BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM

I don't have time to f*ck all the waitresses in China, Don. ;-)

I suggest you read my post below:

CLICKY

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 10:53 PM

Little Hawk, I recommend that you read my post above.

CLICKY

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

Well, I think you're quite right, Amos. I agree that it is "a mistaken belief to feel you are achieving some fraction of immortality simply because you have combined your chromosomes with another and sent the genotype forward."

I've never believed in that myself. I know my father and his parents believed in it very strongly, so he must have been quite perturbed that I had no children in this life.

Since I figure I'm going forward anyway (as a living spirit), I'm not too worried about passing any of my genes on to secure "immortality".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:58 PM

I was not sneering, L:H. I was simply commenting that some people have children because they have an irresistible desire to send their genes and their memes forward though time. And also, that the impulse is a low-level substitute for other kinds of contributions some people could make. I think it is a mistaken belief to feel you are achieving some fraction of immortality simply because you have combined your chromosomes with another and sent the genotype forward. I don't think it is a bad thing to do, mind, as the future of the reace depends on it occurring.

But improving the race in some way is certainly a higher good, through improving thought, art, education, or technology in positive ways. In this respect, brooding trumps breeding.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

Ebbie - the original reason I got into this thread was simply that I saw some posters here demonizing other posters here with various derogatory labels and trying to prove that they are "bad" people because they have a different opinion about something. That's why I started posting here.

Then I got interested in some other aspects that came up during a wide-ranging discussion, and that's why I'm still here...aside from when I'm just cracking a few jokes, that is.

I have no desire to impede anyone's access to equal rights under the law, I assure you.

I do not have to have a personal ax to grind about Proposition 8 to engage in this discussion. There's lots of other stuff to talk about here. A conversation, after all, is like the wind. You never know where it's going to go next.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:34 PM

You're missing my point... (grin)

Hell, there's an excess of children in the world right now! ;-) But what's that got to do with the traditional definitions of "marriage" or determining how the custom came to be in our civilization or what people think regarding marriage?

I am not arguing the pros or cons for Proposition 8, Amos. I know you'd like me to...but I'm not. ;-) I hardly even care about Proposition 8 enough to draw a single passing breath over it, and I wouldn't care even if I lived in California. I don't give a darn. I did not get in on this thread out of any desire to either support or oppose Proposition 8.

Regarding your supercilious remarks about "obsession with passing one's own genes forward".... Most parents are pleased to see some of their family's characteristics evidenced in their children. It's a normal impulse and instinct to look for that. I don't see any reason to sneer at people over it.

In my own case I've decided not to have any children, so it obviously doesn't weight large in my calculations. For one thing, I didn't want to carry that kind of responsibility this time around (in this particular life). I didn't think it would suit me well. For another thing, Winona has not said "yes" as yet..... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 06:29 PM

But Little Hawk, you don't address the reason for this thread's being. If you agree that we already have more people than we know what to do with and there's no relief in sight, that brings us back to a reason beyond the production of children for union between people.

As Amos says, it comes back to equality under LAW. Whyever should a certain group of people not be given the same consideration as 'most everyone else? Never mind what certain people say- and evidently believe - the homosexual's "lifestyle" has nothing whatever to do with my health or your health so that has nothing in the world to do with what law should pertain to him or her regarding their private lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

I think if you study the numbers, unlike times past, there is a t present no shortage whatsoever of human beings, or even of children. So the production of them is not an issue of merit in this case. It is critically important to those who desire to forward their own protoplasm into the future, holding it as a magical token of their existence even though it reflects little upon them after a couple of decades, and nothing on their character, merit or virtue. So obsession with passing one's own genes forward is tangential to the question of whether gay marriage should be accepted under the law or not.

If velour sentiment is not an argument, parenting is not an argument, and gene forwarding is not particularly an argument, there is nothing but fluff in the scale on the Proposition 8 side.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 05:00 PM

I agree that "in the matter of law, equality must govern", Amos.

But would you mind if I also talk here about other some things that interest me? ;-)

It is quite clear that, as you say, "The raising of children requires stability and known, reliable parent figures. This can be achieved perfectly well by two married women, two married men, or a married man and woman."

Sure. However, a union between two men or two women cannot produce any children...and that's significant, wouldn't you say? I'm suggesting that that is why all traditional societies we know of sanctified marriage between men and women...because it is the one and only union which produces children.

Any combination of people can effectively raise a child if they are good people and they do it well. A child can be raised by:

- its natural parents
- one parent
- an aunt and uncle
- a guardian
- a brother or sister
- an adoptive parent or parents
- an ashram or monastery
- a small cooperative community
- a school
- a training academy
- a hermitage
- you name it

Anything is possible in that regard, but the traditional marriage was based on two people who are the natural parents because they produced the child and passed on their own genes to the child.

That's significant! That's why marriage became the most important relationship in society and still is.

Are times changing? Yes, times always change, and so do customs. Do I oppose gay marriage? No, I don't. But I would like to talk about a number of things here, Amos, not just about the one specific theme that happens to turn your crank, as it were. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM

The raising of children requires stability and known, reliable parent figures. This can be achieved perfectly well by two married women, two married men, or a married man and woman.

The staid and quaint image you found your essay on is nice, but is not accurate. The conditions supporting ot have changed, and one of the major changes is the degree of recognition of homosexuality as a natural condition which is not diabolical, psychotic, or destructive in itself, and is certainly not deliberate.

Furthermore the fundamental question rsaised here is not the kind of tradition in which marriage occurs. It is the legal and civil status. The furbelows of additional significance can be all in the hands of the churches who preempted it from free people so many centuries ago. But once the law creates a civil status called "married", then (in this country) that legal status must be evenly available without the bias and prejudice which you and Ake articulate. That is the only central argument on which this thread is based.

Invoking horrorsahow visions about homosexuality is of no more relevance than your velvet-lined needle-work pictures of the sanctimony of past religious ceremonies and their meanings.

In the matter of law, equality must govern.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM

Yes, Ebbie, a certain number of same-sex unions were found in most ancient societies (and maybe all of them). For sure. But they weren't called "marriages", and I think that's mainly because they couldn't produce children. A relationship that brings forth children is naturally about the most important thing going on in any society...because it secures the future of the nation and the stability of civil society. Other love relationships are desirable too, but they are not so vital to the future of the community, therefore they are given less importance and less ceremonial emphasis...if any. They become, in effect, informal private relationships which are a matter of private choice by those involved.

That would also apply to what the Indians called "teepee-creeping" or we might call "playing the field". ;-)

I'm not sure when the "modern" form of marriage as we know it began, but I would think it was a very long time ago, so maybe it's not modern at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM

Good one, Peace.

Back in the day, Little Hawk, when towns were smaller and families were larger, a great many people took an interest in how a child was progressing. We've lost a lot of that.

I don't know how far back in history "marriage", as such, goes, LH, but the arrangements evidently were quite a bit more casual at one time. In Biblical days, "he went into her tent and knew her."

Incidentally, same-sex unions of one sort or another in the Bible are frequently implied, if nothing else, among them David and Jonathan:   ("That same day, when Saul had finished speaking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father's house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself. So Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because they loved the other as dearly as himself. And Jonathan stripped off the cloak he was wearing and his tunic, and gave them to David, together with his sword, his bow, and his belt.") If those words had been written about a man and woman we would entertain no doubts as to what kind of relationship they had.

And Jesus and the apostle John:
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

And later John referred to himself as the "apostle that Jesus loved."

I'm just sayin'.

* Much later, marriages between leaders frequently were negotiated for political security, in binding together two or more kingdoms.

* Weddings in ancient Greece were a major part of a person's life, especially for the bride-to-be. The weddings were usually arranged by the bride's parents (Kitto 220).

The marriage symbolized:

    * love
    * mutual respect
    * equality
    * and sacrifice

Incidentally, just when did the modern form of marriage begin and how was it created?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM

"It takes roughly 20 years to raise a child"

Another notion to throw out: I thought it took a village . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

It might be worthwhile to look back through history at the arising of the institution we call "marriage" and to discuss how and why it came into being in the first place.

It's been around a long, long time...probably longer than the most ancient historical records we have access to...and it was normally seen as a sanctified and officially recognized family arrangement between a man and a woman....or a man and several women (in some cultures). There may have been a few other variations too, but if so, they were quite rare.

Why was such a custom even started?

Well, the reasons appear quite simple.

1. Protection of the (physically) weak: In most societies of the past it was seen as absolutely necessary to protect the women and children from the many dangers of life. Men (who handled weapons, hunted, and went to war) were seen to be the protectors...as well as a very common source of danger! That is, men were seen as potentially dangerous to the unattached women...and not surprisingly. And children were in need of a father to provide for them and protect them.

2. Long term security for raising children: It takes roughly 20 years to raise a child (a bit less in more primitive societies), and it was seen as necessary to provide a stable family coupling of two people (and their close relatives) in order to provide the basis for doing that. Thus, a marriage with marriage vows and legal ties and responsibilities. This was a way of securing the future of the tribe or nation.

3. OWNERSHIP of the spouse: Now there's a thorny issue! Not very well looked upon by people nowadays, but that's what it amounted to. By marrying a woman, a man in effect OWNED her from that point on and had exclusive rights to intimacy with her. (She also owned him and had exclusive right to intimacy as well, of course, but the men tended to be in a far more powerful position in that regard...and tended to break the rules more casually as well, because they had the power to). Furthermore, the man basically OWNED the children that came along, and was thereby increasing his stake in the world and extending his power into the future.

And those, I think, were the most significant issues driving the formation of the institution of marriage in ancient times.

How much of the above relates to a gay marriage?

A little of it, but not much. A gay marriage is a different proposition that has been added on like an extra branch. I have no objection to it, because I see no reason why gays shouldn't marry if they wish to...but it's a departure from most of the basic social issues that drove ancient societies to create the institution of marriage in the first place.

It has more to do with the modern ideas of self-gratification than it does with anything else. "This would make me happy, so I want it." Well, okay, fine. Self-gratification is perfectly all right as long as it doesn't take people into completely irresponsible behaviour.....but it's a bit disingenuous to think that a gay marriage is the same type of arrangement in a social sense as a heterosexual marriage, because a gay marriage is not based on the very wide set of safety and security issues that a heterosexual marriage has been based on through the last many thousands of years.

Therefore it's not really the same thing, in my opinion. Perhaps that's why some traditionalists find it inappropriate to be called a "marriage" and would prefer to call it a "civil union".

It is a civil union, no doubt about that...it is as soon as it's been made official. But is it a marriage in the original sense of the word? That depends on what you think the original sense of the word was, doesn't it? In ancient times, and until very recently, the institution of marriage was seen by virtually everyone as the creation of a safe nest in which to raise children. That was its primary purpose in people's minds...and it's still seen that way in most poorer countries...but not so much in North America or in the affluent regions.

That's because we now live in an age of consumerism, instant grafification, selfishness, and a very short attention span. This has affected how a lot of people look at marriage. They're not out to take on responsibility, they're out to gratify themselves. It's marriage on a trivial level...short term gratification. And that's why so many marriages are breaking up and so many children have only one parent in the home any longer.

Not good.

If I was gay, I think I'd just live with my partner. Who needs the legal arrangements? But you say there are financial advantages to the legal arrangements? Okay. Well, then, perhaps I would go for the "civil union". That could be a good practical move, I suppose. Would I feel that I had to have the same kind of official church (or other type of) "marriage" as heterosexual people have in order to be happy and fulfilled? Naw...I'm not interested. But that's just me. ;-)

Heck, if that's what it takes to make a gay couple happy...well...I won't stand in their way.

But I do think this whole brouhaha has arisen out of a society of self-indulgent, spoiled people who probably have way too much time and money on their hands, and way too many choices that they can't decide among, and they are getting a bit silly on account of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM

"They're a bit like all the folkies back in the mid-60s...caught up so much in their own perceived moral purity and saying all the 'right' things to each other loudly...and Oh! just so pleased to find some outcast heretics like Akenaton or GfS to pounce on and eviscerate with holy ardor....but do they actually give a damn about most gay people?"

Little Hawk, I don't know how old you are, but the view you have of "folkies in the mid-60s" is strictly shallow stereotyping and is misleading and inaccurate. I lived through that era as a adult, so I do know what it was like.

Your idea of the "folkies back in the mid-60s" and Ake's idea of Liberals and the "Liberal agenda" are fictitious constructs based on stereotypes, probably learned from people who have no idea of what it's all about, and on that basis, view it with contempt.

What Little Hawk and Ake are saying is highly offensive and insulting to the people who were and are involved. But I write it off as the babblings of a couple of guys who haven't a clue as to what they're talking about and have more than amply demonstrated that they are not qualified to speak on the subject.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:06 PM

Oh, gays may bleed, if you up and cut 'em,
Their noses break if you head-butt 'em
Their hearts may throb with love of glory,
And thrill to tales of heros hoary.
Gays may hunger, gays may thirst.
Care for the best, and fear the worst.
Gays may have dreams patriotic,
Dreams bizarre, and dreams erotic.
Gays may fear, and overcoming,
March to the deathly battle-drumming.
Gays may weep, when hearts are shattered,
Feel quite human--but, no matter.
Gays will never have true smeddum,
Therefore you must never weddum!

Gallivant Pixielater Andyerhorstu
Hunagrians SIng for Gays
Brown and Study, London 2001

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 11:31 AM

Not so difficult to grasp, ake. From google: (And may I add that lacking 'pith' as you say I do is better than lacking 'understanding' as I say you do. Pith can be developed, understanding takes heart.)

"The Scots language has had its up and downs over the centuries, as have some of the words that it contains. Smeddum is one such word. It goes back to Anglo-Saxon smeodoma, meaning fine flour. In 17th century Scotland, it referred to the finest particles of grain lost as dust in the grinding process and swept up as refuse or food for the miller's pigs. A century later, its meaning had been extended to any fine powder including a red precipitate of mercury, an insecticide known to Burns, who would have given the eponymous antihero of his poem To a Louse a dose 'of fell red smeddum'.

"The notion of efficacy extended the meaning of the word to pith, strength or essence of a substance and so, in 1822, Galt describes good snuff as 'sae brisk in the smeddum, so pleasant to the smell'.

"Smeddum was applied figuratively to spirit, energy and courage. Burns wrote in 1787 of persons possessing 'smeddum and rumblegumption'. This is the sense in which Lewis Grassic Gibbon used it for the title of a short story."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:31 AM

sheeeeit

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:27 AM

Froggie....are you saying the inhabitants of the whole East Coast of Scotland are "abnormal"?

(Not a very liberal shentiment shurely???)    :0)

SMEDDUM?....you have to be Scottish to fully understand the connotations.

If you can be bothered, try reading the short story of the same name by Lewis Grassic Gibbon....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:12 AM

We are starting to approach the Orwellian realms of "thought crime"

Send for the "thought police"!

Little Hawk...If they really cared about homosexuals, they would be more concerned by the horrendous homosexual health statistics than homosexual marriage "rights".

I'm sorry to say, they appear to be nothing more than a gang of politically motivated hypocrites, more concerned with their own political agenda than the deaths and suffering of homosexuals trapped in the current impasse.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:08 AM

The "Liberal" agenda does not consist of "rights for all", it consists of rights for certain selected minorities, especially vociferous powerful minorities with control over the media and entertainment industry!    In other words the "liberal" agenda is to support any cause which may be useful in its quest for total power!!

It's agenda, or the agenda of "liberals" in general, does not contain the right of "Freedom of Speech"

The current attempt in the UK to criminalise the criticism of sexual behaviour, is about as reactionary as it gets!!
Would this open the Pandora's Box of criminalising any sort of discussion?.....how long before it became a criminal offense to criticise the behaviour of the State?

Fuckin' wake up, you are in the process of being skinned.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:52 PM

I don't miss the point, Amos. I am well aware of what concerns many of you here about the civil rights issue, and I see no particular reason to oppose you on that, because in the whole I agree with you. I have said many times that I have no objection to ANY pair of consenting adults marrying one another.

I also see what's concerning Akenaton. I don't think he's talking specifically about the California legal situation which is what many of you here are focusing on, I think he's discussing in a more general sense as it applies to the whole world including his own society in the UK whether a legal marriage complete with all the traditional ceremonials and expectations should be extended and broadened in its definition to include same-sex marriages as well as the traditional marriage of a man to a woman. He feels that it shouldn't, and for a number of reasons that are not based on some supposed hatred he has for gays.

But that's only the start. He also feels that many in the liberal/progressive community (which he himself is a part of since he is a leftist progressive politically speaking)...he feels that many are lining up like good little slogan-repeating conformists within their own political correctness movement and supporting an exaggerated and out of balance media extravaganza that's been going on for at least a decade or more now about gay rights, primarily because they are, so to speak, admiring their own glorious "liberal" reflection in the mirror of their own minds while they're doing it, and that pleases them...not because they love gay people.

And that could be a problem. Are people for something on genuine principles? Or are they acting out the latest political orthodoxy because they are so in love with their own righteous self-image? Do they really care about gays? Or do they care about how they sound when they start talking?

That might be what is really concerning Akenaton here...and why he is so pissed off at what he sees a lot of so-called "liberals" doing.

They're a bit like all the folkies back in the mid-60s...caught up so much in their own perceived moral purity and saying all the "right" things to each other loudly...and Oh! just so pleased to find some outcast heretics like Akenaton or GfS to pounce on and eviscerate with holy ardor....but do they actually give a damn about most gay people?

Something along that line... ;-)

I think you are mainly discussing Prop 8, Amos. I think Akenaton is discussing some much wider-ranging and more subtle issues beyond that, and so am I.

And I agree with both of you on certain points, while I disagree on others. Furthermore, I respect both of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 PM

You miss the point completely, Little Hawk, despite your posturing and condescending didactic style.

There are simple fundamentals involved which include differentiating between opinions and rules of law, facts and biases, and correlations and causes. When you lump things together unduly you make inaccurate or unjustified conclusions.

All of Ake's apprehensions about the dangerous side of homosexuality practice is insufficient grounds for a legal, civil discrimination such as he recommends. If those ills exist in fact, there are better remedies for them than de-legitimizing the whole class of people.

That is the only point about Prop 8., which asserts that a class of people is to be judge and excluded from certain civil privileges by reason solely of their sexual orientation. Ake has tried to justify this egregiously wrong action by claiming other reasons, which are different issues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:44 PM

"Do you really think that denying civil rights to other people isn't bad? Do you really not care?"

John...you are asking me those old "Have you stopped beating your wife and kicking your dog yet and do you still hate Jews and blond people?" kind of rhetorical questions. ;-)

Don't. It's damn silly. You know perfectly well that I think it is bad to deny civil rights to people, and so does Akenaton. I know him plenty well enough to know that. He is in favor of civil rights, as are all the other people in this discussion.

It works this way, John. If you are bound and determined to see bad intentions in what someone else says and ascribe the worst motives TO whatever he says, then you WILL see nothing but bad in what he says no matter what he says, and you'll never have a worthwhile conversation with him because your own ill will toward him and your own need to prove how "bad" he is negates the possiblity of a worthwhile conversation.

And that is the problem on this thread. Period. People's own hysterical righteous posturing is interfering with their ability to actually listen to and understand anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

And what else is new? ;-) I've been watching this ridiculous reactive BS go around for years here between the terminally righteous and the terminally vain.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:51 PM

The way Ake seems to be using the word "Liberal" reminds me of the folks who blame all the ills of the world on "The Illuminati" or "The Freemasons" or "Alien infiltrators" or any of how many dozen mysterious (not to mention, nonexistent) groups who, presumably either run the world or who are trying secretly to take it over.

It makes a convenient pigeon hole to cram those folks who don't agree with one's position, and a convenient scapegoat for those who like to couch things in terms of conspiracies.

If I'm wrong, Ake, kindly set me (and others) right by explaining just exactly what you do mean.

Don Firth

P. S. And Little Hawk—once again, remember what Dante said: "The lowest level in Hell is reserved for those who, when faced with an ethical or moral conflict, chose to remain colorlessly neutral."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:34 PM

You are using the word "liberal" in some local way, or convoluted distorted way, that makes no sense to me, Ake. The word, its meanings and its roots, have been discussed extensively on this thread and on others to which previously gave you links.

I would ask you to define the word "liberal" as you use it. I am sure there is some word in English that fills your definition much more fittingly -- you are using this one turned inside out and backwards. For one thing, it is antithetical to power-questing, generally speaking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:31 PM

I think you missed the exact point, John P. I think the implication is that the homosexual minority control the media and entertainment industries.

You know, like the Fox Network for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 07:22 PM

The "Liberal" agenda does not consist of "rights for all", it consists of rights for certain selected minorities, especially vociferous powerful minorities with control over the media and entertainment industry!    In other words the "liberal" agenda is to support any cause which may be useful in its quest for total power!!

Whew! Thank goodness. I was worried there for a while. Pretty much everyone I hang out with are liberal, and it's good to know they aren't pushing the liberal agenda as you understand it. None of us have control over the entertainment industry, and none of us are interested in having power over others. Wait a minute! Since we are the liberals, and don't want power, it must be some other group that has you so worked up.

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

Maybe if less energy was put into trying to prove that another poster is "bad" or "stupid", there'd be less hostility generated on this thread.

People who want to deny civil rights to a minority are bad people. Sorry, Little Hawk, that's just the way it is. People who willfully ignore scientific data, put forth ideas that are devoid of logic, and refuse to learn when they are told about it are stupid. They have no one but themselves to blame if they are held up for public ridicule.

People who don't care about civil rights for all, like you, are fellow travelers with the bad people and part of the reason the bad people are still able to spread their badness around. Failure to confront injustice is a choice that supports injustice.

Do you really think that denying civil rights to other people isn't bad? Do you really not care?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Yeah. ;-) I did used to get a funny feeling like butterflies in the stomach over my art teacher and various other ladies when I was in grade school. I didn't figure out what it was all about until much later.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

My first recallable sexual thoughts involved my third grade teacher. I sure didn't plan them, and at the time I wasn't sure what they were, but thinking back a few years later when I did understand, and saw the teacher again. Yup, that was it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

"SMEDDUM" being what?
Class?
Intelligence?
Wisdom?
The insight to interpret a word no normal human ever heard of?

Ake, I'm just not sure you have the frubidush to be the right kind of person, or find the right course in life...

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

I can only speak for myself, but I was falling in love with little girls by age 2 or 3....and the first female I fell in love with, in fact, was my Mother, so it started at birth. I adored her. Isn't that fairly common? There wasn't what I would call any sexual component to my adoration of females, however, until I hit my teen years. I didn't think about any sexual stuff before then. It was strictly a matter of the heart and the head for me in the pre-teen years...but I sure loved females, although I was pretty picky about which ones at any given time.

Maybe if less energy was put into trying to prove that another poster is "bad" or "stupid", there'd be less hostility generated on this thread. Whaddya think? Too revolutionary an idea? Not enough fun? Too boring? Whaddya think, eh? ;-) I know one thing: if you growl at a dog, it will usually growl back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM

Frankly, he may not have got there yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:30 PM

So, how old were you when you decided to become heterosexual Akenaton. It's a very important choice. You must have some recollection, if not of the exact moment, at least of your thoughts at around that time. I suspect it was an easy choice for you (which is good). But if you put some thought into it, you must recall at least a little.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM

I'm following my uncle's advice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:57 PM

Although I am not personally bothered too much about the redefinition of marriage

Then why do you spend so much time and effort on here talking about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:48 PM

Oh I get it alright Ebbie, took me a while to figure you out right enough. Gave you the benefit of the doubt several times, but no more.

In my "bible", the writings of Lewis Grassic Gibbon, the unlikely heroine Meg Menzies coins the phrase "Ye hae tae hae SMEDDUM tae be richt coorse....or richt kind!!".

Ebbie you do not have SMEDDUM.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM

Hi Amos...nice to meet up again :0).

I don't believe in incitement to hatred of any group, any minority, any person.

I have tried to back my opinions here with a reasoned argument, chiefly the health issues, as I've said one hundred times, the health statistics suggest that homosexual practice is very bad for homosexuals and very bad for society at large, as such I do not think it should be promoted by our respective govts and accepted into mainstream society.
That does NOT mean that I hate Homosexuals or wish to incite others to hate them.
Although I am not personally bothered too much about the redefinition of marriage, I know a large number of people who are very concerned....and I fully understand their concern, even if I don't share their religious views.

Many minorities are discriminated against, for many reasons....reasons we have discussed several times above.

The "Liberal" agenda does not consist of "rights for all", it consists of rights for certain selected minorities, especially vociferous powerful minorities with control over the media and entertainment industry!    In other words the "liberal" agenda is to support any cause which may be useful in its quest for total power!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM

"Unfortunately most of them find it impossible to address the issue from their perspective and fall back on posting rubbish like trying the equate homosexual behaviour with race or religion." Ake

I hate it when someone says it to me but I will say it to you, ake: You just don't get it, do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:35 PM

I don't think anyone is trying to equate things as you claim, Ake.

What has been said is that your position against equal CIVIL rights is discriminatory, and as such it is ANALAGOUS (not equal)to discrimination on other organic grounds such as race.

What I have said is that incitement to hatred should not be considered the same as free speech; I said nothing about your own posts or even defining what incitement to hatred would consist of. That is a whole other discussion. "Kill him!! He's a fucking iummoral commie bastard faggot!" is not an examle of free speech anymore than yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is.

I don't know if defining the boundaries between the two would not be an impossible can of worms. But, like the difference between farts and butter, I think I know it when I smell it.

How do you feel about (a)incitement to hatred of others? (b)legally discriminating against monorities?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:31 PM

Just out of curiosity, what does the liberal agenda include besides equal rights for all?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM

This thread has done at least some good.....The Pro's are no longer able to scream, shout, and throw their toys out of the pram, they have been forced to address the issue and that must be good for free speech....and bad for the "Liberal" agenda.

Unfortunately most of them find it impossible to address the issue from their perspective and fall back on posting rubbish like trying the equate homosexual behaviour with race or religion.

I may be an atheist, but I have learned in my fairly long life that many people need a helping hand to make sense of their lives and their mortality. Given the type of society we are in the process of creating that is completely understandable.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

All credit for this thread continuing lies with LH!
*We* had ended it quite nicely (for us, that is).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:18 PM

Amos...would you please explain why criticising homosexual practice, equates with incitement to hatred?

If the amendment had been withdrawn, I could have been charged with incitement to hatred for what I have written on this thread.

I have written nothing which incites hatred to homosexuals.

Ebbie.....slipped off the hook quite well there...didn't you?
But I'll remember what you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM

i don't think hilter was gay was he??

so in fact he was better than gay folks, at least he was normal!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:42 PM

There is a great deal of deep-grained stupidity afoot in this thread, FP, to the point it has lost its value as a discussion. Once people start invoking "liberal conspiracies" and confusing free speech with incitement to hatred, all responsibility for intelligent offerings goes by the boards. The next thing you know, gay people will be the same as Hitler... ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:39 PM

Frogprince - You were close, man! But no cigar. (grin)

jeddy - It's their legs and faces and eyes that I like best. The other parts are nice too, of course. As the saying goes "it's all good".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:21 PM

It's baa-aack; I thought for a couple of days that everyone had agreed that my last post was so stupid that it was time to let the thread die.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM

although i have read the posts since my last one i will have to reread them for them to make sense.

LH, i don't blame you that if you had to be a woman then you would be a lesbian, are you a boobs or bum man?
sorry to be silly.

since when can't gay people be productive and caring nieghbours and a help in the community.
let me give you an example, when we lived in sheffield, there was a very old lady who fell over in the road because she couldn't lift her leg up high enough. ... there was a man in a suit walking right past her at the time and all he did was step over her. we had to run, yes us run, down the road to pick her up and help her up the curb. is that man the sort of person you would prefere to have in your society, just becuase he wears a suit and has the respectabilty, of being a profesional, rather than the scruffy gayness of me and my other half?

i do hope not.

i will get back to you on the subject of this bill, or non bill, when i fully understand it

take care all

jade x x x