BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM

I find myself smiling tolerantly at the mental image of a committed atheist, adducing support for his views from the supreme representative of an entity in which he does not believe.

The blind leading the blind is a phrase that springs instantly to mind.


""Perhaps my views seem extreme because they are opposed by so many here who on this issue are motivated more by political expediancy than common sense....Ake""

Not political expediency, Ake, more a respect for the LAW in this country, and the Constitution in the US, both of which forbid the discrimination you espouse.

Until either or both are repealed, you do not have an argument. End Of Story.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:18 PM

It would seem to me that it is more "politically expedient" to come down on the side of supporting Prop 8. Especially for politicians who want to get re-elected.

But there is the matter of the Constitution. That is the check on the abuses of the majority, and Prop 8, since it discriminates against a minority, is clearly unconstitutional.

And supporting and preserving the Constitution is just common sense.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:49 PM

I have to say that during one of the presidential debates, I was surprised to learn that both Barack Obama and John McCain opposed gay marriage. I can't say I really believe in gay marriage or that I like the idea of it, but I don't think it is something that should be prohibited by government. If gay people want to get married and aren't hurting anybody by getting married, then I don't think the rest of society has a right to stop them - even if a majority votes against gay marriage. I think of both McCain and Obama as moderates, and I thought they would agree with me.
I guess they're more closely aligned with the Pope than I am.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM

I was of course referring to the expediency of "pro-homosexual marriage" posters to this forum, who,due to the way this issue has become politicised, feel the issue is an excellent chance to throw shit at "conservatives"

Unfortunately the penny has not yet dropped with these people, that they themselves are the "reactionaries" on this issue....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:08 AM

Don...I am indeed an atheist, and I don't need your arrogant sort of tolerance.
The fact that Benedict Ratzinger has been made leader of the Catholic Faith does not mean that he is incapable of addressing social issues with commonsense and reason.
I will listen and learn from anyone that I think is talking sense, be he a Pope or a tramp.
Pope Benedict has gone further than I would in his perception of the destructive nature of homosexuality, but his fears about humanity's view of the life force and for our place in the future of the planet stand up to scrutiny...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:32 AM

Ake, I am puzzled at the vehemence of your "non bigotted" opposition to something which has absolutely NO impact on YOUR life, health, well being, nor in fact your financial condition.

In general, I am uninterested in how others conduct their lives unless affected in one of those areas by their actions. I don't understand why the decisions made about THIS ONE SUBJECT should elicit the fiercely emotional response we see from you and GfS.

What, I wonder would be your response to that kind of interference, were you on the receiving end?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 12:02 PM

As I have striven to make clear over and over here, Ake, I support equality under the law, and the granting of equal civil rights.

You interpret this as being "pro" homosexual marriages, but you are mistaken. I am "pro" marriage, in general, but I do not care, and I do not think anyone should care, what the plumbiong of the participants looks like. I think there is a lot of rather perverse obsession with the subject and in some ways it reminds me of the equally obsessive interest and equally perverse in racial eugenics which once informed so much dialogue in this country, before it was exported to Germany in the first decades of the 20th century.

The compulsion to categorize other human beings into "bad" pigeonholes is a deep human neurosis, out of which we all must somehow grow; even you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

Why are you all arguing with a troll whose fake identity is a bigoted Christian, homophobe? Nothing else to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM

If you are referring to Akenaton, Harpgirl, he is a long standing and respected member of the Mudcat, and while I very often disagree with his point of view, he is most emphatically NOT a troll.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM

Harpgirl.....Ma dear ah didnae ken it wis you....Is yer erse still hingin' thegither??

Amos....Godwins law already!....and it's only Thursday...I take it
your last message was typed with "hands held high" :0)

Don....Thanks mate,you are a Conservative and a gentleman...a rare breed!
In answer to you query, I often get "het up" about things which don't affect me personally, I think it's something to do with my political up-bringing, a hangover from the days when I thought socialism and I could change humanity. However I promise to try to kick the habit, I don't suppose you've ever been troubled by this sort of thing so no point in asking advice??

For the umpteenth time.....no one can be "against" homosexuality it is a fact of life!
I am against the agenda of "normalisation" "manipulation" and "subversion" by a small but very powerful minority and the "useful idiots" who support that minority...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

I think you're picking on the wrong group, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM

Trouble is Rig, we keep thinkin' in groups,
I don't "believe", but I like the way some of the "believers" are thinkin'
We've got to start learning how life actually feels again, we have lost contact with reality.
We have two extremes which in real terms are actually quite close together and in the middle a great heap of shit.
Political speak, psycho-babble, outright lies, misinformation etc and in this shitheap live the "liberals" burrowing and digesting deaf and sightless, but ready to devour any "extremists" who recognise shit by the smell.

They fuck us up!....our "Liberals"!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:35 PM

Question: Since you, ake, are Scots, in what way are you using the term 'liberal'? I suspect that your nuts and bolts are metric.

Also, to all: I don't think Akenaton cares a whit about the American Constitution. Why would he?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM

AYe, Ebbie, he's not using it in the American tradition. Canny wee bugger, he.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:04 PM

Ake - I agree. Tribalism is at the root of a number of problems. Root out tribalism, and the world will be a better place.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg or haggard or whatever!
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM

I'm talking about GFS not aken.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:37 AM

"Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, especially David Hume, whose influence is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic." (Excerpted from Wikipedia)

The present issue is a classic instance of factionalism as a danger to individual rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:28 PM

Hg, and you are disguised as....ummm, what?

Haven't been on much the last few days, but after going over the posts, a lot of you have seemed to drifted from the topic, into thinking that those who oppose homosexuals 'marrying' is a direct affront, of your political views, as a whole. This is a singular issue. No where, on here, do I see any compassion for the individuals, who are confronting the inside ins and outs, of the turmoil that lives within them. Nor do I see ANY of the ideologues, caring about anything, but how THEY are perceived, by 'like minded', cold, and uncaring debaters. You care about your opinions(maybe), but not one ounce about the fellow human beings that you pretend to be arguing about. To me, if that is an indication of a particular 'party', that you subscribe to, and that 'party', reflects you, then a re-examination of your motives, and your 'party's' motives, is certainly in order! Amos, is the only one, who, in his opposing arguments even alluded to, homosexuals having 'God given' feelings, or anything of the sort...yet, if there is a separation between church and state, or 'God given', and humans, then I have to ask, just who makes up this 'party', and the' party line'...a bunch of inanimate objects???? Because that is the way a lot of you act!! Akenaton, on the other hand, a self described 'atheist', has quoted another point of view,(the Pope's), demonstrating an openness, that you 'self thought of' liberals, should be applauding. However you have become more closed off, and more closed off than the, furthest conservative, right wing nuts. Look at what you've become!!! Though Amos and I have had our disagreements, and probably still will, I sense that he, at least, does 'some' research, in regards to his viewpoints....which, may indeed, allow him to change his position, IF, he finds supporting data, to another point of view. This other personalized nonsense, of attacking each other, by some on here, armed with nothing but an uneducated opinion, with no research to back up anything you spout off, is indicative of the 'mob rule', that was brought up, earlier. Unless many of you, just don't stop...take a breath...and think that considering any other data, would enlighten you, into caring more for your fellow humans, then you've become hard, brittle, and certainly not 'liberal'..but rather more like fascistic,..more than you'd ever admit! Your opinions, then become, just mental chewing gum, rather than, anything resembling care!!!
Also, Amos, in light of this post..compare that to your post,.."By the way, GfS, it is most disingenuous of you to pose as one who rings the bell of freedom and the hammer of justice in order to squash a group of people of whom you have a derogatory opinion."...Not only are you arguing my point.....I am the one who favors freedom and justice..but basing on truth...not a mob, of uninformed, uneducated, heartless clones.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:56 PM

"However, he (Madison) thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

                But the Neo-Cons beat the system by convincing large numbers of poor people that if the pray hard enough, they too will have large holdings of property. So they support the property holders in spite of the fact that they are beggers themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM

From GFS:

"To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest'   In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you.

...and a bigoted musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, soundtrack author, and marriage and family counselor at that....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM

Is that as 'intelligent' as you get????...You must not have read earlier, where name calling is used to avoid an intelligent reply. Then again, you haven't posted one, anyway....I've already got your act.
Some people never get a clue. Say something, on topic, that relates an idea for further discussion, rather than childish name calling. You are embarrassing both yourself, and your "tragically 'liberal'(?)" political bent.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:51 PM

The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters are simply not capable of thinking for themselves. Whoever raises the most money wins. This is a much greater problem than the proposition itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:58 PM

The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters....knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass, and now the losing side is whining!
Rather arrogant, don't you think that you think ALL the voters in California don't know what they are doing?????? ...I know, "It's not me, it's the rest of the world is crazy," right?

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

RIght, GfS. Exactly right. In this case. Go back and check that Federalist 10 discussion up thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:14 PM

"...knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass,..."

               They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:24 PM

" They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge! "

I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:13 AM

Ye gods. There is more scraping and scratching and digging going on - "...since it appears that didn't work, let me try this..." S/He/It has gone the gamut from disgust and fear and exhortation to patronizing pleas.

Heckfahr, as an elderly friend of mine used to say. For your edification, Gohsofarfromsanity, I don't feel sorry for my gay friends. good lord. They happen to be happy, productive, talented people. Among them is a singer/guitarist who also is a boat pilot who holds the rank of Captain and in her spare time makes furniture; another is her singer/guitarist/mandolinist partner who teches nature sketching in the field and composes fiddle tunes in her spare time; another is a manager of an upscale hotel who is an excellent boss with great people skills.

There are others. Why should I feel sorry for any of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM

Ebbie, I think I said pretty much the same thing, in an earlier post, when I said, " Yes, I know some homosexuals, who are very gifted and creative people, who in my opinion, border on genius, some who have taught, and worked with me, in both music, sound, and laser engineering, but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up."
Now, for all of those who mistakenly call me a 'bigot, or homophobic' try reading that with some comprehension, instead of, rose colored preconception. IF, in the course, of discussions, with a homosexual, which I've had quite of few, they honestly admit that the reason they felt more compelled to be attracted to the same sex, was because of certain events, and feelings that they have experienced, in their youth, coupled with alienation, towards a parent(or lack of one), and because of that attraction to the same sex, they become homosexual, and now feel they are compelled to remain that way, even if it means that their sadness, includes, the fact, that they may never be able to have their own biological children, and they are offered a way out, they tend to paint a complete different picture of being homosexual, than most of you even begin to understand.....and it's not a happy, political one!!! Nor, does it champion, a 'civil right' issue...which 'calling' it marriage, satisfy the deeper inner needs, that most of you are not even addressing!...nor care about, as fellow human beings! To you, you just exploit them to bolster a political stance, which you assume incorporates this issue...when in reality, never even approaches it!!! Now before you get ultra trigger happy, with your name calling, and pigeon holing, consider, if you are able, that position. Consider another person's emptiness, in certain areas. It might be a life changing experience, for you!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 09:54 AM

"I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?"


                      Yes! Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM

EXPLOIT? Of all the consarned bass-ackwards inverted head-in-lower digestive tract propositions I have heard, that about takes the cake. It is simultaneously profoundly stupid AND insulting, a neat trick.

The fact that you have some emotional insight into some gay's inner sadness is a nice testament to genuine communication, GFS, but it has no fuindamental bearing on the issue as a legal, consitutional, civil rights question--which it is. Nor does it provide any universal insight into homosexuality, because it is an uncontrolled observation on a very small population. Surely you can see that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM

but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up."


Two thoughts:

1) Feeling deep sadness - in anyone's life - is nothing unusual. You can probably scratch the skin of anyone = even you - and find that there are elements of frustration and a sense of "Is this all there is?" and "Why haven't I accomplished more?"

2) Is it surprising that living a life that so many others - even you - denigrate and don't accept should create sadness?

Incidentally, I don't think it is necessary to cite 'genius' in some gay people; simple acceptance will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM

Well said GfS!


I think you've pretty well nailed it with that post. I've worked for a few homosexual couples who have moved into our area and they all seem to suffer from a neurosis of some sort. I feel very sorry for them, no matter how our "liberal" friends here try to spin my thoughts.

I don't think the "liberal" agenda of "normalisation" of Homosexuality, is actually in the interests of homosexuals if their happiness and well being is what we are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM

I'm speechless - almost. Ake, you mean to tell me that you are not neurotic?? I would never have guessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

believe it or not Ebbie, you couldn't meet a less neurotic guy than me in real life....I walk around spreading sunshine and happiness wherever I go..:0) I try to go out of my way to spend time and have a crack with everybody, especially the old folks! I love hearing their stories, and a smile or a joke makes all the difference to them.
My job as a builder takes me into their homes and some of them haven't seen a friendly face for weeks at a time.

I feel a happy person and a contented one, in that I think I understand what life is about. I know the world is imperfect but the secret of personal happiness is to understand what the imperfections really are.

On Mudcat, I just like to debate....to show all the different ways of looking at things...opening minds....bet you think that's a laugh! but most minds are fitted with ten lever locks!! and they only allow to enter whatever fits their political views.

Go on Ebbie crack a smile...you know it's the best medecine...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM

Not so fast, Ebbie,....if you perceive Ake is neurotic,...and you have a running dialogue, such that you have, and the nature that it is...perhaps the need for a neurosis feeding need in you, may be your clue, that you in fact have the symptoms, projected......in 'everyone else'......consider another's feelings, and their reality, before you accuse them of your motives!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM

sheesh I wouldn't give a dime for somebody with no neuroses that they have recognized.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:23 PM

How's your finances?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM

Pretty good, because I've never met anyone without neuroses. Thanks for asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:42 PM

Well, I'm quite sure you haven't...........(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:44 PM

Another sheesh. For a certified (?) counselor, GtS, you seem pretty dense and uninformed. Check out the prevalence of neuroses and health.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM

I could send you a photo Ebbie?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:02 PM

Your neurosis is visible, Ake? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM

I'm certainly not neurotic about THAT Ebbie :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:43 PM

Okay, Ake and GfS, here's a different take on this:   Since you seem to be maintaining that homosexuality is a form of physical or psychological disability, do you favor withholding civil rights from people who are, say, victims of post-polio syndrome, or cerebral palsy, or have Asperger's syndrome, or are manic-depressive, or who are subject to anxiety attacks?

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), someone with a disability (including psychological problems) has the same civil rights as any other citizen.

In certain ways, we're a lot more civilized than we used to be. But we have a way to go yet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

All depend what "rights" your talkin about Don.
I certainly wouldn,t be in favour of allowing two herion addicts or people with serious mental health problems to foster young children.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:14 PM

Fair point. But that still leaves the matter of whether homosexuality is either a physical disability or a mental condition, OR part of inherent brain structure which may have a genetic factor.

I know an extended family in which one of several brothers was gay. He never married. But one of his cousins and two of his nephews (not siblings) were also gay. And, no, they didn't really have that much contact with each other. The nephews grew up in a different part of the country from their uncle. That's a statistical anomaly, which tends to indicate a genetic factor within that family.

As to the adoption of children, I know one gay couple (two men), who, incidentally were married in a nearby mainstream church, which, of course, recognizes their marriage whether the state does or not, who have adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Got them as infants. As they grow up, they get plenty of feminine attention from the sister of one of the men, plus a number of women friends. So growing up with females around is no problem.

And no, the two guys are not molesting the kids! [Knee-jerk response of most homophobes] They (the two men) are fully aware that brain scientists maintain that sexual orientation is inborn and that the boys will be what they will be. They're still pretty young yet, but the oldest one is showing signs of being "all boy," and he's quite interested in girls.

The lads are also fully aware that their family situation is regarded by some as "unusual," but they take it in stride. These two are normal, healthy kids, and believe me, they are certainly better off here, with two fathers (one they call "daddy" and the other "papa") than they would be if left in a Chinese orphanage.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM

By the way, these two fellows are both attorneys, and they're loaded. The boys are going to highly rated private schools (in the UK, I believe that would be "public schools"). So, as I said, their futures are much brighter than if they had been left in China.

Incidentally, one of the boys is now an acolyte in the church in which his adoptive parents were married. Lutheran church, woman pastor.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:41 PM

Don, your premise is not accurate as to my position, nor am I suggesting that homosexuals do not deserve the same 'rights' as heteros. On the contrary, they already have the rights that all have, but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions), and re-naming that arrangement, is not 'marriage'. Suppose two room mates, of the same sex, or not, find it 'financially advantageous' to claim marriage, and therefore want equal rights..wouldn't that be defrauding the company that the one who works for them, their rights of protection, from paying out benefits?? The room for abuse, by others, looking for a free hand out, would drive up medical premiums, to those honestly receiving it, even more astronomical than they already are.,,and so far, that argument was the best presented on here so far. To avoid that dilemma, all insurance companies would have to do, is to place prerequisites, and physicals on those couples,..and even provide funded counseling, to get them off their pay out lists!...or cancel them outright. Another plan should be offered, as to include 'households'....but that to would be a tangled up mess too. No, stick to the traditional marriage and family units, and perhaps a different accommodation for other situations.
Still, the motivational force difference, between hetero family units, and homosexual couples are different, in priorities, purpose and function. They really are not the same thing, at all.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:46 PM

"...but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions),..."

                   If you leave religion completely out of it, is it still marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 08:28 PM

So, GfS, explain to me if you please, what's the difference? Both same sex and mixed sex couples could "defraud" the system. Why would sleeping in the same bed or in different beds make any difference?

How can you tell if it's a true marriage (having sex) or a marriage in name only (no sex), and what difference would the gender of the people involved in this "fraud" make?

Don Firth