BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:57 AM

john, that is awful!!! have they caught the bastard who did it yet?

i am not having a go at anyone but this is why we have to be careful, not about what we think but about the language we use sometimes. there are plenty of nutters out there who hear something then act without thinking and then blames something innocent. example: how many times have we heard about kids beating someone to a pulp and then blaming video games?

i admit that the two really long posts from amos i think, sorry if i have that wrong have intimidated me so i will have to get my few brain cells together and have a proper read.

until then take care all
love jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:32 AM

Two nights ago here in Seattle, two women were attacked in their bed at 3:00 a.m. One of them is dead and the other is in critical condition. It was known in their neighborhood that they were about to get married. We don't know, since the attacker is still at large, whether the impending marriage was the thing that set him off or not, but the timing makes it possible. In any event, it seems very likely that this was a hate crime.

Little Hawk: This isn't a game we're playing here.

Akenaton: This is what happens when people who are different than us are legally discriminated against, when our society thinks it's OK for us to hate "others". I know that you would never do anything like this, but I still lay part of the blame for it at your doorstep and at the doorstep of everyone else who behaves in a bigoted way toward homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

"If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the language you and others used to me very early on."

As far as not wanting this thread to exist, Ake, I'm quite glad that Amos brought the Proposition 8 controversy to people's attention. I don't know where you get the idea that I "and others like" me, wouldn't want it to exist. The injustice of the issue needs to be called to peoples' attention and I'm happy that Amos started it.

As to your claim that I "and others like" me are trying to muzzle you: it's obvious to any thinking person (as you well know) that I "and others like" me have no way of doing that. No one save the moderators of this site can stop you from posting anything you want to say. So why don't you just get off that bus? You're not fooling anyone.

And as I mention in a couple of posts above, I have found some of your arguments quite valuable, because the battle is joined here in Washington State, and you gave me a pretty good idea of the kind of arguments the proponents of a proposition similar to the one in California will put forth, enabling me to analyze them, find their flaws, and be able to successfully refute them. Muzzle you? No. Thank you for the practice. I'm well prepared for what's to come.

As far as the language I have used, if you can't stand being called a "bigot" and a "homophobe" when things you have said and the tactics you have used (particularly doctoring statistics to make them appear to say what you want them to say when they clearly do not) indicate that you fit the dictionary definitions of those two words, then you apparently lack the courage of your own convictions, along with having a very thin skin.

Orwell has nothing to do with it. Rather than engaging in "doublespeak" as you claim, I am bluntly using the proper name for a person who holds a particular set of attitudes and prejudices. I have expressed liberal ideas. You have "accused" me of being a "liberal." Same thing, Ake.

"As it is, the issues have been aired and the discussion is in stalemate.   The important thing is that all views have been voiced and anyone reading this thread can form a reasoned opinion."

True indeed. There is no way I can convince you of my viewpoint and there is no way you can ever get me to change my mind if all you can do is present the arguments that you have presented so far. I am happy to have anyone read this thread who wants to and let them come to their own conclusions on the merits, or lack thereof, of the arguments.

Not to mention, hoping that readers will take note of who is and who is not willing to answer various questions put to them and figure out why the questions remain unanswered.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

The Bishop also said "We want to be in your club, but we want to change all the rules".....a good example of "doublethink"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

Woah, Ake, you have grabbed an indefensible position for sure there, mate. "Appropriately"? According to....which subculture's definition? While I grant you that tempering the codes of justice with mercy and a due consideration of extenuating circumstances is a vital aspect of justice, the core framework absolutely has to be based on the notion that all men are equal under the law. There are no special exceptions by reason of status, wealth, etc. This is of critical importance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM

"Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."......And justice is not about "treating people equally, but treating people appropriately"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

An op-ed by David Boies that runs in Monday's Wall Street Journal :

"When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.

Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

sheesh I thought it is the US that is litigious.

What kind of childhood are children being given if for 7 or 8 hours of a work week they are not allowed to do the normal things of childhood! It would appear that every single person who signed on to this insanity has never seen the young of EVERY mammal at play- running and tumbling and chasing, in addition to expressing health by working off energy, teach coordination and cooperation and builds and strengthens muscle whether in the legs or the heart itself.

It seems clear that the 'auld' country is farther down the road to perdition than we in the new. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM

Getting back to the SUBJECT, folks, I would suggest if there is more to say about conkers on schoolgrounds it become a thread of its own; if there is more to say about how grandiloquent and Twainesque Little Hawk is or is not, it become a comic book somewhere.

If there are any further developments on the issues surrounding Proposition 8, or similar propositions in other states, I would love to be apprised of them here. For example, Don Firth mentioned reactionary efforts afoot in his state. New York's own equal-rights law was delayed by their endless procedural entanglements and congressional incompetence, but not on its merits.

On 17 July a Federal judge rejected pone action against prop 8: "In the July 17 ruling, U.S. District Judge David Carter removed the state of California as a defendant in the lawsuit against Prop 8 and DOMA. Only the U.S. government will remain a defendant when portions of the case will be heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.

Carter's ruling stated that because the gay couple who brought the challenge against DOMA in December 2008 were married during a short window of time when same-sex marriage was legal, they had no standing to challenge the measure. The California State Supreme Court already decided that marriages such as theirs would stay intact even after voters approved Prop 8. ".

It is ironic, to me, that the judge disqualified the action because the plaintiffs were legally married gays. Yet the right-wing factions announced this was a win for those in California who did not want gays to marry, as if other grounds had been cited when they were not. This is the sort of illogic that permeates partisan politics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:47 AM

That should read "for the last fifteen years of my working life".

I retired in 2006

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:45 AM

""how about posting something further about schools disallowing children to run on their playgrounds?""

Sad but true, Ebbie.

For the last fifteen years I was caretaker/playground supervisor at a local primary school.

For about the last six years, conkers allowed only under supervision, no football on the playground, no hard balls of any description and no running or tag type games.

Basketball (shooting hoops only...no running
Hopscotch No stones allowed (safe markers only)

In summer on the grass playing field football allowed, but No cartwheels, headstands or somersaults ecept under close supervision.

The list goes on...and on...and...well you get the idea.

It is due to the fear of being sued.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:35 AM

""If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the landuage you and others used to me very early on.""

Is that so?

Well,..... NO, actually!

Far from trying to silence you, virtually the whole thread (disregarding the input from our resident disruptive child) has been about the opposite; Namely, trying to get a straight answer from you that actually made any sense at all.

You would have made a fine addition to Gordon Brown's ministerial team, judging by the skill with which you managed to avoid giving any such answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:24 AM

""Mark Twain was such a person, and his books are full of humorous jibes at the common failings of humanity...and I bet you respect Mark Twain, don't you? You probably would have been quite ticked off at him had you lived in his time, though, because he might have made fun of one of your sacred cows!""

So you see yourself as another Mark Twain!

I it weren't so tragic I'd be falling about laughing.

Not within a million miles mate. Just another wannabe, bigging himself up at everyone else's expense.

Come again when you have something to say which is germane to the topic........or any topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:27 AM

If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the landuage you and others used to me very early on.
As it is, the issues have been aired and the discussion is in stalemate.   The important thing is that all views have been voiced and anyone reading this thread can form a reasoned opinion.

People must be made aware that to hold a contrary view of any issue does not necessarily make one a (bigot,homophobe, pervert, or any other term of abuse that can be used to scupper discussion).
That is indeed "Orwellian"


So you see Little Hawk's point was very relevant!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM

Which is to say, Little Hawk, that this thread was an attempt (at least on the part of most people) to be a serious debate on a serious civil rights issue, but it got derailed when you put your oar in with irrelevant observations on how the debaters where conducting themselves. Now, had it been Joe Offer, that would have mattered. But from you, it was just your usual static.

You did successfully manage to drag the focus of the thread to you.

Now, once again, if there is anything more to say on the subject of the thread, I suggest we get back to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 07:43 PM

Once again off the mark, Little Hawk. I have no desire to impress you. But you keep making grandious claims about your own intellectual prowess and how it gives you the license to comment on what others do and say, so I think it's perfectly fair to ask you for your qualifications to do so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:52 PM

speaking of taking people to court,do companies and things like that still ofer compensation or a good will gesture when someone has an accident?

as ebbie said ,i am not sure whether the trying to stop kids running around is true or whether it is one of those rumours that gets out of hand. what i do know is that the conker thing opens the floodgates to being able to take the school to court over the most innocent things. the same as any other public place really.

so really do take care out there... LOL

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:23 PM

to think of yourself and I as equals...

Nah, you're right--it doesn't matter...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM

Don F. - I would much prefer to think of yourself and I as equals rather than engage in fruitless attempts to establish who resides at a loftier position of intellectual grandeur...or who has acquired the more prestigious reading list in the last 50 years of his life. ;-)

As you said, "everyone is a philosopher in his or her own way". Correct. That's good enough. If a person is strongly interested in how people think, and why, and interested enough to spend some time on understanding it, and interested in self-observation too, then he's a philosopher in his or her own way. And that's what I am.

I've read plenty of fascinating books in the last 50 years. I am not going to start listing them, because I'm not even slightly interested in trying to outdo you or impress you. It doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

ake, how about posting something further about schools disallowing children to run on their playgrounds? Are there schools other than the Thomas Deacon Academy that plan(ed) such a thing? According to the responses to the idea that I read online, there was an outcry regarding the plan.

You imply that there are others or perhaps, even that children in Scotland are not allowed to run in their playgrounds. I still don't believe that. Surely Scotland is not that ignorant or backward. (On the other hand, you are a Scot..? *g*)

As for Jade, unless I missed something writ large, I don't recall that she had information on the phenomenon but simply agreed with you that she "wouldn't be surprised" to hear it.

Sit up, mon.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM

And you, Ake, are no judge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:45 PM

Gnu....."John, writing on "The Frigging Loon" blog, said he was "heartbroken" about the split and that he hopes Pepper "finds another male penguin that is ten times hotter than Harry!"

Mr Peestok I presume?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM

Its impossible to define a philosopher.........But you sure know one when you read what he writes!

And as I paraphrased earlier Don, "You Mr Firth are no Confucius!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM

Ake, your view of what constitutes a "liberal" is diametrically opposed to the American idea of liberalism.

And who, Ake, determines what is "appropriate?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Jade is perfectly correct Ebbie.....so prepare to be "very surprised".
Everyone over here is so wrapped up in their "rights" that they are prepared to sue anybody they can....local councils, schools,public services who are all held responsible for the safety of children and adults, no matter how stupidly they behave.....another bi-product of "liberalism"...."rights for all"

Does anyone care about the right of kids to have a free and normal upbringing...I don't think so!

I think I find myself agreeing with the Bishop of Durham

"Justice does not mean treating people equally, it means treating people appropriately"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:13 PM

A philosopher? Easy claim to make, but hard to back up.

Was Mark Twain a philosopher? Only in the loosest sense. He was a writer, a humorist, and a satirist. And a very good one. But I don't find him listed anywhere as a philosopher, other than one of the crackerbarrel variety.

Little Hawk, can you give me a brief definition of Metaphysics (no, it doesn't mean "the Occult" the way many people use the word)? Or Epistomology? Or Ethics?

How much Aristotle have you read? Socrates? Plato? Aquinas? Machiavelli? Descartes? Hobbes? Spinoza? Berkeley? Hume? Rousseau? Kant? Locke? James? Hegel? Marx? Mill? Nietzsche? Wittgenstein? Russell?

Other than the popular Eastern philosophers, who have you read? Or have you just read a book or two on Taoism, a bit of Alan Watts, browsed through the Bhagavad Gita, then taken occasional side-trips into Carlos Castaneda?

Anybody can call himself a philosopher. And everyone is a philosopher in his or her own way. But I think if one is going to tout himself as a philosopher and sit around, look down from one's lofty position, and make pronouncements on the human condition—and be taken seriously, not just as a blowhard—it takes a bit of formal study of the field, otherwise you're no different from old Charlie, who spends his days sitting on the front porch of the general store, whittling and spitting and making wry comments on the passing parade.

Charlie ain't no philosopher. He just takes up space.

Ethics. I, personally, am especially interested in Ethics, because Ethics is philosophy in action. For example, should one just sit, observe, and comment from a nice, safe position? Or should you get involved and transform your beliefs into action?

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 03:52 PM

I anticipated a response such as yours, Amos, even before I hit "submit" on that post of mine you allude to. :-) I really should have pre-emptively posted in order to head it off.

No, I do not think I am the equivalent of Mark Twain. I regard his contributions to humanity as vastly, simply vastly ahead of my own. So far beyond my own, in fact, that it would be sort of like comparing a trip to the moon (in Mark Twain's case) to an amble across the street to sit comfortably in the park (in my case).

I was suggesting that my satirical and philosophical motivations are perhaps a bit like Twain's, but certainly not my accomplishments.

jeddy - Mark Twain is one of the greatest writers of all time. I suggest you read some of his books. Try "Huckleberry Finn" or "Joan of Arc" for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 03:39 PM

no outdoor play? surely that is sending the wrong message to kids who(hipocrite time) spend too much time doing nothing as it is.

what about their vitamin D intake?
kids need to be able to let off steam after being cooped up for so long in a classroom.
however they could do it as a shorter school day but with less breaks.   i know i found it hard to settle again after break time so maybe they have a point.

as someone without kids it is hard for me to make up my mind as to the best way forward on this.    (helpful aren't i?)

take care all

jade x x x

ps    i have no idea who mark twain(e) is so i am keeping out of this one x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM

Interesting analogy:

"Mark Twain made fun of many things and made many people angry. I am making fun of making things and making people angry. Therefore I am the equivalent of Mark Twain...".


But, unfortunately, it does not work quite that way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

Ho-hum.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 01:55 PM

Don W., I'm a philosophical type of person. Philosophers comment on society and the foibles of man in a general sort of way, because it helps them understand what makes people tick, and that's what mainly interests a philosopher.

Mark Twain was such a person, and his books are full of humorous jibes at the common failings of humanity...and I bet you respect Mark Twain, don't you? You probably would have been quite ticked off at him had you lived in his time, though, because he might have made fun of one of your sacred cows!

I don't sound a single note here. I play the whole scale. I make serious comments when I want, and I engage in humorous satire when I want. I apologize for none of it, and neither did Mark Twain (who pissed off a whole lot of people in his time...but delighted many others).

If I were to try and please everyone, which would mean trying to please even you and Don Firth, then I'd be wasting my time, because it's impossible to please everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

"You go far astray, Don, when you insist on taking personally my every satirical comment on this thread when I am speaking about the various silly human foibles that amuse or annoy me as I observe society percolating around me...but if you are bent on doing so and imagining that my comments are all directed specifically at YOU, I hardly see how I could ever convince you that I intended otherwise."

You flatter yourself, Little Hawk. I don't take anything you say personally because you don't know me at all (although the above quote indicates that you egotistically assume you do), and you have generally indicated that you don't really grasp much of what I'm saying. Among other things, for someone who has been dubbed "a master of irony," it's kind of funny the way you don't recognize irony when you read it. And as far as your "satire" is concerned, you'd undoubtedly get a much better response from your dachshunds and your imaginary chimp.

It's a bit hard to believe that you didn't intend your barbs personally when you kept mentioning my name throughout your post. But as they say, I consider the source.

No, Little Hawk, not only do I not take what you say personally, but considering you ever-increasing penchant for descending into the abyss of mindless frivolity, I find it increasingly difficult to take anything you say seriously.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

Well, it would surprise me greatly.

Well, I just ASKed Jeeves. It appears that in 2007 the Thomas Deacon Academy was planned to have no break times (only 30 minutes for lunch) and no outdoor play.

The premise is that children "won't need to let off steam because they won't be bored."

And that with so many students (2200) any playground would have to be huge.

hahhahahahahahahhha

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 10:54 AM

that wouldn't suprise me. as some schools have banned the noble art of playing conkers, either that or you have to wear goggles.

it is down to the i will sue theme we have gotten into, the schools are now so terrified that they have to be so careful, just in case.

jade x x x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 10:35 AM

"Do you know that in our local primary school, children are not allowed to run in the playground!" ake

You know, somehow, I just don't believe that. To me, it sounds like a statement coming from someone who has never or not for a long time had a child in the school system and is taking someone else's statement at face value.

Please amplify.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 10:06 AM

It was just a phase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:23 AM

That GUEST was me, sans biscuit. Don't KNOW why.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:19 AM

""If you go to some other threads, you will note that I'm also making ruthless fun of Valley Girl types who use the word "like" 8500 times an hour and stretch the boundaries of vapidity to unheard of dimensions.

I'm also making fun of Canadians and of Don Cherry and his dog on another thread.

....my every satirical comment on this thread when I am speaking about the various silly human foibles that amuse or annoy me as I observe society percolating around me""


This is the man who has nothing of value to add in the way of "on topic" comment, but appears on multiple threads seemingly to disrupt and disparage.

This is the man who writes reams of exhortations to treat each other with respect, to listen to each other's point of view, to eschew pejorative language, and then derides whole groups of people with stereotypical comment and treats them as somewhat lower in the scale of human existence than his exalted self.

This is the man Akenaton looks up to as a shining wit.

DR.SPOONER WOULD AGREE!

Don T.

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

Well....I'm "proud to be a peasant"!
The intelligetsia love themselves far too much as far as I'm concerned....you can all see it here, boasting about their academic qualifications...pathetic!{I exclude Little Hawk from whom the information has had to be extracted by force!)

The trouble with academia is that it appears to give one a feeling of superiority in EVERYTHING, as if no one has a right to hold differing opinions.

No one needs qualifications to see the health problems in the male homosexual lifestyle, or the effect behaviour has on "rights". My view is as valid as the view of anyone with a bunch of "parrot papers" or a "liberal" agenda, I just keep my eyes and ears open to the real world, non the world according to some manipulating power hungry politicians.

Our humanity is gradually being eroded, not just in the realms of minority rights but in every facet of life.

We now live by committee, there is no personal responsibility.
Do you know that in our local primary school, children are not allowed to run in the playground! not allowed to speak to adults unless vetted by the school, we are raising a generation of automatons, without empathy or the power to decide for themselves.

But they will make fine citizens in the brave new Orwellian "liberal" world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 09:55 PM

Oh, by the way, Don....I am a real live English Major. That's one reason why I find the jokes about them so funny. I know the territory...and its joys and its pitfalls.

It's the same reason I find jokes about Canada and Canadians so funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 09:52 PM

LOL! Mark Twain was a true wit, Amos. I have nothing but admiration for the man...and also for his no doubt long-suffering wife.

Don, you mentioned that "these ding-dongs are prejudiced against all kinds of people".

Yikes! Who are these despicable people you refer to who are prejudiced against all kinds of people? Why do we permit them to go on living? They must be ferreted out and dealt with! Send me a list of names, would you? I'll pass that list on to Chongo Chimp, he will pass it on to some of his good friends in Chicago, and THEN they'll see, by God, what happens to the prejudiced when they have gone too far!

Intolerance will NOT be tolerated! No sir. To the guillotine with them all, I say!

* Note: (You go far astray, Don, when you insist on taking personally my every satirical comment on this thread when I am speaking about the various silly human foibles that amuse or annoy me as I observe society percolating around me...but if you are bent on doing so and imagining that my comments are all directed specifically at YOU, I hardly see how I could ever convince you that I intended otherwise.)

If you go to some other threads, you will note that I'm also making ruthless fun of Valley Girl types who use the word "like" 8500 times an hour and stretch the boundaries of vapidity to unheard of dimensions. More prejudice on my part! (Could it be another sly attack on Don Firth, though, with the gender of the attackee switched as a camouflage of my true intentions?)

I'm also making fun of Canadians and of Don Cherry and his dog on another thread. More prejudice! (But how does it link to Don Firth? Hmmmm...gotta work on that and find out the connection...wait a minute! Don Cherry...Don Firth. Aha! I think we have the smoking gun.)

Whoo-wee. Whole lotta stuff to track down, eh? Look through all my other posts for yet more evidence of prejudice and report it to the human rights commission and Homeland Security ASAP. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM

LIttle Hawk,

First, I urge you to absorb the distinction between irony and mere sarcasm.

Second, your grandiose screeds posed from Olympian heights remind me of nothing more than Mark Twain's wife.

For one thing, Mark Twain was an inveterate but not invertebrate swearer -- swearing was in his bones.

His wife, Olivia, refined, gentle, pious, waged a continuing battle to persuade him to stop. Once in frustration she uttered a string of curse words in the hope he would realize how crude and disreputable they sounded. His reply:

                        "You know the words, my dear, but you don't know the music."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM

Even though I spent a couple of years as an English major in college, I don't think I quite fit the stereotype that Ake and Little Hawk are tittering about. And sitting around in Starbuck's? Although Starbuck's started in Seattle and there is either a Starbuck's or a barista's cart on practically every corner, I have never been in a Starbuck's, and I've only drunk Starbuck's coffee a half-dozen times in my life. This was when a friend of mine came over to my apartment a couple of times a week to read me his novel manuscript, to get my input and general expertise as a former English major, editor, technical writer, and one-time radio station news director. On the way over, he would stop at the local Starbucks and buy a couple of lattés.

I take it they don't personally know any real, live English majors. Only self-generated stereotypes. And for that matter, not all English majors are created equal. Pigeonhole thinking again.

And, Ake, Little Hawk is a master of irony? Mildly amusing from time to time, but "a master of irony?"

Sorry, Little Hawk.

"Irony has always been a primary tool the under-powered use to tear at the over-powered in our culture. But now irony has become the bait that media corporations use to appeal to educated consumers. . . . It's almost an ultimate irony that those who say they don't like TV will sit and watch TV as long as the hosts of their favorite shows act like they don't like TV, either. Somewhere in this swirl of droll poses and pseudo-insights, irony itself becomes a kind of mass therapy for a politically confused culture. It offers a comfortable space where complicity doesn't feel like complicity. It makes you feel like you are counter-cultural while never requiring you to leave the mainstream culture it has so much fun teasing. We are happy enough with this therapy that we feel no need to enact social change."
(Dan French, review of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 2001)

The irony of irony is that true irony generally grows out of situation. When one tries to be ironic, it generally falls flat.

Don't bother to thank me. Always glad to help.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM

When it comes to engaging in the coming referendum battle in Washington State, I don't think I need to prepare to meet my maker just yet.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is just a matter of time, and a brief time at that:    CLICKY.   Not just in Washington State, but all over the country. And, it would appear, the world.

One Larry Stickney, self-styled head of the "Washington Values Allliance" is pushing Referendum 71, which would repeal Washington State's recently passed domestic partnership law. So far, it's not going too well for him. The referendum has been out there for awhile, and it has until July 25 (one week from today) to gather a total of 120,577 valid voter signatures to secure a place on the November 3 ballot. So far, there is another petition being circulated, gathering the signatures of registered voters who pledge not to sign the Referendum 71 petition, and I understand that's doing quite well!

The arguments that Stickney is putting forward are from a fundamentalist Christian perspective, which tends not to go over very well in this area, especially with members of more liberal Christian churches, of which there are many here—some of which perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, whether the law recognizes them or not.

This is not going to be any kind of duel at all. I was expecting more sophisticated arguments than this!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

Akenaton,
Since you summoned me, I will point out that:

sum=14

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 12:32 PM

Jeez, Amos, these ding-dongs are prejudiced against all kinds of people. Now that's ignorance on the grand scale.

I write them off as not worth debating with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 10:44 AM

Ake,

That is rude, and inaccurate. First, there are no peasants on this thread. Second, if, as one must assume, you are counting yourself and you condescending irony-monger as constituting the peasants, you are swept up in imagined events as a sixteen year old reading Playboy.

I think the real score was Liberals 10, Bigots 3. I am sure that will sit well with you, but I do not mean it. I write it just to demonstrate what a witless assertion yours was, and how inappropriate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 09:57 AM

The real score on this thread:    Peasants 1.....Intelligentsia 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 07:38 AM

There is nothing more breathtaking than sitting in a Starbucks nursing one's Grande Latte and watching 5 or 6 English majors at the next table over trying snottily to outdo one another at irony...

I've observed this. In Barrie, Ontario. They have a Starbucks there right next door to the Chapters giant bookstore. The drinks are way overpriced and not all that exceptionally good either, but it's worth it just to be able to eavesdrop on the local intelligentsia.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 03:12 AM

Or would "Don Quixote" be a little too ironic?