 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Dec 08 - 03:52 PM If this post is to be exhumed, I would much rather see some sensible debate on the homosexual lifestyle statistics than the personal abuse that has taken the place of reasonable discussion. At least we might be able to acertain whether the normalisation of homosexuality is in the interests of all of the people. Are these statistics true?.....Why do pro homosexual groups not give comparitive statistics? Is there a link between the homosexual lifestyle and HIV? Why do supporters of homosexual "normalisation" fall silent or resort to abuse when statistics are mentioned? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: MMario Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:06 PM And what do those statistics have to do with whether or not two people can form a legal marriage with all the appropriate rights? In the long run; the only people effected in a marriage are the couple and their legal heirs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM Sorry about that! M Mario....the discussion has broadened a little. If homosexuality is found to be hazardous to health, for example, resulting in lower life expectancy etc, that would have an effect on how the general public viewed homosexual marriage sanctified by the church, or the fostering of young children by homosexual couples surely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM GfS: Don't be too hard on yourself, duck. We have all stirred a rasher in our day! :D Ake: You're chasing a red herring, mate. The issue is defining civil rights under the law. STDs can be handed around to and by anyone who is reckless, which is a different matter. in fact it stands to reason that encouraging monogamy would lower the incidence thereof regardless of the polarity of the couple. Homosexuals are not lepers, and do not deserve to have their humanity degraded by this kind of low-brain categorical thinking. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:30 PM No one is suggesting that homosexuals are lepers.....what have you got against lepers by the way? I was simply asking why do these statistics exist?...are they true? If they are true why are they not more widely known? Is there some sort of conspirisy of silence on this issue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:42 PM Whether homosexual marriage would encourage more responsible sexual behaviour is certainly not a given. Any homosexuals who wish monogamy can have it within a civil union....the "marriage" part is simply a push for "normalisation" a re-defining to suit the homosexual agenda. "do not deserve to have their humanity degraded by this kind of low-brain categorical thinking" I am at a loss to know what this statement means. This discussion is politically incorrect and off limits perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 08 - 05:55 PM It is not a "redefining to suit the homosexual agenda". It is the extension of civil right to people who have done nothing to have it taken from them except run afoul of bias and reaction. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:20 PM Family/Relationships In a 1992 study, 55.5% of gay men and 71.2% of lesbians were in steady relationships. As of November 1997, all 50 states denied gay men and lesbians the right to marry. An estimated 6 million to 14 million children have a lesbian or gay parent. Courts in 11 states have ruled that gay men and lesbians, on the basis of their sexual orientation, are unfit to receive custody of their children. A review of 9 studies of aspects of personal development--such as self-concept, moral judgment, and intelligence-revealed no significant difference between children of lesbians and gay men and children of heterosexuals. Violence In the five major U.S. cities that have professionally staffed agencies that monitor anti-lesbian and antigay violence--Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco-- reports of anti-gay and anti-lesbian incidents increased by 172% between 1988 and 1992; In 1988, 697 incidents were reported In 1990, 949 incidents were reported In 1992, 1,898 incidents were reported The most common perpetrators of anti-lesbian and anti-gay violence-responsible for 50% of all reported incidents--are youths ages 21 or under; 94% of the perpetrators are male. About two-thirds of the perpetrators are unknown to the victims. 89% of all incidents reported to the New York City Anti-Violence Project in 1992 resulted in no arrest. Youth As many as 7.2 million Americans under age 20 are lesbian or gay. 45% of gay males and 20% of lesbians experience physical or verbal assault in high school; 28% of these young people feel forced to drop out of school due to harassment based on sexual orientation. According to Kinsey, 28% of boys and 17% of girls have one or more same-sex experiences before age 20. 80% of lesbian and gay youths who took part in a 1987 study reported severe isolation. Every day, 13 Americans ages 15 to 24 commit suicide. In 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youths; 53% of transsexual youths surveyed in 1981 had attempted suicide. Lesbian and gay youths account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among youths. In December 1993, Massachusetts became the first and only state in the country to outlaw discrimination against lesbian and gay students in public schools. Public Opinion, and other stuff In 1965, 82% of men and 58% of women said that homosexuality represents a "clear threat" to the American way of life. In 1977, 56% of Americans said homosexuals should have equal rights in employment. By 1992, that number had risen to 74%. 11% of Americans would object to having a gay airline pilot. 55% of Americans would object to having a gay elementary school teacher. 49% of Americans would object to having a gay doctor. In 1993, 66.3% of the American population believed that sexual relations between two consenting adults of the same sex were always wrong. In a 1993 U.S. News and World Report poll of 1,000 registered voters, 53% said they knew someone who is gay of these, 73% supported equal rights for gays. 46% said they do not know someone who Is gay or lesbian; of these, 55 % supported the same rights. Among world religions, Buddhism is notable in that it does not condemn homosexuality. The word "homosexual" did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946. There are words in Greek for same-sex sexual activities, yet they never appear in the original text of the New Testament. In 1972 the United Church of Christ b 601,209 total gay and lesbian families were reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. 304,148 gay male families and 297,061 lesbian families. Over 40 percent of same-sex "unmarried partner" couples have lived together in the same home for more than five years. Nearly one in four of the couples raise children. Two-thirds of these children live in the 43 states where "second parent" adoption is not guaranteed. More than one in 10 gay and lesbian couples includes a senior over age 65. Nearly two-thirds of these couples have lived together for more than five years. If a partner dies, gays and lesbians, unlike their married counterparts, get no Social Security or other retirement-plan survivor benefits. According to recent Gallup Polls, nearly nine in 10 Americans want bans on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ninety-two of the Fortune 100 companies ban such discrimination on the job, and nearly two-thirds of them offer health benefits to same-sex partners. An estimated 1 million veterans in the United States are gay men or lesbians. Recent surveys suggest that four percent of U.S. adults are gay or lesbian and that 17 percent of gay men and eight percent of lesbians have served in the military. Source: 2005 Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:05 PM What are the statistics in Utah? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:18 PM Hell, Rig, I dunno!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:24 PM Maybe they don't keep any! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Dec 08 - 11:17 PM I did not post that last post..so someone, stop using my name!!! Amos, I am neither right wing, nor left. Your suppositions are clearly wrong. The post I gave prior(Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM) was straight from 'textbook'!....although, I did editorialize in using the word 'assholes'. That being said, I used that, not to describe homosexuals, but rather those who spin the laws and definitions of their language, to manipulate, their unlawful wills upon the descending majority rule! Spin that anyway you want...but it doesn't alter nor change the fact!! Hey, Happy New Year!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:21 AM The fact you seem to be avoiding is that the people you are talking about are human beings. You insist on dividing them out and painting them as something repulsive to you; that in itself is a repulsive thing to do. You make them into "a minority" trying to force an agenda on the majority. Well, so were African Americans, clearly disadvantaged by a genetic accident and all too ready to push their agenda on the god-fearing monority who wanted them kept separate. There are some standards of humanity you mustnot let yourself be driven from, methinks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:25 AM One can assume that you are a Democrat..How is it, then, that you seem to support the pushing through policies, that circumvent the Democratic process?? I would think you'd be outraged, that a minority would be overturning our system with the legal shenanigans, of some slick and twisted lawyers...and furthermore, to compare homosexuals and their agenda with blacks, is absolutely ludicrous! Nobody is saying homosexuals(who elected to be homosexuals) is the same as blacks, nor do they have the same heritage, of being forced from their homelands, to be slaves, and now having multitudes of offspring, born here, are at all the same thing!! Neither is it fair to say homosexuals, should force religions to change their beliefs, because their sexual preference, which is opposed to that same existing belief system, wants the legitimacy and recognition,...by those who elect not to recognize, that lifestyle. Perhaps they should form their own 'religion', rather than coerce, and subvert, thereby corrupting, an EXISTING religious way of life, which is opposed to those principles, and tell them that they can't believe that way, any longer! That is completely ridiculous! Same with the political system. Twice, now Californians have voted this down, only to be, 'overturned', by legal jargon, legalese...and then, denied(Jerry Brown), due process, to challenge??????????? You are in support of the destruction of our very legal process, that this society is made of...Although, our 'celebrity elect' will take office, at that point, he will be my president, whether I voted for him or not..That is the will of the majority vote....and until he screws up beyond repair, I will support him, and route for him to be not only a good president, but a great one.....because that is the will of our people!!..Why can't you see this principle applied to our democratic process?????? P.S. I DID NOT vote for McCain, either, nor am I a Republican right wing nut. There are both 'liberal' AND 'conservative' principles that I agree with, because I do my homework, and am opposed to certain corruptions of our system....this, my friend, is one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:37 AM This is not an issue of majority "rule". If it were I would shutup entirely and drop the issue. It is about whether citizenship and the common rights belonging thereto can be compromised by opinions about sexual propriety, and whether or not all men are created equal. These are human beings who love and cry just as you do, for the same reasons. Let the majority react to whatever buttons they will, this fact will not change. As such they have the God-given right to love by choice, not by law. You are not defending democracy under the law, but mob rule. Viva la difference. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:42 AM "choice" "preference" "lifestyle" "believe" Yep. One day in each homosexual person's life he or she told his or herself, Well, now, I do believe that I will be homosexual. It is such an appealing way to live, so safe and so well respected. Everybody likes homosexuals. ********** Ignorant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:55 AM Injecting religious notions into issues of law is a dangerous, foolish path, by the way. It is also illegal under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Or are you really interested in re-living those parts of history you are ignoring? Perhaps you have forgotten what it was like to burn at the stake or see babies born to the wrong religious sect put to the sword. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM Ebbie, your post is silly Amos, I was not interjecting religion into the issue of legislation, only using it as an analogy, as to one crashing their way into an EXISTING institution, and demanding it change to allow for their personal disposition. ...and it is a matter of the majority being denied due process, of both the democratic processes, including the right to appeal. That IS the issue that pisses me off, and should you, too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:23 AM That's the spirit, Ebbie. Then, years after somebody has chosen to go down that road, and they decide they want to change, and maybe live like the Cleavers, somebody could develope a 12 step program to help them recover. Rick Warren, possibly, or somebody a-political like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something. Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like the Mormon Church--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some genetic characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot." Marriage is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable marriages would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew. Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe. Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:59 AM From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM It would if it were simply a matter of a democratic choice, but this is about the core framework. It might be parallel to democratically electing a dictator, or passing laws prohibiting redheads from running for public office or something. Popular vote--especially in the hands of big influence buyers like MOVE ON.ORG(Tax free status?) or ACORN(--is not the sole criteria of a democracy. The curtailment of civil rights from selected groups on the basis of some ACQUIRED characteristic is a very base impulse. That i what this is about. "We can marry AND CONCEIVE CHILDREN whom we choose and be civilly recognized in that marriage. You cannot. " CIVIL UNIONS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS is not defined by sex--if it were a very large number of highly respectable ROOM MATES would be annulled on grounds of failure to renew. Saying it has to be so defined is illogical, since it is not a permit to have sex, does not inquire about the sexual practices involved before being acknowledged by the state, and no longer even requires blood tests in most places, I believe. LIKE CIVIL CORPORATIONS! Family-hood is a postulated state of being. Being dictatorial about it is what is unnatural. WORKS BOTH WAYS! YES AMOS, IT IS ABOUT OVERTURNING THE MAJORITY RULE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS...AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS ABOUT MARRIAGE, OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT, DOES NOT ALTER, OR CHANGE THAT FACT!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:54 PM Just curious GfS - how old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? Such an important decision in life should be pretty easy to recall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:21 PM There's no need to yell, GtS. I understand you have a different point of view, one about which you feel very assertive. The "conceive and reproduce" aspect of marriage is often touted as the primary rationale behind formalizing civil coupling at all. But there are plenty of childless couples, whose marriages should not be annulled because they didn't obey the Pope and the Old Testament about multiplying. In this day and age of overpopulation, the ability to reproduce is hardly a major recommendation for honoring choices of partner. The fact is the entire movement against gay marriage is an invented issue, blown up out of all proportion in order to give the right wing an issue to boil up about. The core function of the marriage proposition is the choice of two individuals, an exercised freedom that is inherent in their nature as human beings, regardless of their color, creed, choice of sexual practice, or shape of plumbing. Any two humans deserve the complete untrammeled right to make such a decision with their lives and to have it acknowledged socially as a legal civil state. Or else, none do, and all legal propositions predicated on married versus unmarried states should be struck from the books forthwith. But this "separate and different" shtick does not work in civil codes of law. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:48 PM Amos, ..using the caps as I did was only done to highlight the changes to your text..sorry if you had the impression that I was yelling...I wasn't....... As to the other complete asshole using my name...Joe, can you check the IP address on that person, and inform 'it', that using one name per user, is the correct protocol here...and to that asshole in particular, if you have something to say, use your own name(once again). Will get back to you...I have somewhere to be right now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:16 PM Amos.... are you actually saying that ALL citizens are equal under the eyes of the law? Wow, dude. Concept! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:31 PM Oh, yeah. I forgot. Re majority rule. Ah, mob rule sucks, dude. Just because a majority of people who may not have the intellignce, the education, the experience, the wisdom... need I go on???... or any reasonable combination thereof, THINK they have the right to limit other peoples rights don't make it so. The right to swing one's arms freely in the air ends where the other fellow's nose begins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:46 PM Apparently, it can't be repeated often enough. The voters can vote for or against something a hundred times over if they want, but that doesn't make it right. Democracy? Yes, but a democracy with certain essential limitations. These limitations are there to protect such things as fundamental human rights and prevent "the Tyranny of the Majority." A good example of what can go wrong with "pure" democracy—majority rule—is a lynch mob. And wisely, we have laws against such things. So just because something got the majority of the votes, that doesn't make it right. Or wise. Or moral, in the widest sense of the word. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM Don be da man! And, we need some good wo/men these days. Perhaps if we had a test for voter participation. Not necessarily knowledge of the issues... so many issues... I mean, who has time to keep oneself informed about the issues? Maybe it could be a simple test, like, say, be of average intelligence or above? And, that would then preclude religion from being a bias, too. Two dodos with one stone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:08 PM Seriously... what if we had a vote that did the the same thing to the stunned? Denied them a basic right?... denied them the right to vote based on their lack of intelligence? Makes more sense than mob rule, don't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM LOL! That is another slippery slope indeed, Good Gnus. Scientific analysis by the very best people as to who shall be qualified to participate and who not? Oh, my!! Oh, I know!! Let's impose a genetic screening!! Ban reproduction of life devoid of value!! Ooooo!!!! An enlightened Eugenic society, but this time, we can do it right!! With SCience!! (Sorry, I wasn't aiming my sarcasm at you. ) I am afraid the best we can hope for is having to haul the whole lot of us up hill with ourselves. We have met the enemy, and he-R-us! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:50 PM And who exactly comprise the "mob" on this issue? The people I know and live beside are certainly no mob, they are quiet folks who mind their own business, none of them are evangelical not even very staunch church goers yet they believe in the traditional definition of marriage and have a strong sense of injustice when their beliefs are attacked by a mob of so called "liberals". Every issue becomes politicised by the homosexual lobby,to oppose their agenda is to be branded right wing.....or worse, as can be seen on any thread which questions what is really happening to society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:06 AM "And who exactly comprise the "mob" on this issue?" Mormon Tabernacle Choir |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:51 AM "The fact you seem to be avoiding is that the people you are talking about are human beings. You insist on dividing them out and painting them as something repulsive to you; that in itself is a repulsive thing to do!" That statement Amos, is the crux of your argument and is completely nonsensical. All minorities with different sexual orientations are "human beings" Do you suggest we include some of the catagories mentioned by "bubblyrat" above? If not, your statement is hypocritical as well as simplistic...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:27 PM The knee-jerk reaction of the typical homophobe to the idea of same-sex marriage is to invoke the idea of someone wanting to marry his pet camel, warthog, or octopus. One wonders what other dark spiders grow in the dank recesses of their souls. . . . Scene – South Africa, early twentieth century. British soldier runs into the captain's tent. "Captain," he says excitedly, "Chumley is having sex with an ostrich!"Barbara and I are acquainted with few same-sex couples. In fact a nearby mainline church has married a number of same-sex couples. They're nice folks. In stable relationships. In fact, most of the same-sex marriages I've heard of are one helluvalot more stable than a lot of heterosexual marriages. And I don't see how their marriages, in any way, affects Barbara's and my marriage. Ake, why do you care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:39 PM That's the shortest version of that joke I've ever seen or heard!! It usually meanders through several pages. If the folks you are talking about are minding their own business, Ake, why do they seem so anxious to reject other people who would like to be able to mind their own business in the same peace? What right do you--or they--claim to define the legal and civil state of union by choice and then assert it should not be available to a significant minority of citizens? If you and your friends want to defend certain kinds of marriage as blessed or not blessed by one or another priest, church, or spiritual being, feel free--that is a religious issue. It should have nothing to do with the legal and civil status of couple-hood. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 01 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM Ake???? "Do you suggest..." "If not, then..." Oh my. That game can be played all day long and serve only to detract from logical debate. What I suggest is rather a simple arguement: Homos want to participate in civil union. Both are legal. Heteros have no right to deny homos participation in civil union. Debate that and leave the rest of the crazy crap out of it. I'll "suggest" one more thing about mob rule. We have government and legal systems that, among other things, protect the rights of individuals. These systems are based on decision making by experienced, knowledgible, intellignt... well, elected elders and those appointed by the elders. To ask Joe The Plumber to install your new electrical entrance panel is just stunned. Same deal with asking the general public to form appropriate legislation to deal with issues they have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to address. That is just stunned. Now, if there WAS a vote to ban Gay Parades.... Have fun kids. gnightgnu. BTW... I am in Canuckistan. We don't allow mob rule here... yet??? We'll see after Jan 26 how it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:01 PM Amos, Are you suggesting that Obama was elected because of mob rule???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:15 PM "are you suggesting..." again? "... that Obama was elected because of mob rule." I KNOW you didn't ask ME, but.... Not even close. The man earned it... over many years of hard work... amongst his peers in the fight to be considered for office. I think I had better TRY to leave it to you kids... once more... have fun. Once I get wound up... I cain't never stop... never stop.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM I have no idea what I may have said to suggest that. The election of a candidate to elective office is a normal function of democratic count. It does not endanger a minority in itself, except to disappoint them. Bush's election is a study in what happens when the democratic count then empowers someone determined to undermine the rights of citizens. The populus does not have the right, under the Constitution, to dirtectly vote away the civil rights of a minority--or of themselves. To change that would require a Constitutional Amendment, including ratification by the states. This means while it is not impossible, it is subject to a process that should give plenty of time for dialogue and reflection. As Franklin said, we have a republic IF we can keep it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:28 PM From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM I have no idea what I may have said to suggest that. I'm sorry ,Amos, the question belonged to Don Firth. "A good example of what can go wrong with "pure" democracy—majority rule—is a lynch mob." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:32 PM If they had all of the same rights, all the way down the line, but they decided to call if something other than marriage, I wonder if the gay community would buy that? Or is it just the fact that they want to call it "marriage?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:41 PM Um . . . Guest from Bewilderment, how do you come up with that? The election of a candidate is a normal, legal, Constitutionally mandated process, and it does not violate anyone's civil rights. This is an appropriate process. Consider it "mob rule" if you want, but it is perfectly legal and ethical, and the way this country choses its leaders. It may not be smart (see 2000 and 2004 elections), but it is Constitutional. Voting to violate the civil rights of a minority is neither ethical, nor legal, nor Constitutional. It strikes me that you're grasping for a straw that has insufficient bouyancy to keep your argument afloat. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM Amos and Don the dynamic duo......You always cite beastiality as the get out clause when folks question the "normality" of homosexuality. What about incest? I think that is a much better example. Do you think that two "human beings" who happen to be closely related should be deprived of the "right" to marry?.... and dont blabber on about health risks or I'll post the health statistics relating to homosexuality.........Your whole "liberal" PC stance is spurious and I suspect you both know it. The real difference is that the homosexuals have a strong and well organised pressure group in the media with much more clout than they deserve....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM Yeah, the beastiality proponents need to get their shit together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM Ake: You are being a bit of an ass, by failing to differentiate between relationships which are genetically dangerous--such as inbred marriages--and those which have no genetic risk at all, such as lesbianism and homosexuality. You are also throwing persiflage by arguing about the health risks of homosexual promiscuity in an argument about the civil rights to marriage. If anything, marriage as a commitment reduces promiscuity. The core and key question in this cloud of stink is the matter of whether or not a civil status should be exclusive of some citizens who are capable of exercising it responsibly and enjoying its priveleges. You say this right should be exclusively limited to those who share your sexual persuasion. This, at bottom, is pure bigotry. The issue has nothing to do with public health, which is an independent variable. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM Marriage increases promiscuity? And spreads sexually transmitted diseases? Not on this planet. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:44 PM From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 09 - 01:00 PM Ake: You are being a bit of an ass,.... How come when far left loons, when they can't answer a simple, logical question, based on fact, do they have to rely on name calling??..as if that resolves, or answers the question?? Ok, Then give a name to two people who proclaim publicly that they want to live together, and have children that they conceive themselves, and raise that family together. HINT: Its a name they use world over, from Samoa, to Tibet, Europe, Asia, China, Russi, Australia, South, and Central America, North America..and recognized globally. Then ask yourselves, is this the same situation that warrants the same name of two people who have an inability to do that, because of their sexual orientation. It's called 'Marriage'...and I KNOW, so you don't have to beat a dead horse, that not all couples who get married, don't do it, for the reason of having children..however, that IS the model, and families ARE the basic fabric of civilizations and societies. It is no wonder, why 'redefining' what that basic building block is, that some people, whether religious based, or not, see that eroding away of that foundation, see it as a threat to their nations, culture, or society...especially when they are so vehement, in their attacks! If they want a different sexual 'preference'..they don't have to advertise is and throw it in everyone's face!..In like manner, nobody, inquires on here as to their sexuality to deny them of any dialogues or rights! Do we have to know how your wives squeak, or how you groan, or where you like it????...I do-o-o-n't think so!! So, if they want to do what they do, the way they do, then call it whatever they want...but it is not 'Marriage' as known the world over, by every established society....any more than when a little girl dresses up in mommy's dresses and wears her high heels, makes her a woman or mother!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 02 Jan 09 - 02:51 PM GfS, from your previous posts, I infer that you are a counselor; I would NEVER infer it from your statements. I do believe that you are sick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Jeri Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM I get the same feeling Ebbie. A little too much visualization of other people's sex lives. If all you (whoever 'you' is) can do is obsess on the sex act of people you don't know, YOU have a problem. I'm sure the heterosexual sex act disgusts many homosexuals, but they have the common decency to not go on about it in public. You fantasize about who squeaks or groans and where they like it. They don't stick it in your face so much as you stick your face in it, and that's more than a bit perverted. In any case, this thread has pretty much gone back to everybody's usual scripts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 02 Jan 09 - 03:18 PM I'm sorry Amos....I don't usually name call and it was meant in fun, but this is quite a serious subject; not homosexuality (the rights and wrongs), but the way in which a minority can subvert the majority without them even realising what is going on. Now you and Don both maintain that Guest and I are homophobic bigots because we don't share your views, I can't speak for Guest but by his/her other writing I would say we more or less agree on this subject. For myself, I would submit that I am less of a bigot and more of a libertarian than both of you put together. If anyone wants to fuck their sister, their auntie,or another man, I say good luck to them let, them get on with it as long as the sister, auntie, or other man wants the same as they do. What they do in private is their business, but there is no bastard in the world going to tell me, Mudcat, or society at large, that their business is normal human behaviour and we must give up our long held traditional beliefs to accomodate it,or hand over very young children in a bizarre social experiment......Ake |
