BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 09 - 06:30 PM

Well Smedley of course when the disease is transmitted to the heterosexual population we are bound to see many more cases in the heterosexual sector. This is simply because the hetero sexual community is vastly larger than the homosexual one...and it is still a fact that human aids always shows up first among homosexuals.

In every country worldwide, in real percentage terms, homosexuals are the largest sector of people "living with aids".
If a proper medical study of homosexual practice and the incidence of aids were to be set in motion....perhaps millions of lives could be saved.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:31 PM

You're not misunderstanding me, Don T, except in this respect: I am not speaking in absolutes, and that is the part you seem to be misunderstanding.

I am saying that in general the legislators end up serving the most powerful monied interests in this society...and in any society. This does not mean that they NEVER serve the public, nor does it mean that they NEVER take a principled stand on some specific issue or another. Sometimes they do. It depends on a great many factors, including the personal convictions of some of the legislators involved.

No man is entirely ONE thing and one thing only. We are all creatures of great variety, agreed?

I'm sure the monied sectors have some concerns in regards to the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, but those concerns may vary a good deal depending on which part of the monied sectors you're talking about. I doubt they all see it the same way...and I doubt that in most cases they're are even affected by it.

Thus, it is a complex situation, as usual, and there are many factors involved. I certainly don't think I am aware of all of them, and I doubt that any of us are aware of all of them.

Most arguers don't want to consider the complexities of life. They simply want to beat their own drum beat as loudly as they can and they want to drown out the people on the other side of the debate...and THAT is what poisons the political dialogue.

I find Obama very refreshing, because when he talks he also takes time to listen, and he WILL give consideration to a variety of views differing from his own, and he WILL acknowledge the complexities in a debate. This indicates reason and intelligence on his part as well as goodwill toward those he is debating with. Sounds like a good way to go to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:28 PM

Um, GfS...nobody said the government should take care of "it"--if by "it" you mean the terrible problem of some people being homosexual.

All anyone has said, which you keep careening away from like a psycho pinball, is that the civil status and priveleges of marriage should be extended equally.

You keep frothing at the mouth, insisting you are being ignored, but the only part of what you are saying that is perhaps being ignored is the part where you change the subject.

I GOT that you feel all homosexuality is a deep emotional aberration born from abuse or neglect. I don't think that is uniformly the case. But as I said upthread, in a post you probably ignored, that issue is neither here nor there--etiology is not the concern, anymore than the etiology of race is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:22 PM

GfS, you are assuming that all of this is an entirely new thought to we "pea-brained liberals" and we have never considered the question before. That is where you are dead wrong.

I can readily understand why a person with a close blood-relative who is homosexual might just be a little upset at the recent scientific evidence that homosexuality could be genetically predetermined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:08 PM

For the record.

I have never pretended to be anything other than exactly what I am. Anyone who alleges differently bears the burden of providing a link to a post where I pretended to be a woman, and another where I pretended to be a man. Put up the links, shut the piehole, or keep it flapping with credibility in tatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:08 PM

So the usual flock starts squawking because of one sentence that objects to the practice of name calling and labeling..and now you're back at it???
Your pseudo argument about being a 'civil rights' issue looks more to me, like an avoidance of responsibility, of being kind of parents who got closer to their kids. Here, let the government take care of it, I've got more important things to do. Hogwash! ..Meanwhile, that type of disconnect has bread a myriad of societal ills...and as so far as calling out the name calling, so called 'open minded liberals' ...all I called for was to 'consider the other side'..which if you weren't so trigger happy with your finger pointing denials, you would soon recognize, that what I told you was true, applicable, and far deeper in understanding that you may have even ventured. Try the plunge..try understanding something further than what your perception of the political rhetoric dictates to you, and the rest of the flock.
The only valuable post, following mine, coming your that side was from 'Smedley', which I'd love to respond to, and plan to, as soon as time permits. He, obviously may have a disagreement , or question about what I posted, but he laid it out, in a more honest, less vindictive way. Perhaps something in my post, caused him to consider, and think, maybe hit a resonating node, and he RESPONDED, rather than some of these knee jerk RE-ACTIONS..usually by those who know nothing about what they are talking about, further than 'talking points'!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:38 PM

""What the legislators normally end up representing is the will of the most powerful monied sectors in a society, that is to say: big business, the banks, the rich, the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, the professional organizations, and the established bureaucracy, all of which are in it for their own maintenance and their own pecuniary interests.""

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but, given that the legislators are (mostly) upholding the civil rights of a minority, to equality of treatment, how does that gel with pandering to the monied sectors?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:37 PM

". . . colorless neutrality. . . ."
      --Dante, from The Inferno

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:31 PM

Yes, of course, the legislators set the rules. That's excactly what people are debating about in California, isn't it?

The legislators are theoretically supposed to represent the "will of the people"....while simultaneously upholding the established rule of law.

The established rule of law normally derives from founding documents such as the US Constitution, plus a host of other laws and statutes that have been enacted in the years, decades, and centuries following.

Do the legislators really represent the will of the people in actual practice? Ha!!! Fat chance. What the legislators normally end up representing is the will of the most powerful monied sectors in a society, that is to say: big business, the banks, the rich, the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, the professional organizations, and the established bureaucracy, all of which are in it for their own maintenance and their own pecuniary interests.

The legislators do, of course, make an attempt to convince the public that they are acting in their interests...and sometimes they are, to some extent, but they are far more responsive to the above-mentioned most powerful monied sectors, because those sectors control the government. The public does not. The public merely gets to choose between a few talking heads every few years on election day, and right after that is over and done with the usual power groups continue running the show as they always have.

I mentioned that not to necessarily fight with you about anything you said, Don T....but just because I find it interesting in its own right.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:22 PM

"...well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate..."

Yeah, Don T., I notice that bit of rational, dispassionate, clear-headed debate myself. He/she seems to be foaming at the mouth a bit, I'd say.

####

And there you are again, Little Hawk, taking your usual rock-solid position:   hovering a bit above we mere mortals and going "tsk, tsk, tsk. . . ."

Don Firth

P. S. I mean, what the hell, Little Hawk. You said as much a post or two up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:20 PM

""Sometimes people go on and on taking offence and being angry about something because they enjoy it at some level.""

There's no DETERMINATION, on my side, to take offence at what GfS has to say.

The offence is there for all to see, in the continuing(not PAST) rhetoric about the deluded, stupid, nature of all who disagree with GfS's opinions, which, I might add, are gratuitously offensive in themselves to anyone who cares about discrimination against minorities.

To try to cloak that agenda in a spurious display of concern for the mental condition of these "poor, psychologically disturbed creatures", is DOUBLY offensive.


But there is one area in which (although I've not checked) GfS and I MIGHT agree, and that is in finding it offensive being patronised, and lectured like naughty children, by someone who clearly states he doesn't care one way or another about the topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:07 PM

""Are there really social issues which are simply "none of our business"?....Then who sets the rules which govern the way we live?""

In the USA, the legislators set the rules, within the framework laid down by the Constitution, which guarantees certain civil rights.

In the UK, Parliament sets the rules, and only Parliament.

Any attempt to circumvent or change the rules by other persons or by other means, is simply Mob Rule.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:06 PM

Don (T)...it appears to me that both you AND GfS are absolutely determined to be offended by each other and to STAY angry about various things the other has said in the past and to not let go of it. ;-D How does that help you? Has it helped the Palestinians and Israelis solve anything in the past 5 or so decades? Has it helped end the standoff between North and South Korea?

Sometimes people go on and on taking offence and being angry about something because they enjoy it at some level. It makes them feel righteous and justified. Ever noticed that? I have. In 3-D life I make sure to avoid such individuals as best I can, but on the Internet it's not such a big problem, fortunately. That's why I'm still hanging around here. If this thread was a 3-D life situation, I'd have walked away from it hundreds of posts back, and I'd have given it no more thought whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:33 AM

""What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals,..well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate...OR..you really can, consider another side.""

Now THAT'S the REAL GfS emerging. If I WERE a homosexual, I don't think I'd WANT that on my side, or pretending compassion for my "problem"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:28 AM

""Exatly so LH.....many so called liberal positions are simply political issues dressed in such a manner that any questioning of that position can be battered into submission by foul language and innuendo.....this thread is a typical example.

"Bigot", "homophobe" etc has been used in many of the posts here in place of reasoned discussion and to try to stifle debate....these people are "liberal" in name only, in reality they are fascists.

Closed ears...closed eyes....closed minds.""


WHEREAS, of course, YOUR decision to discriminate against a minority, for no other reason than that you don't like the way they live THEIR lives, is both reasonable and OPEN minded.

Ha bloody ha!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:21 AM

""Good Lord!..Don't go into a tizzy!. I was merely being facetious!.Referring to present day political rhetoric, ONLY!"

No you weren't. You were seeking to label me, and my opinion, with your own twisted version of my meaning.



""By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??(I mean the real one, not the political nonsense????)""

Because we don't believe in your oft expressed pseudo concern. And we DO believe in civil rights for ALL.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:12 AM

""Well, not exactly. 'Taken in' is more like being a true believer to a deception.
'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work...so, I guess you can be tolerant of other points of view. Make's one empowered to feel 'wide open' to other opinions, as long as they're willing to pay your way.""

We have dictionary definitions for English language words (which don't actually include liberalisation with a Z), so making up your own meanings is just more of your copious output of bullshit.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 13 May 09 - 04:49 AM

Akenaton, if these points have been made earlier in this mammoth thread, then I apologise in advance (I don't have time to read it all).

You talk about the link between homosexuality and AIDS, but the genuine link is between certain kinds of sexual practices and AIDS, or the link between the foolishness of not using condoms and AIDS.

Plenty of gay men do not participate in anal sex (in my experience, it's only heterosexuals with anti-gay agendas who think that we do). Plenty more use condoms when they do. The overwhelming majority of AIDS cases outside the West are the result of heterosexual intercourse without condoms.

Those are three reasons why you are positing a false equation.

Homosexuality is an identity, and it is not the same as same-sex activity.

And just out of interest, if your forum name relates to the Egyptian pharaoh, did you know that a lot of scholarship now considers him to a person involved in same-sex activity ? (Not that this makes him a 'homosexual', as that is a term coined in the 19th century)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 09 - 03:36 AM

Are there really social issues which are simply "none of our business"?....Then who sets the rules which govern the way we live?
Are we to be like the three monkeys ...See no evil Hear no evil speak no evil.
It is vitally important that the link between homosexuality and aids is thouroughly investigated, and that will never happen while we are coersed into a state of denial......denial of the obvious.

If it is found that the practice is a trigger or a causal factor in the incidence of the disease, then we must look again at the status of homosexual behaviour in our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:58 AM

No wonder, no one listens to folk music these days......they have nothing worthwhile to say!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:27 AM

"And that, my friends, is the point."

Good one, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 May 09 - 01:56 AM

Ebbie - It's just normal human curiosity and past investment that keeps bringing me back. Same as most people who post here. ;-)

See, it works this way. At some point, for some reason, one drops in on a thread. It might even be a thread that is on a subject that one normally has no interest in...and believe me, I have VERY little interest in Proposition 8 and whether or not Californians support it or oppose it...I don't give a hoot one way or the other.

However, mere curiosity caused me to drop in here at some point, and I read some posts. The way that people were going after each other and some of the specific things they said in those posts kind of troubled me, and I felt an urge to comment on that.

That led to people reacting to my comments. Their reactions stirred me to make further comments. I got accused here and there of some things that really surprised me (such as the notion that I'm a moral relativist)...so, like anyone, I reacted to that also. And so it went.

After awhile I had invested quite a bit of time trying to explain my ideas and stuff. When you've made a significant investment of time and effort on any thread, it becomes ever more likely that you will return again and again and check on what's happening lately on that thread. It becomes a self-renewing process.

You get curious as to how someone else might have responded to the last thing you said, so you check in and take a look. Then you see something new that somebody said (like your last post where you are talking to me), and you feel like, "Well, I should maybe reply to that..."

And so it goes! ;-D

It's sort of like a perpetual motion machine, and it's driven by the most common and universal of human impulses. This thread, after awhile, becomes its own justification for why I return to it again and again, whether or not I have any interest in same sex marriage in California.

Like the USA in Vietnam or Elvis in Las Vegas, I have become quite accustomed to being here by now, and it's likely I'll be around for awhile yet....because I can't help wanting to see what happened since my last post. ;-)

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

(The bingo was for Ebbie)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:07 PM

Bingo.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:06 PM

Well, actually, this thread was staying pretty much on message until early afternoon of December 20, 2008, then it really went to hell a couple of hours later.

Tracing the career of this post shows the diversionary power of that mighty costumed hero and defender of propriety (Trumpet Fanfare), The Red Herring.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:51 PM

"It's not an issue for me at all. I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have never had any problem with same sex marriage. I don't care if people decide they want to do that. I don't care if it's made legal in Schenectady or Blind River or anywhere else. I shrug my shoulders. It's not my business anyway, is it?

"So, yes, you are missing something in regards to why I am bothering to post on this thread. ;-D "

Little Hawk, I very, very frequently agree with you on many, many subjects. I loves you, babe.

However. On this subject I wouldn't say that you are in denial, exactly, but you have said enough on it - many moons ago - that make me feel that you are being somewhat disenguous on this thread.

Examine it- and you will see what I mean.

As for the Bobbsey Twins, as has been clearly ponted out. you are not addressing the subject at all.

I have gay friends in relationships - at least one of the couples went to the East Coast and got married some time back- who own property together and are 'out' to everybody but they are sharply aware that if something happens to them healthwise or even should one of them die, their rights over their estate are virtually non-xistent.

And that, my friends, is the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:58 PM

This thread is about Proposition 8 and similar reactions pro and con, and the right opf people to legislate against basic civil rights.

That was what it was started about.

That is the topic.

All the rest is but sound and fury, mere garnishee to a crazy salad.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:48 PM

How cool that I would stop by at this juncture... only because the hockey game is still a bit off and I am bored.

I read a couple of posts and can "conjecture"... same shit, different day. Glad I left long ago.

Think I already said this, but, if I did, once again, youse have fun eh. See you after another thousand posts.... unless the Patriots are in the playoffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:13 PM

Well I see we are back in repitition mode from the pro homo "marriage" gang, so it is pointless to go through it all again
I am absolutely delighted by the way the anti Homo "marriage" argument has been presented by GfS and I am happy with what I have written.
Little Hawk as always has been the voice of reason...not a pro and not an anti, but a free thinker and democrat who should be an inspiration to us all.
I care not a whit about changing the minds of political weasels, but I am certain that this thread, which was started as a cynical Democrat vote winner, has become a document which any fair minded person can read and be informed by.

That is what is really important...that people have the guts to stand up to the lynch mob. Never be cowed when they tell you how many degrees they have or their depth of education.....intelligence reason, understanding and bravery are the important attributes.

Let the parrots chatter, reason has been set down against bullying and abuse, let those who read this, next week, next month, next year, make up their own minds...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:33 PM

It's not the sole issue for me if I'm not against it, Don, and I'm not against it.

It's not an issue for me at all. I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have never had any problem with same sex marriage. I don't care if people decide they want to do that. I don't care if it's made legal in Schenectady or Blind River or anywhere else. I shrug my shoulders. It's not my business anyway, is it?

So, yes, you are missing something in regards to why I am bothering to post on this thread. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:26 PM

Is somebody missing something here? Somebody must be missing something here!

As far as I'm concerned, the civil rights issue is the sole issue here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 05:19 PM

That's the remaining sole issue for you, Amos, (smile) becaue it's the one you wish to focus on. It's not the remaining sole issue for me, because I don't have a problem with the legalization of same-sex marriage in the first place.

Why would you assume that your "remaining sole issue" has to be everyone else's?

It's other issues altogether that have kept me interested in posting on this thread...the usual issues that interest me, and they mostly have to do with good human relations, clear communication, and mutual respect for one another...even IF our views, our lifestyles or our politics may differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:57 PM

The remaining sole issue is whether the exclusionist principle or the inclusionist principle should be followed in addressing the legal codes.

This was the reasoning of the Iowa Supreme Court. They found there was no compelling interest to the state in denying marriage based on gender.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:30 PM

Aside from the civil rights issue of equal treatment under law, all the arm waving and spite-spewing in this thread is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether homosexuality is born in the genes, or is an occasional reaction to loss or abuse, or if it is endowed by hung-over Tooth Fairies who are too drunk to use the right spell.

The remaining sole issue is whether the exclusionist principle or the inclusionist principle should be followed in addressing the legal codes. It's either "all men are created equal" or "some men are created more equal than others".

Your call, big girl.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:14 PM

GfS, your description of the experience of your friend is anecdotal, and it may very well be true in his case. I, however, have had discussions with gay men who tell me a whole different story. Many of them had perfectly fine relationships with their fathers. In some cases the relationship turned out not to be so fine when the son "came out of the closet," but by then, the son's gender orientation had made itself manifest. And it was not their decision. In fact, it was something they often denied and fought against.

I know one gay man quite well who had a very good relationship with his father as he was growing up. Through grade school and high school, he always had the feeling that he was somehow different. He liked girls, but he just wasn't as interested in them, especially physically, as the guys he knew. And—he found himself attracted to other boys that he admired, although (he realizes now) he always had to repress disturbing feelings of physical attraction; the kind of feelings that he knew his male friends seemed to have about girls.

And he would have punched out anyone who said that he was "gay" or "queer."

Following the "norm," he dated girls, and eventually he married. It didn't take him long to realize that this had been a big mistake. He liked the woman very much, but their physical relationship was a disaster. And they were both miserable. After a couple of years—and marriage counseling—it became clear what the problem was.

This was not a "decision" on his part. It was a recognition of what IS.

They had an amicable divorce. Shortly thereafter, he met a man. They have been living together quite happily for several years now. They own things together, including a condo and an automobile. A stable, monogamous relationship.

They are both "out of the closet" to their families and friends, and they would like very much to render their relationship official. But so far, the existing laws will not allow them to do this.

Mark says that he has always been gay. It just took going through hell to make him realize it, then finally admit it to himself. "Now," he says, "I feel like a whole human being." On the same-sex marriage issue, he says, "I just don't see why David and I shouldn't have the same rights everyone else has!"

GfS, because I am concerned over the matter of denial of civil rights, and am willing to argue the issue and present both ethical arguments and scientific evidence as to why it is unjust and unfair, you insist on accusing me of being a brainless, closed-minded idiot and (oh, horrors!!) a "liberal," along with being "small minded, excuse seeking, [and] politically motivated."

(You silver-tongued devil, you!)

And even though you may not be a bigot, you often descend to talking like one, and you use the same litany of arguments, debating devices, and pejorative terms that bigots generally use to try to support their prejudices. So we're back to ducks again.

Anecdotal evidence does not trump the results of scientific studies. And attempting to dismiss them by claiming that the scientific evidence has been "bought" by "the gay lobby" is just more of the same kind of bigoted rhetoric.

So if you resent being labeled a "bigot. . . ."

Being (as I have been accuse) a "brainless liberal," I find it strange that I should be quoting that paladin of the American conservative movement (now regarded by conservatives as a bit too much of a "centrist"), Barry Goldwater, but it's pretty hard to deny the truth of one of his best known quotes:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:41 PM

KB, The part you are referring to, I used to address those who resort to the name calling, and labeling those, including me, of being bigots, etc etc. I also used that phraseology, to emphasize how strongly I resent small minded, excuse seeking, politically motivated, closed minds, who only resort to division, instead of meaningful dialogue, whose end result, only leads to enlightenment. Let's not forget the intended hurt, these people are trying to inflict by accusing others of things that are untrue, just to shut them up, and/or discredit them. THAT, I find more offensive than my verbal re-action.
However, I do respect your opinion, and be not afraid..you are NOT IN MY CROSSHAIRS
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:39 PM

I don't see why one should throw the baby out the window because of a single blemish on its face

It isn't one blemish, it's the pattern of name calling and be-littling of ones opponents, LH. It grows tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:37 PM

It's not you I'm talking about, Amos. It's the people who make an actual full time career out of raising hell over this one issue that I'm talking about. They are the people who dominate the issue in the national media and they are the main force driving the hostility that is brought to bear around the debate.

Anita Bryant, for example, was one such person...on the anti-homosexual side of the argument. She was the natural antagonist of people a lot like her on the other side of the argument....zealots...both sides bolstered with their own utter certainty of their moral superiority, their love for justice, and the rightness of their cause.

That's who I'm referring to as "zealots"...I am not referring to you or to someone else on this forum. We're just some people engaging in chit chat here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:30 PM

Wal, I dunno who's a zealot or an extremist. I'm kind of enthusiastic about defending what looks to me like a core civil right that has been curtailed by heavy prejudice, and that in violation of our core precepts about equality under the law. Does that make me a zealot? To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "If this be zealotry, let us make the most of it."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:26 PM

No, KB, I don't expect you to take that one sentence seriously. I expect you to realized it's someone venting some inner tension they're feeling at the time. It does not, however, invalidate the whole rest of GfS's post which is very thought-provoking. I don't see why one should throw the baby out the window because of a single blemish on its face... ;-) (if you see what I mean)


Amos - Yes, I agree with you that "Under the law a civil status should not be denied on the basis of plumbing or preferences for plumbing."

Fine. But that's not my concern here. Do you understand what does concern me about the present political situation in North America vis-a-vis same-sex marriage and the gay rights movement generally and how the media is handling it?

I think that if the aggressive zealots and extremists on BOTH sides of this issue would get off their raving little soapboxes and quit bitching at each other and accusing each other in the media that, yes, it would, as KB says, drop out of the news cycle permanently. And we could all then get on peacefully with our lives...gays and straights alike. I'd like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:21 PM

Well, we all sometimes get a little too vehement when our emotions are strongly involved in something, KB. It happens.

My problem is that GfS presents the argument this way on a regular basis. Ake gets carried away on occasion (as do some of those with whom I agree on this issue) but not as standard practice.

"well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit

Really, you expect me to take this seriously? Should I alter my position based on this? Like I said, up to this point it was a good post but this blew away the goodwill that had been built up. This is not a verbal sparring match where things come out before you have a chance to reflect. We are sitting at our keyboards and can re-read what we have written before we hit 'submit message'.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:08 PM

LH:

The exclusion, as I have mentioned about fifty times on this repetitive thread, is from a legal status (marriage) extended under the law to other consenting adults due to a difference in their plumbing while excluding some. Under the law a civil status should not be denied on the basis of plumbing or preferences for plumbing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:06 PM

"I AM opposed to this issue being given way more press and media spin lately than, frankly, I think it deserves."

Now that the battle is (at least for now) won in Iowa the main play it gets in the media is because of the continued opposition of those who fell the same as Ake and GfS. I think it would drop out of the news cycle altogether if the anti crowd would let it. "Same-sex couple weds" is no longer a story.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:54 PM

Amos, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that gays should be excluded from having gay relationships if they wish to, but some posters feel that the present political campaign to make same-sex marriage officially legal and the same as heterosexual marriage is not necessarily what it purports to be: something that will make society freer and better in every way than it is now.

Rather, it might be seen as a sort of attention-getting ploy on the part of various special interest groups and various self-interested political parties to manipulate votes and to distract the public from tremendously more vital issues.

It might be seen as more "divide and conquer" strategy, in fact. If so, it has succeeded brilliantly. Just look at the history of this thread.

Do you follow what I mean by that?

Note: I am in no way opposed to gays getting legally married if it makes them happy. I AM opposed to this issue being given way more press and media spin lately than, frankly, I think it deserves. As I've said before, I think it's a tempest in a teapot. I think it's a political game.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:47 PM

A gay friend of mine grew up in a 3-child family. He was especially close to his mother, it is true, but he is close to his father too. Family is important to him.

His brother is a politically conservative, money-making, goal-oriented straight man whom my friend is not close with. His sister is gay. They have a nephew who is also gay.

Given all that - and countless other pieces of evidence - I fail utterly to see why the idea of genetics is so difficult, so resisted, among those who feel so vehemently about homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:42 PM

Well, we all sometimes get a little too vehement when our emotions are strongly involved in something, KB. It happens.

Very good post, GfS. What I find really interesting about what you said is that the dynamic you describe of a boy being very alienated from his father while growing up, that whole thing, that's exactly what I went through....and yes, it did make me move closer to my mother's mode of being, it made me instinctively move toward sensitivity and artistic things, it made me talk and perhaps think more like a woman to a greater extent than the average guy does, and it has undoubtedly helped me to be a more subtle and creative person in the arts...at least I think it has.

It did not, however, result in my moving away from the traditional role of heterosexuality...though I can see why it might result in that in any number of possible individual cases.

I remain very attracted to women, and not to men, but I did suffer this pain around not getting the approval and love of my father.

Interesting indeed.

I guess that some people will react to that situation by rejecting their traditional sexual role in some way and reversing it, but I did not.

One thing though. I never married and I took pains not to have any children. Those are probably some after-effects right there of the family dynamic you refer to.

I remain utterly romantic about women to this day, but I am highly reluctant to get tied down in any arrangement such as marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:07 PM

It was the part before the "OR" that I found objectionable and I do not think it was needed. I feel your post would have been more compelling without that bit. You are free to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:27 AM

KB..the very last line is ..".OR..you really can, consider another side."...so what's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 May 09 - 10:04 AM

GfS, that post of yours from 4:28 was going quite well until the last line. I was gaining some respect for your input here but with that you completely lost me again. I find your attack dog tactics very off-putting. Ake obviously holds a position very similar to yours but I read his posts and consider his ideas because they are generally posted in a thoughtful manner. I try to do the same with yours but find it difficult.

I very much like to read and hear opinions that differ from mine. It requires me to defend my position in my own mind and sometimes I decide that was wrong. I am with LH on the idea of thoughtful debate. A barrage of attacks is not likely to change anybodys mind, it is rather the reasoned phrase that makes one stop to consider.

I have until now not addressed you directly, GfS, because I do not intend to get in a squabble with you. I realize I may have put myself in the cross-hairs with this but what the hey.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:53 AM

GfS:

Thanks for the compassionate and insightful post.

I don't know the reason for extending from your experience to all cases of homosexuality. I suspect that's not likely to be borne out in the long run, but it is clear 6that abuse and loss CAN result in major identity problems including sexuality ones.

When other observers document a probability for genetic factors, do you just reject it as bad research, instinctively?

Finally, your view that emotional distress is the major precipitating element in people "becoming" homosexual does not seem, really, to address the issue of legal exclusion. Similar factors, for example,make other people turn neurotic, Christian, promiscuous, alcoholic, gambling-addicted, stuttering, and other syndromes. Yet none of these are selected out for legal exclusion.

Because your exposure to one angle is intense and personal, it is strongly felt, but it doesn't make it true, or just, or equitable.


A