BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:16 AM

"By the way Tia, go back and read your post, you were the one who said you were here to "stand up to oppression" "

Yes. I know. I am. And your point is.......?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM

No point.
Someone please have the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:26 AM

Now now girls, don't be getting all catty with one another....remember unity is strength, and we're just coming to the interesting bit!

Remember how this thread was started?....as an opportunist attempt to drum up support for the Democratic presidential candidate, and how those "nasty right wingers" were going to be horrid to the "gays"

A vote for the Dems is a vote against homophobia!

Give me a fuckin' break.... I suppose there are as many right wing homosexuals as there are left wing.

And even God doesn't agree with homosexual marriage!...(that's President Obama, not Little Hawk).....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM

Ake:

With all due respect, that is pure horseshit.

I wrote the title of this thread.

I wrote the first post, saying "IF there is any chance yoou will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed rightwing Ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls. This could have a serious, even life-changing impact on someone you love. Or someone you could learn to."

There was nothing opportunistic about it; it was a protest against what was in fact a heavy right-wing campaign.

Furthermore your natter about liberalism fails to impress because you do not know the definition of the word and apparently are wholly out of touch with the intellectual traditons that inform it.

As for the belief that labeling something makies it so, you seemto have convinced yourself in that very manner about what anyone to whom you apply that label must think, and what character flaws they must have. It is disingenuous projection on your part.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM

ABBA's "Dancing Queen" filled the East Room, as more than 200 prominent gays and lesbians gathered for the first ever celebration of Pride month at the White House. The President and First Lady entered to thunderous applause. President Obama told the group he is committed to equality for their community.

"This struggle continues today, for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and will not put aside issues of basic equality," he said, "We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love."

Many gay and lesbians believe the President has been slow to act on major issues like the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and the Defense of Marriage Act. The President asked the group to focus on what has been accomplished so far.

"I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said, "But I say this: We have made progress. And we will make more."

The President spoke about his recently signed memorandum, guaranteeing benefits to same sex partners of federal workers. While those include benefits like relocation and emergency evacuation - health care, retirement and survivor benefits are left out.

"There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop," Mr. Obama said. Among those, the President said, the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Obama also said he has called on Congress to a domestic partners law, which would guarantee a range of benefits, most notably healthcare, to same sex couples. The President also vowed to pass a hate crimes bill that would include protections for gays and lesbians, and said the bill will be named for Matthew Shepard. The gay University of Wyoming student, whose parents were in the audience today, was tortured and killed near Laramie in 1998. His attackers were not charged with a hate crime. The President also said he is committed to ending the ban on entry to the U.S. based on HIV status.

As to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the President said he believes the policy works against America's national security.

"My administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress," he said. "I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."

Still, the President said government can only do so much. "Even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change, but, as I said before, on the hearts we open," he said.

He ended his speech with a promise to champion their cause in the days to come.

"I want you to know that, in this task, I will not only be your friend; I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 01:02 PM

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage.

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

I believe that is also the stance of the number of black and white (many of them firm Obama supporters) Christians who voted to once again ban gay marriage in California.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation in 2008, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

While opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law, people such as Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign said
"We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage....."

As a heterosexual who is not a Christian, I was married in a civil ceremony and personally agree wholeheartedly with the civil unions that give committed same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples including the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM

Ake's idea of what liberalism is all about more than amply demonstrates that he is either totally clueless in the area of political science or is deliberately and intentionally trying to muddy the waters with irrelevancies. Maybe a liberal (if I may be forgiven for the use of the word) mixture of both.

I harken back to the Black Knight scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." His argument is armless, legless, and totally without merit. Yet, he keeps blithering on. Naught to do but, as Schiller said to Dante, "Look once, pass on, and think no more about him."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM

Amos your copy of a report on 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM doesn't say what event it's describing or atribute the source.

A recent BBC report on the progress for anti discrimination laws against homosexuals in America seems to portray a somewhat less 'spun' situation

"US President Barack Obama has signed a measure extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal government workers.

The move comes amid anger from Mr Obama's gay supporters that he has not done enough to protect the rights of gay Americans.....

...what is being seen as an incremental step forward was not well-received by critics.

"When a president tells you he's going to be different, you believe him," John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist was quoted by AP as saying.

"It's not that he didn't follow through on his promises, he stabbed us in the back."

Mr Obama has indicated his opposition to the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, under which gay servicemen and women are allowed to serve, but only if they do not publicly disclose their sexuality or engage in homosexual acts.

But since entering the White House, Mr Obama has done nothing to overturn the policy, and has declined to intervene in the cases of gay soldiers who have been thrown out of the military for being gay.

Mr Obama's failure to repeal the military ban is not the only issue that has frustrated gay rights campaigners.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DoJ) issued a legal opinion in response to a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Defence of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A justice department spokesperson insisted that the president is opposed to the Defence of Marriage Act, but that until the act is repealed in Congress, the DoJ has a duty to defend the law as it stands.

But the controversial opinion prompted at least three prominent gay donors to the Democratic Party to withdraw from a party fundraiser, which is due to take place on 25 June."

from BBC News / America 17 June 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM

Clinton blew it. When he went into the meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the idea of integrating the Armed Forces on the "gays in the military" issue, he started out by asking "How hard are you going to fight me on this?" Pretty damned hard, it turned out. After a long, dragged-out battle, the best he was able to get was "don't ask, don't tell."

When Harry Truman met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the idea of racially integrating the armed forces, the J. C. of S. had their heels solidly dug in and didn't plan to back down an inch. But Give 'Em Hell Harry, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, simply walked into the meeting, issued an Executive Order, and walked out again. It took about thirty seconds and left the J. C. of S. with their mouths hanging open and mad enough to spit nails, but with a clear picture of what their orders were.

I've always kinda liked Harry Truman.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:37 PM

"Clinton blew it."

I though it was the other way 'round . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM

bruce you are being very rude and i am shocked!!!!

i thought you were a nice guy too   LOL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 PM

"Look once, pass on, and think no more about him."

Thats a joke worthy of the two Ronnies coming from someone who is totally obsessed by the need to "win" this debate.
How many months have you been here Don?....Its certainly taken you quite a while to pass on!

So, after all the bullshit by the gang of four....and thanks to Emma, we finally have an unequivocal statement from the President "that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."(would you care to underline THAT Don?)
I suppose that means he's on our side, and I have a mind to do a Mr Peekstock and declare victory, for even Don x 2, Amos, or Tia would surely hesitate to bullshit the great Obama.......but no, I shall continue, for I believe this thread may broaden into an examination of "Liberalism" as currently practiced.

Not far from where I live, as the crow flies,is the island of Jura and the small farmhouse of Barnhill, where George Orwell wrote his masterpiece "Nineteen eighty-four", I would recommend that the "liberals" here read or re-read Orwells great work, for although his vision of a Communist or Fascist totalitarian regime dominating the world is no longer feasible, all the stereotypes are alive and well in the creed of "liberalism". They practice "doublethink", they manufacture labels which mean exactly the opposite from what is written on them, their ideas and beliefs are protected by the "thought police", they are adept in the use of "soft power", not so brutal as Orwell's "jackboot to the face forever" but just as insideous and soul destroying.
The creed of "liberalism" is danger to freedom and human happiness and will inevitably create a society very like the one described here by George Orwell.

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:59 PM

Ake, in your unwillingness to be informed you are tiresome to an extreme. As a Scott, would you agree that you know diddlysquat about it means to be a liberal in America? And Emma, as good as she is and as fair as she tries to be, does not have any particular insight into America's president.

If you keep it up, ake, I'm going to think it's just the nature of the Scottish beast.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM

Ake, You surely don't realize how totally irrational you've sounded with that last couple of posts. Ebbie may have touched on the problem; perhaps you're reacting to what is being marketed as political liberalism in the UK and/or Europe. It may help us get a handle on what you mean to say if you can answer this: What political or philosophical tradition do you think we should look to, to avoid the dangers you see in liberalism? Conservatism?
Radicalism? Anarchy? or?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 10:23 PM

akenaton - there's not a 'our side' / 'your side'

It seems to me that it appears to be necessary to be either 'with us' or 'agin us' on threads these days with little opportunity for pointing out and discussing the often 'grey' areas.


Ebbie, I don't claim to have any 'insight' into the American president I merely quote what I perceived as an unequivocal statement of belief; if you can discern a different meaning I would be grateful as a mere English woman (not a Scot, Scott is a surname btw) if you would enlighten me.

The irony is that, for a country which has disestablished church and state, 'christian' dogma seems to influence thinking/legislation far more in the US than it does in this country which still has bishops in Parliament but a far greater degree of equality between the rights of heterosexual married couples and those in a committed civil partnership

In addition, in 2008 army chief, Gen Sir Richard said that respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers was now a command responsibility and was vital for operational effectiveness as people of any sexual orientation could make a valuable contribution.

It's not too surprising then, I think, for Brits to consider 'liberalism' in America as something not quite in synch with Don Firth's excellent definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:13 PM

Sorry I failed to note the origins. I believe it came from Slate. It was a description of a White house event, and i see no reason to think the reported statements are not accurate.


Obama has made it clear that even MORE than not believing in gay marriage, he believes in equality under the law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 05:48 AM

Emma... as I'm sure you know, my remarks regarding "winning" a discussion such as this were tongue in cheek.

Personally, I am more interested in encouraging debate and objective thought than any meaningless victory.
Many here are content with comfortable knee jerk responses to complex issues, this is most unhealthy and a sure sign that "liberalism"(the cult) is flourishing.

Frogprince...Although we rarely agree, I've always had you figured as an intelligent and genuinely liberal person(something in the mould of Emma) and your question deserves an answer. I am more in the business of posing questions than providing answers, but I'll try to get back to you.

Due to work commitments, I have very little time to write on this forum...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:13 AM

Amos, I don't doubt that the report you quoted is 'accurate' but it seems unecessary to point out to you that journals/journalists can be extremely partisan in their reporting of the same event and a certain 'filter' is required when digesting tedious, repetitive large tracts of copy/paste articles such as the ones that dominated the threads during the US Election campaign.

For example, it's unsurprising that an article by Rex Wockner in the San Francisco Bay Times quotes the Associated Press -

"His (Obama's) critics - and there were many - saw Wednesday's incremental move to expand gay rights as little more than pandering to a reliably Democratic voting bloc."

and Gay writer Dan Savage:

"If this shit is 'fierce advocacy,' Mr. President, we'll take benign neglect."

or that a blogger in the Daily Kos comments that many gay democrats who contributed to the election fund now feel duped and betrayed on this issue

"what do those few rights do for all of us (in majority) that don't work for the Federal Government? ....
...how can this Memo be seen as anything but a roadblock to equality when it fails to protect Military personnel, the majority employee group of the Federal government!? "
Thu Jun 18, 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM

since i am english i tend to think of everything in an english way, i know nothing of america, or what it means to be american.

i can't imagine that the feeling is that much different to being proud of being english, there have been alot of folks who contribute to UK threads that have the same problem, but you don't get the same jump down your throat response,so please be a little more patient and understanding?

we are always taught that our american cousins are forward thinkers and true freedom fighters, it has been a revelation to learn differently.

ake, since i haven't read the book in question (even if i tried i don't think it would make sense to me) i cannot get the full picture, as i have said most of the labels in existance are self made, even someones name is a label.

hello my name is jade, i am english, i am 31, i have 3 dogs and i am gay. oh and i am a short arse.

you see what i mean?

to say that then would mean the opposite just confuses my tiny brain. i think george might well have been stoned!! lol

i don't understand the not answering questions but asking them, unless you mean philosophical questions and not personal ones but i always thought the two were similar, surely you cannot think they are not related?

i hope this makes sense as i am off my face on painkillers right now.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:41 AM

My last post to this thread. Not with the intention of "winning" (what would we win anyway, a f***ing medal), but purely in the hopes that our self styled "more an asker, than an answerer of questions", might break his lifelong embargo on answering.

1. Some homosexual couples want to be officially able to marry, and intend by that to commit to a stable monogamous relationship.

2. Such a relationship, by its nature, would tend to reduce promiscuity, and because of that, have a beneficial effect on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals.

3. Legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).

4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

My question is:- WHO or WHAT is damaged by this, and why is there such determined opposition?

I think I already know EXACTLY what the answer is, but I'd like to see it spelled out in some manner that bears critical examination, because all I've seen thus far is obfuscation and prejudice, and denigration of those who have asked the question.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

Ake, I am beginning to think that you envision yourself on this thread as being a gadfly attempting to expose, a devils advocate, rather than exploring your own beliefs. Is that it?

(Thanks, Emma. "Scott" was a slip of the finger; I have several friends named Scott but I do know the difference.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:33 AM

Don, in the interest of a non combative exchange of opinion may I just consider your points in more detail

1. Some homosexual couples want to be officially able to marry, and intend by that to commit to a stable monogamous relationship.

At present, as you point out later, in the UK at least legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).which affords same-sex couples almost all the same benefits as heterosexual married couples
i.e. gain rights to survivor pensions, recognition for immigration purposes, hospital visitation rights, and equal treatment for tax purposes.
Inheritance tax is waived as it is with married couples, and there is a right of succession for tenancy.
They will also be exempt, as married couples are, from testifying against each other in court.
In addition they will be deemed stepparents of each others' children, and able to formally adopt.
As with U.K. marriages, civil partners will not be able to file for dissolution until they've tried marriage for a year.

Indeed the term 'marriage' is commonly used synonymously with civil partnership as reported on the UK Immigration Workpermit.com web site

"Sir Elton John, 58, and his partner of 11 years, David Furnish, will be married in the Guildhall in Windsor, the same place Prince Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles"


2 Such a relationship, by its nature, would tend to reduce promiscuity, and because of that, have a beneficial effect on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals.

I tend to agree with you on this point although in countries where same sex marriage has been practised longer than the UK, like Sweden, the breakdown rate is considerably higher than heterosexual marriage


3. Legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).

This is now true in many counties and, in the UK, there are few differences.

One technical difference is that a civil partnership becomes legal when the registration certificate is signed by both partners without the necessity of 'witnesses'
This does not mean that it must be signed during a ceremony that is public or during any specific event.
This allows the partner to enter into the partnership on a private basis. There need be no words exchanged.
During a civil marriage, typically words are exchanged and then the register is signed.

But now comes the crunch……..!

A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage often contains religious aspects during the marriage.
The word marriage is a religious word in itself.
Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.


4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

This is also true but they are in a minority.
Many heterosexual people can be, and very often are, refused marriage in the Church of England during the lifetime of a former spouse whether the 'innocent' party in a divorce or not

The Judeo-Christian religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are too numerous to mention here

According to Reverend Rick Warren, the spiritual leader chosen to launch Obama's inauguration, homosexuals are people who "think they are smarter than God" and who choose "to disobey God's sexual instructions."



My point is Don that it is primarily a religious stance,
- as reflected in the attitudes of the 'current leader of the free world' and the likes of Rick Warren the Megachurch leader praised in Obama's second book "The Audacity of Hope."
- that opposes same sex marriage and inequality of recognition, benefits etc in the US   and that, until there is a separation between state and religion in America, this is likely to remain a major obstacle to the equality that has been advocated by many people in this thread and elsewhere.

My apologies for a very long thread but I feel it is an important subject

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM

Question: In the UK are known gays permitted in the military?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:58 AM

"The United Kingdom's policy is to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden.
It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out."
Wiki

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Oc NY Times May 21, 2007

"Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military.
The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news.
It has for the most part become a nonissue."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, told members of the Army-sponsored Fourth Joint Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Matters that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the Army.

In a speech to a conference in London in October last year, – the first of its kind by any Army chief – Gen Sir Richard said that respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers was now "a command responsibility" and was vital for "operational effectiveness".

He also added "We have made real progress in our understanding of equality and diversity in the military context, and there is a desire to achieve more yet.
My recent Equality and Diversity Directive for the Army sets the standard that we must live by, and, importantly, it communicates that standard to everyone in the chain of command.

"Respect for Others", one of the Army's core values, is at the heart of this directive."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Discrimination on religious grounds has only one legitimnate home--the centers of religion.

Civil law, contrariwise, may not and must not be colored by one or another temptation to discriminate maong people on any but civil and legal grounds, and never on simply religious principles. To embrace one set (or part thereof) of religious principles is effectively to favor the religion which asserts it in their catechism. This is a can of worms no far-seeing government should even want to open.

If good principles cannot be embedded into religion-neutral law, they need to be redrawn as principles.

I am pretty sure God does not give sexual instruction, beyond the fundamental appetites thereof.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM

Glad to hear it, Emma B. Good for the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

". . . coming from someone who is totally obsessed by the need to "win" this debate. How many months have you been here Don?"

No, Ake, not at all obsessed by a need to "win" this debate, because I know there is no "win" with someone as rigid and inflexible, and who clings so fiercely to the erroneous ideas that you cherish so dearly. Apart from my own comments, any of my rebuttals of your posts were to set the record straight for those who might be taken in by the misinformation in them. And, of course, to try to get an answer to the question I asked you way back—and which others have been asking you repeatedly—and which you still haven't answered.

It isn't always about you, you know.

And by the way, if you go back toward the beginning of the thread, you will note that you've been posting for somewhat longer than I have.

Also by the way, judging from your remarks about liberalism, it must be far different where you are than it is where I am. Refer to the dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster on-line) that I posted 29 Jun 09 - 06:50 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:06 PM

Why We Are Liberals and

Origins of Liberal Thought

might be good places to start your eddification, Ake. You don't want to be a dour redneck reactionary for the rest of your life, now do you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:18 PM

I thought that Akenaton was a committed leftist and a left wing political radical deeply opposed to right wing policies and redneckism in general. Matter of fact, I know he is, from long acquaintance. He's also a fervent atheist. He just doesn't fit the stereotypical reactionary political profiles that are being ascribed to him on this thread by those individuals who happen to disagree with him here on this one thread, but very seldom on most other threads.

It's downright odd if you ask me. ;-)

Well...we're rapidly approaching 1900 anyway, so it's not all bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:34 PM

Whatever category you decide he belongs in, the fact is he is reactionary and distinctly illiberal in his thought processes in this thread, which is where (in case you did not notice) I placed the remark you refer to.

I know how good a man he is at heart, which is why I dare to make such rude remarks to him when he is being obstreperous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM

Little Hawk, read what Ake has said in recent posts about liberals and liberalism.

Among many other things, in his post of 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 p.m., he says "The creed of 'liberalism' is danger to freedom and human happiness and will inevitably create a society very like the one described here by George Orwell."

That's completely bass-ackwards.

And he has been using the word "liberal" all through this thread as an epithet.

I'm not in a position to observe his actions, so how else am I to know what he believes than by what he says?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:53 PM

Well, Amos, when people get locked in long circular arguments they sometimes inadvertently slide into some rather extreme rhetoric, don't they? And they do it when they get sarcastic or satirical too. Wouldn't you say that tends to happen even to the best of us at times? People like...say...you or me?

Akenaton ain't a perfect human being, but he's no reactionary redneck.

Remember that old phrase in the Bible warning people not to judge the speck in the other guy's eye whilst ignoring the log in their own eye? ;-) It's not that I'm quoting the Bible for authority...I'm not...but it's still a useful thing for any of us to think about from time to time.

I think that if people here were more interested in understanding where someone else is coming from and why, and less inclined to stereotype one another in some way, then they'd get a lot farther and not get so ticked off at each other.

Are we "Spear chuckers"? "Honkys"? "Tree-huggers"? "Rednecks"? "Homophobes"? "Sexists?" "Anti-semites?" "Bleeding Heart Liberals"? Etc...

No. We are none of those simple-minded, one-dimensional negative stereotypes that those pejorative words convey. We are all complex and multifaceted human beings, all of us quite unique, and we will agree and disagree about a great variety of things for a great many unique reasons.

If those reasons were better understood, the snap negative judgements we make on others would not be so easily made.

One other quote I like from the Bible: "Blessed are the Peacemakers"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:05 PM

"I am pretty sure God does not give sexual instruction,..."

                And the reason he doesn't is because he ain't there!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:09 PM

"he"?

I always pictured "God" as looking sort of like Liv Tyler... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:20 PM

If it were a He I wouldn't be interested in his sexual instructions anyway!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM

Excellent point, Amos! ;-D

I need a God I can really worship. One I am willing to serve hand and foot. One whom I will do just about anything for. That is why my idea of God closely resembles Liv Tyler. I'll go a long way for a God(dess) like that, lemme tell ya...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM

Aw, Little Hawk,

Ulla, Winona, Ms Tyler--you're all mixed up with the bandwidth of protoplasm, not Gawd's favorite hunting ground.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:46 PM

If God can't love protoplasm, what good is she?

And who's "Ulla"?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:00 AM

jeddy,
You make more sense drugged-up than many do substance-free.
What variety of dogs?
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:15 AM

Oh, sorry--wrong fantasy. I meant Uma Thurman and as far as I know she is not (yet) one of your visionary inspirations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:24 AM

In the midst of all this fantasy and non-fantasy, would it make sense to remember to support Dan Choi?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:15 AM

Silly fuckers, I'm not against liberty or freedom, why do I have to explain that to educated people?
I'm against what has replaced liberty and freedom, it has "liberty" on the label, but in reality is as insideous and repressive as the totalitarianism Orwell warned against.

It is a set of political rules for the manipulation of society.....to make us all think identically, some call it political correctness, but it's much worse and more far reaching and should be fought against in the same way as that other medium of manipulation "Capitalism".

Any system, social or political, which sets out to destroy reason and replace it with cant,is evil and repressive.

The most obvious example lately of how this works was Blairs manipulation of the British people and the UK parliament to drag us into Iraq, citing "Liberal" values and the defense of "democracy" as the reasons......when we all knew the real reasons.
One of the only politicans with the guts to come to America and throw the truth in the faces of the Senate members was George Galloway who has been a lifelong leftist, but will NEVER be a "liberal"......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM

""4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

This is also true but they are in a minority.""

This is a nonsequitur Emma. I don't believe anyone is asking for all churches to perform same sex ceremonies, so what possible grounds can there be for refusing to allow ceremonies to be performed in that "minority" of churches?

All the coercion in this affair is on the anti side, as far as I can see.


""until there is a separation between state and religion in America, this is likely to remain a major obstacle to the equality that has been advocated by many people in this thread and elsewhere.""

I believe that there is already such a separation in the USA, in fact it is, I think, part of the Constitution. Of course, some Americans don't seem to know that, even some Presidents.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:19 AM

This is gettin' like one long Service of Remembrance.....so many "Last Posts"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:31 AM

"a nonsequitur" Don? - I do not follow

I replied with the simple factual statement that only a minority of Christian churches were prepared to support blessing of same-sex unions whereas "the Judeo-Christian religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are too numerous to mention here"

Nowhere did I express any personal opinion or judgement on this situation or even suggest there ANY grounds for refusing to allow ceremonies to be performed in that "minority" of churches

Same sex civil unions as a 'legal status' between individuals does not by itself conflict with Church teachings about the sacredness of "Marriage" however The Episcopal Church in America, (many dioceses of which permit the blessing of same-sex unions) nevertheless rejected at their 2006 General Convention a resolution allowing the solemnization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is recognized by civil law.
British Quaker meetings celebrate same-sex commitments by a special act of worship but none has yet called this marriage

please note this was information for discussion purposes or
are you really looking for a fight that isn't there Don?

I'm beginning to feel like LH!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:55 AM

I think he's already spoken for Emma.. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:08 AM

I think he's spoken for himself.

I believe this (edited) is an all-time classic: 'A non-sequitur? I do not follow.'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:14 AM

No, Emma, not looking for a fight at all, but the number of churches for or against is not germane to the topic under discussion, since nobody is asking ANY of them to change their stance on this matter.

As most of them adhere to vastly differing dogma and liturgy, it is difficult to see why they would not agree to differ on this particular issue, which leads to the suspicion, as with the argument about health issues, that there is a sub agenda which has more to do with prejudice than with reason.

Don


Akenaton,

The lady responded to my "last" post with one which, in my opinion, needed a reply. I replied.

That is what we refer to as good manners.

I know you can't wait for me to disappear, so that YOU will never have to show me the same courtesy.

Know what? I don't give a damn. Your twisting, turning, avoidance of the REAL topic has become boring.

Bye Now

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

right, firstly what on earth is protoplasm? i know what ektoplasm is, is this simialar?

secondly there is not much i agree with ake over, but the machanisation of the human mind in schools is one of them. i had this dreram once when i was 14ish that all my school freinds were going into this big machine and coming out with big metal plates over their faces, so they would all be the same, is that the sort of thing you meant ake? i figured out that this starts in school and how on earth are young kids suppoesed to figure all this out when they are too confused to even figure themselves out.

george galloway is a true free thinker he works for the sole purpose of his constituantsand i believe he is a gentleman, why would you not call him a liberal though?

tia, thankyou it is good to know that i am getting my point across, sometimes what is in my head doesn't always come out right, of course it helps that i have to think about it and then type it so my brain has time to get it right.

we have 2 collie crosses and a mongrel thing who(don't tell the other two) is the cutest one of them all, not to mention that he is also the stubborn and crazy one, so it is no wonder we called him keith!(donnelly).

what does this mean
'A non-sequitur?' it sounds alien to me. i like using big words i can't always spell them, but you lot make me look simple!! lol

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:10 AM

Nineteen Hundred.


A