 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 09:30 PM Pointing out the obvious: Guest from Sanity Your welcome! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 08:48 PM GfS, saying that you are a "bigot" or a "pompous ass" is not name-calling. In your case, it is a diagnosis. Again: Physician, heal thyself. And—oh, yes! How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?You never did answer my question.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 08:02 PM It has been said, and is actually an old adage...'The argument is lost by the one who starts the name calling' Hg: "To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest' In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you." For you to understand that, try looking up the five blind men and the elephant. Send a copy to TIA....and yes, all that is true, and more, but that's of no consequence on here...yet! Jeez!...At least they're scrolling back..While you're at it, instead of sniffing for something to wrap your mind around, for the sake of attacking me(favorite pastimes of people with small minds), try reading the stuff and learn something. I assure you, while you were having a hard time getting out of the bedroom, to play your guitar, in front of somebody, I was functioning, Thank you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 07:47 PM What's a soap opera? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 04 May 09 - 07:19 PM Seeing how long this thread has gone on for, I kinda get the idea things don't look too good for the sheep and me, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 07:01 PM pomp•ous : adjective 1 : excessively elevated or ornate (pompous rhetoric) 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant (a pompous politician). In addition, Little Hawk, our esteemed self-appointed counselor, GfS, apparently believes in the duck analogy, because by counting on toes and fingers, he/she came up with the notion that my son was conceived in the 1960s (as a matter of fact, I believe I told him/her so) and from that, assumed that we were typical members of the "Peace-Love" generation, characterized (according to GfS) by a complete lack of a sense of resposnsibility, and therefore, my son grew up living on the streets and was raised by city pigeons, like an urban version of Mowgli. If GfS had watched a wider variety of soap operas, he/she might be less addicted to simplistic stereotypes. By the way, while reading GfS's post of 04 May 09 - 03:12 a.m., although I agree with some what he/she says (regulatory agencies need a good, vigorous "dope-slap" about five times a day), I do get a very strong whiff of "conspiracy theorist." Scientific findings that he/she doesn't like are because "all the scientist have been bought off!" Next stop, Flat Earth!! Don Firth P. S. And Ake, I have no wish or need to "silence" you. The nature of your pronouncements says all that needs to be said. They refute themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 06:43 PM Don T, I don't draw lines for you, I draw them for myself. I am simply giving my opinion on an issue just as you are, your opinion is just as valid as mine, it's just that I dont agree with it. I have no more power to influence people than you have, but it is people like you, Don Firth and to a much lesser extent my friend Amos who wish to silence MY small voice...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 05:39 PM ""As for pomposity, hell!...you always give as good as you get in that department. ;-)"" You are slipping, LH. Further, and slightly more focussed, examination will point up the fact that the word pompous was used, not by me, but by my esteemed fellow member, Don Firth. However I DO agree with him. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 09 - 05:32 PM "If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and spends most of its time in the pond with the ducks, I will judge it to be a F**kin' DUCK, and I will call it that." And you might still be dead wrong, Don. All through the 1970s and pretty well right to the present day I have looked like a long-haired dope smoking musician, talked like a long-haired dope-smoking musician, acted like a long-haired dope smoking musician, and spent a lot of time among long-haired dope-smoking musicians. Several cops have, because of that, on occasion misjudged me to be a drug user...and wasted some of my time with their hostile and supicious pre-judgement of who they thought I was. But I don't smoke dope and I was never inclined to, not even in the carefree early 70s when everyone I hung out with did. Your "duck" analogy is therefore not as ironclad and reliable as you think it is, and I think you should not rush to judgement of individuals based on some profiling menu you carry in your head, no more than a cop should. As for pomposity, hell!...you always give as good as you get in that department. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 05:17 PM ""the big fat elephant standing right in the middle of the room that nobody sees....the link between homosexuality and AIDS/HIV."" The link, as has been pointed out innumerable times is between SEXUALITY and HIV/AIDS, and your PERSONAL AGENDA requiring that it be a homosexual problem will never make it so. ""there are others, like trampling on the beliefs of the majority to accomodate a minority who are more strident."" So, the fact that it is a minority that is shouting for equality makes it OK, in your strange world, to deny that equality, just so long as you are on the majority side, and therefore having YOUR way. If that's the case, I suppose you would be perfectly happy if the government banned folk music in pubs......AFTER ALL, WE ARE A MINORITY!!! Where DO you draw the line, and what in hell makes you think YOU have the right to draw it? As an example of totally self absorbed arrogance, that takes a lot of beating. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 04 May 09 - 04:18 PM "Don: ..'I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything...'" Maybe that's been your, and your son's problem. It's all been about YOU. Perhaps, recognizing that, imagine how he felt, excluded, while the little engine in him, kept longing for a loving father's attention, and approval..... As usual, GfS, you don't know what you are talking about. My God, you are a pompous ass!! This is none of yours or anyone else's business, but since you've taken it upon yourself to publicly discuss my many failures as a father, I feel it incumbent upon me to respond. My son was not "excluded." I will not go into detail as to his mother's and my situation, but due to both her circumstances and mine, marriage was not an option. However, my son was raised in a family, with a good man, whom he assumed was his father. Some years along, the man passed away, but by then, my son was in college. His mother felt he had a right to know who his real (biological) father is. So she (with my permission—telephone conversation; she and I hadn't seen each other for two decades) told him. I told her that since he was of age, I felt it should be his choice as to whether he wanted to see me or not. I did want to meet him. We hit it off right away, and have been great friends ever since. Both his mother and I explained the circumstances to him. He understood—and he sympathized with our situation. A boy gets his masculinity from his father, not his mother. Men, can't face the admission of failure, much like women can't own up to, 'It's my fault, I was wrong.' My son did have the love, attention, and approval of a good man. And my son is plenty masculine. The man with whom he was raised was a good role model. I don't feel that I failed, even though you may think so. But my son does not, and he's the one who counts. The fact that his mother and I couldn't get married was not my choice. It was hers. And later, she told me, "It was my fault. I was wrong." Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets. She and I were hardly members of the "Peace-Love" generation, although we were contemporaneous with it. Granted, I was a "folk singer," and was earning my living that way, but I became interested in folk music before it became a pop-culture thing, and she was in theater arts. Neither of us could have been considered "hippies." She was not a "groupie" I took advantage of and discarded. My son did not suffer from lack of attention, he did not have to fend for himself, and he did not grow up in the streets. The family he grew up in was stable, and he grew up with four siblings. You, GfS, are dealing in shallow stereotypes. I gathered from your posts, that you had a religious upbringing, and since, have turned bitter at that too. I did not have a particularly religious upbringing. As a child, I was strongly interested in science, astronomy and cosmology in particular, and I found my "spiritualism" in the rigors of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein—in recent years, Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku. My family did go to church occasionally, particularly on religious holidays, but not always the same church. My mother read a lot in Eastern religion and philosophy. Barbara, my wife, did have a religious upbringing, and she goes to church regularly. I usually go with her. The church we go to is the one I mentioned that adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome" I quoted above: Central Lutheran Church. If you want to know about the general thrust of the church and some of the reasons I support it, read their website. I find the pastors there very bright and very open to discussion of things spiritual and philosophical, and they are not dogmatic at all. I enjoy discussions with them, I have gone so far as to serve for six years on the church council. Without writing out my "Credo," fundamentalists would probably consider me an "atheist," more liberal religious folks might consider me an "agnostic," because I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God. I'm not sure that I believe in a "God" at all. Although religious institutions have been responsible for much of the world's misery and tyranny, there is a level of religious thinking that is beneficial, if not essential, to leading a good life as a human being. I particularly recommend Matthew 25:35-40 And from Judaism: If I am not for myself, who am I?Also In the world to come, they will not ask me, "Why were you not Moses?" They will ask me "Why were you not Zusya?"Me? "Bitter," GfS? Might that not be what psychologists call "projection?" Suggestion: Let your son know, that you're sorry, for not being there, when he needed you, and how truly important he is to you, and ask him to open up to you. Give him a hug, and hold onto him/each other, as if for dear life. Let him cry on your shoulder. There may be a lot more that he'd like to say to you...probably how much he wanted you..if you'd open up in that way. Pull out the guitar, sing him a song..let him know HE was more important to you, than YOU were to being about YOU. See what happens. That's very dramatic, GfS, and I wonder if that might not be a matter of projection on your part as well. Are you yearning for some kind of resolution yourself? Once again, you are dealing with stereotypes and making simplistic assumptions. Understanding, coming as a result of several long frank and open chats shortly after we first met, resolved any questions or any necessity for forgiveness. As I say, he understood our situation and did not see that there was anything to forgive. My son grew up bearing the surname of another man. He mentioned quietly to Barbara recently that he wanted to have his surname legally changed to mine—whom he regards as his real father in all respects. I would be more than pleased if he does. GfS, there is no bitterness or recriminations between my son and me. His mother explained things very clearly to him before he met me, and I did the same when we did meet. He understands, and if there is anything to forgive, it was forgiven long since. And Don, this isn't about imagining winning anything, in a blog. Its about the love between those who we love, and love expressed, to each other.. Must we have heartbreaks, BEFORE we fall to our knees? Again, GfS, you're dealing in your own fantasies. You and Little Hawk seem to be the ones who are doing all that talk about "winning." And who said anything about "heartbreaks?" None in my corner of the world, thank you. Physician, heal thyself! Don Firth P. S. No, GfS, I take it back! You didn't get your education as a counselor from watching Dr. Phil. You got it from watching soap operas! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 04:17 PM I don't even have a problem with gay marriage, or whatever they want to do. I just think it's another nail in the coffin for organized religion, which doesn't bother me either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 04:06 PM Don....Calm down my friend, I have always been aware of the agenda of some homosexuals. By normalisation, I mean the attempt by homosexual "rights" activists to present homosexuality as just another lifestyle, no different from "a man, a woman and a couple of kids"....they can adopt the kids and play happy families just like the rest of us. Unfortunately they always avert their eyes(and deflect our eyes), from the thing I mentioned earlier......the big fat elephant standing right in the middle of the room that nobody sees....the link between homosexuality and AIDS/HIV. At present, this lifestyle is destructive and dangerous, and to present bit to the public as safe behaviour and "normal", a haven in which to bring up children, is idiocy. That is one of the reasons why I am against homosexual marriage...there are others, like trampling on the beliefs of the majority to accomodate a minority who are more strident. Lesbian relationships seem safe and long lasting in general, and I see no reason why they could not be good parents, but as long as the health issues remain I will be personally against homosexual, as opposed to lesbian, "marriage" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 02:41 PM ""Rig is right Don, the agenda is "normalisation" not "rights"."" Same old crap Ake! What YOU disagree with is abnormal. What YOU agree with is normal. Demonise them with an adjective which implies deviance, and you can rationalise away your bigotted viewpoint, notwithstanding the fact that what they deviate from is YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS RIGHT. There are any number of ways to live ones life, and YOU haven't earned the right to make those choices for anyone but yourself, NOT EVEN YOUR CHILDREN. Do you begin to get it NOW? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,hg Date: 04 May 09 - 01:56 PM Oh yeah, GFS, the all purpose human being.... To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest' In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 01:54 PM Great! As soon as he/she refuses, he'll be named in the suit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 04 May 09 - 01:41 PM Thought I would add a note since the Methodist Church was mentioned. I read in the paper over the weekend that the Methodist General Conference issued a statement that no same sex marriages were to be performed in a Methodist Church of by a Methodist minister. Any minister who does perform such a ceremony will be de-frocked (not the actual term but I don't remember what the actual term is and I think this gets the point accross). This includes not only loss of a job but also of retirement benefits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 01:29 PM Rig is right Don, the agenda is "normalisation" not "rights". "Rights" are simply the "device de jour" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 04 May 09 - 09:08 AM "Since they are campaigning for the legal right to civil marriage, what the hell has any church got to do with it....The various churches can currently turn away adherents of other faiths, so why would they have a problem with refusing gay couples....This fight is about CIVIL LAW, and the right to be treated equably under THAT law." Of course this fight is about Civil Law. And so were the lunch counter sit-ins in the 1960's. The courts decided that somebody running a lunch counter couldn't discriminate in favor of one customer over another. Why would it be different with churches. Once gay marriage is legalized across the nation--as I'm sure it will be--then if a church agrees to marry a straight couple, it would not be able to deny marriage to a gay couple. If you don't think there are people out there that will put this to a test, I don't know where you've been for the last 50 years. Once a church denies marriage to a gay couple, the ACLU will be all over it. The first thing they will attempt to do is to have that church's tax-exempt status revoked. They will go on from there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 May 09 - 07:16 AM """Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!" Okay, say the first gay couple goes to a Methodist Church to get married, and the folks there, worried about their tax-exempt status agree to go though with it. That, of course, sets a precedent, and a second couple goes to a Pentecostal Church. "" Since they are campaigning for the legal right to civil marriage, what the hell has any church got to do with it. The various churches can currently turn away adherents of other faiths, so why would they have a problem with refusing gay couples. This fight is about CIVIL LAW, and the right to be treated equably under THAT law. Little Hawk, I'll do a deal with you. You follow YOUR precepts about judgement, and I'll stick to mine as follows:- If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and spends most of its time in the pond with the ducks, I will judge it to be a F**kin' DUCK, and I will call it that. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 03:12 AM Thank you for the flowers, really. Just one thing before I go to nod-land... Psychologists differ from psychiatrists, in the fact that the latter, can prescribe drugs for symptomatic relief, so the pain goes away, but not the illness, whether it be physical, or 'otherwise'. You know, prescription drugs, the ones who advertise primarily during ALL the news shows, supported by the pharmaceutical companies, like the news media, owned by huge corporations, whose sponsorship of our militaries, secure 'our best interests' for the corporations, who bring you the news, about the military's, progress, for the large corporations, who buy the time to keep you 'updated', and making up new illnesses, so the pharmaceutical corporations, along with the, mass media corporations, keep you informed of what new illnesses are spreading, like A.D.D(formerly known as boredom....symptoms of daydreaming), Restless leg syndrome,(formerly anxious to do something else), P.A.D.(formerly known as legs or arms falling asleep), and a host of different names for acid indigestion, from eating shitty food, who, by the way, are sold by huge corporations, who also advertise on worthless shows, who of course, have their products listed as 'safe' by the FDA, who, of course is bought off, and paid for results, by the huge corporations, doing all the other stuff, listed above, who are also bought off by the same folks, who fund the studies, that say homosexuality is genetic...because, if people turned off their fucking T.V.'s and spent more quality time with their families, loving them, instead of 'learning' of new things to buy, to entertain their particular form of A.D.D.(formerly known as boredom), and think of new things to want, families might have a popcorn fart's chance of getting to know how each other THINK AND INTERACT, instead of how they stare....and daydream.....Duhhh.. God Bless You All, (except for Little Hawk, who only gets his blessings from Chongo, since his T.V. went on the blink!) Warmest Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 04 May 09 - 02:10 AM Funny how, after weeks of crap we get two beautiful posts like the two immediately above this. I've always appreciated little Hawk throughout the years I've been here (most people do regardless of Don's bitterness), but if GFS were to be become a member I am sure this forum would be a much more interesting and Iwould venture to say...a much better place...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 09 - 01:48 AM GfS - "Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets." Yeah. Well, it was a confusing time. All the old ideas were falling and the young people were grasping for new ones...and trying to be "cool" at the same time. I took a good look at the whole thing of raising children, doing the nuclear family thing, building the "nest", and decided that: 1. I'd be no good at it. 2. I didn't want to do it. 3. I wasn't going to do it. And I held to that. I have produced no progeny nor have I ever married, but I've certainly been in love a few times. I don't know about Don, but I got brought up by atheistic parents. We NEVER went to church unless it was somebody else's wedding or something like that. Kind of handy, because it left me free to investigate any and all religions without necessarily being tied to any one of them. And I did so. A lot of good stuff there behind all the outward structures and rules and hierarchical stuff which I can do without. **** As for homosexuality, I had no significant encounters with that at all as a young person, but I have known a few gay people here and there amongst various friends and associates in my 30's and since. I can't say for sure, but I have the impression that their romantic/emotional/sexual lives are even more complex on average than with heterosexuals. (well, in the case of the men anyway...the lesbians' lives seem a lot more stable to me) The gay men I've known (a handful of them) have all been extremely articulate, wonderful talkers!, witty, and usually involved in the arts in some way. They were all highly intelligent people, but with damnably complicated personal lives from what I've seen. Those, of course, are mere generalities I'm stating...and someone here may object to that. Okay. All I can say is, that's what I've observed amongst a few specific people I've known. I have no idea if it is any kind of rule of averages, it's just what I've personally observed, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 May 09 - 12:06 AM Don: .."I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything..." Maybe that's been your, and your son's problem. It's all been about YOU. Perhaps, recognizing that, imagine how he felt, excluded, while the little engine in him, kept longing for a loving father's attention, and approval..... A boy gets his masculinity from his father, not his mother. Men, can't face the admission of failure, much like women can't own up to, 'It's my fault, I was wrong.' Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets. I gathered from your posts, that you had a religious upbringing, and since, have turned bitter at that too. Suggestion: Let your son know, that you're sorry, for not being there, when he needed you, and how truly important he is to you, and ask him to open up to you. Give him a hug, and hold onto him/each other, as if for dear life. Let him cry on your shoulder. There may be a lot more that he'd like to say to you...probably how much he wanted you..if you'd open up in that way. Pull out the guitar, sing him a song..let him know HE was more important to you, than YOU were to being about YOU. See what happens. And Don, this isn't about imagining winning anything, in a blog. Its about the love between those who we love, and love expressed, to each other.. Must we have heartbreaks, BEFORE we fall to our knees? Truly Don, The Best, for both of you, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 03 May 09 - 11:36 PM "Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!" Okay, say the first gay couple goes to a Methodist Church to get married, and the folks there, worried about their tax-exempt status agree to go though with it. That, of course, sets a precedent, and a second couple goes to a Pentecostal Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 May 09 - 10:54 PM Anita Bryant claimed that God had his hand on her. I know that's untrue, because if God had His hand on her, it would have been over her fat, flappin' mouth. Great concert this afternoon. Not me, but a young classical singer doing her senior recital. Beautiful! I think she has a great future (she already sings in the Seattle Opera chorus, and she's on her way up). Actually, I'll let you in on a secret (don't tell Ake). Weasels are my friends. I am to them as the Wicked Witch of the West is to the Flying Monkeys. So--BEWARE!! Don Firth (Peal of insane laughter!!!) P. S. Gone again. Masterpiece (PBS) is starting Dickens' "The Old Curiousity Shop" tonight. Being a curious fellow, I thought I'd give it a look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 03 May 09 - 10:26 PM Oh, Don? With all those loopy ideas you just expressed there about the supposed pitfalls of gay marriage, the thought occurs to me that you and Anita Bryant would have made the perfect couple! Now there would be a "marriage made in heaven" if ever there was one... ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 03 May 09 - 10:21 PM Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL! Well, maybe if they were really gluttons for attention, I guess...or in the mood for a fight. Yeah...there are people who will do crazy things like that now and then to satisfy some emtional need. ;-) **** Don! You offend me. I have done several useful things today! Now, having done them, I feel like doing some trivial and completely useless stuff on Mudcat (like posting on this blowhard thread here) and you put me down for it!!! You, sir, are heartless. I hope you get attacked by outraged weasels. *** akenaton - You did the right thing to apologize to the world's weasels. Good man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 May 09 - 01:57 PM Oh! By the way: 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong:" 1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 2) Gay marriage will encourage people to become gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing (it already has a license) and all it needs to do is sign the marriage contract. 4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be compromised. 6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of the one true religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 03 May 09 - 01:47 PM Important? Well, yes. Injustice, denial of civil rights, and other forms of oppression against minorities are indeed matters of considerable importance, not just to me, but to vast numbers of fair-minded people. And, of course, I do have a tendency to get involved in such matters (see Niemoller quote). Someone has to. As to your credentials, GfS, be as short or as detailed as you want. Truth to tell, frankly, you've said all that I really need to know about your counseling skills. I don't care if you sat at Jung and Adler's knees and taught B. F. Skinner everything he knows. No matter how much training and education you may have had, what is significant is the fact that you are willing to brush recent scientific findings aside in order to maintain your own prejudices. I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything. If I persist in countering your arguments, it's not with any idea of changing your mind, because it is obviously cast in concrete. And, in fact, I have said pretty much all I really wanted to say on this subject, and I have provided links to articles providing evidence and further information to back up what I've said, which, of course, you attempt to blow off as "Gay Lobby" propaganda. But—if people will check it for themselves, they can make up their own minds rather than simply accepting what either of us say on the matter. Sorry, but I do not have much more time to waste on the futile task of attempting to educate the ineducable. I have a busy afternoon in the 3D world. Concert. In the meantime: Little Hawk, do something useful. Go walk your dog. And Ake, there's a cute little ewe out there batting her eyes at you. But if you prefer weasels, well, each to his own taste. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 03 May 09 - 12:00 PM Still, those of us who remember the "Lunch Counter" sit downs in the 1960's and the law suits that resulted from them, are convinced that once gay marriage is legal, some same-sex couple will go to a Pentacostal Church and demand to be married. When the pastor refuses, the fight will be on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 03 May 09 - 06:25 AM Don....again you misrepresent what I write. I didn't say you were "fucking a weasel", but that you were "a fucking weasel"......is this misrepresentation to go on throughout the life of this thread? However, I feel that I have overstepped the mark and that an abject apology is deserved. Since my ill considered words were broadcast on the internet, my Mudcat message box has been innundated with posts from highly offended weasels all over the UK and even further afield, apparently my stupid comment has caused real pain and suffering amongst the weasel population. It has variously been described as "bigotry against weasels"...."weaselphobia"..."lowering the status of weasels in society...etc. There have been numerous examples of victimisation....."even the rabbits are sniggering behind their whiskers", and one heartrending message from a weasel who had been living a solitary life under the roots of an old tree and is now contemplating suicide , he writes...."I used to live a life of peace and tranquility, loved by all save a few vermin further down the food chain, now I am awakened every morning by a vindictive flock of small birds, who perch on the branches of my tree and chirrup unceasingly....Don Firth!!...Don Firth!!....Don Firth!!" So taking all into account, I would ask Joe to strike my cruel jibe from the record.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 11:23 PM Sweet dreams. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 11:22 PM Obviously you two are a match made in heaven. I'm going to get a good night's sleep. TTFN. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 10:31 PM Yoho, Yes, I know. The issue of homosexuality, is not really focused on, by those who are personally not affected by it, usually only by those who it has personally touched. I'm being polite, giving an out, Don. Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 10:17 PM Yes, I see it's important to him. (shrug) I can't help that, but it sure as hell isn't important to me. To me, it's like arguing about which wallpaper shall we use in the municipal building hallway? The one with the little white flowers or the one with the little blue birds? (zzzzzzzzzz...falling asleep while I try to decide...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 10:06 PM Yes, Little Hawk, (yoho), that is true to a large degree, but Don has a greater issue, to him, that he cannot let go of. It is mighty important to him, no matter how much we agree on 'rights', that he argues beyond that point. There is something else he wants, especially from yourself, and me. He can, in his mind, dismiss Akenaton, at least at this time, who paints the broader social issue, but there is something really important to him, that he gets validation and perhaps vindication, that it is genetic based. Take a wild guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 09:55 PM I think there are a great number of psychological factors which can cause a person to become either gay...or bisexual. I think it's so bloody obvious that there are, that I don't even know why I would have to say it! ;-) Now then, are there some genetic factors that can come into play too in some cases? Yeah, maybe. Quite possibly. So? I seriously doubt that it's ALL of one and NONE of the other in every single case. Seems unlikely to me. And I don't think there's even any point arguing about it. It doesn't matter. It's a tiny side-issue of staggeringly little real importance, in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 09:37 PM Don, Glad you asked. Given what information I've gotten, I cannot help but come, to see some interesting observations, based on my knowledge and experience. Though, I admit, I usually wait for just a little bit more than I have, sometimes we go by an educated 'hunch', then pursue further insights to help the situation, that is, if the client wishes to. Do you want the short version?....or more detailed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 09:36 PM My goodness...all these reams of weighty facts and info! If only I had the time for it. ;-) Don, I don't recommend fucking weasels. It's a big letdown. You haven't missed much, I assure you. At least, that's what this guy from way north of Wawa told me...it gets lonely on the traplines! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 08:56 PM No shit, Sherlock. You've mentioned a couple of times that you're a counsellor, but beyond that, no substantiation. Do you have a degree in psychology, and if so, from what institution? Or did you just watch Dr. Phil a lot? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 07:09 PM " "I'm not all that sure that you do have more information, GfS, and most certainly not more compassion." Knock that shit off, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 07:01 PM I'm not all that sure that you do have more information, GfS, and most certainly not more compassion. Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether. Another characteristic of gays or lesbians who have been "cured" by one method or another are frequent bouts of depression and anxiety. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University claimed to have developed a "cure" for homosexuality through therapy he had devised, and published a study on his results. He called it "reparation therapy" and claimed that it worked successfully, thereby proving that gender orientation is not "hard wired." However, a follow-up study by John Bancroft of the Kinsey Institute a few years later found that Only six of the 202 "gay" men and lesbians who had been through counseling reported changing their sexual preference to heterosexuality. According to the interviews, 178 failed to change their orientation and 18 reported adopting celibacy or becoming conflicted about sex.Other methods of "treating" homosexuality involved so-called "aversion therapy." These treatments involved tactics such as pairing homosexual imagery with electric shocks to induce feelings of revulsion. So much for the claimed "cures." The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it. There is also the discovery—in identical twins, who should be genetically identical—that occasionally one will be heterosexual and the other will be homosexual. Rather than supporting the idea that gender orientation is a matter of choice, this unexpected phenomenon has been traced to imbalances in the infusion of hormones in utero during a crucial stage in the development of the fetuses. So—no matter how you slice it, there is every reason (supported by physical evidence) to believe that gender orientation is "hard-wired" one way or another, and not a matter of choice. Also there is the phenomenon of very young children behaving like, even wanting to dress like, the other gender. These children almost invariable become homosexual when they sexually mature. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 06:46 PM Must be 'genetic'..you know, like one who has blond parents, but the kids, or one of them came out brunette...what's the matter with that brat?...didn't anyone tell her that she must be obedient to her genes?? I remember, that I posted a post, with the actual numbers, (and I don't feel like scrolling through them), about how the nearest thing to finding a gene that makes one a homosexual, was something like 1 in .02%, of all homosexuals, but 98% of homosexuals claim they have it, and that's why they are hopelessly, (and conveniently so) bound to be homosexuals...and it was never proved, conclusively that the gene they think might have been linked, actually was anything of the sort at all. Believe me, if it was, it surely would have caught my eye, or anyone's eye, who deals in the behavioral sciences. Actually, proving there is or isn't a gene, doesn't do anything, especially when it has no bearing, on 'overtaking' one's will to survive, or reproduce...but that is another, topic for a less biased, group....all this stuff about disproving or proving, anything, is just the foundation, they use to put themselves, in a class, likened unto 'race' or 'ethnicity'..give me a break!..Why don't they just come out and tell them the truth, and deal with it from there?? I've said, repeatedly now, but too many deaf ears, because they only listen to the drumbeat, of the 'excuse parade' that rights should be granted(as if rights need to granted, at all, we're born with them), based on at least, being a citizen.....not because of behavioral exceptions, or group preferences. It is, and always will be an issue, for homosexuals, to be 'accepted' by an 'authority figure'...ummm...such as to replace a resentment they've foster toward their fathers(for guys), and resentment of the mother figure, and resenting their femininity, for women. Sometimes either side, has a frustration with dealing with the opposite sex, and rather that actually finding out 'why?', to possibly correct it, it becomes easier, just to blame it on someone else, and claim to have a predisposed genetic disposition, noting that it couldn't possibly be a need to feel innocent, and victimized. That way they avoid, "Hmm, maybe its me, maybe I need to know something, about the opposite sex, and myself. Hmm, If that's true, maybe, just maybe, I've had this focus on some unforgiveness toward, my parent for far too long, and maybe, just maybe, while I was hostile, fermenting in this emotional unhappiness, perhaps, certain things, that SHOULD have been maturing, have been put on hold." Oh well...there is so much more that I could go on about this topic, things that are true, and effective,...I'll wait to see the 'over saturation' point of understanding, before I go any more.. The reason I even went into this, is because refuting something, is not the same as shedding light, as to WHY a refutation is valid. To some, of very little understanding, of the topic, and therefore a closed mind, to any thing else, guarded by an 'opinion', they can exercise, their lazy, apathetic, insensitivities, and remain blissfully ignorant. Those people are usually the name callers, and accusers of others being 'bigots', 'homophobes', and such. Could it be, that someone you call that, actually has more information, and compassion, and understanding, than you even CARE about learning?? A novel thought, eh? Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 05:09 PM Pardon me. Wrong analogy. "Lowers the drawbridge." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 09 - 03:22 PM "Don... the information you printed does not refute what I have been saying! Aids was first diagnosed among the homosexual communities in North America, Africa, India, Europe(France, UK, Germany....The list goes on." WRONG, Ake. HIV/AIDS was first diagnosed among African apes. And like the swine flu and bird flu, the virus jumped to humans, as many viruses do. Once a human had it, it could move from human to human by any of several ways, including heterosexual intercourse and blood transfusions. And acquired immune deficiency diseases (AIDS) of You have a history of dismissing any web site or other source of information if it disagrees with your prejudices, no matter what its credentials, as "part of the 'Gay Lobby.'" Two profiles of AVERT.ORG, taken from other independent web sites: AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity based in the UK, with the aim of AVERTing HIV and AIDS worldwide. AVERT provides AIDS & HIV information, including information about HIV/AIDS infection, HIV testing, prevention, global and African information, AIDS treatment, statistics and personal stories. AVERT has a number of overseas projects, helping with the problem of HIV/AIDS in countries where there is a particularly high rate of infection, such as South Africa, or where there is a rapidly increasing rate of infection such as in India.By the way, as long as we are engaging in pleasant banter, let me just mention that I have never fucked a weasel in my life! Since you seem to be so fascinated by sexual relations with livestock and other animals, that's your department. I have a mental picture of flocks of sheep stampeding in panic as you race around the moors after them with a tilt in your kilt. #### And frankly, GfS, on the matter of whether or not you are a bigot being your call, it looks to me like you just called it. Your denial of established science in order to support your position pretty well settles that matter. Merriam-Webster. bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. And particularly when those views are either challenged, or proven to be false, or are not universally applicable or acceptable. Is "bigot" always an ad hominem attack in an effort to refute an argument? Not necessarily. "Bigot" can be a valid description of a person. There are distinct, recognizable characteristics of bigotry. It is no more an ad hominem attack than describing someone as liberal, conservative, or ignorant (in its true meaning of "unknowing"). A major characteristic of bigotry is the rejection or denial of clearly available and independently verifiable proof. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 02 May 09 - 12:16 PM "nobody's interested if it dispels whatever bullcrap they've gotten comfortable with" That, sad to say, is the story of the human race in a nutshell. They defend their most familiar assumptions, and they resist unfamiliar propositions or viewpoints. Dogs are like that too...they insist on sticking to the normal routines. ;-) Matter of fact, it's probably typical of all lifeforms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 May 09 - 11:06 AM When AIDS first came out, if anyone remembers, we were told, that it originally came from a monkey..anyone remember that?? What they didn't tell you was, those 'monkeys' were wearing white lab suits, at Fort Kendrick(holding forefinger over lips....'SHHHHH')...and like Forrest Gump... "And that's all there is, to say about tha-yat" (Actually, there is more to say about it, but its a moot point), nobody's interested if it dispels whatever bullcrap they've gotten comfortable with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 May 09 - 08:35 AM The purpose of "Avert.org" the website linked by Don Firth seems to be to provide information on the transmission of AIDS/HIV and to deflect questions on homosexual practice and HIV/AIDS. In their pages, they make almost no comment on the "elephant in the room" which is homosexuality and the link to AIDS, while devoteing pages to oft repeated advice on blood products, drug users and burgeoning heterosexual transmission. The website appears to be run primarily as a PR machine for the "Gay Lobby" I would advise you all to spend some time going through the pages and make up your own mind about the content. The statistics which they provide for Aids infection are flawed, in that although they admit homosexuals are the largest group, they fail to say that in real percentage terms, the difference is massive even allowing for the chance of a much greater volume of transmission among a vastly greater heterosexual population There are plenty of good independent statistics available elsewhere on the web. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 May 09 - 03:29 AM Don... the information you printed does not refute what I have been saying! Aids was first diagnosed among the homosexual communities in North America, Africa, India, Europe(France, UK, Germany....The list goes on. Transmission of the disease is quite different, it can be transmitted by intravenous injection, heterosexual intercourse etc and once it crosses over into mainstream heterosexual society it can take off. The important thing is in which sector of society Aids is first diagnosed, and this is in every country, among homosexuals.....now, you are not going to tell me that is just an unlucky coincidence? In percentage terms,homosexuals remain by far the largest sub group living with AIDS. I never at any time said "Aids was invented by homosexuals" but what I will say is that you are a fucking weasel! |
