 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: fumblefingers Date: 11 Jan 09 - 10:10 PM I agree with what Amos said about a possible genetic factor along with other factors being the cause. It's also been my experience that almost always, it is the youngest child that becomes or is a homosexual. Not always, but in most of the homosexuals I have known. I disagree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. They have the same right to marry as everyone else. They are demanding a change in the rules. But unless it is scientifically possible that the union can produce an offspring, then it cannot be marriage. I'm not going to split hairs and talk about geriatric marriages and other such factors that preclude making babies. The sexes must be opposite or it cannot be marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM I don't think that's written in stone anywhere. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:10 AM Dear Don and Fumbles, The difference is, that families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce. Families, communities, towns, cities, states, and nations were built up by, and primarily for them. It would suffice to say, that those who would oppose that basic structure, would, could, and most likely should be seen as a threat to the very society, whose 'prosperity' has made allowances and room, for those whose self indulgences now wish to dictate to them, what, how to change those rules. Now, being as the family structure, is in the majority, not just here, but globally, so much, that 'unions' that wish to re-invent those mores, are frowned upon, or seen as 'freaks' and 'queers'. (Now, for all the fast draw, trigger happy, I am not using those terms, in a personal derogatory way, just describing how they are seen.) You may wish to notice, that during these economic harder times, the national divorce rate has gone down as well. Why is this?? ..Because people, when they know the chips are down, and things get more serious, that the 'lesser things', that one or the other, tend to bitch about, begin to not be so 'all important', next to surviving. In other words, its time to buckle down! In recent years, in this country, we have seen frontal attacks on the family, and the family unit..not to mention the ridiculous 'war of rights' waged between men and women, and now even their children. When a state or even a church, starts dictating to the parents, what they can and can't do, in raising their families, when corporations, for their own greed, begin changing the roles of men and women, even to the point of both parents working their asses off just to provide a roof, clothes and food, for their families...but end up ceasing to be a family, just to do it, then it becomes just a matter of time before their will be a backlash, that even threatens that society. You will see, as time goes on, that the harder things get, the LESS tolerance their will be for a lot of things, that are seen as threats to the basic structure, that people gave their lives to have. It almost is a matter of 'cause and effect'. When things that work pragmatically for generations become accepted, as opposed to what doesn't work, and they become the rule, as time goes on they are seen as 'morals'... When people of the majority, see what they deem, as a 'breakdown of the morality', which is the framework of 'safety' to raise their families, well, you are going to get resistance...and stiff resistance at that! Now, for the nuclear families, that are still out there, functioning as one dad, one mom, with their own original family, see where the country is at now, and where it is going, well, they will attribute that to the moral breakdown of the family structure. I hope that answers your question, as to the sociological, profile of what is going on..and why. Much the same, can you imagine, parents, as per aforementioned, raising their children to adopt a homosexual lifestyle??..I d-o-o-on't think so..do you??........and why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: MMario Date: 12 Jan 09 - 11:53 AM GfS - you don't have any background in biology or in anthropology, do you? Because " families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce" is not a correct statment according to either the anthro or biology courses I've taken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:12 PM Sometimes,you don't get basic common sense from a university course! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:52 PM GfS and Ake, what you folks don't seem to get is that same-sex marriage is NOT an "attack on the family." Among other things, the relatively small percentage of same-sex marriages would have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. The only people it would affect are those who are outraged by the idea of homosexuality per se. And that's their hang-up. The marriages of Steve and David, Paul and Philip, Herb and Michael, Nancy and Virginia, Susan and Gwen, and Luanne and Tamara have do not affect in any way the marriages of Bob and Judy, Martin and Shannon, Melissa and James—or Barbara and me. In fact, the marriage of these same-sex couples means that they are in a much more stable relationship than they would be otherwise. They have a stated commitment, which is recognized by their friends, and in a couple of cases, their church. Two of the couples I mention (they are real people) have bought houses, are involved in community activities, and one of them was recently elected to the state legislature. They sound like solid citizens to me. The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage. And since that is the case, why do you care? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 06:23 PM "The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage" Don...Making statements like that, as if they were absolute and incontravertible truth, does nothing for your credibility on this issue! Who hasn't been reading the posts then? Tut...Tut! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM Credibility with whom, Ake? I have been reading the posts, and I understand the issue thoroughly, much better that most people posting here, because I am acquainted with some of the people involved in the issue, both pro and con. And the vociferous responses of those who object to my asking "Why do you care?" merely proves that I've hit the real source of the more strident objections. I've been around a bit, Ake, seen a lot, and I know people pretty well. It's just sound psychology. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM Ake: Are you, yourself, married? Or have you been in the past? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month" It really would do you some good to re-read and try to understand the words of Benedict Ratzinger. "we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation" Especially "the future against the exclusive claims of the present" Get it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM Amos...What the fuck's wrong with you? I've freely given personal information on other threads when it came up in discussion,but I don't like the tone of your request. I dont ask personal questions of you, or make assumptions like Don. If you volunteer personal information fine, but I will never request you to make your status public. If I misunderstand your motives, I apologise, but reserve the right to give personal information when "I" wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM Motives? It's a perfectly ordinary question. I am happily married, thirty years next April. I was just curious. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:40 PM I understand a helluva lot more than you seem to think I do, Ake. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:43 PM Sorry Amos,,,I think I was a bit annoyed after reading Dons Post full of idiotic assumptions.....Peace! Congratulations BTW.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM And as far as "minority of the month" is concerned, I can guarantee you that this isn't going to go away, Pope Benedict notwithstanding, so you'd better get used to it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Jan 09 - 05:09 PM What minority would it be this month, white males in America? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 09 - 07:05 PM It seems to me that "believing in rights for all" is a bit contradictory when you support a system wherein same-sex couples cannot have the same civil status as opposite sex couples under the law. That strikes me as very hypocritical. But you knew that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:08 AM Yes I know Amos...but we're not really talking to each other any more...just posturing. Thanks for the discussion as ever....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jan 09 - 02:23 AM A change of pace! http://www.flixxy.com/validation-short-film.htm?a=0
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM Wow!..You pulled, what I thought was a most, powerful post to bring a resolve to the whole debate, and bring people together.....that's really interesting.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:21 AM With all due respect, 'semi-literate diatribe' was not entirely meant as an insult, just that if you looked up the actual definition,(posted), it was the most accurate, descriptive word to describe what I was talking about. Semi-literate, ...half learned, or half read Diatribe Di"a*tribe\ (?; 277), n. [L. diatriba a learned discussion, Gr. ?, prop., a wearing away of time, fr. ? to rub away, spend time; dia` through + ? to rub: cf. L. terere, F. trite: cf. F. diatribe.] A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic. Perhaps, you misread my tone, as I was not in the last heated exchange that was going on....nor have I been 'sarcastic' on this issue....(well, not as sarcastic as I've been on occasions) GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM Here's a marriage of true minds -- who would to it admit impediment? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:34 AM ""Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month"" Not quite all, it would seem, and that reference to the minority of the month is very telling, if only because it exposes in you a propensity to deny the rights of ANY minority which is rocking YOUR boat by claiming, and campaigning for, equality. Not, in fact, the Akenaton that you would have us believe we are debating with. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:09 AM Here's the kind of love story that should be suppressed, according to the keepers of the Prop 8 mindset. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:43 AM Thanks for the story, Amos. It kept striking me how very typical a love story it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM I don't see any reason to suppress the story, but I'll have to tell you, it seemed really, really weird to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 18 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM Rig, think of it as a love story. That is what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:57 AM For fuck's sake Amos, are you reduced to citing individual cases(with pictures) now? It'll be pink lace and fluffy rabbits next! If you cant post decent debate, just hoist the white flag. And I agree with Rig BTW.....weird is the word, and if 99% of the men on this forum were being honest, they would agree also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 09 - 10:40 AM Nothing like an honest example to make the case. I was particularly impressed by the trans-species affair, weren't you? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM Trans species???? So are you saying, from that model, that homosexuals are another species???...and if so, is it still a 'so called' 'civil rights' issue??? Your nonsensical arguments and 'examples' are running out of steam.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM Mules should have all the rights and opportunities that horses and jack asses have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM Ah, Rig, they do. The fact that most mules cannot procreate doesn't affect their right to food, shelter, training and tlc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM GfS: Unfortunately, it is you, yourself, who are missing the scene in this thread. The first example I posted (17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM ) concerned a deep and lasting friendship between a retired elephant and an injured dog. Apologize at once. ;>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM Sorry! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM Well Ebbie's response was very funny, but there is a serious side...please dont equate friendship or even love with a sexual relationship. It is possible to have both but not obligatory |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM There ya go, ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM Que? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM It is not obligatory, and is not a prerequisite for civil marriage; we've done this loop before. I think the elephant and the dog should be allowed by the state to marry, if they can sign for the license. It would be a shame to make them go all the way to Massachusetts. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM I am acquainted with a couple—formerly a couple (relax, Ake, the couple consisted of one man and one woman), but no longer, since the man passed away recently. They had been good friends for years. Let's call them Penny and Steven. Penny was in her late sixties, Steven was well into his eighties. He had some descendants who were of the "they'll be glad when their old pa dies" school. They had never got along, largely because the kids (all grown up and old enough to know better) were constantly getting into financial difficulty and relying on Steven to bail them out. They were waiting for the substantial wad in money and property they knew their "old pa" had and which they assumed they would receive in due time. But he hadn't made out a will yet, because he didn't feel the kids either need it or deserved it. So—keeping in mind that Washington is a community property state (unless otherwise arranged, on the death of one spouse, the other spouse inherits automatically), he asked Penny to marry him and she accepted. The main reason, they mentioned quietly, was that they enjoyed each other's company, and that was that. True, but also, Steven wanted to leave his worldly goods to Penny. Much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth among his descendants. But when Steven passed away recently, Penny was left, not rich, but well provided for for the rest of her life. Did they have sex? I haven't a clue. Since she was well past menopause, there would certainly not have been offspring, nor did they want any. But that was completely incidental. They lived together for some years before he died, and assuming that they did have sex, there are those who would consider a woman in her seventies and a man approaching ninety having sex as "weird," if not downright disgusting. I, personally, think it's kinda cute! Now—under similar circumstances, why should couples Paul and Steven, or Penny and Stephanie, be denied the right to make similar arrangements? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM Kind of a bad deal for the kids, I'd say! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM Not really. They all had good jobs, security and all that, so they didn't really need Steven's inheritance. Much of it consisted of Steven's writings and art works. He was an oceanographer, maritime historian, and artist. They would have just sold them for what they could get. Penny knew what they were worth in more than just money, and she had the knowledge and skill to make sure that Steven got proper credit for his rather monumental life's work. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:14 AM Well, first of all, the posts with the references to animals, getting along, with each other, is one of the most ridiculous arguments justifying why it's 'normal' to be homosexual, that has been used, and really quite a stretch! Perhaps, the folks at PETA, might be impressed.. or it 'suggests' why people, of different..ummm..'species' can get along, but it has little or nothing to do with the price of eggs. As so far as the person, who being an oceanographer, artist, etc, etc.., again, you are showing us, or at least me, that once again, you completely fail to see, or comprehend, what it is that being homosexual is about. I think these illustrations are so far removed, from what it is, that they are used, by 'supporters' of the 'political' stance, because they lack the compassion and understanding to grasp the internal makings, of being a homosexual. ....and, as long as the subject has been broached,just for what its worth, our 'Celebrity d'jour, elect', also opposes same sex 'marriage'. It's a little surprising to me, that those who consider him 'God', would be arguing the opposite way, against him(?). Turning this into a political issue, is nothing more than insurance lobbyists, pressuring the psychiatric, and 'medical' community, to come up with studies, and findings to avoid paying out for therapy, and or, just turning their backs, on an expensive correction,...to yet another backlash, that has gained political steam, from other politicized issues gone wrong! (I'd site which ones, but that would open up another can of worms, and being as the simple is so much of a 'controversial' subject on here), why start up on untangling another 'widely accepted misconception'?....especially, when the evidence of the truth, presented on here, overwhelmingly blows away, why the majority, who is opposed to same sex 'marriage', doesn't have the right to vote that way...or why the courts(ninth judicial) can legislate from the bench, against the majority....and base their findings on bogus 'research'! Like it or not, or which ever way it's spun, that's the way it is!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:28 AM I thought the buggers had banned you Sanity!! Good to see you back. Yes I have wondered about the double standards too......We are the scum of the earth and Mr Obama is a hero, yet we hold the same opinions on this issue.....or maybe it's just politics and Mr Obama doesn't really mean what he says? If that is the case then all our "Liberal" tormentors are in for a nasty shock....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM Jaysus, what a lot of armwaving. First of all, no-one considers Obama "God:. Second of all it is not precisely accurate that he "opposes" marriage rights for same-sex couples. He does not agree with it personally but he's a wise enough man to understand that rights have to be uniform. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM But if I am a "bigot" and Sanity is a "bigot" why is Mr Obama not a "bigot"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 20 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM Jaysus! The sewage being spouted by a couple of people here is reaching the top of my hip-waders! I'm getting out of here! Don't understand? I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is why do you guys CARE!??? What difference does it make to YOU??? You still haven't answered that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM BEcause you are promoting your personal biases as grounds for public action, and asserting that discrimination should be institutionalized as policy. That is both of your fatal flaw. IOt is the earmark of the frozen heart and the walled in mind not to be able to understand the difference between private taste and the promulgation of tolerance and equality across the commons. That you do not understand this is why you are both cornered, jaded and spiteful on this issue, no matter what other virtues you claim. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Jan 09 - 06:06 PM Why does it matter so much to some? Perhaps the answer is here: http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf I happen to be related to a fire-breathing anti-homo preacher, who was....you guessed it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:10 PM Obviously you haven't been reading the thread Tia, we've had that shit three or four times already! Why don't you put your ideas to Mr Obama? Don, you regularly leave the discussion, your trademark "I'm outa here", but you always sneak back like a whipped pup for another bite. Right Amos, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr Obama is against the legalisation of homosexual marriage, now by your criteria that means that Mr Obama is in favour of depriving homosexuals of their "civil rights"......Just how does that differ from how you view the opinions of Sanity and myself? I would suggest that it is yourself and Don (the last two standing) :0)....who are "cornered, jaded and spiteful".....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM Obviously, Ake, we have different impressions of Mister Obama's position. A |
