BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM

"Just out of curiosity, Little Hawk, did you know that before I changed my college major to music, I was majoring in English? You tell my nothing I don't already know."

Hi Don.....I was just wondering, were you by any chance attending the same college as Tia?

As far as irony is concerned you are still in the first grade, in Little Hawk you are challenging a master.

If I were you, I would stick to windmills for the present.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:58 PM

Yessiree. It's not that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM

The trick is to remember that when the time comes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM

Of course I know that you already know, Don. I'm just playing the role of the straight man when I patiently explain to you the many things you already know. But you already knew that too, didn't you? ;-) I am Canadian, and proud of it, eh?   We live for irony in this country.

God, we are a clever and urbane pair, you and me! We are true philosopher kings of the North American zeitgeist. Savants. Heroic intellectual adventurers. We may even be a tad smarter than Spaw. We might as well be rubbing shoulders with the likes of Woody Allen, Alan Alda, and Noam Chomsky. Damn shame you and I can't meet for a coffee now and then and share our brilliance together... ;-)

It's also a damn shame I can't work out a link to that picture of Daniel and Cha Cha. (sigh) It would shed much light on this discussion.

By the way, I love that scene with Mercutio. The ability to show humour in the face of death is indeed a noble attribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:23 PM

By the way, I won a game of Scrabble against an English professor (whom I knew socially) with the word "zed." He challenged it, I informed him that it was the British rendition of the final letter in the alphabet. He doubted it, so we consulted a dictionary, which verified what I said.

Don Firth

Now back to our regular broadcast.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:14 PM

Wise. One should avoid placing oneself in the position of Mercutio, Romeo's cousin in Romeo and Juliet, who lay on the ground bleeding from a fatal sword thrust: "Tis not so wide as a church door, nor as deep as a well, but 'twill serve. Inquire after me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man. . . ."

Just out of curiosity, Little Hawk, did you know that before I changed my college major to music, I was majoring in English? You tell my nothing I don't already know.

Comprenez-vous irony?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:51 PM

"Humourless" is the Canadian (or British) spelling, Don. In Canada and the UK we do certain things differently. We spell our words as follows:

humour
rumour
harbour
rancour
honour

The additional "u" in these words is one of the very few forms of cultural independence we have left to distinguish ourselves from the USA! As such it is celebrated here. ;-) Matter of fact, there's a humorous singer here in Canada, very well known for her satirical songs, and she did a song at the recent Mariposa Folk Festival about the extra "u" in our British spelling.

We love it, eh? Another thing we do here that is different is how we pronounce the name of the letter "z". Americans pronounce it as "zee", we pronounce it as "zed".

It's almost all we have left, Don! (other than poutine) So be tolerant.

Pettifogging is a Lachaesian word. It means something similar to taddlewanking which is another Lachaeasian word. A pettifogger is one who harps on petty technicalities in an argumentative, maundering, and crabby fashion and it also implies one who lacks humour. Oh, sorry....maundering is another Lachaesian word. It means to carp, bellyache, and complain incessantly. Woody Allen is a classic maunderer...well, at least he portrays such types in his movies at any rate. Whether he's really like that in real life I can't say.

Now I shall step discreetly aside and let you engage in the promised bloodletting... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM

the one more thing i will say(for now) is that we should all have the freedom to be who we are and love whom we please, but this freedom comes with responsibility.
as do most of the freedoms we all enjoy.
driving for example, is very dangerous and kills loads of people because of the idiots who have misused their freedom to do it. personal ownership of ones actions must be brought into question more.

i think that covers where i am at right now.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 07:07 PM

Just to establish that I am not a "pettifogging (whatever the hell that means), humorless (why do Canadians always insist on misspelling that word? Brits, too?) scoundrel (I am greatly loved by multitudes)."

Now, with that firmly established, step aside, Little Hawk. I have some bloodletting to do, and you don't want to get in the way.

####

Actually, however, unless something new and startling manifests itself, I have said about all I care to say (several times and well-documented), so I see little point in continuing to try to educate the ineducable. That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to retire from this thread, but I'm really getting tired of pointing out the obvious, documenting it thoroughly, only to hear the same old superstitious nonsense repeated back to me yet again, still being presented as if it were sensible argument.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Hmmm. You're right, Don. I can't open it now either. Dang. One more blow against freedom and tolerance. I have the picture saved in "My Pictures" on my computer, but that doesn't help too much, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:11 PM

I see LH has succeeded in his long desire to derail the thread and reduce it to mental frippery. Well done, Sir Hawk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:06 PM

Damn! The fascists may have shut down the link. Hang on...I'll see if I can fix it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:04 PM

Daniel and Cha Cha: All I get is "HTTP 403 Forbidden."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:57 PM

Ah, that is good, Don! So do I. Indeed, this little enlightened enclave in which I happily repose (the Commonwealth of Simcoe County in the Principality of Ontario) is a liberal paradise of grand social tolerance, openness, and impartiality, albeit pining at present under a certain number of remaining oppressive restrictions put in place by bureaucratic chuckleheads and religious fanatics.

I am fighting the good fight here so that my friend Daniel can legally marry his love and life partner, Cha Cha....


Daniel and Cha Cha

Until everyone is free, no one is free!!!! Let that be our battlecry!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM

Fie, foolish jester! Get the hence, lest you feel the toe of my boot!

In answer to your query, knave, I live in a state of tranquility and bliss.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM

Which state dost thou live in, churl? And are they accepting immigrants at this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:22 PM

Not bloody likely. I know my state legislature. And I know the nature of the out-of-state religious coalition that's pushing the anti-gay legislation. And I know the kind of tactics they're laible to use.

And so do most of the state's voters. They tend to react pretty negatively when out-of-staters try to tell us how we should run things.

Touché!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:18 PM

Don - Avaunt, vile wretch! Get thee hence to thine abysmal haunts where thou canst ply thy usual corrupted habits amongst the thieves and cutpurses who are thy favoured companions, and trouble me no longer. Truly, thou art more vexatious than a pox, more inglorious than a rodent, more irritating than a rash, more undesirable than scurvy, and more noisome than a chronic skin ailment. May thou meet a hideous fate and be buried in a nameless plot on unhallowed ground, thou pettifogging, humourless scoundrel. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM

Prepare to meet thy maker!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

Trivial to the last, eh, Little Hawk?

####

". . . trying to paint me as a psycopathic hate filled bully, as you have done in your last post. . . ."

Is that how you read that, Ake? Once again, you're putting your own spin on what you read. I was not trying to imply that at all. It's not always about you, you know.

I think you are just abysmally misinformed, and quite prejudiced. I do wish you would try to drop you preconceptions and learn something about what this whole business is all about.

I mirror your own words back to you. ". . . my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it," including—particularly including—political manipulation based on ignorance and prejudice.

Thank you for the debate. Here, I have learned the kind of arguments that those in Washington State who wish to rescind the recently enacted domestic partnership law and oppose the forthcoming same-sex marriage law will be using. I consider this debate like a fencing match in which I have had a chance to practice my skills before going out to fight a real duel. I now know what to expect and I am fully prepared.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM

LOL! Disturbing stuff indeed, Amos. The complex love lives of Penguins are quite notorious in the Avian world. Well, it's nice to know that we humans are not alone in struggling with the delicate negotiations that can arise around sexual roles, isn't it?

What we need to establish harmony and tolerance is inspiring moral leadership from individuals like this fine man from Austria:

"Ich vant to be uber-famous..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

OR this:

"Reporting from San Francisco -- The blogosphere has been buzzing for days over the perky widow who stole the handsome gay guy from his longtime partner.

She's been called a "home wrecker" and the sobriquet that rhymes with witch, and lambasted as a wretch "who only lives for her own happiness, no matter who gets hurt."



    *
      Opinion L.A.: What about the Tango dads in Central Park Zoo?

Cherchez la femme notwithstanding, the saga of Linda and Harry and poor, cuckolded Pepper has ignited a fierce debate about whether homosexuality is a choice. Even People magazine has called for details.

So it goes on Penguin Island at the San Francisco Zoo, where the news recently broke that Harry ditched Pepper, his male burrowmate of six years, leaving zookeepers scrambling to explain what one described as "the big philosophical issues."

The love triangle has spurred a "nature-versus-nurture debate about whether animals or people are hard-wired to be heterosexual or homosexual," said Harrison Edell, curator of birds. "There are people who are trying to draw conclusions from our birds, and I'm not really sure whether that can be done."

One recent zoo guest posed the other big question about the avian antics: "Is this something that only happens in San Francisco?"

The answer to that one, thank goodness, is a lot simpler: No. At New York City's Central Park Zoo a few years back, Silo left Roy for Scrappy, a California girl who joined them via Sea World.

The East Coast's unhappy threesome are chinstrap penguins, the West's are magellanics. Aside from that, the saga's pretty much the same: Boy meets boy. Boy loses boy. Girl takes blame. Talking heads take notice.

Christian website OneNewsNow.com quoted a "pro-family advocate" on Thursday who parsed the Harry-Pepper split as proof that "nature prefers heterosexual relationships."

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with the conservative Liberty Counsel, took a more tongue-in-cheek approach in a column on Townhall.com that ended with a veiled comparison of Pepper and former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested for homosexual lewd conduct in an airport bathroom.

"In recent days he has reportedly been spotted waddling around the zoo's public men's room, skulking in stalls and inexplicably tapping his flipper. There's even speculation that, as things continue to spiral, he may consider a run for public office."

Other commentators were more sympathetic to Pepper. John wrote on a blog called "The Friggin Loon" that he is "heartbroken" for the lovelorn loser and "hopes that he finds another male penguin that is ten times hotter than Harry!"

The blog Queerty.com floated another possibility: "Maybe," the writer posited, "Harry is actually bi?"

In their six years together, Pepper and Harry were foster fathers to a couple of abandoned eggs and hatched a chick named Norris.

They lived near Linda and her partner Fig, a kind of Penguin Island older statesman who controlled "not one but two burrows," said Edell, the bird curator. Fig died in January, and Linda kept them both.

"For penguins, real estate means a lot," Edell noted, so "as far as penguins go, she was a pretty attractive prospect."..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:49 PM

2200!!!!!! Whoo-Hoo! Still rollin', eh?

And now........a word from our sponsors:

Don't let THIS happen to you!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM

Being "married" does not necessarily mean "long term, happy or loving"......are you saying that those who choose to remain unmarried

Oh fuck what's the point!.......10!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM

my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it.

This is a beautiful mission statement, Ake, and I applaud it.

However, it should never be found so dazzling as to blind you to human wrongdoing in its name. All politics is persuasion, by its nature, and it is wiser to choose among voices by reason rather than simply stand against all of them. There's a fuzzy line between persuasion and manipulation.

But aside from that general principle, the intention to have equal civil rights equally administered is not manipulative; it is simply a desire to see equable justice under the higher principles of our great experiment over here, to make a democratic republic work under the law and strive for an ideal of justice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM

"...the typical male homosexual liason is a pretty sad, lonely and loveless affair."

Therefore we should ban the happy, long-term, loving ones.

Sheesh.

And the sum=9

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:57 AM

ake, thanks for that it was a really nice post.
when you put it as simply as that i can see where you are coming from. although beleive me i have known some real sluts in the lesbian world too!
i just think they way men and women search for someone is different, gay or straight. the risks of unprotected sex is just so much greater for gay men ( not just HIV but tearing and bruising too)and hetrosexuals.
for me a person can sleep with as many or as few as they want to, it is a matter for them and whoever they settle down with to come to terms with, as long as it is safe sex!!!!!
just a personal thing but sex in a toilet is meaningless and degrading, unless it happens to be with ones partner. i feel sorry for those who do it purely on a 'they are worth moe than that' basis.

i did think about sending this to you in a pm but i have given you alot of stick here and wanted to say this in public.
you are not a bad guy and i do believe that you are trying to make the world a better place.so many people just don't care, so good on you. just some of the langauge you have used has been abit full on.

right that is enough being smoochy

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:21 AM

Hi Don....Firstly, before I finish here, I would like to apologise for any offense I have given to you personally, but trying to paint me as a psycopathic hate filled bully, as you have done in your last post, hardly encourages friendly debate. When I am attacked in such a manner,I usually respond in kind.

I have no objection to anyone having a political agenda...I have one myself, which would seem outlandish to most people here, but it does not involve the manipulation of people or their views in its pursuit.
The "liberal" political agenda, as opposed to liberal thought, is "Orwellian" in concept and practice. I believe that implicitely and my views are borne out by many who are much better educated than I am.
I know two homosexual couples, they are both appalled by the controversy engendered by the "liberals" and activists, they feel it is serving no useful purpose and that legal rights can be achieved through a civil union.
Neither of these couples are in a civil union at present, and have no desire to be...."they just wan't a bit of peace"

From my view regarding the health figures this may be rather selfish, but these couples see themseves as separate from mainstream homosexuality and its attendant problems.

In conclusion Don, my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it.

For me it has meant months of repetition and much of my valuable time, but at the end of this thread we are addressing the issues, rather than attempting to stop a politically "inconvenient" discussion.......Apologies and best wishes Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:19 AM

Hello Jade...I wasn't being sarcastic either, at first you seemed "too good to be true" but I can see that you are sincere and not at all politically motivated.....but you "are" running around with some real bad company :0).

I dont really know what it is you want me to answer, but I guess what you are saying is that "love" conquers everything and every other issue is incidental.... well that may apply to you and your partner, in fact I'm sure it does, as seems to be the case with most lesbians... who are mostly monogamous.

The promiscuity figures for male homosexuals are totally different, showing multiple sexual partners in a short period of time, and from what I've read on the subject, the typical male homosexual liason is a pretty sad, lonely and loveless affair....the user and the used both requiring something completely different from the experience.
Perhaps this eternal search is the reason for the promiscuity which seems to be endemic in male homosexuality.

Everyone here seems agreed that exteme promiscuity can be one of the reasons that homosexual health statistics or so bad, if that is the case then the lifestyle must be questioned and its promotion as healthy and normal opposed.

By that, I don't mean that homosexuals should be criminalised or persecuted, but that they should be given the means, to address their problems, psychologically and physically, by providing funds and expertise.....not just leave them to die in their thousands by sticking our heads in the sand, or blindly following an Orwellian political agenda.
Please PM me at any time, I will try to reply when I can, but I work usually from seven 'till eight in the evening... seven days a week so my time here is limited......best wishes Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 02:42 AM

6 already Tia, soon be time to get your socks off mate!
After that you'll only have one digit left.....:0o !!

Never mind, I'm about finished here, once I've addressed the points made by Don and Jade....so you should be safe enough and won't need to navigate the minefield of "double figures".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 06:05 PM

Quentin Crisp was very amusing with his repertoire of witty remarks, but he also spoke a lot of sheer balderdash. He definitely did not speak for all gays, and I don't think he would get much agreement on statements like, "The world would be a better place without homosexuals." If, indeed, he actually said that.

And Ake's statement that homosexuals are basically uninterested in same-sex marriage (pushed, as he says, by those nasty, meddling "liberalists") is nonsense, as are his comments about the "lifestyle" of homosexuals. Not what the real, live homosexuals of my acquaintance tell me, by any means.

Does Ake know any homosexuals? Has he ever take the time to talk with a gay person? And more important:   did he listen to what they had to say?

It's putting forth misinformation, such as GfS's insistence that sexual orientation is a matter of choice (when you reach puberty, you just toss a coin), and that it is a psychological aberration (not what the American Psychiatric Association says) and can be cured with counseling and/or psychotherapy (proven ineffective, if not downright hazardous to the patient);   and Ake's increasingly obvious thesis that homosexual activity by itself spontaneously creates the AIDs virus (based on "spontaneous generation," a long since debunked medieval superstition) that gives homophobes and bullies the kind of excuses they look for to commit hate crimes against gays.

Hassling and bullying of gays is almost a national sport with some people, and almost all kids even suspected of being gay have had to undergo it. It's called by some "fag bashing." What it really is, however, is a HATE CRIME.

And sometimes it can lead to unspeakable atrocities. Have you ever heard of Matthew Shepard? If not, google the name. It will give you an idea of how far this sort of thing can go. Here's a start:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Ake:    since when has it been reprehensible to have a "political agenda?" All politicians have one, otherwise why did they run for office in the first place? And all thinking citizens have one, otherwise why would they bother to vote, in the hope that the politicians they vote for will actually do what they say they intend to do?

No—if you don't have a political agenda, you have your head up a very dark place.

Your political agenda seems to be the prevention of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, what are all your posts on this thread, and at least one other thread awhile back, all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

6

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 11:46 AM

ahhh, thats hardly fair to call ake a polar bear. they are dying out,as much as i disagree with him i don't want to think of him on a small bit of ice slowly starving to death.

i do agree that we are rising to his arguements but i feel the need to counter them, however much i wish to rise above, i simply cannot.

the fault is mine.   (ashamed face)

ake, if you could address the first part of my last post,i would be gratful. cheers x

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 10:05 AM

What baffles me is why those of you in this thread whose views I support (and as a big ol' homo that's been involved in assorted aspects of gay politics for more than twenty years you can guess which side I'm on) are still trying to get Akenaton to change his mind. It's never going to happen. He is impervious. You might as well get a polar bear to go vegan. And worst of all he is also clearly having loads of fun by getting you all so stressed out.

Why keep throwing him fish ??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 08:56 AM

It's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock.

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM

ake, thankyou for the commpliment kind sir, (not being sarcastic.) also thanks for answering my questions i appreciate it.

it seems we are talking about two different issues here.
1) the normalisation of gays.
2)the right to marriage for gays.

the two are completely different to me.
the first is accepting someone for who they are and allowing them to love who they want.
if we do not ackowledge their feelings then we condem them to a life on the outside of society and i sm sure you will find there would be more deaths through suicide than new cases of HIV. there is alot of predjudice out there as it is, without people saying they should be shunned even further.

the second issue is a legal and political thing and it should not matter (as long as everyone involved is legal age and consenting) what happens in someones bed as to what rights they have.


i understand some of the reasons for joining the military, not all of them. if it is a family thing and thereis no outside pressure then i think it is a worthy cause. we should all support them and i for one feel better that we ahve one of the best military in the world. i applaud the courage it takes. without them we would be in serious trouble by now from world war II.
our countries are build on war from as far back as you can trace through history.
i know you would never beleive i am a peace lover.
anyway i digress.
it is a good thing you do not make the distinction between gay or staight in the barracks, does this mean you are in favour of changing the rules in the US military?

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 06:45 AM

I have been on holiday for almost two weeks.

And this thread is still going.

Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:26 AM

As far as Homosexuals in the military are concerned, my opinion is that anyone, homosexual of heterosexual, who wishes to join the military must have severe learning difficulties.

Another example of vulnerable people being used to further a political agenda.

In other words, it does not matter how many young men and women die in these Capitalist wars, as long as the agenda keeps moving forward.
Any excuse will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM

Jade...I am not "shouting" at homosexuals, that would prove absolutely nothing.

I am appealing to the "liberals" and homosexual activists, who seem hell bent on promoting a lifestyle which the figures suggest needs much closer scrutiny before being accepted as healthy and harmless by society at large.
The "marriage" issue is simply a cover for the furtherance of a "liberalist" political agenda, with all it's attendant horrors like the suppression of "free speech and free thought"

Homosexuals are basically uninterested in the marriage "rights" being pushed by political activists, the take up figures for homosexual "marriage" support that. In general terms, the lifestyle as it is practiced by male homosexuals is high risk and very promiscuous and marriage/ monogamy would appear to have very little place in that lifestyle.

Most homosexuals who are in a committed relationship, seem to prefer a little privacy!

Quentin Crisp, who was mentioned earlier by someone, was a homosexual icon, but opposed "homosexual rights"
He is on record as having said "the world would be a better place without homosexuals".

You are beginning to sound the most sensible of the pro's Jade...well done....its a start...:0)XX

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM

you know that the risks of transmission from oral sex are very low.

you need to have an open cut or wound in ones mouth or throat for the virus to actually get into. you cannot be infected by swallowing.
the same for kissing, it said a casual kiss, but it is known that the only way you can catch it is if you swallow a bucket load of an infected persons saliva.. nice.

by the way i learnt this stuff when i was in high school and went to various terance higgins trust talksd on the subject.
i did not see that sort of awareness from the hetrosexuals.

it also went on to say that other STDs increase the risk, so why are we not shouting at all the staight people too?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM

That should say "most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM"
Sorry John.

no change in sum.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM

Akenaton keeps citing the Centers for Disease Control as his source of dire statistics. From research I did on the site, I can only conclude that Ake excerpts what he wants from the site, gives it his own twist, and simply ignores the rest.

It is a good, informative site. I would suggest that whenever Ake quotes something from the CDC, you check it for yourself.

Centers for Disease Control--HIV/AIDs

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:46 PM

I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM.

sum=4

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

sorry ake, i took you literally. please be abit clearer, you know how easily confused i get.

LOL

love jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

Jade...I think you know that I was referring to the situation excluding Africa, which has been dealt with earlier in the thread.

The transmission of the disease in Africa, is related to the general promiscuous behaviour of African heterosexual males.

In Western developed countries, the figures state that homosexuals are by far the largest group living with Aids " in REAL PERCENTAGE TERMS"....not absolute numbers, as absolute numbers are completely misleading in this case.

Now whether you like it or not, this is stated as a fact by the highly respected Centre for Disease Control, please address any complaints to them, not to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM

Good for you, jeddy. If his feet are held to the fire long enough he might wake up.

Eb

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:17 PM

cough, sputter, and complete disbelief at your point that gays are the highest group of poeple living and dying from HIV/ AIDS.

what type of drugs are you on there ake? can i have some please as you must be very intoxitated.
how many times must we point out the conditions in africa?

i am getting very dizzy going round in circle, although i am learning some cool stuff along the way,but unfortunately not from you ake.

i got outed in school and i can tell you it was a very unpleasant time and i lost alot of friends over it. however that was high school, which was 16 years ago.
times have moved on now, it is about time you moved with them.

may i ask how you feel about gays being in the military? i would love to know if you think they would be a risk out there with a whole bunch of men, in the middle of nowhere?

anyway, that is me done for now but please stick to the facts as it was a good job i did not have a mouthful of coffee because it would have gone all over my pc.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM

Answer again, please, this time responding to the specific points that Amos made:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Tia....A friendly word of advice, this course of action could prove difficult for you.
As I have already answered Amos's point regarding the status of homosexuals in relation to marriage "rights"(several times)and wont be repeating it again, there is a real and present danger that you may run out of fingers....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:06 PM

Akenaton:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.