 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM GfS, your "survey" is spurious, proves nothing, and is a complete waste of bandwidth. Mad? What's to get mad at? And Ake: If there is a higher level of promiscuity among homosexuals, it is because there is no socially acceptable outlet—such as marriage—for homosexuals as there is for heterosexuals. With both homosexuals and heterosexuals, males tend to be more promiscuous than females. There are more stable relationships between lesbians than there are between gay men. Also, even in times past, two women living together roused no comment (no matter what they may have been up to behind closed doors) whereas two men living together, especially if they have been together for some time, almost invariable raises eyebrows. The latter can actually descend into the asinine. For example, Jerry Falwell's hissy-fit about Bert and Ernie (for those who live in a cave, Bert and Ernie are two hand-puppets on Sesame Street) being bad role models for children because they not only live together, they sleep in the same bed. Not to mention his having a cow over the fact that Tinky Winky, who speaks with the voice of a little boy, sometimes carries a "purse" (on the Teletubbies show, it's referred to as Tinky Winky's "magic bag.). I'm sure that if gay and lesbian couples could exercise the same right to publicly declare their relationship that heterosexual couples have (marriage), it would increase the number of stable relationships, and concomitantly greatly reduce promiscuity, thereby bringing about a substantial diminution in the transmission of HIV/AIDS among gays and heterosexuals. HIV/AIDS is not a "disease of homosexuals," as many promiscuous heterosexuals have discovered to their horror. And the "link" to homosexuality is not "unexplained." HIV/AIDS is an equal opportunity disease. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:43 PM Gfs, one question for you. I won't be able to see if you raise your hand, so let's make it yes or no, with futher developed answer optional as you choose: Would you be happy to see your child or sibling marry a person who has a history of homosexuality, but has undergone corrective therapy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:10 PM TIA, Back a while ago, you said you we not going to be reading this post, any longer, to which I replied a single word, "Liar"..Now that you proved me right, what are you going to post, that can be considered the truth?...or that we can count on, that you know what your talking about? (Just wondering) All those that got pissed off, at the answer you instantly knew, during a 'poll', are getting mad at a question, ...raise your hand OK All those who know inside their heart of hearts, what the truth is, and that's why they got mad, ..raise your hand OK All those who just raised their hands, stop bullshitting yourselves and other people.... OKAY???? ...........to be continued.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:33 PM BTW, has heterosexual marriage guaranteed a drop in the very high levels of promiscuity among heterosexuals? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:30 PM "those with addictions and those with psychiatric problems"... are not legally prevented from marrying!!!!!!!! PS I'm "out" right now :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:17 PM Homosexual "marriage" would not guarantee a drop in the very high levels of promiscuity among homosexuals, especially if most considered it a device to aid "normalisation" There is also the unexplained link to aids/hiv to be considered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:07 PM "So once again I say that "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour." No quarrel with that, Ake. It would be irresponsible for an agency to place a child in a foster home with a drug addict or person with psychiatric problems, and possible with an elderly couple who, no matter how well-intentioned, might be too infirm to properly care for a child. One must consider the rights of the child, which include the right to be raised in a safe and nurturing home. But— ". . . if the health statistics for the practice of homosexuality are studied, it will be found that the practice is at least as dangerous as drug addiction, citing poor life expectancy and high risk of psychiatric and physical health problems." Not true for the kind of stable relationships that legalizing same-sex marriage would (and does) encourage. It is promiscuity, whether among gays or straights, that accounts for the health risks you speak of. And if you want psychiatric problems, let me introduce you to a woman I am acquainted with who was lesbian for most of her life, until "cured." She used to be fairly happy-go-lucky, but after her "cure," she is one of the most chronically angry and unhappy people I've ever met. But, by God, she's not a lesbian any more! She'll beat the crap out of you if you suggest otherwise. She's very sensitive about the matter (a little denial at work, perhaps?). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:11 PM Tia....You need to get out more! There are many sub groups which do not have equal "human rights" The two I cited earlier were those with addictions and those with psychiatric problems. To these I can also add another sub group grandparents over 55 who were deemed too old to foster their own grandchildren, the children then being handed over to two male homosexuals as foster parents. The two former are of course refused the "right" to foster because their behaviour/ condition could prove dangerous, if the health statistics for the practice of homosexuality are studied, it will be found that the practice is at least as dangerous as drug addiction, citing poor life expectancy and high risk of psychiatric and physical health problems. So once again I say that "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:09 PM In my most recent long post above, I mentioned that the church that adopted, along with an increasing number of main-line Christian churches, the "Affirmation of Welcome" (which I quoted) have married at least four same-sex couples so far. Perhaps more, but these are the ones I am aware of. One of the couples, married some years ago, I describe in this post, above: CLICKY. They adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage, and these two lads are thriving. The oldest is one of the church's acolytes. And as I mentioned in the post cited, the two boys are leading far better lives now than they could have looked forward to had they been left in the Chinese orphanage. Another same-sex couple married in the church are taking another route to becoming parents. Wanting biological children of their own, they found a woman (a friend) who is willing to act as a surrogate mother (this is not as rare as you might think). She has already born one child, fathered (in vitro fertilization) by "Jim," one of the men. Their first-born is now a lively and alert toddler. She is currently pregnant by "Rick" (also in vitro), and the ultrasound shows that she is going to deliver triplets! "Jim" and "Rick" are just a bit stunned. But ecstatic. By the way, they, like the men who adopted the two boys from a Chinese orpanage, are prominent attorneys in the area, and one of them is quite active in local politics. Let me parse the relationship between the children of "Jim" and "Rick" for those who are easily bewildered: The triplets, fathered by "Rick," will be full brothers and/or sisters (I don't know if their genders are known yet—we're still absorbing the fact that they are triplets). The firstborn, fathered by "Jim" will be a half-brother. Same mother, different father. No sweat. Nothing really unusual about that. With both of these couples, they are "out of the closet." They have a wide range of friends. Their own families (mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, etc.) are perfectly accepting of their life style, as are most people who know them. The other married couples (heterosexual) in their church regard them as just two more married couples—with children. By the way, as far as this church is concerned, the proportion of "gays" and "straights" in the congregation reflect the proportion of the local population at large, so demographically, there is little difference between this church and most other main-line churches—save for the fact that the congregation consists largely of young married urban professionals. It is not a "gay church." This is a microcosm that demonstrates how mellow things could be, were it not for those unhappy souls who get all bent out of shape over someone else's life style (which, of course, is none of their business) and want to limit the civil rights of those whose lifestyles they disapprove of. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:42 PM You are some sort of control freak, aren't you?? Your senseless string of "raise your hand, Simon Says" listed above makes no point, and seems to have no bearing, as well as verging on the incomprehensible. Whatever it was you were just checking can probably be handled by using Windex on your glasses. What point are you trying to make, exactly? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:12 PM I don't see that anyone would really find your "raise your hand" list objectionable, Gfs, although different individuals could recite some of the catagories with the intention of implying different things. But let's add a couple: How many of you were raised by your natural parents, who in one way or another made it difficult or impossible for you to mature into a happy functional adult? How many of you were raised by adults other than your natural parents, who taught you to respect them, yourself, and others around you, whether or not those others were of similar background or beliefs? I'm sure we could come up with a few more variations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Apr 09 - 12:33 PM Yeah, GfS...everyone's in a unique spot, aren't they? The important thing in any discussion is that those participating actually take the time to listen seriously to what the others are saying and understand it. That requires patience and attention. It also requires shutting down your own internal monologue briefly and being receptive, rather than just having your mind fixed on the very next thing YOU are going to say when that other person finishes talking! ;-) If people manage to do the above things, they will usually discover that the other people are neither stupid nor crazy, and that they have some quite good reasons behind what they are saying. And maybe....some common ground can be found at that point. Think how many wars and quarrels could have been avoided if people did this... We don't all have to like the same things in order to live in the same world together harmoniously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM Hmmm, Well I guess that settles that, as far as sophistry. So:.... All those who were from a broken home, raise your hand....... OK... All those who were raised in a home by both your natural parents raise your hand..... OK All those who had happiness as a child, being raised by mommy and daddy, raise your hand.... OK All those who, have grown up, and since being sexually active, was part of conceiving (either side), a child raise your hand.... OK....... All those who got married, and had children, raise your hand..... OK All those, who for whatever reason, broke up, with your partner parent, raise your hand.... OK All those who have made excuses through the years about whose fault it either was, or minimized your role in bringing that break-up about, raise your hand...... OK All those who were the child of a broken home, raise your hand... OK All those who got married, more than one time, or married someone who came from multiple past marriages, raise your hand.... OK All those who were raise by in a family, in which you matured, in a way, that you wanted to continue the love as a point of reference, that families are made up from, including being a child of the original parents, raise your hand.... OK All those who believe that homosexuality, is the same thing as the family you were raised in, raise your hand..... OK All those who were raised by homosexuals, raise your hand...... Hmmm, not too many, but, OK All those are alive, experiencing whatever, and where ever, life has had in store for you, where your parents conceiving you, and nurturing you, including birth, are the offspring of homosexuals, raise your hand... OK All those who think that homosexual 'marriages' are the same thing, that brought you into the world, as what brought you into the world, raise your hand..... OK All those who think that those in heterosexual marriages, bearing children, and nurturing them may see homosexual marriages, as a threat, to a society, made up of people like themselves, raise your hand..... OK All those who may want to re-think that marriage, between a man and a woman, is the same thing as a sexual 'convenience' living arrangement, raise your hand....... OK All those who think changing the meaning of words, change, the substance, raise your hand.... OK Just checking...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:27 AM "How many subgroups can you think of at the moment who dont have equal "civil status"... excluding homosexuals?" I can't think of any. Which is a wonderful illustration of how far we have come in ensuring equal rights. They are now granted to everyone ... excluding homosexuals of course. I think it would be silly to argue that being the last remaining group to be discriminated against means that when that final discrimination is removed, that group is being granted "special rights". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:04 AM I meant to post this the other day but got busy and then forgot. On Monday when the first licenses were issued one of the local TV stations (from Davenport) had a story about the protest, even sent a reporter out to cover it. Turned out the protest was one guy standing on the corner holding a sign with some bible verses written on it. He was disappointed that more people had not shown up. The weather was fine so that didn't keep anybody away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:16 AM Generall, yes, but what kind of rights and what individuals do you have in mind? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 30 Apr 09 - 01:42 AM The real issue is whether a civil status should be extended equally to all individuals, or reserved for a subgroup. That is indeed the issue Amos. How many subgroups can you think of at the moment who dont have equal "civil status"... excluding homosexuals? Would you think it beneficial for all to have equal rights? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:55 PM Lovely. And I can provide the musical entertainment, while we station Chongo at the door to handle security. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:18 PM Telepathy!! Just like I pictured it!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:17 PM I was gonna ask if I could be the bartender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 09 - 08:15 PM Yes, Bruce, you can come too.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 09 - 07:42 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM Thank you, Amos. I most certainly hope we can. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 09 - 07:32 PM Don: I hope some day before sundown catches us up we get to spend a long evening sipping beer and swapping songs. You are an honorable man. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Apr 09 - 05:26 PM GfS, I believe you are missing (dodging?) the point of my question. Perhaps that is my fault for phrasing it in personal terms, asking how someone else's same-sex marriage can adversely affect Barbara's and my marriage. Let me phrase it differently: How can the same-sex marriage of any man/man or woman/woman couple affect the heterosexual marriage of any man/woman couple? Unless, of course, they (the heterosexual couple), for whatever reason, let it bother them. And then, as I pont out above, that's their problem, no one else's. Regarding your statement, "One thing, that I want to point out, is that your slur, about 'Would you want your daughter to marry one?', was both out of place, and non-applicable." First, it was not intended as a slur, it was quoting a frequently heard statement back in the 1960s during the Civil Rights movement. However, it did not originate in the movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" it was said long before that. And usually when that question was uttered, you knew you were dealing with a bigot with all flags flying. Miscegenation (interracial marriage) was, at one time, not just disapproved of, it was illegal. The justification was that mixing of the races was "unnatural." And "against God's Law." "Which is why God put the Blacks in Africa, the Yellows in Asia, and the Whites in America!" Fortunately, we have moved a bit closer to being civilized since then, but we still have far to go (as some wag once pointed out quite accurately, "Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized man. It is us!") The details about my own marriage and offspring, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with my respect for the civil rights—the human rights—of everybody. And that includes my fellow humans of whatever— Well, GfS, I can't really think of a better way to put it than the way it is stated in the "Affirmation of Welcome" of a church about nine blocks from where I live. You will note that this is not some "off-the-wall" sect, it is a main-line church; a member of one of the major denominations. Whether one is of a religious bent or not, or even if one is antipathetic toward religion as Rig is, it still sums up a general attitude toward our fellow humans that, if followed, not necessarily as a religious conviction, but for reasons of simple humanity, would lead the way toward a far more just world. Replace the words "God" and "Christ" with the word "Life" and you will note that it works quite well: We affirm with the apostle Paul that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). Christ has made us one.This is also a more than adequate affirmation that the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world do not speak for all Christians. But then, that's another subject. (The church cited above has performed at least six same-sex marriages that I know of—whether Washington State law recognizes them as legal or not.) And once again I point out that scientists—independent scientists, not scientists following anybody's political agenda—have found more than just a little evidence to show that gender orientation is quite probably not a matter of choice, but a predisposition from birth. To try to claim otherwise is to attempt to stifle current research because one is afraid of the conclusions that appear to be emerging. A most unscientific attitude and a refusal to face reality. If one finds reality to be distasteful, once again, that is not reality's problem, one must learn to simply accept it and deal with it within oneself (a sound principle of counselling, I believe). And your question regarding my son, "Any regrets, or wishes that something might have been done or handled differently, back then???" On the one hand, I wish I had never got involved with the woman in the first place. On the other, considering the fine man that is the product of this union back then, I am most glad that it did happen. And although I would have liked to have participated in his growing up, his mother (and eventually, step-father) did a more than fine job, and I doubt that I could have done any better. He, his partner, Barbara, and I have a very loving family relationship. But this is irrelevant to the discussion. Don Firth P. S. Ake I am simply ignoring because he's so caught up scoring in his own points that he simple can't be bothered to try to understand what other people are saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:38 PM It is not a cry for freedom, Dingy One; it is a protest against inquality in civil status and protections. The issue is that a civil status called married should be recognized by the state as a legal condition between two willing persons of age. Popular opinions about evolutionary vectors as "natural" or "not natural" or whatever the current idiocy is should have no bearing. Two willing persons of age should not be treated as "subhuman" or some other exclusionary category because they do not match your--or anyone else's--preconceptions about how they "should" be. You are more than welcome to live up to your own prejudices, but not to shove them down the throats of others who see things differently, when it comes to legal, civil, status. If you want to form an exclusionary group, become a Baptist or a Zoroastrian or something. I don't know how many times this point has to be made, but somehow the dodgers keep pushing it off the table, when it is actually thew core issue of the thread. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Apr 09 - 11:01 AM Ok, back. (had late staying company). As Ake pointed out,.."whenever the Pro homosexual marriage brigade hit a problem in the debate, they fall back to the "homophobia" and personal abuse position....", the ones feeling threatened, that their political thumb that they suck, may be in jeopardy, of being removed, and like children(of all ages), they whine, scream piss and moan, accusing others that 'You won't let me suck my thumb, its mine, and I can do what I want with it'. As to Don, when you first posed your question, you asked 'How would it affect your marriage'. One could easily come back with a swift arrogant answer, having no knowledge of anything about your marital situation, IF I was merely promoting a 'Homophobic' agenda, which I was not. Matter of fact, it was in my reply, that I posted that I expressed that '..your love..' for your homosexual friends, gave your concerns, validity, as to why the question, was reason for me to answer, and answer responsibly. So, not knowing your marital situation, the first thing any counselor does, is to inquire, which I did, and your answer was great, in the fact that you laid out rather vividly, your ages, length of relationship, and the status of children. Those things are important before one could answer the question about how it would, should, could affect your marriage. My question back to you, certainly covered that purpose, considering that in a marriage, with offspring produced from it, would be far larger than just the one husband's opinions about it, without considering the wife's or her attachment, and concerns about her kids...would it not?? For that reason, the 'flock squawk', attempted to force a spin, on what I asked and why, as 'living proof' that I am guilty, of some sort of 'hatred'(was even used), when I said before it was 'your love' that compelled me, to answer responsibly. It seemed that others, thought it was, as 'frogprince' commented, '..a soul searching question..' OK, that being said, Being as you both are in your 70's, and no offspring in the home, the answer to your question, is that it probably wouldn't(affect your marriage), however, at the same time, other families may not feel the same way, or be in your situation. One thing, that I want to point out, is that your slur, about '"Would you want your daughter to marry one?", was both out of place, and non-applicable,..being as that was a phrase that came out in the early 60's in regards to interracial marriage, and was popularized after the movie 'Guess Who's Coming For Dinner' with Sidney Pointier. Phil Ochs also slams phony 'liberals' in his song, 'Love me, I'm a Liberal'..so your insinuation was off base, and misleading. Not that I care, but it certainly generated the negative reaction, that it was intended to. Back to immediate topic, though you and Barbara, for whatever reasons you have gotten together, chose not to have or raise kids, there are those who have, and your point of view, should be just that, YOUR point of view, and if parents of children, have a different point of view, your should not be the dominant one imposed on them!..and as long as they have a choice to raise their kids, and not want the homosexual issue, become their kids problem, they have that right, and rightfully so...wouldn't you think? Freedom is Freedom,...and being as those who don't want the influences of the homosexual issue, being forced upon their families and children, or even exposed to it, the parents have the right, and to some, the obligation, to have a say in the movies, music, or anything else that their children are exposed to. Being as those people are in the majority, and see marriage as the first step to a family unit, and being as marriage is defined by them, do you think that a vocal group of those wishing to change their definition, and determination on how to raise their kids, free of homosexuality, promiscuous, permissiveness, about sexuality, drugs, alcohol, or any other issue for that matter, should be overridden?? Where is your 'cry for freedom' here? I hope this isn't earth shattering for the 'squawk flock', but people can and do make decisions, to to participate in popular 'trends' for more, and other reasons than 'hatred'. Some people actually have certain ideals, for specific paths for their children. I noticed this segment in your post:..."Barbara was married before, briefly when she was in her early twenties, but it didn't work out. No children. I, on the other hand had not been married before, but I do have a son. From a relationship that took place in the 1960s. Due to various circumstances, marriage with my son's mother was impossible...". Any regrets, or wishes that something might have been done or handled differently, back then??? Ever feel that everything was covered, for that child that the two of you brought in to the world was done? Did this happen because of 'popular' trends? If there was a moment in time, that would have employed a more responsible mindset, from either or both, would you want to rethink that moment? To other types of parents, with different ideals, some of these issues are NOT an issue...are they wrong??..haters??..bigots??...Right? Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:54 AM My apologies, Ake--the quote was opne I tripped across that afternoon and thought might be germane, but was not meant as a personal gibe at you. However, your paraphrase of Don is quite inaccurate. And the issue is not whether we should all give in to every impulse we have. Not at all. The real issue is whether a civil status should be extended equally to all individuals, or reserved for a subgroup. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Apr 09 - 02:49 AM Well the problem as far as I see it Hawk,is that whenever the Pro homosexual marriage brigade hit a problem in the debate, they fall back to the "homophobia" and personal abuse position. This discussion is not about the pro's and con's of homosexuality, although they may need to be discussed from time to time to illustrate a point. The discussion is about "rights"......if there is such a thing as universal rights, and if peoples behaviour affects some of their "rights".....or affects the "rights" of a totally different group of people. I am not anti homosexual......that would be a ridiculous position to take....and I have argued my case on that to DonT and Amos further up the thread. What I see now, is the pro homosexual marriage group coming together to produce the very effect you described a few posts ago....burn the witch!! Frankly I hate bigotry of all kinds and from GfS's posts, I would say he/she is also a lover of freedom and it is disappointing to see even Amos write of "the pleasure of hating". Posts from Don T, Tia and others are equally abusive. Don Firth' s lauded post is also simply a psuedo-emotional cover for a charge of bigotry and a defence of "we all must be allowed to do exacly as we please, regardless of other people's views" Perhaps I should have used the word "loaded" rather than "lauded". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:26 AM Well, I think that the primary thing that keeps people returning again and again to contentious threads is the same basic impulse that keeps people returning the ping pong ball when they see it coming across the net at them, Don. They just have to. ;-) They can't resist allowing their "opponent" to score an unanswered point, so they react (WHACK!) and the ball sails across the net...and their opponent experiences the same instinctive reaction and (WHACK!)...oh, there it goes back the other way. It's as simple as that. The only thing that will make someone finally give up and NOT return the ball is if they get so angry that they just quit playing and walk away in a huff. That does sometimes happen. As to whether GfS has some kind of special hangup about gays...possibly...but I wouldn't necessarily assume so. I think GfS is simply, like any other person, caught up in attempting to defend his or her viewpoint, once it has been expressed. One thing I do know, however...Riginslinger is utterly prejudiced against "religion" (according to his definition of religion) and he DOES have a hangup about it, so much so that it actually becomes kind of funny. ;-D I could call that "bigotry" on Rig's part, but I don't. I just call it a hangup, that's all. Rig has so many other excellent points as a human being...why should I define him solely on the basis of his attitude toward religion? Likewise, I think GfS has many excellent points as a human being, so why define him/her/it strictly on the basis of some stated beliefs about homosexuality? That is not the whole story of who GfS is. I am prejudiced against some things too. Rap music, for instance, and the Republican Party, and the (present) American World Empire. That is not the whole story of who I am either. It's some aspects of who I am, and people may like them or not, but it's not the summation of who or what I am. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM "TIA is pretending not to read any more..(besides, I don't think he wants to be a glutton for punishment)" Oh, I am reading plenty. I just don't converse with delusional troll fake therapists with multiple personalities. Now, bring on the punishment dear asshole. You might get a response in a month or so. But you will keep looking every day won't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:36 PM '"The pleasure of hating," Hazlitt wrote, "like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion...' Hazlitt was wrong. Religion is a poisonous mineral. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:11 PM Don, I agree that the post was not only a good reply, but what I wanted in honesty. I Assure you, and everyone in here, where I'm coming from, has nothing whatsoever to do with hatred, nor bigotry...but then, why ask, lightweight questions. It was, and is a great question, perhaps relative to at what stage of child rearing one is at, and your reply was equally excellent! I have people here, right now, and would love to reply further, which I will. Last note, then I'll be back, where another person goes, or what they chose to do, in many areas, and how we see that, should never diminish our love for them, I'm sure we are in agreement with that!! Back in a bit.. Warmest Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 09 - 08:30 PM "The pleasure of hating," Hazlitt wrote, "like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: It leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Apr 09 - 08:06 PM The question has been posed by GfS and reinforced by Ake. Would I like my children to decide that they are homosexual? NO!! Because if that was a decision they had to make, they WOULD NOT, PER SE, BE homosexual. I would want MY children to be the best example of whatever they ARE, and if that is homosexual, SO BE IT! I would want them to be the best homosexuals they could possibly be, as constant, loving, and loyal as my WIFE and MYSELF have been for the past 44 years. If that's bad, you would have to SHOW me proof, and I don't mean one religious nut who denies ALL scientific evidence (that's you GfS), and one bigot who hates all gays (that's you AKE) LIVE AND LET LIVE!!.......It's none of your business. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 28 Apr 09 - 07:38 PM Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu - PM Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:55 PM Don be da man! And, we need some good wo/men these days. ******************************************************* Damn good. Keep on keepin on. PS Still don't like them paardes.... >;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM ""What concerns me is how people are debating about it here...how they conduct that debate...how they treat each other...how they denigrate the character of the person they are debating with...and why they think it's okay to behave that way just because they are presumably "better" (morally speaking) than the person they're talking to. That concerns me."" Never mind the denigration of the opposing debater LH. WE can handle that. What about the crude and obscene denigration of the subjects of that debate. That seems, to me, to be the most important point, or do we allow the likes of Ake and GfS to impose THEIR narrow minded view on ALL those whom they do not like? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 28 Apr 09 - 07:00 PM Same here, Don. Excellent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 09 - 04:37 PM AKe: What you seem to be missing is that it cannot be "normalized" anymore than not wearing heavy black dresses in the Polynesian sunlight (as the zealous Christian missionaries preferred to have it) could be. It is an existing condition, in fact. Your spurious presumption that it is deviant from some arbitrary "right and normal" way is purely a cultural artifact, and is itself sadly narrow of view and reactionarty of instinct. There has been quite enough evidence offered in this and earlier threads to indicate that homosexuality pops up in a random distribution under perfectly normal conditions. Stop trying to make it something it ain't. And, Don, let me thank you for a highly articulate post. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 28 Apr 09 - 04:28 PM Once again, GfS, you dodge answering my question by tossing in a diversion. Well, that's fine. I will be back to that later. And I expect an answer from you to my question. The subject is still very much up front, and I'm not going to let you off the hook! So you'd better think about it. As far as Ake is concerned, I shouldn't dignify his ridiculous rant by even answering it, but to allay all doubts, yes, Ake, I take marriage very seriously. Barbara and I have been married for 31, going on 32 years. We have a warm, loving relationship that grows stronger day by day. And in case you are unaware of this, there is more—much more—to marriage than sex. Barbara and I share many interests: writing, music, friends, social activism, and much more. We are partners in more ways than—apparently—you are able to imagine. We number among our friends a wide variety of people, including two gay men who live together and who often join us for holiday celebrations. One of them is a member of our writers' group, and he is a fine writer. They both work, are active in various social causes (in addition to gay activism), and, on all counts, they are solid members of the community. And they are not the only same sex partners we are acquainted with who are also solid citizens. Neither Barbara nor I would presume to tell others who they should love or form attachments with. Just as Barbara and I expect others to keep their noses out of trying to interfere with our relationship. Do I accept or approve of the various theoretical relationships you present, Ake? "…man/woman…man/man…woman/woman…" plus various combinations and permutations thereof, along with horses and miscellaneous inanimate objects. How can anyone take that kind of thing seriously, Ake? I might point out for your enlightenment and edification that many cultures on this planet find various combinations, such as polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage perfectly acceptable. So who am I—and who are you—to call them "deviant" or "abnormal?" To some of them, you could very well be the "pervert." Think about it! And as to the matter of your apparent attraction to inanimate objects, let me suggest that attempting to have a love affair with your shop-vac could lead not only to serious injury, but considerable embarrassment when the emergency room staff winds up rolling on the floor with laughter! And no, Ake, I don't speak from experience. #### Now, GfS. . . . Barbara and I married when she was forty and I was forty six, and we've been married for 31 years. You do the math. We've orbited the sun quite a few times, so we do speak from a fair amount of life experience. For various reasons, we decided not to have children. So right off the bat, there goes one of the reasons people give for marriage—procreation. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to justify considering Barbara and me as "deviants" on that account. We certainly have a lot of company. Barbara was married before, briefly when she was in her early twenties, but it didn't work out. No children. I, on the other hand had not been married before, but I do have a son. From a relationship that took place in the 1960s. Due to various circumstances, marriage with my son's mother was impossible. Your question is academic, GfS, because my son is now in his early forties and he currently lives in eastern Canada, although we see each other several times a year when he and his partner, a lovely, highly intelligent, and charming woman, come to visit for a week or two, often on their way to some other part of the world. They run a highly successful consulting business, often under contract to the Canadian government. And yes, they're not just business partners. They own a house together in Ottawa. But suppose his partner were a man. I could not think any the less of him or love him any less. Among other things, I know that his gender orientation was fixed early on, (perhaps, as many scientists now believe, in utero) and whatever course he took, it was not a matter of his choice, any more than his eye color, or the fact that it is becoming obvious that he has inherited my hairline, was a matter of his choice—whether you believe that or not. So—what does this have to do with my "permissive attitude?" Or what "lifestyle" I might want my child to pursue? He is his own man. And he will be and do what he is and must. But GfS, I think you had better ponder this: You vociferously deny being a bigot or a homophobe, and yet how many words have you written and how many posts have you made to this and other threads on the same subject? How much time, effort, and emotion have you felt compelled to invest in this matter? Why do you care so much? And frankly, it really surprised me that you would ask me if I have children and how I would feel if a child of mine "decided" to become homosexual. Why surprised? Because of the blatant admission that this question makes. It is a minor variation of a question one used to hear a lot a few decades back, and it is the unmistakable hallmark of the bigot: "Would you want your daughter to marry one?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 28 Apr 09 - 03:11 PM Little Hawk.... does that mean that any relationship can be designated as "marriage" as long as the participants wish it to be so?....that may be alright for the "intellectuals", but there is a huge rump of the population, who need or wish to have their beliefs and lifestyle strongly defined.....and I would suggest that the traditional definition is the one favoured by the vast majority. Personally, I think the institution of marriage is overated, but I would never allow that to colour my view of the dangerous and destructive nature of homosexual practice or the folly of attempting to normalise this practice by redefining traditional marriage to encompass it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 09 - 01:02 PM Actually, your last iteration of the question was in general form without an addressee, and was a response to something posted by frogprince, long may he reign. You do get stirred up some, don't you? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 09 - 12:42 PM Ake: Your accusation, that Don takes marriage lightly, is absurd on the face of it. I celebrate thirty years of happy marriage this month, and if I recall correctly, he has me beat. The difference might be that we see the sanctity of marriage in the building of it between ourselves and our spouses; perhaps you see the sanctity as imposed on the institution by cultural agreement. Is that right? If not, please forgive, but could you explain what you mean exactly by your accusation? IS there some secret part tot he meaning of the word marriage that you are looking at that you think we do not see? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM Don, I know, as was pointed out, that my question to you, has been 'sitting there a while..' ..however, so was yours to mine, so in all fairness, I can understand that delays happen. I can't help everybody jumping in and wanting to answer for you, to bolster a political stance, as if the question was asked to them. To all those, please respect, that because this is a sensitive issue, that in order for an honest exchange, I think it incumbent, on us all, to treat this with the respect, that it should, and that is, the the assertion that it is meant both honest and sincere. That being said, it may be a question many of you may consider, even though, in all due respect to Don, and myself, (and all those waiting to see whatever comes of this), to please not try to stick words in Don's mouth, as to interject, your personal political stance. At times like this, when the love bond that holds a family together, and the care and energy one puts into his or her family, sometimes politics can just as well be damned! So give him time, to answer as HE sees fit, the way he feels without a lot of political proxy answers. This is NOT about 'winning' or 'losing' an argument. This is more like a father considering what he thinks is the best for his family. Thank you, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:48 AM I still say it's the end of religion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:38 AM My name is Kat and I am the proud mother of three children, all raised in an atmosphere of respect and love, assured of their mother's and father's love and acceptance no matter their choices in life and yes, they were "exposed" to plenty of different kinds of lifestyles, including homosexual, probably by way of where we lived, more so than the average American kid would ever be aware of...they are all three heterosexual which, as far as I am concerned, is how they were born. They certainly knew if they had been born homosexual, they would have received the same love and support from us as not. I can say the same for the rest of my family, too. It is absurd and wrong to set conditions on one's love for their children. That kind of "what if," suggesting a different kind of parental love for children who "decide" they are homosexual, can cause more hurt, sadness, and despair in this old world than any loving les/bi/gay couple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:22 AM I think what you mean, Ake, is that your view of what the institution of marriage is means very little to Don! Think about it... ;-) Now, here's what my view is of the institution of marriage: In my own case: a deeply sacred bond of personal committment between me and a woman I love. In the case of other people: Who knows? That depends entirely on them. It could mean just about anything to other people, depending on who they were. Conclusion: I don't expect my view of marriage to necessarily be anyone else's view of marriage, and that's okay with me, because their marriage is their business, not mine...and vice versa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:39 AM Nobody has any doubts as to Don's ability to speak for himself; the question sat there for a while, and I had my own reaction to it. "Obviously the institution of marriage means very little to you..." Akenaton, talk about spinning a version of someone else's viewpoint! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 28 Apr 09 - 06:15 AM Don... I think I prefer "jibbering idiot", it has a nice edge to it and although not aimed at you personally, the cap does seem to fit. Rather than address my answer to your oft asked question, all you can do is make snide remarks about my spelling and attempt to brand me a "homophobe" or even a "latent homosexual"...You are a pretty sad individual. My answer to you was of course a little tongue in cheek in response to Little Hawk's humour,but I'm sure you understood pretty well the point I was making....creating a diversion by using smear tactics is pretty poor debating especially from such a learned man as yourself. Obviously the institution of marriage means very little to you and That view is valid and arguable,but to use it as a stick to beat the many who do believe in marriage as traditionally defined is hypocritical and intellectually lazy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Apr 09 - 03:33 AM How come I can't ask a question without everyone wanting to re-ask, rephrase, re-state, it?? The question was asked to Don..so what?..Everybody wants to ask it? Why didn't you ask it yourselves? When I ask a question, I expect an answer from whom I was asking it to, however, these days, when a reporter asks a question, lets say to a politician, the politician, has to 're-ask' it, re-phrasing it, so he can spin the answer, as not to let on, that he really doesn't want to be asked THAT question..therefore, NOT giving the answer to the ORIGINAL question asked! Don asked me a question, so would the rest of you feel comfortable to just jump in, re-ask it, and even answer it for me?? Perhaps Don would like to grace this dialogue himself, without any help from the 'confused'. |
