BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM

Ake! 2171 posts! You da troll! Troll on dudette! Have a gay old time.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:57 PM

Tell you what, at Ake's suggestion, I will have a go at simple addition.

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=1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:40 PM

Tia....I am astounded! You teach maths yet are unable to work out simple percentages!
Who hired you?.....he should be sacked immediately!
I am only a stonemason, but am able to calculate quite easily that in real percentage terms, homosexuals are by far the largest group of people living with Aids.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were being facetious and obstructive with your "blacks" comment.
Better watch out for the thought police tho'.....ask Ebbie   :0)

Hmmm....Maths teacher, I suppose that explains the quality of your jokes!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:34 PM

Tell you what, at Ake's suggestion, I will have a go at simple addition.

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=0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM

One of Ake's methods of discussion (in addition to posting bogus information and dodging straight questions) is to attempt to denigrate those who disagree with him by displaying contempt for their knowledge, background, and intelligence, when those he tries to denigrate obviously know more about the subject than he does.

Thus, like Wile E. Coyote, he avoids looking down, lest he notice the he's standing in mid-air, twenty feet out from the canyon's edge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:48 PM

AN interesting tidbit from the reference TIA provided:

"A survey using a convenience sample of more than 6,000 middle and high school students across the United States found that
• Nearly 9 of 10 gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender students were harassed at school in the past year.
• Six of 10 felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation.
• Almost a third skipped a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe.13
Such victimization, in turn, is associated with HIV risk behaviors. The Massachusetts YRBS found that YMSM who had been threatened or bullied at school were more likely to have ever been diagnosed with an STD, injected drugs, had more than four sex partners, and not used a condom the last time they had sexual intercourse than those who had not been threatened or bullied at school.¹⁴ "

¹⁴Goodenow C, Szalacha L, Westheimer K. School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools 2006;43:573–89.

What this suggests is that by promoting bias against homosexual individuals on categorical grounds, the impact of voices like GfS and Ake in a community would be to increase the transmissions of STDs through the mechanism described.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM

"Tia...would you, for fuck sake go see a statistician....ask about percentages and how they work....after that you might have a go at simple addition or subtraction.....who knows, the world may be your oyster!"

Please note that until this exact post, I have never called Akenaton any names, nor have I used any foul language in adressing him. That just ended.

Akenaton,
Thanks very much, but the world is already my oyster. I teach math at a fucking university (you, and all, would recognize the name). Steering me to a math primer is a fucking dodge on your part. Easier (and ridiculous) to pretend that I don't understand math than for you to try to justify your fucked-up logic.

I'm sorry if my tone is oppressive. I certainly don't wish to silence you, but I really don't get the blather that comes out.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM

". . . any new outbreak of Aids has always [emphasis mine—DF] shown up first in the homosexual community. . . ."

Not true, Ake. The first outbreak of AIDs was found among African hunters, illegally poaching monkeys for "bush meat." It then spread rather indiscriminately among Africans of both sexes. It was first found in the United States among homosexual men, where the nature of the virus was identified.

As I said, it is an equal opportunity infection and it is transmitted like any other virus.

Spontaneous generation is a medieval superstition (repeat that to yourself until you finally get it).

####

United Nations, May 30 (Prensa Latina)

Cuba was highlighted on Tuesday as the Caribbean country with lowest HIV-AIDS levels as well as for carrying out one of the most efficient programs in the world to prevent the transmission of the illness from mothers to children.

The recognition appears in the UNAIDS report on the world AIDS epidemics, presented on Tuesday at the UN headquarters in New York, and contrasts the Island with the panorama in neighboring Caribbean nations, which is today the most affected region in the world after Africa for this scourge.

Last year alone the pandemic took over 2.8 million lives in the world, and four more million people were reported to be newly infected.

The document says that in the case of Cuba, there was a 0.1 percent rate for adults by the end of 2005, with some 4,800 people living with HIV and fewer than 500 dead due to diseases associated with AIDS.

The Cuban program to prevent mother-child transmission of HIV has kept the number of newborn HIV children under 100 so far, the report states

####

Ake, I have checked what sources you have used that I've been able to ferret out, in addition to the BBC story about AIDs in Cuba that you linked to many posts above, and I find that not only do you exaggerate what these sources say, you pad the statistics you quote. Naughty boy! Most unscientific. Most unethical!

When it comes to dancing on pins, you're liable to find the point of that pin in most uncomfortable place!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:36 PM

Akenaton -- just to be clear, I've never called you a homophobe. As I've said, I have no idea if you're a homophobe or not, since I can't see inside your head. The names I have called can be supported, in my world, by the things you've actually said. That's a claim you can't make. But that's all a digression. Really, the best thing would be to answer Amos' post, or acknowledge the point and don't bring it up again. Otherwise you run the risk of being seen as an inadequate thinker and conversationalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM

As a charter member of the moronic pseudo-liberal conspiracy of Orwellian thought control, it seems to me that complaining about being called names is a bit odd. Be that as it may, if you don't want to respond to me, perhaps you would be so good as to respond to Amos:

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: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:19 PM

"Still dancing Don? Some day you're gonna fall off the head of that pin..."

Standing on solid, scientific ground, Ake, and you know it. You just don't like it because it pulls the rug out from under your "homosexual activity generates HIV" argument, which is pure medieval superstition. And you know that, too.

Or if you don't, your scientific education is sadly lacking, and you need to learn a great deal more before you venture into making the kind of pronouncements you seem so fond of making.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:55 AM

The rhetoric you excerpted is interesting in its illogicality. The assertion that justice does not mean giving in to every sexual desire is a complete strawman.

If you take a class of people and outlaw them in some way, you are in fact declining to test each case on the merits, preferring to do your thinking in large categories and treat everyone int hose categories the same way. As your proponent points out, this does not serve justice.

If you insist on linking categories that do not really tie together (such as the capability of bishops and the sexual orientation of the people who act in that capacity) you are not serving logic, either, because you are asserting false-middle and hidden-premise distortions.

"No-one should be a bishop who will not safeguard the young" is a fine principle. "All homosexuals threaten the young with corruption" is highly debatable. Linking these propositions together automatically is a betrayal of reason, preferring reflexive or reactionary modes of thought. It is exactly the same failing that militates for dictating about sexual orientation to people and denying civil rights to people because of some attribute or category instead of the merits of individual cases.

It is lazy, reactive, irresponsible thinking.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:35 AM

My link was not meant as an answer to the poster immediately above.

I would have thought that by now he would have deduced that I have no interest in conversing with someone who thinks me a homophobe, a bigot and a pervert.

Tia...would you, for fuck sake go see a statistician....ask about percentages and how they work....after that you might have a go at simple addition or subtraction.....who knows, the world may be your oyster!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

"Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying "we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules" is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled."

"The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means "treating everybody the same way", but "treating people appropriately", which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant "the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire".


Ho ho!! Somebody's been reading my mail!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:39 AM

Akenaton, before we phase back into the link between AIDS and being gay, there's a different question still on the table. You have claimed, many times, that a precedent for denying a full range of civil rights to homosexuals exists in that we deny certain rights to certain other people, mostly drug addicts, felons, and madmen. Besides the fact that all of these people, even murderers in prison, are allowed to marry, Amos presented arguments that seem to completely refute your position on this question. Rather than wait two or three days and then repeat yourself again, and then ignore it when Amos, one of the Dons, or I refute your comments again, perhaps you could answer this one now. It would be lovely to start taking the open questions one at a time and discussing them fully. Here is the statement from Amos again, just to refresh your memory:

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: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM

And, sorry, your question does deserve and answer.

The CDC's answer is:

"The reasons for these disparities are varied and not well understood."

reference


I am not an MD or biologist, but here is my answer constructed from what I have read and heard since living with one of the first diagnosed AIDs sufferers in 1981 (a hetero female nurse).

Several factors:
1) early on, gays got more attention than straights because they were reporting it more, and were more aware of it themselves.
2) the vagina is built for sex, the anus is not. It tears more easily, allowing infection to enter. Also, the vagina has beneficial flora whose purpose is to produce a pH and chemicals that are hostile to invaders.
3) Gay men do not have a vagina (see 2 above).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:17 AM

Ake:
You ask "Please explain why homosexuals are so many times more likely to contract Aids than homosexuals; and why any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community."

Actually the people many times more likely to be infected are black. From the CDC:

**************************
African American males continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection. In 2006, the HIV diagnosis rate for all black males in 33 states (119.1 per 100,000 population) was the highest of any group— more than 7 times that for white males (16.7), more than twice the rate for Hispanic males (50.9), and more than twice the rate for black females (56.2). The diagnosis rate for Hispanic males was approximately 3 times that for white males.

African American females are also severely and disproportionately affected by HIV infection. In 2006, the HIV diagnosis rate for black females (56.2) was more than 19 times the rate for white females (2.9). The rate for Hispanic women was 15.1, more than 5 times that for white females.

reference
*************************

It is a hugely loaded question, but I am trying to understand your logic, so here it is:

Should marriage between blacks be outlawed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:55 AM

any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community

You have made this statement a number of times. Is there some documentation for this (from as unbiased a source as possible)?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:57 AM

Still dancing Don? Some day you're gonna fall off the head of that pin...:0)

Please explain why homosexuals are so many times more likely to contract Aids than homosexuals; and why any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community.

The containment policy employed by Castro in the eighties means that even since "liberalisation" the numbers of people living with Aids in Cuba is relatively small.
Of these unfortunate people, approx 80% are homosexual or bi-sexual.

Now I don't know why this is so, I have certainly never mentioned "spontaneous generation", to be honest, I had never even heard the term till you mentioned it, but nobody knows for sure what causes Aids or "triggers" it.....so as far as I am concerned, everything is "on the table."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM

there is a fine line between rightous anger and self rightous anger. the first allows us to admit when we are wrong, the second will never let us admit guilt for anything.

crap spelling again i am afraid as i am knackered.you know what i mean!

sleep well all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:07 PM

"Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anger, in itself, is not indicative of bad character. I, for one, would rather that a person be passionate in his or her beliefs and actions than detached and supercilious and uninterested in truth."

Amen to that, Ebbie!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

"Don and Ebbie appear to feel that homosexual promiscuity and the practice of anal sex cause the health problems which have been highlighted by the Centre for Disease Control. . . ."

I'm really sorry to learn that you have a reading disability, Ake. Where, exactly, did I say anything like that?

I have been trying to point out to you that HIV can be transmitted by homosexual practices (and heterosexual practices and blood transfusions and any other exchange of bodily fluids between an infected person of either sex and a not-infected person of either sex), but the virus is NOT created spontaneously by homosexual practices per se. I have posted this information a number of times—along with the historical data that the concept of "spontaneous generation" is a medieval superstition that was finally laid to rest by Louis Pasteur in 1864.

Ask any competent epidemiologist. Ask any competent doctor.

Be so kind as to stop misquoting me.

HIV/AIDS is NOT a specifically "homosexual disease" (even if a group of Los Angeles gays, for some cockamamie reason, want to own it!). It's an equal opportunity viral infection. The way to protect yourself is to avoid exchanging bodily fluids with an infected person (of either sex), and if you don't know if the person is infected or not, either avoid that kind of contact with them or, at the very least, make sure you take the necessary precautions.

And encouraging stable relationships by legalizing same-sex marriage will go a long way toward reducing promiscuity among gays. To simply ignore fact that is to turn away from the obvious.

But you already know all this. You just don't like it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM

i am confused by where you mean in cuba, do you mean the rich part, the smaller part or do you mean the run down ghetto side of cuba who's rights are severely curtailed as it is?

tia, i understand your humour as mine is very similar, thanks for making me giggle.

the transmission of HIV is seems to me the way we should be trying to tackle the spread of this horrble disease. anal sex is just another way of contracting it, whether gay or straight. the 'normal' way is just as risky if you are having unprotected sex just as sharing needles.

heck in the good old days you could even get it by a blood transfusion.

i know yoiu all are very busy and those of you from overseas will not know who i am going to talk about, but the rest of you should maybe skip through a weeks worth of jeremy kyle.. i know, but it will show you all the lack of care that people have towards sexual health. in fact you watch any talk show..ricki lake.. jerry springer...any of them and they all do the same thing. "i slept with too many people and i don't know who the father of my child is"

you will see what i mean.

if we cannot get people starting to take some responsibility(?) then we will have more and more infected people not just gay but this will become a serious problem..again.

in everyday life we are forced to be responsible why not in bed, well anywhere that takes your fancy?

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anger, in itself, is not indicative of bad character. I, for one, would rather that a person be passionate in his or her beliefs and actions than detached and supercilious and uninterested in truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:34 PM

My mother used to claim that none of her children ever saw her angry, that she was merely 'wounded.'

We knew better.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:50 PM

Akenaton, just trying to keep things on track here. I'm a very goal-oriented person and would like to get to the bottom of the various ideas that have come up in this thread. In the interests of putting one of them to bed, please answer this post from Amos:

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: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:58 PM

There can be no satisfactory response because you cite them, and say they speak for themselves and when we say "whaddaya mean by that?", you say "I will not waste my time repeating myself". So, by all means you are entitled to your opinion - whatever the heck it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:51 PM

Amos, there has been no satisfactory response to the health or promiscuity figures.
You maintain that these figures have no bearing on the civil rights of homosexuals...I respect your view, but disagree, for all the reasons I have already given.

The accent is showing marked improvement old boy...have you been taking lessons?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:40 PM

Ake:

Well, sure, then, lad. But dinna be faschin' about non-response to yer points if one of our lads has done answered 'em!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM

Sorry Amos...Looks like we've been cross posting.
There is no point repeating our differing views another time, I think we both understand one another pretty well.
You always address the issues.....surely you and I can move on?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM

Yes Amos...very interesting, I have been reading that article in today's Times. It certainly looks like the church is heading for the inevitable split.....interesting times ahead eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM

AKe:

What point have you made about homosexuality that has not been addressed? I mean, one that has any bearing on the civil rights issue?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

Just for the information of anyone who may be interested, I never get "angry" on internet forums, and very rarely in real life

You flatter yourselves if you think that you have the capacity to raise me to anger.
I know what you are and I know the "game"!

Mr Peekstock on the other hand, admitted to "anger" just a couple of posts ago....his anger is evident in his writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

Episcopalians were moving today toward ending a de facto ban on the ordination of gay bishops and toward sanctioning marriage blessings for same-sex couples despite warnings from church conservatives that the liberalized policies could further divide the influential denomination.

The actions by leaders of the 2.1-million member Episcopal Church at their General Convention in Anaheim are likely to deepen a theological fissure that already has led to the departure of traditionalist congregations and dioceses.

And they are almost certain to trigger a backlash among the wider Anglican Communion, whose members in Africa, South America and elsewhere have asked their U.S. counterparts not to relax their positions on the two controversial issues. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the communion, which has 77 million members.

The church's two governing bodies -- bishops preside over one house, clergy and lay leaders head the other -- already have endorsed the gay bishops measure. A final procedural vote is expected today.

Meanwhile, the bishops this morning are debating a resolution that would effectively allow them to oversee the blessing of same-gender couples in states or jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal. Clergy and lay leaders have been supportive of the measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:00 PM

Oh yes, the irony fountain continues to bubble:

"Please try to get yourselves into some sort of order **girls**, you are all over the place at the moment.
This is the trouble in concentrating on **personal attacks**..."


Emphasis by me of course.

Brilliant humor explanation number two for the day: "girls" is clearly intended as a *personal attack* (now be honest). And isn't it insulting to actual girls to use that word as an epithet? But I would certainly not want to be oppressive and intolerant and object to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM

I think we would all agree that promiscuity and anal sex increase the risk of health problems. Now why do you keep inserting homosexuality into that discussion? And how does marriage promote promiscuity? If you can answer those we will be right back on track.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:52 PM

Please try to get yourselves into some sort of order girls, you are all over the place at the moment.
This is the trouble in concentrating on personal attacks, you yourselves losing the thread .....as it were...:0)

Instead of getting yourselves into such a muddle, why don't you have a try at discussing the points I have made regarding the homosexual lifestyle and whether we should be promoting it.
Don and Ebbie appear to feel that homosexual promiscuity and the practice of anal sex cause the health problems which have been highlighted by the Centre for Disease Control; and certainly the figures on homosexual promiscuity make shocking reading....even for a Scot!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:31 PM

Amos-

My brilliant humour seems far less so when explained, but here it is:
I find it terribly "Orwellian" that those who are arguing to deny a civil right to a group of citizens have wriggled themselves into the role of victim in this thread. They deride the "vocal minority" (while clearly behaving as one); they claim to be subjected herein to oppression, because some challenge their advocacy of oppression of others; they claim they are being silenced, when a simple scan through the list of postings indicates anything but silence emanating therefrom.

Summary (in liberal fascist doublespeak); we are the intolerant ones because we will not tolerate their intolerance.

Clear as mud, eh?

Best Regards,

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

TIA:

I have revisited your earlier post, and find I have an entirely different view of it and agree with it quite cheerfully between guffaws.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "Scotsophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.   ;^)" John P

I know, John P. I would have preferred to use a stilleto rather than a bludgeon but I couldn't find one. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

Thanks, John. My apologies, TIA--I guess I have become somewhat short of patience and I deserve to have my better perspective refreshed!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Amos, TIA was being funny. The vocal minority he's referring to are the ones who get angry when we disagree with them, mostly Akenaton in this thread. Ironic role reversal.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM

ormer President Bill Clinton said in a conference for progressive students that he supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

"Yeah," Clinton said when asked after a speech at the Campus Progress National Conference, according to The Nation . "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from honoring marriages for same-sex couples. He Also approved the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" law, which banned openly gay military personnel from serving.

In a 2000 interview with The Advocate, Clinton said that "people who have a relationship ought to be able to call it whatever they want. And insofar as it's sanctified by a religious ceremony, that's up to the churches involved."

He added about the fight in Congress over DOMA, "I think what happened in the Congress was that a lot of people who didn't want to be antigay didn't feel that they should be saying that as a matter of law, without regard to what various churches or religions or others thought, that the United States policy was that all unions that call themselves marriages are, as a matter of law, marriages. I don't think we're there yet. But I think that what we ought to do is to get the legal rights straightened out and let time take its course, and we'll see what happens."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

TIA:

Yes, entirely too cryptic. Let us be clear, as there has been entirely too much misdirection, indirection, and passive aggression in this thread to make for a good discussion.

1. Specifically what minority are you referring to? In my various posts I have generally been referring to the minority of adult, consenting citizens wishing to enter the civil state known as marriage by mutual choice, who happen to be of the same gender as each other.

2. What "special rights" are you referring to? In my mention of denied rights I am talking specifically about the legal privileges of spousal representation, joint ownership, beneficiary status, insurance coverage and any other civil privileges that are endowed on people in married status.

I am being clear and specific. Do me the courtesy of being likewise and do not ask me to go trawling through your posting history in order to perform an exegesis on your obscure referents.

Thanks and cheers,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "Scotsophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.   ;^)

TIA, why should anyone have to put up with being disagreed with? Are you seriously suggesting we should take away their right to have the world be exactly what they want it to be?

Taking away someone's right to live in a world that doesn't include gay marriage is also a very serious matter. How could they hold up their heads in society if somewhere there are gays or lesbians with the right to inherit property from each other? Or if the government isn't regulating what happens in their bedrooms? Unregulated sex! I shudder to think of it!

One of the things that I wish they understood is that if we give the government the right to regulate any sexual/marriage relationship, that means we are giving them the right to regulate any other relationship. It's not much of stretch to go from denying rights to gay people to denying rights to, say, left-handed people. After all, left-handed people are, or so the story goes, the sons and daughters of Satan. I just don't know why people think they should be allowed to have jobs, at least not until we've done a thorough study of the results of having the children of Satan sitting next to us at work. How do we know it doesn't rub off on us? How would you like to wake up some morning to find that you've become Satan's step child?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM

Amos -
I am referring to a "victimized" vocal minority other than the one you seem to think!
Second time in the last few weeks that you've missed my point in this fashion.
If you've caught many of my posts in the last year, it should be quite clear where I stand on this issue.
Perhaps I am too cryptic?
Cheers,
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:02 PM

This thread certainly has become all about a small vocal minority demanding special rights (in this case the right to not have their viewpoint challenged) and avidly embracing victim status if others do not acknowledge this "right".

This is profoundly mistaken interpretation, TIA.

This thread is about a long-suppressed but now vocal minority demanding equity of rights under civil law, and dispelling the slightly obscene rationalizations used by the majority to deny those rights.

It seems clear that you are a subscriber to those rationalizations. If you peruse this thread you will find all the known ones trotted out and individually countered with reason and facts. If you, in your depths of understanding and compassion for your fellow human beings, have one that has not been addressed which informs your summary judgement, by all means express it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM

This thread certainly has become all about a small vocal minority demanding special rights (in this case the right to not have their viewpoint challenged) and avidly embracing victim status if others do not acknowledge this "right".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:26 AM

Are all Scots so ignorant? I don't think so - I know Giok - but it does make me wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:49 AM

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, a challenge you to do so.