BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

Leaving so soon Don?......run out of answers have we?
Not to worry about the loss of reasoning ability, at least you can still count!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:34 PM

AWRIGHHHHHTTTT!!!! I knew you could do it. 1500 blithering posts!

Bravo, cheers, congrats to all. I have won my free trip to Montreal in August. I am in your collective debt.

Dare I hope that you will march on resolutely now to 1600 posts?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:07 PM

Akenaton: Apparently the latest country to suffer an Aids outbreak is Cuba.
80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals.

If this data were in any way relevant, there would be no straight people with AIDS. But who needs science or common sense?

Akenaton, it has long been obvious that you can't come up with any rational reason to oppose gay marriage. It all boils down to the fact that you don't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:32 PM

"80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals."

That ought to make you very happy, Ake. Let the buggers kill each other off!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM

By the way, Ake (since you're such a whiz with statistics), how many of those Cuban homosexuals are in committed, single partner relationships?

I didn't think so!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:58 AM

Is that really all you can say about the issue?
These figures are a shattering blow to your liberal stance on Homosexuality/Aids and you prattle on about
"If this data were in any way relevant, there would be no straight people with AIDS"....Do you think you are debating with a fucking idiot?

This is a relatively new out break. Aids has been almost nonexistant in Cuba, due to the Cuban governments strict quarantine policy.
Now that "Liberalisation" has begun to take hold, we see a rise in aids cases, almost exclusively among homosexuals....is there something you don't understand about that?

Every one on the planet knows that Aids can be transmitted by hetro-sex, but have you never asked yourself why it always starts in the homosexual community?
The homosexuals of Los Angeles have asked themselves that question and have come up with the answer that Aids is primarily a disease of homosexuality. These people don't care about your "Liberal right on" agenda, they want a full medical inquiry, they want to stop Aids dead......and to stop it killing their brothers.


"80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals."

That ought to make you very happy, Ake. Let the buggers kill each other off!"


Don Firth you have gone to a new low.....keep it up and you may become a real "bottom feeder" like your ally Mr Peekstock....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:09 PM

Akenaton, yes, in fact I do think I'm debating with a fucking idiot. Well, an idiot, at least. You get really pissed when I talk about whether or not you fuck, even though you seem to think it's OK to talk about what other people do in bed. Didn't your mother teach you the Golden Rule?

Idiocy #1: You seem to be saying that I don't want to find a cure for AIDS, and that allowing gay people to get married will slow down research on a cure. This is a lie, and you know it is. Saying things like that makes you an idiot, both from the standpoint of rational debate (unsupported, illogical statements) and from the standpoint of using slimy lies to attack people who don't agree with you (a place you go when you are challenged on your unsupported, illogical statements).

Idiocy #2: You are saying that the fact that AIDS has hit the gay community harder than others means that it's a gay disease. Any small, closed sexual community that gets a disease will see it spread throughout the community. The widespread incidence of AIDS started in the gay community. That's the only conclusion that be drawn when talking about a disease that affects people of all sexual orientations and genders. The male homosexual community is also made of men, who are by and large promiscuous, gay or not. Add to that the fact that young men are almost by definition stupid risk-takers, and you have a bad mix. Attributing any of this to homosexuality, however, is not supported by the evidence. If AIDS had hit the rampantly promiscuous college campus community first, would you call it a student disease?

Idiocy #3: You are saying that we shouldn't allow gay people to get married until we have done a complete study of AIDS. You are, without real reason, separating AIDS from all other diseases that we don't understand and that kill lots of people. You might as well say that we should deny civil rights to cancer victims, smokers, drinkers, and people who talk on the phone while driving.

Idiocy #4: You object strongly to being called a bigot while advocating denying rights to a group of people. We get to call racists bigots for the same reason. If you don't want to be lumped in with them, don't act like them.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:10 PM

""If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?""

No point in further arguing or trading barbs without an answer to this simple question.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM

Oh, yes, Akenaton, if you're going to keep calling me things like "bottom feeder" and "one cell organism" you should say why you think I'm those things so we can debate the point. Just calling people names really doesn't do anything for your standing as an intelligent adult. Please note that all the names I've called you (bigot, pervert) have been supported by reasons -- based on your own statements -- for calling you those names.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM

Conflating contemporary events and calling them causes and effects is a risky business, a sure way to make statistics lie.

The correlation, I submit, is not in the sexuality of the couplings but in the frequency of anal sex. At least, this seems much more probable to me, as it obviates the need to discover some mysterious aspect of homosexuality that spontaneously generates the disease when it occurs. That's just magic-think--there is no evidence I have ever seen that there is some cellular or molecular kickback mechanism that makes AIDS happens if intimate same-sex contact occurs. Your numbers also do not differentiate between Male Sex with Males (high probability of using the anal approach) versus Female Sex with Females (lower probability of same due to easier plumbing).

Nor does your assertion take into account frequency between multiple-partner series and same-partner series, which is an important differentiator.

I think it far more probable that the correlated vectors would turn out to be promiscuity and anal penetration, rather than homosexuality itself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:34 PM

Yes, Amos. Perhaps we should make anyone who has anal sex into second class citizens. Let's put cameras in every bedroom!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:42 PM

"Let's put cameras in every bedroom!"

Judging by what's available on the Net lately, I think we may be almost there already, John P. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:43 PM

John:

I quite disagree, and am surprised that that remark should be aimed at me. I was merely commenting on Ake's one-eyed interpretation of bad statistics and jumping to conclusions therefrom. I have no interest in controlling people. Educating them about health risks is quite sufficient.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM

Sorry, Amos. I was being tongue-in-cheek. Obviously not obviously enough ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:56 PM

Nothing worth responding to since my last post...just more misrepresentations by Mr Peekstock, who would be well advised to go back and re-read my posts,   he either lacks any comprehension, or is simply an outright liar.

Amos... I think you were making quite an interesting point, but I have serious problems understanding some of your posts, could you please try some plain English....The grand style may have been OK for Shakespeare, but has really got me scratchin' my head.

Mr Peekstock was being "tongue in cheek", when he is usually "Foot in mouth".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:58 PM

""Leaving so soon Don?......run out of answers have we?""


No, not answers, just the patience to suffer brainless, bigotted fools.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

What John said, Ake. You're blinded by your own rabid prejudice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

I'll be waiting for some relevant points to emerge from the pro-HM side, I'll just ignore the abuse for now......weeeell they've got to say something....haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM

Ake:

It's not the huggery, its the buggery.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM

:0)   Up spake Sir Amos, and a goodly man was he!
      "Not Godly, but goodly!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM

You're a fine one to complain about abuse, Ake. Read a few of your own posts. You do have a tendency to froth at the mouth.

But then, that's nothing new. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

Ake,

If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:01 PM

Hmmmm. To repeat: If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:08 PM

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM

Are you going to answer the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

Look.... you've wakened me up now with your bloody stupid questions.
I am against homosexual "marriage" on several different issues, none of which you evidently understand, the health issue is the most glaringly obvious to all but a few numbskulls.
Anyway what does my opinion have to do with the points in debate?

Now be good children and go play in the traffic for a while!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM

Man, it's rolling! We've already made it one quarter of the way to 1600. I'm impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM

"Look.... you've wakened me up now with your bloody stupid questions.

It was just one question, ake.

I will telll you why I asked. You have made HIV/AIDS central to your argument calling it "the elephant in the room" and I wondered if this issue were to be resolved would it change your opinion. I expect I have gotten the closest I will get to a direct answer so I will stop asking now.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM

In fact KB, I believe you have gotten precisely your answer.
I think there is a gigantic red herring in the room.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM

Pleading the Fifth Amendment there, Ake?

"I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."

I understand. We all do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

Are you blind? I thought I had just answered the question???

Will I explain my answer?.....Block capitals?....Underline words?

Perhaps I have to answer the question three times?(that happened with another question upthread)

I'll do anything to aid comprehension for those with learning difficulties.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:58 PM

Akenaton, given that a whole thread full of intelligent people think that your statements and reasons don't add up, and we all have the same reasons for thinking so, you may want to ask yourself if the problem of rational comprehension is with everyone else or with yourself. I'm a big believer in self-confidence, but if enough people all tell me I'm wrong, I start to wonder about it. I wish you could say the same. Ever wonder about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 08:53 PM

John raises a good point.

Yes, Ake, we know you're ". . . against homosexual 'marriage' on several different issues, none of which you evidently understand, the health issue is the most glaringly obvious to all but a few numbskulls."

We understand all too well what those different issues, which you don't want to specify, happen to be.

And calling people who don't buy the goods you're selling "numbskulls" merely shows that you know perfectly well that you would thoroughly indict yourself it you did spell those reasons out.

You've been squawking about this issue since as far back as 2004. Can you say "obsession?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:49 PM

"I'll do anything to aid comprehension for those with learning difficulties."

I appreciate your indulgence. I really am having difficulties. I am afraid that I cannot comprehend anything other than a simple YES or NO.

Can you tell me which it is?

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

Seems to me its the same few people who have continued to argue the point over the months this thread has been running. The vast majority of the Mudcat membership have not posted at all!

I certainly dont feel intimidated by being called names and I see you have stopped shouting "bigot", contenting yourselves with snide comments.....that must take a lot of the satisfaction away...eh?

Actually I have had several PM's from members who agree with my stance, but just don't want to face the shit which is throw at anyone who wishes to hold an objective discussion on this issue.

I have also had PMs from friends and members who disagree with my views but are happy to conduct discussion in a friendly fashion in private.

Now I'm not going to waste my time reponding to name calling(that is what the last few threads have been basically),I will be happy to discuss any posts which relate to the issue, but it's a while since you came up with anything new or relevant.
Certainly not since the Cuban figures were posted.

I would remind Don Firth, that he has also been involved in this debate from the start, posting very little of value, just the usual "we all think you're wrong...so you are wrong."

I suppose basically where we differ is that you think everyone should have the same "rights", regardless of how they behave or the effect of their behaviour on society, and use "the law" to back up that belief.
Unfortunately "the law", which is formulated by politicians not the people, has never been a great aid to universal equality!

As I have said a dozen times, everyone does not have the same "rights", their "rights" depend on how vociferous they are or the political strength of their particular pressure group.

Just look at this thread as a window of oppertunity to look into another world where people begin to think about these matters for themselves and do not dumbly follow a path set down for them by self serving political correctness.

I have admitted to my friend Amos that I have learned a lot in these discussions..and have changed my stance a fair bit due to my participation here. I hope every one has found something to cause them to re-examine this very important issue....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:55 AM

Well said, Ake. But I don 't think anyone is calling you names just now--more like waiting for an answer to that last question. Because it appears that you've mis-analyzed on the causal links in AIDS cases, it keeps coming back up: ""If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?""

So far it appears that your view is that you would still be so opposed on general moral grounds. In short, "Yes". Yes?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:40 PM

Good stuff, Akenaton! You are quite right that a lot of people wouldn't bother to post here, because it's simply not worth putting up with all the shit that would get thrown at them by people intent on labelling someone else as a "bigot", but apparently oblivious to other legitimate areas of concern which do not in any way connected with bigotry.

Bigotry, by the way, is defined in the dictionary as "utter intolerance for views which differ from one's own".

It is not defined as having hatred for Blacks, Jews, gays, Asians, women, Native Americans, red-headed barbers or mime artists.

Nope. Just utter intolerance for views which differ from one's own.

Thus, bigotry is very, very common these days and it is often found being shown blatantly in the ranks of those who congratulate themselves daily on their courageous support of Blacks, Jews, gays, Asians, women, Native Americans, red-headed barbers AND mime artists. ;-)

As for me, I am happy to support most of the above groups of oppressed people and see that they too secure their place in the sun...but I must admit to being only lukewarm when it comes to the mime artists.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:00 PM

Amos.. I am against homosexual "marriage" on health grounds, I think bringing homosexuality into mainstream society stupid, dangerous and not in the interests of homosexuals, as exceptance of the lifestyle would mean that proper medical inquiry into the link with aids would be almost impossible to set up. That is why the Los Angeles homosexuals want aids redesignated as a "homosexual disease".....to facilitate such an inquiry.

As you know, I am an atheist, but that does not prevent me from understanding the concerns of ordinary Christian people, who see homosexual "marriage" as a redefinition of something very important to them. I understand the feelings of these people although I am not one of them, they must feel that the "liberal"/homosexual agenda is bulldozing thousands of years of tradition and Christian belief, leaving them no voice to stop it.    If they do object, they are jumped on and abused as can be seen in this thread,by people who as Little Hawk says are the most illiberal on earth.

I of course dont include you in that description Amos, as even when the debate was at it's height, you remained civil and attempted to address the points raised.

In conclusion the answer to the hypothetical question is not yes/yes, but yes/maybe...and what the fuck diffence does it make to the debate.
I could be a homosexual and hold the stance which I do now.....that would be quite vadid taking into account the reasons I have given...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

I am sure I am missing something. In what way is HIV/AIDS actually a homosexual diusease, given that it infects heteros as easily as homos under the same transmissive condiitons--as far as I know the difference is just that same-sex couplings create such conditions more frequently.

Second, I hear you offer a conclusive statement that same-sex marriage would change the pressure of medical investigation to resolve the AIDS virus. Why on earth would this be a logical consequence of same-sex marriage? I don't see the chain of effects at all, and it bewilders me that you assert it as though it is entirely too obvious!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

what the fuck diffence does it make to the debate.

I will explain again (more fully) why I asked. You have made concerns about HIV/AIDS central to your argument against same-sex marriage (in fact you did it again in your post of 2:00 PM). You have made this connection so strong as to make it seem as though it is the reason you are opposed. You had LH convinced of this some time back as he defended your stance as being based on concerns about HIV/AIDS. I believe you would be opposed to same-sex marriage even if HIV/AIDS had never existed. I am not questioning your concern about HIV/AIDS and the devastating impact it has had (and continues to have) in the world. I am questioning your use of this issue front and center when making your case against same-sex marriage since I do not think your opposition would disappear if HIV/AIDS were to disappear. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM

Akenaton, the reason your opinion is germane to this debate is because all the "logical" points you've made don't add up, as you have been told many times. You haven't offered any defense of these points, or any reasons for saying things that don't make any sense, despite repeated requests for you to do so. We are left to assume that you are casting about for some reason that gay marriage shouldn't exist that isn't just your opinion. Your dislike of something is not a good basis for the making of laws. Another point you've made is that gay marriage is offensive to religious folks, which is also a terrible reason -- and in the U.S. at least, an unconstitutional one -- for the making of laws.

When it comes right down to it, the only reason gay marriage is still mostly illegal is because of the opinions of a whole bunch of folks. You're just the one espousing that opinion who happens to be in front of us right now.

Little Hawk, on the definition of bigot: Ho hum, been there, done that. If you wanted to make that point again, you should have done so as a rebuttal to the rebuttals that were made after the first time you defined it, up-thread a ways. Do you have anything new or real to offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM

Serious question: How does one forcefully oppose intolerance without being open to the accusation of intolerance? (Intolerance of the intolerant persons intolerance that is...)

That is, if someone is a bigot, and you call them a bigot, does that automatically make you a bigot?

Not sarcastic. I have faced this before, and don't have a good answer. Maybe this warrants a separate thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:18 PM

Reproving intolerance is not intolerance; it just has to be done with a modicum of civility and clarity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

Synonyms of bigotry

intolerance
bias
discrimination
fanaticism
injustice
partiality
racism
sexism
unfairness

Not quite as benign a mindset as the one definition given above.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:09 PM

I haven't read ALL the past posts in this interminable thread, John P. I do have a life, you know! ;-)

At least, I'm trying to...

And I don't really give a damn who among you imagines that he's "won" something here. It's about as silly as Don Quixote's adventures with the windmills. I don't object to anyone's opinion here, I just object to people launching mean personal attacks on other people here and characterizing them as racists and "bigots" (your meaning of the term, not mine) instead of calmly addressing the issues and leaving the personal attacks out of it.

But I'll stop in again in a bit and see if you guys have made it to the next century. If so, I stand to win a week's free movies from Blockbuster. Don't fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:24 PM

You have a life, Little Hawk? Do you give lessons? ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM

There is nothing the least bit benign about having utterly no tolerance for views that differ from one's own, Ebbie. Such intolerance leads to such evils as (and I quote directly from your list)...

intolerance (obviously)
bias
discrimination
fanaticism
injustice
partiality
racism
sexism
unfairness
cruelty
abuse
jingoism
hostility
violence
hatred
exaggerated self-righteousness
witchhunts
kangaroo courts
hazings and harassment
insults
bullying
mob rule
lynchings
and authoritarian oppression by those in positions of power

It also leads directly to the suppression of lawful free speech in a society.

If a great many people here who imagine themselves to be good "liberals" (and they're not such good liberals as they think they are) were not showing that just sort of bigotry toward people with any different opinion than their own and thereby attempting to gang up on and SILENCE those people, I would not be posting here at all.

The gay marriage issue is not one that I have much personal interest in...nor do I object to such marriages. I object to gangs of people (whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives") bullying, insulting, and demonizing someone else who's not in their "club".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM

In short, Little Hawk, you are just not concerned about the civil rights of certain minority groups. But you will defend those who are practicing bigotry against they're being identified as bigots?

Ake, you claim that I have posted nothing of value. I have posted, clearly and precisely what my viewpoint is and why it is what it is, and I have also posted a considerable amount of scientific information with links to back it up. If anyone doubts this, I invite people merely to read my posts. They can read, or re-read them and judge for themselves whether or not what you have just said is true.

And you still have not answered the question I have repeatedly posted. Simple. You don't have an answer.

When it comes to abuse and name-calling, you, sir, are the champ. I also recommend that those who question this read a few of your posts.

Idiot. Numb-skull. Blind. Stupid. Bottom-feeder. One-celled organism. And those cute little bons mots are just a few of those you use chronically. You pepper many of your threads with that kind of verbiage, directing it at people who disagree with what you say, particularly at those people who are most adept at showing the flaws in your arguments.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

The rumor of Little Hawk's life are greatly exaggerated.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:08 PM

hello, i thought i'd pop over to see if you had gotten any further but it seems not, so i shall put my two penneth in.

AKE, why are you banging on about HIV/AIDS when hepA/B? is much more of a worry?
why not concentrate on other stds? if that is your' only arguement then you have nothing. both me and my other half live in a quite area, we are not banging on about it, and apart from on here it generally doen't come up in conversation. so why should not have the right to get married? over here in the U.K it is called a civil partnership, why i haven't got a clue, except like someone else said to not offend the church. the same church that is constanly exposed to be hiding preists that like to fiddle with children.

if you feel that strongly maybe you should consider joining that group in the states that harass gay soldiers funerals shouting god hates fags.   

okay maybe over the top but you see the amount of shit WE are facing anyway without your' help, please listen to reason and base you opinions, not on general but a case by case basis.


phew it's a long way up there on my soapbox,i have come down now.

it may be apperent that i haven't read he entire thread but i have read the beging the bit in the middle and the last 19ish posts, i hope i am not repeating anone else if so, i'm sorry.

take care
jade