BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:54 PM

Just curious GfS - how old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? Such an important decision in life should be pretty easy to recall.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:59 AM

From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM

It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something.

Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like MOVE ON.ORG(Tax free status?) or ACORN(--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some ACQUIRED characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry AND CONCEIVE CHILDREN whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot. "
CIVIL UNIONS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable ROOM MATES would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew.

Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe. LIKE CIVIL CORPORATIONS!

Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural. WORKS BOTH WAYS!

YES AMOS, IT IS ABOUT OVERTURNING THE MAJORITY RULE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS...AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS ABOUT MARRIAGE, OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT, DOES NOT ALTER, OR CHANGE THAT FACT!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM

It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something.

Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like the Mormon Church--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some genetic characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot."

Marriage is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable marriages would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew.

Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe.

Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:23 AM

That's the spirit, Ebbie. Then, years after somebody has chosen to go down that road, and they decide they want to change, and maybe live like the Cleavers, somebody could develope a 12 step program to help them recover. Rick Warren, possibly, or somebody a-political like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM

Ebbie, your post is silly

Amos, I was not interjecting religion into the issue of legislation, only using it as an analogy, as to one crashing their way into an EXISTING institution, and demanding it change to allow for their personal disposition. ...and it is a matter of the majority being denied due process, of both the democratic processes, including the right to appeal. That IS the issue that pisses me off, and should you, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:55 AM

Injecting religious notions into issues of law is a dangerous, foolish path, by the way.

It is also illegal under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Or are you really interested in re-living those parts of history you are ignoring? Perhaps you have forgotten what it was like to burn at the stake or see babies born to the wrong religious sect put to the sword.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:42 AM

"choice"
"preference"
"lifestyle"
"believe"

Yep. One day in each homosexual person's life he or she told his or herself, Well, now, I do believe that I will be homosexual. It is such an appealing way to live, so safe and so well respected. Everybody likes homosexuals.

**********

Ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:37 AM

This is not an issue of majority "rule".

If it were I would shutup entirely and drop the issue.

It is about whether citizenship and the common rights belonging thereto can be compromised by opinions about sexual propriety, and whether or not all men are created equal.

These are human beings who love and cry just as you do, for the same reasons. Let the majority react to whatever buttons they will, this fact will not change. As such they have the God-given right to love by choice, not by law.

You are not defending democracy under the law, but mob rule. Viva la difference.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:25 AM

One can assume that you are a Democrat..How is it, then, that you seem to support the pushing through policies, that circumvent the Democratic process?? I would think you'd be outraged, that a minority would be overturning our system with the legal shenanigans, of some slick and twisted lawyers...and furthermore, to compare homosexuals and their agenda with blacks, is absolutely ludicrous! Nobody is saying homosexuals(who elected to be homosexuals) is the same as blacks, nor do they have the same heritage, of being forced from their homelands, to be slaves, and now having multitudes of offspring, born here, are at all the same thing!! Neither is it fair to say homosexuals, should force religions to change their beliefs, because their sexual preference, which is opposed to that same existing belief system, wants the legitimacy and recognition,...by those who elect not to recognize, that lifestyle. Perhaps they should form their own 'religion', rather than coerce, and subvert, thereby corrupting, an EXISTING religious way of life, which is opposed to those principles, and tell them that they can't believe that way, any longer! That is completely ridiculous!
Same with the political system. Twice, now Californians have voted this down, only to be, 'overturned', by legal jargon, legalese...and then, denied(Jerry Brown), due process, to challenge???????????
You are in support of the destruction of our very legal process, that this society is made of...Although, our 'celebrity elect' will take office, at that point, he will be my president, whether I voted for him or not..That is the will of the majority vote....and until he screws up beyond repair, I will support him, and route for him to be not only a good president, but a great one.....because that is the will of our people!!..Why can't you see this principle applied to our democratic process??????

P.S. I DID NOT vote for McCain, either, nor am I a Republican right wing nut. There are both 'liberal' AND 'conservative' principles that I agree with, because I do my homework, and am opposed to certain corruptions of our system....this, my friend, is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:21 AM

The fact you seem to be avoiding is that the people you are talking about are human beings.

You insist on dividing them out and painting them as something repulsive to you; that in itself is a repulsive thing to do. You make them into "a minority" trying to force an agenda on the majority. Well, so were African Americans, clearly disadvantaged by a genetic accident and all too ready to push their agenda on the god-fearing monority who wanted them kept separate.

There are some standards of humanity you mustnot let yourself be driven from, methinks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 11:17 PM

I did not post that last post..so someone, stop using my name!!!

Amos, I am neither right wing, nor left. Your suppositions are clearly wrong.
The post I gave prior(Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM) was straight from 'textbook'!....although, I did editorialize in using the word 'assholes'. That being said, I used that, not to describe homosexuals, but rather those who spin the laws and definitions of their language, to manipulate, their unlawful wills upon the descending majority rule! Spin that anyway you want...but it doesn't alter nor change the fact!!
Hey, Happy New Year!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:24 PM

Maybe they don't keep any!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:18 PM

Hell, Rig, I dunno!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:05 PM

What are the statistics in Utah?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:20 PM

Family/Relationships

In a 1992 study, 55.5% of gay men and 71.2% of lesbians were in steady
relationships.

As of November 1997, all 50 states denied gay men and lesbians the right to
marry.

An estimated 6 million to 14 million children have a lesbian or gay parent.
Courts in 11 states have ruled that gay men and lesbians, on the basis of
their sexual orientation, are unfit to receive custody of their children.
A review of 9 studies of aspects of personal development--such as
self-concept, moral judgment, and intelligence-revealed no significant
difference between children of lesbians and gay men and children of
heterosexuals.

Violence

In the five major U.S. cities that have professionally staffed agencies
that monitor anti-lesbian and antigay violence--Boston, Chicago,
Minneapolis and St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco-- reports of anti-gay
and anti-lesbian incidents increased by 172% between 1988 and 1992;

In 1988, 697 incidents were reported

In 1990, 949 incidents were reported

In 1992, 1,898 incidents were reported

The most common perpetrators of anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence-responsible for 50% of all reported incidents--are youths ages 21 or under; 94% of the perpetrators are male. About two-thirds of the perpetrators are unknown to the victims. 89% of all incidents reported to the New York City Anti-Violence Project in 1992 resulted in no arrest.

Youth

As many as 7.2 million Americans under age 20 are lesbian or gay.

45% of gay males and 20% of lesbians experience physical or verbal assault
in high school; 28% of these young people feel forced to drop out of school
due to harassment based on sexual orientation.

According to Kinsey, 28% of boys and 17% of girls have one or more same-sex
experiences before age 20.

80% of lesbian and gay youths who took part in a 1987 study reported severe
isolation.

Every day, 13 Americans ages 15 to 24 commit suicide. In 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youths; 53% of transsexual youths surveyed in 1981 had attempted suicide. Lesbian and gay youths account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among youths.

In December 1993, Massachusetts became the first and only state in the country to outlaw discrimination against lesbian and gay students in public schools.

Public Opinion, and other stuff

In 1965, 82% of men and 58% of women said that homosexuality represents a
"clear threat" to the American way of life.

In 1977, 56% of Americans said homosexuals should have equal rights in
employment. By 1992, that number had risen to 74%.

11% of Americans would object to having a gay airline pilot.

55% of Americans would object to having a gay elementary school teacher.

49% of Americans would object to having a gay doctor.

In 1993, 66.3% of the American population believed that sexual relations
between two consenting adults of the same sex were always wrong.

In a 1993 U.S. News and World Report poll of 1,000 registered voters, 53%
said they knew someone who is gay of these, 73% supported equal rights for
gays. 46% said they do not know someone who Is gay or lesbian; of these, 55
% supported the same rights.

Among world religions, Buddhism is notable in that it does not condemn
homosexuality.

The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian
Bible until 1946. There are words in Greek for same-sex sexual activities, yet they never
appear in the original text of the New Testament.

In 1972 the United Church of Christ b

---

601,209 total gay and lesbian families were reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. 304,148 gay male families and 297,061 lesbian families.
Over 40 percent of same-sex "unmarried partner" couples have lived together in the same home for more than five years. Nearly one in four of the couples raise children. Two-thirds of these children live in the 43 states where "second parent" adoption is not guaranteed.
More than one in 10 gay and lesbian couples includes a senior over age 65. Nearly two-thirds of these couples have lived together for more than five years. If a partner dies, gays and lesbians, unlike their married counterparts, get no Social Security or other retirement-plan survivor benefits.
According to recent Gallup Polls, nearly nine in 10 Americans want bans on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ninety-two of the Fortune 100 companies ban such discrimination on the job, and nearly two-thirds of them offer health benefits to same-sex partners.
An estimated 1 million veterans in the United States are gay men or lesbians. Recent surveys suggest that four percent of U.S. adults are gay or lesbian and that 17 percent of gay men and eight percent of lesbians have served in the military.
Source: 2005 Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:55 PM

It is not a "redefining to suit the homosexual agenda". It is the extension of civil right to people who have done nothing to have it taken from them except run afoul of bias and reaction.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:42 PM

Whether homosexual marriage would encourage more responsible sexual behaviour is certainly not a given. Any homosexuals who wish monogamy can have it within a civil union....the "marriage" part is simply a push for "normalisation" a re-defining to suit the homosexual agenda.

"do not deserve to have their humanity degraded by this kind of low-brain categorical thinking"

I am at a loss to know what this statement means.
This discussion is politically incorrect and off limits perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:30 PM

No one is suggesting that homosexuals are lepers.....what have you got against lepers by the way?

I was simply asking why do these statistics exist?...are they true?
If they are true why are they not more widely known?
Is there some sort of conspirisy of silence on this issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM

GfS:

Don't be too hard on yourself, duck. We have all stirred a rasher in our day! :D

Ake: You're chasing a red herring, mate. The issue is defining civil rights under the law. STDs can be handed around to and by anyone who is reckless, which is a different matter. in fact it stands to reason that encouraging monogamy would lower the incidence thereof regardless of the polarity of the couple. Homosexuals are not lepers, and do not deserve to have their humanity degraded by this kind of low-brain categorical thinking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM

Sorry about that!

M Mario....the discussion has broadened a little.

If homosexuality is found to be hazardous to health, for example, resulting in lower life expectancy etc, that would have an effect on how the general public viewed homosexual marriage sanctified by the church, or the fostering of young children by homosexual couples surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:06 PM

And what do those statistics have to do with whether or not two people can form a legal marriage with all the appropriate rights?

In the long run; the only people effected in a marriage are the couple and their legal heirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 03:52 PM

If this post is to be exhumed, I would much rather see some sensible debate on the homosexual lifestyle statistics than the personal abuse that has taken the place of reasonable discussion.
At least we might be able to acertain whether the normalisation of homosexuality is in the interests of all of the people.

Are these statistics true?.....Why do pro homosexual groups not give comparitive statistics? Is there a link between the homosexual lifestyle and HIV?
Why do supporters of homosexual "normalisation" fall silent or resort to abuse when statistics are mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 02:19 PM

That's okay. I am sorry for mine, also.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 01:33 PM

So it was "scratch a particular 'socialist' I have in mind" rather than being a generalisation about socialists in general, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM

My point, obtuse Guest from Paranoia, is that you are acting like a blustering right wing nutball, despite all your enlightened talk of new socialism, or whatever you think of it as. PErhaps you need to get out more.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM

Sorta a disconnected post from Amos. What does that have to do with the price of eggs??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:23 AM

Scratch a socialist and there's a frightened Republican trying to get out...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM

Thank God for natural selection! When the stupid idiots don't get it, let nature step in and give them a clue!! Personally, there is no need to legislate a thing! This whole thing is a backlash to the homosexuals pushing their agendas down everyone's throat...and excuse the majority for objecting!!!!!
Whether you like it or not, homosexuality (until the politically 'correct' assholes, pushed it onto the medical community), has always been listed as a dysfunctional behavior, where one gender, through one of several reasons, develops a sense of inability, to resolve understanding and communication differences with the opposite sex, usually from hostility, emotional focus, and unforgiveness towards a like gender parent and reverts to a pubescent experimental stage, of sexuality, which causes little or no challenge to expand beyond immature behavioral patterns.....Much the same behavior is seen in younger girls who like to 'dress up like 'mommy'(which is normal for pre-pubescent girls), homosexuals like to dress up like 'married'. To actually push that agenda onto a functioning society, is the product of a group of people who have physically matured, and not emotionally matured as well.....And if you don't like it, that is only a product of your political bent...which of course, is not to be confused with mental health.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:24 AM

This whole Proposition 8 thing is kind of ironic. It was able to pass because the wing-nut community was able to raise huge gobs of money for advertising.
                  It certainly demonstrates how fickle the American voter is.
                  But many of the folks who oppose Proposition 8, supported Barack Obama both in the primary and general elections, and he won by the same method, massively outraising his opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:37 PM

:0) That's cool A......think I like the traditional version better tho'


I dont see their existence as a threat to humanity.....Homosexuals have always and will always exist, without being any sort of "threat"

It is the agenda of normalising what I see as a destructive lifestyle which concerns me.
Some of the statistics which I read last night, gave life expectancy for male homosexuals as over twenty years less than hetero sexual men. If this is anything like the truth, questions must surely be asked.
I will be perfectly honest Amos, I have never seen or studied these stastistics before.....Have you, and if so why are you not asking the questions?

There are also some from homosexual websites, but they all fail to give comparisons in death rates, life expectancy,no of sexual partners etc.
I don't want to get too involved in this, as I hate basing my argument on statistics......but surely they must be taken into account?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:27 PM

What's the difference between a civil union which is called "a marriage" and one with all the same legal implications which isn't? There is the linguistic difference of course, but generally dictionaries decide that kind of thing according to how people use language.   

Sooner or later, no doubt dictionaries would modify their definition of the word to match how people actually use language.

Why on earth does anyone want to make a fuss about it either way?...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:13 PM

A dime is a coin worth about a shilling, I suppose, a tenth of a dollar.

There was an old joke about people expressing good intentions or such: "Put would've, could've and shouldl've in onehand and a dime int he other and it'll get you a doughnut." I used a chip because I don't think you make a deal about doughnuts over yonder.

There is no offense being offered to humanity. The offense to humanity is the invitation to hate itself.

People who are homosexually oriented are not destructive, in general, and there is no reason to marginalize them as though they were not human, which you do when you characterize their existence as a threat to humanity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:43 PM

Hi Amos...Could you explain the line about dimes and chips....we don't haveit over here, but it sounds as if it could be a good one.

As you well know, I have no personal dislike of homosexuals, or any wish to deprive them of "human rights"....no sane person would.

What i am against, is an agenda to "normalise" a minority lifestyle which could have profound effects on the rest of society.

As my friend the POPE says...Humanity has a right to defend itself!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:20 PM

Add a dime to that and you can buy a chip, Ake.

It is quite one thing to have ap ersonal distaste for the subject, practice or participants of male homesexuality. I sympathize.

But to make a categorical imperative of reduction of civil rights out of such a personal dislike is unmanly in itself, and reactionary.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM

Anyway....why should I care....I've got the POPE on MY side!!...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

Come on Kat, I think you know me better than that!
I bear no ill will to anyone other than stinking Capitalists.
I also draw a distinct line between male homosexuals and Lesbians.
I see no statistics which would suggest health risks or overly promiscuous lifestyles pertaining to Lesbians.
I also think that they would make excellent parents


Rosie ... If you have nothing to add to this discussion but invective, save your breath.   I have heard it all before and am sigularly unimpressed.
This forum has a good percentage of numpties already, another is hardly going to set the heather on fire!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:24 AM

Amos, thanks for the link to the Don't Divorce Us.

ake, you get more vile by the day - I wish Jude were here to give you a proper Glaswegian *blessing* as I know she would. As it is, you'll feel better if you dinna fash yerself so about others.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:17 AM

Holy cow! You mean some of you people were the product of the consumation of a sacred Christian marriage contract between consenting heterosexuals? What a disgusting thought.
Now *there* is a bloody good reason to ban something.
Simply cannot believe some of the vile ugly pestilance being spewed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:29 AM

Arrant nonsense. You are comparing extreme outliers with a significant population.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: bubblyrat
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:31 AM

I agree !! What next ?? Shall we permit a man to marry his horse ?? Or legalise paedophilia ?? I mean, these people are "born like it ", they "can't help it", they have got "human rights" , so why don't we just legalise EVERY form of aberrant sexual behaviour and be done with it ?? ( God Forbid ! ).Roll on Armageddon, I say !!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM

PS....the statistics which I won't cite from the Baptists and other religious organisations are much more alarming, considering that we now routinely place very young children to be fostered by male homosexuals. Not only health issues, but numbers of sexusl partners, duration of sexual contacts, divorce/separation rates etc.

As a society we have taken "Liberalism" and the rights of "selected" minorities to truly dangerous levels...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:05 AM

The right to behave exactly as we would personally like, has always been subject to what is in the "common good"

I normally view statistics with extreme care, but the latest batch from independent sources indicate Hiv/Aids levels rising more quickly percentage wise among male homosexuals, than among heterosexuals. this must surely say something about the homosexual lifestyle, yet you all ingnore these statistics.....Why?
For all you Catholic "Liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 10:31 PM

Guest from Sanity either missed or discounts this thought:

"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."


Akenaton is mistaken in his view that this issue somehow or another has something to do with Liberalism. The idea that government should neither know nor want to know about the sexual orientation of it's citizens is a firmly conservative one--Conservatives believe that the powers and interests of government need to be limited if the citizens are to remain free.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:46 PM

Ken Starr, hero of Monicagate, now wants to nullify all marriages in California that were legal and valid prior to Proposition 8 between people of the same sex.

One response: Please Don't Divorce Our Friends.

I spit at this Grundyesque, small-minded, bitter-hearted meddling among fellow citizen's lives.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 07:42 PM

GTS:

Horseshit. You made statements that are nonsensical and don't even notice.

For example, what would "the roles being reversed" possibly consist of? Some bizarre sci-fi dystopia where gays had been elevated to power because they were not contributing to the huge population explosion, and breeding was a capital offense, hunted down in the slums and rounded up and rubbed out? Thus, only those who would never breed would be allowed the civil status of marriage, and this anti-hetero discrimination was made into law?

The mind reels.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 06:19 AM

Ruth on 'rubbing it in your face':

"unless of course they are having a post-wedding sex party, in your house, and inviting you to join in. It seems unlikely."

Exactly, and of course there's a really simple way to stop other peoples lewd, orgasmic, writhing sexual behaviour affecting you: simply stop fantasising and obsessing about it all the time. The choice is of course yours. No-one can tell you what to do with your own imagination in your own head.

For my own part, I tend to spend my time thinking about sexual acts which please me personally. And sometimes even doing them.
Don't know about anyone else here....?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 04:34 AM

From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

"......As for GtS I will not respond to your posts until you start saying something that makes any sense at all."

Well, I understand......if you just can't keep up, I'm sure that you are glad not to respond!!

Just because certain subjects don't fit into a very myopic 'liberal' view, I'm sure you're absolutely lost, and 'working without tools'.

Too bad, I was just starting to wonder what you played, and stuff.....Your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

Ake:

You are woefully off the mark here. John's assertions are exactly the issue.

It matters not a whit what your own emotional reaction is to the mental image of two men blowing each other or two women making themselves happy. Your feelings of anipathy toward others' choices are irrelevant.

If there is to be a civil state called marriage, you have yet to state on what grounds you dare to select one or another group of people as entitled to that civil state and another not. Your arrogance based on your lizard brain sense of disgust is crude and unbecoming, to put it mildly. What is truly disgusting is not what strangers do to strangers in privacy, but the alacrity with which you choose to demean categories of human beings based on your imaginary antipathies.

That is where the bigotry lies.

As for GtS I will not respond to your posts until you start saying something that makes any sense at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: LilyFestre
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM

Talk about people who continue to repeat themselves Ake.

*ahem*

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:33 AM

Hi Ruth...I know that you're off on the old trick of personalising the discussion...its wearing a bit thin these days :0)
but if the don't know that there is a general distate among hetero-sexual (alright Ebbie?) men, about the homosexual act, then with respect, you are not living in the real world.

I, not even going to bother responding too John, who is as full of shit as ever...Ake