to bodily systems and deplete the life force. So...while the Taoists did not proscribe or condemn the practice, they did caution against possible health hazards and recommended not engaging in too much "dragon yang" if you wanted to stay healthy.

I'm not mentioning that to prove anything to you or convince you of anythibg...(That would be very optimistic of me, to say the least!)

However, I think it's quite interesting. Taoists always sought moderation, balance, and Nature's way of maintaining happiness, good health, and long life.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:51 PM

GfS, surveying your posts after I first asked the question, I found what you apparently assume was an answer that would get me to stop pressing the matter, but it struck me as pure tap-dancing. I initially phrased the question making it specifically about Barbara's and my marriage. You responded by asking about our life history, then went around Robin Hood's barn, including an attempt to psychoanalyse me and counsel me about begging my son for forgiveness and commenting on my bitterness toward religion (it took me awhile to figure out who you were talking about), then responded by saying that since both Barbara and I are in our seventies and we have no children together, particularly children who might "choose" to adopt the "homosexual life style," it would probably not affect us.

Good imitation of Fred Astaire.

But that was not the nature of my question. Upon noting your evasion, I asked it again, phrasing it more generally:   how would anyone's same sex marriage affect anyone's conventional marriage? From that point on, I find nothing by way of response from you. I can only conclude that you either don't have an answer, or the only answer you could provide would reveal far too much about you own prejudiced attitudes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 09:42 PM

Serious question, GfS:

I have read all of your posts and I don't recall seeing an answer to my question. I suppose it is possible that I many have missed it. If you can supress your animostity for a moment, would you kindly indicate the date and time of the post in question?

Thank you.

Don Firth

P. S. And as to it being a "stupid question," this is another example of your letting your emotional involvement cloud your judgment. The question, I am sure all here with an I.Q. above that of a brussel sprout, would agree that it is a perfectly reasonable question and goes directly to the crux of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 09:33 PM

Don First,
Re-read my post where I answered your stupid question...and quit bugging me about it. Maybe its your 'non compos mentos', selective comprehension(?) Do you want me to 'cut and paste' it for you???? Or is this just another attention ploy??
And as long as you're at it...aw, never mind, I'll save that one, for when the 'polite gloves' come off!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 07:45 PM

The history of HIV/AIDS.    Where did it come from? How does it spread?

Other deadly diseases:   CLICKY #1.    CLICKY #2.    CLICKY #3.    CLICKY #4 (Today it's estimated that two billion people — or approximately one-third of the world's population — carry one of the three bacteria that causes this).    CLICKY #5.    And there are others.

It would be quite a boon to humanity if a way could be found to alleviate these diseases as easily as legalizing same-sex marriage would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. But that would violate the fine sensibilities of those who are hyper-fastidious about the private sexual practices of others, and we can't allow that, now can we!??

Don Firth

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

I've heard that one too, Peace, only it was "Carruthers", not "Basil". Great joke! ;-) It says so much about the Pukka Sahib, stiff upper lip mentality of the British during their great imperial phase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:54 PM

Back in 1966 or 1967 I did a fund raiser at McGill University for the students who'd formed a Gay/Lesbian Society. They and their supporters provided an audience of about 750 people. Had a good time and I got a great laugh from the audience when I told the following with an English (UK) accent.

"Have you heard? Basil's living in Africa with an ape?"

"Male or female ape?"

"Why female of course; nothing queer about Basil."


People's people, folks. I am glad that these new laws are coming into effect. It's about time, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM

KB: has society in Iowa collapsed yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM

It's been awhile since I heard the San Francisco version:

"Don we now, our straight apparel..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:43 PM

"Deck the halls with boughs of holly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Tis the season to be jolly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la.
Troll the ancient Yule tide carol,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

See the blazing Yule before us,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Strike the harp and join the chorus.
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Follow me in merry measure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
While I tell of Yule tide treasure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Fast away the old year passes,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Hail the new, ye lads and lasses,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Sing we joyous, all together,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Heedless of the wind and weather,
Fa la la la la, la la la la."

This is where the subversion started . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 05:39 PM

That's funny, KB. Sounds like earth shattering news.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:57 PM

My statistics come from the World Health Organization.

Neither Ake nor GfS have an answer to the questions I have asked them.

To Ake:

Since "Mutual Fidelity: Stay with one partner who has sex only with you," is an obvious way of markedly decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS, why would you be opposed to same-sex marriage when it would encourage homosexuals to form stable, permanent relationships and thereby do exactly that?

Or would you prefer that all gays contract AIDS and die so your won't have to obsess about the matter anymore?

To GfS:

In what manner does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?

Or is it that you know perfectly well that it would have no effect at all on any conventional marriage, and there goes one of your (and others') major objections?

When some people don't have an answer, they resort to insults and abuse. A sure sign that they have nothing but their own prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:27 PM

Same-sex couples have been getting married in Iowa for ten days now. Our lilacs are blooming and smell terrific, so does the crabapple tree. The robins are in great voice and I heard an owl last night. My rhubarb patch looks the best it ever has, I have made two pies so far and they were both fabulous.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:24 PM

Only according to you. Grow up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:40 PM

Gobbldegook! you have lost the debate, please have the grace to retire.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:08 PM

It most certainly does. That's what you're missing.

And Ake, that sort of argument is "begging the question" (a recognized fallacy). You are assuming that what you say is true because you assume it's true. Circular argument.

You just flunked Logic 101.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:44 PM

Of course Aids can be transmitted by blood transfusions, I never denied that, but as the transmission is not behavioural it does not affect this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:23 PM

When people chose to engage in snide personal insults, they know they're hanging in mid-air. All Ake and GfS seem to be able to do in response to verifiable facts they don't like is to resort to personal attacks.

By the way, Ake, you can blow off the idea that AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions if you want, but it's a fact. If you ever have an accident or need an operation and require a blood transfusion, you'd better by damned sure your doctor knows where the blood came from.

This thread has passed it's "sell-by" date. It's starting to reek.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:09 AM

Rig, God, as defined, by most all, is the origin and giver of life. Just because 'religions' think it is merely a way to 'self righteousness', doesn't mean you are dead, does it? In the Bible, 'God is Love', is a quote. In America, God is materialism, (as once listed as the U.S.'s predominate 'religion' at the U.N.)..but then, in America, people confuse the 'pursuit of happiness' with the pursuit of material gain!
But this might be for a different thread.
Ake, Thanks , I guess...in addition to that, to be 'WILLINGLY IGNORANT', is to be STUPID...and I guess that proves true, to the old saying, "You can't FIX stupid!'
Don't know if you caught this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:53 AM

"In the beginning, God created man,..and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!"


                If it were true, maybe man is just trying to get even!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:40 AM

Sorry Guest, I meant to congratulate you on your last post(thumb sucking)....excellent!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:32 AM

Good morning to you Guest.....Do you never rest..:0)

As a BTW to Don.....I do not "hate" anyone, I am sorry for homosexuals in the same way that I feel sorry for anyone with psychiatric "conditions", but before I start to promote homosexuality as a "normal healthy lifestyle",and bring that lifestyle into mainstream society, some questions require answers.