 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM ""I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals."" WOW! KB in Iowa said:- ""And another thing ake. When you do quote me correctly you take my very small sample of a very small sample and turn it into a blanket "the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy..." The two papers I read represent a small population base and, as I have said, I check very infrequently to see if there is an announcement of the marriage or engagement of a same-sex couple. To think that this is somehow representative of the entire homosexual community is absurd."" I too picked up on that and my comment was as follows:- ""Now that is what I call jumping to conclusions. ONE man reports that HE hasn't seen any reports in HIS LOCAL PAPER, and this is extrapolated by our resident everythingophobe to prove HIS manic contentions about a worldwide group of people who fail to squeeze themselves into the pigeonhole he has so generously provided. That is a leap deserving of at least an Olympic Gold Medal, maybe even a Nobel prize for Lunacy. BRAVO!! I don't think you'll EVER top that example of sheer illogical lack of reasoning. Don"" Come on Ake. You are very selective in what you choose to quote, but ask for accurate response from others. So take your own advice, QUOTE, DON'T PARAPHRASE, especially since you are pretty crap at maintaining the meaning when you do paraphrase. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM And it was just starting to get fun... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy What other areas, ake? Have you seen some data showing what happens when same-sex marriage becomes a legal option? Who gathered the data and by what method? I'm not giving you sh*t here but I am hoping that if you are going to make a statement like that ("results from other areas") there is data to back it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:37 PM Well I don't mind a bit of argy/bargy, over the finer points of the English language....as she is wrote......But Don is starting to lather up again, so a tea break seems in order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM so a tea break seems in order. I was thinking more along the lines of a beer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM As I understand it, very soon after same-sex marriage became legal in California (prior to Proposition 8), some 18,000 same-sex couples got married. It would appear, Ake, that your "view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in 'marriage' or monogamy" has about as much solid foundation as Wile E. Coyote standing about on thin air about twenty feet out from the canyon's rim. Don't look down, buddy! Hitting reality that hard can really smart!! CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2 Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM Shi gan! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM Cha ryuht! Seijak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Jeri Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:09 PM What language? The first thing I thought when you wrote 'Cha ryuht!' was 'Suing lo, sueyt', but you were probably actually saying something intelligent. (Don't destroy the myth.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM Korean. Good one on the "'Suing lo, sueyt Cha ryuht!'" LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Emma B Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM Time to pay attention Jeri :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:27 PM i can't say that i speak any other lanugage but english, but even to me the last 4 posts have made more sense. hey where's my beer? well ok lemonade please. i am a very cheap date!! PMSL what i really want to know is why does AKE, seem to respond more to some than others? i was starting to learn those "quotes" off by heart. thankyou for not carrying on with that. like i have said before i may not be the most eloquent among us, but i have the right to be answered. enjoy the rest everyone battle commences at sunrise!! cheers!! take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM Jade, Not to worry. Indeed you deserve to have your posts answered. But sometimes people just don't HAVE the answers. I'm still wondering why anyone else's sexuality should be another person's business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM "I'm still wondering why anyone else's sexuality should be another person's business." And that, Peace, is the crux of the whole matter. Quentin Crisp, the famous English eccentric, writer, raconteur, and homosexual (subject of the movie "The Naked Civil Servant" starring John Hurt) was on an interview show a little over a decade ago, and the interviewer noted that his appearance was quite androgynous. His voice was light and well-modulated, his hair was blue and fairly long, and from his appearance and the way he dressed, it was next to impossible to be certain if he was a man or a woman. The interviewer (might have been Charlie Rose, but I can't recall) noted this and asked him if people ever asked him, and if so, how did he respond? "It happens quite often," Crisp said. "My standard answer to this question is, 'Does it matter? What did you have in mind?'" Touché!! Exactly the point! Quentin Crisp is also said to remarked on more than one occasion, "I am one of the stately homos of England!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM Just one of many, from a homosexual website to boot! why so few gay marriages? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM ake, did you read the article you linked to? First of all it is three years old. Also, the numbers it gives came from an anti same-sex marriage group and the article questions if the numbers are correct. It goes on to give several possible reasons for the low numbers if they are correct. I like this quote from the article: "Low marriage rates among gays make it even harder to see how this tiny fraction of the population will cause any practical harm to marriage as an institution ." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:42 PM I'm gettin' all fucked up here. Which round is this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:45 PM Always the numbers game, Ake? First of all, it is as KB noted. The article is prior to the same-sex marriage movement getting well under way, and it is obviously biased. What it all boils down to is that, no matter how many or how few gay couples want to marry, it should be among their CIVIL RIGHTS (equal protection under the law) to have the same rights and privileges as hetero couples—the same protections that other committed couples have. The same rights of ownership, the same tax privileges, the same inheritance laws, and the same hospital visitation rights (as a spouse) in case of illness. And the same right to have their union religiously sanctified in a church that is willing to marry them (and there are many such churches, as I have noted several times above), and have that union recognized under the law. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:06 PM i noticed this in that article too "Of course, if you believe that a "change in the definition of marriage" to include same-sex couples is itself harmful to marriage then marriage will be worse off even if no gay couple actually gets married—but you don't need studies to make this argument. To me, this definitional fear has always seemed far too abstract to count for much." it seems you have shot yourself in the foot what? thankyou bruce, i thought the whole point of a debate like this was to present your' arguements and reasons whilst being honest. if someone asks you to imagine yourself in a situation, then if you cannot or will not then i would expect someone to admit it. of course that is if someone is capable of such things that grown ups do. the lack of empathy for someone else is something i have been told to be wary of in a person, there was that thread a while ago to do with sociopaths and pycologically disturbed people. that displayed the same symptoms. back on point, if that is the best you can do for evidence then you are scraping the barrel my freind. take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:33 PM Akenaton, I respectfully ask; please try to think back and remember the occasion when you decided to become heterosexual. How old where you? Had you heard about gay people yet? If not, when you did hear about gay people, did you have to rethink for a moment? Or, was it never an issue? Thanks very much for considering this question. TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:30 AM The purpose of posting the link above was to show that homosexuals are aware of the low rates of homosexual "marriage". The web site makes many observations that I disagree with, including various reasons for the low rates....all of course simply opinions just like mine. Shooting myself in the foot?....certainly not, the link(there are many others) bears out what I have been saying, that the majority of homosexuals have no interest in "marriage" Basically this is a political issue, driven by the current "liberal agenda" and homosexual activists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 AM Tia....17th feb 1955 9:45am(just after breakfast)...a veritable bolt from the blue! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:09 AM ""like i have said before i may not be the most eloquent among us, but i have the right to be answered."" It's nowt to do with you, or with your communicative abilities, Jade. Some people simply ignore those to whose questions they have NO valid arguments. I, like you, tend to get snide, sarcastic, brush-off comments from them, and when that happens, I know that I've either hit a nerve, or posted something they can't logically refute. Don (not the least lathered up) T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:21 AM ""Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures. Ake."" NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT! IN EITHER DIRECTION. Any small effect there might be would, on the face of it, tend to militate against promiscuity. OK, now tell us again. What is YOUR reason for wanting it banned? Don T. So, no NEGATIVE effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:24 AM ""Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures. Ake."" NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT! IN EITHER DIRECTION. Any small effect there might be would, on the face of it, tend to militate against promiscuity. So, no NEGATIVE effect. OK, now tell us again. What is YOUR reason for wanting it banned? Don T. P.S. It got scrambled for some reason, so here's how it should read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:53 AM cheers don, i was beginning to wonder whether i made sense to myself but no one else!! lol i do that quite alot. i am wondering AKE, if you want to put a time limit or a maximum on sexual partners for sraight couples to allow them to get married. should athiests be allowed to get wed? what about straight folks who have been together for more thasn say 5 years, if they don't get wed before that, they cannot? i am confused as to your' logic, first the reasons were becuase of HIV/AIDS, and now it is the fact that there is a low number who get married when they are allowed. PLEASE just admit that you don't like the idea of two people of the same sex, finding love and happiness in each other and stop with the pretence that you actually have valid reasons. it would be so much easier to respect you if you just admitted that is is something you cannot get over, rather thn trying to justify yourself. personally, if someone is stupid enough not to use protection then they ultamatly canot then bitch when something happens to them, harsh but true i am afraid. i am not without compassion but in the end, ones sexual health is ones own responsability. APART FROM THE OBVIOUS SITUATION!!! take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:19 AM Well Don, If you say if you say no significant effect either way, I will accept that....I never thought homosexual "marriage" would have a negative effect on homosexual promiscuity(can the current figures GET anymore negative?) But now you must go and tell the rest of the "team", that homosexual "marriage" has no significant positive effect on homosexual promiscuity, as they have been wittering on about the positive effects for months, this news should come as something of a shock! Jeddy my failure to respond to you is not meant as any kind of rejection or insult, I just have no great stomach for shooting fish in a barrel. My friend Ebbie once warned me that going against the grain on Mudcat was "Hard...Hard I tell you!"......to which I responded that fending off the insults was easy. Trying to reason with morons was Hard!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:18 AM Morons, ake? That's kind of harsh. Hi jeddy. I know you are here and have enjoyed your contributions (I know you weren't talking about me but still). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:44 AM hello KB thankyou for your' welcome it is nice to know i am not talking to myself!! although i do it loads but usually very mundane stuff. thankyou to all those who have welcomed me!!! ake, why would you be shooting into a barrel by anwering my questions? i appreciate that you are not insulting me with silence and i understand is very hard to stand against the tide. i applaud that you have the courage to keep your' point of view. i do not understand it and like i have said before i wish i could understand where you are coming from and why. i think this is something we will never agree on, but it would be nice if you were seen to make an effort to see the other side. like i said some honesty as to why this affects you so much that you take such a hard line on this, would make me able to at least stop the questions and badgering for answers. on a different note my other halfs family is coming this weekend so wish me luck for the late night and very early morning!!! take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:30 PM "Morons." Very good, Ake! Let me ask you this: if people who don't agree with you are all morons, then why do you waste your precious time? You, sir, have managed to achieve and entirely new low! Shame on me! Shame on all of us for wasting our time trying to argue with you! Bigotry doesn't need reasons. It just IS. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM KB and Don....Some of my best friends here do not agree with me, but never stoop to replacing reason with invective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM "Shame on me! Shame on all of us for wasting our time trying to argue with you! Bigotry doesn't need reasons. It just IS" Typically, another verse of "We are right.... you are wrong" from Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:08 PM ""Well Don, If you say if you say no significant effect either way, I will accept that....I never thought homosexual "marriage" would have a negative effect on homosexual promiscuity(can the current figures GET anymore negative?)"" And there you go again Ake. I didn't say that! YOU DID!! My response was to the point that if there were no SIGNIFICANT effects, there could be no justification for YOUR health red herring. So what is your REAL reason for objecting? ""ake, why would you be shooting into a barrel by anwering my questions? i appreciate that you are not insulting me with silence and i understand is very hard to stand against the tide. i applaud that you have the courage to keep your' point of view. i do not understand it and like i have said before i wish i could understand where you are coming from and why."" It's really very simple Jade. Having been taken to task for insulting you by ignoring your presence, our ill mannered friend has changed tack, and is now insulting you by:- 1). A strong implication that you are his mental inferior, and that it would therefore be unsporting of him to engage you in reasoned argument, and 2). Lumping you in with those of us he refers to as morons. What it really means is that we ask questions which he cannot answer without exposing his REAL motives, and so he resorts to the kind of ad hominem attack, and vituperation, which he commonly attributes to us half witted liberals. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM ""KB and Don....Some of my best friends here do not agree with me, but never stoop to replacing reason with invective."" You have friends here? Try to learn from their example then, and dispense with words like moron. You are well aware that most here are at least as well educated as yourself, and likewise intelligent. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM "Some of my best friends here do not agree with me, but never stoop to replacing reason with invective." I believe you missed something there, Ake: it is YOU who are stooping to invective. "Moron," indeed! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:14 PM I was actually referring to other morons Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:24 PM DON T i know he feels like he doesn't have to explain himself and normally i would agree he shouldn't BUT he has made this seem like apersonal crusade. i don't feel insulted even if i should do, i just feel bewildered as to why he won't be honest and try to see things from anothers point of veiw. i feel that unless we have some truth this is going to go on forever. i can understand that SOME men might find male gay sex as abnormal, BUT did you know that one of the erroganous(?) zones in a man is a half way up his arse? i have no idea why but it is. i thought a naughty sentance coming on, but feel you deserve more than petty insults AKE. i have no problem in admitting my faults and i have done plenty of times in the short while i have been here, why can't you? i really want to respect you and have a feeling that, about any other subject you are a reasonable chap. please prove me right to put my faith in you. if you are homophobic because you just cannot get your' head around it, but have tried to, then that is aplauddable(?) because you have at least tried and been honest. that i can respect, but i cannot until you have at least been honest. please try to imagine how you would feel if we ever met, we like each other untill you find out i am gay, would you shun me or accept it and carry on a really good chat? i would be very interested to find out which??? the same goes for a bloke, who has not have come on to you? would the two reactions be different? if they would then why???????? anyway i am rather mashed and this has taxed my few brain cells that work. goodnight all sweet dreams jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 27 Jun 09 - 10:57 AM Charles Blow, of the NYT, writes in the context of the flapdoodle about the governor who went meandering to Argentina: "...Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Sanford called Clinton's behavior "reprehensible" and said, "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally" to resign. "I come from the business side. ... If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone." Remember that Mr. Sanford? And this kind of hypocrisy isn't confined to the politicians. It permeates the electorate. While conservatives fight to "defend" marriage from gays, they can't keep theirs together. According to the Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, states that went Republican in November accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates in 2006. Conservatives touted abstinence-only education, which was a flop, when real sex education was needed, most desperately in red states. According to 2006 data from the Guttmacher Institute, those red states accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest teenage birthrates. And, a study titled "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" that was conducted by Benjamin Edelman, an assistant professor of business at Harvard Business School and published earlier this year in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that subscriptions to online pornography sites were "more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality" and in states where "more people agree that 'I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.' " They could avoid this hypocrisy by focusing more on what happens in their own bedrooms and avoiding the trap of judging what goes on in everyone else's." Those who promote inequality based on an absorbing interest in other people's sexuality should read the above twice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 27 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM Am I one of the morons Ake? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 27 Jun 09 - 03:39 PM Naw.... you've a little ways to climb yet Tia.....I'm afraid you're still down among the "bottom feeders" :0). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 27 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM TIA, i would say not!!! from what i can remember you talk alot of sense. don't worry, anyone who does answer questions and gives their honest opinion could never be a moron as long as they have tried their best!!! AKE, you really need to be more precise with your' insults as you could end up offending the innocent!! i suspect the moron was me, thts okay i have been called worse. if it makes you feel better to belittle others then i think you need counceling to improve your' self esteem., no one should have to resort to that to make themselves feel better, unless of course you are playing verbal ping pong,in which case you can do alot better than that AKE. take care all jade x x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM Ake, Please steer me to my "bottom feeding" post(s), so I can know what to avoid in the future. No need for a link, just the date and time is okay. Thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jun 09 - 07:42 PM Anybody care to define "bottom feeder?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM Not sure about "bottom feeder", but there's a bottom I nibble on at bit sometimes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM ...a bottom I nibble on a bit sometimes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM I hate it when that happens! You've got a great line, then blow it with a typo. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:22 PM bum nibbles sounds good can i get some delivered??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM Here I am an apparent "bottom feeder", with an empty plate so to speak! Actually, it occurs to me that a bottom feeder is one who puts the nibbles into to a....oh, never mind. Unwanted visual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: jeddy Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:04 PM whoosh |
