BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:57 PM

To paraphrase one of your politicians....."You Mr Firth, are no Galileo!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:01 PM

ps that was the 1700th post !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:03 PM

Omigod! 1700 posts! I didn't think you could do it, but you did. In-frikkin'-credible. My hat's off to all of you. Dare we hope for 1800?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:20 PM

As to whether or not gender orientation is genetically determined, THE FACT IS that the jury is still out. But there are strong indications that there are, at the very least, genetic components involved. These are two of the most objective and unbiased articles I have been able to find on the internet.

CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2.

But why do I even bother? I'm quite sure that those whose minds are already made up will simply blow them off as "gay lobby propaganda."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

Just can't get through a post without making some kind of snotty remark, eh, Ake?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM

Well I thought it a rather good piece of satire Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM

Don that second link is to a student's 'paper' which

'reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College.
Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" '

As the student herself said however

'The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth.
Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality'
and
'Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful'

I think my posting record on mudcat would indicate that I do not believe in discrimination on the grounds of either gender, race, creed or sexual orientation and I have disagreed with akenaton on this issue outside this thread.

I too read Ian McKellen's article, written on the anniversary of Stonewall, and can only agree with his statement that
"There is still a lot to do in this country: we have to address attitudes and the rise in casual homophobia, the young people getting abused, even killed, for being gay"

As he also said
"There is a tradition in British theatre of actors such as Dame Sybil Thorndike and Vanessa Redgrave(who I have a lot of respect for) campaigning for social change."


As a qualified social worker and counsellor I have also disagreed most strongly with GfS's suggestions that homosexuality can be 'treated'; in fact the available evidence seems to suggest that to attempt to do so is potentially (and sometimes actually) harmful

Please folks let's keep this discussion to facts or, where these are simply not available, opinions that can be argued from sound principles and drop the personal attacks

Thanks
'Em'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM

A homosexual gene would be doomed to extinction unless it was recessive and conferred some survival or reproductive benefit on heterosexual carriers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:37 PM

""A homosexual gene would be doomed to extinction unless it was recessive and conferred some survival or reproductive benefit on heterosexual carriers.""

NONSENSE!   There are any number of genes in the human genome which have NO discernible survival potential, yet are obviously NOT doomed to extinction because of that.

Blonde
Brunette
Redhead
Pale skin
Dark skin
Albino
Blue Eyes
Brown Eyes
Hazel Eyes
Tall
Short
Fat
Thin

and on, and on, and on.......................................

Learn a little about heredity before making foolish statements.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:40 PM

Emma, I was aware that it was a student paper. But it was also a good compilation of information from several other articles that I had read. In the interests of not expecting people to want take the time to read a half-dozen more articles, which the student had summed up nicely. Especially when those who really should read them and think about them would probably read far enough to get the gist of the articles and then simply reject them without reading the rest.

Good one, Ake. But I don't have to be Galileo. I just have to be eventually proven right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM

"When two men can produce a child during their 'marriage' let me know. Until then please leave the santictity of marriage to us christian heterosexuals"

Paco R., I have two questions for you in response to that:

1. Should a heterosexual person who knows him or herself to be infertile be allowed to marry?
2. Should non-Christians be allowed to marry?

Don't tell me that your statement doesn't raise those questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,paco rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM

Yes. people who are infertile can marry, but people who ain't christian 'who wont to marry should bugger off and find their own religion!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:20 PM

i don't want to grow up thanks.

i have tried to answer every question you have put to me, honestly and simply, it is a pity you cannot say the same.

all things considering i think i am being the grown up and you are being the whiney child, who tries everything to get out of giving answers and seeing someone elses point of view.

i might not have based my posts on statistics or on reasrched information, but i have posted them on my personal experiances.

you seem to be unable to refer to me in any other way than drrogetry(?)    when most of the time i have been civil when i haven't i have said sorry, do you pay me the same courtesy?... no

i think i frighten you ake, not only for what i am and believe in but the fact i hate what you stand for on this subject but have the manners to be nice to you.
i think that unsettles you more than anything.


take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 10:33 PM

people are mentioning AIDS, it wasn't started by gays, it was started by a french bloke shagging a monkey.My mate Dave down the pub told me this ages ago, he knows about stuff like that, french goverment don't want anyone to know in case they stop buying french cars etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM

Guest jOHN, I think you and Don First would probably discuss your points of view in depth. Your logic is just the one he abides in!

As to the other Don, your list, of traits, are great...and can ALL be traced back to a decisive gene......sorry about the one that the less scientific, and more political champions of valor and obstinate stupidity, seem to 'know about'!
Keith and Paco....glad to see some common sense still resides in the Mudcat forum! Coming into this thread, when you did, must make you feel like a stranger in a strange land...there certainly are some strange critters in here!...but..I agree with your sensibilities!

Now let me think....umm...how come porn addicts aren't crusading for equal rights?...or government subsidized porn?.....or even free medical, for callouses on their hands?...probably because they do what they do and shut up about it...sorta like people do with their spouses.
I wonder if therapy could change their minds.....or anyone's in relation to their sexual dispositions......and all along, the knuckleheads thought it was genetic...like race...good luck!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:19 AM

Don T, many of your list have survival value, e.g. pale and dark skin.
Albinism is a genetic defect, but there are genes that have no obvious survival value now.
The problem with a gay gene is that it is unlikely to be passed on at all
A gay gene would be lost from the pool unless the conditions I suggested apply.

(Being gay would then be a family trait and gay people would have more than average gay siblings and cousins.
This has not been observed.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:27 AM

Keith, you are correct, to the point that THERE IS NO HOMOSEXUAL GENE..NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE! I thought this was a done issue a couple of hundred posts ago! They probably thought we fell asleep at the wheel, such as politicos hope for, when they're trying to pass of bullshit as fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:40 AM

Definitely no single gene, but a complex interaction of many genes may be involved.
A gay identical twin has about 50% chance of the other twin being gay.
This is much higher that would be expected by chance, but you would expect 100% from a wholly genetic cause.
That, and other family clustering, means it almost certainly has a non genetic componnent if any genetic component at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:26 AM

"This is much higher that would be expected by chance, but you would expect 100% from a wholly genetic cause."

Not quite. There are genes that trigger other genes based on environmental influences. If this were not so, identical twins (with identical DNA) would have identical medical histories, and die on the same day. Of course, they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:30 AM

Also - ironic that EmmaB is complimented for a well-crafted and rigorously documented post by the ones whose position is completely undermined by said post. I compliment her also. She thoroughly documents that the jury is still out, but leaning strongly - as opposed to those who claim "[...never has been, never will be...]" A "never will be" just begs to be debunked. Never is an awfully long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:08 AM

hi all,
just to let you know.

my other half is wearing a ... 100% meat free lesbian   tee shirt, there were some lads down the park, only 14-17ish, but it took them ages to read the shirt and even longer to come up with the insult....DYKE!.

what is wrong with our edudation system?

surely if they wanted to insult us they could have thought of something better.

i dispair!!!!! i would like to hear insults that at least show some imagination or wit!!!

i imagine this was you when you were younger GfS OR AKE, especially since you seem to have no imagination here.

anyway,

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:41 AM

Here Keith...I was wrong it was more than a 'couple of hundred' posts back...(slaps own head, and rolls eyes).....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:58 AM

Update from the heartland of the USA.

It has been two months now that same-sex couples have been able to get married in Iowa. Society has yet to crumble. In fact, outside of it now being summer rather than spring, things look pretty much the same round these parts as they did before.

I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often.

cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:25 PM

Surely, Iowa would have crumbled into dark smoking ruins by now? The moral fiber of society completely liquidated from Sioux City to Dubuqe, and half of Illinois trembling with early-stage infections of moral decrepitude!! Surely!!

No???? Wait....how can this be???

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM

Gfs: You compliment Emma B., who says, "To conclude, all the research, at present, suggests that, while post-birth development may well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, appear to be in place by the time a child is born". But you continue to treat homosexuality as a bad choice based soley in gross emotional immaturity. She also expresses clear disapproval of treatment to reverse homosexuality.

Keith cites, and credits, some of the same studies that Don Firth has repeatedly cited. Keith is bringing sense to the thread; Don was spouting liberal bullshit.

Paco also gets credit for his "sensible" line of commentary :... "people who ain't christian 'who wont to marry should bugger off and find their own religion!!".

Gfs, you've accomplished something really remarkable: hopping around frantically in circles, without a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM

frogprince, don't forget that "liberal" should be in quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:55 PM

Froggy:"Gfs: You compliment Emma B., who says, "To conclude, all the research, at present, SUGGESTS that, while post-birth development MAY well play a supporting role, the roots of homosexuality, at least in men, APPEAR to be in place by the time a child is born".

Now re-read it...note the caps...'SUGGESTION','MAY, 'APPEAR'....is what?..a suggestion????

My compliment to Emma was because is APPEARED to be from the 'impartial observer', prospective.

As to the rest of the nonsense, the position of the pro homosexual marriage 'rights', would by its very premise(which is in fact erroneous), deny treatment, should a homosexual request it. Though I do not particularly agree with the homosexual 'marriage' proposals, my chief complaint in more with the moronic, championing, of the cause, which would in fact work AGAINST, counseling, therapy, or any other treatment that a homosexual would seek, should he/she decide they might want to re-think their choice...and to undo the damage brought on to themselves, which of course, could impede their healing and recovery. (now watch them go ballistic, without thinking, what I'm saying, through!)
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:03 PM

Good lord. I am amazed that two men or two women who choose to get married/live together would cause this much controversy. Folks, GET OVER IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:08 PM

GfS, as a "counselor," are you sure that your zeal for insisting that homosexuality is "curable," in the face of considerable evidence otherwise, doesn't have a pecuniary streak in it?

This is a test:   try to answer that question straight, without resorting to words like "bullshit" or "liberal agenda" or "moronic," etc.

That sort of rhetoric only indicates that I'm on the right track and that I've hit a sore spot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM

acytually GfS, you have a point although the counceling should be there to help someone accept who they truely are and be comfortable in their own skin rather than try to change what ultimately cannot be changed.

if someone really cannot stand to be attracted to the same sex as themselves, surely they could get the same medicines that they give to peadophiles that take away the sexual urge.

personally i would rather that then EST.

where i do not agree with you, is when you say that marriage will be to the detrement of such people.

nobody would be forcing anyone to claim their right to marriage, just as for straight folks.   

as for saying that non religious people should not get married in a church, fair enough, since i am pagan i would never dream of it, but to say that they should find their own religion...isn't that an oxi-moron?

hello, i am an aithiest but i wished to be blessed or wish to start my own church??????????????????    not going to happen is it?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM

The truth about "conversion therapy" ("curing" homosexuality):

CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2.

And there are dozens more articles saying essentially the same thing.

(A few more things for the Bobbsey Twins to blow off as "liberal bullshit." But then, sho's word would they take? No one's, of course. They're not open to reason).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:02 PM

In fact the logic of GfS' point is strangely null.

It seems to posit that IF someone is a homosexual and marries another homosexual it will prevent them from asking for therapy.

In the hetero universe there is no such barrier. There have been many cases of hetero husbands deciding they were on the wrong track and divorcing or just coming out. They were cured of their "marital hetero" state by simply announcing it was wrong. In some cases, their wives stayed with them, too!

So what is it about a legal marriage between two gay people that is going to act as a barrier to one or the other of them "seeking therapy" if they feel they need it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:35 AM

KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in.... "I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.

The two serious problems associated with homosexuality and allowing the practice to become part of mainstream suciety still stand.

The health issuse.. and the link with HIV/AIDS
Rates of promiscuity associated with the lifestyle, many times higher than in the hetero community.

I praised Emmas post, not because I agreed with her opinions(we have agreed to disagree :0) but the even handed and civil way in which she presented it.

I think Emma may be a real liberal....perhaps the only one in captivity....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:39 AM

'.....perhaps the only one in captivity'

Thanks akenaton - that's probably going to be the best smile of the day :)

Just one observation....

As akenaton said - we have agreed to disagree on this issue because, as members, we have been able to communicate outside of increasingly tetchy threads like this one using PMs

However, GfS opts to remain outside mudcat membership despite posting 1711 times since June 2008 yet continues to snipe anonymously keeping always the tone of his first post...

"I could go on. from what I know, but why bother? You either know this to be true, or you don't!! "

Forgive me if I perceive our 'guest', who is really so very liberal with his certainties, as little more than an internet construct.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:44 AM

i think that i have proved my case as regards to AKE, don't you everyone?

there is no reason that prevents anyone from asking for help and thearapy, in gay or straight marriage, whether playing the field or not. the unequality in some of these arguements is very plain to see.

hetros play the field without thinking of the consequences hence the rise in teen parents, hence the rise in STDs but does that make these people turn red faced and jump up and down?... NO!! does this make our freinds want to ban anyone who has had sex with more than 3 people from getting married?... NO!!

this is homophobia at its best.

tom robimson.

sing if your'e glad to be gay,
sing if your'e happy that way hey
sing if you're glad to gay,
sing if you're happy THIS way!!!!

take care ALL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:04 AM

The highest rates of HIV in the world are in Swaziland, southern Africa. I hear nobody suggesting a ban on marriage in Swaziland as a way of combating this.


And, I'll try this one one more time (since it got no answer months ago. For those who claim that being gay is a choice, please try to think back and remember the momentous occasion when you "decided" to be heterosexual. How old where you? Had you heard about gay people yet? When you did hear, did you have to rethink for a moment? Or, was it never an issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:24 AM

"those who claim that being gay is a choice,"

I have not read everything.
Is that claimed by anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:11 AM

""I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.""

WOW!

Now that is what I call jumping to conclusions.

ONE man reports that HE hasn't seen any reports in HIS LOCAL PAPER, and this is extrapolated by our resident everythingophobe to prove HIS manic contentions about a worldwide group of people who fail to squeeze themselves into the pigeonhole he has so generously provided.

That is a leap deserving of at least an Olympic Gold Medal, maybe even a Nobel prize for Lunacy.

BRAVO!!   I don't think you'll EVER top that example of sheer illogical lack of reasoning.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:16 AM

""those who claim that being gay is a choice,"

I have not read everything.""


Yes Keith...Notably, and VERY persistently, GfS, who has, at some point in this thread, quoted just about every crank and homophobe you coul find in a year of turning over rocks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:34 AM

KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in.... "I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used as by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals.

You have misinterpreted my post and misquoted me ake.

What I said was:
"I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often."

As you can see I did not say there has been 'very little activity' on the same-sex marriage issue. I said it has not been covered lately in the papers. It was when it first became legal but, as I predicted upthread, it has dropped out of the news cycle. For the first few days there were interactive maps on some local websites showing numbers of licenses applied for on a county by county basis, there were quite a few in the more populous counties. I did a quick search but was unable to find an updated version. When the map was available earlier no search was required, it was right there for all to see.

As for the comment I made about announcements, I am only saying that I have not seen any such announcements in the local paper. I don't check very often so there may have been some that I did not see. I live in a very small town with a weekly paper but also subscribe to the daily paper from the somewhat larger town about 15 miles away.

There have been and will continue to be same-sex marriages in Iowa. Life goes on as before for those of us not entering into such a union.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:52 PM

KB....My quote was accurate.
Studies suggest that the "take up" rate for homosexual "marriage" are very low...."Marriage" is a non-issue to most homosexuals, especially young working class homosexuals.

For some strange reason the rate seems to rise a little as homosexuals reach middle age.

I am very surprised,that the pro homosexual "marriage" team make no effort to familiarise themselves with the results of various studies into homosexuality.
Jeddy says we want to ban people who have had sex with more than 3 partners from getting married.
I would suggest she looks at the figures for the average numbers of sexual partners homosexuals have, in comparison to heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:51 PM

as usual you have taken what i have said wrongly.

i don't want to ban anyone from getting married. i was wondering why you were not up in arms about straight people who sleep around, there are plenty of them just as there are gay folks.

it seems to me that the consequences for hetro's that have unsafe sex is somewhat larger becaause of pregancy.

surely the child who has a child is more likely to get into problems.

being a parent is such a big job,the fact that you are responsible for how another person turns out is THE biggest responsablity ever.

i really do worry that we have become complasent about this.    before someone says that i am being bigoted on this i am aware that alot of these young parents do a fantastic job, the ones who have their families in particular, but what about those who don't have any support? i am 31 and still couldn't handle it.

there are worse things than having many sexual partners or gay marriage, maybe we should concentrate on that.

anyway that is me done for now

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM

KB....My quote was accurate.

No, it was not.

KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in....

Show me where I said that. You can't because I didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM

That was not a "quote", the "quote" followed immediately after that paraphrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:43 PM

That was not a "quote", the "quote" followed immediately after that paraphrase.

When you say "KB in Iowa states that" what immediately follows should be something I actually said. It was not. What followed was your interpretation of what I had said and your interpretation was not accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:06 PM

Well, I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said, but surely this,

"I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often."

....could easily be perceived as "very little activity?"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:07 PM

And another thing ake. When you do quote me correctly you take my very small sample of a very small sample and turn it into a blanket "the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy..."

The two papers I read represent a small population base and, as I have said, I check very infrequently to see if there is an announcement of the marriage or engagement of a same-sex couple. To think that this is somehow representative of the entire homosexual community is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said, but surely this,

"I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so. There is the odd letter to the editor (some for, some against) but that is it. I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often."

....could easily be perceived as "very little activity?"

Let's try an exercise.

I have not seen any coverage in the papers for the last month or so regarding my dog doing his business.

Shall we assume there has been 'very little activity' in that area? I can assure you such is not the case.


As an aside - in my previous post I say a position is absurd. I don't mean you are absurd, I respect your right to disagree with me on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Jaysus, Joseph and Mary,

DING, DING


Deep breath.

























Round Two

DING, DING

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:17 PM

I'm not only basing my assessment on the information you provide KB, there are many other sources available, as I made clear in my first post

"KB in Iowa states that there seems to be very little activity on homosexual "marriage" since the new law has been brought in.... "I still have not seen a wedding or engagement announcement but don't check very often." This seems to bear out results from other areas and reinforces my view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in "marriage" or monogamy and the issue is simply being used by activists as a "normalisation device", and will not bring down promiscuity rates among homosexuals."

And now, as this is getting a bit silly.....shall we move on?