BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:25 PM

IF there is any chance yoou will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed rightwing Ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls.

This could have a serious, even life-changing impact on someone you love.

Or someone you could learn to.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: MAG
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM

I'm nowhere near California by choice, Amos.

I do think it would behoove Californians to remember the upshot of Pros 13: mental patients dumped out on the street, cahos in social services which gets blamed on Latinos ("illegal" or not), a state where the infrastructure is in serious trouble.

Your current governor, campaigning on a NO TAXES rhetoric, I believe has floated bonds to "solve" the financial crisis -- i.e., postponing the problem and helping rich people make money off the state.

Good luck, Californios. Let's hope the current anti-republican sentiment gets some good results all over.

P.S.: the rest of my family is staunch republican, and they are horrified at what has happened to the GOP. The right-wingers really have split the party. (hurrah.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:43 PM

I don't see the connection, MAG--as far as I know prop 8 has no fiscal impact on the state except perhaps increasing reveues from marriage licensing.

Far more important is the impact Prop 8 has onthe hearts and minds of Californians and Americans.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love,
I am but a sounding gong, a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of all prophecy,
And understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith,
so that I could remove mountains,
Yet have not love,
I am nothing.
And though I share all my good among the poor,
And though I give my body to be burnt,
But have not love,
It profits me nothing.

Love is patient and kind;
Love is not envious, nor vain,
She does not behave herself unseemly,
Seeks not her own good,
Is not easily provoked,
Keeps no account of her wrongs,
Rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth,
Always charitable, always trusting,
Always hopeful, always steadfast.

Love shall never pass away,
But prophesy shall cease,
The gift of tongues shall end,
And knowledge shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Faith, Hope and Love,
These three abide;
And the greatest of these is Love.

I Corinthians Chapter 13

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

Amos, your eloquence often astounds in its clarity and simplicity, never more so than this morning. Bravo.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:40 PM

Thanks so much, Claire, but the eloquence belongs to St. Paul and his elegant translators from the days of King James! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM

I agree, but eloquence depends equally on knowing how to craft your own words to make your point and on knowing how to support your point of view with just the right quotes.

You can be marvelously adept at both, and I salute you for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:51 PM

Awww, thank you so much. Made my day, you did!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: MAG
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 09:24 PM

I guess my point, Amos, is that I hope people vote for what's right, and not what they perceive to be in their (short term) self-interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 10:25 PM

My point exactly, MAG, and I agree with you.

I will never contest the right of a church to marry whom they please.

But to bleed their moralisms into the lives of others is entirely discreditable and a violation of our deepest propositions as a country.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:45 AM

Good grief! The Google ad is pro-8, here and on the main forum page.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 11:39 AM

On Tuesday, California, Arizona, and Florida voted to ban marriage equality. A fourth state, Arkansas, voted to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt children, widely seen as a way to prevent gay couples from adopting. The success of such prejudiced ballot measures on Tuesday was a narrow, but significant victory for the radical right and constituted the "most potent ingredient making Tuesday's election bittersweet" for the progressive cause. Of the four measures, the most high-profile was California's Prop. 8, which for the first time in state history repealed a previously-recognized right. Californian's voted 52 percent to 47 percent in favor of amending the state constitution to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." The measure, while initially opposed by a majority of Californians, attracted enormous amounts of money from out of state. The well-funded "Yes On 8" campaign flooded the state with misinformation and false claims about the effects of gay marriage on communities, children, and the economy. It is unclear whether the measure will survive a series of fresh legal challenges, which argue that Prop. 8 violates other provisions of the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

LGBT RIGHTS IN AMERICA: Gay couples can marry in just two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut. New York recognizes marriages from couples married in other states, and New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington all offer gay couples the ability to form civil-unions that grant couples varying rights and benefits under the law. With the passage of Tuesday's ballot measures, 30 state constitutions now ban same-sex marriage, while a total of 37 states have passed legislation defining marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage equality is needed to establish for gay couples the same rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples are given. Unfortunately, legalizing gay marriage at the state-level offers no rights or benefits to couples at the federal level. Indeed, at the federal level same-sex couples are unrecognized as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which "defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws" and "provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex." Gay couples are prohibited from adopting children in six states: Michigan, Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida. In 30 states, employers are allowed to fire employees just because of their sexual orientations.

BUYING PREJUDICE: California's Prop. 8 overturned the California Supreme Court ruling that "declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection." According to polling, California's Prop. 8 was initially opposed by a majority of the state's residents. Just 40 percent of Californians in May 2008 believed the state should ban gay marriage via Constitutional amendment. But as Nov. 4 approached, enormous amounts of money supporting the ban poured into California. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, gave $1.25 million, while James Dobson's Focus on the Family contributed more than $400,000 to the Yes On 8 campaign. The Mormon Church dedicated millions more, giving an estimated 40 percent of the $15.4 million dollars raised for the effort by June of 2008. In all, the "Yes on 8" campaign raised $35.8 million. The funds went to disseminating misinformation through the Internet, TV ads, and direct mailings. The supporters of the ban falsely claimed that if it did not pass, gay marriage would be "taught in schools," churches would lose their non-profit status, and people could be sued for their "personal beliefs." The Yes on 8 campaign masked its bigoted efforts, claiming, "I think we won because we stuck to our guns of being pro-marriage and not anti-gay." 

THE WAY FORWARD: The one bright spot is that Prop. 8 was opposed at significantly higher rates among California's youth. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, a poll taken before the election showed that 59 percent of likely voters aged 18 to 34 opposed the anti-gay measure. Indeed, young Californians "from high schoolers -- some of them not even old enough to vote themselves -- to college students" worked to educate the public about the discriminatory effects of Proposition 8. It's unclear, however, exactly what will happen to California's gay couples who already married. The state's attorney general maintained yesterday that their marriages would still be valid, but others are not so confident. Despite its narrow approval, Prop. 8 is not final. Yesterday, "gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday -- including one by the ACLU -- asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8." The suits claim, "Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection," the LA Times notes. (The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:18 PM

The odd thing they were talking about on NPR--on more than one program, it seems--was that the black vote went for Proposition 8 by over 70 percent, and the Hispanic vote was even higher than that. Apparently civil rights is very selective in some quarters.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM

I thought youse fellers voted by secret ballot, no??

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:51 PM

Am I wrong in understanding that this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word "marriage", rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:53 PM

The Mormons? Don't they believe in polygamy? Don't they have their own state?

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: pdq
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM

"...this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word 'marriage', rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?"

essentially correct statement

"The Mormons? Don't they believe in polygamy?"

no, not for a hundred years or more (if I recall corectly)

"The Mormons? ...Don't they have their own state?"

of course not...anyone can live in any state the choose, although Utah has a large Morman population because some cities there were started by Mormans

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

"Am I wrong in understanding that this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word "marriage", rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?"


             McGrath - That's an interesting dilemma. Some efforts were made to establish "Civil Unions," which it seemed to me gave gay couples all of the advantages of marriage without calling it that. But the gay community contiues to press for the right to "marry," period, and they simply won't have it any other way.

             Where I see this getting sticky is, if a church has in its doctrine that it will not recognize gay lifestyles of any kind, and a gay couple comes to that church to be married, can the pastor of that church refuse to perform the ceremony?
             I can see litigation coming down the road where gay couples will demand that ordained ministers marry them under the same mandate of law that prevents a resteraunt from seating a black customer, or refusing to rent a minority couple a motel room.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 02:55 PM

In the UK "Civil Unions", as the legal term, with completely equivalent legal status to "marriage" seems to have been accepted generally, so far as I know.

So far as talking about it, people can of course use whatever words they prefer to use anyway, and do so. If gay couples prefer to say they are getting married, and send out "wedding invitations", as they sometimes do, that is entirely up to them. And I would assume that the same would apply in California, whatever happens in the way of "propositions".

As for the matter of church weddings, churches do what churches do. I'd imagine that trying to impose rules like that on a church in the States would be perilously close to overstepping the constitutional division between state and church.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM

People criticize the Mormons as "outsiders from Utah" who interfered with a California election. I suppose you could pin the same thing on Catholics, "outsiders from Rome" who interfered. But this page (click) shows that there were half a million Mormons in California in 1990 (I couldn't find more recent statistics). This page says that in 2005, 11.1 million of California's 36.6 million people were Catholic.

Like the Mormons, the Catholic Church in California took a fairly strong stand in favor of Proposition 8. As stated above, the Catholic Knights of Columbus gave $1.25 million in support of the measure, and I think the Catholic bishops gave $200,000. I see I'm in a very small minority, with my "Another Christian Voting NO on Proposition 8" bumper sticker. This week the Sacramento Bee's poll says 32% of the California electorate attend church services weekly, like I do - and only 16% of us voted "No" on Propostion 8. Guess I should feel lucky my car didn't get vandalized in the church parking lot.

I work with a number of nuns, at a women's center and at a retreat house - all of the nuns I know joined me in voting "no" on Proposition 8. I'm sure many of the priests I know also voted "no." One Irish-born priest who's an old friend gave his sermon last week and explained what the bishops had instructed him to say in support of Proposition 8, and then ended his sermon saying, "But I don't think it's right for me to tell you how to vote, so you make your own decision." Catholics don't applaud sermons very often, but my friend got applause for that sermon. [But hey, that parish applauded ME for a sermon once.]

On election night, I had dinner with about six nuns and our newly-appointed bishop, who is Hispanic and just over 50 years old, and an outspoken proponent of Proposition 8. Before the bishop arrived, we agreed it might not be a good idea to dicuss the election, so we didn't.

In our parish, we have a priest from Rwanda who's about 40 years old. He is a very fair-minded and gentle person, but he told gay marriage was something he couldn't accept at all. He said the taboo against homosexuality is very deeply ingrained in his culture, and homosexual marriage is completely unthinkable in Rwanda.

It seems to me that homosexuality is not well-accepted in African-American and Hispanic culture in the United States. I suppose you could write this off as narrow-minded prejudice, but I think I'd prefer to call it a cultural taboo. When I've heard people talk against homosexuality, it usually doesn't seem to be from a position of hatred. It's more a deep sense that "something just isn't right" about homosexuality. Oftentimes, people seem to have a fear for their children mixed in with their own feelings.

I can't say I'm all that comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but my sense of fairness tells me I don't have a right to interfere with the right of people to do what they believe they should do. A gay marriage has a profound effect on the two people getting married, but I can't see how it has any significant effect on society as a whole. But other people seem to have a real dread of the effects of gay marriage, and I think we need to have an understanding of that deep-seated fear if we are to have any hope of changing the cultural taboos that brought about this ban on gay marriage.

Personally, I don't think it will be long before gay marriage is legal again in California - but I think it's important for us to understand that those who oppose gay marriage may not be horrible bigots. It may just be that they're afraid and uninformed, and understanding and patience may be a far better way to win their votes than aggression and condemnation would be.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:32 PM

But surely people in California still have the perfect right to refer to their relationship as marriage if they choose to. So if the legal status is the same, what's the real issue?

It's a bit like arguing about whether it's a musical instrument should be called a quattro or a four-string guitar... What matters is what kind of music it makes, not what you call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM

This whole thing is a matter of semantics and definition. I get tired of splitting hairs on it, I am tired of the religious fundies trying to control others, and I am tired of the LGBT fundies trying to force their will on religious communities. Before you start jumping, let me take those one by one.

Semantics/definition - All marriages that are legally recognized are civil unions, whether they are performed in a church or on the courthouse steps, by a member of the clergy or by a Justice of the Peace. The civil union confers upon the parties rights of survivorship, transference of estate, responsibilities for debt, sharing in gained/earned wealth, etc. The marriage rite, as performed by various churches, simply is that religious organization putting it's stamp of approval on the union. This is an important distinction.

Religious/LGBT fundamentalists - Religious fundamentalists are trying to keep their religious beliefs codified under law. Since they don't believe in the marriage of two folks of the same sex, and since it is not legal, they are trying to keep it that way. It is my opinion that they should live their lives as they choose and according to whatever code they choose, but they shouldn't have the right to force others to accept that "religious" code. They are not making the distinction between the civil, which confers rights as in any other union, and religious. I have never been able to understand how my marriage, and the love and respect it is founded on, is threatened by other folks living as they choose.

LGBT fundies are just as bad. They simply will not be satisfied until everyone accepts their belief that they have a right to be "married". Same thing applies. It depends on your definition of "marriage". If you are saying the Roman Catholic Church must accept your marriage as in keeping with their faith, that is none of your business. You have no right to enforce on the church that which flies in the face of the dogma of the church. If, on the other hand, your definition of "marriage" is that you have all the same legal rights and recognition by the State, I am with you all the way. But you may not tell a Priest that he cannot hold views, based on his religious beliefs, that it is wrong. And in the civic arena, he may not discriminate. But he has every right to not recognize the marriage within his church. The concern is that someone would then bring suit to force a church to conduct a ceremony against their will.

I believe that clarity in the law, and a full granting of the same protections that any other couple has in their "civil union/marriage" is entirely possible and should happen.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:58 PM

In many respects, "Civil Unions" in California are very similar to marriage - but there are many areas where it's unclear how a civil union should be treated. I suppose a huge part for the reason for wanting same-sex marriage is psychological - wanting the respectability that marriage gives to a union. Opponents often say, "they can have all the rights they want, as long as they don't call it 'marriage.'" I don't know how often I've heard people say, "Why can't they just call it by another name?"

I think the main reason for opposing gay marriage is the same as the main reason for supporting it - the term "marriage" gives respectability, and helps to ensure that society treats a married couple like a family, not just partners in a legal relationship.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 04:26 PM

The LDS Church does have its own state and that is Utah. Of course anyone can live there, but speaking from experience, if you want to own a business there and make a living at it, you'd be a lot better off if you have some connection to the LDS. They didn't just start some cities there, Salt Lake City is the international headquarters of the Mormon Church and its building, holdings, etc. dominate the downtown landscape and beyond.

Times may be changing there, too, though. Wonder of wonders, I was really pleasantly surprised to read the following (FULL ARTICLE):

Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage
By Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune

Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
    More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
    A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, "I didn't vote on your marriage," "Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors," and "Jesus said love everyone." Others read, "Proud of my two moms" and "Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce."

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM

Traditional marriage in some parts of our culture DID ban divorce, up until WWII. It was a social black mark to be divorced. Much looked down upon by the very best people.

Civil rights include equal treatment. If the state is going to offer a different name to their couple-blessing, such as "civil union", they will have to apply it uniformly, to hetero AND homo-sexual marriages. That would leave the various religious organizations to do what they want with the label "marriage".

But this is unlikely since the term is so deeply established.

Which leaves the only outcome that is conscionable to have the civil event labeled marriage, and let the churches and temples have the problem of calling their something else if they wish to do so.

The only REAL difference between the two is the sanctification by religious authorities, which is, really, insignificant to most people. But when the civil recognition gets bullied about by moralizing religious loudmouths, it's time to draw a line. It is unconscionable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 05:11 PM

All a bit like arguing about "what is folk" as if anyone was going to take any notice of how the argument went...

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe_F
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 09:38 PM

This whole controversy seems to me to miss the point. It should not be within the power of government to define or dilute the notion of marriage. The real way to protect the sanctity of marriage is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

When church & state were separated, marriage got stuck on the boundary. At the time, that was probably reasonable: marriage had existed longer than the state, everybody knew more or less what it meant, and it made sense for government to recognize, certify, and take into account that status. But by now there is quite a variety of cohabitation deals between & within the sexes, and it makes no sense for the state to discriminate among them. Where the state has a legitimate interest in making a distinction (e.g., in defining dependence for tax purposes), it can do so without reference to marriage. If a couple or larger group want to stiffen their cohabitation agreement with legal guarantees, let them write a contract (by & with the advice of their church, if they choose) on a par with any other partnership, subject to reasonable public-policy restrictions, and let the courts enforce it according to its terms.

If you are a Christian, it seems to me, then for you it is God who makes a marriage valid, and you should not give a hoot what the state of California says about it, one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:26 PM

The root of trying to define marriage probably has a lot to do with the rights and proper care for minor children under the law. I would think religious interests would take a back seat to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:31 PM

Actually, Joe F, Christianity is the foundation for this country's laws on marriage and how it is defined. And homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, stealing, not respecting your parents, and the other Ten Commandments.

As a Christian I have not been able to understand why folks get so spun up about gays. We ALL have our cross to bear. But as one who does his best to be a Christian, walking as Jesus did, in my own failing way, I am impacted by all sins that are legalized.

God sanctifies my marriage. But the ceremony is under civil law. Jesus was quite clear when he said, "Render under ceaser what is ceasers and unto God what is Gods." And civil law should not, in my opinion, be changed to accomodate a sin.

So to gently bump back, why would gays give a hoot about what I think and go ahead and form a union legally, get an attorney (we have lots of those) and draw up a contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 11:23 PM

Well, Steve, it is a sin in your opinion and that should not govern the rest of us who may disagree with you. Seems to me there was something about judge not lest ye be judged, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:25 AM

The church & the state should be totally seperate & both should stay out of the public's bedroom. If you want to follow some church doctrine, you're free to do so but you don't have a choice about following the law of the law & that's where the church is trying to build power to influence the law. The church has no right by law to influence law one way or another that is up to the governing system & the citizens of that republic. A civil Union does not grant all the same rights under law that a legal marriage does, I maybe wrong here & feel free to correct me. Civil Unions in all cases is not the same by the IRS everywhere (state & federal), by insurance companies, by adoption agencies, by international commerce, by credit companies & credit rating companies, by real estate law (just look at the difference in common law between states & feds) & by confict of state & federal law. Well, I'm not sure about ALL of that but look it up see.
It was once said that in this nation we were all created equal, well, we weren't but we are by law supposed to be ALL treated equal, not matter what any religion or church declares, that was the basis of the founding fathers. Free from religions & religious zelots.

We've always kept someone out of the loop, First Nation people, Blacks, Women, bfore that it was Irish, Jewish, waht's next, Alaskan Hockey Moms?
If abortion is a sin by someone's religion either jion & agree if you are religious or find one you can agree with but it's legal as long as the law allows & that's the way it stays as long as that's what the nation's peolple want. Because a religion or religious people want it different doesn't matter, it only matters what the people pass into law & the church by law needs to refrain from gathering & using power to influence the law. The law doesn't interfere with religion or it shouldn't. If a church sees fit to violate the seperation of church & state then they should forego all rights as a no profit & start paying taxes & lose their tax exempt status, they may feel a bit more charitable towards those they're fighting in the courts & polls with now.
I have no beliefs in churchs or religions at all, why should they govern me & my family with their beliefs as long as I obey the laws of the land. I don't seek to influence how they operate but if they want to push why shouldn't I push back. Demand that they operate only on Saturdays & Sundays, the rest of the week they need to earn their tax exempt status by manning the homeless shelters & food banks full time, start working in the VA's as nighingales - full time & not just the Sisters of Mercy all of them. If you are a prest or Nun & you are supported by the church you need to perform 40 hrs a week public charity & your retirement plan will equal the state or the federal plans.
If the churchs & religions want to try to dictate law then as they have been, espically these last 8 yrs then

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:37 AM

The above should've ended with
"If the churchs & religions want to try to dictate law then THEY SHOULD BE RULED BY THE SAME LAWS" as everyone one else because they put themselves on equal footing as the rest of US.

When they claim to serve & be held accountable to a higher "whatever" then they can continue to act & behave as if they they are seperate from government, that is their 'granted' freedom to practice as they preach!

Sorry, I hit some button that deleted the rest of it. By that & my even worst than usuall spelling I know it's way to late

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:55 AM

Barry, I guess I was misinformed about Civil Unions. I thought they did work to allow the couple to take advantage of tax exemptions and deductions, and did allow for the working member to insure the non-working member (if there was one), and so on.
                I'm not sure about the adoption of children. It certainly wouldn't bother me personally. I would think the child would be better off with decent people than in an institution, by I can see why the religious folks get worked up over that.
                The other element of the whole discussion that keeps coming to mind, and I don't see a lot in print about, is the Civil Rights element of same-sex-marriage. If I own a string of motels, for instance, and I'm a member of one of these religious groups, and I mandate that my places of business cannot rent rooms to same-sex couples, can I be brought up on civil rights charges for that? Or can I stand on my rights as a member of a church?

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:11 AM

The state has an interest in many contracts and transaction of a civil nature, because they are the basis of torts and offenses.

The state has an interest in preventing abuse of unsuspecting victims, in this case, children.

The state has an interest in public health and in some states marriage used to require blood tetsts under civil law,

The state also regulates who is responsible for children, the nature of dependence, the duty of child support, etc. It also maintains public records of birth, death, marriage, etc.

So for all these reasons, the state gets involved with these things and with marriage.

The fact that the traditional heterosexual form of marriage has been outmoded by a higher order of honesty about relationships that could once not even be named, means that any definition of marriage in terms of the sex of the participants is a simple act of discrimination on those grounds. Which,, by rights, should be illegal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:34 AM

Well, so much for the Dems wanting to "kill yer babies, burn yer flag and make yer kids marry 'a queer'"???

Guess the Repubs are down to just killing babies and burning flags when it comes to the Dems...

Who would have thunk it???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 10:51 AM

Amos, you said,

Arkansas, voted to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt children, widely seen as a way to prevent gay couples from adopting.

"Widely seen as"?? Of course; that's exactly what it is. Where does "widely seen as" come in? How could it be seen otherwise? On its face.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 11:19 AM

Maybe someone else has said essentially this (I skipped part of the thread, mea culpa) but here's my thought:

The State--ANY AND EVERY state--ought to stop issuing "marriage licenses". Instead, they issue "civil union licenses" to all couples.

If Johnny and Suzy are to join under State sponsorship, they would apply for a "civil union license". They'd go before an appropriate state-authorized individual (they could choose a preacher, judge, etc., just like now), who would join them pursuant to the license. But if they want religious sanction, presumably they'd have a preacher do it, so that they get two-for-one, so to speak.

Any two individuals, of whichever sex or combination thereof, if they wanted to have the legal support of the State rather than shacking up, would have to get and exercise their civil union license. The officiating individual, as now, would certify to the State that on such and such a date Johnny and Suzy (or Tom and Dick or Laura and Mary) came before him/her in the presence of witnesses representing the community and got officially stapled together (I'll avoid the familiar phrase "tied the knot" because it's so associated with past practice and understanding).

Under this scheme, the distinguishing word "marriage" is separated from State recognition, but different churches may attach the word and concept to the happy couple, of whatever mix, if that church sees things that way.

YMMV.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 11:23 AM

Good luck with that idea, Dave...

Rational thinkin' ain't gonna be part of the discussion on this issue until it's time has come which it clearly hasn't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:28 PM

Still, it's a good idea, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:58 PM

Exactly, Dave. When I mentioned that idea earlier, I commented that because the roots of the "marriage" notion run so deep, it is unlikely the Churches will want to adopt a different name for their version. So the STate should.

The differentiation between the civil and "sacred" versions is really, really important and the Godmongers should be, by rights, pushed out of the corridors of civil administration.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:20 PM

I think I read most of the above with reasonable comprehension, but I had the dial turned up to "Sped reddin" on accounta it's "Are you ready for some footBALL?" time.

Seems to me that a BIG deal is the fact that the accountants don't want Jack to share John's employee benefits... health insurance and the like. No?

Oh yeah... I have said this on other threads. I don't care what gay people do regarding marriage, but I definitely have a problem with their parades. Call me a prude, but public displays of sexuality irritate me, no matter what sexuality. It confuses small children and dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:30 PM

I rather hope we never have Straight Pride rallies along similar lines...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:59 AM

Somebody in our song circle said they saw a big banner ad in this thread, promoting the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage in California. Must have been something in this discussion that prompted a Google ad about the measure. Just so you know, Mudcat is not in the business of promoting any political cause. It's just a coincidence that most of us are liberal.....
Just now, the Google ad is one that promotes gay marriage, published by the Unitarians.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:49 PM

This is not going to go away - there are protests planned in all fifty states, tomorrow. There is also a petition folks can sign which may help. Here's the scoop, I thought Olbermann's comment was terrific:


Have you seen Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" about Prop 8? Keith eloquently expresses why the passage of Prop 8 is so tragic, and he addresses supporters of the proposition directly.

Here is a link to watch a YouTube video of Keith's comments. Please check it out and then join me and over 100,000 other people in signing a pledge from the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile to repeal Prop 8 and restore marriage equality to California:

Click Here

Usually, discussions of political issues wind down after elections, but Prop 8 is not about politics. It is about love, equality and civil rights. That's why we cannot let the passage of Prop 8 stand.

We all need to talk to our family and friends about the importance of restoring marriage equality to California.

That is why I am asking you to watch what Keith Olbermann said and then sign the pledge to repeal Prop 8.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

So how can the LDS church give money to a political agenda like Prop. 8, and still maintain a tax exempt status, or are the reports wrong? Did they not do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 11:24 AM

A good question, Rig.

A recent commentary makies an interesting argument for the complete privatization of marriage.

"...When the Supreme Court did away with sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, Justice Antonin Scalia objected in his dissent:

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.

"Scalia may disapprove, but he agrees that court decisions of the past have set the stage for recognition of gay marriage in the future.

"But ... There are those majority votes against gay marriage in states including California of all places. Majorities capable of passing state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage may well be capable of sparking a federal constitutional battle that might even culminate in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A favorable Supreme Court decision in a year or two might well turn into yet another culture war that produces a very unfavorable legal environment thereafter.

"What to do? Well, how about taking marriage entirely off the table as a legal issue?

"In the New York Times, last year, Professor Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State College wrote:

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state's permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn't, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

That may provide a road map to an approach for defusing the passionate battle over same-sex marriage, involving as it does deeply emotional issues of religion and personal life. Why not take marriage out of the hands of government and turn it into a purely private matter among people who love each other, their families, their friends, and whatever religious institutions to which they might belong?

Writing in Slate in 1997, the Cato Institute's David Boaz said of marriage:

So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.

"As a private institution, marriage would no longer need to be a matter of public debate. The legal aspects of marriage, such as inheritance and child custody could be handled by simply filing a simple civil union form with the state that has no romantic connotations. It could as easily involve friends or relatives who want to share assets or ease child care. Such arrangements could be boilerplate or tailored-to-fit, as the parties prefer.

And people with deeply held beliefs about what marriage really means could join religious institutions that extend their recognition only to traditional arrangements. They'd be free to turn up their noses at anything else, without actually compromising non-traditional marriages made by others.

Not everybody would be made happy by a solution that doesn't involve cramming a victory down the other side's throat. But privatized marriage could bypass years of legal battles and heartache.

If marriage had been privatized a decade ago, social conservatives would today be free to roll their eyes at Beth Bye's and Tracey Wilson's long-ago formalized relationship.

And we could find something else to fight about."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: olddude
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 11:32 AM

Amos
as always you speak the truth, clearly and thoughtfully
We can only hope that the people do the right thing. Maybe today that is asking too much. Somehow right thing to do seems to be falling through the cracks. I can only hope and pray they get their hearts and minds in gear and start thinking of others.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

If you would like to join thousands of people who are refusing to accept a California in which legal discrimination is embodied in the State Consittution, add your signature here. Every voice helps.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:43 AM

The fight isn't over yet. Sooner or later (probably sooner), gay marriage will be legal in California. My friend Mrs. Lev sent a link to this video (click).
Moderately clever, eh?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:54 AM

There are only two options:

1. The "marriage" licensed by states is a protection of a sacred rite.

2. ALL "MARRIAGES" licensed by the states are "civil unions."

If 1. applies, then all marriage licenses are in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, ...."

If 2. applies, then there is no valid reason, that has been shown, that justifies that "only heterosexuals" (or only white couples, or only Republicrats) are entitled to the equal protection of the law that regulates CIVIL UNIONS, accidentally called "marriage" in state statutes.

Any two citizens who wish to join into any form of lawful CIVIL contract should have the same right to do so as any other two citizens. The states have (or should have) NO interest in the sex, belief, or INTENT TO HAVE OR NOT HAVE SEX, of the persons entering into such an agreement.

I do not believe it is TO THE ADVANTAGE of any religion, in the US, to have "sacred rites" come under the control of civil statutes, since that places the belief and practice of one's religion SUBSERVIENT TO the CIVIL LAW.

Rather than demanding that civil law must "protect their sacred rights," persons of "true religious conscience" should be SCREAMING that the requirement to get any kind of license to engage in any rite held "sacred" within their belief is a VIOLATION of their right to the free and UNRESTRICTED practice of ther religion, and (if they're really that ignorant) should be DEMANDING the repeal of all requirements that "sacred marriages" of any kind be licensed.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:04 AM

John, you and I are pretty close in our assessment, you just said it better than I did earlier. The State shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning anything other than a civil union. And the State has no business as to whether or not a religious group sanctifies it according to their own beliefs. The legal ability to join one's life with another legally is the only thing the State has a say in. And it should not discriminate on matters that are none of its business, such as who one has sex with, provided said folks are of legal age to make such decisions.

Solid piece of analysis, buddy.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM

ABout time. But, there are limits. The practice of religion in a ccommunity IS subordinate to the boundaries of civil conduct imposed by the community in some respects. You cannot slaughter roosters in public places and for hygeine reasons even in some private places even if Kwandazoomuckalot requires it in his scrolls.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 10:06 AM

Thanks for the link, Joe. We've watched that on msnbc and I wondered if anyone would post it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM

What a joy to find out that there is another follower of Kwandazoomuckalot and his scrolls here. Amos - when did you find the One True Path? And have you reached level 3.144 yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:45 AM

Amos is correct.

You can't have human sacrifices - but only because all of the people, regardless of their religious belief, are prohibited from committing murder.

You can't slaughter animals (in most cases) because that violates both health laws and animal cruelty laws that apply to all of the people, regardless of their religious belief.

You can't force anyone to marry against their will, because slavery is prohibited for everybody.

You can't smoke that funny stuff and chaw on them fungi in your rituals because -- oops, I think there's an exemption there (for some religions). [We gotta look at whether that's fair to the rest of us.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 12:28 PM

"You can't slaughter animals" - but surely doing that is a major industry. So evidently it's OK to kill animals, but not if you call it sacrificing them. But religious rituals associated with the slaughter are OK (kosher/halal).

Evidently another of these linguistic issues which people,seem to regard as so desperately significant.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM

The foodchain is exempt--food is the one religion which must be obeyed by all. Oh, and the High Temple of Space-Time, also exempt, whose commandments include Thou Shalt Heed Gravity, Entropy Wins, and Thou SHalt Not Unconserve Energy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:01 AM

Saying Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, even as supporters filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day.

In a brief filed with the high court, the state top's lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded" by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now.

"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:59 PM

I wish someone would explain to me why they care who marries who. It's none of my friggin' business.I married whom I chose, for love of another human being, not because she has the opposite plumbing setup!

Control freaks, screw them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM

Jerry Brown is right; we cannot afford a civil institution that draws its definition from one or two religious groups and ignores the rights of individuals to the civil status as other citizens. It plants the seeds of mighty fractures in the national spirit.

If Congress were to make a Federal law defining marriage in terms of civil benefits and identity, as a common civil right, it would leave the churches to bless or condemn whom they please, as they have always busied themselves doing.

The whole thing is a bunch of ugly noise in a teacup.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM

I think one very important thing is being overlooked. The will of the people has spoken now twice in California in regards to this matter, and it has been voted down. Speaking about a minority forcing their will on the people... doesn't that matter anymore????..or do we make exceptions based on....ummm.. what?

Personally, I don't care how a person takes their sex....but that should be a personal matter..and not rub it in all our faces, and force us to accept it as law!!...even when it goes against the majority will of the people.

Have more thoughts on the matter, ....but this is just one point.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: pdq
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:18 PM

Will someone who says it is OK for two men to get married please explain why it is illegal for a man to have two wives.

It seems like the latter constitutes telling others who they can and cannot marry.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:23 PM

The name of this thread is, 'Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban'...what about, 'MORE Californians don't oppose 'Prop 8', Gay marriage Ban'?

Call the Wah-bulance!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:13 PM

Personally, I know a man who does have two wives, and he seems relatively okay to me. None of my business. But the matter of choosing an individual spouse is surely a different question than the polyamory versus monogamy issue. One is the right to choose "whom" and the other the right to choose "how many".

It is not the case that this is "the minority telling the majority what o do". It is a case of a minority desiring the same rights as the majority under the civil code of law. This, as Jerry Brown points out, is a case of rank discrimination. You can bet your boots that the majority of voting Virginians would not have voted to end slavery; yet it was an abomination viewed from the point of view of fundamental human rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:17 PM

McGrath is of course right. This is all about definition and the "normalisation" of homosexuality.

How many times have we debated this... and when will you so called liberals get it through your thick heads that homosexuality will never be normalised while the vast majority view it as a disgusting practice.

Homosexuality is "tolerated" in this society and all "liberals" and homosexual activists should remember not to push the silent majority too far.
Strident promotion of homosexuality has gone just about as far as it should, if homosexuals want to live together with all legal safeguards, let them form a civil union and not attempt to reconstruct the world in their image....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:29 PM

Just in case anyone mistakenly believes that I have a political axe to grind on this issue, I am far to the left of any Mudcat "liberals"...excluding Bobert of course, who has all the makin's of a mighty fine revolutionary........If he can shake this bloody Obama thing!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:33 PM

So now Jerry Brown, California's AG, is refusing to allow his staff to defend challenges to the proposition in court. It would seem to me--and I'm no attorney--that his course of action would give the pro-Prop-8 factions grounds for immediate appeal.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM

You may not have an axe to grind politically, Ake, but you certainly have an inflated view of what other people think is disgusting or not. I suspect your "vast majority" is a delusion. Furthermore, the core question is not how many, but what the fuck business is it of theirs? Why should it be any of your business whom another chooses to love or how? Who gave you the right to be "disgusted" at someone's private life? Or are you actually reacting to a bunch of false images about it that was drummed into your puir haid by child-molesting Fathers or crucifix-abusing nuns?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:22 AM

The insults don't bother me Amos, I've had worse on the "Gay parents" thread, but for fuck sake try and get the Scots accent right!...Ya daft auld gommerel......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:23 AM

From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM

'Jerry Brown is right...............'

Since when is denying the public due process of law, right!!!???
If the situation was reversed, you'd be screaming bloody murder, and think, perhaps we are living in a totalitarian state!...Well guess what? As I've posted before, the duopoly is doing just that. Let's not forget the rights we still have, and that is of due process(among others), and uphold those,....or the structure, which (used) to guarantee your freedoms, will be further taken away. Just think, what could be next?..Freedom of speech....and even on here, what you are doing,..NOW!!

Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:40 AM

It's already happening Guest, anyone who even questions the homosexual agenda is painted as a bigot.

Only ones who are safe are the completely illiberal "liberals"!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:43 AM

"You may not have an axe to grind politically, Ake, but you certainly have an inflated view of what other people think is disgusting or not. I suspect your "vast majority" is a delusion. Furthermore, the core question is not how many, but what the fuck business is it of theirs? Why should it be any of your business whom another chooses to love or how? Who gave you the right to be "disgusted" at someone's private life?"

Exactly. the other thing that bewilders me is the oft-repeated "they can do what they like as long as they're not rubbing my face in it."

I fail to comprehend why two people getting married is rubbing their sexuality in anyone's face, unless of course they are having a post-wedding sex party, in your house, and inviting you to join in. It seems unlikely. In fact, i think most of the people who express these sentiments are unlikely to even receive an invite to the wedding. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:25 AM

Back around 1963 or '64, a guy running for sheriff in Wisconsin published the "rumor" that his opponent had "weird sex" in "unnatural positions."

He was quite handily defeated when the opponent asked: "How would he know - is he a peeping Tom or somethin'?" (There was also a logo resembling "Kilroy was here," with very big eyes that appeared mysteriously on a few building walls, power poles, and other "public information" outlets, bearing the complainant candidates name ...)

When the CIVIL registration and licensing of CIVIL MARRIAGES first began to become common in the US, it was LOUDLY PROTESTED by the churches, to whom keeping the records of THE SACRAMENTS OF MARRIAGE had previously been left.

It was necessary to explain that the MARRIAGE LICENSE was only concerned with the CIVIL UNION by which persons could join together for the joint ownership of property and the obligation to accept JOINT CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY for obligations pledged by either - just as is done for "registration" and "licensing" of a business partnership.

And then to explain again.

And then to explain again.

And ....

Under the US Constitution and the laws of this nation, any religion that would willingly ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT to require a license for ANY SACRED RITE "ain't worth a squirt of piss in a tin cup."

If people in this country would cease half the effort now devoted to their demands to "punish everybody not like me" and devote it instead to learning and understanding the meanings, significance, and proper observance of the rites and rituals of their OWN FAITHs, and the limitations placed on the civil governments authority and obligation to regulate their observance of their own faith there would be NO ARGUMENT about allowing ANY PERSONS qualified and willing to make agreements between them having the SAME CIVIL FORMS OF AGREEMENT as all other persons are permited (or required) to observe.

If you can't state an objection without using the words "Holy Matrimony" or "Sacred Covenenants" or "The Bible Says ..." - in matters of CIVIL LAW - then you are a bigot.<sup>1

1</sup> But of course, no one is born that way. It's just something they choose to do. That makes it okay to despise them. (They're probably an abomination to somebody's god(s). And they're not like me, so they should be punished.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:33 AM

Hi Ruth...I know that you're off on the old trick of personalising the discussion...its wearing a bit thin these days :0)
but if the don't know that there is a general distate among hetero-sexual (alright Ebbie?) men, about the homosexual act, then with respect, you are not living in the real world.

I, not even going to bother responding too John, who is as full of shit as ever...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: LilyFestre
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM

Talk about people who continue to repeat themselves Ake.

*ahem*

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

Ake:

You are woefully off the mark here. John's assertions are exactly the issue.

It matters not a whit what your own emotional reaction is to the mental image of two men blowing each other or two women making themselves happy. Your feelings of anipathy toward others' choices are irrelevant.

If there is to be a civil state called marriage, you have yet to state on what grounds you dare to select one or another group of people as entitled to that civil state and another not. Your arrogance based on your lizard brain sense of disgust is crude and unbecoming, to put it mildly. What is truly disgusting is not what strangers do to strangers in privacy, but the alacrity with which you choose to demean categories of human beings based on your imaginary antipathies.

That is where the bigotry lies.

As for GtS I will not respond to your posts until you start saying something that makes any sense at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 04:34 AM

From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

"......As for GtS I will not respond to your posts until you start saying something that makes any sense at all."

Well, I understand......if you just can't keep up, I'm sure that you are glad not to respond!!

Just because certain subjects don't fit into a very myopic 'liberal' view, I'm sure you're absolutely lost, and 'working without tools'.

Too bad, I was just starting to wonder what you played, and stuff.....Your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 06:19 AM

Ruth on 'rubbing it in your face':

"unless of course they are having a post-wedding sex party, in your house, and inviting you to join in. It seems unlikely."

Exactly, and of course there's a really simple way to stop other peoples lewd, orgasmic, writhing sexual behaviour affecting you: simply stop fantasising and obsessing about it all the time. The choice is of course yours. No-one can tell you what to do with your own imagination in your own head.

For my own part, I tend to spend my time thinking about sexual acts which please me personally. And sometimes even doing them.
Don't know about anyone else here....?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 07:42 PM

GTS:

Horseshit. You made statements that are nonsensical and don't even notice.

For example, what would "the roles being reversed" possibly consist of? Some bizarre sci-fi dystopia where gays had been elevated to power because they were not contributing to the huge population explosion, and breeding was a capital offense, hunted down in the slums and rounded up and rubbed out? Thus, only those who would never breed would be allowed the civil status of marriage, and this anti-hetero discrimination was made into law?

The mind reels.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 08:46 PM

Ken Starr, hero of Monicagate, now wants to nullify all marriages in California that were legal and valid prior to Proposition 8 between people of the same sex.

One response: Please Don't Divorce Our Friends.

I spit at this Grundyesque, small-minded, bitter-hearted meddling among fellow citizen's lives.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 10:31 PM

Guest from Sanity either missed or discounts this thought:

"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."


Akenaton is mistaken in his view that this issue somehow or another has something to do with Liberalism. The idea that government should neither know nor want to know about the sexual orientation of it's citizens is a firmly conservative one--Conservatives believe that the powers and interests of government need to be limited if the citizens are to remain free.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:05 AM

The right to behave exactly as we would personally like, has always been subject to what is in the "common good"

I normally view statistics with extreme care, but the latest batch from independent sources indicate Hiv/Aids levels rising more quickly percentage wise among male homosexuals, than among heterosexuals. this must surely say something about the homosexual lifestyle, yet you all ingnore these statistics.....Why?
For all you Catholic "Liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM

PS....the statistics which I won't cite from the Baptists and other religious organisations are much more alarming, considering that we now routinely place very young children to be fostered by male homosexuals. Not only health issues, but numbers of sexusl partners, duration of sexual contacts, divorce/separation rates etc.

As a society we have taken "Liberalism" and the rights of "selected" minorities to truly dangerous levels...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: bubblyrat
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:31 AM

I agree !! What next ?? Shall we permit a man to marry his horse ?? Or legalise paedophilia ?? I mean, these people are "born like it ", they "can't help it", they have got "human rights" , so why don't we just legalise EVERY form of aberrant sexual behaviour and be done with it ?? ( God Forbid ! ).Roll on Armageddon, I say !!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:29 AM

Arrant nonsense. You are comparing extreme outliers with a significant population.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:17 AM

Holy cow! You mean some of you people were the product of the consumation of a sacred Christian marriage contract between consenting heterosexuals? What a disgusting thought.
Now *there* is a bloody good reason to ban something.
Simply cannot believe some of the vile ugly pestilance being spewed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:24 AM

Amos, thanks for the link to the Don't Divorce Us.

ake, you get more vile by the day - I wish Jude were here to give you a proper Glaswegian *blessing* as I know she would. As it is, you'll feel better if you dinna fash yerself so about others.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

Come on Kat, I think you know me better than that!
I bear no ill will to anyone other than stinking Capitalists.
I also draw a distinct line between male homosexuals and Lesbians.
I see no statistics which would suggest health risks or overly promiscuous lifestyles pertaining to Lesbians.
I also think that they would make excellent parents


Rosie ... If you have nothing to add to this discussion but invective, save your breath.   I have heard it all before and am sigularly unimpressed.
This forum has a good percentage of numpties already, another is hardly going to set the heather on fire!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM

Anyway....why should I care....I've got the POPE on MY side!!...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:20 PM

Add a dime to that and you can buy a chip, Ake.

It is quite one thing to have ap ersonal distaste for the subject, practice or participants of male homesexuality. I sympathize.

But to make a categorical imperative of reduction of civil rights out of such a personal dislike is unmanly in itself, and reactionary.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:43 PM

Hi Amos...Could you explain the line about dimes and chips....we don't haveit over here, but it sounds as if it could be a good one.

As you well know, I have no personal dislike of homosexuals, or any wish to deprive them of "human rights"....no sane person would.

What i am against, is an agenda to "normalise" a minority lifestyle which could have profound effects on the rest of society.

As my friend the POPE says...Humanity has a right to defend itself!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:13 PM

A dime is a coin worth about a shilling, I suppose, a tenth of a dollar.

There was an old joke about people expressing good intentions or such: "Put would've, could've and shouldl've in onehand and a dime int he other and it'll get you a doughnut." I used a chip because I don't think you make a deal about doughnuts over yonder.

There is no offense being offered to humanity. The offense to humanity is the invitation to hate itself.

People who are homosexually oriented are not destructive, in general, and there is no reason to marginalize them as though they were not human, which you do when you characterize their existence as a threat to humanity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:27 PM

What's the difference between a civil union which is called "a marriage" and one with all the same legal implications which isn't? There is the linguistic difference of course, but generally dictionaries decide that kind of thing according to how people use language.   

Sooner or later, no doubt dictionaries would modify their definition of the word to match how people actually use language.

Why on earth does anyone want to make a fuss about it either way?...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:37 PM

:0) That's cool A......think I like the traditional version better tho'


I dont see their existence as a threat to humanity.....Homosexuals have always and will always exist, without being any sort of "threat"

It is the agenda of normalising what I see as a destructive lifestyle which concerns me.
Some of the statistics which I read last night, gave life expectancy for male homosexuals as over twenty years less than hetero sexual men. If this is anything like the truth, questions must surely be asked.
I will be perfectly honest Amos, I have never seen or studied these stastistics before.....Have you, and if so why are you not asking the questions?

There are also some from homosexual websites, but they all fail to give comparisons in death rates, life expectancy,no of sexual partners etc.
I don't want to get too involved in this, as I hate basing my argument on statistics......but surely they must be taken into account?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:24 AM

This whole Proposition 8 thing is kind of ironic. It was able to pass because the wing-nut community was able to raise huge gobs of money for advertising.
                  It certainly demonstrates how fickle the American voter is.
                  But many of the folks who oppose Proposition 8, supported Barack Obama both in the primary and general elections, and he won by the same method, massively outraising his opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM

Thank God for natural selection! When the stupid idiots don't get it, let nature step in and give them a clue!! Personally, there is no need to legislate a thing! This whole thing is a backlash to the homosexuals pushing their agendas down everyone's throat...and excuse the majority for objecting!!!!!
Whether you like it or not, homosexuality (until the politically 'correct' assholes, pushed it onto the medical community), has always been listed as a dysfunctional behavior, where one gender, through one of several reasons, develops a sense of inability, to resolve understanding and communication differences with the opposite sex, usually from hostility, emotional focus, and unforgiveness towards a like gender parent and reverts to a pubescent experimental stage, of sexuality, which causes little or no challenge to expand beyond immature behavioral patterns.....Much the same behavior is seen in younger girls who like to 'dress up like 'mommy'(which is normal for pre-pubescent girls), homosexuals like to dress up like 'married'. To actually push that agenda onto a functioning society, is the product of a group of people who have physically matured, and not emotionally matured as well.....And if you don't like it, that is only a product of your political bent...which of course, is not to be confused with mental health.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:23 AM

Scratch a socialist and there's a frightened Republican trying to get out...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM

Sorta a disconnected post from Amos. What does that have to do with the price of eggs??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM

My point, obtuse Guest from Paranoia, is that you are acting like a blustering right wing nutball, despite all your enlightened talk of new socialism, or whatever you think of it as. PErhaps you need to get out more.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 01:33 PM

So it was "scratch a particular 'socialist' I have in mind" rather than being a generalisation about socialists in general, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 02:19 PM

That's okay. I am sorry for mine, also.


A

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!"
"Good Lord!" says the Captain. "Is the ostrich a female?"
"Of course, sir! There's nothing queer about old Chumley!"

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

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 04:47 PM

There are many marriages that have no offspring; there are many offspring who have no marriages. Marriage is not a commitment to breed; it is a commitment to partner for life.

Ake, I do apologize for spouting names, but this has gone roundy-round a few many times, and I think that the core issue is being ignored.

You and GfS both seem to think that the civil rights accorded to marriage are about reproduction, although you have no qualms extending those civil rights to non-reproducing heterosexuals, or asexuals.

This is just self-contradictory with other statements about your liberal nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 05:59 PM

Ake, I used the word "homophobe" not ncessarily in relation to you or anyone specific here, but if you want to put the shoe on and announce that it fits, that's your choice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

"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"

Shoe?...Fit?.....Bullshit!!.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Not a homophobe, then, Ake.

Just willing to rule them out roundly without a second thought from your circle of marital privilege?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:47 PM

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,.....blah blah blah....
......Ever seen a 'Gay Pride Parade'????????????

I am glad to see, though, that the bigger issue is finally being addressed. Ake's post is correct..as mine is, as well...and, The post I gave prior(Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM) was straight from 'textbook'!...a post that the ideologues seem to just slough off, to spout some erroneous talking points from a lame political 'point', that is founded on completely uneducated nonsense!!!!

Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights. They are, however not being deluded enough, though to call how they want to live 'Marriage', though...because its not, nor will ever be!

---

Sanity, your use of copy-paste quotations bothers me, particularly since it's unclear what you're quoting and what you're saying yourself. I'd suggest you quote less often and address the issue rather than the person - it keeps the animosity level down if you don't make things personal. If you do quote, use <i>italics</i> to show what's what. Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: fumblefingers
Date: 02 Jan 09 - 11:57 PM

Get the rest of the world to agree to and to put it into actual practice and maybe I'll take another look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:10 AM

Most of the rest of the world already does...sweetheart!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:52 AM

Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights.

Really? They have the legal right to declare themselves married to a person of their choice and have it recognized under the law?

Well, that's all right then.

If not, whether you care to face it squarely or not, you are in fact denying them a civil right, because of their minority status. Are you saving up for dual-system drinking fountains too?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:00 AM

Amos, that is silly. I have the right to declare myself married to a camel..so what???
Somehow, you must have missed a few prior posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:24 AM

"Nobody here, or anywhere I know is 'denying' them their civil rights."

             They're being denied civil rights if they can't name a partner on a health insurance policy, or own community property, or any number of other benefits that are afforded married couples.

             If they could have those things, would that satisfy them, or would they continue to push to force churches to marry them in the same manner that minorities bring suits against motels for not renting rooms, or sue resaurants for not serving them.
             At that point, it seems to me, you would have two aspects of the constitution in conflict. The government involving itself in religion, as opposed to a public business refusing service for irrational reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 01:44 AM

Rig, anyone can name anyone else on a policy, if they want to pay for it, just not as a 'married' couple. Anyone can own anything they want as joint owners,..just put both names on the title. Never heard of a restaurant refusing to serve them.......
However, (and the other hack jobs at PETA will back me on this one) they won't serve me and my camel...not even at the 'Tavern on the Village Green', in New York, no matter how much I tipped the Matre'D. Think I should sue???? I mean PETA thinks animals should have the same rights as humans, right???? My camel will make a wonderful spouse!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:51 AM

You're spinning hard, girl, but I don't believe you're making the turn. You keepignoring the core fact: the status "M" has certain legal rights of inheritance, tax, and insurance rights that come with it.

Those are the specific rights your policy denies people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

To do so is unjust.

Camels have nothing to do with it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 03:11 AM

A will and a trust, or living trust can be drawn up any way one wants to, Mr. Bright

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 04:40 AM

See, what some of you don't get, is that homosexuals can do just about anything they want to do, or mimic, or imitate any domestic living situation they want, with any of the rights afforded normal married couples. But, that is not what they want, nor is it the goal, of those exploiting their grievances, with all the ballyhooing about their rights being 'denied'!..and if it wasn't for the emotional immaturity that is inherent, in their nature, they'd be doing just that...and no one would hardly notice or care...Have you ever seen a 'hetero pride' parade, where functioning, married, hetero couples flaunt their sexuality????...especially in the manner the homos flaunt theirs??? Why do you think that is?? What is with the 'shock value' that goes along with the disgusting, and lewd behavior these people parade around in public?? Are you so naive to think this is a 'celebration' of their 'hip liberated' mentalities??? ..Come on, reach deep. Both myself, and Ake, along with a few others, see it and call it for what it really is....and neither of us have broached any 'religious' or spiritual moralization, on the matter. Why is it, that homosexuals feel such a need to have established religions change their beliefs, to accommodate their deviance??...So they can worship God better?????? Come on, get past your political, persuasions, and ask yourselves, 'Why?' Considering they can do, and in all practicality, do, do what they want, just what is it they want???
For those who go as far as getting trans gender operations, do any of you know the massive and intensive amount of counseling, and re-orientation that goes with it, before the final operation is performed????? You think its just a matter of preference??? Or elective surgery, done on a whim????!! or even done as cavalierly as liposuction or breast augmentation?? You think this is as lightweight as where someone wants to stick it, or be stuck by it??? You think because a guy or a woman decides to be the other sex, its just a matter of 'I think I'll do it this way, or that way'? Do you actually think men and women think and feel intuitively alike?????
No, dear Mudcatters, this is far more of a derailment, than I think many of you have pondered...and its NOT just a political question or answer. To even think it is, is just a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, not to mention a lack of compassion, and understanding, of the psyche and emotional damages that accompany, those who have found it 'convenient' to disregard their own gender and traits...and now seek acceptance, in lieu of help!!
Like I've said before, however anyone wants to slice it up, re-hash it, redefine it, or go through the motions of it, 'marriage' it will never be, and certainly not by the majority, of not only this country, but the rest of the world (or Heaven, if you will).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 AM

If I'm covered by health insurance at work, I can add a spouse and children under my care. I can't include anyone else. Those are the options.

                  In states with community property laws, if I own a house, my spouse owns the house as well. I can't exclude her/him, and I can't sell the house without her/his cooperation. Those rights only pertain to a spouse.

                  I won't try to second guess homosexual goals, but the government is treating them differently than other citizens. That's unconstitutional.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:12 AM

I said 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,.....

Mart... I mean GfS said ......Ever seen a 'Gay Pride Parade'????????????

So THAT'S your problem--watching Gay Pride parades all the time. (You must have videos because they don't happen all that often.) We don't have them in my area, we have actual gay people who mostly don't act like horny drunk people during Mardi Gras. I can't imagine what they must be doing during those parades, but you might consider not going to so many if they upset you so, and not continuously replaying the videos. If your opinion comes solely from obsessing over a parade, well... the things I could say about that stupid Pink Panther, or Wile E. Coyote! Hmff!

Sooner or later, the scorpion does what a scorpion must do
This thread has jumped the shark and I'm out. (We need a term that means the same basic thing but is more appropriate to the internet.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 12:22 PM

Running out to the extremes to make an argument that is not applicable to the majority of same-sex people is pretty butt-ugly logic. I am sorry for your constant state of near-nausea, but you're gonna have to grow up some day.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:45 PM

Sanity, your use of copy-paste quotations bothers me, particularly since it's unclear what you're quoting and what you're saying yourself. I'd suggest you quote less often and address the issue rather than the person - it keeps the animosity level down if you don't make things personal. If you do quote, use <i>italics</i> to show what's what. Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 02:54 PM

If you are upset by Gay Pride parades, don't go to them.

And if you are upset at the thought of someone humping with their pet camel, stop thinking about it.

Or, deep down, does that really excite you a bit?

I'm really suspicious of those who object the most strenuously to same-sex marriage, or who are concerned at all with what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Why do you care? Look into a mirror and ask yourself, "Why do I care!??"

Or would that be too frightening?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 04:04 PM

My god!! No sane person cares! Do you really not understand what this discussion is about?
I think you do know, but are reduced to making simplistic personal comments rather than address the real points raised by his discussion.
I don't just mean you Don...jeri's post was disgraceful.
At least Amos attempts to address the issues most of the time...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM

Jeri's post was right on the money. It's the comments of a few other people on this thread that's disgraceful.

Yes, Ake, I fully understand the real issues here.

Do you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM

The issue is nothing to do with churches or any of your precious, albeit bewildering, religions.

The issue is LAW. In this country law and religion are separate matters. Under LAW a minority is denied privileges available to a majority purely on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the disputed Proposition. By fundamental principle this is an unconstitutional action, or effort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 11:19 PM

Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. If you ain't got that, you ain't got nothin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:11 AM

Sorry I took so long..I've been watching the news quite a bit today..

Ok..down the line: Rig, the law isn't restricting homosexuals from being homosexuals or the practice thereof. Actually, there is more laws restricting smokers, but non-smokers have their objections to them. Are you suggesting that people don't have the right to be offended, or being concerned about homosexuals, and their behavior in public,that draws attention to their 'orientation' as you call it??..A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Amos, The same can be applied to your reply, however you brought in the religious issue. I don't think you seem to understand that to the religious community, the 'law' that governs them is vastly more strict about this issue than secular law. There is a difference between trying to force them to change the tenets, of their beliefs by attacking them, and churches, just not wanting to sanction the permissiveness that they deem immoral.
P.S. to that: I found it interesting that Mormons, who still hold to polygamy, (though discreetly), should help finance opposition to homosexuality. Perhaps more attention to 'Love thy neighbor, as theyself' should be in order, and garner more attention!
Don, That as I saw, with her link, may be true...but those comments were not made by me....On your first post, I don't go to them nor watch them, other than what comes up on the news,.they are a disgrace! The camel analogy was used to illustrate, that somewhere, someone,(in this case PETA, who believes that animals should be given the same rights as humans) could ridiculously raise the same bullshit about discrimination...and in their minds, they'd feel justified...though in reality, their just whacked out. Sorry, you needed that explained to you, at least that's my clue, that you don't have much of one!
Joe, I didn't 'cut and paste'!...hope everyone knows what they wrote before that I'm commenting on...their positions vacillate in logic so much, I wasn't sure if they could remember!
Jeri, As pointed out to you by another post...well yours just too stupid, to comment on. Try again after some coffee and ginkgo biloba, and a few years.
and back to Rig, I guess smokers are discriminated against, too..because they have to pay higher rates..if accepted at all. For anyone's information ONLY.02% got that??..2/10,000, are born, with a gene that is claimed by 97% of homosexuals claim they are born with, that makes them 'unable' to be attracted to the opposite sex, and in fact, gives them the 'attributes' of being a female being trapped in a male body, and vice versa!! I guess the smokers analogy, just isn't that far off, then, is it???
Ake, Do you play an instrument, or write lyrics, I'd love to hear them! At least your brain works, and if it was 'protest songs', or something creative, at least it promises not to be the same dribble and drivel, as driven by media talking points. I've wondered if you were a fan of Frank Zappa, who was of course, the satirical voice of conscience of his generation....
The rest can join together in a chorus of Kumbayah', as long as they delete all references, and lyrics to 'Lord'...just to be 'politically correct'!....Bet you I made no friends on this post....unless the sky broke open, and a bolt of lightning hit someone, causing them a new experience, called 'thinking, and reason'!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:19 AM

Oh, I nearly forgot,
Ebbie, I left out a lot of commas, just for you. Being as you'd rather count commas, than read text,(or understand it), so,I thought I'd do you the favor!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:47 AM

Akenaton,
   I thought I'd post this for you. Though it is 'satirical', there's a lot more truth to this, than one might think. The progression of the story/lyrics, resembles the truth, a lot closer than the lame explanations used to excuse it!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIoLr8CJzk0&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 02:58 AM

GtS, thank you for the revelations. I've decided that you are more to be pitied than censured so carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 03:48 AM

Sanity - your posts regularly border on personal attacks, and I have received a number of complaints about you. Like I said, address the issues, not the people. And yes, it's clear that you continually copy-paste excerpts of posts from others. If you cannot refrain from insulting people, I will be forced to begin deleting all posts from you that address individuals. It's good to hear your opposing point of view, but stick to the issues.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:07 AM

Come Joe, be fair, since when have the pro homosexual marriage brigade stuck to the issues.....they unfailingly resort to personal abuse when their opinions are questioned. If you don't agree you are branded a bigot or much worse....They don't look at statistics, or listen to alternative arguments, they just reach for the tar brush!

I have been one of you strongest supporters here in the difficult job you do....although we rarely see eye to eye.

I never take up your valuable time by complaining when I become irritated by the childish abuse levelled at me by long term forum members, so they feel free to use words like "vile", "Homophobe", "bigot", etc to describe my views. The only time I was tempted to complain was when one young lady sggested that I probably abused my own children.....this without any comment from moderators or clones!

However, if guest is to be censured for his/her posts....which dont seem personal,unless in response to a snidey insult,....then Don, jeri, and even wee Kat deserve a word of criticism.....Ake

---

Ake, note that I do not question "Sanity's" right to express an opinion. What I question is the practice of including unclearly-distinguished quotations in posts; and addressing individuals in a confrontational manner, instead of primarily addressing issues. This makes for a troublesome, provocative tone to these posts.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 12:43 PM

The issue is LAW. In this country law and religion are separate matters. Under LAW a minority is denied privileges available to a majority purely on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the disputed Proposition. By fundamental principle this is an unconstitutional action, or effort.

Two free, adult human beings decide to marry. They fill out the forms, are duly ceremonied and witnessed, and the form is filed with the county or state. They are married.

In consequence these people have certain rights of inheritance, certain tax statuses, certain spousal rights to represent each other, certain health benefits, and sundry other bits and pieces of status allowed by laws.

According to current law, this process may not be overridden by other people on the basis of race, religion, blood type, hair color, skin color, pH level, political preference, metaphysical viewpoints, ear-size, shoe size, eye color, number of digits remaining, height, habits of tobacco, vulnerability to alcohol, left-handedness, epithelial folds, rate of hair curl, facial asymmetry, or degree of spine curvature.

Yet in your high wisdom and sanctity, you decree that sexual yearning alone, of all the attributes men and women have, should serve as a completely sufficient basis to deny this privilege to an individual.

Of course, there have been, in more repressive times, many cases where a homosexual man married a heterosexual woman. Should these marriages, then, be searched out and nullified? Perhaps a special police force organized?

There have been many cases where heterosexual men married women who turned out to be lesbians. Would you like to offer a resolving decree for these cases?

Or do you not care at all about the sexual proclivities as long as one Dongle and one Vagina are correctly distributed amongst the participants, regardless of what they do with said shapes?

Oh, and may they invite their friends over later? Please? For some experimental activities? Oh, please? They will fill out the forms if you want....do you need triplicate plans?

Pfffffft. This is clearly bigotry, no matter how much the Defenders of Purity insist it is not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 03:40 PM

Ok, then let's get this straight, using nothing but the cold hard facts! Homosexuality is NOT a political issue. It is, in FACT, A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE!! ...and can, and as has been treated effectively, as such! This is not an 'opinion', but a reality. To just throw money,(other people's I may add) at it, is just an indication, of how far the disconnect, between reality, and certain political agendas, who dig up anything to champion, and bitch about, rather than those very same people, lifting an understanding, and compassionate heart to deal realistically, about it!

   Yes, I know some homosexuals, who are very gifted and creative people, who in my opinion, border on genius, some who have taught, and worked with me, in both music, sound, and laser engineering, but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up. I know of which I speak, and what I just posted, is indeed accurate!

Unless any of you that understand that, I guess you're stuck with turning it into a political issue, and with sterility, just accept them in large numbers, and stay uninvolved, and placate them to launder your own lack of understanding, care, or involvement...and still convince yourselves that you're doing 'something'!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 04:19 PM

Your opinion of their mental health --which you offer as a cold hard fact--is cold enough, but it is neither hard nor fact. It is an amateur piece of psychobabble.

Deep sadness? What else is new? Everyone has their own, I suppose, at some level, if only by reason ofbeing bound to the Earth.. It is quite judgemental of you to sweep every same-sex person into a mental health category because you have met some sad ones. I know some who are generally bright, productive, loving and happy with their lives. People who, I would say, are in better mental health than you are!

Is it possible you are projecting here?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM

"Come Joe, be fair, since when have the pro homosexual marriage brigade stuck to the issues..."

I have. (Even tho it is NOT marriage... it IS CIVIL UNION!!!!... when are you gonna get with the fuckin program????... pun intended)


And I am not a pro. The only kinda pro I am is a master debater.

As someone who masters (I have a degree to prove it) in logical debate and analysis, I must say that the lot of you antis seem to misunderstand elementary debating.

Fact... being a homo is legal.

Fact... civil union is legal.

Fact... all persons are equal under the law.

Fact... your arguement is completely fucked up.

Now, even tho I dislike many of the ramifications of the obvious outcome of this debate...

Fuck off and leave these people alone. They are not hurting YOU. You are hurting THEM.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 04:49 PM

Amos, you have just shown me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about. It appears to me, that you argue issues armed with uninformed 'opinions', and nothing else. You have further convinced me, though, that you merely spout off, opinions adopted by a political bias, that in itself, is not grounded in fact, reality, or anything of sound mind. My advice to you, is that you seek professional help, as this narrow mindedness probably affects other parts of your life, and happiness, as well.....and that is the 'opinion' of someone who is educated, and highly so, in this field.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 05:18 PM

Guest from Insanity, your post above is way out of line in any rational discussion. It's simply rude, insulting, and just plain wrong.

####

There is a correlation between same-sex orientation and a particular lobe of the hypothalamus (for verification, do some googling yourself—it's there: "homosexuality" + "hypothalamus").

There are several implications of this discovery (made in the 1990s, I believe). One is that there may be a genetic component to same-sex orientation. Another is that it is based on the structure of the individual's hypothalamus, hence it is not a matter of choice as some try to claim. Nor is it a mental health issue.

Since it may very well have a genetic component, that means that discrimination against folks with same-sex orientation is like discrimination against people with blue eyes, or different shaped eyes, or differently shaded skin.

It is a civil rights issue.

Case closed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. I need professional help, and so does every homosexual human under the sun. Having been advised in this analysis by a true expert, there's no way out. I will seek the help of a professional.

Say, GfS, are you one, yourself? A professional, I mean. I'm looking for a highly qualified jolly walker, or maybe a sex therapist. Obviously, I have a lot to learn.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 05:36 PM

Well, the people who reject civil union are the homosexual fundies.
As Mr McGrath said long ago it does all boil down to redefinition.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

Would they reject civil unions, if civil unions gave them all of the entitlements of marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:42 PM

As far as I am aware, in the UK civil union has all the legal entitlements,but of course it is the word which is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 06:46 PM

Getting in to semantic horseplay is not going to clarify anything.

All marriage-under-law is civil, by nature. The other hankypanky--blessings from old wankers in pointy hats or whathaveyou--is of no interest to anyone, I am sure.


So are you saying, there must be two separate but equal versions of the same union? One for opposite-poles, one for like?

That's an awful waste of harumph and paper and office space given that it is an identical function being subdivided by a superficial opinion. Why would anyone need to maintain separate but equal facilities for filing papers?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:08 PM

Over the top, eh? Yeah. I kinda figured that. But, it's true.

Oh, got a PM... figured I would save any others some tine.... no, I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

Don, As I posted in an earlier post, political pressure was applied to get the medical community, and its training, in the professions, to change homosexuality from a dysfunction, as all living things on this planet primary attribute is to survive and reproduce, to merely an 'orientation' or 'preference'. Though alternative debates have arisen, yours and Amos's are an offshoot, stemming from the highly publicized, politically motivated, claims, the are founded on 'junk science', not accurate and proven treatment, of this treatable condition. The figures I gave you, are accurate, and whatever website you researched, may be just a product of 'politically pressured' re-adaptations, of 'junk science'...which is no science, at all.....Sorta' like global warming is caused by SUV'S.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM

Me neither, If I were, it would come as one helluva surprise to both me and my wife.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM

P.S...Don, those pressures, I spoke of, on my prior post, just to clarify, were done in the mid seventies.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:20 PM

Cross posted.

Sounds to me like you're positing an International Gay and Lesbian Conspiracy, there, Guest from Bewilderment. Right up there with the Illuminati, eh?

They now control the scientific community?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM

So, GfS: you view homosexuality as an elective lifestyle, perhaps a desperate solution to deep unhappiness or intolerable stress in life?   

Wonders never cease--the whole body of evidence on genetic (non-elective) causes of homosexuality is bogus??? Politically generated BS? Wow!!!

I am really glad you tipped me off before I said anything embarrassing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:27 PM

Look Don, I shot it to you straight...you are entitled to believe what you like..or make up your own stuff, and believe it...it's up to you...but to try to convince me that what is, isn't, is a waste of both our time. It's really very simple....I'm right....and your wrong. I have a working history with results, and you don't. It's really simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:37 PM

C'mon, folks, get a clue!

A few years ago, in a conversation with a friend whom I knew to be gay, on the idea that being gay was a matter of choice, he said, "When you consider that being gay can get you ostracized from friends—and even your own family—can get you fired from your job, and can even get you repeatedly beat up in a dark alley—or killed—who in his right mind would choose to be gay?"

Don Firth

P. S. On television a couple of days ago, I heard an interview with a member of Congress. When the interviewer alluded to some political issue he was trying to deal with (relating to the economy) and asked him if he anticipated a hard time with it, he remarked, "Hey, I'm gay, I'm Jewish, and I'm left-handed! How much harder can it get!??"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:39 PM

it seems to me...

When scientific doctrine tries to hit religious dogma, it wrongly aims at the head, believing that reason resides there.

When religious doctrine hits scientific observation it always aims for the groin.




I think Rev. Ted Haggard should have the lifestyle he wants.
That is one dude that proves that "if it quacks like a dick...I mean duck...its a duck."

Same goes for J Edgar Hoover or King David in Bible who was a real queen at times.

Obama has some good quotes similar to RFK on the subject.
You might even google an Obama Quote generator and have some fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:40 PM

True wisdom begins with hearing a person with more wisdom than you, and listening to that person, the way you'd want that person to listen to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM

Re: your last post addressed to me, GfS, it sound to me like you're getting a bit desparate. If I'm wrong and you're right, Let's have some documentation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:43 PM

Are you afraid that gays are going to outbreed us and take over the world?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:45 PM

Homosexuals out breed...what?????....I think you just said it all...Don't bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 07:58 PM

So--no documentation then. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM

""But, that is not what they want, nor is it the goal, of those exploiting their grievances, with all the ballyhooing about their rights being 'denied'!..and if it wasn't for the emotional immaturity that is inherent, in their nature, they'd be doing just that...and no one would hardly notice or care...Have you ever seen a 'hetero pride' parade, where functioning, married, hetero couples flaunt their sexuality????...especially in the manner the homos flaunt theirs??? Why do you think that is?? What is with the 'shock value' that goes along with the disgusting, and lewd behavior these people parade around in public??""


And these are the words of a person who claims NOT to be bigotted.

Words which positively DRIP malice and prejudice.


""For anyone's information ONLY.02% got that??..2/10,000, are born, with a gene that is claimed by 97% of homosexuals claim they are born with, that makes them 'unable' to be attracted to the opposite sex, and in fact, gives them the 'attributes' of being a female being trapped in a male body,""


And the words of a person who refers to "junk" science, while being unable to distinguish between a homosexual, and a transexual.

That reall helps your argument GfS

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM

This is the kind of thinking of people who are obsessed with the subject. So over the top it verges on the silly, if it weren't for the harm it can do.

Look up "gay conspiracy" on google. You'll run into a lot of the same kind of anti-gay, anti-same-sex marriage nonsense that's being spouted on this thread.

And these folks are saying that it's gays who are sick. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:04 PM

"'Hey, I'm gay, I'm Jewish, and I'm left-handed! How much harder can it get!??'"


                Nothing you can do about being gay, or left handed, but being Jewish is a choice, so it doesn't belong in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:20 PM

Yeah, but that's a whole nother subject.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:27 PM

Rig:

You crack me up sometimes, man. :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM

It's important to inject some gaiety into the conversation sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 10:12 PM

Borrowed from another post on another forum, some excerpts:

"Family fears of catching homosexuality, or of being recruited at school or elsewhere are utterly without scientific foundation." ~ Dr. Jack Weinberg, President American Psychiatric Association, October 6, 1977.

"Sexual orientation is deep-seated and not something one chooses to be or not to be." ~ Dr. Alan P. Bell, senior author of "Sexual Preference", Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, Indiana University Press, 1981.

Gays and Lesbians are not recruted into homosexuality and are not brainwashed into it: "Gay and lesbian children are often aware of being different at a very early age. They generally become aware of their sexual orientation during adolescence or early adulthood. ~ R.R. Troiden, "The Formation of Homosexual Identities", The Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 43-73.

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." ~ The American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association, July 1994.

"Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments." ~ Taken from the American Psychological Association Statement on Sexual Orientation, July, 1994.

"No scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any therapies that attempt to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals." ~ John C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich, eds., Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, Newbury Park, Calf.: Sage, 1991.

"All attempts fail when gay people try to become heterosexual." ~D. C. Haldeman, "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, p.221-227, 1994.

"Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help."" ~Dr. Raymond Fowler, American Psychological Association Executive Director

"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." ~American Psychiatric Association

"1. According to scientists at the University of Texas, the cochlea (a structure in the inner ear) in lesbians is different than in heterosexual women.

2. This difference was discovered by using a test which measurs the sound that the cochlea makes while responding to a soft clicking sound.

The results show that lesbians have weaker click responces than heterosexual women and are more like those of men (the cochlea in heterosexual women is more sensitive than in men).


Dennis McFadden, who was the lead conductor of the study, believes that the cochlea of lesbians might be affected by hormone exposure from before birth and presumes that unknown sites of the brain which influence sexual orientation might also be affected.

3. In 1991, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, Simon LeVay, examined the brain tissue from 41 people.

He found that a structure within the hypothalamus called the INAH3 of heterosexuals was twice the size of the INAH3 of homosexuals, thus pointing to a bilogical origin of homosexuality.

4. J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura from the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada, compared the number of ridges on the index finegr and thumb on the left hand with the number of ridges of the thumb and index finger on the right hand.

The study found that 30% of homosexuals have more ridges on the left hand while 14% of heterosexuals shared the same trait.

This indicates a genetic origin of homosexuality, perhaps even before birth, since finger prints develop during the 17th week of the fetus stage.

5. Dean Hamer from the National Cancer Institute led a study which compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. They discovered that nearly all shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (which is one of the two sex chromosomes), thus pointing to the conclusion that homosexuality has a genetic component.

6. Scientists have observed homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
Gay chimpanzees, gay sheep, gay fruit (no pun intended) flies, and gay penguins. While some may argue it is simply animal lust, the gay penguins counter this... gay penguins have been seen in lifelong relationships thus indicating loving feelings and not just animal lust (which we all have in us).

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a given and cannot be changed by doctors; and trying to do so is harmful to the patients and often leads to suicide attempts, and sadly some of the attempts are successful.


Sources of the information in this essay:

http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/studies.html

www.qtonline.com/columns/birdsandbees/penguin.asp

www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/961212behavgene.html"

(All cited at http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayrelig/743.html

---

I include these not to bolster the legal case, which stands alone, but to rebut some of the kneejerk homophobic mealy-mouthed twitterpates.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 10:17 PM

To be fair, there is a good deal of opinion amongst professionals that essentially says it is the particular confluence of genes, experience, environment and education which combine as formative elements in individual cases of homosexuality.

One group of such quotes can be found on this page. None of which changes the legal issue a whit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:46 PM

Two questions arise:

1) If those who so vehemently denigrate the gay "lifestyle" were to discover irrefutably that homosexuality is caused by physical differences, would they then change their views? Or would they insist that those who are homosexual must deny themselves and remain celibate all their lives?

2) Would these same people be willing to deny themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 02:45 AM

Well, now that mob rule has once again gone a muck.......and all you are so sure, as to put your best 'arguments' on the line(because some argue for arguments sake).....check this out....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:53 AM

Amos, I read carefully your lengthy and researched post. Because I shouldn't 'paste and cut' and answer each of the assertions, one by one, to completely debunk them, I hope you may have watched the video, which certainly refutes the erroneous 'findings' (which dates, I noticed began exactly when I said political pressure was put on the medical and psychiatric community). This video, I'm surprised you didn't come across in your search...or maybe you did, but nonetheless, I found it on my first try. His assertions are near identical to what I told you before..and I had not seen it, until moments before I posted it. Though his techniques differ from mine, it is based, as I said before, on understanding, compassion and sensitivity toward his clients...not a political stance or proving a point, to justify bogus claims.

Therefore: All finding and policies based bogus data, are in part, or in it's entirety, erroneous!!!!

Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:39 AM

Interesting thesis about bonding with the opposite-gendered parent. I have only seen the first few minutes of the gentleman's interview. I am not sure what quality of evidence a talk-show clip is. Is his bok, and its research, available on line?

The debate over etiology is really not germane, imho, to the proposition that legal marriage should be uniformly applicable to any couple regardless of their orientation.

Under the law, how do you apply the doctrine that all humans are created equal with the Orwellian porposition that heteros are "more equal" than non-heteros?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM

From GfS:
"'junk science'...which is no science, at all.....Sorta' like global warming is caused by SUV'S"

At the request of GfS that anyone not expert in the field should not debate him or her on the causes of homosexuality, I have stayed out of this.

In the interests of reciprocity, this would be the time to request that non-experts in earth systems science should stay out of the climate change debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM

The Southern Medical Journal reports (Aug 1980) that "the range of expression of homosexuality and its association with certain cultural, environmental, and genetic factors are most consistent with the concept of a multifactorial trait. Additionally, genetic heterogeneity in this phenotype (alternative mutants corresponding to a single phenotype) is highly probable. In certain nonhuman and presumably in human species the normal sexual development of the hypothalamus is guided by an appropriate exposure to androgen at a critical early stage, and this in turn presumably contributes to sociopsychologic sex development. Particularly instructive in this regard have been the monogenic experiments of nature in man--XY females with insensitivity to androgens, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and male pseudohermaphrodites (5-alpha-reductase deficiency). Additionally, in the human, sociopsychologic sex also appears to be molded by sex assigned at birth and sex of rearing. Several of the intersexuality syndromes and psychoses are accompanied by increased homosexuality, but a majority of homosexuals are not in these categories. A limited number of family studies, including twins, tentatively suggests a heritable risk, at least in some families." (Italics added).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM

I wonder what all of that would mean if it were written in Hemingway-esque sentences?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM

Good one, Rig!

Get to work on it, Amos. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM

Or in the style of Mickey Spillane - Amos or Rapaire could do it, I know.

Or Norman Mailer?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM

Rig, To answer you question, they would be short sentences.
Amos, ok, I see you are really trying to ferret out the truth..so, because of that, which I respect, if you want to get to the bottom of the discrimination, I would certainly look in the direction of the insurance lobbyists, and their connection with the medical community, and who fund the 'studies', and the politicians, who legislate the laws. It is in that direction that the misinformation is sent out, and exploited. Ever notice, that through a home owners policy, everyone in your home can be covered, whether they are related or not, even renters, if you rent a portion of your home...but not, a homosexual, through your employer, as one poster correctly posted. This is not a matter of laws, and civil rights, this is a matter of the insurance industry's policies. So, all those who look to the civil rights issue, are barking up the wrong tree, which, of course, is where they want you barking! In several posts I have posted, I have repeatedly sounded off about corruption. This is just one area to which I am referring. Because of these lobbyists, we have an unaffordable health care system, which is also in shambles. I am sure they will vehemently oppose any heath care reform, and certainly oppose a one payer system, as proposed by Obama, during his campaign. Fortunately, there ARE some physicians, and counselors, in the field who understand this, and will work with a client. Ever notice new medicines coming out for never heard of diseases???..who's side effects are worse than what is being treated??..I think it would be safe, to include the pharmaceutical, companies as well(duh)! Many doctors, only back up the false studies, because, they get paid from the insurance companies..who in turn only pay out a fraction of what is being paid in, on premiums!!..So there you have it in a nutshell. Instead of 'shooting the messenger'(me..or Ake, who understands what I'm saying), I thank, and am grateful for Mudcat Forum, for a place, to give you accurate information..about what has been a devastation of our medical community, and corrupt politicians...for which we all have fallen victim to.

Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land...(Pete Seeger)

'You've been lied to for so long, that when I come and tell you the truth, you do not believe me'...(Jesus of Nazareth)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:23 PM

Sometimes Norman Mailer doesn't make a lot of sense, though! I'd settle for Raymond Chandler.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 07:53 PM

Heinlein, is pretty good too

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:18 PM

The Pope, leader of the worlds billions of Catholics, has said that the practice of homosexuality is as much a danger to humanity as the destruction of the rain forests.
Pope Benedict is reckoned by the experts to be the most learned Pope in history, but I would disagree with his opinion. My view is that homosexuality is in our society, strongly promoted by a vociferous pressure group and we must accept that fact and try to deal with it fairly. However society should not allow the practice to become "normalised" through apathy, fear, or coercion, The male homosexual life expectancy and health statistics should be a warning to society that "normalisation" as in "marriage" (the word), or the fostering of children, is not in the interests of all.
AS no proof whatsoever has been brought forward on a genetic link, I am inclined to agree with guest that the condition is largely psychological in nature, and a symptom of a society in decay.

That is my view as an atheist....not a religious fundamentalist and if you "liberals" don't like it I dont give a flying fuck. If you think either guest or myself bigots, what is your opinion of the leader of the Catholic Faith?

If my friend Benny had said "Liberals" are a bigger danger to humanity than deforestation, I would certainly have agreed with him....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:27 PM

It is not a question of "liking it", Ake. It is a question of pinning down the truth as well as we can.

The point where civil rights become involved is when the public seeks to set aside the State Constitution in order to express a bias against a minority. Your moral indignation, or nausea, or your sweeping generalizations about the decline of society, have no bearing on the issue. Let me point out that there were just as many homosexuals per capita during the more-conservative Fifties--but they were suppressed into hiding in fear. You think that would be an improvement, I suppose?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Nick
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:38 PM

>>Don, As I posted in an earlier post, political pressure was applied to get the medical community, and its training, in the professions, to change homosexuality from a dysfunction, as all living things on this planet primary attribute is to survive and reproduce, to merely an 'orientation' or 'preference'<<

What a wonderful post.

A lot of zoologists would agree with you that the urge to survive and reproduce is pretty fundamental. At the same time they marvel at the choice that living things have to choose not only their orientation but also their sex and reproductive choices - eg sex choices

I presume that means one of a few things

* they are wrong
* they are misguided
* the clownfish and wrasse have political friends in very high places
* to generalise ("all living things on this planet...") is to invite others to test your hypothesis/ theory / blanket statement and test it with obvious things first and more detailed criticisms after
* the zoologists have been nobbled
* the theorists evolved to confuse things

Or that you didn't mean what you said.

My name is Nick by the way and I at least have the wherewithal to not hide behind the sadness of a guest. If you believe in something at least have the bollocks to stand up for it.

As an aside from somewhere in this thread - "most Mudcatters are liberals". That came as a shock to me. Is that an American liberal or a proper British one?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:43 PM

Ake, Jeez, I thought I was the last person on the planet still using that expression..'Flying fuck'!!
In addition to your post, history shows us, and shows us clearly, for those scholars of world history, as you have alluded to. that homosexuality, and the open acceptance of it, has ALWAYS proceeded the fall, of world powers, and powerful nations. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, do your homework, (as Amos so wisely did) and argue with history...not me.....(I've gone through enough of this shit to bring to you the truth)

Oh, by the way, TIA, I just drove my SUV to the Pacific Ocean, about 1500 miles west, off the coast of South America, where the ocean floor has been heating up, so I could re-fuel up, to bring that 'warmth' back to the continent, and deliver a fresh batch of 'global warming'...but that's a different subject for another thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM

I have written the truth as I see it Amos, and if homosexuality is in part psychological and in part learned behaviour,do you really think that there were as many homosexuals around in the forties and fifties?....Just look at the high profile homosexuals in the entertainment media, and the effect they have on confused youngsters.
I have no nausea or indignation personally towards homosexuals and the decline of society is surely accepted by everyone....would you like a few examples?
I have said on many occasions that the criminalisation of homosexuals was wrong....so try to confine yourself to the truth...evenwhen your argument hits the rocks.

And your opinion of Pope Bednedict is???.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Nick...to answer your question, it is not a liberal of any known species, but more akin to a genetically modified vegetable!

Guest.....I dont just say it!!:0)

Sorry but the link you left didn't work, perhaps you could re-post....thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

My opinion on Pope Benedict is that he is an old man in a funny hat, and if you think the people in Gay Pride parades dress strangely, I think the high jinks of the Council of Bishops and Cardinals doing their ritual obeisance to His Holiness is easily on a par.

Let me point out that bemoaning the decline of society has been a favorite pastime since the days of Socrates.

As for the illogical assertion that tolerance toward homosexuals has preceded the fall of every historical civilization, I would argue that this is an absurd statement. The Incans did not condone their homosexuals, although I am sure they had them. The Greeks did. In both cases, through political miscalculations, they lost their lands to invaders.

Obviously homosexuality is not the common denominator here.

But let me make myself perfectly clear: I do not give flying fuck if you welcome or shun homosexuals in your personal lives.

I DO care that you choose to deny them a civil status which you are happy to grant to the most perverted heterosexual pairings.

A

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

A google search on Richard A. Cohen shows that this "gay-conversion therapist" was expelled in 2002 from the American Counseling Association for six violations of its ethics code, which bars members from actions which "seek to meet their personal needs at the expense of clients, those that exploit the trust and dependency of clients, and for soliciting testimonials or promoting products in a deceptive manner."

Of course, he claims that he was expelled from the American Counseling Association because of its—as Cohen maintains—adherence to the "gay agenda."

Quelle surprise!

Cohen claims that he was gay until twenty years ago, but now he is now straight.

One phase of Cohen's treatment is to "cuddle" his male clients.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM

Adams, Henry E. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105(3), pp. 440-445.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:05 PM

GUEST,Guest from Sanity ...perhaps you are a slow learner.

You persist on spending your Mudcat time tilting at windbags.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jan 09 - 10:35 PM

Clever wordplay, pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:39 AM

pdq, thanks for your observations.....now for something you may never see from those 'windbags'>>>>>>>> 'Perhaps you're right!'
Ake, Really????????....give me a call!!!!! come fly with me..(as the song says)..or,....Fly the friendly skies of United.........
Don, (and I wasn't going to reply to your nonsense anymore, after your ridiculous statements before) bot, I'm sure he was censured, it wouldn't surprise me. Do you actually think the medical organizations are free from bias, from those whose message runs contrary to their policies, and corruption????? Whoops! there goes another pig flying overhead....and it has 'restless leg syndrome'!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:28 AM

I have observed male nautiloids inserting their spermatophores into other males. Clearly the nautiloid lobby has joined the conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Nick
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:01 PM

>>In addition to your post, history shows us, and shows us clearly, for those scholars of world history, as you have alluded to. that homosexuality, and the open acceptance of it, has ALWAYS proceeded the fall, of world powers, and powerful nations. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, do your homework, (as Amos so wisely did) and argue with history...not me.....(I've gone through enough of this shit to bring to you the truth)

The fall of nations has always been preceded (I presume you meant something that comes before not something that "moves on in an orderly fashion". Proceed is going forward. Precede is something that happens before. It makes a nonsense of your comment) by an increase in the price of fruit as well. You are confusing coincidence with causality. Alternatively you are trying to link unconnected things to try and prove your argument. It doesn't work.

If you are going to dispense or present 'truth' you need to firstly hone up your logical skills, secondly try to use the correct words, and thirdly try to come to terms with the use of the humble comma; especially the difference to sense that a malformed sentence makes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:24 PM

By the way, GfS, it is most disingenuous of you to pose as one who rings the bell of freedom and the hammer of justice in order to squash a group of people of whom you have a derogatory opinion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM

Just thought I would poke me head in the door and see if youse all are still having a pissing contest.

Ahyupah. Nearly got wet!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 03:06 PM

Nah, I yam done here, Gnuzer.


These folks don't speak Civil Rights.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 04:27 PM

Amos.....You are neither "civil" nor "right".....:0)

How's that for a double homo....graph missus!!!

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

Guest from WHERE!??

See ya, folks. I'm outta here.

(You know, when I suggested that some folks look in a mirror and ask themselves "Why do I care?" I guess I really hit a raw nerve.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM

You flatter yourself Don, you couldn't hit a "coo on the erse wi' a stick.....if ye were haudin' it by the tail"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 07:51 PM

I guess the lads are like me. Can't be arsed any more.

Pun definitely intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 07:54 PM

But it seems that I did get up somebody's nose. Hence the quite savage responses. Such as yours and Guest from Paranoia's.

But—

Some astronomers are carefully following the orbits of several ECA's (Earth Crossing Asteroids), of which there are many. The earth has been struck before with cataclysmic results, and Near-Earth Asteroid (99942) Apophis [2004 MN4] is considered very dangerous, dangerous enough to cause a number of astronomers to urge preparing for an asteroid rendezvous mission in order to alter its orbit enough so that it will miss the earth when it approaches in 2029.

Wolf-Rayet-104 is a gamma ray burster. It's highly unstable, ready to explode-implode into a supernova at any time, and when it does, it will emit an intense burst of gamma rays jetting out from its poles. This could extinguish life on any planet in line with either pole. And the earth is in line with its axis of rotation. We are staring down the barrel of the gun that could kill us all. At any moment.

But forget all that! There are more imminent, more catastrophic dangers!!!

There are gays among us who want their civil rights recognized!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM

My opinion of Pope Benedict is that is is indeed an old man in a funny hat - but he is generally a very wise and rational old man who speaks in well-reasoned paragraphs that frequently get condensed and sensationalized by reporters into irrational sound bytes. Reuters really got this one wrong, I think. Ake paraphrased it, "that the practice of homosexuality is as much a danger to humanity as the destruction of the rain forests." That's not exactly what Reuters said, but it's close. Here's the exact quote:

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.(click for entire article)

Google says this horrendous misquote appears in 750 places on the Internet, and it most probably appears in countless newspapers. I found the cited speech at the Vatican Website, www.vatican.va. I also found This San Francisco Examiner article, which provides a view of the speech that is quite different from the Reuters perspective. See also this Irish Times article. No, it's not a speech in favor of homosexuality, but neither is it the silly statement that Reuters attributes to him.

My summary of what the Pope said is that we have to practice an ecology of humankind as much as we practice ecology of nature - that we must treat both humanity and nature as sacred. That includes our attitudes about many aspects of human life, including marriage. The message does make it clear that the Pope believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it certainly is not the strong statement against homosexuality that Reuters portrays.

Ake, I'm sorry, but I don't think that the Pope would agree with your extreme position. He wouldn't agree with the extreme on the other side, either.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 12:45 PM

Thanks for that Joe, I did wonder what your take on Pope Benedict's comments would be......Pretty measured, as I would have expected from a man with his feet in both camps.
I of course disagree with some of what you have said,the speech is unequivocally against the practice of homosexuality...any speech which condemns homosexuality in today's social/political climate, is a strong statement.
I agree with your other comments on the "ecology" of humanity, as i grow older, I find myself becoming disgusted by the way in which "life" is viewed by most people, from disgarded foetuses to disgarded octogenarians.

I am disappointed that you find my position on this issue "extreme" I did not intend it to be so.
It is certainly less extreme than the position held by Pope Benedict
Perhaps my views seem extreme because they are opposed by so many here who on this issue are motivated more by political expediancy than common sense....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM

Ake:

You've added a lot of weight of your own to what the Pope said.

"Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public.

In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.

It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not outdated metaphysics when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.

This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man's self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God's work itself.

That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term 'gender' effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.

The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its condition.

The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.

Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God.

One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation.

Note the complete absence of the words "transsexual" and "homosexual" or anything about "saving the world from gays."

Maybe Reuters balked at having to report the stuff denouncing "manipulation.""

(SF Examiner)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:57 PM

Amos....I believe you are an atheist like myself, so you should know that these guys speak in code, the code in this address is pretty easy to decipher.................."One must reread the encyclical Humanae vitae with this perspective: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against consumer sex, the future against the exclusive claim of the moment, and human nature against manipulation."

Well done Amos, you homed in on the biggie, "Manipulation" is the word which cuts through all the bullshit like a hot knife through butter...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM

I find myself smiling tolerantly at the mental image of a committed atheist, adducing support for his views from the supreme representative of an entity in which he does not believe.

The blind leading the blind is a phrase that springs instantly to mind.


""Perhaps my views seem extreme because they are opposed by so many here who on this issue are motivated more by political expediancy than common sense....Ake""

Not political expediency, Ake, more a respect for the LAW in this country, and the Constitution in the US, both of which forbid the discrimination you espouse.

Until either or both are repealed, you do not have an argument. End Of Story.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:18 PM

It would seem to me that it is more "politically expedient" to come down on the side of supporting Prop 8. Especially for politicians who want to get re-elected.

But there is the matter of the Constitution. That is the check on the abuses of the majority, and Prop 8, since it discriminates against a minority, is clearly unconstitutional.

And supporting and preserving the Constitution is just common sense.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:49 PM

I have to say that during one of the presidential debates, I was surprised to learn that both Barack Obama and John McCain opposed gay marriage. I can't say I really believe in gay marriage or that I like the idea of it, but I don't think it is something that should be prohibited by government. If gay people want to get married and aren't hurting anybody by getting married, then I don't think the rest of society has a right to stop them - even if a majority votes against gay marriage. I think of both McCain and Obama as moderates, and I thought they would agree with me.
I guess they're more closely aligned with the Pope than I am.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM

I was of course referring to the expediency of "pro-homosexual marriage" posters to this forum, who,due to the way this issue has become politicised, feel the issue is an excellent chance to throw shit at "conservatives"

Unfortunately the penny has not yet dropped with these people, that they themselves are the "reactionaries" on this issue....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:08 AM

Don...I am indeed an atheist, and I don't need your arrogant sort of tolerance.
The fact that Benedict Ratzinger has been made leader of the Catholic Faith does not mean that he is incapable of addressing social issues with commonsense and reason.
I will listen and learn from anyone that I think is talking sense, be he a Pope or a tramp.
Pope Benedict has gone further than I would in his perception of the destructive nature of homosexuality, but his fears about humanity's view of the life force and for our place in the future of the planet stand up to scrutiny...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:32 AM

Ake, I am puzzled at the vehemence of your "non bigotted" opposition to something which has absolutely NO impact on YOUR life, health, well being, nor in fact your financial condition.

In general, I am uninterested in how others conduct their lives unless affected in one of those areas by their actions. I don't understand why the decisions made about THIS ONE SUBJECT should elicit the fiercely emotional response we see from you and GfS.

What, I wonder would be your response to that kind of interference, were you on the receiving end?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 12:02 PM

As I have striven to make clear over and over here, Ake, I support equality under the law, and the granting of equal civil rights.

You interpret this as being "pro" homosexual marriages, but you are mistaken. I am "pro" marriage, in general, but I do not care, and I do not think anyone should care, what the plumbiong of the participants looks like. I think there is a lot of rather perverse obsession with the subject and in some ways it reminds me of the equally obsessive interest and equally perverse in racial eugenics which once informed so much dialogue in this country, before it was exported to Germany in the first decades of the 20th century.

The compulsion to categorize other human beings into "bad" pigeonholes is a deep human neurosis, out of which we all must somehow grow; even you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

Why are you all arguing with a troll whose fake identity is a bigoted Christian, homophobe? Nothing else to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 02:28 PM

If you are referring to Akenaton, Harpgirl, he is a long standing and respected member of the Mudcat, and while I very often disagree with his point of view, he is most emphatically NOT a troll.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM

Harpgirl.....Ma dear ah didnae ken it wis you....Is yer erse still hingin' thegither??

Amos....Godwins law already!....and it's only Thursday...I take it
your last message was typed with "hands held high" :0)

Don....Thanks mate,you are a Conservative and a gentleman...a rare breed!
In answer to you query, I often get "het up" about things which don't affect me personally, I think it's something to do with my political up-bringing, a hangover from the days when I thought socialism and I could change humanity. However I promise to try to kick the habit, I don't suppose you've ever been troubled by this sort of thing so no point in asking advice??

For the umpteenth time.....no one can be "against" homosexuality it is a fact of life!
I am against the agenda of "normalisation" "manipulation" and "subversion" by a small but very powerful minority and the "useful idiots" who support that minority...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

I think you're picking on the wrong group, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM

Trouble is Rig, we keep thinkin' in groups,
I don't "believe", but I like the way some of the "believers" are thinkin'
We've got to start learning how life actually feels again, we have lost contact with reality.
We have two extremes which in real terms are actually quite close together and in the middle a great heap of shit.
Political speak, psycho-babble, outright lies, misinformation etc and in this shitheap live the "liberals" burrowing and digesting deaf and sightless, but ready to devour any "extremists" who recognise shit by the smell.

They fuck us up!....our "Liberals"!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:35 PM

Question: Since you, ake, are Scots, in what way are you using the term 'liberal'? I suspect that your nuts and bolts are metric.

Also, to all: I don't think Akenaton cares a whit about the American Constitution. Why would he?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM

AYe, Ebbie, he's not using it in the American tradition. Canny wee bugger, he.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:04 PM

Ake - I agree. Tribalism is at the root of a number of problems. Root out tribalism, and the world will be a better place.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg or haggard or whatever!
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM

I'm talking about GFS not aken.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:37 AM

"Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially influenced by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay. He also relied heavily on the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, especially David Hume, whose influence is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic." (Excerpted from Wikipedia)

The present issue is a classic instance of factionalism as a danger to individual rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:28 PM

Hg, and you are disguised as....ummm, what?

Haven't been on much the last few days, but after going over the posts, a lot of you have seemed to drifted from the topic, into thinking that those who oppose homosexuals 'marrying' is a direct affront, of your political views, as a whole. This is a singular issue. No where, on here, do I see any compassion for the individuals, who are confronting the inside ins and outs, of the turmoil that lives within them. Nor do I see ANY of the ideologues, caring about anything, but how THEY are perceived, by 'like minded', cold, and uncaring debaters. You care about your opinions(maybe), but not one ounce about the fellow human beings that you pretend to be arguing about. To me, if that is an indication of a particular 'party', that you subscribe to, and that 'party', reflects you, then a re-examination of your motives, and your 'party's' motives, is certainly in order! Amos, is the only one, who, in his opposing arguments even alluded to, homosexuals having 'God given' feelings, or anything of the sort...yet, if there is a separation between church and state, or 'God given', and humans, then I have to ask, just who makes up this 'party', and the' party line'...a bunch of inanimate objects???? Because that is the way a lot of you act!! Akenaton, on the other hand, a self described 'atheist', has quoted another point of view,(the Pope's), demonstrating an openness, that you 'self thought of' liberals, should be applauding. However you have become more closed off, and more closed off than the, furthest conservative, right wing nuts. Look at what you've become!!! Though Amos and I have had our disagreements, and probably still will, I sense that he, at least, does 'some' research, in regards to his viewpoints....which, may indeed, allow him to change his position, IF, he finds supporting data, to another point of view. This other personalized nonsense, of attacking each other, by some on here, armed with nothing but an uneducated opinion, with no research to back up anything you spout off, is indicative of the 'mob rule', that was brought up, earlier. Unless many of you, just don't stop...take a breath...and think that considering any other data, would enlighten you, into caring more for your fellow humans, then you've become hard, brittle, and certainly not 'liberal'..but rather more like fascistic,..more than you'd ever admit! Your opinions, then become, just mental chewing gum, rather than, anything resembling care!!!
Also, Amos, in light of this post..compare that to your post,.."By the way, GfS, it is most disingenuous of you to pose as one who rings the bell of freedom and the hammer of justice in order to squash a group of people of whom you have a derogatory opinion."...Not only are you arguing my point.....I am the one who favors freedom and justice..but basing on truth...not a mob, of uninformed, uneducated, heartless clones.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:56 PM

"However, he (Madison) thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

                But the Neo-Cons beat the system by convincing large numbers of poor people that if the pray hard enough, they too will have large holdings of property. So they support the property holders in spite of the fact that they are beggers themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM

From GFS:

"To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest'   In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you.

...and a bigoted musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, soundtrack author, and marriage and family counselor at that....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:25 PM

Is that as 'intelligent' as you get????...You must not have read earlier, where name calling is used to avoid an intelligent reply. Then again, you haven't posted one, anyway....I've already got your act.
Some people never get a clue. Say something, on topic, that relates an idea for further discussion, rather than childish name calling. You are embarrassing both yourself, and your "tragically 'liberal'(?)" political bent.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:51 PM

The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters are simply not capable of thinking for themselves. Whoever raises the most money wins. This is a much greater problem than the proposition itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:58 PM

The topic is Proposition 8. It was passed because voters....knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass, and now the losing side is whining!
Rather arrogant, don't you think that you think ALL the voters in California don't know what they are doing?????? ...I know, "It's not me, it's the rest of the world is crazy," right?

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

RIght, GfS. Exactly right. In this case. Go back and check that Federalist 10 discussion up thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:14 PM

"...knew they understood it, and wanted it to pass,..."

               They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:24 PM

" They knew what they were sold. The advertising budget was huge! "

I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:13 AM

Ye gods. There is more scraping and scratching and digging going on - "...since it appears that didn't work, let me try this..." S/He/It has gone the gamut from disgust and fear and exhortation to patronizing pleas.

Heckfahr, as an elderly friend of mine used to say. For your edification, Gohsofarfromsanity, I don't feel sorry for my gay friends. good lord. They happen to be happy, productive, talented people. Among them is a singer/guitarist who also is a boat pilot who holds the rank of Captain and in her spare time makes furniture; another is her singer/guitarist/mandolinist partner who teches nature sketching in the field and composes fiddle tunes in her spare time; another is a manager of an upscale hotel who is an excellent boss with great people skills.

There are others. Why should I feel sorry for any of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM

Ebbie, I think I said pretty much the same thing, in an earlier post, when I said, " Yes, I know some homosexuals, who are very gifted and creative people, who in my opinion, border on genius, some who have taught, and worked with me, in both music, sound, and laser engineering, but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up."
Now, for all of those who mistakenly call me a 'bigot, or homophobic' try reading that with some comprehension, instead of, rose colored preconception. IF, in the course, of discussions, with a homosexual, which I've had quite of few, they honestly admit that the reason they felt more compelled to be attracted to the same sex, was because of certain events, and feelings that they have experienced, in their youth, coupled with alienation, towards a parent(or lack of one), and because of that attraction to the same sex, they become homosexual, and now feel they are compelled to remain that way, even if it means that their sadness, includes, the fact, that they may never be able to have their own biological children, and they are offered a way out, they tend to paint a complete different picture of being homosexual, than most of you even begin to understand.....and it's not a happy, political one!!! Nor, does it champion, a 'civil right' issue...which 'calling' it marriage, satisfy the deeper inner needs, that most of you are not even addressing!...nor care about, as fellow human beings! To you, you just exploit them to bolster a political stance, which you assume incorporates this issue...when in reality, never even approaches it!!! Now before you get ultra trigger happy, with your name calling, and pigeon holing, consider, if you are able, that position. Consider another person's emptiness, in certain areas. It might be a life changing experience, for you!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 09:54 AM

"I guess you and Amos 'could be right'......I suppose the same could be said about Obama, right?"


                      Yes! Absolutely!

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

EXPLOIT? Of all the consarned bass-ackwards inverted head-in-lower digestive tract propositions I have heard, that about takes the cake. It is simultaneously profoundly stupid AND insulting, a neat trick.

The fact that you have some emotional insight into some gay's inner sadness is a nice testament to genuine communication, GFS, but it has no fuindamental bearing on the issue as a legal, consitutional, civil rights question--which it is. Nor does it provide any universal insight into homosexuality, because it is an uncontrolled observation on a very small population. Surely you can see that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:03 PM

but in this one area, AS SOME WHO HONESTLY ADMIT, there is a deep sadness, that they carry, inside...and it is in honest moments, when talking to someone who is honestly compassionate, and not judgmental, can they open up."


Two thoughts:

1) Feeling deep sadness - in anyone's life - is nothing unusual. You can probably scratch the skin of anyone = even you - and find that there are elements of frustration and a sense of "Is this all there is?" and "Why haven't I accomplished more?"

2) Is it surprising that living a life that so many others - even you - denigrate and don't accept should create sadness?

Incidentally, I don't think it is necessary to cite 'genius' in some gay people; simple acceptance will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM

Well said GfS!


I think you've pretty well nailed it with that post. I've worked for a few homosexual couples who have moved into our area and they all seem to suffer from a neurosis of some sort. I feel very sorry for them, no matter how our "liberal" friends here try to spin my thoughts.

I don't think the "liberal" agenda of "normalisation" of Homosexuality, is actually in the interests of homosexuals if their happiness and well being is what we are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM

I'm speechless - almost. Ake, you mean to tell me that you are not neurotic?? I would never have guessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

believe it or not Ebbie, you couldn't meet a less neurotic guy than me in real life....I walk around spreading sunshine and happiness wherever I go..:0) I try to go out of my way to spend time and have a crack with everybody, especially the old folks! I love hearing their stories, and a smile or a joke makes all the difference to them.
My job as a builder takes me into their homes and some of them haven't seen a friendly face for weeks at a time.

I feel a happy person and a contented one, in that I think I understand what life is about. I know the world is imperfect but the secret of personal happiness is to understand what the imperfections really are.

On Mudcat, I just like to debate....to show all the different ways of looking at things...opening minds....bet you think that's a laugh! but most minds are fitted with ten lever locks!! and they only allow to enter whatever fits their political views.

Go on Ebbie crack a smile...you know it's the best medecine...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM

Not so fast, Ebbie,....if you perceive Ake is neurotic,...and you have a running dialogue, such that you have, and the nature that it is...perhaps the need for a neurosis feeding need in you, may be your clue, that you in fact have the symptoms, projected......in 'everyone else'......consider another's feelings, and their reality, before you accuse them of your motives!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:20 PM

sheesh I wouldn't give a dime for somebody with no neuroses that they have recognized.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:23 PM

How's your finances?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM

Pretty good, because I've never met anyone without neuroses. Thanks for asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:42 PM

Well, I'm quite sure you haven't...........(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 05:44 PM

Another sheesh. For a certified (?) counselor, GtS, you seem pretty dense and uninformed. Check out the prevalence of neuroses and health.

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

I could send you a photo Ebbie?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:02 PM

Your neurosis is visible, Ake? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM

I'm certainly not neurotic about THAT Ebbie :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 06:43 PM

Okay, Ake and GfS, here's a different take on this:   Since you seem to be maintaining that homosexuality is a form of physical or psychological disability, do you favor withholding civil rights from people who are, say, victims of post-polio syndrome, or cerebral palsy, or have Asperger's syndrome, or are manic-depressive, or who are subject to anxiety attacks?

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), someone with a disability (including psychological problems) has the same civil rights as any other citizen.

In certain ways, we're a lot more civilized than we used to be. But we have a way to go yet.

Don Firth

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

All depend what "rights" your talkin about Don.
I certainly wouldn,t be in favour of allowing two herion addicts or people with serious mental health problems to foster young children.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:14 PM

Fair point. But that still leaves the matter of whether homosexuality is either a physical disability or a mental condition, OR part of inherent brain structure which may have a genetic factor.

I know an extended family in which one of several brothers was gay. He never married. But one of his cousins and two of his nephews (not siblings) were also gay. And, no, they didn't really have that much contact with each other. The nephews grew up in a different part of the country from their uncle. That's a statistical anomaly, which tends to indicate a genetic factor within that family.

As to the adoption of children, I know one gay couple (two men), who, incidentally were married in a nearby mainstream church, which, of course, recognizes their marriage whether the state does or not, who have adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Got them as infants. As they grow up, they get plenty of feminine attention from the sister of one of the men, plus a number of women friends. So growing up with females around is no problem.

And no, the two guys are not molesting the kids! [Knee-jerk response of most homophobes] They (the two men) are fully aware that brain scientists maintain that sexual orientation is inborn and that the boys will be what they will be. They're still pretty young yet, but the oldest one is showing signs of being "all boy," and he's quite interested in girls.

The lads are also fully aware that their family situation is regarded by some as "unusual," but they take it in stride. These two are normal, healthy kids, and believe me, they are certainly better off here, with two fathers (one they call "daddy" and the other "papa") than they would be if left in a Chinese orphanage.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM

By the way, these two fellows are both attorneys, and they're loaded. The boys are going to highly rated private schools (in the UK, I believe that would be "public schools"). So, as I said, their futures are much brighter than if they had been left in China.

Incidentally, one of the boys is now an acolyte in the church in which his adoptive parents were married. Lutheran church, woman pastor.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:41 PM

Don, your premise is not accurate as to my position, nor am I suggesting that homosexuals do not deserve the same 'rights' as heteros. On the contrary, they already have the rights that all have, but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions), and re-naming that arrangement, is not 'marriage'. Suppose two room mates, of the same sex, or not, find it 'financially advantageous' to claim marriage, and therefore want equal rights..wouldn't that be defrauding the company that the one who works for them, their rights of protection, from paying out benefits?? The room for abuse, by others, looking for a free hand out, would drive up medical premiums, to those honestly receiving it, even more astronomical than they already are.,,and so far, that argument was the best presented on here so far. To avoid that dilemma, all insurance companies would have to do, is to place prerequisites, and physicals on those couples,..and even provide funded counseling, to get them off their pay out lists!...or cancel them outright. Another plan should be offered, as to include 'households'....but that to would be a tangled up mess too. No, stick to the traditional marriage and family units, and perhaps a different accommodation for other situations.
Still, the motivational force difference, between hetero family units, and homosexual couples are different, in priorities, purpose and function. They really are not the same thing, at all.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 08:46 PM

"...but calling 'live in lovers', of either sex, marriage, is not marriage,(except in certain religions),..."

                   If you leave religion completely out of it, is it still marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 08:28 PM

So, GfS, explain to me if you please, what's the difference? Both same sex and mixed sex couples could "defraud" the system. Why would sleeping in the same bed or in different beds make any difference?

How can you tell if it's a true marriage (having sex) or a marriage in name only (no sex), and what difference would the gender of the people involved in this "fraud" make?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: fumblefingers
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 10:10 PM

I agree with what Amos said about a possible genetic factor along with other factors being the cause. It's also been my experience that almost always, it is the youngest child that becomes or is a homosexual. Not always, but in most of the homosexuals I have known.

I disagree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. They have the same right to marry as everyone else. They are demanding a change in the rules. But unless it is scientifically possible that the union can produce an offspring, then it cannot be marriage. I'm not going to split hairs and talk about geriatric marriages and other such factors that preclude making babies. The sexes must be opposite or it cannot be marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM

I don't think that's written in stone anywhere.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 02:10 AM

Dear Don and Fumbles, The difference is, that families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce. Families, communities, towns, cities, states, and nations were built up by, and primarily for them. It would suffice to say, that those who would oppose that basic structure, would, could, and most likely should be seen as a threat to the very society, whose 'prosperity' has made allowances and room, for those whose self indulgences now wish to dictate to them, what, how to change those rules. Now, being as the family structure, is in the majority, not just here, but globally, so much, that 'unions' that wish to re-invent those mores, are frowned upon, or seen as 'freaks' and 'queers'. (Now, for all the fast draw, trigger happy, I am not using those terms, in a personal derogatory way, just describing how they are seen.) You may wish to notice, that during these economic harder times, the national divorce rate has gone down as well. Why is this?? ..Because people, when they know the chips are down, and things get more serious, that the 'lesser things', that one or the other, tend to bitch about, begin to not be so 'all important', next to surviving. In other words, its time to buckle down! In recent years, in this country, we have seen frontal attacks on the family, and the family unit..not to mention the ridiculous 'war of rights' waged between men and women, and now even their children. When a state or even a church, starts dictating to the parents, what they can and can't do, in raising their families, when corporations, for their own greed, begin changing the roles of men and women, even to the point of both parents working their asses off just to provide a roof, clothes and food, for their families...but end up ceasing to be a family, just to do it, then it becomes just a matter of time before their will be a backlash, that even threatens that society. You will see, as time goes on, that the harder things get, the LESS tolerance their will be for a lot of things, that are seen as threats to the basic structure, that people gave their lives to have. It almost is a matter of 'cause and effect'. When things that work pragmatically for generations become accepted, as opposed to what doesn't work, and they become the rule, as time goes on they are seen as 'morals'... When people of the majority, see what they deem, as a 'breakdown of the morality', which is the framework of 'safety' to raise their families, well, you are going to get resistance...and stiff resistance at that! Now, for the nuclear families, that are still out there, functioning as one dad, one mom, with their own original family, see where the country is at now, and where it is going, well, they will attribute that to the moral breakdown of the family structure. I hope that answers your question, as to the sociological, profile of what is going on..and why. Much the same, can you imagine, parents, as per aforementioned, raising their children to adopt a homosexual lifestyle??..I d-o-o-on't think so..do you??........and why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 11:53 AM

GfS - you don't have any background in biology or in anthropology, do you? Because " families, traditional families, made up of father, mother and children, have been and are the basic cohesive fabric of any and all growing, thriving, and productive societies. Again, like any and ALL living organisms on the planet, they have the greatest will to survive and reproduce" is not a correct statment according to either the anthro or biology courses I've taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:12 PM

Sometimes,you don't get basic common sense from a university course!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 01:52 PM

GfS and Ake, what you folks don't seem to get is that same-sex marriage is NOT an "attack on the family."

Among other things, the relatively small percentage of same-sex marriages would have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. The only people it would affect are those who are outraged by the idea of homosexuality per se. And that's their hang-up.

The marriages of Steve and David, Paul and Philip, Herb and Michael, Nancy and Virginia, Susan and Gwen, and Luanne and Tamara have do not affect in any way the marriages of Bob and Judy, Martin and Shannon, Melissa and James—or Barbara and me.

In fact, the marriage of these same-sex couples means that they are in a much more stable relationship than they would be otherwise. They have a stated commitment, which is recognized by their friends, and in a couple of cases, their church. Two of the couples I mention (they are real people) have bought houses, are involved in community activities, and one of them was recently elected to the state legislature. They sound like solid citizens to me.

The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage. And since that is the case, why do you care?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 06:23 PM

"The objections to same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with concern for the institution of marriage"

Don...Making statements like that, as if they were absolute and incontravertible truth, does nothing for your credibility on this issue!

Who hasn't been reading the posts then? Tut...Tut!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM

Credibility with whom, Ake? I have been reading the posts, and I understand the issue thoroughly, much better that most people posting here, because I am acquainted with some of the people involved in the issue, both pro and con.

And the vociferous responses of those who object to my asking "Why do you care?" merely proves that I've hit the real source of the more strident objections.

I've been around a bit, Ake, seen a lot, and I know people pretty well. It's just sound psychology.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:30 PM

Ake:

Are you, yourself, married? Or have you been in the past?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM

Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month"

It really would do you some good to re-read and try to understand the words of Benedict Ratzinger.

"we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation"

Especially "the future against the exclusive claims of the present"

Get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM

Amos...What the fuck's wrong with you? I've freely given personal information on other threads when it came up in discussion,but I don't like the tone of your request.

I dont ask personal questions of you, or make assumptions like Don.
If you volunteer personal information fine, but I will never request you to make your status public.

If I misunderstand your motives, I apologise, but reserve the right to give personal information when "I" wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM

Motives? It's a perfectly ordinary question. I am happily married, thirty years next April.

I was just curious.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:40 PM

I understand a helluva lot more than you seem to think I do, Ake.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:43 PM

Sorry Amos,,,I think I was a bit annoyed after reading Dons Post full of idiotic assumptions.....Peace!

Congratulations BTW....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM

And as far as "minority of the month" is concerned, I can guarantee you that this isn't going to go away, Pope Benedict notwithstanding, so you'd better get used to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 05:09 PM

What minority would it be this month, white males in America?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 07:05 PM

It seems to me that "believing in rights for all" is a bit contradictory when you support a system wherein same-sex couples cannot have the same civil status as opposite sex couples under the law. That strikes me as very hypocritical.

But you knew that.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:08 AM

Yes I know Amos...but we're not really talking to each other any more...just posturing.
Thanks for the discussion as ever....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 02:23 AM

A change of pace!

http://www.flixxy.com/validation-short-film.htm?a=0

---

I deleted your previous message. You failed to set off quotations from the rest of your post so it was clear what the quotation was; and your reference to someone's "semi-literate diatribe" was an unnecessary insult. Address issues, not individuals, or I will increase deletions. If there is even a hint of animosity or insult in any or your posts, the post will be deleted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:13 AM

Wow!..You pulled, what I thought was a most, powerful post to bring a resolve to the whole debate, and bring people together.....that's really interesting.

---

Then I think you have something to learn about the rules of civil discussion. If you insult or attack people, you get deleted. I suggest you "depersonalize" your posts and address issues instead of people. Further violations will be deleted without explanation.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:21 AM

With all due respect, 'semi-literate diatribe' was not entirely meant as an insult, just that if you looked up the actual definition,(posted),
it was the most accurate, descriptive word to describe what I was talking about.

Semi-literate, ...half learned, or half read

Diatribe
Di"a*tribe\ (?; 277), n. [L. diatriba a learned discussion, Gr. ?, prop., a wearing away of time, fr. ? to rub away, spend time; dia` through + ? to rub: cf. L. terere, F. trite: cf. F. diatribe.] A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic.

Perhaps, you misread my tone, as I was not in the last heated exchange that was going on....nor have I been 'sarcastic' on this issue....(well, not as sarcastic as I've been on occasions)
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM

Here's a marriage of true minds -- who would to it admit impediment?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:34 AM

""Why do I care Don?.....because I believe in rights for all, not just "minority of the month""


Not quite all, it would seem, and that reference to the minority of the month is very telling, if only because it exposes in you a propensity to deny the rights of ANY minority which is rocking YOUR boat by claiming, and campaigning for, equality.

Not, in fact, the Akenaton that you would have us believe we are debating with.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:09 AM

Here's the kind of love story that should be suppressed, according to the keepers of the Prop 8 mindset.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:43 AM

Thanks for the story, Amos. It kept striking me how very typical a love story it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM

I don't see any reason to suppress the story, but I'll have to tell you, it seemed really, really weird to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM

Rig, think of it as a love story. That is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:57 AM

For fuck's sake Amos, are you reduced to citing individual cases(with pictures) now?    It'll be pink lace and fluffy rabbits next!

If you cant post decent debate, just hoist the white flag.
And I agree with Rig BTW.....weird is the word, and if 99% of the men on this forum were being honest, they would agree also.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 10:40 AM

Nothing like an honest example to make the case. I was particularly impressed by the trans-species affair, weren't you?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM

Trans species???? So are you saying, from that model, that homosexuals are another species???...and if so, is it still a 'so called' 'civil rights' issue??? Your nonsensical arguments and 'examples' are running out of steam....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM

Mules should have all the rights and opportunities that horses and jack asses have.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

Ah, Rig, they do. The fact that most mules cannot procreate doesn't affect their right to food, shelter, training and tlc.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

GfS:

Unfortunately, it is you, yourself, who are missing the scene in this thread. The first example I posted (17 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM ) concerned a deep and lasting friendship between a retired elephant and an injured dog.

Apologize at once. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM

Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM

Well Ebbie's response was very funny, but there is a serious side...please dont equate friendship or even love with a sexual relationship.
It is possible to have both but not obligatory

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM

There ya go, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:12 PM

Que?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:15 PM

It is not obligatory, and is not a prerequisite for civil marriage; we've done this loop before.

I think the elephant and the dog should be allowed by the state to marry, if they can sign for the license. It would be a shame to make them go all the way to Massachusetts.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM

I am acquainted with a couple—formerly a couple (relax, Ake, the couple consisted of one man and one woman), but no longer, since the man passed away recently. They had been good friends for years. Let's call them Penny and Steven. Penny was in her late sixties, Steven was well into his eighties.

He had some descendants who were of the "they'll be glad when their old pa dies" school. They had never got along, largely because the kids (all grown up and old enough to know better) were constantly getting into financial difficulty and relying on Steven to bail them out. They were waiting for the substantial wad in money and property they knew their "old pa" had and which they assumed they would receive in due time.

But he hadn't made out a will yet, because he didn't feel the kids either need it or deserved it. So—keeping in mind that Washington is a community property state (unless otherwise arranged, on the death of one spouse, the other spouse inherits automatically), he asked Penny to marry him and she accepted. The main reason, they mentioned quietly, was that they enjoyed each other's company, and that was that. True, but also, Steven wanted to leave his worldly goods to Penny.

Much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth among his descendants. But when Steven passed away recently, Penny was left, not rich, but well provided for for the rest of her life.

Did they have sex? I haven't a clue. Since she was well past menopause, there would certainly not have been offspring, nor did they want any. But that was completely incidental. They lived together for some years before he died, and assuming that they did have sex, there are those who would consider a woman in her seventies and a man approaching ninety having sex as "weird," if not downright disgusting.

I, personally, think it's kinda cute!

Now—under similar circumstances, why should couples Paul and Steven, or Penny and Stephanie, be denied the right to make similar arrangements?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

Kind of a bad deal for the kids, I'd say!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM

Not really. They all had good jobs, security and all that, so they didn't really need Steven's inheritance. Much of it consisted of Steven's writings and art works. He was an oceanographer, maritime historian, and artist. They would have just sold them for what they could get. Penny knew what they were worth in more than just money, and she had the knowledge and skill to make sure that Steven got proper credit for his rather monumental life's work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:14 AM

Well, first of all, the posts with the references to animals, getting along, with each other, is one of the most ridiculous arguments justifying why it's 'normal' to be homosexual, that has been used, and really quite a stretch! Perhaps, the folks at PETA, might be impressed.. or it 'suggests' why people, of different..ummm..'species' can get along, but it has little or nothing to do with the price of eggs.
As so far as the person, who being an oceanographer, artist, etc, etc.., again, you are showing us, or at least me, that once again, you completely fail to see, or comprehend, what it is that being homosexual is about. I think these illustrations are so far removed, from what it is, that they are used, by 'supporters' of the 'political' stance, because they lack the compassion and understanding to grasp the internal makings, of being a homosexual.
....and, as long as the subject has been broached,just for what its worth, our 'Celebrity d'jour, elect', also opposes same sex
'marriage'. It's a little surprising to me, that those who consider him 'God', would be arguing the opposite way, against him(?).
Turning this into a political issue, is nothing more than insurance lobbyists, pressuring the psychiatric, and 'medical' community, to come up with studies, and findings to avoid paying out for therapy, and or, just turning their backs, on an expensive correction,...to yet another backlash, that has gained political steam, from other politicized issues gone wrong! (I'd site which ones, but that would open up another can of worms, and being as the simple is so much of a 'controversial' subject on here), why start up on untangling another 'widely accepted misconception'?....especially, when the evidence of the truth, presented on here, overwhelmingly blows away, why the majority, who is opposed to same sex 'marriage', doesn't have the right to vote that way...or why the courts(ninth judicial) can legislate from the bench, against the majority....and base their findings on bogus 'research'! Like it or not, or which ever way it's spun, that's the way it is!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 05:28 AM

I thought the buggers had banned you Sanity!!
Good to see you back. Yes I have wondered about the double standards too......We are the scum of the earth and Mr Obama is a hero, yet we hold the same opinions on this issue.....or maybe it's just politics and Mr Obama doesn't really mean what he says?

If that is the case then all our "Liberal" tormentors are in for a nasty shock....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM

Jaysus, what a lot of armwaving.

First of all, no-one considers Obama "God:.

Second of all it is not precisely accurate that he "opposes" marriage rights for same-sex couples. He does not agree with it personally but he's a wise enough man to understand that rights have to be uniform.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM

But if I am a "bigot" and Sanity is a "bigot" why is Mr Obama not a "bigot"?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM

Jaysus! The sewage being spouted by a couple of people here is reaching the top of my hip-waders! I'm getting out of here!

Don't understand? I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is why do you guys CARE!??? What difference does it make to YOU???

You still haven't answered that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:21 PM

BEcause you are promoting your personal biases as grounds for public action, and asserting that discrimination should be institutionalized as policy. That is both of your fatal flaw. IOt is the earmark of the frozen heart and the walled in mind not to be able to understand the difference between private taste and the promulgation of tolerance and equality across the commons. That you do not understand this is why you are both cornered, jaded and spiteful on this issue, no matter what other virtues you claim.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 06:06 PM

Why does it matter so much to some?
Perhaps the answer is here:

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

I happen to be related to a fire-breathing anti-homo preacher, who was....you guessed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:10 PM

Obviously you haven't been reading the thread Tia, we've had that shit three or four times already!
Why don't you put your ideas to Mr Obama?

Don, you regularly leave the discussion, your trademark "I'm outa here", but you always sneak back like a whipped pup for another bite.

Right Amos, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr Obama is against the legalisation of homosexual marriage, now by your criteria that means that Mr Obama is in favour of depriving homosexuals of their "civil rights"......Just how does that differ from how you view the opinions of Sanity and myself?

I would suggest that it is yourself and Don (the last two standing) :0)....who are "cornered, jaded and spiteful".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM

Obviously, Ake, we have different impressions of Mister Obama's position.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:01 PM

Not the last two standing, Ake, just the last two who still have hopes of seeing you and GfS exhibit some modicum of human tolerance.

The rest of us have accepted that bigots can't be converted.

Bye bye
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:19 PM

I'm sorry Don T, but I said right up near the top that homosexuality is tolerated in this society, and as homosexuality is a fact of life in this society it is tolerated by me... and I am quite sure by GfS.

What I will not tolerate is homosexuality promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle, or the definition of marriage altered to accomadate homosexuality.
Mr Obama and I may not agree on foreign policy or economics, but I'm pleased to say we do agree on that....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

The policy statements from the new Whitehouse.Gov website on the subject are, inter alia:

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:

In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination

: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples

: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell

: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights

: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

---

This is as close as the LGBT community needs to get right now, and I would be happy to see these goals obtained. I am not going to quibble about the slightly neurotic "separate but equal" aspect that has been mad necessary by the religious right. There are much more important issues afoot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM

Well, I agree with most of it, Amos, but the concept of a "hate crime" never made any sense to me. If I murder Alice because I was robbing Herb and she happened to see my face, that's just fine and dandy for the "hate crime" people. But if I'm white and I murder Alice because she saw me robbing Herb, ane either Herb and/or Alice happen to be black, that makes it a "hate crime" and I have to do more time, or die.

             We need to get over this shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM

Ain't been whipped yet, Ake. It's just that sometimes I reach my level of disgust and I have to go breathe some clean air. But getting disgusted frequently is one of the hazards one encounters when one is concerned with matters of civil rights and one keeps encountering blatant bigotry.

I think you are quite probably going to have to learn to tolerate what you said you wouldn't tolerate in the fairly near future.

Some time back I knew people who said they would never tolerate having their kids go to school with blacks. Now look where they are!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 10:36 PM

WTF Ake?

"...homosexuality is tolerated by me... and I am quite sure by GfS. What I will not tolerate is homosexuality promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle..."

So you tolerate it and denigrate it in the same breath?

Talking out of both sides of your ass I'd day.

I've been reading plenty and keeping my mouth shut. Not any more bucko.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 07:16 PM

""What I will not tolerate is homosexuality promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle, or the definition of marriage altered to accomadate homosexuality.
Mr Obama and I may not agree on foreign policy or economics, but I'm pleased to say we do agree on that....Ake""

Judging by the following post, Ake, nobody thought to tell Barack Obama he agreed with you on this.

Tough innit?
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 10:13 PM

In a television interview some years ago with the late Quentin Crisp, England's most flamboyant gay, the interviewer mentioned the way Crisp was dressed—slacks suit, as I recall, open collar with a neck scarf, and his hair was quite long, carefully coiffed, and tinted a bit bluish—one would have to look twice to tell if he were a man or a woman. The interviewer inquired if anyone ever asked him what his gender was. He said that it happened fairly frequently.

"I usually respond by saying, 'Does it matter? What do you have in mind?'"

Don Firth

P. S. He is also said to have remarked once, "I am one of the stately homos of England."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 10:34 PM

"He is also said to have remarked once, "I am one of the stately homos of England."

I've always liked Quentin Crisp.

That quote reminds me of what Buddy Tabor in Juneau, Alaska sometimes says: I'm one of the living songwriters of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 01:30 AM

Sorry, if some of you did not comprehend, or read accurately, or whatever you did not to pick up on it, but I've repeatedly used the words, 'understanding' 'compassion' and words about that place, from where I'm coming from. Is it, that what you 'think' is from a liberal slant, that compassion and understanding, are an abstract concept, or not even part of that political view? But then, why should it be part of a political view??...do we expect politics, or the political mind to be compassionate, or understanding?...Sounds more like religious attributes to me. Nonetheless, it is YOUR political stance that is in itself, denying homosexuals from getting the medical/psychological assistance that they need!! How so??....Because you bought into the corrupt insurance INDUSTRY'S lobbyist's rap, that 'Well, after all, its not treatable, its that way from birth, its now a 'civil rights' issue...let's wash our hands of it...it might cost us something!!' You attack others for being 'homophobic and bigots' and shout and point to how homosexual's rights are being denied......IT IS YOU, and what you have interpreted as a 'given liberal cause' that is discriminatory. I can't see any post on here that gives a rat's ass about the well being, of homosexuals, any further, than what complaints bolster your pet argument for the day! ..and because of it, you've allowed yourselves to be insensitive, non-compassionate, closed off and blocked....Shame on you!!! You are an embarrassment to the other 'liberal' causes, that are justified....but this one, because of the indoctrination that you so eagerly consume, perhaps for 'other' reasons, you've turned your backs on actual documented truth, and have become fanatical, hostile 'party members', of God only knows what! Please, wake up, before that disease spreads to other parts of you!!!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 02:20 AM

hahhahahah It is too, too funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 02:53 AM

OK, so there are those here who contend that anyone who opposes gay marriage is bigoted. Is that necessarily true? Why, or why not?

I guess I'm ambivalent about gay marriage. I'm not comfortable about the idea, and I feel much more comfortable saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. On the other hand, I don't think government or the majority of voters have a right to interfere with same-sex couple who want to get married. So, I guess I'm opposed to gay marriage, and I'm opposed to the prohibition of gay marriage.

Does that make me a bigot? A bigot against whom?

Could it be that if I believe that the union of two people of the same sex is not really a marriage, you could just let me believe what I believe? If I don't believe what you believe, does that mean I'm bigoted?

-Joe, confused-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 03:02 AM

GfS makes a valid point Ebbie, sneering will not erase that.
Highlighting the homosexual lifestyle as a political cause may not be in the long term interests of homosexuals, I suppose most would be quite happy to keep a low profile; in fact I have read reports in which homosexuals reject the excesses of the radicals and the politically motivated "liberals"

Continual promotion of homosexuality as normal healthy behaviour when the statistics say something completely different, could be construed as a form of abuse....what about the large number of homosexuals who just want a quiet life??

The subject is certainly worth discussion, and should not be dismissed in typical "liberal" fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:29 AM

No Joe,

It isn't what you believe that makes a bigot. It's what you do with that belief.

If you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is right or wrong, and you choose to discriminate, or incite others to discriminate against a group, simply because YOU disapprove of some aspect of their behaviour, THEN you become a bigot.

A man who believes that your lifestyle is wrong, but accepts that you have a different opinion, and adopts a "live and let live" attitude, cannot be described as bigotted.

GfS rants on, in the face of overwhelming medical and psychological to the contrary, about homosexuality being a lifestyle option, and "curable". I find his views abhorrent. Ake is somewhat more balanced, and I merely disagree with his position.

NEVERTHELESS, both are entitled to hold those views, and I am entitled to find them distasteful, without THAT simple fact making any of us bigots. Acting on the basis of those views, to disadvantage a person or group does make a bigot (IN MY OPINION, of course).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 09:02 AM

Don..... Mr obama and Pope Benedict are both on record as saying they are against homosexual marriage, unlike GfS and I, these two individuals are in a position to affect the "rights" as you see them, of homosexuals.
Does this make The Pope and the President of the United States "bigots" and we,(gfs and I)merely people of differing opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 10:24 AM

Mister Obama's POLICIES, akneton, are as described in my post above.

This is all arm-waving flapdoodle. Nobody cares whether you like an idea or don't like an idea. It is the policy of the commons, the civil domain, that is in question.

GtS' last post is as incoherent as anything I have seen here. Is she saying that defending the civil rights of gays to equal treatment under the law somehow does them a disservice?

Welcome to Wonderland.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:21 AM

Amos...don't be a weasel...:0)
Mr Obama is on record on several occasions stating that hye is personally opposed to homosexal "marriage" as opposed to civil union.
How whitehouse.gov spin m
Mr Obama's words is entirely up to them.

I can't speak for GfS, but I take his/her meaning to be, that turning homosexuality into a political cause and opening up the debate, turns the spotlight on something that non-politicised homosexuals would rather keep private.
It may seem to you that homosexuality is now the norm, but you people live in a bubble. Ordinary people all over the world, are uneasy about the complete normalisation of the homosexual lifestyle and its effect on society......and make no mistake that is what this issue is really about..... not civil rights.

Radical homosexuals in the media have pushed this issue to the forefront and it has been latched on to by the "Liberal bubble dwellers", but homo sexuals are in reality no more deserving of preferential treatment than any other sexual minority.....or even smokers!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:30 AM

Ake:

This is poppycock.

You are ignoring the distinction between his personal likes and dislik,es and HIS policies--not some webmaster's.

As to what is "the norm", I have no opinion on it. Nor has anyone suggested preferential treatment--that is a cockeyed twist to what has been said. What Obama's office supports, as I have posted upthread, and what I support, is equal status under the law. How can that be preferential? Are you crosseyed?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM

Since women outnumber men in the world, ake, I object to laws protecting the minority. You know how in your face they get. Men are pushy, to say the least. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 03:02 PM

Ake and GfS, why do you care? Why are you investing so much emotion (not to mention verbiage) in this matter? What is it to you?

How does it affect you in any way?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 03:23 PM

"GfS rants on, in the face of overwhelming medical and psychological to the contrary, about homosexuality being a lifestyle option, and "curable"."

...Absolutely, just the reverse is true. Amos posted a list of studies, that emphatically state homosexuals are that way, and it can't be reversed. I showed conclusively, that those studies are wrong, but that post got deleted. Perhaps, (with some editing) I can re-post it. If I can, and it debunks the politically financed studies, would you allow yourself to re-think your position?..or hold on to the 'party line'...which is not supported by the heads of the party??? I suppose anyone can believe what they choose, whether it's based on solid fact, or not...but what a person believes, may be a 'relative' truth to them, but not a reality, as to the cause and effect, of what really is. I have counseled, homosexuals before, and they unanimously, have agreed with me. Some of the homosexual rhetoric, depends on how long, that person has been homosexual..however, all of them, at one time or another, recall the time when they made the conscious choice, to get involved sexually, with another of the same sex. This is not a 'civil rights' issue, any more than smoking, as was pointed out. To make it, and hold on to it as a civil rights issue, does indeed re-direct the issue, and withholds, treatment, from those, who wish to have a nuclear family, but feel powerless, within themselves, or from the community to give them aid.....especially in the critical time, when they face this alone.

By the way Ebbie, I know you are instrumental on having some input on some musical events, up there in Juneau. Do you schedule them when its snowing, then sneer and laugh at all the people stuck out there in the weather??? I find your attitude counter productive to getting these people help, when they want it..which of course, affects the rest of their lives....or at least a good portion of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM

GfS, your arguments asserting that what established scientists say is wrong reminds me of the rhetoric of The Discovery Institute, whose purpose is to push "Intelligent Design." They claim to be scientific, yet they attack established science, while at the same time cherry-picking certain scientific findings they feel they can pass off as supporting their views. This is not unlike those who cherry-pick the verses from the Bible that they feel support their views while ignoring the many that do not.

They claim that accepted scientific theories about the origins of the universe and matters of evolution are wrong, and posit "Intelligent Design" as a "scientifically proven fact" as opposed to "merely a theory," thus amply demonstrating that they don't understand the way scientists use the word "theory."

"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than Creationism disguised in a lab coat.

I have read the same arguments you are presenting about homosexuality being a matter of choice rather than biological predisposition and I have heard the same arguments before. And they are bogus.

This is a civil rights issue. And you are trying to make it sound like some vast, evil conspiracy that will destroy civilization as we know it. I've heard that before, too.

Claptrap!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:36 PM

It doesn't matter whether it is "curable", a "choice of lifestyle", a "genetic phenomenon", a "curse from God", or the will of ALlah.

We are not talking about remediating homosexuality. We are talking about whether or not sexual orientation--no matter WHERE it comes from--should be sufficient grounds for bounding a set of civil rights.

ANd the answer is no. Sexual orientation, no matter WHERE it comes from, should not be grounds for denying civil rights to a class of people, which is what Proposition 8 proposes. If it is simply trying to protect the ecumenical use of the word "marriage", then it has no business in law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:51 PM

Bollox Amos!! civil rights are not granted universally to every human.
People do not have the right to do whatever they wish, regardless of other peoples rights.

The smoking laws are an excellent example of this.


latest on firemen dispute

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 04:58 PM

Health authorities in the Uk are threatening to withdraw health care from patients who are also smokers, if they don't quit!....Do you think we should remind them of their "human rights"?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:07 PM

Also bogus. Not parallel at all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM

Smoking in public places (and for that matter, in the building in which I live) can affect the health of those in the vicinity of the smoker(s). The hazards of second-hand smoke are well established. Cigarette smoke from other people's apartments frequently drifts into ours through vents.

What Paul and Philip (both non-smokers) do in their apartment does not affect us in any way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:27 PM

The same-sex couples that I have mentioned in my posts are in stable relationships, whether they are legally recognized or not. Their chances of spreading diseases such as AIDS are minimal, unlike those who are not in stable relationships.

If one is concerned about homosexual practices spreading disease, thereby affecting everyone's health insurance costs, then I would think that stable relationships should be encouraged.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM

I can't tell if these are just not getting on, or being deleted, so, here's another try. Everything below is quotes from studies, with their source posted. After that, click the link below, the judge for yourself...if even by the testimony of this one man.

Copy-paste of a lengthy copy-paste from Amos deleted. Why does "Sanity" think we need the same copy-paste twice in one thread? -Joe Offer-

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a given and cannot be changed by doctors; and trying to do so is harmful to the patients and often leads to suicide attempts, and sadly some of the attempts are successful.

LINK:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:00 PM

Let me see, now. . . .    How many times has this one interview with Richard Owen, which contradicts a whole body of scientific evidence, been posted?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:16 PM

""Radical homosexuals in the media have pushed this issue to the forefront and it has been latched on to by the "Liberal bubble dwellers", but homo sexuals are in reality no more deserving of preferential treatment than any other sexual minority.....or even smokers!!""

My how you do wriggle, Ake.

Nobody here except you is talking about preferential treatment. What is being sought is EQUAL treatment as laid down in both English and United States LAW.

You can't even manage to discuss the issue without constant snide little put-downs.

Constant mention of Homosexuals versus normal people, or ordinary people. Digs about "liberal bubble dwellers".

With every sentence you write, you expose your prejudice and bias for all to see.

NEWSFLASH! Most "normal" (whatever that is) people don't give a sweet Goddam about how others choose to live, as long as they are not expected to do the same.

I suggest that you are further from normality than many of those you decry.

Better to keep ones mouth shut, and be thought a fool, than open it, and prove it so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:13 PM

AKe:

Civil rights are not granted to every human, but they are granted to every citizen under a code of law, at least in this country. Second-hand homosexuality is not a threat to your health, no matter how paranoid you become.

Two individual humans should have the right to live their life in peace together with uniform rights appertaining to joint identity as a couple. Their sexual orientation should have no bearing on whether they have those rights or not. I am talking here about spusal rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:49 PM

==SPOUSAL

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:55 PM

Practice what you preach Don!

I'm sorry to say this, but you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I write
I have never used the phrase "normal people" to describe heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals; please look back through the posts if you wish.

I have said that there is an agenda by some homosexual radicals and bubble dwelling "liberals"(I wouldn't wish to deny the bubble dwellers)to normalise the practice of homosexuality, which is something quite different.
Homosexuals can have all the rights afforded to heterosexuals in a civil union,the redefinition of "marriage" issue is simply another step on the road to normalisation, without taking into account the rights or wishes of the many millions who define marriage as between a man and a woman.....If you cannot see that this new definition diminishes traditional marriage for a large number of ordinary folk, then I'm afraid you must have joined Amos and the other Don under that "bright shiny dome"
Getting back to universal human rights, people who are addicted to heroin are not criminals, but only an idiot would grant them the right to adopt a small child, a right that has been granted in many places to homosexuals and one which you no doubt support.....so civil rights are not universal, but are conditional....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 10:33 PM

And only an idiot would paint homosexuality as a parallel danger to heroin addiction. It's a completely broken (or completely fraudulent) analogy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 07:24 AM

The point I was making, as you well know Amos is that rights are conditional. Of course homosexuality and herion addiction are different, but both are conditions that affect the rights of those who practice them.

Regarding the dangers of homosexuality, Pope Benedict seems to believe it a "real and present danger" and he is certainly not an idiot...In fact he may have better academic qualifications the you...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 08:11 AM

No, its a fraudulent analogy because there is no basis in law for it; there are no medical, biological or public health risks involved. Just a lot of opinionated meddling..

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 08:31 AM

On the subject of homosexuals (which he/she has "counseled"), GfS says "...all of them, at one time or another, recall the time when they made the conscious choice, to get involved sexually, with another of the same sex"

a) deciding who to do it with is not necessarily related to whom you are attracted to.

b) do you recall when it was that you consciously chose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 12:10 PM

"How many times has this one interview with Richard Owen, which contradicts a whole body of scientific evidence, been posted?"

Ummm....as many times as it takes for you to get it right..apparently, you are living proof, that you can't comprehend, what you read..which explains a lot....Its Richard Cohen!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 12:26 PM

TIA, from your questions it sounds like you are asking me, personally when was I 'Chose' to be attracted to the opposite sex?'...you're inferring by both questions, that I am other than hetero(straight). I don't know if that was a 'shot in the dark' or another supposition, but I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to ask. I'm straight. I'm not a homosexual. Now I'm beginning to think that your question was a wild shot to discredit me..in which case, ..umm,.. maybe you are the one with the bigoted bias...(?)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 01:14 PM

Not impugning anyone at all.

If homosexuals make a consciuos decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, then heterosexuals must make a conscious decision to be attracted to the same sex. I do not remember ever making this decision. Does anyone?

I similarly do not remember making the conscious decision to like eggplant, but be repelled by okra.

And, the slightest knowledge whatsoever of my family history and current configuration makes any charge of bigotry laughable. Sorry, no traction on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM

Okay, GfS, I got the guy's name wrong. Richard Cohen it is. Can I help it if Jimmy Kimmel mumbles? It doesn't alter the fact the Richard Cohen is full of buffalo chips.

Is that the best you've got?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM

""Ummm....as many times as it takes for you to get it right..apparently, you are living proof, that you can't comprehend, what you read..which explains a lot....Its Richard Cohen!""


So, let me see if I understand the logic of this statement, GfS.

1. Richard Cohen flies in the face of the whole worldwide body of scientific thought, and the overwhelming weight of contrary evidence, and this, to you is proof that he is RIGHT!

2. Therefore you blithely post insulting comment about the sanity of any who don't immediately recognise the irrefutable truth of your blinding epiphany.

3. You and said Richard Cohen are the only two people on earth, with sufficient mental capacity to understand what is going on in the minds of these poor unfortunates, and to counsel and "cure" them.

NO! I still think YOU are the ones who are twelve cents short of a dollar bill.

Last post on this. YOU are boring me.

Dijit

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:41 PM

Well......As they say in Obamaville...."Thats all Folks"
Thank you all for the discussion, especially those who kept it civil!
and for those like Joe who posted common sense.
The only thing I really didn't like was when some members used the ancient ploy of implying that I was a homosexual in denial,in place of constructive discussion.

Sometimes we just have to travel the road that our brain points us down, regardless of the current fashionable point of view in our sector of society.
The financial crisis which is now affecting everything around us will bring many changes, changes in lifestyle and what is socially acceptable will be one. Hopfully,traditional values will re-assert themselves, sanity will return.....we must wait and see.

At the very least this thread did become a real discussion and not just another bout of liberal cheerleading for the cause of homosexuality, in great measure because of the contributions of Guest from Sanity.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 09 - 04:57 PM

AKe:

Twisting to the very end? There is no "cause of homosexuality". This thread is about the cause of equality under law. That's what you decline to address. All you ad hominem characterizations and your red herring side-issues and your mischaracterizations of the discussion will do nothing to cover up the fact that that is the one issue you, inlike Mister Obama, are not facing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:15 AM

I thought, (if you all can remember), that candidate Obama, ran on revising the health care system, right? Meanwhile, I'm trying to get you ahead of the curve, about false studies, and insurance lobbyists, the medical/pharmaceutical industries community, and their influences on health care, ...that is, if you really want 'Change'...it is imperative, that the lobbyists, and the folks they represent, get OUT of the health care system..with all their phony bullshit(this issue being only one of them)....and you are actually resisting this thing being put straight!!!???!! Wait till they tell you what really causes cancer!(but that's another subject)......
So, the first thing Obama does, is put on a show, with the signing of executive orders, about lobbyists, and their ties with Clinton's, I mean 'HIS administration'......Oh well, I don't know if you get it, or can.....Hmmmm, I wonder if he is aware of something, that his devotees are oblivious to, for some mystical reason.......I'm showing you the studies are fraudulent, and those studies are the basis for determining if a homosexual is a homosexual, and I'm opposed to denying them their rights to medical/psychiatric care,...you want to keep them in the position they're in..by those definitions....and NOT CHANGE the health care system........and you think, I'M the loony toon??????????????.....Hmmm, what if ,in the course of granting them medical coverage, psychological counseling, goes with it....and they discover a way not to be homosexual any longer????...are you going to deny them that, too?.....All that, and 'marriage' is still marriage, and whatever living arrangements that homosexuals have, is not 'marriage' ...By the way, if you deny them their rights, because of sexual orientation reasons...how about discrimination of age??...Next is a crusade to 'free' the pedophiles,...and then deny that those who they prey on, they are not victims, but rather 'unenlightened freedom fighters'...who just don't understand that they are not really victims, but a new 'elite'??????????...the minority d'jour??
Now if this sounds preposterous....who should read your posts from this side.........
And for whoever it was that posted, "Why do you care about them so much"........because its faster and better than waiting so someone else to...especially with the present mentality displayed on here..and in other 'so called liberal, mob rule, circles"
Gosh, reminds me of an old song...Will the circle, be unbroken, by and by, Lord by and by........except in this case, the circle of the 'vociferously illiterate' must at least be penetrated, to get some truth into them.................I mean, if you really voted for 'Change'.........
GfS

P.S. Is this too fast for ya'?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:29 AM

Nope. Too Medieval.

Jeez, man, take a Valium.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:31 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:40 AM

Oh,...I'm convinced, now......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:41 AM

400
1 whoop-ti-doo!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:59 AM

""I'm sorry to say this, but you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I write
I have never used the phrase "normal people" to describe heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals; please look back through the posts if you wish.

I have said that there is an agenda by some homosexual radicals and bubble dwelling "liberals"(I wouldn't wish to deny the bubble dwellers)to normalise the practice of homosexuality, which is something quite different.""

Sophistry, Ake.

You can't divorce the description of homosexuality as other than normal, from your view of those who practise it.

Stop trying to fudge the issue, be honest at least with yourself, and recognise that if you consider the first to be true, then the second inevitably follows as a corollary.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: goatfell
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:51 AM

have a gay day

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 11:54 AM

I'm supposed to be finished here Don, but as I have a lot of respect for you I will give a short reply.

I don't agree with your statement that if you view homosexuality as an abnormal practice then you cannot view homosexuals as "normal" people.
Homosexuals are human being, members of society and they are a fact of life, as such they are normal.
They are different in that they feel compelled to have sex with their own gender, which to me is a very dangerous condition.
Statistics tell us that those who practice this condition have in general terms a much lower life expectancy than those who practice heterosexuality.


If this is taken in conjunction with other negative issues pertaining to homosexuality, I do not consider that it should be promoted as a normal and healthy lifestyle.
I view homosexuality as I would a psychiatric condition like depression or addiction and I certainly would not catagorise anyone with clinical depression as "abnormal".    I realise that my opinion on this issue is different from yours, but I hope the above has answered your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:09 PM

When either you, Amos, or the other Don, bring me the gene....on a pink platter.....then I will believe....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:50 PM

It's a red herring. Suppose it was a deliberate choice of sexuality? THEN do you t hink it would be acceptable to deny those that made that choice the civil rights that other couples get?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:35 PM

Game, Set, and Match.

Don Firth

P. S. There's lots more where those came from. I note with some interest that most of the studies denying the genetic and/or physiological factors predisposing a percentage of the population to same-sex orientation come from religious web sites, and that supposed scientific studies that purport to disprove the contention are conducted by scientists who are avowed Christians.

Want more? I've got lots more!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 02:47 PM

And by the way, despite that fact that most things like Propostion 8 are put forth and supported by religious organizations (trampling on the Constitutional mandate of seperation of Church and State), not all Christian churches support this position. I know of several who have actively opposed such laws.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:10 PM

AS well they might. Despite the caterwauling of unthinking Christian extremists, there is no mandate in Christian teachings--meaning the teachings of Christ--that reflects on the subject. The God of Gomorrah, I would remind you, was a God who came to his semnses and reformed, unlike some of his followers, in favor of cleaving to the more binding doctrine of affinity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:52 PM

I'll broach it. If all living creatures have these two things in common, the will to survive and reproduce, and your sexual organs are the 'normal' way of doing that, what is so 'normal' about the practices of homosexuality???? Acceptance in a society, is NOT what defines a 'normal' function of the body. You guys are just too filled with the radical left, political view of things. By the way, are ANY of you, born in this life, on this planet, the product of 'normal' homosexual practices?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM

"Normal."

Let me raise an interesting question. Our opposable thumbs and prehensile fingers evolved so our forebears could grasp things and leap from branch to branch without falling on their little keisters. So—what's normal about, say, playing a guitar? That's not what thumbs and fingers evolved for.

"Normal" is a tricky word. If one wants to claim that homosexual behavior is abnormal because it's not found in nature, that is patently false. Many animals engage in same-sex copulating behavior. Bonobo apes are particularly noted for this. I have seen male dogs mount other male dogs, female dogs mount other female dogs. How about the neighbor's dog who is always trying to hump your leg? Birds do it. Bees? Educated fleas? I couldn't tell you. So that idea of "normal" isn't going to wash

Sexual activity that leads to procreation is normal, but not if it doesn't? Masturbation is almost universal in the human species, and other species as well. How about humans engaging in intercourse while using birth control? So that idea of "normal" isn't going to cut it.

No, Ake and GfS, you're going to have to do better than that.

Religious prohibitions?

There is ample reason for keeping the Church and the State separate, and the Founding Fathers were profoundly aware of this, their families having recently come from countries where religious dogma and moral prohibitions had the power of secular law—and the abuses that invariably follow from such a mixture.

There is much wisdom to be found in the play A Man for All Seasons. For example, this dialogue between William Roper, a hot-headed, religious young man, and the older and wiser Sir Thomas More:

William Roper:   So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More:   Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper:   Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More:   Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Or for those who would like to see religious dogma take on the force of secular law, this conversation:

Margaret More:   Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More:   There's no law against that.
William Roper:   There is:   God's law.
Sir Thomas More:   Then God can arrest him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:41 PM

I do not believe in "God"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM

And.....despite your fruit fly bullshit and furious searching by the homosexual lobby, no human "homosexual gene" has been discovered.

All independent studies are in agreement that there is absolutely no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Of course you already knew that Don.....but perhaps readers of this thread did not. Those readers may view your posts rather differently from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:07 PM

Are we not just a little more 'evolved' than animals?? If 'evolution' is correct, shouldn't we be PRO-gressing, rather than RE-gressing?? Your argument falls down at every turn!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM

"All independent studies are in agreement that there is absolutely no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
"Of course you already knew that Don....."

No, I don't know that, and neither do you!

If we're all going to be honest about it, the most we (you, too!) can say is that the jury is still out.

And your constant harping on a "homosexual lobby" is pure fictional nincompoopery. Right up there with the Hollow Earth and the Illuminati, with a generous mixture (if you actually believe it) of paranoia.

"PRO-gressing?" "RE-gressing?" You do have a fascinating way with words. Let's face reality, GfS, humans are animals, whether some of us like it or not. You may like to think you're above that, but you're not.

No. My arguments are sound and standing tall. Sorry. Not your day.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:17 PM

"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:32 PM

The excessive protest, good Ake, comes from your own posts.

You protest offering civil equality to a group of people, and jump to every corner scraping for rationale to defend this essentially bigoted position.

The reproductive value of heterosexuality is certainly a survival trait, GfS, no question about it. However, law is not a matter of survival of the fittest, and if it becomes so, you will be among the early losers. The law is inspired by a sense of justice, a trait which also exists in nature, but is generally subordinated by tooth-and-claw destruction of tohers for the sake of one's own survival. Under a code of justice, however, destroying others for the sake of one's own betterment is generally outside the pale except in extreme exteuating circumstances. All your sarcastic labels add up to a fish's fart against the power of a simple fact: that we hold that all men are created equal. Regardless of their religion, sexual orientation, skin color or gender.

Why don't you let that notion sink in a bit before you wave your arms any more?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:02 PM

Some insights into the little-understood brotherhood of Man through genomics.

Enjoy!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM

Enjoy this, as well.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMZ73mT5zM

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:42 PM

Tony Robbins discusses emotion and motivation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:16 AM

GfS:

Thanks a lot for that link. This is a guy who UNDERSTANDS!!! LOL!!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:18 AM

Hey Ake, You never mentioned what musical instrument you play..or the kind of music you gravitate to, or your influences....
As so far as this other stuff goes, it seems that the points I raise, they dodge, and comment about the minutia....of course only backing it up with political 'talking' points...so while there is a lull, in anything of substance(like most of their posts), I thought we could get caught up in something about music.....I'd like to know, if you'd feel free to post something about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM

Amos, I thought you'd like it...He's a Ph.D in psychology, who does this bit, to try to help men and women to understand the differences in the way they think, and interact. When I first saw it, I cracked up, he has quite a way of explaining it....and the analogies, are quite clever. I could explain it to you, in more medical/psychological terms, but for some, that can be quite dry. Besides, on this thread, I don't think some people are ready to accept that there is a DIFFERENCE between the way men and women think, and that 'wiring' has to do with their natural instincts, in the rearing of offspring. (Not 'gay' enough)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:36 AM

Well, don't iunderestimate the impact of "Mars and Venus" discussions which have been going on for years now. Back in the 50's this was called the War between the Sexes; now, it is more like the "Introspective Negotiation Between the Sexes". :}

The differences may be wired, or they may be a byproduct of the self-selected belief systems based on culurally-imnposed roles and identities, or even bio-functional roles and identities.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:19 AM

In your post you said "even bio-functional roles and identities." Now just what do you think that means??? "Bio-functional roles"?
I hope in researching the question, a light goes on!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:33 AM

GfS, anyone who doesn't understand that there are some differences in the way men and women think just hasn't been around very long, or hasn't been paying attention. But—that does have a lot to do with physiology and hormones and such. Along with, as Amos says, certain cultural factors.

####

Fascinating debating tactics. "Homosexuality isn't natural!" says one of our resident homophobes. "How do I know? Animals don't do it!"

So he/she is presented with overwhelming evidence that animals do do it!

Then the resident homophobe says, "But they're just animals and we're human! We're supposed to be better than that!!"

You can't have it both ways.

(Just checking in before I shut off my computer. Past my bedtime. G'nite.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:06 AM

Try this, okay...Go convince your wives, preferably those who you have had children, that a Homosexual man that you know, claims to have more maternal instincts than she has, and can do a better job at nurturing your kids...then have her explain, as to the 'why's', her answer....., listen carefully, Then argue that point, to her, as vehemently as you argue on here.....see what she says....or what happens.
Report back at once....if she'll let you

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:18 AM

That an absurd argument. Maternal instincts? What the hell?

I have known gay men who had plenty of maternal instincts, and Ihave known gay men who have an absolute disdain for children.

Come to think, I have known straight people with equal extremes.

They also (both sets) have other talents and instincts widely distributed. It is absolutely amazing how much difference is encoded in one hundredth of a per cent of a genome.

This has nothing at all, though, to do with the legal question of Prop 8 and its unconstitutionality.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:35 PM

"Go convince your wives, preferably those who you have had children, that a Homosexual man that you know, claims to have more maternal instincts than she has, and can do a better job at nurturing your kids..."

GfS, that's just plain silly!   I have never heard a homosexual man make that kind of claim, nor would I ever expect to hear anything like that. What Amos just said is right.

I don't know where you come up with this sort of stuff. It certainly isn't from anything in the real world. Maybe you need to get out a bit more.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:37 PM

Chicken!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:54 PM

So who's a chicken and why?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM

I think it's just fevered, but hollow, rhetoric.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:21 PM

Not at all. You think my question was 'absurd'. I think that you're saying, a man can IMITATE a woman, by affectations of being effeminate, and be a 'wife, and/or mother'. To me, (and the majority of inhabitants of THIS planet), think that is absurd poppycock!! Do you think, a man, who can't even relate realistically to a woman, has any idea of what a woman goes through during childbirth, and hard labor??? Do you even have an idea, of the place a woman goes to, and experiences in those moments between hard contractions..and appreciate the wonderful beauty of what she is going through??? You think that merely going through the motions of being effeminate, is anything even close to that???? Nor will you accept that those two dynamics, upon getting together, to share their lives, and/or having children, and raising them, is altogether DIFFERENT than someone acting out a denial of their own gender, and through THAT inability, to accept the opposite sex, and bring something to them, that is an essential part of the union, that makes the two a whole!! Sorry, Charlie,..what I'm describing is a marriage, between a man, and a woman. What you are describing is two like gendered people who got together, for the reason of having sex. Those two things, are different in function, purpose and interaction. It has a different name. That name describes a definition. Homosexual co-habitation, is not the same in function, purpose and interaction. Marriage, and families, are the basic fabric of society. Homosexual co-habitation, is not!!! You are trying to say apples and oranges are the same thing, and it is YOU that is absolutely absurd. ..Along with the ability to experience childbirth, comes the psychological make up, and wiring, to both fully experience it, AND appreciate, and bond to that child, that a MAN IMITATING a woman's characteristics(and imitating marriage), can not achieve!! Just for that reason alone, should women be revered..and not be disregarded as merely a sex object, or the cute face of the day! Yes, homosexuality is a dysfunction....unless you are willing to accept, that a lesbian is a better man than you!!!
Marriage is marriage....homosexual co-habitation, is something else..call it what you will, but marriage it is NOT!!!
Perhaps, it is you that is unsure of YOUR role, or perhaps you've abdicated YOUR role, or never fully assumed it, that leaves you in the dark.....which must be apparent to your wives, for either the appreciation, or exploitation. Still, try to tell your wives that a man can be a better wive/mother,...you think I'M absurd??? ..you'd be chopped meat!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:43 PM

Your impassioned explanation makes a bit more sense, now, thanks. And I appreciate your point about what women go through, and how it forms their hearts.

But the point is not about the dynamics of a good, standard marriage.

Like you, I don't care what you call it, although it seems pretty clear to me that marriage is a separate phenomenon from child-making, or at least that they often occur independently from each other. You have a strong belief in the nuclear family founded on the traditional form of marriage, and that is admirable, well and good, and actually, not something I disagree with. I would not wanted to have raised Barky without BBW. It might have turned out alright, I suppose, but who knows?

But the point about Proposition 8 is not about the nuclear heterosexual child-rearing pattern; it is about whether those who want to marry each other and form a life together, not geared to have children, should be less privileged in civil rights, as those whose lives cleave to the standard template.

If marriage MUST be a function of the reproductive institution, then a lot of heterosexual marriages should expire, no? There are DINKs of child-bearing ages who have no intention of reproducing. There are thousands of older couples, who are past menopause, or are impotent, or have grown indifferent to sexuality, who still have marriages. The term is not, legally or even culturally, bound only to the child-producing couple. Should it be? I don't care, and evidently you do not either.

Call them Type A, B and C marriages, if you want. But the point of this thread is that no law should be permitted under the Constitution that allows discrimination against a couple of the same gender as distinguished from a heterosexual couple in terms of legal rights and priveleges, including adoption, insurance, mutual inheritance, mutual legal representation, and so on.

If you cure THAT discrimination, which is solely based on bigotry, then I don't care what labels get laid down.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

Guest from Sanity...just looked back in and saw your post.
Amos is right it is impassioned, and much more,the best post on this thread by a mile...Thanks for sharing it!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM

You two should really get a room. Don't forget the birth-control.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:38 PM

I have rarely seen such lack of empathy as you have shown on this thread- and now you presume to tell us that heterosexual men as opposed to homosexual men have a greater insight into childbirth, bonding and childcare? How would you know? Repeat: I have rarely seen such lack of empathy as you have shown on on this thread-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:56 PM

. . . someone acting out a denial of their own gender. . . ."

No, that's not the case with homosexuals, either gay men or Lesbian women. It is not a matter of "denying" their gender.

You have a very limited view of what a marriage is or should be, GfS. People marry for all kinds of reasons:   for the most part, couples don't get married just because they want to produce offspring. In fact, most people don't get married primarily because they want to have children. Sometimes children are planned, but more often than not, children happen. And sometimes inconveniently as far as the couple is concerned.

There are all kinds of reasons people get married, and those reasons depend on the wants and needs of the two individuals in the relationship and how those wants and needs interact. Although it may look like it to the non-discerning—most marriages look very much alike from the outside—no two marriages come out of the same cookie-cutter.

When Barbara and I got married, she was forty and I was forty-six. We talked about the possibility of children and then decided, for several reasons, not to have any. So there goes what some folks (apparently you as well) seem to regard as the only reason for getting married.

So why did we get married? Just for readily available sex? No. Barbara was and still is a very attractive woman, and I have had sufficient indications that I am not exactly unattractive to women ("stud muffin," I believe is the expression). We could have had about all the sex we want without getting married. No. We got married because of mutual attraction, yes, but also because of shared values and interests, and mutual admiration and respect. We are both complete individuals, capably of living perfectly contented solitary lives. We each with our own careers. We enjoy our individual activities and pursuits and we enjoy the many things we do together. Our marriage is a matter of synergy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We had our thirty-first anniversary this past December. Go ahead, do the math. Neither of us is a kid, and we've both seen a bit of the world.

In our wide circle of friends and acquaintances, we know a number of same-sex couples—couples who live together and are "out of the closet." One of these couples often joins us in our holiday get-togethers and dinners, and the other folks we celebrate with consider them to be just another couple.

We have civilized friends.

And I have described another same-sex couple above (CLICKY) who have adopted two children, pointing out that these two boys are certainly going to have a better life being raised by "Papa" and "Daddy" than they would have had if left where they were.

By the way, were you aware that the population pressure on Bali is so heavy that the government is encouraging same-sex relationships in hopes of cutting down their local population explosion? It isn't working, because people are simply not going to get into a same-sex relationship unless they are predisposed to do so!

No. All of the arguments advanced to support laws like Proposition 8, or misguided efforts to amend the Constitution (thereby displaying abysmal ignorance of what the Constitution is all about) in an effort to rigidly define "marriage" in a manner that limits the civil rights of a specific group of people fail on the grounds of ethics, morality, Constitutionality, and just plain good sense.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM

Don:

That was (like almost all of yours) a great post.

Let's get a room.


:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:34 PM

Don't forget to bring a deck of cards. (Most same-sex people "just aren't that much into each other.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

Oh I don't know Ebbie.....I think they deserve one another. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:17 PM

We'll put you two in a different wing, though, so we can sleep.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:48 PM

LOL.....See you Amos,you're alright big man!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:16 PM

I would love to sit and listen to Amos and Don Firth talk. Can't say the same about you, ake- at least not if you persist with your current squeeze. *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:33 AM

Oh Dear Ebbie....sometimes...no, most all the time, I think you can't read, and comprehend at the same time. In my post, I was pointing out that a man CANNOT presume to even come near appreciating those sacred moments, in child bearing, by merely IMITATING and putting on effeminate affectations. You, of all people, are taking exception to that!!!!????!!!???
Amos and Donny, finally you come to the 'possibility' that homosexual co-habitation can be called by something else. At least you agree with President Obama, on that one! Now, that that is out of the way, maybe now, we can move to the greater subject...and that is equal rights and medical coverage for ALL Americans!...either co-habitating, or married!!
By the way, I hope your lovely Barbara doesn't know about you hitting up on Amos, for a 'room away from home'...(wink)!
Ake, What fucking instrument do you play..and what's your taste in music???

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:50 AM

Here, for your enjoyment

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDEgB_ibhLw&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:55 AM

Hi Guest...I've pretty varied taste in music, I'm a great believer in emotion in folk music.
At the moment it's Gillian Welch and David Rawlings, any old timey music, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Iris Dement, The Punch Bros, Martin Simpson, June Tabor.

I play guitar, not very well ....but I'm improving with age...just like Scotch Whisky.

Decided to play the clip you left before I posted, it was really beautiful....I thought TLS were a pop group!! Thanks!
Must download all their stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:14 PM

Sure, anytime...I'll share some other stuff I like, if you'd like...but I have to get going, right no...this minute(feet are tapping.....lOl)
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:13 PM

Go back and do some re-reading, GfS. I don't know where you get "Amos and Donny, finally you come to the 'possibility' that homosexual co-habitation can be called by something else," 'cause neither of us said anything like that.

Also, you might double-check on who was hitting on whom. (blink)

Besides, Barbara just shut down her computer, turned around, and made what some might consider an "improper suggestion." Back later. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM

"...merely IMITATING and putting on effeminate affectations."

Yep. That's me. :)

By the way, you chose an awkward moment to mention my lack of comprehension when you got going on Amos and Don. Just who do you guess appears to lack comprehension?

Too, too funny. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:42 PM

Lisdexia is hell!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM

Hmmmm. I know Lis and she hates it when people get her name wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM

""I'll broach it. If all living creatures have these two things in common, the will to survive and reproduce, and your sexual organs are the 'normal' way of doing that,""

But not always with a member of the opposite sex, or do you believe hermaphrodite life forms are not also animals?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM

. . . cellular fission. . . .

Nature is not a "one trick pony."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:19 AM

ohhh wa-a-a-a-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:25 AM

Here, for all you of astute comprehension........

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM
Don:
That was (like almost all of yours) a great post.
Let's get a room.
:D
A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM

GtS 1:33 By the way, I hope your lovely Barbara doesn't know about you hitting up on Amos, for a 'room away from home'...(wink)!


You changed your mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:26 PM

(snicker snicker)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:33 AM

And for those folks who insist these kinds of suits will not take place, here it is!



Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students
         Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Tue Jan 27, 8:57 pm ETRIVERSIDE, Calif. – A California appeals court has ruled that a Christian high school can expel students because of an alleged lesbian relationship.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside on Monday upheld California Lutheran High School's right as a private, religious organization to exclude students based on sexual orientation.

Two girls sued claiming they were discriminated against after they were expelled from the Wildomar school in 2005. A lower court said the school isn't bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a business establishment.

John McKay, attorney for California Lutheran, says the school's goal is to educate based on Christian principles.

The attorney for the girls could not be immediately reached Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,curious reader
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM

at this time, its time to hear from me, and now us. i'm gay, and reading this with much interest. most of this stuff is baloney, by people who don't understand. the one that has caught my interest, is 'guest from sanity'. and i'd like to address this question to him/her. when i first came across this thread, i took little or no interest in it, but now, that the conversation has taken some most interesting turns, its time for me to speak up. first it was just me, then my partner, then a friend, and another, and another. this blog has gotten probably bigger than you all think. you've come at guest from sanity, and ake, with all you've got. and frankly, all the excuses that i've either heard, or used myself. to make it short, 'sanity', has shredded most all of it, now its time to ask you ('sanity')a question. some of your answers, we've printed, and even passed out, to other friends. the question is, you spoke of a deep hurt, which is true, you spoke of actually making the decision to have sex with another guy. that's true too. but you haven't offered a solution. at this point, you have all of our undivided attention. if you offer the solution, to the deep hurt, which i won't even give you a hint, as to what it is, then in all honesty, that could and change EVERYTHING. you all think that the 'christians' are bigoted, you should see my fellow gay friends, when one of us starts deciding to go straight! they become everything but gay. more like downright hateful and nasty. so, my curiousity goes to 'sanity'. here is is, if you hit it on the head, you are going to have a way more massive impact than any of you think. what is it? or is it just hot air. part of me wants you to be 'full of it' and another part wants to be free, and your answer is going to really matter. six of us are now engaged is some very sobering discussions, because of you. please answer this post thoughtfully, as your earlier posts, lead us to believe that you are sincere, knowledgeable, and caring. I know there are others on her, offering us the rap to plead our cause, but it is yours that has spoken to our hearts. what's it going to be?
sincerely, more than just us 6

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM

Me, I'm waiting for GtS's response.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM

That explains it.

What "GUEST,curious reader" wrote just above is totally inconsistent with what I know to be the feelings of gay people that I am acquainted with.

I find that I am able to discuss these matters with a couple of gay friends quite openly. One of these friends is a very good writer and a member of a writers' group that meets at our apartment on the second Sunday afternoon of every month. I presume he will be coming on Feb. 8th, so I will print off what "GUEST,curious reader" wrote, show it to him, and see what he says about it.

If this thread is still going by then, I'll report back.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:34 PM

You know, curious reader, if you become a Mudcat member you can communicate directly with Guest from Sanity. Membership is easy - basically you just sign on, after you select a password and an email address. It is free, you never receive spam from it, and you will have options that guests don't get.

Hmmmmm. I just realized - Membership won't help you when it comes to communicating with GtS because he has never seen fit to reveal himself to that extent. Frankly, I suspect that he is afraid but that is neither here nor there; I imagine fear is a great inhibitor.

So.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: bubblyrat
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM

In some English newspapers today,is the report about the two children,a boy and a girl,who cannot live with their parents any more,because of their (the parents) health,addictions,age,and lifestyle . Fair enough ,so far. So ,the kids have said that,not unnaturally,they would like to live with their Grandparents,whom they love dearly,and who love them too,and who are,they say,teetotal non-smokers.
       So what have the local "Social Services" decided ?? Well !! ---they are going to be given up for adoption to a "couple" of Gay men !! The children are VERY UPSET about this,and have begged to be allowed to stay with Granny & Grandpa....but NO !! Gay people have a "Right" to adopt children,apparently,whether the children involved like it or not !! As a spokesperson for the children said--"What will happen when the girl reaches puberty ,and starts having periods,for God's sake ?? Is she going to confide in,and seek counsel from, a homosexual man ? What she needs is a MOTHER !!!" ( Un-quote).
          I never heard of anything so VILE, so DISGUSTING,in all my life !! What have we human beings come too ??? And some of you want Gay people to get "married ?? Shame on you !! Sorry, but that's my conviction and opinion,to which I am,I hope to God,entitled.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM

bubblyrat, that is not the fault of gays, it's a streak of idiocy in your "Social Sevices" bureau. Someone needs to bang some heads together.

How do the kids' grandparents feel about this? What are they doing about it?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:34 PM

BR:

To be sensible about things you get wrought up about, select the correct target first. In this case, the idiocy was promulgated by meat-headed heterosexual social workers, most likely.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM

Curious similarity in writing style between Guest GfS, and Guest Curious Reader.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:26 PM

Don T. - Check out the amazing similarity in writing style between "Guest Curious Reader" and "Guest lansing". They share an aversion to capital letters, and an admiration for the exact same other Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:45 PM

like e. e. cummings...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:10 PM

Yeah, as a "guest," it makes it easy to try to adopt different personae and develop what appears to be a whole horde of people who agree with you. Fairly transparent ploy, however.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM

WOrld-renowned in her own mind, and impeccable in her tastes therein as well.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:47 PM

bubblyrat, would you link to the story, please? I haven't been able to find it. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:53 PM

Here ya go my dear! bubblyrat's link

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM

Sorry....try this! link

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM

Sorry Ebbie, just realised you can get the article through the search function in the link....duh!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM

Thanks, ake.

An amazing story. In the US - as an operating rule - relatives are considered valid adoptive parents when a parent - usually a woman - is deemed unfit.

There are numerous adopted children in my extended family- I have two adopted sisters and several of my sisters have adopted a daughter.

This is in Oregon - although one of the adoptions began in Canada. Two others happened in Virginia. It frequently is not an easy or swift process. Several times the adoption has been held up for months because a relative is on again, off again about taking the child or children.

In fact, right now, a niece who is a single woman who is an American Sign Language teacher and deeply involved in social work is in the process of adoption. She first fostered two children and then when she expressed her desire to adopt them both, they brought her the children's two siblings. So now she is foster parenting the four and would like to adopt them all.

At this point a cousin of the children is in the pipeline as to whether she would be willing or able to adopt them- she has not yet decided.

In the meantime Sheryl takes the children to visit the cousin on a weekly basis. She also sees to it that their mother sees them as she is able.

I think adoptive parents are remarkable people.

(One of my nieces and her husband have adopted nine children- the first three, all unrelated by blood and less than a year apart in age have now left the home. They are 19. One of them is a social worker working with youngsters on the street in Tacoma, another is pursuing a singing career and the other has discovered travel. Everywhere he goes he finds places where he would love to live- China, Belgium, Ireland... He is now back in his hometown and is engaged to be married. His traveling days may be over. :) A great kid. OK, that niece may not be the typical parent!)

The grandparents' ages and health issues are NOT good reasons to turn them down. They could be adopted by a healthy young mum and dad who are killed in a car accident a year later.

As for the adopted parents being two gay men, good for them. I have two gay men friends who would be wonderful parents.

However, this whole matter seems to have been badly mismanaged. I hope this is not the end of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM

Shine a light on cockroaches, and they scurry away.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 03:34 AM

I agree that this seems to be a case of mismanagement Ebbie and probably not avery good example for this discussion, but the problem here is that social services are obliged to grant adoption rights to almost any homosexual couple who apply, in order to keep to the same ratios as hetero couples. This is now a legal requirement. As a result, the needs or wishes of the children or of their extended family are being ignored.

I'm afraid that in my view the law regarding homosexual fostering of chilren is "an ass"
I know you don't agree with my point of view Ebbie, but thanks for all the interesting and reasoned posts that you have contributed. Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM

IMO, THIS is beautiful and heartwrenching.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM

I learned something interesting this morning; one of the older gents we regularly have morning coffee with at Tims pointed this out: General Motors is in immediate danger of bankruptcy. Ford is at least hoping to get along without federal aid. At one time Both GM and Ford "supported gay people", but Ford has since "repented" of doing so. Which just goes to show you...

All that I actually learned, of course, was that the old guy is much more "that way" then I realized previously. He prefaced his whole "case" with his own realization that we would disagress; there wasn't much point in arguing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM

Forgot to post my name, again...

Sorry, that i didn't get back sooner....recording.

Ok..down the line:From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM
Shine a light on cockroaches, and they scurry away.

GfS: I wouldn't know about cockroaches. I guess if you had the time to observe them, maybe you could spend that same time cleaning your house...until then, try eating over the sink!

Don: Yeah, as a "guest," it makes it easy to try to adopt different personae and develop what appears to be a whole horde of people who agree with you. Fairly transparent ploy, however.

GfS: Is that the best you can do??...The weak accuse others of their own motives!!

Riginslinger: like e. e. cummings...

GfS: Rig, Do you really think that many people on here are that well read. When I looked at that post, I figured he typed that way, because he was a chat roomer. Oh well, I suppose 'assumptions' in here, are the equivalent of an edict! Maybe. some flexibility, in data gathering, before coming to a conclusion, might be a novel idea.....(?) By the way, thank you for interjecting possibilityFrom:

TIA: Don T. - ".... "Guest Curious Reader" and "Guest lansing". They share an aversion to capital letters,"

GfS: I think that was covered above. Hey, did you ever work for NASA on the Gemini, or Challenger projects?

Don Firth: "bubblyrat, that is not the fault of gays, it's a streak of idiocy in your "Social Sevices" bureau."

GfS: Don, it must be that time again!..A broken clock is right, at least two times a day!!

Amos:.......well Amos's post was too unintelligible, to understand, to reply to it. Sorry ol' chap!

Ebbie: You know, curious reader, if you become a Mudcat member you can communicate directly with Guest from Sanity.

GfS: Another piece of rocket science.

Hmmmmm. I just realized - Membership won't help you when it comes to communicating with GtS......GfS: Thinking out loud, or what?....Ebbie: because he has never seen fit to reveal himself to that extent......GfS: Ebbie, sweetie, I'm so 'fit', that is why you can't understand me.

GfS: Sheeesh! Her post is self-explanatory..just by itself.


So far, I've managed not to name call with personal attacks, or be nasty spirited. Suck it up..the best is yet to come....(unlike,..well never mind..)

AND TO YOU, CURIOUS READER: Sorry I've been long, in replying...I'll do that in my next post. Been doing some intensive recording sessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM

Lots of snide tap dancing, but not a genuine refutation in the whole carload.

(Yawn).   Nothing new here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM

Guest has made his/ her point very well.....Any refuting must come from the "liberals" who so far have failed to make even sense!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:19 PM

She hasn't made it at all, Ake, nor have you.

Expressing hatred, irrational fear, cross-eyed bias, and the like, is not "making a point very well", or even making it at all.

She, and you, have a belief that there should be a social institution, with appertaining legal rights, to "protect" heterosexual mating, as though it really depended on a social formula, and to keep it from being brought low by such a horrible proposition as equal status in the eyes of the law regardless of gender pairing.

I believe that no such special institution is needed to encourage heterosexual pairing and that while the protocols and fluff and pomp of solemn rituals is all well and good, there should never be a legal privelege allowed to some and denied to others on the basis of their sexual orientation. You think htere should be.

Neither of you has justified this slant.

I think this slant is undemocratic and inhumane, and essentially a defense of bigotry.

Shall we start the whole conversation over again? Why don't you jjust read the thread into a tape recorder??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:31 AM

"The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state's same-sex-marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay-rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses.

Connecticut and Massachusetts are the two states that allow same-sex couples to marry. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

Meanwhile, the Vermont House of Representatives late Thursday approved a bill legalizing gay marriage, a measure that now faces a veto from the state's governor.

The Democratic-controlled house voted 95-52 in favor of the bill, which had already cleared the state Senate in a 26-4 vote. The state's Republican governor, James Douglas, says he now plans to veto it.


Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas is hugged by opponents of the gay-marriage bill in Montpelier Thursday. Douglas has threatened to veto the measure.

Supporters of the Vermont bill would need additional votes in the house to override the veto, which requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the legislature.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine also are considering bills that would allow gay marriage."

---

A sorry state of affairs when California is more reactionary than Iowa!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM

Iowa??!! Lots of lonely farmers? Whoo-hoo, regardless!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:16 PM

"Iowa??!! Lots of lonely farmers? Whoo-hoo, regardless!"

Hide the sheep and the pigs! PETA is going to claim equal rights for them too!

Amos, If you scroll down, and re-read my posts, instead of having a general opinion of where I'm coming from, you should instantly recognize that I have more than once expressed compassion...for both sides. So, stick to rebutting the text of the posts, rather than reading into where you THINK I'm coming from. Fair enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM

"Iowa Decency
E-MAIL
SEND TO PHONE
PRINT
SHARE

Published: April 4, 2009
Like the state's earlier landmark civil rights cases — striking down slavery in 1839, for example, and segregation in 1868 and 1873 — the ruling on gay marriage by Iowa's Supreme Court is a refreshing message of fairness and common sense from the nation's heartland.

Related
Times Topics: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships
A unanimous decision by the seven-member court on Friday approved marriage for couples of the same sex and brought the nation a step closer toward realizing its promise of equality and justice.

Iowa is only the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage. California allowed such marriages for five months until November's election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative. A ruling on the validity of that initiative is expected soon from California's Supreme Court.

In finding no "persuasive justification" for the different treatment of committed gay and lesbian couples, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court holding of two years ago. That ruling overturned, on equal protection grounds, a 1998 state law confining civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa before the month is out.

The new decision says marriage is a civil contract and should not be defined by religious doctrine or views. "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further an important governmental objective," wrote Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee. "The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."..."

NYT

It is nice to be reminded of Iowas past breakouts on the major issues of civil rights, and notice it is dmaking anoother..


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 12:38 PM

Not going into this loop again, but just going to touch on it. Often, political policies, should not be confused with mental or emotional health!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:27 PM

Sanity in political policy can go a long way toward supporting mental health without making any impact on the mental health system; the Bill of Rights comes to mind as a good example.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM

It can...................and then again, it might not. Let's not let our optimism overlook reality.......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM

IT is not a matter of overlooking, but refusing to succumb to it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM

Yes...but "KNOW your enemy!!!"-Lao Tzu

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:23 AM

I am right here in the middle of this new front and let me tell you, it has not caused the world to implode or spontaneously combust. It isn't even a general topic of discussion. Outside of the folks who will be applying for marriage licenses in about three weeks or those vehemently opposed to same, it does not seem to be that big a deal.

The word I have gotten from the newspapers is that it would take a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision. That takes a while. It has to pass two separate legislative sessions and then pass a popular vote. We take changes to the constitution pretty seriously here. My understanding is that the earliest this could happen is 2011.

I find the comments of those who assume Iowa to be a backward reactionary state amusing. "Know your enemy" indeed. I was told by my mother (a tireless defender of the right as she sees it) that Iowa was targeted as a state in which to bring this case because of our history of tolerance and forward thinking. They obviously picked well.

Just so there is no confusion about my stand on this, I have long thought gay marriage should be allowed but I am not gay myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:26 AM

Thanks, KB--exactly the reasoned thinking I would expect from an Iowan! :D

As to knowing thine enemy, the first one that should be closely inspected is internal willingness to hate.

Self-distortion is at the root of distorting others, and thus having enemies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:41 AM

Exc-u-u-u-use me! My comment 'Know your enemy' was in fact, a reply to Amos' comment 'IT is not a matter of overlooking, but refusing to succumb to it..' and only that! It was not meant to be taken like Homosexuals, women, blacks, Mexicans, Polish immigrants, Chinese, women, guys, rich, poor, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, Def Leopard, Lucille Ball, Mr. Rogers, Ebbie, Amos, Sarah Palin, Ralph Nader, Sherlock Holmes, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Brown, Batman, Big Mick, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Morrison, the Pope, Wiley Coyote, .....the tooth Fairy....just to mention a few...okay???? ..Jeez!, Trigger Happy Mudcatters!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:49 AM

Sorry GfS, I did not mean that to be directed at you. It was just a general comment.

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

And mine, likewise, was a general comment.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:37 PM

So was mine...okay, we're all cool
1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM

"BOSTON (Reuters) - Vermont lawmakers on Tuesday overrode a veto from the governor in passing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the state to become the fourth in the nation where gay marriage is legal.

The Vermont House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote after it cleared the state Senate 23-5 earlier in the day. In Vermont, a bill needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override a veto.

Vermont's vote comes just four days after Iowa's Supreme Court struck down a decade-old law that barred gays from marrying to make that state the first in the U.S. heartland to allow same-sex marriages.

Vermont's gay marriage legislation looked in peril after a vote Thursday in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives that failed to garner enough support clear a veto threat from Republican Governor Jim Douglas.

California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

Vermont, which became the first state in the country to allow full civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, joins New England neighbors Connecticut and Massachusetts in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry."

This one's for Harvey.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:11 PM

As an aside, I spent the weekend in the Great State of Iowa, in a rural farm community in the northeastern/central part of the State. Joe Offer suggested that I should get some reaction of the folks to the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, which found bans on the legal union of gay folks to be unconstitutional. Most of the folks I spoke with thought it was a correct decision, although there were a few that were very loud in their condemnation. While hardly a decent sampling, none the less this was a primarily rural, bib overall wearing group. I found their views to be very progressive, and certainly outside of the stereotype that "sophisticates" would have you believe. And it is fair to point out that it was Iowa that gave President Obama a major boost in his campaign.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that Vermont's House and Senate voted to override GOP Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, the Washington City Council voted 12-0 Tuesday in favor of allowing same-sex marriages performed in other states to be recognized in the nation's capital.


Congress may vote on whether Washington will allow same-sex marriages to be accepted in the nation's capital.

But nothing is set in stone yet.

The Washington council is expected to hold a final vote on May 5. The bill would then go to Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat who supports gay marriage but told WTOP.com Tuesday that he has yet to review the legislation.

If approved, the measure would then encounter its biggest potential hurdle: It would be sent to Congress for a legislative review and vote, setting up what would amount to a straight up-or-down vote on same-sex marriage.

Because Washington is not a state, its legislation must pass congressional muster. Some measures approved by overwhelmingly Democratic Washington voters, including a restrictive gun law and a proposal decriminalizing medical marijuana use, have been vetoed by Congress in recent years.

"This is a right that should be enjoyed by all of our citizens," Council Member Jack Evans, a Democrat, said in an interview with WTOP. "Today is another major step toward the ultimate goal of all of us living in a city and a country where everyone is treated equally."..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 07:40 PM

Gay Elephant' Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
A Polish politician, furious over a gay elephant, obviously hasn't been keeping up with the latest research on homosexuality in animals
By Christopher MimsPosted 04.15.2009 at 11:56 am4 Comments

"We didn't pay 37 million zlotys for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there," said Michal Grzes, a conservative councillor in the Polish city of Poznan, Reuters reported last Friday.

What Michal doesn't know, apparently, is that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. The definitive text on the subject, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, written by Canadian biologist and linguist Bruce Bagemihl, is an obsessive catalog of a phenomenon so widespread that the can barely contain it.
For the Cliff's Notes version, you have only to look to a 2006 article on the subject, which points out that big horn sheep live in "homosexual societies" in which they "bond through genital licking and anal intercourse." (Male sheep that choose not to engage in the behavior become social outcasts.)

And that's just the beginning.

"Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in 'penis fencing,' which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages."

Naturally, human behavior does not escape the continuum of expression implied by the diversity present in the animal kingdom, and perhaps that's the real origin of Michal's objection.

To be fair, he did have one legitimate critique of the situation. "We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females, how will he produce offspring?" said Grzes. (PopSci)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM

Moral of the story......stop being an elephant!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 09 - 03:23 PM

Sorry to say this Amos, but it looks like you have flipped.....Please stop posting this nonesense, the arguments have been made further up the thread, leave people to make up their minds on the credible parts of this discussion.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 12:23 AM

Hey, Hi Ake!! Nice to see you again. I've pretty much let this one rest, because, as you noted, the arguments being made, border on the lunatic fringe. Next, will be how the tsetse fly in Lichtenstein, are the new link going up, the food chain, because they are homosexual, and propagate faster that way...except in Delaware, which is because they are discriminated there....or something as equally stupid...Who knows? Anyway, Hi!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 03:22 AM

Hi Guest....Seems like we're both still "pissin' into the wind", but every so often the wind drops......keep on pissin'......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:21 AM

""Iowa is only the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage.""

Vermont also is refusing to let the bigotry of one man override the democratic decision of the majority, having moved to overturn the governor's veto.

Nice to know that in FOUR of the Fifty states, all men ARE considered to be equal under the law, as the Constitution of the United States would have us believe.

Now if the other forty six can get their knuckles off the ground long enough to vote.........who knows?

The United States' claim to be a DEMOCRACY may once more have some credibility.

I don't give a damn about the argument over whether or no you agree with homosexuality being legal.

It IS legal, and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their orientation.

THEY SHOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS, IN LAW, AS ANY OTHER CITIZENS!

Anything else is undemocratic, and contrary to the letter, and the spirit, of the Constitution.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:38 AM

If we can discriminate against people's sexual orientation when all else meets the law, then there soon will be nothing to stop us from discriminating against people who wear blue, brown and pink ties. Or have certain accents. Or are confined to wheelchairs. Or have special needs. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 04:42 AM

The biggest problem is that "homosexual rights" has been made into a political issue and has become a convenient weapon for the politically motivated to batter one another with. Whether this is in the long term interests of homosexuals or society at large is no longer considered ....the battle lines have been drawn as Little Hawk would say!

At the moment the pendulum has swung to what is laughingly called the left,soon it will swing back to the right and another set of "political" moral values will apply.
As ever, the casualties of spurious political issues are the objects of said issues.
This discussion has been all about Conservative v "Liberal" and nothing to do with anybodys "rights",

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 06:34 AM

""As ever, the casualties of spurious political issues are the objects of said issues.
This discussion has been all about Conservative v "Liberal" and nothing to do with anybodys "rights",""

IN YOUR OPINION, of course.


Rights in LAW are precisely what it is about, and those are, or at least should be, totally independent of politics.

Of course, as legislators, the government are bound to play a part, but that part should not change with different governments.

It is a matter of law. The government legislates, and the judiciary interpret, and enforce, the legislation. Where, in that setup, do you see mention of politics.

The Constitution, by which Americans profess to set such store, enshrines the rights of "CITIZENS".

Nowhere in it do I see any mention of exceptions, NO "Except for Jews", NO "Except for Germans", NO "Except for Blacks", and equally NO "Except for Homosexuals".

By what twisted perversion of logic do you justify your statement that it is "Not about anybody's rights"?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:59 AM

Ake:

Your remark, which I just now saw, is most unkind and uncharitable. How does this work? (1) we are having a long discussion about homosexuality, gay rights, legal definitiuons and such. (2) I post a couple of items excerpted from poular press providing viewpoints or data related to the topic; (3)Disagreeing with these reports, you say it looks like I have flipped.

Does that really strike you as rational?

It strikes me as reactive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM

".....Now if the other forty six can get their knuckles off the ground long enough to vote.........who knows?

The United States' claim to be a DEMOCRACY may once more have some credibility.

I don't give a damn about the argument over whether or no you agree with homosexuality being legal.

It IS legal, and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their orientation.

THEY SHOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS, IN LAW, AS ANY OTHER CITIZENS!"

In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules.
In the case of homosexuality, it is not a matter of 'political rights' as a citizen, it is a matter of mental and emotional health.
I think natural selection should tell you that!..That is, if anything can tell you anything, at all.
Now here comes all the 'proof' citing animals and insects...who, naturally, are citizens, too....I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM

Come on Amos, we have beaten one another up on a regular basis on many threads and I still think you are a decent, intelligent, likable guy, with a bee in your bonnet...:0)
Don't suppose we'll ever agree on this subject, but I've enjoyed your input and of course I don't think you've really gone nuts....It's just that there are children of all ages on this forum and they might take your animal post seriously.....Lets not frighten the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 02:30 PM

The first post on this thread was by Amos. It contained the following sentence......."IF there is any chance you will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed "RIGHTWING" ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls."

Capitals by me to highlight the word rightwing.....Why was that word used?
Are there no "liberals" who are against homosexual marriage? are all conservatives against?
As this was posted at election time, I think Amos has been a "very naughty boy"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM

"In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules."

In that case, a lynch mob is a perfect example of a democracy in action.

Basic civics lesson:   a democracy, when not limited by certain principles of individual rights, can be just as tyrannical as any other form of govenment. This is the reason for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To protect the individual citizens from both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the majority.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 06:06 PM

What about the tyranny of the vociferous minority???

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM

"tyranny of the vociferous minority??? "

It's tyranny if a minority want to do what the majority do all the time, which wouldn't impinge in the least on the majority's continued ability to do it???????? (look, even more question marks!)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM

From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:25 PM

"In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules."
In that case, a lynch mob is a perfect example of a democracy in action.

Does that mean your bitchy wife is always right, too?
Does it matter how loud and long people bitch, scream, piss and moan?
If the majority isn't the ruling decider...why did Gore want recounts, in Florida???
Some of you guys are just illogical. You argue both sides of a principle, for whatever side suits you! Just pick one...anyone...and stick to the principle, instead of the issue...........for once! If you can't, then YOU are the people who make up, and are the lynch mobs!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM

I dunno, Ake--if those observations about sexual encounters in the animal kingdom are true, and I assume they are, why wouldn't they be a natural part of this discussion?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 10:49 PM

GfS, nothing is more obvious when observing people argue that they indeed do repeatedly argue both sides of a principle, for whatever side suits them at the time. I see it happening over and over again, and I bet I've unwittingly done the same thing myself many a time.

That's because the human ego is not nearly as rational or fair-minded or objective as it usually loves to think it is. It really wants only one thing:

Victory!

And that is what makes both people and nations frequently irrational, unscrupulous, unfair, dangerous, and deeply hypocritical while they vociferously charge out to win their various illusory victories over one another.

As Shakespeare said, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing...nothing except the universal desire to win. If you point their inconsistencies out to them, however, they will deny it vociferously and just waste another lengthy piece of your time justifying themselves and launching further counterattacks on you, so why even bother? Frankly, it ain't worth the trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 11:33 PM

The issue is whether a constitutional republic, which is what we are, has the right to violate its own founding principles because of some less durable or kess balanced opinion on the part of some of them.

We have an enduring commitment to equality--meaning equality.

That includes a strong precedent against the weaselly "separate but equal" version.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 01:49 AM

"Rights" are not universal, but conditional.
Anyone who says that we should all have the same "rights" regardless of our behaviour, or the effects of our behaviour on those around us, has lost their grasp on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:10 AM

I don't recalling anyone arguing that someone else doesn't have the 'right' to be a homosexual...do you?
..and as far as equality goes...umm, do you recall anyone who is happily married to someone of the opposite sex, claiming they unequal to a homosexual??
Cuts both ways, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:55 AM

The Constitution limits the rights of government by providing a set of principia that will be binding ON that goverrnment thus protect the rights of the individual. Even when those individuals become part of 'groups' (and I mean that in both senses), they remain first and foremost individuals whose rights are protected BY the Constitution and hence subsequent law formulated by the Legislative organs of government: HR and Senate. I agree with Don wholeheartedly. If we discriminate against people based on shit that's none of our business to begin with, then we open the door to discriminate against ANYone in the whole nation. (This includes Canada, so please don't feel I'm just jumpin' on Yanks. We have a responsibility as a 'free' people to help defend other individuals in our society. Even murderers after being found guilty pretty much HAVE to appeal the decision, even when the guilt is manifest and beyond misinterpretation. IMO, that's a good law. Miranda is a good law. They are meant to protect the individual. When we have no compassion for others around us, we will have taken a giant step towards allowing other doors to discrimination to open. I wish no pissing contest with anyone. I'm just putting my two cents in.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:25 AM

Just wanted to say the following.

I think most folks here know I can lose it when it comes to Nazi bastar/ people. I detest all they stand for. I detest their politics, their world view. However, I would speak on behalf of the individual rights of Nazi Americans or Canadians. Not because they are Nazis, BUT because they are individuals. I recall many years back that the ACLU--which I understand at that time was composed of lawyers--a high percentage of whom were Jewish, and that the organization argued on BEHALF of the right of a Nazi group to march in a town in one of the northern states. The ACLU's rationale was that if Nazis could be prevented from marching to seek redress of grievance, then so could any other group be prevented from accessing that right.

Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 08:29 AM

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself" - Thomas Paine

Or: 'Do unto others...'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 09:50 AM

""In case you forgot, in a Democracy, the majority rules.""


ABSOLUTELY GfS!!........

I didn't forget that for a single moment.

And in the USA, the majority HAS ruled that homosexuality IS LEGAL.......With me so far?

Right then; As individuals acting within the laws set by the MAJORITY, these people are entitled to the same LEGAL rights as any other citizen. Those rights include the right to marry as they see fit, and they are victims of discrimination IN LAW if those rights are abrogated.

It HAS, I say again, NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS, but with RIGHTS UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION.

Before you start making ad hominem attacks on other posters, pehaps you should look again at your own attitudes, and prejudices.

150 years ago, people like you would not permit marriages between whites and Indians (as they were then described), and white women who had been intimate with Indians were shot dead by their relatives when they were recovered.

For the first half of the twentieth century, white people and black could not marry.

Now it's homosexuals.

Tell me, who will bear the iniquities of your prejudice in the NEXT fifty years?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:28 AM

"Far from terrifying anyone, "Gathering Storm" has become, unsurprisingly, an Internet camp classic. On YouTube the original video must compete with countless homemade parodies it has inspired since first turning up some 10 days ago. None may top Stephen Colbert's on Thursday night, in which lightning from "the homo storm" strikes an Arkansas teacher, turning him gay. A "New Jersey pastor" whose church has been "turned into an Abercrombie & Fitch" declares that he likes gay people, "but only as hilarious best friends in TV and movies."

Yet easy to mock as "Gathering Storm" may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America's anti-gay movement.

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it's idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it's mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.

"Gathering Storm" was produced and broadcast — for a claimed $1.5 million — by an outfit called the National Organization for Marriage. This "national organization," formed in 2007, is a fund-raising and propaganda-spewing Web site fronted by the right-wing Princeton University professor Robert George and the columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was famously caught receiving taxpayers' money to promote Bush administration "marriage initiatives." Until last month, half of the six board members (including George) had some past or present affiliation with Princeton's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. (One of them, the son of one of the 12 apostles in the Mormon church hierarchy, recently stepped down.)

Even the anti-Obama "tea parties" flogged by Fox News last week had wider genuine grass-roots support than this so-called national organization. Beyond Princeton, most straight citizens merely shrugged as gay families celebrated in Iowa and Vermont. There was no mass backlash. At ABC and CBS, the Vermont headlines didn't even make the evening news.

On the right, the restrained response was striking. Fox barely mentioned the subject; its rising-star demagogue, Glenn Beck, while still dismissing same-sex marriage, went so far as to "celebrate what happened in Vermont" because "instead of the courts making a decision, the people did." Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the self-help media star once notorious for portraying homosexuality as "a biological error" and a gateway to pedophilia, told CNN's Larry King that she now views committed gay relationships as "a beautiful thing and a healthy thing." In The New York Post, the invariably witty and invariably conservative writer Kyle Smith demolished a Maggie Gallagher screed published in National Review and wondered whether her errant arguments against gay equality were "something else in disguise."

More startling still was the abrupt about-face of the Rev. Rick Warren, the hugely popular megachurch leader whose endorsement last year of Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, had roiled his appearance at the Obama inaugural. Warren also dropped in on Larry King to declare that he had "never" been and "never will be" an "anti-gay-marriage activist." This was an unmistakable slap at the National Organization for Marriage, which lavished far more money on Proposition 8 than even James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

The Obamas' dog had longer legs on cable than the news from Iowa and Vermont. CNN's weekly press critique, "Reliable Sources," inquired why. The gay blogger John Aravosis suggested that many Americans are more worried about their mortgages than their neighbors' private lives. Besides, Aravosis said, there are "only so many news stories you can do showing guys in tuxes."

As the polls attest, the majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support "at some point in the 2010s."

Iowa and Vermont were the tipping point because they struck down the right's two major arguments against marriage equality. The unanimous ruling of the seven-member Iowa Supreme Court proved that the issue is not merely a bicoastal fad. The decision, written by Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, was particularly articulate in explaining that a state's legalization of same-sex marriage has no effect on marriage as practiced by religions. "The only difference," the judge wrote, is that "civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law."..."

From The Bigots' Last Hurrah

By FRANK RICH
Published: April 18, 2009 (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:51 AM

Oh God!.....We're back to regurgitated homosexual propaganda from Amos...How boring!

I think Little Hawk had it spot on.... why bother, I suppose nature will sort things out in the end, just as it has always done.
Or maybe society will destroy itself by some other gorier method....the sonner the fuckin' better!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM

Passing an editorial from a leading paper, excerpted, is hardly regurgitation, ake, and although it is about public attitudes about homosexuality, I don't see how you think the label propogandfa applies here. In fact your labels is contumacious, argumentative, inaccurate, and counter-productive.

Think clearly first--then write clearly.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:14 PM

ANd let me add, Ake, that I have no particular axe to grind for homosexuality, although I have none to grind against it, either. I have no dog in that fight personally. What I DO have an axe to grin for is this simple statement: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

Trying to carve out one of life basic passages, marriage, and restrict it from a certain population legally is, in my mind, the most wrong-headed reversal of that proposition possible. There have been worse, so maybe that's a bit strong, but it is nevertheless unacceptably totalitarian.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:24 PM

Suicidal, and proud of it! Let natural selection sort it out...and leave the 'wonderfully enlightened, virtuous politicians' out of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM

I just want to mention that I've barely ever posted on this thread...or even opened it...for one simple reason.

I am completely uninterested in wrangles about homosexual marriage. I simply don't care who marries who or for what reason as long as they are both adults and they can make their own decision about it. If so, it's absolutely none of my business who they want to marry.

As for all the other arcane stuff about whether they should get to adopt kids or whatever.....I'm not interested enough to bother worrying about that either. My reaction is...***yawn***...okay, I think I'll let someone else get worked up about that one.

It's a non-issue to me whether or not homosexuals or lesbians want to marry one another. Total 100% flippin' non-issue.

I agree, though, with what Peace said: "If we discriminate against people based on shit that's none of our business to begin with, then we open the door to discriminate against ANYone in the whole nation."

Right on. If you want to live in freedom, then give it to others as well...as long as they don't hurt anyone else, rob, commit fraud, rape, assault, damage property, engage in slander and other obviously antisocial stuff like that.

Gays have always existed, they are often quite talented and creative and even charming people, they have made huge contributions to the arts and to human culture generally, and they don't scare me one bit. Not even slightly. Do they live differently from me in some respects? Yeah. Well, so what if they do?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:35 PM

Unfortunately there is no issue with evolutionary processes in this regard. The "merssing about" is with the basic social contract in this country. That's what your rabid anti-Gay fearmongers are fucking around with, and it is not appreciated, not helpful to the well being of the overall society. It is blindered monkeying about with vectors about which they know shanefully little.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:40 PM

Right. I just don't like having it crammed down our throats..and making 'special allowances'..having our noses rubbed in it, when it is in fact 'somewhat deviant'..and I can't say I've met very many parents who wanted their kids to grow up to be one..have you?.......Then someone will post,'I don't care if they did. its up to them'..the key words, are 'I don't care..'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:40 PM

The stress may be getting to you, Amos. You made an unusual number of typos in your last post. ;-D

Keep in mind that it won't make a rat's ass of difference in the end what anyone who's bitching on this thread here says about the issue of gay marriage and your stress levels will go way down.

Or do what Chongo does: Down about half a bottle of good Scotch whiskey, getcher sidearm, and go out to the firing range and blast away at some target dummies for an hour or two. Works for me. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:48 PM

GfS - I agree 100% with what you said: "I don't like having it crammed down our throats..and making 'special allowances'..having our noses rubbed in it"

Precisely. Although I have no problem with gays, although I have always believed in equal rights and an equal role for women, although I have always respected Blacks and Native Americans....I DO get absolutely fed up with being subjected to a continual media barrage of guilt-inducing propaganda, bellyaching, noble stereotypes of "victims", and over-the-top lobbying from a few fanatical people who have turned a social minority issue into a personal obsession and who spend their lives persecuting everybody else over it.

It gets to be too much to take after awhile, it gets to be a real pain, and I don't wish to share any unearned guilt for something I never did to anyone.

Now there, I have said what I need to about the 2 sides of this issue, and I think that about does it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:03 PM

There'ss nohing special about correcting discrimination. it is the DISallowance that is the special case, and none of this would ever have even been brought to your delicate attentions if there had not been a long and cruel tradition of segregation, suppression, and intolerance established in the culture. Had you not subscribed to the oppression, you would be less fanciful about how burdensome its correction is.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:32 PM

Ah, yes, my friend...but having been involved directly in the championing of Native American values from my teens right through to my mid-50's, I have now seen both sides of the coin. I have seen the utter chauvinism of the many (the complacent White majority) and the utter chauvinism of the few (some of those posturing on the "Good Red Road", stabbing each other in the back while so doing, besotted with their sense of their own moral superiority, and forever finding someone else out there to blame for their eternal sense of "victimhood" instead of taking some personal responsibility and just growing up).

No, I am no longer impressed by professional one-issue martyrs and idealogues who can't shake off their obsession with their own narrow cultural or racial identity stamp and who can't get over their collective past. Uh-uh. It took several decades of idealistic struggle on their behalf, but my patience has run out.

And I do not feel impelled to earn my good "liberal" credentials by always making the appropriate supportive noises for them on cue. I'm liberal, yes, to a considerable degree, but I am not Pavlov's dog.

There is no side in this world, and no group in this world who are always automatically right, just on account of who they are or what was done to them in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:39 PM

Little Hawk, You wouldn't by any chance know Russell Means, do you? We may have mutual friends, in common.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:51 PM

Well, you skate very gracefully, LH, so perhaps there is no issue. It would seem different if it was your marital ox being gored, of course.\

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:54 PM

Amos, Are you indicating that your ox and you are having marital problems?..If so, I normally would be the person to see...but I don't do inter species counseling.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM

Mwahahaha.



My marital ox is not being gored, thank you. I must decline your kind invitation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:24 PM

LOL!!! I had never suspected that Amos was involved in that way. My goodness, the things one discovers about one's friends!

GfS - No, I haven't met Russel Means. I had a lot of dealings with Rolling Thunder and various associates of his out in Nevada, have met Wallace Black Elk and various people from out that way, Brook Medicine Eagle (of whom I have a very good opinion, by the way), and a number of people in Ontario such as Art Solomon and Bobby Woods. I did get royally tired of the whole scene eventually, although I still have a great respect for traditional values and the Medicine Way.

I like it when people can become larger than their specific cultural, racial or national identity. If they are able and willing to do that, they can become extraordinary human beings. If so, their love will shine to the whole human race, not to just a part of it. That's what Jesus did. That's what Buddha did. That's the salvation of the world.

By the way, I was just watching some videos of Freddie Mercury singing in the band Queen... My God, what a beautiful voice and what a beautiful looking person! I couldn't care less whether he was gay or bisexual or whatever else he was at the time, that lad could sure sing!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:30 PM

That's fine, LH, as long as he knows his place and doesn't get uppity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:52 PM

Really? Well, how would he do that, Amos? Tell me.

If I was to meet Freddie Mercury (assuming he was alive now) I would figure to talk about music or something...not hear a monologue from him on gay rights. After all, I've always been inclined to give people their gay rights anyway, so why would I need to hear any such monologue?

I'm betting he'd choose to talk about music. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 07:01 PM

And "his place", by the way, would be the same as Sidney Poitier's place...the best darn seat I could offer him in the house. I admire people of great accomplishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 10:08 PM

Uppity?? Who? Freddie or Amos??....think that would happen????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:05 PM

I'll trade you ten Russell Meanses for one Sherman Alexie.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:10 PM

I'll see your Swan and raise you a Frilly Bustard.

Or was that Amos's swan?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:14 PM

Duck!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 12:03 AM

Uh-Uh..He discarded the wild Duck..I think he has a goose up his sleeve!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 12:43 AM

I stop paying any attention after this statement;
"when it is in fact 'somewhat deviant'.."

Asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 01:16 AM

Liar!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 03:23 AM

Well, the reason I got so involved in this thread, is not homosexuality v heterosexuality, which as Little hawk has pointed out are facts of life....no discussion required there!

What I find really interesting is the "rights issue" and the current "liberal" view that everyone is entitled to the same "human rights".

Some here say that legality is the key, but I would remind everyone that laws are made by politicians, often in their interests rather than the interests of society.I have seen many laws reversed as it has become apparent that they were ill conceived....drug control legislation being an obvious example.

Many of what the "liberals" call basic human rights are refused to those in society, who although not criminals engage in behaviour which is dangerous or destructive....example... hard drug addicts.
"Basic human rights" are also witheld from people with psychiatric problems, they also are not criminals.

The statistics state that the practice of homosexuality is in general very destructive....much lower life expectancy, the still unexplained link to Aids/Hiv and high number of psychiatric conditions.

Given these statistics, what makes those who practice homosexuality more deserving of "rights" than the deprived members of the other catagories quoted?

I resent the implication by many here (including some friends) that I am an unthinking bigot.
My responce would be that most of the "liberals" are unthinking fools!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 05:46 AM

"My responce would be that most of the "liberals" are unthinking fools!"

So the fact that you object to being stereotyped entitles you to stereotype one half of the population as unthinking fools, and a somewhat smaller group as being akin to drug addicts, and the mentally ill?

Nice to know that we are dealing with such a model of balanced impartiality.

It's very simple!!   Does the Constitution of the United States mean anything or not.

If the answer to that is YES, then gays ARE discriminated against, and the removal of such discrimination cannot be seen as making special concessions.

If the answer is NO, then what is your so-called democracy worth?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 01:04 PM

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 05:46 AM
It's very simple!!   Does the Constitution of the United States mean anything or not.
If the answer is NO, then what is your so-called democracy worth?

Which chosen amendments are you talking about? The second??...Protecting our borders?? Limitations on the executive branch??...LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?? Habeus Corpus??...Limiting the Federal government's powers???...Yes Don, Does the Constitution mean anything...or not???
,Interesting you ask..'...then what is YOUR so-called democracy worth? Isn't it 'yours' too??...or do you read from a different ideology??
Do you obey ALL the laws, equally??..or pick and choose the 'convenient' ones???..then start pointing fingers?..(Better throw away your stash!)
So Ake's assertion may be truer than you allude to.
By the way, a 'straight' beats two jacks, and two queens, goose of hearts high!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 04:11 PM

Many of what the "liberals" call basic human rights are refused to those in society, who although not criminals engage in behaviour which is dangerous or destructive....example... hard drug addicts.

Hard drugs are illegal Ake, not the best example.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 04:48 PM

Fact check:

Aids/HIV is a mainly a sexually transmitted disease, although it can be transmitted other ways as well. It is not limited to homosexual relations. As many have learned the hard way, the virus is also transmitted by heterosexual intercourse.

I think your stats are a bit off, GfS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 05:26 PM

An update on the situation here in Iowa. It is still not a topic of discussion in the workaday world. There have been letters to the editor and a couple of protests at the statehouse but nothing earth shattering.

The Republicans in the Legislature tried to force a ballot initiative for next fall but they were blocked. The Dems hold a majority in both houses and insisted on following the rules. The Rebups cried foul but would have done the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. The Repubs were trying an end run around the rules and failed. Doesn't mean the issue is settled once and for all, just means it will play out the way the law is written.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 06:06 PM

"I think your stats are a bit off, GfS."--Don

I didn't post any stats.....just common sense. I think you addressed the wrong post.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 06:46 PM

""Which chosen amendments are you talking about? The second??...Protecting our borders?? Limitations on the executive branch??...LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?? Habeus Corpus??...Limiting the Federal government's powers???...Yes Don, Does the Constitution mean anything...or not???""

No, you insufferable ass, as you well know from reading my posts (assuming you CAN read with comprehension), the bit about all being equal under the LAW.

A simple answer will suffice.......Can you manage YES, or NO?

Our democracy differs somewhat from the one YOU have developed from it.

We don't have a wrtten constitution, and as a rule we don't find we need one, but we DO seem to be rather better at being tolerant, and certainly streets ahead in the way we treat our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

Perhaps when you grew up and flew the nest, you should have retained some of the finer aspects of the real democracy you left behind.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 07:04 PM

I was going to ask you.'What the fuck are you talking about?'...but never mind...your rant makes it obvious, that even you don't know!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 07:20 PM

Stats schmatz. Your "common sense" is a bit off.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:03 PM

KB...Although the use of hard drugs is illegal, addicts in the UK are legally treated with a herion substitute (methadone).

They are still refused the "basic human rights" offered to homosexuals.
Don Firth...as you no doubt know. Although the virus can be transmitted by hetero and homosexual sex, it has always been first diagnosed in the homosexual community in every country.
It also affects more homosexuals in the community in real percentage terms.
This has never been satisfactorally explained.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:34 PM

Here, Don, and Don....this is from another thread, running concurrently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=player_embedded

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:42 PM

That's quite good, GfS. I suggest that you watch it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:22 PM

There you go again....(its called 'deflection')

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:17 PM

It's like boxing the draperies.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM

OBviously the only solution is for the gay and lesbian and transsexual community to start a nation-wide church -- the Holy Order of Transcendent Genderosity or some such--- s that they can be sheltered from this kind of bigotry.


;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 11:41 PM

Minored in Philosphy in college, GfS, with several classes in formal Logic. The thing is, I do have an open mind. But it's not so open that my brain has dropped out.

####

One thing that no one seems to have touched on here (especially not those who are opposed to same-sex marriage) is that SSM would encourage permanent and stable relationships, thereby reducing promiscuity, which, in turn, would cut down on the spread of AIDS/HIV.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 11:43 PM

..and the road to eternal spirituality, is to have your dick stuck in some guy's poop!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 12:41 AM

God knows, I've never understood it. And I don't understand why a man would want to do that to a woman either. But there's no explaining people's tastes when it comes to that, or anything else either...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:13 AM

Yeah, Little Hawk, I'm with you on that one. But I don't see how what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom affects me in any way whatsoever.

And I keep asking--without getting an answer--if Steve and Paul are legally married, how is that detrimental to Barbara's and my marriage? How can that affect our marriage in any way at all?

I can't see it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:24 AM

Because they've legally contracted, their properties, to keep their word. I wouldn't call it 'marriage'...but a contract is a contract.

Little Hawk, Because its warm and mooshy! Some people like it so much, that they'll put up all they own, in a contract to only be warm and mooshy, for each other. Besides, it smells so romantic to each other, so much, it gets them hot!

You know how you can tell if a homosexual has been in your house, while you've been away??
You open the refrigerator door, and the rump roast farts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:41 AM

I've never felt that it affected me in any way either, Don. Not any more than someone else's watching of Nascar or the Roller Derby affects me. That's why I don't worry about it. That's why, to me, it's a non-issue...from either point of view. I'm not for it. I'm not against it. I simply don't care. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 02:58 AM

Seems quite clear to me Little Hawk.
Homosexual marriage is simply another milestone on the road to the normalisation and public acceptance of what seems to be a very dangerous and destructive lifestyle.
It also effects the lives of ordinary people who believe in god and traditional marriage.Rightly or wrongly, they feel marriage to be diminished by what they see as the ridiculous proposal of male/male relationship as "marriage". Their long held beliefs have been redefined without any input from them.

Guest...although I think you have brought a lot of thought provoking material to this discussion, unlike Don and Amos, who have simply parroted off the same old question without listening for an answer, I think your use of coarse jokes lessens the impact of what your are trying to say.   These people need compassion not agression, that way leads back to criminalisation and victimisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:01 AM

Well, having followed this thread for one fuck of a lotta posts, it strikes me that bacon and egg sandwiches cannot be eaten by everyone on Earth. Who knew?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:17 AM

"" These people need compassion not agression, that way leads back to criminalisation and victimisation.""

Do you ever consider following your own advice, and exhibiting some of that compassion, rather than denying same sex couples the same rights as other couples, and advocating that they be VICTIMISED?

This world would be a much better place if people like you would get on with their own business, and butt out of everybody else's.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:36 AM

Ake:

Despite your rudeness, th epoint you ARE missing is that you are holding an untenable premise: that some individuals should have the right to define and constrain acceptability about others' private lives.

Your assertions about the "harm" of equal rights in marriage is bogus--"dangerous and destructive"???!! Oh, come on. WHAT danger? WHAT destructive? This is an arm-waving sham on your part.

WHat's worse, you use the arm-waving sham to justify meddling in others' lives. Now,that is destructive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:15 PM

LOL!!!!!!! Great comment, Peace. Thanks for that.

This thread should be cross-referenced with the Susan Boyle one, put them a blender and mix thoroughly, then publish the results with intentions of making the New York Times Bestseller List and see what happens...

I think those results would be almost as impenetrable as Bob Dylan's book "Tarantula", but even more entertaining. Well, considerably more entertaining, I guess...

***

Amos...consider the possibility that he may not just be waving his arms at you...but also sticking his thumbs in his ears, wiggling his fingers, and waggling his tongue at you. Get upset, man. Go postal. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM

No, I shan't, LH. I learned the wisdom some time ago of not putting the control of my own feelings into others' hands! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 01:52 PM

A wise move, Amos. ;-) Not always easy, but always worth striving for.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:36 PM

Sorry, if that sounded coarse, but when the topic was 'discussed' maturely, no one seemed to get it past their idiotic political stubborn crap. Let's face it, if two men want to be best friends, even love each other, live together, fine..they do all the time! But now, since the same two want to stick their weenies into the other, well, now that's different..that deserves to be a new political party, a new religion, and the guidepost for how everybody else has to view it???. You have got to be fucking kidding me!!! Put your weenies where you want,(anybody),..and shut the fuck up!....and don't go portraying this to our children as normal, healthy, and accepted behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM

". . . and don't go portraying this to our children as normal, healthy, and accepted behavior."

Not to worry, GfS. Kids these days know what's going on (especially in matters such as this), and they will do what their genes dictate. You seem to be under the impression, as are a lot of people, that the gay lifestyle is a matter of choice rather than genetic predisposition. Scientific evidence in the form of brain research. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's a pretty solidly established fact.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:01 PM

We've been around that bush already...and your 'premise' was well discussed....and found to be nonsense. Just scroll back..OR.... "...Sorry, if that sounded coarse, but when the topic was 'discussed' maturely, no one seemed to get it past their idiotic political stubborn crap."
Bottom line, its not a political problem. That is an exploitation of corrupted, by 'funded studies' 'science'....you must have missed it. I lived through it...(as a counselor who got the memos!)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM

Holy Moly! Still at it? I just clicked in to see if it was real. Glad I did. Read a few posts. Got a hankering for bacon and eggs... dunno if that makes me gay or not. But, I hadn't planned on goin ta Calleeforneeah soon anahwhay eh?

Keep suckin wind... I'll check back in another few hundred posts.

(Yeah... I DO know. Just dunno why yas all gotta thrash and trash. Don't make no sense ta me.... smile on yer brother... ??)

(Oh, yeah... having said that, I still don't like gay parades... just me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:43 PM

Wrong, lassy. It is purely and only a political problem as to what rights will be granted to whom.

Purely and only a matter of groups disdaining other groups and seeking to subordinate them in social privilege. This is not a kind or charitable impulse on your part, but that has never bothered you before and will not do so now, certainly not because I point it out. But you really should face it squarely instead of rationalizing it. Especially since you have this ambition to be Mudcat's in-house psychologist!!! (Expletives deleted).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 08:38 PM

50 yrs ago, this was the same argument that was held so that bigots (big idiots) could keep the races from intermarrying. Many churches also upheld the idea. It seems that some of the religious are just as bigoted as the homophobes. Claim it as what ever fits your bill, degenerate, unholy, deminishing the values of the church/state married, a watering down of an institution, whatever, it will be eventually looked at as a time when our Government a a large percentage of the public was as as racist as back in the 50's when George Wallace was was trying to keep down the Blacks in Alabama. It's a real shame that we still can't get past the same hard learnt lessons when only the shading or the background is different.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 08:56 PM

Sorry, but quoting from a few anti-gay web sites objecting to the scientific findings is hardly a refutation. Like reading Creationists trying to refute evolution. Same hysteria trying to sound scientific.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:53 PM

Don, if that was in reference to me, it does not apply.
Barry, There is quite a difference between being born black, and being a homosexual. The rights issue doesn't apply here, either, because black is not a behavior. Its a race.
Amos(oh my Dear poor Amos), What if a homosexual wanted counseling, under a medical plan, and in the course of counseling, he came out from being homosexual?..Are you going to deny him medical treatment, because it wouldn't fit in your political agenda? It is a medical, and psychological issue. Keep politics out of it...haven't they done enough damage already???
gnu, I thought this thread had run its course, but the brickheads are back, without learning a damn thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:34 PM

GfS, by hysteria trying to sound scientific, I was referring to the web sites from which some anti-same sex marriage folks keep quoting.

The differences in the hypothalamus are most definitely there. It's the interpretation of those differences--are the subjects homosexual because of the difference or is the difference because they are homosexual? Which came first?

The jury is still out, but research goes on. In the meantime, on the chance that it is the difference in the hypothalamus that makes a person homosexual, I, like other wild-eyed liberals, tend to favor giving gays the benefit of the doubt rather than put them in a straitjacket until the research is finished, which may take years. And even then, if it turns out that homosexuality is indeed a predisposition, there will be anti-gays who will continue to dispute the findings. Guaran-bloody-teed!

Glad we found some agreement on the other thread. Cheers!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:44 PM

Well, you had a couple of things going for ya'..one, you're a musician, and two, even a broken clock is right twice a day!!...(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:54 PM

What an absurd, off-the-wall question!!!

Your assertion that homosexuality is "a behavior" rather than a born condition is the keystone of your ignorance. From false premises all things--including bizarre tangential zig-zags--are possible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:58 PM

Whatever you say, Amos.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:27 PM

Speaking of bizarre tangential zig-zags, Amos, there have been a few cropping up around here lately, and I'm worried about it.

I spotted a bizarre tangential zig-zag on one of the basement walls, for instance. It seems to have been made by a blunt instrument of some kind.

My dog was out in the backyard yesterday and he made a bizarre tangential zig-zag! I have no idea why.

I have seen several birds make bizarre tangential zig-zags as they flew over my property.

What does it all mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:31 PM

It means we need an accronim/akronimm/acrhonym.

May I suggest BTZZ?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:38 PM

They sell ZigZags in a local shop which the police are frequently in.

'Acronym'. Jeri, the Spellinator.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM

Ah. But are they BTZZ's or just the ordinary kind?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:41 PM

So, uh, was that then an acronymious post?

HEY. I heard of Zig-Zag papers. They're used to roll--OH    MY    GAWD.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM

They are the special kind, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:50 PM

I have just composed a poem about BTZZ's. It's on the new Walkabouts thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:55 PM

A work of geenious.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:54 PM

Thank you, thank you. (blushing)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM

IN response to your armwaving on "thatother thread" (Obama Administration) but germane to this subject, GfS, I have counseled homosexuals also, and neither that fact nor your experience in counseling them has any bearing on the legal issue of reducing their civil equality by claiming them to be sub-human is some respect. They are not. THey are natural human beings much as you and I are, and as such they should be fully entitled to define thier own partnerships and affinities with all the respect of the law on the same terms as anyone else.

That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result opf genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:18 PM

""That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result opf genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things.""

Damn right Amos.

I'm getting more than somewhat sick of GfS's pretentions to being a caring counsellor. The crudity of the references to Homosexual practices, and the unwarranted supposition that gay relationships are based solely on sexual preferences, show clearly how poorly qualified this character is for the job.

Homosexuals tend, in my experience to be warm, caring, individuals, and no more obsessed with sex than any heterosexual of my acquaintance. Their relationships are no less loving, or constant, than any others.

If GfS is truly a counsellor, there is something seriously wrong in the vetting system that should have weeded out such an obvious homophobe. GfS should not be allowed within a light year of anyone who needs counselling.

It is my considered opinion that GfS is more in need of counselling than most.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM

Ah...the endless righteous Mudcat search for bigots, monsters, fascists, anti-semites, racists, sexists, and other deeply disturbed people in need of counseling or the loss of their professions or perhaps even incarceration goes on...with its usual gusto.

Such people are always, of course, found on the opposite side of the latest argument, whatever it may be about. And what a coup when the righteous here have ferreted them out for excommunication! Drinks all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:53 PM

I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?).

A good friend of mine on Mudcat is Akenaton. We go back about five years and he speaks against homosexuality. He's a wonderful guy.

Another is Teribus. He speaks his mind in no uncertain terms and he backs up his statements. I like the guy. Period. We go back about four.

Another is Amos, and he was instrumental in me being here at all today because when my world fell apart he wrote to me lots and helped me put it back together--please give him shit for that via personal message.

The 'issue' of homosexuality is complicated. It's rife with prejudices of the past; with cruel jokes and bad 'humour'. As a teacher (when I was a teacher), I had many students who told me they were on the verge of committing suicide because they were NOT allowed to be accepted for who they were/are. They heard the 'jokes' and remained silent, because we all damned well know there is little mercy amongst teenagers.

I have friends whom I love who are homosexual. I feel NO diminishment in my 'masculinity'. They are friends, and the reality of our friendships do not involve sex. Hell, I even have FEmale friends whom I love.

Amos has nailed it, imo. When we open the door and allow people to be stigmatized--I have a child who has had that happen to her (special needs)--based on her 'differences', and I think, "What a pity those people don't see the beauty in her, the intelligence, the brilliance. It breaks my heart, but it does not break my will.

I have friends--real friends on Mudcat who read this type of thread, and it hurts that they do. They are--GASP--homosexual. I don`t ask that people change their views, but I do ask that they be somewhat kinder in voicing their criticisms.

Regardless of which side of the Great Divide they are on.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 07:54 PM

Dear, oh, dear, Little Hawk. Once again, you're starting to sound a bit like an entymologist peering through your microscope or a Grand Lama sitting in a lofty temple up in Shangri-La, totally above it all, disinterested, and merely amused by petty concerns of the unenlightened ones.

Do try to remember what Dante said. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:01 PM

Dante called the fire department, Don. It was an inferno.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:27 PM

Peace:

Thanks for an honest and compassionate voice amongst the thundering herd.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:34 PM

Good post, Peace. Very well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM

"That is the sole and only issue here--not whether you like or dislike them, think they are the result of temporary insanity or the result of genetic wandering, or want your sister to become one or not. These are all opinions colored by your own likes an dislikes. Their rights to equal standing under the law is above those things."

Are you all blind, stupid, or both!
I have spent a lot of time here explaining that there are many sectors of society which are refused what you describe as "human rights", the right to foster children being one.

for the last time I will repeat, "human rights" are not universal, but conditional on our behaviour.
I have absolutely no doubt that homosexuality is learned behaviour allied to psychiatric problems, and is not genetic.
According to medical statistics it is as dangerous and destructive as drug abuse.
Amos....I believe you are an atheist like myself, do you not see the belief that homosexuality is genetically based, despite there being not one piece of expert medical evidence to support that view, as akin to a belief the "the supreme being"?

The vast majority of people worldwide, who believe in marriage, define it as between a man and a woman and closely allied to procreation, why is it not affecting those people, to have their beliefs completely redefined to accomodate a minority with behavioural problems?

I've taken on board what you've said Bruce...maybe some things in life are more important than "the current issue".
It takes a real big man to look at life as you do...you are pretty wonderful yourself.
I would also address these remarks to the much maligned Little Hawk.
I strive without much success to be more like him....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 03:36 AM

Ake:

Unfortunately there is a good deal of evidence out there -- ignored by some.. And the issue os not the generalized one of human rights, but equality under the law on a specific issue for a specific population about whom people have various opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:53 AM

ANd I see in no way that anyone's beliefs have to "be completely redefined", except their most oppressive ones about some of their fellow humans. Not sure what the justification for this overblown proposition is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 12:52 PM

I have a 13 year old son. Since the issue of gay marriage is in the news we have had talks about sexuality that have been fairly open. If his experience is fairly normal (and I have no reason to think otherwise) it seems the kids today are generally quite accepting of this sort of thing.

He has a female friend who recently broke up a long distance relationship with her boyfriend and is now looking for a girlfriend. He later said, quite matter-of-factly, that most of the bi-sexuals are in seventh grade. According to him these issues are mostly non-issues.

This in a mostly working class town of about 3,300 people.

I recently read an opinion piece written by a social conservative who basically said that this issue is lost. Things may roll back some for a while but it looks to me like when we geezers start dropping the new generation will head things back the way they are already going. I could be wrong.

In any event, in four days gays will begin applying for marriage licenses and in one week the nuptials will take place. I will keep you posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM

This   (CLICKY)   is a very long article, so I'm quite sure that those who need to read it the most will not do so. Nevertheless, it gives an excellent overview of the nature of scientific research into gender orientation with a good look at the findings so far.

This is a challenge, which, as I say, those who really should read it will undoubtedly wimp out on because they won't want to read what it has to say.

There will be a test!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM

Some time ago Don, you posted the information that one in ten men were homosexual. At that time, I questioned these figures and on reading your article I find that the true figure is about three in one hundred?

There is nothing in that piece which would lead me to conclude that homosexuality is caused by the genes, in fact the reporter tries to make a point that twelve percent of brothers of homosexual men are also homosexual as opposed to two percent in the population, therefore there must be genetics at work, but it is much more likely that this is learned behaviour, as brothers are usually brought up in the same family environment with its attendant parental pressures.

Basically despite all the research by homosexuals trying to find the smoking gun.....they have come up with ZILCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM

Ake:

That is simply not the case. THere have been multiple studies which found that the genetic vector was a distinct causative factor. The current general conclusion is that it is one among multiple causes. WHy not do your homework?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:22 PM

Ake, as I'm sure you recall, I stated at that time that I was going on the figures published by Kinsey in the 1950s, and immediately updated my information when I got the new statistics (once I verified that they were accurate). So you cannot accuse me of chronic inaccuracy or having a closed mind (as I am quite sure is the trust of your current remarks).

That article demonstrates that they have come up with considerably more than "ZILCH," as you know perfectly well, and I was pretty sure that your reaction to the article would be something like this. And I'm sure others with prejudices similar to yours will be reporting in soon. I would like to be able to think of you that you didn't read the article carefully and missed the relevant paragraphs, but I doubt that that is the case. You just don't want to accept it.

I am not trying to convert you, because I know you are locked into your position. So the article is there for the benefit of those who will read it with an open mind.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:32 PM

As long as we're dealing with statistics here, I think I should mention that approximately 95% of male dachshunds will enthusiastically mount just about anything, male or female or even inanimate, when they are in the mood which is...frequently.

The remaining 5% are too lazy.

It has not been determined if this indicates homosexuality in dachshunds...or merely a complete lack of discrimination. The jury is also still out on whether it's a primarily genetic feature of the breed or a form of learned behaviour. Some researchers feel that it all stems back to a single bloodline of licentious dachshunds bred by the Baron von Bumpsenhausen in the early 1700's, but this remains speculative.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:54 PM

Little Hawk strikes again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:57 PM

Dang! I was hoping for a funny dachshund picture, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:16 PM

Always happy to oblige. . . .    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:24 PM

Omigod. That is just...wonderful! I am in your debt. Well, for an hour or two, I am. After that, no guarantees... ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM

Ominous. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM

My Gott in Himmel!! Das ist ein YodaHundt berspeken!!!


Don, thanks for the informative article. I was up on almost all of those data points but the bit on the young twins was faskinatin.

I think reincarnation must be playing a role. Having unresolved issues as an A would make it very awkward to give in to being a B no matter what part of the alphabet you were born as.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:30 PM

I've already got that one, Don, and it's one of my favorites. I love the worried look, the furrowed brow...it's the typical look of an anxious dachshund. They are world-class worriers, specially the "smooth" ones (shorthaired variety).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM

Another for Little Hawk.

Superdawg and his sidekick Woofie.

####

Yeah, Amos. I thought the idea of hormones in utero was pretty interesting. In any case, it seems pretty firmly established that, whatever the cause, personal choice just doesn't enter into it. Therefore, back to the civil rights issue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:55 PM

I think reincarnation could have a good deal to do with cross-gender behaviors and tendencies in people. Have always thought so. If you've been both man and woman before in other lives (which I regard as very common and very probable in the human race), then why would not the characteristics of one gender show up in the physical framework of the other?

Culture is also an influence, and a major one. The people you grow up among can have a very big influence in forming your later behaviours. That's not a case of genes.

Some people are genuinely bisexual in nature, and why should that be surprising?

In most traditional societies, however, we find a very strong pressure to separate the male and female characteristics and roles as much as possible, and to enforce heterosexuality. What drives that pressure? Well, it's part of the struggle to define one's cultural identity. The more people are afraid of their own cultural identity being threatened, the harder they will press for a clear separation between the genders, and the less they will tolerate exceptions to "the rules" (as they see them).

"the rules", however, are usually largely arbitrary in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:12 PM

It also has the threatening component, Little Hawk, of making people less predictable. As the song says,

Plant a carrot
GET a carrot,
Not a Brussel sprout!
That's why I
Like VEGetables
You KNOW what you're about!...."

It makes the stolid types very nervous to think they might be winking at a secret lesbian, or shaking hands warmly over a few beers with a closet gay. My gawd, if you can't trust bodies, what CAN you trust???? LOL!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 09:13 PM

LOL!!! So true, Amos. There's nothing like the fear of the unknown or the unfamiliar to spook people, is there?

That's why most little boys are scared of little girls up to a certain age...(when their biological sex drive starts to take over and completely alters their viewpoint on that subject).

Remember all those amusing Calvin & Hobbes cartoons where he and Hobbes (the stuffed tiger) are having their club meetings in the tree house and deciding how to resume their war against the dreaded and despised enemy: Girls! (*shudder*)

The club was called GROSS (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS). The main object of its stratetic plans was to inconvenience Susie, the little girl who lives next door. Susie, however, was usually able to outsmart Calvin. No big surprise there! (grin) And Hobbes was secretly in sympathy with Susie anyway. Tigers have an instinctive grasp of the romantic, and they appreciate friendly female attention at any age.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM

Can Psychiatrists Really "Cure" Homosexuality?
Masters and Johnson claimed to convert gays to heterosexuality in a 1979 book. But did they?

Scientific American
April 22, 2009
By Thomas Maier

[excerpt:]

Back in 1979, on Meet The Press and countless other TV appearances, Masters and Johnson touted their book, Homosexuality in Perspective—a 14-year study of more than 300 homosexual men and women—hoping to build on their groundbreaking sex studies of heterosexuals that had helped ignite America's sexual revolution. The results seemed impressive: Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.

But were Masters and Johnson's claims of "conversion" in those 12 cases -- nine men and three women -- even true?

Prior to the book's publication, doubts arose about the validity of their case studies. Most staffers never met any of the conversion cases during the study period of 1968 through 1977, according to research I've done for my new book Masters of Sex [a biography of Masters and Johnson]. Clinic staffer Lynn Strenkofsky, who organized patient schedules during this period, says she never dealt with any conversion cases. Marshall and Peggy Shearer, perhaps the clinic's most experienced therapy team in the early 1970s, says they never treated homosexuals and heard virtually nothing about conversion therapy.

When the clinic's top associate, Robert Kolodny, asked to see the files and to hear the tape-recordings of these "storybook" cases, Masters refused to show them to him. Kolodny—who had never seen any conversion cases himself—began to suspect some, if not all, of the conversion cases were not entirely true. When he pressed Masters, it became ever clearer to him that these were at best composite case studies made into single ideal narratives, and at worst they were fabricated.

Eventually Kolodny approached Virginia Johnson privately to express his alarm. She, too, held similar suspicions about Masters' conversion theory, though publicly she supported him. The prospect of public embarrassment, of being exposed as a fraud, greatly upset Johnson, a self-educated therapist who didn't have a college degree and depended largely on her husband's medical expertise.

With Johnson's approval, Kolodny spoke to their publisher about a delay, but it came too late in the process. "That was a bad book," Johnson recalled decades later. Johnson said she favored a rewriting and revision of the whole book "to fit within the existing [medical] literature," and feared that Bill simply didn't know what he was talking about. At worst, she said, "Bill was being creative in those days" in the compiling of the "gay conversion" case studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM

My god...Masters and Johnson bad data?? This may change EVERYTHING!!!!   :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:08 PM

"I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?)."

Yes, I push buttons...and I wouldn't have to, if somewhere along the line, some of you, were showing signs of knowing HOW to think, instead of your glowing retention, of parroting off, crap you were taught WHAT to think!! Before I started this line of posts, which got a little 'coarse', I fully explained BEFORE, that I would, and why...and then proceeded to do just that. Some, could see through it, and some of the 'blocked' started wagging their heads 'TSK TSK'.....but, it did accomplish one thing, needed....some actually started thinking it through further.

I don't believe there are many, is any, in here, that given the circumstances of seeing someone hungry, cold or in other ways 'down on their luck', wouldn't stop to help them(at least I hope so)..and it wouldn't matter if that person in need was a homosexual, black, rich, or poor..etc, etc. That is because of something INSIDE us, and now it is up in all our faces...and you know what?...that's good! Would a 'political bent', stop any of us, from showing care, and compassion, toward a fellow human being in need of a hand??

Well, that's the same here, but on here, the hand that is needed, is understanding that is far wider in scope, than the 'political notion d'jour!'...and what is 'politics'?....the art of persuasion? Nobody needs persuading of anything, what is needed, is a remembrance, of who we are, and that little voice inside, that re-acts to truth, and then acted upon...as if the truth really IS important. To disregard the truth, to merely promote an ego gratification(game), of winning an argument, for some sort of validation, is nothing but useless self absorption...and in doing so, two things: A chance to ADD to your knowledge, and being constructive to others, are out the window.

I've 'perused' some other blogs (political) in nature, and they are getting absolutely no where...but now, on here, minds are considering other points of view..which means here, in Mudcatland, there is more 'unifying' than in all the empty promises about unifying, coming out of Washington, by the usual band of liars. Keep your minds open!

Yes, I might say something a certain way, to push a button, and that button could be linked to the 'think' circuit..which is good, and far healthier, than the listen and adopt blind obedience, to the propaganda machines, pumping out sewage for brain food, and telling you its delicious!

Not only that...sometimes its just downright fun, and entertaining...in a world of the 'politically correct word police'!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:31 PM

It's not really fair of all of us to persist in our unthinking moronic parroting Koolaid drinking irrational dittoheaded haze and force this poor lady to push buttons just to try and stir some life into us. Really, where are our manners? This is unacceptable indolence and rudeness on our part. Imagine putting a hardworking psychologist to all that extra work! We are forcing her to do double-duty as the Mudcat Mater and CHief Button Pusher de facto, if not de jure-- when I am sure she has her hands quite full with other deranged halfwits she gets paid to prod. We must rectify our sloppy ways around here and stop forcing her to push buttons all the time. She's made it clear she wouldn't have to if only we would think for ourselves. One can only assume the result of that process would be insights parallel to her own, since she has made it clear she is an accomplished thinker.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:52 PM

Beautifully put, GfS. You are voicing a number of the same concerns I have tried to articulate over and over again on this forum...usually to the incomprehension of people who, as you say, are wrapped up in "merely promote(ing) an ego gratification(game), of winning an argument, for some sort of validation, (and it) is nothing but useless self absorption..."

They are, like good little parrots, repeating endlessly the things that they think they "should" believe in order to be the kind of people they think they "should be" in order to earn a certain set of credentials: the credentials that prove they are not "racist", "sexist", "gay-bashers", "bigots", etc...

But they're not actually thinking and they're not actually communicating in any thoughtful way. They're mouthing accustomed slogans and accustomed positions of acceptable doctrine and searching for scapegoats...the presumed violators of their acceptable doctrine. When they find what they think is one, the pack mentality takes over.

It's a subtle thing you are pointing out, and it demands patience to understand it. It's way too subtle to reach most people, because they are just parroting a familiar party line (of their accustomed variety..."liberal" or "conservative"). They're enjoying watching the verbal parade of their own imagined righteousness imprint itself on the page.

It's an unaware form of behaviour. I do not expect that those engaging in it will understand what I'm saying at all...(shrug)...well, that's life! Don Firth thinks, for instance, that I am engaging in a kind of Buddha-like detachment...and that's not it!

As you said, GfS "I wouldn't have to (make provocative statements), if somewhere along the line some of you were showing signs of knowing HOW to think, instead of your glowing retention, of parroting off crap you were taught (about) WHAT to think!!"

Bingo! That is it, in a nutshell. Some original and creatively independent thought is what is needed around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:11 AM

Little Hawk: You're showing symptoms of acute diffractionis responsibilidis, pal, known in laymen's terms as "Themitis".


I'm glad you have found someone to share your symptoms with, but the only known remedy is to notice who is generating your bubble of choice, and retake the viewpoints one has endowed "them" with.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:17 AM

Amos..Should I curtsy?...I mean if you talk down to me, I personally think you have an inordinate, hostile,resentment toward 'lasses', and 'ladies', and you've been treating me this way for a while..is it that you can't get past. Perhaps you have issues with women...
On the other hand, if I was a man, it would only mean your sense of perception is as bad as you've repeatedly displayed....

Little Hawk, Should I pump my fist into the air, and grunt, 'HOOyah!'...

..or should I retreat, and wonder what I did wrong?

Amos, Did you and you father get along?..I mean were you close?
Don't have to answer on here..but, think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:30 AM

Just read your post again....I think way back, that's where we came in, but it was during the primaries....Good Lordy oh Lordy, was that a crock!
Change??..Yes, like changing diapers, but every time its the same old 'filler'!!

..and thank you for the compliments!..a breath of fresh imaginative air.

As to Amos, I'm awaiting his...umm..decision(?)
I mean he either has hostile, resentment toward women, or his perceptions are all screwed up....So what is it, o' wise one?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 03:35 AM

I agree with Hawk Guest, You have certainly given us all pause for thought....Doesn't matter if you're man or woman, your heart is in the right place!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:10 AM

Hi Ake, Its always a pleasure to see your name pop up, as well. Here we are, again in this same ol' stuff...I thank you for your input along the way!
Absolute Warmest Regards,(pretty good to give a self proclaimed atheist),
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:04 AM

""That's why most little boys are scared of little girls up to a certain age...(when their biological sex drive starts to take over and completely alters their viewpoint on that subject).""

Classic innit? Little boys are driven by their biological sex drive if they are hetero, but the little twerps are choosing to be deviant when the same drive orients them toward other boys.


""I have to disagree with some people's views of GfS. He/she is erudite and very often insightful. Some things push our buttons. I disagree with GfS's view in that specific regard, but that isn't enough to make me agree that GfS should be pilloried (sp?).""

Bruce, more often than not I agree with your view of life, but I can't help wondering if we are talking about the same person.

Is your GfS the same pompous, opinionated, patronising bigot that has categorised everyone here who disagrees with her view as blinkered and brainwashed, and has set herself up above the best medical research brains of the WORLD,as the one and only fount of knowledge in respect of homosexuals, described by her as "men who want to stick their wienies in other men".

I think the pillory might be too lenient!!!

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 09:21 AM

GtS:

Part of the syndrome of diffractionitis is seeing your own distortions in Them. When all you have is a hammer, everybody looks like a nail. I have issues with women? Hooyah, surely I do. Maybe I'm a lesbian, huh?
As for my father, an honorable and distant man, that ground has been well covered in my endless quest for fictitious normalcy, so no dice there. Haven't you got anything else?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM

Distant, well, ok.....but answer the question..something you should try, and so often avoid....you're NOT getting out of this one by one of your usual tactics, avoidance...(unless I let you off the hook), because you brought this on yourself...and you've (up to a point) stifled quite a few other threads, and been abusive, to more than just me(remember Joybringer?)...then just walk away to 'cut and paste' replies...when people asked you in threads past, to say what YOU thought. Well, its time to stop being a legend in your own wine, sober up, take a big breath and take the plunge...is it your perceptions, or your honor???...Now you're trying to opt out by suggesting you might be a lesbian??? Hiding behind a terrified woman's skirt??....(I guess that settles the 'honor question')...I guess by process of elimination, you're copping to a screwed up perception plea??? Go ahead, If you're a man, show some balls..if a lesbian,..pretend (lesbians in the room should be offended by you)!

Don T. Button it, or you're next!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:03 PM

What does any of this have to do with whether or not same sex couples should be able to get married?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:07 PM

Don, your thirst for ferreting out "bigots" and other such deviants of that sort on this forum (meaning people who deviate from your own opinion in some way) is comparable to the single-minded devotion of a crack addict looking for his next hit. ;-)

And it gets in the way of having useful discussions here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM

GtS:

Your fired, for having a complete vacuum as a sense of humor. To set the record straight, though, I am not likely to engage in introspection at the impulsive behest of someone whom I neither trust nor respect as to their wisdom or psychological abilities. So you can put your bag of tricks down.

None of this has anything to do with the issue or topic of the thread, in any case. Take about avoiding the issue!!

I take it Joybringer was one of your alter-egos or sub-personae?

She had a similar cattiness to her as I recall, but I don't remember if we clashed, or about what.

Anyway, back to the topic, the survey article linked to just upthread kind of waters down your "homosexuality as acquired behaviour" worldview, no?

I am curious to know specifically what the particular danger on an individual transactional level you imagine would transpire if the California Proposition were to be overturned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 01:58 PM

Considering the nasty tone this thread has taken, I believe I am going to absent myself and turn my time and efforts to accomplishing something in the real world.

In both Connecticut and Rhode Island, gay marriage bills are passing in their state legislatures, and in Washington State, Senate Bill 5688 has just been passed by both the House and the Senate, and the Governor has already said that she will sign it. The only thing that is holding it up is a small coterie of eastern Washington Republicans who are attempting some obstructive hanky-panky along the lines of California's Proposition 8. However, the proponents of SB 5688 anticipated this and are taking steps.

My representative in the state legislature is a friend and neighbor whom I knew long before he ran for public office. I will start with him and ask him what I can do as a citizen to see to it that this bill goes into law.

I will look into this thread from time to time to see if anything has changed, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

In the meantime, Guest (strayed one helluva long way) from Sanity, you might read THIS for you enlightenment and edification. (Fat chance!! Talk about "parroting". . . .).

Don Firth

P. S.   Hey! Amos! DonT! Others! We're wasting our time here. Let's get to work in the real world!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:43 PM

If you give a rational statement about why you disagree with homosexual marriage, that's one thing. When you talk of it as "perv marriage" and "DEPRIVED FILTH," then you lapse into the wicked realm of bigotry.

So, Joy Bringer," is there something rational you have to say, stripped of all the hateful terms? Rational arguments are welcome, but you have seriously stepped beyond the bounds of rational discussion.

Oh, and I think the word you wanted was "depraved."

-Joe Offer- "

---

I can see why you might have abandoned this unsuccessful identity, counselor.

Don--you buying? Vamonos. Demasiados pendejos por aqui.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:18 PM

"Considering the nasty tone this thread has taken, I believe I am going to absent myself and turn my time and efforts to accomplishing something in the real world."

Excellent idea, Don! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:00 PM

""Don T. Button it, or you're next!""


And WHAT?.........You certainly do have a superinflated view of your capabilities.

""Don, your thirst for ferreting out "bigots" and other such deviants of that sort on this forum (meaning people who deviate from your own opinion in some way) is comparable to the single-minded devotion of a crack addict looking for his next hit. ;-)""

Thank you LH. I have quite considerable respect for YOUR views too.
A propos of ferreting out, I don't have to dig very deep, when two extremely vociferous and biased posters turn a discussion about discrimination under law into a contest to see which of them can find the crudest, most malicious, and most obscene description of a whole group of people who do no harm whatever to the posters in question.

That's not about whether they agree with my view or no. It is a matter of FACT.


""P. S.   Hey! Amos! DonT! Others! We're wasting our time here. Let's get to work in the real world!""

Damn right. It's gonna happen anyway, and they'll just have to live with it, or move back to Mars.

Out of here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:07 PM

First of all, this thread has not taken a nasty turn, but rather a good one, in the fact that the bullshit parroting is being exposed, and the perpetrators of it. Look at them scurry away!!! I think, if you're going to put forth a premise, then be prepared to take on the honest debate...without resorting to name calling, and trying to discredit your 'opposing' debater, by calling them names, and ganging up on them like a crazed lynch mob. Sometimes when you got to get to the meat of a subject, one needs to break through the shell...and where that sounds nasty, perhaps there is place for constructive dialogue, though an honest and heartfelt, intelligent..and therefore the HEALING process can begin,...usually, once the party line nonsense has been exposed, for what it is.

Amos, your still not off the hook.....

Don's running

TIA is pretending not to read any more..(besides, I don't think he wants to be a glutton for punishment)

..and the other Don,,the article you posted is largely irrelevant, being as it goes into a 'hatred of gays'..and 'homophobia' which I am neither...but I do understand the mechanisms that take place, that may lead to it..and the path back out.

Nice try, but stick to the spirit, and topic.
As far as the other concern, about the 'thread topic', I believe that we, through much interference wind bagging, are getting to the core of just what 'marriage' is.....and therefore, what completely understandable, salient grounds Californians, among others oppose it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:26 PM

""Don's running"".

Yeah, right....I'm really really scared of being beaten up by a crackpot with delusions of infallibility.

Nope, I'm just sick of wading through crude, obscene, drivel.

Talk to yourself GfS, and maybe those nice men in white coats will take you off for a little holiday, with your very own rubber walled room.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 08:42 PM

Nobody's "scurrying away." And rather than an honest debate, GfS, you've turned it into a slagging match. Because you are there, like Wile E. Coyote, twenty feet out from the canyon's edge and you just haven't looked down yet, but you're getting abusive because you're beginning to realize where you are--hanging in mid-air

I have some real work to do. Legislators to phone and e-mail.

Prepare yourself. Lock the doors! Raise the drawbridge!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 09:59 PM

Sorry Don, I guess I'm not like you....into cartoons. I was busy getting an education.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:42 PM

Amos, and parrot, I am, never was, or know 'Joybringer' other that how she was treated. If you go back to where ever that was, you will see, that we were all on there.....another bad call from the 'perceptive' ones!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:48 PM

As "compassionate" counsellors go, GFS reminds me somewhat of a Sunday School teacher I encountered in 1965. He was very proud of a ministry to interracial couples that he had carried on in a previous setting. He didn't encourage them to break up. He explained that once he brought them to the point of accepting that they had sinned against God by mixing the races, and repenting of that, they were really able to grow toward spiritual maturity.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:01 PM

"I was busy getting an education."

To bad it didn't take.

As far as cartooning is concerned (you must have had to really research me for that one), that was something I did as an extracurricular activity while I was going to grade school.

For your information, I've spent a total of seven years in institutions of higher learning studying a wide variety of things, mostly English Literature, Philosopy, and Music, and my education didn't end there. I have a pretty massive library, containing books I have actually read. Such innuendoes out of you, GfS, are merely another example of your turning nasty because you know you're trying to defend an untenable position.

Do try to apply your education.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:14 PM

Don T., it was not you I directed those remarks toward that you put in the quotes, it was Don Firth. I should have typed his whole name out, I suppose, but I thought it would be clear who I was addressing.

People should be able to perceive the reasoning and the honest intentions on both sides of the various debates that have raged on this thread, understand where people on both sides are coming from, understand their legitimate concerns, and not fall into the easy intellectual laziness of just dividing it into stark terms of the black & white, the good and evil.

That would require some patience and a genuine desire to understand what someone else's concerns really are and what they really meant by something they said, rather than to just leap instantly into labelling them by some automatic condemnation label of our era...such as "bigot"...or "sexist"...or "racist"...or the other favorite damnation labels of this time we live in.

We all want freedom (for people generally). We all want justice. We all want fairness. That's a given. If you want it, then you have to give it also. You don't do that by just dumping people into some "pool of the damned" over some fragment of something they said that you misinterpreted in the worst way possible because it made you feel good to catch them out and nail them. And that's my point. That's what concerns me here on this forum...again and again and again and fifty times over after that.

I seriously doubt that anyone posting here wishes to see gays persecuted in any way. I know I don't. I don't particularly wish to see anyone persecuted at all, but what I do want to see is an end to witchhunts...whether they are inspired by conservative rhetoric OR liberal rhetoric.   They're equally ugly in either case.

And that's why I post here. I have virtually no interest in debates about gay marriage itself...because it's not a subject I'm concerned about personally or even interested in. I don't feel threatened by it nor do I feel worked up over it either. It's a non-issue to me.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:08 AM

Proposition: homosexuality should have no weight under the law.

Proposition: Legal categories available to people at large--such as civil atatus, marriage, citizenship, insurability, employability, and the like -- should be applied without regard to gender, race, color, religion, creed, or sexual preference.

Proposition: There are no genuine ethical grounds for denying the legal civilian status of marriage to people who wish to elect it on grounds of their gender.

There ya go. The evidence: the codified civil contract embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; the survey articles linked to throughout this and the earlier similar thread.

So far, the counter-evidence: personal opinions expressing hatefulness, disgust, self-righteousness, and other shabby, second-rate attitudes of unreason.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:44 AM

See, the thing that I think , that is really whackers, and my chief, complaint, with how this is being presented, is that, when an issue, any issue, is misrepresented, and turned into a political 'cause', and adopted, then from there, becomes an issue to bolster a political agenda, in which ton loads of misinformation is unleashed, to support the political base, at the expense, and exploitation, of the people who it was about, in the first place! Then from there, one side proposes 'remedies', which are not beneficial other than popularizing it..to make it acceptable....then cramming it down everybody's throat, whether they like it, accept it, or support it, or not...and impose, in this case, a sexual lifestyle, on the dissenting, majority. Add to that, this particular issue, used to be treated, and successfully, as a dysfunction....and now, its not treated at all..due to the politicized, misinformation in regards to it. To accommodate that, the proponents of the political agenda, driving it, begin tearing down institutions, faith based and otherwise, redefining the language, and the mentality, of the very basic fabric, of a society, which allows the freedom, to think and live as we wish. All this for the political machine, who in reality doesn't give a rat's ass, about the well being, of that same society, at large. It in turn, as Akenaton, very clearly points out, is in fact detrimental to that society.
Meanwhile, the parrots feast on the crackers...and are deluded that it is 'health food'!
Polly want a cracker??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM

As I recall, the proof offered so far as to the "curability" of this "issue" has been a Youtube claim by one individual - scientific proof by one anecdote. As anecdotes go, I have heard several stories of "cured" homosexuals who later faced up to the fact that their orientation remained unchanged. One was a long-term associate of Jerry Falwell a few years ago. You haven't proved that sexual orientation is reversable, and I haven't proved that it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:05 AM

Is this the link you were talking about, frogprince?
Note the interesting part, (about the son's speech) given towards the end of the 'interview'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTYFXZb_rE

What is most concern to me, is that political activist groups, bureaucrats, money driven lobbyists, and flocks of parrots, and political wings, are the ones who decides what is defined, and who what and to what end, people would, should, and won't get medical help. That being said, (being as the political pendulum swings)...do you want THESE people deciding on mental health issues?????????!!!!???!!

Right as it stands now, within the LAST YEAR, physicians accepting Medicaid, has dropped 50%...due to paperwork, and qualifying issues, limitations etc etc.. If you want a better understanding of this, hang out in a hospital cafeteria, or restaurant, where those in the medical field, hang out, and talk (secretly) about what is going on....you'll get a far better grasp, than listening to Harry Reid, Carville, Bush, Obama, or any political figure, under the influence of their personal 'special interest lobbyist'.

If a certain company in a Congressional district, made 'Camel Toe Widgets', and the owner of that company, wanting to make a huge amount of profits, and was a political 'donor'...he goes to his congressman, who refers him to a lobbyist, who comes up with a group of money, AND A 'STUDY' to present to his preferred congressman of that district,..who in turn sees big benefits and profits for him, if he gets it approved, to mandate a law, requiring 'Camel Toe Widgets' in every household, so he, in turn, parleys another congressman to '..if you vote for this proposal, I'll vote for your proposal...'
'..hmm, I don't know if that will fly..."
..oh, yes it will, we have a 'study' provided, that will let the people think this will be a great idea for them....(blah blah blah)'
...ok, we'll get the word to our 'political action' committees, and they'll see that the activists are 'informed'..we'll get the word out! You can count on my vote..' and the handshake is made!
This is your representative government at work, these days!

From there, its just winding up the parrots, dangling crackers of 'self importance' and doing 'something to feel busy, toward a noble end,'....and off it goes to the street!!!

This is where we are with the FDA, insurance companies, mortgage companies, pharmaceutical companies,...and on and on....

This is the shit you've been reading...and I hope all the parrots get enough crackers, to make them feel wonderful about it..so they can 'feel' that the did SOMETHING worthwhile.....Thanks.

THIS is how you want the decisions made in mental heath!!
Because, this it what it is become.

Before you jump for the keyboard....just take a moment, and think, consider..wrap your brain around it..before you rebut!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 07:57 PM

. . . Speaking of "mental health". . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:20 PM

Try it, before the make it illegal!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:09 PM

There are many people in this world who claim to be well-educated, but who have totally missed one of the major aspects of what a truly good education involves. They graduate from an institution of higher learning with their heads stuffed with facts that they have committed to memory during the past however many years and think that constitutes being "educated." They assume that the job is done. Finished.

But the overlooked major aspect that I speak of is the most important thing that a good education can teach:   how to learn. A good education doesn't end with a diploma. If it doesn't continue with the acquisition of new knowledge and the updating and revising of what one has already learned, then one frequently tends to lapse into general close-mindedness and chronic pomposity.

Such as stubborn refusal to even consider recent and current scientific research.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:17 PM

D-u-u-uhh!
Some jerk-offs even study campaign lies and think their gospel, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM

ANd some folks know the difference between a comma and a period, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM

I think that should be "they're," GfS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:27 PM

No, I spelled it right.....look it up.
(Figures!)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:47 PM

"They're" is a contraction for "They are,"

"Their" is the possessive of "they," as in "compaign lies."

Thus endeth the grammar lesson for tonight.

Unless you would care to parse that sentence so that the possessive actually does make some kind of obscure sense. Would you mind checking it against some authority such as The Chicago Style Manual for example, and refer to the page number so I can verify it in my copy?

Don Firth

P. S. In addition to being a young cartoonist, I worked for many years as a technical writer and editor.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:55 AM

Hold that line!! Hold that line!! Send 'em back to Nassau, Eli!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:47 AM

'They', are the possessors of their lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:55 AM

Indeed they are, but please abandon the defense of the sentence you wrote, as it is indefensible.

D-u-u-uhh!Some jerk-offs even study campaign lies and think their gospel, too! means, at best, that they study campaign lies and also contemplate their own gospel. ("Thinking about Jesus as I study them campaign lies...").

Your intent was to tell us that such jerk-offs, having studied campaign lies, believe that such lies are as credible as gospel.

Thus, they think or believe the lies are true or that they are gospel. Hence, "they're".

By the way, it was also a very rude sort of sentence, even insulting in its petty way.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM

Speaking of indefensible, is your position on this particular thread. I do believe you have discredited your self irreversibly, on this topic.
Still on the hook, there, ol' chap....!
Send out the beaked minions!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:39 PM

Not at all, dear lass. It is quite defensible and has been handily defended by self and others, thank you. You have yet to offer a factual or even meaningful rebuttal to it.

I know you could do better, but you won't try.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:03 PM

Among the style manuals that reside on my bookshelves are Webster's. the Chicago, the New York Times, and several others. One of my favorites is both a style manual and an excellent guide for editing and revising entitled Getting the Words Right (the title comes from a remark of Ernest Hemingway, who, when asked why he had rewritten the last chapter of one of his books twenty-nine times, said, "I was just trying to get the words right!"). And, of course, Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.

I have been writing all my life (honorable mention in the Atlantic Monthly high school short story writers'* contest), and so far, I have been paid for about thirty magazine articles. In addition, I have worked as an editor, and as a news director and copy writer for a network affiliated radio station.

You've written enough here, GfS, that finding examples of grammatical errors and incorrect word usage would be no sport at all. Like shooting fish in a barrel. So much for your attempts to denigrate others by claiming to have had a superior education. However, lest you lapse into despair, let me reassure you that there are others here who are even sloppier than you are. Your confusion of "they're" and "their" is a common boo-boo.

Now—I have asked this question several times on this thread, and I have yet to receive any kind of answer:

How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?

Well?

I'm waiting. . . .

Don Firth

*To preempt any attempts to cast aspersions on my punctuation, in the possessive of a plural, the apostrophe goes to the right of the "s."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM

Lest someone spots this and feels impelled to comment on it:

My apologies for the grammatical error in my above post.

". . . the title comes from a remark of Ernest Hemingway . . ." should read either "a remark by Ernest Hemingway" or "a remark of Ernest Hemingway's."

(Physician, heal thyself!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:31 PM

Yes, Don, again a broken clock is right twice a day....I missed the spelling of 'their'...when I went backed, and proof read it. When you called it to my attention, I saw the one,..not the other. I stand corrected...it was a typo..but then I read typonese, pretty well myself. Your bit on your education was interesting, so, in light of that, one can surmise that you know what your talking about. The same courtesy should be afforded myself....
As to your other, I'll get back on that, and I will, but I have to run, presently.

Amos, by shifting focus on some other drivel, you do NOT get yourself off the hook. Try answering questions posed to you, before running around saying, 'No, look over here..no, over here...no over here,..no, no, no, try over here'. I think you can be just maybe a little more mature than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 03:14 PM

Well, GfS, I was affording you the courtesy of assuming that you were reasonably well educated until you began denigrating my educational level by apparently assuming that movie cartoons were as far as my intellectual capacity goes.

After all, one can be a cartoonist and/or enjoy movie cartoons without having been a nursery school drop-out. In fact, a well-conceived cartoon requires a fairly high degree of intelligence. In something like Wile E. Coyote's apparent inability to learn from experience and his habit of concentrating so hard on his ignoble goal that he manages repeatedly to wipe himself out is something a bit more than mere slap-stick comedy. Those of a philosophical nature may see allegories of true-to-life situations and examples of the behavior of some people with whom they are acquainted.

Rather than referring to those with whom you disagree as "parrots," and likening someone to a stopped clock that manages to be right twice a day, along with a whole lexicon of other insults and epithets you have used, if you want people to extend to you the courtesy that you feel you are due, then you need to remember that the door swings both ways.

Now, as to the as yet unanswered question I keep asking. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM

Respect for another's intelligence is something that is always renewable, Don.

My own take on the matter is that I think you are probably both quite intelligent.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:19 PM

As for "well educated"...well, that isn't a synonym for "highly intelligent". There is such a thing as an educated idiot, after all. I've seen a few of those in my time. Merely memorizing volumes of known facts and minutiae does not necessarily result in wisdom, a good attitude, a kindly heart or a good character.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:15 PM

GtS:

Oh, I'm sorry--have I missed one of your scintillating questions? I think I was not avoiding the subject but trying to move this thread back to its original topic. If I recall aright you were trying to make it a thread about my inner psychological makeup, instead. If I further recall aright, I told you that I was unwilling to enter into such a relationship with you, giving the reasons why. Based on your emotional frenetic volleys in this and other threads, I simply would not be willing to trust you as a correspondent in such a dialogue. You may assert your credentials as much as you wish; I know the core fundamentals of the trade, and one of them is an agreement of trust, which as far as I am concerned you simply have not earned.

If there is some other question you think is germane to the subject of the thread--the relationship between gay marriage and law-- then by all means ask. Being neither gay nor a lawyer I can only offer to do my best.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM

"Merely memorizing volumes of known facts and minutiae does not necessarily result in wisdom, a good attitude, a kindly heart or a good character."

I believe I said something along that line up above, Little Hawk.

Don Firth

P. S. Out for the rest of the evening. I'll check in again tomorrow to see if anyone has finally answered my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:25 PM

Yes, you may have. I wasn't necessarily challenging you personally, Don, when I said that, just making a general observation about something I've noticed in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:34 PM

Ahh, but be it for a little wit, this would really be a drag. The problem with politics in general, is trying to find a truth, out THEIR lies. The truth that politicians use, are in layers...like peeling an onion. The truth that parrots tell,...are crackers!

(made that one up myself..just now...no 'cut and paste')

Being educated, in a field, though one may have spent a lot of time learning, can easily be lost, due to A.D.D. It is not that there is a lack of attention, that causes an impediment to acquiring knowledge, as much as needing to fill another void, the deficit, of getting attention, once you have it!

I prefer accurate information, as opposed to those who merely hold forth with an 'opinion', they gathered, just because it sounded consistent, and resonated, with THEIR acquired and preferred pathology...would you say?

Though I've exchanged barbs, witty jabs, and sparred with you, yours is the only opposing opinion, on this topic, that to me, I can respect, not only because of your friends, but of your love for them.

Besides, being as this is a forum, comprised mostly of musicians, and more than likely writers of music,(and other such), as I've stated before, I'm trying also, to stimulate the circuits, and virtually giving away, not just material, but avenues, by which to think larger, and approaches and insights to 'enhance' one's writing...plus, you gotta' admit, some of this stuff is pretty fucking entertaining!

I mean to say, don't you look forward to the next exchange..and done some thinking in between?.......Not you, Amos.......(wink)

Now, what was that question, you wanted me to answer. I'll do it as accurately as possible, and if you make nasty remarks back, ..well, I might just cut you to shreds....again. (grinning)!...but at least, I'll try to make it entertaining. THERE'S a lot out THERE that isn't, these days......

(smiling),
Guarded Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:38 PM

It's definitely entertaining as far as I'm concerned. ;-) That's why I keep coming back.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:26 AM

Little Hawk seems to be on a mission to bring this thread to a happy and peaceful conclusion......which would be a shame after so much blood and guts.

We must not allow ourselves to be sucked into the syrupy porrige!
Onwards! to death or glory!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM

I am not sure you can get to either destination in ASCII, Ake.   Unless you have a heart attack from sheer ire. Or are willing to accept the admiration of a few old folkies as "glory". I guess that's close enough for folk music, as they say. Remember Humpty Dumpty's guidelines for making words behave properly.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:14 PM

LOL! Good one, Akenaton. I like your sense of humour.

Yes! I am determined to finally achieve harmony and mutual respect among the posters here. It is my Quixotic nature that leads me on into such rash adventures.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:23 PM

WHo are you calling a windmill????



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM

It's the arm waving, Amos... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 02:10 PM

Again? You need me to ask it again!??

Considering the number of times I have asked the question on this thread, only to have it still remain unanswered, in fact, not even addressed, I find myself biting my tongue (actually, since I'm typing, biting my fingers) to keep from blurting out some fairly acid witticism, but I will do my best.

The question is:

How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?


Like the cat who ate the cheese and breathed into the mouse hole, I wait with baited breath. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

Don:

Unless you have been eating anchovies again, the word you want is "bated", a contraction of abated, or shortened breath.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:26 PM

But Amos, Don may have written it that way intentionally...

From here:

For those who know the older spelling or who stop to consider the matter, baited breath evokes an incongruous image; Geoffrey Taylor humorously (and consciously) captured it in verse in his poem Cruel Clever Cat:

Sally, having swallowed cheese,
Directs down holes the scented breeze,
Enticing thus with baited breath
Nice mice to an untimely death.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:27 PM

Amos - Read Don's sentence again - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM

Oh, I read it; I just thought there might be a slim chance I could slap his wrist for an error or something, but I can see it is a lost cause.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:38 PM

I should have read the latest WAV thread before my last post. Seems I have omitted a dot.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:39 PM

As far as I can see, it could only affect yours and Barbara's marriage, Don if either one of you chose to let it do so. (and I gather there's no danger of that...) ;-) What I mean is, if one of you was all upset about it and went on and on about it day after day, well, then, that might become an annoyance to the other, and then that might affect your marriage. Possibly. In which case it would be your reaction to David and Steven's marriage that was affecting your marriage! ;-D Since that's not the case, however, my guess is that I have just wasted a whole bunch of keystrokes on a fool's errand here. Ah, well, such is life in the provinces...

Now you have the answer you were seeking. Or maybe not. Well...you have an answer anyway. That's a bit better than no answer at all. Refer back to this post whenever you get the nagging feeling that no one cares enough to respond. (grin)

Are we having fun yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:43 PM

Hey! I just got the 700th post, and I wasn't even trying. Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:48 PM

Not a chance, Amos!

In its normal context, it would indeed be "bated breath," but in this context (breath smelling like cheese in order to lure Mickey from his hole), "baited" seemed the more precise word.

This illustrates a common problem when trying to commit a pun in written form:   different spellings of the crucial word. Whereas, if it were just spoken, no problem.

I did agonize over the spelling for some time before choosing that one.

Don (careful attention to detail) Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM

Speaking of futile and Quixotic pursuits, does it occur to you, as it does me, that all this foofarah seeking to slay the terrible dragon of Gay Union is actually a lot like charging at windmills with a broken lance? ;>) I understand that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but still...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:58 PM

Exactly so, Little Hawk. And if we were to let Steve and Dave's marriage bother us, that would be our problem, not theirs.

The idea that opponents of gay marriage have that it would "destroy the institution of marriage" just doesn't wash. I believe that GfS has made this claim, and the question is directed at him/her. I would like to see GfS actually maintains this, and if so, how he/she tries to support or justify the idea.

Congratulations on #700! (Yup. We're havin' fun.)

Don Firth

P. S. And yeah, Amos. Nuthin' more frustrating than a limp lance!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 04:18 PM

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch.

Same sex couples have been applying for, and receiving, marriage licenses today. According to the county-by-county map at the Iowa City Press-Citizen website it looks like around 200 had applied as of 11:37 AM (local time). Not an exact figure, the map gives amounts for each county but doesn't total them up. A waiver can be requested from a judge to wed right away, otherwise the couple must wait three days.

I actually thought there would be more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 04:23 PM

A limp lance is as useless as a muzzled dachshund.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:12 PM

Let me go on record now as predicting that Iowa will not sink like Atlantis or be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.

I know that there are those who maintain that Sodom was destroyed because they allowed the practice of anal intercourse, hence the term "sodomy." This apparently springs from someone's fertile imagination, because there is nothing in the Scriptures to support the idea.

Now, can someone tell me what "gomorrahmy" might be?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:41 PM

Well done Hawk ....you have succeeded in transforming well educated, pompous,self satisfied members into jibbering idiots in a mere handful of posts.....no mean feat, even for you!

The thread has disintegrated into feeble stand up comedy, a great improvment on the opinions being offered by the pro-homo "liberals".

Perhaps it's what's known as creaing a diversion??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:42 PM

Let me go on record now as predicting that Iowa will not sink like Atlantis or be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.

I hope you are right, Don. Of course we had record flooding last year. Maybe it was due to a clerical error and wasn't supposed to happen until this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM

I don't think you'll manage the same trick over on "Obama torture"

Much better class of bigot!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:47 PM

"...the pro-homo 'liberals'."

True colors exposed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:56 PM

Don...It wouldn't affect your marriage, because you don't appear to care how marriage is defined.....man/woman...man/man...woman/woman..man/man/woman....man/man/ man...or any other combination you wish to propose....I suppose you could include your accordian/car /horse.....the mind boggles, but unfortunately for swingers like you, the vast majority of married folk are happiest with just a husband , a wife and couple of kids.
Oh I know it's so boring, but sometimes life's a bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 05:59 PM

Simply a bit of an abbreviation curmudgeon

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 07:17 PM

My goodness, Ake, that's quite an outburst!

Now who did you say was the "jibbering idiot?"

By the way, Merriam-Webster says the word is "gibbering" is spelled with a "g" rather than a "j".

[In my best Mr. Rogers voice]:   Can you say "conversion reaction?"

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Ake, you are the one who keeps bringing miscellaneous livestock into the works. I fear for your pet goldfish.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM

Without comment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: DebC
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:13 PM

My husband's uncles will be celebrating 40 years together in June. They have one of the most beautiful and loving relationships that I have ever seen. They live in Florida, so they are still not allowed to have their relationship formally recognised.

We have had same-sex marriage here in Massachusetts for five years
and it's been really wondrous to see all the love. Love will always win.

Debra Cowan

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:42 PM

Same sex marriage might finally be the magic bullet that stamps out society's addiction to religion. As soon as it's legal in enough places, somebody somewhere will insist that some witch-doctor unite him/her with his/her lover, and it'll be just like segregated lunch counters. No church will be able to refuse, especially since they work so hard to keep their tax-exempt status. As soon as one of them slimy men-of-the-clothe goes to jail for refusing to perform the ceremony, the walls will crumble.

                     People will see the insanity in going to church, and gays will quit insisting on getting married there. It will be a new day, brother...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:28 PM

Ok, my turn..sorry, I was away, today.....Don, do you have children?
Would you be happy, if your children, witnessing your permissive attitude, in regards to your friend's situation, may think it perfectly alright to become homosexuals, and have that same kind of relationship?

Note: At this time, I have to ask you that. Before you answer, just honestly think, and tell me. Don't worry about whether your answer is 'correct' or not,..just,..Do you want your children to acknowledge, and pursue that 'lifestyle'?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:49 PM

Asking someone whether he would be happy if his child turned out to be a homosexual could be an honest, if touchy, question for soul-searching. Throwing in the notion that someone would become a homosexual because his parents didn't firmly condemn homosexuality makes the question as stated an absurdity.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:56 PM

Ok, that being said, then, would you want you children to choose a homosexual lifestyle, and be in a same sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 12:36 AM

Well, I wasn't asked, but I am quite comfortable my answer would be: "You are loved, and you deserve to be loved and to be happy."

I think you must have a very limited exposure to gays and their families; the typical response to heavy condemnation of gays by a parent is either complete secrecy or complete misery, or both. It is the last reaction a parent should wish on a child announcing they were gay.

And, probably, the most harmful.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 02:15 AM

Let me make something else perfectly clear: parents do not "want" their children to be gay, since they themselves are obviously inclined to heterosexual multiplication. But the question is not what they want, when the issue arises.

The question is, why would you abandon someone in what is necessarily going to be a very very difficult passage in their lives, regardless how it comes out? What a cheap pasteboard version of love that would be!!!


A

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'.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 07:00 PM

Same here, Don. Excellent.

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: 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 - 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
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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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.

As a community of God striving to be inclusive and open to diversity, we, the members of Central Lutheran Church, welcome all people to join us as we struggle to better understand the mysteries of God's teaching and purposes for us. Although our world can seem to be a place of alienation and brokenness, Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by Christ to care for, to love, to understand, and to listen to each other, regardless of our race, age, gender, marital status, physical and mental abilities, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin or economic status. We celebrate the special gifts that each has to bring!

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
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 - 07:40 PM

Thank you, Amos. I most certainly hope we can.

Don

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
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 - 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 - 08:18 PM

Telepathy!! Just like I pictured it!!



A

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 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
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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:03 PM

Good question, frogprince!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:27 PM

If anyone cares to read my previous posts, they will see that there is blatant misquoting and mischaracterization being perpetrated.

I do however find it flattering that someone would hang on my every word and write posts that are clearly pleas for me to return.

Yes, flattering, but also a little sad, and kinda creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM

The notion that sexual orientation is a maladaptation on the same order as psyciatric illness or drug abuse is an a priori postulate with no grounds and a logical fallacy large enough to drop this whole thrad into.

Ake and GtS are both offering self-fulfilling postulates and using it as a rationalization for subdividing the world of willing adults into the eligible and the ineligible, not on the basis of their drug use, their mental or physical health, but on the basis of their gender orientation, something as abnormal as the wrong skin color.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:01 AM

as to TIA, you are consummately wrong in your 'assessment'. Still reading, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:04 AM

Little Hawk:.."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! ;-)


frogprince asks:
"Would you be happy to see your child or sibling marry a person who has a history of homosexuality, but has undergone corrective therapy?"

frogprice,...(may I call you Mr. Frogprince?)
Being as I thought you, sincere, when you posted,...'..That is a soul searching question..", you, in posting that, actually touched me, so, I owe you one....Whether that is a loaded question or not, I'll answer you as comprehensively as should suffice to satisfy your curiosity. I mean that, in all sincerity, as well. Just to let you know, I gave it much thought, and this is as good as I could come up with. It may not be in exactly in the format, you requested, but I assure you, my position is honest, and should be absolutely clear..OK?

Though whether a person, hetero or homosexual, has had previous sexual 'activity' in their past, is not an issue, though in either case, experience, (perhaps even yours, among many peoples), has shown us that in valuing what we do with our bodies in that area, for any number of reasons, often, less is better, as not to de-sensitize one's motives and heart. It also lessens the regret, and sometimes heartaches, that accompany reckless deceptions people often 'bestow' upon each other.
Keeping your eyes open, objectively, for what you want, and what you want to give, in this life, keeps you focused on your priorities, including what you need to do, and who you wish to do it with, and be life's partner with.
When a man get's past his lusts, and/or imaginations, and a woman past her fears, or insecurities, and both get past their self absorptions, (to at least, actually 'meet' the other),and for the reason of giving their very lives to and for each other, make both commitments in their hearts, and to each other, with the full expectation that commitment will last, and be maintained for their entire lifetimes. They should bring both their masculinity, and femininity, to each other, to complete the full spectrum, and be as a whole, genuine unit.
When they have sex, may their orgasms be strong in a way, that besides the man merely giving her his bodily fluid, he may also even feel his life's force, entering into her, and may she soar among the stars, in love...and may he be exhausted, to the point of desiring nothing,(maybe except for air), and may she know, in her joy, that she brought him 'home'.
Should they conceive during one of those moments, that the child in her,(another 'marriage', of sorts), be loved, born, nurtured, and be made strong, loving life, and treating it with reverence, under the covering, of BOTH of their best, with the goal of making a path clear, to continue on, and making it easier, for the child, conceived, and raised by, and for love. Preferably, not putting obstacles, for him/her to overcome, and bringing and presenting him or her to maturity with a healthy, positive outlook in life, spiritually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.
When you see these folks, gray and silver frost upon their heads, walking, hand in hand, heads held high, with life's history, and warmth in their eyes, after all these years, of loving, caring, through, their victories, and tragedies, and never diminishing their love for each other, since the first met, well man....that turns me on!!!
That being said, any compromise from that, is in direct proportion to regret, disappointment, misfortune and sadness, as many of you know by now, that in we can exist.
Now, to me, that is just about the top rung of the human experience. From there, it's only steps down. Whether you compromise your personal disciplines, is your business. But why fart around? Go for the top..if you go for 10, and don't make it, you might hit an 8, but it's still better than aiming your goal at 3.
Why'd ya' ask?

Don Firth, I considered your post, (about artificial insemination, and this came to mind, something I think you'd enjoy, Aldus Huxley's 'Brave New World', and as a companion read, 'Plato's Republic'. Look's like it's going that way....

TAI, ..'The weak accuse others, of their own motives'

Amos,..Are you still confused if I'm male or female...actually truth has no gender, I'm only just words on your screen. Don't throw out your computer, though...(wink).

Akenaton, Homosexuality is not the 'cause' of societies dying...history tells us that it is a symptom, of one that already is...but then, history also tells us, that man never learns from history!!

Little Hawk, Yoho, Thank you for:
"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! ;-)

Everyone should have equal rights, as CITIZENS, not because of who you, or what you have sex with......besides, less than the real thing, is bullshit!
Warmest Regards and Love to Everyone.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:47 AM

Don....If AIDS/HIV is an "equal opportunity disease", would you please explain why, in every country where AIDS was diagnosed it first showed up amongst the homosexual community?

Of course AIDS/HIV can be successfully transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but it has never been explained why it has always been first diagnosed among practicing homosexuals.

The fact that the homosexual community is such a small part of society at large makes this even more strange.
Latest figures still show homosexuals as the largest group suffering from Aids in real percentage terms.

It is a "cop out" to suggest that Aids is simply a product of "promiscuity", as the figures state a definite link to homosexual practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:14 AM

Amos...I am not prepared to accept that Homosexual practice is genetic in origin, when there is absolutely no science to support that proposal.

If the causes of homosexuality are not genetic, then it stands to reason that it must be either "learned behaviour", a symptom of psychiatric imbalance, or other exterior causes.

Still enjoying your posts GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:31 AM

Qwll, I suggest you look back at some of the links posted earlier, Ake. This is about the third time you have used that "absolutely no evidence" line. Very noble and business like, that. But it only works if you ignore the evidence that is there.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:54 AM

Gfs, I'd say you have done something rather remarkable here, in that I think you've clearly and vividly pictured a very high ideal for monogamous love and family life, and done so for the most part with an almost incredible lack of dicernible sentence structure. : )
The great majority of people around us are heterosexuals for whom that ideal is completely applicable. If it was typical for people today to be ingrained with that high an ideal, we would all be immeasurably better off. A lot of your ideal is also applicable to anyone raising or caring for children who aren't their's by birth. At the same time you seem to grasp the importance of holding an ideal without crucifying fallible mortals over their inability to live up to it perfectly. All this I have to respect.

A couple whom my wife has known since college were recently parted by the death of one. They had been inseparable for close to 40 years, each seeing the other through significant health problems,
job loss situations, et al. I knew one somewhat more than the other,
and know that faith was very basic to her; it may have been just as much so for the other. Anyhow, I considered both of them to be good women.

Incidentally, I read and reread you reply, and haven't been able to sort out a discernible answer to the question : )

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:55 AM

...your reply...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:08 AM

GfS:

Your description is really beautiful.

I do not actually believe that the intensity or beauty of a same-sex relationship is muchless, though. I have no personal experience on which to base that judgment, being one of those frost-headfed heteros you describe. But its not my judgment to make, but that of the participants in it. That's a brand of freedom that should be left to the individual.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:50 AM

An interesting recent survey on the numbers relating to homophobic bullying in school-age children, and the sometimes lethal results thereof.


A quote therefrom:

"(...(S)ubstantially more black adults see homosexuality as morally degenerate than whites. According to Gallup Polls 65 percent of blacks view homosexuality as morally unacceptable compared to just 48% of whites. The Hispanic numbers on this measure are comparable to whites.

"I say, seeking to diminish the human dignity of another whose only crime is not loving whom you would have him or her love is immoral and an offense to the indomitable determination of the heart.)"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:13 PM

Amos...what the hell has this discussion got to do with "skin colour"?
It is perfectly normal for different races to have different coloured skins,to marry and to reproduce interacially with no harmful side effects.

Your message attempting to equate my argument with colour prejudice is astonishing!
People with "colour prejudice" practice a crude form of racial hatred, whereas I hate neither homosexuals nor folks of different race, I am simply trying to make the case against homosexual "marriage" in plain language and in sincerity.

You may not like it Amos, but I believe what I write and I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my position.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:34 PM

There is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.....fact.

From the editor of The Lancet

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:37 PM

Dear Ake:


The issue is this: a civil status has been defined on exclusionary grounds. The exclusion is based on something you define as bad behavior, and therefore find perfectly acceptable. According to the scientific information, however, there is strong evidence that this exclusion is not in fact based on behavior, but is based on a condition which is partially genetic and partially cultural, rather than an actual choice.

It is of course true that deciding to be as one is instead of act differently in order to cling to a normative profile is a choice, but I think you will agree that forcing people to denytheir own natures is probably not a good implementation of "freedom under law".

Furthermore I see no hard evidence to support your assertion that being homosexual, or living with another homosexual person in a committed relationship, is "destructive".

It was argued, long ago and in a different context, that people of color should accept their place in society, and that if they did not, they, too, were acting destructiuvely by upsetting the status quo.

You have made the same argument about a different group of legally excluded citizens, but instead of basing it on color or race, you base it on their sexual orientation.

You persist in doing this in spite of the fact that there is no identifiable possible way that the marriage of two people of the same gender could have a negative effect on you, accept by reason of your own attitude only.

Thus, the parallel between your attitudes toward "them" and the earlier attitudes of racially-motivated prejudicially minded vociferous citizens is, to my view, particularly apt.

In both cases an argument is made to exclude a group of citizens from certain civil rights because of a condition which in fact is an innate part of their nature andf is in fact not harmful to others in and of itself.

That's what the one has to do with the other. Thanks for asking.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:38 PM

Amos, my friend, I don't believe that you are making any real effort to understand what Akenaton's concerns are, because you are so busy stating and defending a specific political ideal (and a good one, by the way) that it is preventing you from looking at what he is actually concerned about. He is not in disagreement with the political ideal per se, he is concerned about other matters entirely.

So you are talking at cross purposes, to no useful effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:52 PM

Ake:

The essay you cite is from 1995.


There is a body of evidence since then you should become familiar with.


Please excuse me if I have not understood thepoint you aremaking. Perhaps you could spell it out for me in declarative simple sentences, as I am a little jaded.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:02 PM

I waded through the last article that Ake linked. I frankly found it heavy going, but my impression was that it was an honest effort to look objectively at the very complex subject. What I'm getting, Ake, is that you've come to one of the very polarities of simplistic conclusion that the article is warning against.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:08 PM

And I failed to note the date of the article, but it remains that it did not claim that "There is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.....fact."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:22 PM

If there was a difference frogprince, I can assure you it would have been plastered all over this thread by Don Firth and Amos.

I have stated a dozen times on this thread what my position is, however it is obviously in the interests of Don and Amos's arguments to misrepresent mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:17 PM

I think it's more like...they don't get your point, Akenation, because their minds are already completely occupied with making their own point. ;-) This is the reason why most arguments between human beings simply go on and on with no resolution. (or no achievement of mutual understanding might be a better way of putting it...resolution is not particulary required, I don't think, just mutual understanding)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:21 PM

What Makes People Gay?? (a survey article).

" in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.

Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.

That hasn't happened yet. But the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing. Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective. In recent years, researchers who suspect that homosexuality is inborn - whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb - have looked everywhere for clues: Prenatal hormones. Birth order. Finger length. Fingerprints. Stress. Sweat. Eye blinks. Spatial relations. Hearing. Handedness. Even "gay" sheep.

LeVay, who is gay, says that when he published his study 14 years ago, some gays and lesbians criticized him for doing research that might lead to homosexuality once again being lumped in with diseases and disorders. "If anything, the reverse has happened," says LeVay, who is now 61 and no longer active in the lab. He says the hunt for a biological basis for homosexuality, which involves many researchers who are themselves gay or lesbian, "has contributed to the status of gay people in society."

These studies have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest. Still, because there's been so much of this disparate research, "all sort of pointing in the same direction, makes it pretty clear there are biological processes significantly influencing sexual orientation," says LeVay. "But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."

Just in the last few months, though, the hints have grown stronger.

In May, Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams. Researchers found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones. (Again, it's conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.)

In June, scientists in Vienna announced that they had isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in the fruit fly. Once they flicked the switch, the genetically altered female flies rebuffed overtures from males and instead attempted to mate with other females, adopting the elaborate courting dance and mating songs that males use.

And now, a large-scale, five-year genetic study of gay brothers is underway in North America. The study received $2.5 million from the National Institutes of Health, which is unusual. Government funders tend to steer clear of sexual orientation research, aware that even small grants are apt to be met with outrage from conservative congressmen looking to make the most of their C-Span face time. Relying on a robust sample of 1,000 gay-brother pairs and the latest advancements in genetic screening, this study promises to bring some clarity to the murky area of what role genes may play in homosexuality.

This accumulating biological evidence, combined with the prospect of more on the horizon, is having an effect. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something "deeply rooted" in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he'd spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that "many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation." His message: "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."..."

The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for a genetic component, despite nay-saying and bully-rag nabobbery to the contrary. There is also evidence of other vectors and the probability is that predisposition, precipitation and prolongation of the condition varies from case to case based on multiple ingredients.

It is just disingenuous to argue that NO genetic or NO non-genetic elements are in play.

Not to mention discompassionate in extremis.



A1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:39 PM

It is obvious from his first post that Amos wished to make a political point by starting this thread....."Liberal"v Right Wing the issue of "rights" only incidental.

As the thread has gone on, the real issue of "rights" has slowly been brought to the fore.
If the thread has caused those who simply read but don't contribute to the debate to think a little more deeply about human rights and how they are apportioned, then I am well pleased.
There can never be any winners and losers in a discussion like this, the object is to increase understanding in all who follow the arguments.
Amazing how Little Hawk's devastating post on the "Witch hunt mentality" was vindicated only a few posts later by a concerted attack by opposers of free speech

At the end of the day, if "marriage" is to be redefined in the image of one minority, then it must be redefined in the image of any form of relationship that human beings demand....to refuse entry to the "marriage club" would be sheer hypocrisy.
Group marriage, incestuous marriage...the sky's the limit

I don't think for one moment that the majority of homosexuals want all the furore of the marriage issue, they are being manipulated as political pawns by their bown fundamentalists and people not unlike Amos.... all over the Western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:51 PM

Amos you posted that before...and GFS and I dealt with it before.

If homosexuality was linked to genes, the genetic differences would be huge and obvious.....you and your accomplices would not need to rush around looking for a needle in a haystack!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:53 PM

Sheeshe, Ake. There is only one political point to this thread, as far as I am concerned. That is the core issue of the civil status being denied a particular group on spurious and prejudicial grounds.

We learn slowly, and often we redefine as we learn. I remind you the word citizen at one time was denied some minorities (due to race or inadequate wealth). At another time a subset of humans was denied the right to marriage or sex because of their economic status. At another, the act of love between two humans was constrained if one was the wrong color.

We are about honoring individual freedom to choose, Ake, not about living up to imaginary norms imposed by authorities. Maybe we differ in this, but that is what I believe we are about.

To the degree we do not learn to honor individual freedom to choose, weare steering in the wrong direction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:04 PM

I have read both Plato's "Republic," and Huxley's "Brave New World," GfS, and likening what I described to the society Huxley postulated is reaching for it. How do you feel about a childless heterosexual couple who does the same sort of thing?

I know of such a couple who were both fertile, but the woman was unable, due to a physical abnormality, to carry to term. So an egg harvested from the woman was fertilized in vitro, then implanted in the uterus of a woman who volunteered to be a surrogate mother (for a fee, incidentally). Essentially the same procedure as I described above (except that the woman did not charge them a fee).

Is there anything "Huxleyan" about this? Or is that only if it's done by same sex couples?

These days fertility clinics can offer a number of options that one could characterize as Huxleyan. But that doesn't really mean that society is going to collapse.

####

And Ake, you seem to imply that HIV/AIDS was invented by homosexual men.

". . . would you please explain why, in every country where AIDS was diagnosed it first showed up amongst the homosexual community?"

Simple, Ake. It's not true.

The history of HIV/AIDS:   CLICKY.   Although I'm quite sure you will blow this off because it disagrees with what you want to believe.

Transmission of HIV virus (I would consider the Center for Disease Control a fairly reliable and unbiased source of information, wouldn't you?).

Other CDC data:

Males accounted for 74% of the population living with HIV. The largest population living with HIV (45%) comprised men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by persons infected through high-risk heterosexual contact (27%), those infected through injection drug use (22%), and those who were exposed through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (5%).

Still more HERE

Although immunodeficiency diseases of one sort or another have been around for as long as humans have, the HIV/AIDS was first identified in the United States in 1981 in a small group of homosexual males. Saying that this is a "gay disease" is a bit like blaming polio on children who like to swim because the first cases identified in the polio epidemic in the summer 1916 were kids who contracted the virus while swimming at public beaches (when I contracted polio at the age of 2, I hadn't been anywhere near a swimming beach, or other children who had).

No, the association is simply a matter of happenstance, and is used as a handy weapon against gays.

And Little Hawk—have you ever taken a strong stance on a moral or ethical issue, or is "colorless neutrality" your permanent posture on everything? Ever read the statement made by Pastor Martin Niemoller back in the 1930s? If not, look it up and read it. If you have, read it again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:36 PM

Little Hawk, Amos and I most certainly do get the point, and part of that point is that Ake is dodging the issue. We have said that, to a degree, the science is not complete, but so far, there are indications 1) that there may be a genetic component in determining gender orientation; and/or, 2) there are occasionally imbalances in the infusion of hormones at a crucial time in the development of the fetus which determines gender orientation. And that this orientation often manifests itself at an early age, long before puberty and long before a child knows anything about sex at all.

There are case studies up the ziggy on this. And both Ake and GfS are studiously avoiding this evidence and making the flat statement that gender orientation is a matter of conscious, well-considered, and deliberate choice.

Phooey!!!

If you're going to commment, try reading a bit more carefully first.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:56 PM

Don, you consistently misunderstand me.

My stand is this: I have NO objection whatsoever to gay couples getting married if they wish to, and I have no objection to them being legally allowed to do so. No objection. They have my blessing.

Got that????????????????????????

Please tell me you do.

Now, I am also concerned about some of the points that Akenaton and others have raised, quite apart from that, and I agree with some of their concerns. I am concerned about how the mass media and certain people who have what amounts to an obsession about this particular issue have arranged for it to occupy such an oversized piece of everyone's attention for a decade or so now.

I think it's way out of balance, I think it's a tempest in a teapot, I think it's a political ploy by certain special interests for their own (political) gain, and I think there are people on BOTH sides of this debate who are likewise out of balance over the whole thing and are using it as a political ploy, and THAT is why I favour some statements and disagree with some statements on BOTH sides of the fucking debate!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you understand that or it is too inconceivable to you that a human being doesn't HAVE to be 100% totally partisan on one or the other side of two sets of arguing people?

It isn't just a case of Black/White, Good/Evil, All-wrong/All-right in this world, Don. There are shades of gray in most situations. There are fools, fanatics, demagogues, and highly prejudiced people carryin on on BOTH sides of most highly charged debates in this world, and they are the people who fuck things up for most of the rest of us by their mutual intolerance for one another and their determination to dominate the airwaves and persecute US with their particular obsession, whatever it is.

I DO take a stand, Don. I take a stand for fairness, even-handedness, moderation, tolerance, and willingness to listen to other people rather than just bleating some politically correct slogan at them and mentally patting yourself on the back while you do it for being such a terrifically great and moral guy, and that's what I see a lot of people doing here a great deal of the time. They are eager to find someone else to judge and condemn, someone else to label as "bigot" or "racist" or "pro-homo", but they have precious little interest in understanding what the other person is attempting to say...or why. I object to THAT.

Do you understand me NOW? If not, I must assume you have never even tried to. I get so fed up with this endless bullshit from you about my supposed "colourless neutrality"...Christ! I can hardly believe it each time you say it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:07 PM

Regarding the genetic predisposition (or not) argument, Don, I really don't have an opinion about that. Why? Because I don't know enough about it at this point to have an opinion.

I think there are probably a great number of factors which can play a part in whether someone is inclined to be gay...some intrinsic to the person, some acquired through environment, culture, etc. I happen to believe that people reincarnate, and that one human soul can live many lives as a man and many as a woman...so if that is the case, then why wouldn't people get a bit confused about their gender roles at times? And why should it matter if they do?

I think that the human soul is equally male and female, Don...every human soul...but that when you are born you must find yourself in either a male or a female body at that time...and then you come under the influence of your culture and your family and whoever else is around...and so it goes. Anything can happen.

So what are you gonna do with that? Probably nothing, right? ;-) Because you don't even consider it in your argument.

The argument about genetic predisposition (or not) is simply not what concerns me in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to argue about it one way or the other. I have no basis for arguing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:10 PM

YOU RULE, Little Hawk! What I've thought all my life but couldn't put it into words! YOU did!!! Bless you on this May Day!

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

And what IS it with people who simply can't seem to change their minds when presented with FACTS? Do they just ALWAYS have to be 'right'?

But I was wrong once too.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:18 PM

NEWS ALERT:
SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE FOUND A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY! Details at ten.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:50 PM

"A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY!"

To isolate it, they would first have to find at least one middle aged man who has a computer but has never exhibited that behaviour. A quadropoligic wouldn't do, for reason that should be obvious. Then they would have to waterboard the subject a few times, to determine if he was telling the truth. Then they would have to find at least one more, and start over, to replicate the findings. Just about an exercise in futiltiy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:53 PM

Thats Futiltiy South Dakota, where the research in this field is being conducted.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 07:02 PM

GtS:

I don't think I've heard such a moderate position from you before on this issue.

The fact of gays marrying or not marrying is, indeed, as tempest in a teapot. The fact of them being denied the RIGHT to do so is a serious matter and it would be so whether the basis of the bias was freckles, or elongated earlobes, or skin color, or any other non-germane excuse to exercise bias.

This really has nothing to do with homosexuality as such. It has to do with knowingly excluding a set of humans from a legal right on spurious grounds.

Why make them sit in the back of the bus?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 07:06 PM

Well, sorry, Little Hawk, but that's the way you come on, as if standing in a neutral corner and remarking on the "human weaknesses" of the participants in the discussion without really getting involved in the discussion itself. Then you return from time to time to take pot-shots without actually stating an opinion of your own.

And by the way, if you don't know enough about something to venture an opinion, you might consider not taking those pot-shots at people who have spent considerable time researching the matter and have facts upon which to base their opinions.

"The argument about genetic predisposition (or not) is simply not what concerns me in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to argue about it one way or the other. I have no basis for arguing about it."

Okay, then why are you here, other than to snipe?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 07:30 PM

Thanks to all of you for a spirited and interesting (if a bit repetitive) discussio. I am away for a week. Don't take advantage.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:00 PM

Sounds good, Amos. I've got a busy weekend ahead of me also.

Enjoy!

Don Firth

P. S. If anyone is curious about my views on this matter, just reread (or read for the first time) my many posts above. TTFN.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:22 PM

I am here, Don, to remind certain people over and over again, that they have no moral authority or right to judge other individuals (whom they are in dialogue with) or to make sweeping statements that sum up another individual whom they are in dialogue with as a "racist", a "bigot", a "sexist" or anything else like that.

We do not have the right or authority to pass that sort of judgement on other people when we're discussing something with them, in my opinion. Also, it inevitably derails the discussion and turns it into an ugly exchange attack/defence/counterattack.

I go by an ancient spiritual teaching, Don: "Judge not, lest ye shall BE judged (and found wanting)."

I say that not as a Christian, not as a Muslim, not as a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Pagan or indeed any other such designation, but as a free thinker who believes in the principles being expressed in that spiritual teaching.

We are not equipped to pass judgement on another human being, in my opinion, and we should resist the temptation to do so most strenuously. We never know enough about anyone else to be equipped to judge them in that fashion.

As for passing judgement on people's actions...well...that's another matter entirely. ;-) If I see someone taking an action that is destructive in some way, then I judge the action itself, and I deal with it accordingly (as does civil law). I do not pass judgement on the person but on what the person did or is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:52 PM

Little Hawk, I'll be gone for awhile, but here are some selected readings:

####

The expectation that men should abandon their judgment is the desire that men reject their ability to reason. In fact, when the Bible states "Judge not, that ye be not judged," the implicit motivation to refrain from judging is the fear of someone else's judgment. Many believers may say that this means we should not condemn others, but this verse makes no mention of either condemning or others. Besides, there are times when it is morally proper to condemn others. I would never expect or ask others to "judge not" or to suspend their ability to reason. In fact, I purposefully seek those who are not willing to abandon their intellectual and moral judgment. I delight in the use of my mind, which means I delight in my ability to pass sound judgments about things and people. Also, I fear neither the judgment nor the condemnation of others, because I do not accept the implicit assumption that others are in some way superior to me, such that their judgment and/or condemnation is be something I should fear. Rather, I adopt the principle: Judge, and be prepared to be judged.

####

We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence.

I've been in a number of social situations where I've heard these phrases all too often:

•        "Everyone is entitled to their own truth."
•        "There's no such thing as good and evil."
•        "Judge not lest you be judged."

These statements are not the product of critical thinking. Arguably these statements result from a LACK of critical thought. While part of being critical is to thoroughly examine all aspects of any statement, fact, or opinion, the essence of being critical is NOT to withhold judgement, but to render it.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

Don't you find it strange that people associate judgment or the act of judging with a negative connotation? This is a product of society and a natural tendency for many people to be neutral fence-sitters, and abdicate responsibility by not rendering any judgment whatsoever.

The goal of exercising critical thought is not to strive for absolute neutrality—which doesn't benefit anyone. We don't become critical thinkers just for the sake of criticism. The goal is to strive for the truth, and to reject untruth. The goal is to strive for the good and to reject the evil. This is a very difficult goal to attain, but it is the motivation that should inspire us to continue to question ourselves, our world, our existence. It will always be an ongoing process, and one fraught with mistakes–but that should not frighten us into becoming fence-sitters who sanction anything.

It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer "Why?" and to prove one's case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer.

So to the statements above, this is how critical thinkers would rephrase them

•        "Everyone has a right to seek the truth."
•        "We should seek the good and reject the evil."
•        "Judge, and be prepared to be judged."

####

I refuse to remain impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.
—Winston Churchill

The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.
—A. A. Milne

Those who choose to not participate in politics will be ruled by their inferiors.
—Plato

Are those who declare "Judge not that ye be not judged" willing to allow others to act immorally so that they may do so also?
—No mercy for the Devil

####

"Judge, and be prepared to be judged."

Let's compare that to the Bible.

The bible says "Judge not, least ye be judged" (or words to that effect).

The bible tells you not to judge others because doing so will likely result later in you being judged. We could argue all day long over the nuances and meanings of the word "judge". I am not going to do that. I am just going to assume the meaning that most of us would, when we use the word "judge". It is generally used to mean "analyze". The act of "judging" is the act of "analyzing."

In our society it has become politically correct to say "don't be judgmental." Are they saying "don't be analytical?" No. What they are really saying is "do not criticize." No one is ever going to complain because you give them too many compliments. They mean "do not criticize me."

In the world we live in today, religion is finally being exposed to the same criticism as science and all other human activities. People do judge. They analyze, and if they feel it's warranted, they criticize. That is called thinking and expressing yourself. Everyone judges, it's called thinking. Everyone criticizes when they feel justified, it's called freedom of expression. And, everyone judges their judger, as is their right.

####

You say that one risks his personal integrity if he chooses to stand on a particular side of the fence. That is not true. You might end up finding you were wrong. But being wrong does not necessarily mean being dishonest, ergo you can be wrong and still be a man of integrity. The real reason why it is not true is because if you don't choose, you have no integrity. Integrity is the consistent practice of virtues such as honesty, productivity, justice, etc. To practice those, you have to make choices - both moral and practical. In order to be just, you sometimes need to make a choice on whether a person is or is not guilty for say a crime. There is no middle path here. Your end conclusion might be wrong, but if you have seen the evidence, considered it all and if you have found no inconsistency with one of the verdicts, then you can honestly make that verdict without the breach of integrity. You cannot go through life without making choices and judgments. Judge and be prepared to be judged.
—Nikola Novak

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:15 PM

Addendum:

Judge, and be prepared to be judged. And remember that you can be judged for the judgments you make—and for the judgments you avoid making.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:27 PM

'Seek you, the truth, and the truth shall set you free'..as long as you're quoting the Bible,..don't forget that one, boys!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:09 AM

I know one particular source whence forth I can be sure that truth does not issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:20 AM

And "Even the Devil quotes Scripture."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:45 AM

Tia, there you go again..can't you ever say something original, ..umm..like an a original thought, instead of these feeble attempts at 'bagging' on someone?? Look up the word 'constructive'...I mean as long as you're not reading this thread, any longer.

Don, Even the truth is in there too....but then, maybe the devil has gene issues. ..or claims he does..who knows? It says he's a liar too.

Take a chance, and bet on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:54 AM

We don't really disagree, Don, you'd just like to think we do. ;-) You are again thoroughly misunderstanding what I mean when I speak of not judging another human being.

For instance, I do not agree with the propositions you suggested I would that:

•       "Everyone is entitled to their own truth."
•       "There's no such thing as good and evil."

Nope. I don't agree with those in the least. People are not entitled to a truth, for example, that makes them think they can wantonly harm others, for instance. They may think they are entitled to it, but they're not.

And there is such a thing as good or evil. And I am not even slightly afraid of "taking sides".

I know it would be convenient for you, Don, if I believed all the silly things you would like to think I believe in order for me to make a good target for your argument, but I don't.

I said...judge the action, not the person. That is what the law does, if it's a sensible law. It judges the action, not the person. It does not sentence a robber to jail because he's an unpleasant fellow, a jerk, etc., it sentences him to jail because he has committed robbery. That's a judgement on the action, and that's what I mean by judging the action. The robber pays the penalty of his crime...he does not go to jail because he's Black, gay, Muslim, atheist, mean or just plain unfriendly and generally not nice. He does not go to jail because he's "evil". He goes to jail because he committed robbery. He didn't control an evil tendency.

That's a judgement upon his actions, and that's the kind of judgement I'm in favor of....the normal course of enforcing the law. I am no moral agnostic whatsoever. I know what is right and what is wrong. I'm simply not the person you imagine me to be at all.

I'd waste more of my time here trying to prove that I'm not the silly unrealistic moral agnostic prat you wish I was, but why bother? It gets boring and after all, it is my time. Why should I spend it that way when there are better ways? Why allow YOU to make ME waste my own time defending what needs no defence?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 01:31 AM

Little Hawk, a lot of what I posted above are from essays on ethics. I am not accusing you of these things, I put those essay excerpts there as a reminder of a lot of things that need thinking about from time to time. Including by me.

And I am not trying to make you the target of any argument.

As to the matter of judging the action, not the person, I can most certainly judge what a person advocates, even though they may not have taken action on it—yet. If someone advocates something that I consider unethical, I have a moral obligation to speak out against it. I do not have the right to muzzle him or lock him up. But I most certainly have the right to express my opinion. And endeavor to stop him before he translates what he advocates into action or manages to talk other people into doing it.

And that includes telling someone who has shown all the signs of being a flaming bigot that that is what he seems to be exhibiting, and telling him why I think so. There is even the outside chance in such situations that the person might take it to heart and do some soul-searching. As I have suggested a few people here might do.

I most certainly hope that you are not a silly, unrealistic morally agnostic prat, but if you do not wish to be regarded as one, it would really help if you would stop sounding like one.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 01:54 AM

Well, Don, again I do not see any area where we disagree in what you just said.

I think you have possibly misinterpreted what I was referring to when I spoke of not judging a person.

Language is the tricky part here. You and I are, I think, in agreement about ethics and about how to respond to unethical behaviour, but we are not interpreting what I mean by the phrase "to judge a human being" in the same way. It has nothing to do with letting people get away with bad behaviour. That's not what I'm speaking of.

Suppose someone does something idiotic...

If you say to him, "That was a stupid thing to do!" you are on solid ground. He can maybe do something useful with that advice. You have judged his behaviour, and behaviour can be changed. You have not judged him, in the sense of who he is as a living being. You have not judged his intrinsic worth.

If you say to him, "You're an idiot!" you are not saying anything useful at all to him, and he can't do anything useful with it. He can just get angry or humiliated. That would be judging HIM, not his actions.

See?

Try the above two approaches on a child while he's growing up. If you keep telling him he's stupid, he's an idiot, he's lazy, and he's no good...well, it gives him no useful input at all, and it may convince him that he really is stupid, an idiot, lazy, and no good, in which case his life is headed for no place good at all...or it may fill him with a sense of bitter injustice and hatred for you. This has happened to many children while they were growing up. They had judgement brought down on them their parents who meant well perhaps, but who had no idea how to use words. It was not expressed as judgement of their actions, but of their intrinsic worth as a human being. That's what I'm saying we shouldn't do.

That's the kind of judgement I'm saying we shouldn't bring down on people.

But we should certainly tell them that their behaviour is unacceptable or inappropriate or illegal...if it is. And they should meet the normal consequences of that behaviour.

As I said, behaviour can be changed. To inform a person of wrongful behaviour can be useful. To inform him that he's an idiot, a bigot, a racist, a fool, etc....is useless. He will either believe you...and forever hate you for it. Or he won't believe you...and forever hate you double for it.

Believe me. I know how it works, having been on the receiving end of that sort of thing when I was young.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 02:16 AM

I don't have time to comment right now, Little Hawk, other than to point out something about the way I usually attempt to phrase things. When GfS asked me how I would feel if one of my children, presuming I had any, "decided" to become gay, I pointed out that his question ". . . 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?'"

I was suggesting that perhaps GfS didn't fully realize what kind of question that sounded like, and might like to think about it a bit and possibly reevaluate the ideas that prompted it.

I did not flat-out call GfS a "bigot." It's still GfS's call.

Bedtime for Bonzo. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 02:25 AM

Not sure I got it all..its my 'call'..for what?..(promise to be fair)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 May 09 - 03:29 AM

Don... the information you printed does not refute what I have been saying!
Aids was first diagnosed among the homosexual communities in North America, Africa, India, Europe(France, UK, Germany....The list goes on.

Transmission of the disease is quite different, it can be transmitted by intravenous injection, heterosexual intercourse etc and once it crosses over into mainstream heterosexual society it can take off.
The important thing is in which sector of society Aids is first diagnosed, and this is in every country, among homosexuals.....now, you are not going to tell me that is just an unlucky coincidence?

In percentage terms,homosexuals remain by far the largest sub group living with AIDS.

I never at any time said "Aids was invented by homosexuals" but what I will say is that you are a fucking weasel!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 May 09 - 08:35 AM

The purpose of "Avert.org" the website linked by Don Firth seems to be to provide information on the transmission of AIDS/HIV and to deflect questions on homosexual practice and HIV/AIDS.
In their pages, they make almost no comment on the "elephant in the room" which is homosexuality and the link to AIDS, while devoteing pages to oft repeated advice on blood products, drug users and burgeoning heterosexual transmission.

The website appears to be run primarily as a PR machine for the "Gay Lobby" I would advise you all to spend some time going through the pages and make up your own mind about the content.
The statistics which they provide for Aids infection are flawed, in that although they admit homosexuals are the largest group, they fail to say that in real percentage terms, the difference is massive even allowing for the chance of a much greater volume of transmission among a vastly greater heterosexual population

There are plenty of good independent statistics available elsewhere on the web.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 11:06 AM

When AIDS first came out, if anyone remembers, we were told, that it originally came from a monkey..anyone remember that??
What they didn't tell you was, those 'monkeys' were wearing white lab suits, at Fort Kendrick(holding forefinger over lips....'SHHHHH')...and like Forrest Gump... "And that's all there is, to say about tha-yat" (Actually, there is more to say about it, but its a moot point), nobody's interested if it dispels whatever bullcrap they've gotten comfortable with.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:16 PM

"nobody's interested if it dispels whatever bullcrap they've gotten comfortable with"

That, sad to say, is the story of the human race in a nutshell.

They defend their most familiar assumptions, and they resist unfamiliar propositions or viewpoints. Dogs are like that too...they insist on sticking to the normal routines. ;-) Matter of fact, it's probably typical of all lifeforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 03:22 PM

"Don... the information you printed does not refute what I have been saying! Aids was first diagnosed among the homosexual communities in North America, Africa, India, Europe(France, UK, Germany....The list goes on."

WRONG, Ake. HIV/AIDS was first diagnosed among African apes. And like the swine flu and bird flu, the virus jumped to humans, as many viruses do. Once a human had it, it could move from human to human by any of several ways, including heterosexual intercourse and blood transfusions. And acquired immune deficiency diseases (AIDS) of kinds have been around as long as humans have, and undoubtedly animals in general. It does little by itself except render the victim's immune system inoperative, making him or her susceptible to whatever diseases happen to come along. AIDS does not kill directly. It "raises the drawbridge," so to speak, for other viral or bacterial diseases to invade, and that's what kills the victim. HIV is only one of several similar viruses—which, incidentally, are mutating all the time. As does (do) the flu virus(es).

You have a history of dismissing any web site or other source of information if it disagrees with your prejudices, no matter what its credentials, as "part of the 'Gay Lobby.'"

Two profiles of AVERT.ORG, taken from other independent web sites:

AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity based in the UK, with the aim of AVERTing HIV and AIDS worldwide. AVERT provides AIDS & HIV information, including information about HIV/AIDS infection, HIV testing, prevention, global and African information, AIDS treatment, statistics and personal stories. AVERT has a number of overseas projects, helping with the problem of HIV/AIDS in countries where there is a particularly high rate of infection, such as South Africa, or where there is a rapidly increasing rate of infection such as in India.

AVERT is a leading UK AIDS Education and Medical Research charity. It is responsible for a wide range of education and medical research work with the overall aim of: preventing people from becoming infected with HIV; improving the quality of life of those already infected and through medical research working to develop a cure for AIDS. Site provides statistical data on AIDS/HIV; information for young people; general information on HIV, AIDS and HIV testing and information on homosexuality covering issues such as coming out, homophobia and age of consent. Also includes details of AVERT's Information Service for enquiries about HIV and AIDS as well as personal accounts of living with HIV and links to other sites.

By the way, as long as we are engaging in pleasant banter, let me just mention that I have never fucked a weasel in my life! Since you seem to be so fascinated by sexual relations with livestock and other animals, that's your department. I have a mental picture of flocks of sheep stampeding in panic as you race around the moors after them with a tilt in your kilt.

####

And frankly, GfS, on the matter of whether or not you are a bigot being your call, it looks to me like you just called it. Your denial of established science in order to support your position pretty well settles that matter.

Merriam-Webster. bigot:   a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

And particularly when those views are either challenged, or proven to be false, or are not universally applicable or acceptable.

Is "bigot" always an ad hominem attack in an effort to refute an argument? Not necessarily. "Bigot" can be a valid description of a person. There are distinct, recognizable characteristics of bigotry. It is no more an ad hominem attack than describing someone as liberal, conservative, or ignorant (in its true meaning of "unknowing"). A major characteristic of bigotry is the rejection or denial of clearly available and independently verifiable proof.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 05:09 PM

Pardon me. Wrong analogy. "Lowers the drawbridge."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 06:46 PM

Must be 'genetic'..you know, like one who has blond parents, but the kids, or one of them came out brunette...what's the matter with that brat?...didn't anyone tell her that she must be obedient to her genes??
I remember, that I posted a post, with the actual numbers, (and I don't feel like scrolling through them), about how the nearest thing to finding a gene that makes one a homosexual, was something like 1 in .02%, of all homosexuals, but 98% of homosexuals claim they have it, and that's why they are hopelessly, (and conveniently so) bound to be homosexuals...and it was never proved, conclusively that the gene they think might have been linked, actually was anything of the sort at all. Believe me, if it was, it surely would have caught my eye, or anyone's eye, who deals in the behavioral sciences.
Actually, proving there is or isn't a gene, doesn't do anything, especially when it has no bearing, on 'overtaking' one's will to survive, or reproduce...but that is another, topic for a less biased, group....all this stuff about disproving or proving, anything, is just the foundation, they use to put themselves, in a class, likened unto 'race' or 'ethnicity'..give me a break!..Why don't they just come out and tell them the truth, and deal with it from there?? I've said, repeatedly now, but too many deaf ears, because they only listen to the drumbeat, of the 'excuse parade' that rights should be granted(as if rights need to granted, at all, we're born with them), based on at least, being a citizen.....not because of behavioral exceptions, or group preferences.
It is, and always will be an issue, for homosexuals, to be 'accepted' by an 'authority figure'...ummm...such as to replace a resentment they've foster toward their fathers(for guys), and resentment of the mother figure, and resenting their femininity, for women. Sometimes either side, has a frustration with dealing with the opposite sex, and rather that actually finding out 'why?', to possibly correct it, it becomes easier, just to blame it on someone else, and claim to have a predisposed genetic disposition, noting that it couldn't possibly be a need to feel innocent, and victimized. That way they avoid, "Hmm, maybe its me, maybe I need to know something, about the opposite sex, and myself. Hmm, If that's true, maybe, just maybe, I've had this focus on some unforgiveness toward, my parent for far too long, and maybe, just maybe, while I was hostile, fermenting in this emotional unhappiness, perhaps, certain things, that SHOULD have been maturing, have been put on hold."
Oh well...there is so much more that I could go on about this topic, things that are true, and effective,...I'll wait to see the 'over saturation' point of understanding, before I go any more..
The reason I even went into this, is because refuting something, is not the same as shedding light, as to WHY a refutation is valid. To some, of very little understanding, of the topic, and therefore a closed mind, to any thing else, guarded by an 'opinion', they can exercise, their lazy, apathetic, insensitivities, and remain blissfully ignorant. Those people are usually the name callers, and accusers of others being 'bigots', 'homophobes', and such. Could it be, that someone you call that, actually has more information, and compassion, and understanding, than you even CARE about learning??
A novel thought, eh?
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 07:01 PM

I'm not all that sure that you do have more information, GfS, and most certainly not more compassion.

Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether.

Another characteristic of gays or lesbians who have been "cured" by one method or another are frequent bouts of depression and anxiety.

Robert Spitzer of Columbia University claimed to have developed a "cure" for homosexuality through therapy he had devised, and published a study on his results. He called it "reparation therapy" and claimed that it worked successfully, thereby proving that gender orientation is not "hard wired." However, a follow-up study by John Bancroft of the Kinsey Institute a few years later found that

Only six of the 202 "gay" men and lesbians who had been through counseling reported changing their sexual preference to heterosexuality. According to the interviews, 178 failed to change their orientation and 18 reported adopting celibacy or becoming conflicted about sex.

What's more, the majority of subjects were left with a mistrust for mental health professionals and had to relearn how to form intimate relationships. Many said they were misled by counselors into thinking homosexuality was caused by child abuse, bad parenting, or an unspecified "psychological disorder."

Other methods of "treating" homosexuality involved so-called "aversion therapy." These treatments involved tactics such as pairing homosexual imagery with electric shocks to induce feelings of revulsion.

So much for the claimed "cures."

The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it.

There is also the discovery—in identical twins, who should be genetically identical—that occasionally one will be heterosexual and the other will be homosexual. Rather than supporting the idea that gender orientation is a matter of choice, this unexpected phenomenon has been traced to imbalances in the infusion of hormones in utero during a crucial stage in the development of the fetuses.

So—no matter how you slice it, there is every reason (supported by physical evidence) to believe that gender orientation is "hard-wired" one way or another, and not a matter of choice.

Also there is the phenomenon of very young children behaving like, even wanting to dress like, the other gender. These children almost invariable become homosexual when they sexually mature.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 07:09 PM

"
"I'm not all that sure that you do have more information, GfS, and most certainly not more compassion." Knock that shit off, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 08:56 PM

No shit, Sherlock.

You've mentioned a couple of times that you're a counsellor, but beyond that, no substantiation. Do you have a degree in psychology, and if so, from what institution?

Or did you just watch Dr. Phil a lot?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 09:36 PM

My goodness...all these reams of weighty facts and info! If only I had the time for it. ;-)

Don, I don't recommend fucking weasels. It's a big letdown. You haven't missed much, I assure you. At least, that's what this guy from way north of Wawa told me...it gets lonely on the traplines!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 09:37 PM

Don, Glad you asked.
Given what information I've gotten, I cannot help but come, to see some interesting observations, based on my knowledge and experience. Though, I admit, I usually wait for just a little bit more than I have, sometimes we go by an educated 'hunch', then pursue further insights to help the situation, that is, if the client wishes to. Do you want the short version?....or more detailed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 09:55 PM

I think there are a great number of psychological factors which can cause a person to become either gay...or bisexual. I think it's so bloody obvious that there are, that I don't even know why I would have to say it! ;-)

Now then, are there some genetic factors that can come into play too in some cases? Yeah, maybe. Quite possibly. So?

I seriously doubt that it's ALL of one and NONE of the other in every single case. Seems unlikely to me.

And I don't think there's even any point arguing about it. It doesn't matter. It's a tiny side-issue of staggeringly little real importance, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 10:06 PM

Yes, Little Hawk, (yoho), that is true to a large degree, but Don has a greater issue, to him, that he cannot let go of. It is mighty important to him, no matter how much we agree on 'rights', that he argues beyond that point. There is something else he wants, especially from yourself, and me. He can, in his mind, dismiss Akenaton, at least at this time, who paints the broader social issue, but there is something really important to him, that he gets validation and perhaps vindication, that it is genetic based. Take a wild guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 10:17 PM

Yes, I see it's important to him. (shrug) I can't help that, but it sure as hell isn't important to me. To me, it's like arguing about which wallpaper shall we use in the municipal building hallway? The one with the little white flowers or the one with the little blue birds? (zzzzzzzzzz...falling asleep while I try to decide...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 10:31 PM

Yoho, Yes, I know. The issue of homosexuality, is not really focused on, by those who are personally not affected by it, usually only by those who it has personally touched.

I'm being polite, giving an out, Don.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 11:22 PM

Obviously you two are a match made in heaven.

I'm going to get a good night's sleep. TTFN.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 11:23 PM

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 May 09 - 06:25 AM

Don....again you misrepresent what I write.
I didn't say you were "fucking a weasel", but that you were "a fucking weasel"......is this misrepresentation to go on throughout the life of this thread?

However, I feel that I have overstepped the mark and that an abject apology is deserved.
Since my ill considered words were broadcast on the internet, my Mudcat message box has been innundated with posts from highly offended weasels all over the UK and even further afield, apparently my stupid comment has caused real pain and suffering amongst the weasel population.
It has variously been described as "bigotry against weasels"...."weaselphobia"..."lowering the status of weasels in society...etc. There have been numerous examples of victimisation....."even the rabbits are sniggering behind their whiskers", and one heartrending message from a weasel who had been living a solitary life under the roots of an old tree and is now contemplating suicide , he writes...."I used to live a life of peace and tranquility, loved by all save a few vermin further down the food chain, now I am awakened every morning by a vindictive flock of small birds, who perch on the branches of my tree and chirrup unceasingly....Don Firth!!...Don Firth!!....Don Firth!!"

So taking all into account, I would ask Joe to strike my cruel jibe from the record.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 May 09 - 12:00 PM

Still, those of us who remember the "Lunch Counter" sit downs in the 1960's and the law suits that resulted from them, are convinced that once gay marriage is legal, some same-sex couple will go to a Pentacostal Church and demand to be married. When the pastor refuses, the fight will be on.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 09 - 01:47 PM

Important? Well, yes. Injustice, denial of civil rights, and other forms of oppression against minorities are indeed matters of considerable importance, not just to me, but to vast numbers of fair-minded people. And, of course, I do have a tendency to get involved in such matters (see Niemoller quote). Someone has to.

As to your credentials, GfS, be as short or as detailed as you want. Truth to tell, frankly, you've said all that I really need to know about your counseling skills. I don't care if you sat at Jung and Adler's knees and taught B. F. Skinner everything he knows. No matter how much training and education you may have had, what is significant is the fact that you are willing to brush recent scientific findings aside in order to maintain your own prejudices.

I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything. If I persist in countering your arguments, it's not with any idea of changing your mind, because it is obviously cast in concrete. And, in fact, I have said pretty much all I really wanted to say on this subject, and I have provided links to articles providing evidence and further information to back up what I've said, which, of course, you attempt to blow off as "Gay Lobby" propaganda. But—if people will check it for themselves, they can make up their own minds rather than simply accepting what either of us say on the matter.

Sorry, but I do not have much more time to waste on the futile task of attempting to educate the ineducable. I have a busy afternoon in the 3D world. Concert. In the meantime:

Little Hawk, do something useful. Go walk your dog. And Ake, there's a cute little ewe out there batting her eyes at you. But if you prefer weasels, well, each to his own taste.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 09 - 01:57 PM

Oh! By the way:

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong:"

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to become gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing (it already has a license) and all it needs to do is sign the marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be compromised.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of the one true religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 09 - 10:21 PM

Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!

Well, maybe if they were really gluttons for attention, I guess...or in the mood for a fight. Yeah...there are people who will do crazy things like that now and then to satisfy some emtional need. ;-)

****

Don! You offend me. I have done several useful things today! Now, having done them, I feel like doing some trivial and completely useless stuff on Mudcat (like posting on this blowhard thread here) and you put me down for it!!! You, sir, are heartless. I hope you get attacked by outraged weasels.

***

akenaton - You did the right thing to apologize to the world's weasels. Good man.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 09 - 10:26 PM

Oh, Don? With all those loopy ideas you just expressed there about the supposed pitfalls of gay marriage, the thought occurs to me that you and Anita Bryant would have made the perfect couple! Now there would be a "marriage made in heaven" if ever there was one... ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 09 - 10:54 PM

Anita Bryant claimed that God had his hand on her.

I know that's untrue, because if God had His hand on her, it would have been over her fat, flappin' mouth.

Great concert this afternoon. Not me, but a young classical singer doing her senior recital. Beautiful! I think she has a great future (she already sings in the Seattle Opera chorus, and she's on her way up).

Actually, I'll let you in on a secret (don't tell Ake). Weasels are my friends. I am to them as the Wicked Witch of the West is to the Flying Monkeys. So--BEWARE!!

Don Firth (Peal of insane laughter!!!)

P. S. Gone again. Masterpiece (PBS) is starting Dickens' "The Old Curiousity Shop" tonight. Being a curious fellow, I thought I'd give it a look.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 May 09 - 11:36 PM

"Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!"


    Okay, say the first gay couple goes to a Methodist Church to get married, and the folks there, worried about their tax-exempt status agree to go though with it.
    That, of course, sets a precedent, and a second couple goes to a Pentecostal Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 09 - 12:06 AM

Don: .."I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything..."

Maybe that's been your, and your son's problem. It's all been about YOU.
Perhaps, recognizing that, imagine how he felt, excluded, while the little engine in him, kept longing for a loving father's attention, and approval.....
A boy gets his masculinity from his father, not his mother. Men, can't face the admission of failure, much like women can't own up to, 'It's my fault, I was wrong.'
Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets.
I gathered from your posts, that you had a religious upbringing, and since, have turned bitter at that too.
Suggestion: Let your son know, that you're sorry, for not being there, when he needed you, and how truly important he is to you, and ask him to open up to you. Give him a hug, and hold onto him/each other, as if for dear life. Let him cry on your shoulder. There may be a lot more that he'd like to say to you...probably how much he wanted you..if you'd open up in that way. Pull out the guitar, sing him a song..let him know HE was more important to you, than YOU were to being about YOU. See what happens.
And Don, this isn't about imagining winning anything, in a blog. Its about the love between those who we love, and love expressed, to each other.. Must we have heartbreaks, BEFORE we fall to our knees?
Truly Don, The Best, for both of you,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:48 AM

GfS - "Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets."

Yeah. Well, it was a confusing time. All the old ideas were falling and the young people were grasping for new ones...and trying to be "cool" at the same time.

I took a good look at the whole thing of raising children, doing the nuclear family thing, building the "nest", and decided that:

1. I'd be no good at it.
2. I didn't want to do it.
3. I wasn't going to do it.

And I held to that. I have produced no progeny nor have I ever married, but I've certainly been in love a few times.

I don't know about Don, but I got brought up by atheistic parents. We NEVER went to church unless it was somebody else's wedding or something like that. Kind of handy, because it left me free to investigate any and all religions without necessarily being tied to any one of them. And I did so. A lot of good stuff there behind all the outward structures and rules and hierarchical stuff which I can do without.

****

As for homosexuality, I had no significant encounters with that at all as a young person, but I have known a few gay people here and there amongst various friends and associates in my 30's and since.   I can't say for sure, but I have the impression that their romantic/emotional/sexual lives are even more complex on average than with heterosexuals. (well, in the case of the men anyway...the lesbians' lives seem a lot more stable to me) The gay men I've known (a handful of them) have all been extremely articulate, wonderful talkers!, witty, and usually involved in the arts in some way. They were all highly intelligent people, but with damnably complicated personal lives from what I've seen.

Those, of course, are mere generalities I'm stating...and someone here may object to that. Okay. All I can say is, that's what I've observed amongst a few specific people I've known. I have no idea if it is any kind of rule of averages, it's just what I've personally observed, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 09 - 02:10 AM

Funny how, after weeks of crap we get two beautiful posts like the two immediately above this.

I've always appreciated little Hawk throughout the years I've been here (most people do regardless of Don's bitterness), but if GFS were to be become a member I am sure this forum would be a much more interesting and Iwould venture to say...a much better place...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 09 - 03:12 AM

Thank you for the flowers, really.
Just one thing before I go to nod-land...
Psychologists differ from psychiatrists, in the fact that the latter, can prescribe drugs for symptomatic relief, so the pain goes away, but not the illness, whether it be physical, or 'otherwise'.
You know, prescription drugs, the ones who advertise primarily during ALL the news shows, supported by the pharmaceutical companies, like the news media, owned by huge corporations, whose sponsorship of our militaries, secure 'our best interests' for the corporations, who bring you the news, about the military's, progress, for the large corporations, who buy the time to keep you 'updated', and making up new illnesses, so the pharmaceutical corporations, along with the, mass media corporations, keep you informed of what new illnesses are spreading, like A.D.D(formerly known as boredom....symptoms of daydreaming), Restless leg syndrome,(formerly anxious to do something else), P.A.D.(formerly known as legs or arms falling asleep), and a host of different names for acid indigestion, from eating shitty food, who, by the way, are sold by huge corporations, who also advertise on worthless shows, who of course, have their products listed as 'safe' by the FDA, who, of course is bought off, and paid for results, by the huge corporations, doing all the other stuff, listed above, who are also bought off by the same folks, who fund the studies, that say homosexuality is genetic...because, if people turned off their fucking T.V.'s and spent more quality time with their families, loving them, instead of 'learning' of new things to buy, to entertain their particular form of A.D.D.(formerly known as boredom), and think of new things to want, families might have a popcorn fart's chance of getting to know how each other THINK AND INTERACT, instead of how they stare....and daydream.....Duhhh..
God Bless You All,
(except for Little Hawk, who only gets his blessings from Chongo, since his T.V. went on the blink!)
Warmest Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 09 - 07:16 AM

"""Why the hell would a gay couple go to a Pentecostal church and demand to get married!?? LOL!"


    Okay, say the first gay couple goes to a Methodist Church to get married, and the folks there, worried about their tax-exempt status agree to go though with it.
    That, of course, sets a precedent, and a second couple goes to a Pentecostal Church. ""


Since they are campaigning for the legal right to civil marriage, what the hell has any church got to do with it.

The various churches can currently turn away adherents of other faiths, so why would they have a problem with refusing gay couples.

This fight is about CIVIL LAW, and the right to be treated equably under THAT law.


Little Hawk, I'll do a deal with you. You follow YOUR precepts about judgement, and I'll stick to mine as follows:-

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and spends most of its time in the pond with the ducks, I will judge it to be a F**kin' DUCK, and I will call it that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 09:08 AM

"Since they are campaigning for the legal right to civil marriage, what the hell has any church got to do with it....The various churches can currently turn away adherents of other faiths, so why would they have a problem with refusing gay couples....This fight is about CIVIL LAW, and the right to be treated equably under THAT law."

                Of course this fight is about Civil Law. And so were the lunch counter sit-ins in the 1960's. The courts decided that somebody running a lunch counter couldn't discriminate in favor of one customer over another.
                Why would it be different with churches. Once gay marriage is legalized across the nation--as I'm sure it will be--then if a church agrees to marry a straight couple, it would not be able to deny marriage to a gay couple.
                If you don't think there are people out there that will put this to a test, I don't know where you've been for the last 50 years.
                Once a church denies marriage to a gay couple, the ACLU will be all over it. The first thing they will attempt to do is to have that church's tax-exempt status revoked. They will go on from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:29 PM

Rig is right Don, the agenda is "normalisation" not "rights".
"Rights" are simply the "device de jour"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:41 PM

Thought I would add a note since the Methodist Church was mentioned. I read in the paper over the weekend that the Methodist General Conference issued a statement that no same sex marriages were to be performed in a Methodist Church of by a Methodist minister. Any minister who does perform such a ceremony will be de-frocked (not the actual term but I don't remember what the actual term is and I think this gets the point accross). This includes not only loss of a job but also of retirement benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:54 PM

Great! As soon as he/she refuses, he'll be named in the suit.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:56 PM

Oh yeah, GFS, the all purpose human being....

To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest'   In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 09 - 02:41 PM

""Rig is right Don, the agenda is "normalisation" not "rights".""


Same old crap Ake!

What YOU disagree with is abnormal. What YOU agree with is normal.

Demonise them with an adjective which implies deviance, and you can rationalise away your bigotted viewpoint, notwithstanding the fact that what they deviate from is YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS RIGHT.

There are any number of ways to live ones life, and YOU haven't earned the right to make those choices for anyone but yourself, NOT EVEN YOUR CHILDREN.

Do you begin to get it NOW?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 09 - 04:06 PM

Don....Calm down my friend, I have always been aware of the agenda of some homosexuals.
By normalisation, I mean the attempt by homosexual "rights" activists to present homosexuality as just another lifestyle, no different from "a man, a woman and a couple of kids"....they can adopt the kids and play happy families just like the rest of us.

Unfortunately they always avert their eyes(and deflect our eyes), from the thing I mentioned earlier......the big fat elephant standing right in the middle of the room that nobody sees....the link between homosexuality and AIDS/HIV.
At present, this lifestyle is destructive and dangerous, and to present bit to the public as safe behaviour and "normal", a haven in which to bring up children, is idiocy.

That is one of the reasons why I am against homosexual marriage...there are others, like trampling on the beliefs of the majority to accomodate a minority who are more strident.

Lesbian relationships seem safe and long lasting in general, and I see no reason why they could not be good parents, but as long as the health issues remain I will be personally against homosexual, as opposed to lesbian, "marriage"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 04:17 PM

I don't even have a problem with gay marriage, or whatever they want to do. I just think it's another nail in the coffin for organized religion, which doesn't bother me either.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 09 - 04:18 PM

"Don: ..'I really need nothing from either you or Little Hawk. Nor do I expect anything...'"

Maybe that's been your, and your son's problem. It's all been about YOU.

Perhaps, recognizing that, imagine how he felt, excluded, while the little engine in him, kept longing for a loving father's attention, and approval.....

As usual, GfS, you don't know what you are talking about.

My God, you are a pompous ass!!

This is none of yours or anyone else's business, but since you've taken it upon yourself to publicly discuss my many failures as a father, I feel it incumbent upon me to respond.

My son was not "excluded."   I will not go into detail as to his mother's and my situation, but due to both her circumstances and mine, marriage was not an option. However, my son was raised in a family, with a good man, whom he assumed was his father. Some years along, the man passed away, but by then, my son was in college. His mother felt he had a right to know who his real (biological) father is. So she (with my permission—telephone conversation; she and I hadn't seen each other for two decades) told him. I told her that since he was of age, I felt it should be his choice as to whether he wanted to see me or not. I did want to meet him.

We hit it off right away, and have been great friends ever since. Both his mother and I explained the circumstances to him. He understood—and he sympathized with our situation.

A boy gets his masculinity from his father, not his mother. Men, can't face the admission of failure, much like women can't own up to, 'It's my fault, I was wrong.'

My son did have the love, attention, and approval of a good man. And my son is plenty masculine. The man with whom he was raised was a good role model. I don't feel that I failed, even though you may think so. But my son does not, and he's the one who counts. The fact that his mother and I couldn't get married was not my choice. It was hers. And later, she told me, "It was my fault. I was wrong."

Funny, how the 'Peace-Love' generation, grew up to be so self centered, and how our children literally suffered from lack of attention, and to fend for themselves, and learn from the streets.

She and I were hardly members of the "Peace-Love" generation, although we were contemporaneous with it. Granted, I was a "folk singer," and was earning my living that way, but I became interested in folk music before it became a pop-culture thing, and she was in theater arts. Neither of us could have been considered "hippies." She was not a "groupie" I took advantage of and discarded. My son did not suffer from lack of attention, he did not have to fend for himself, and he did not grow up in the streets. The family he grew up in was stable, and he grew up with four siblings.

You, GfS, are dealing in shallow stereotypes.

I gathered from your posts, that you had a religious upbringing, and since, have turned bitter at that too.

I did not have a particularly religious upbringing. As a child, I was strongly interested in science, astronomy and cosmology in particular, and I found my "spiritualism" in the rigors of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein—in recent years, Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku. My family did go to church occasionally, particularly on religious holidays, but not always the same church. My mother read a lot in Eastern religion and philosophy.

Barbara, my wife, did have a religious upbringing, and she goes to church regularly. I usually go with her. The church we go to is the one I mentioned that adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome" I quoted above: Central Lutheran Church. If you want to know about the general thrust of the church and some of the reasons I support it, read their website. I find the pastors there very bright and very open to discussion of things spiritual and philosophical, and they are not dogmatic at all. I enjoy discussions with them, I have gone so far as to serve for six years on the church council.

Without writing out my "Credo," fundamentalists would probably consider me an "atheist," more liberal religious folks might consider me an "agnostic," because I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God. I'm not sure that I believe in a "God" at all. Although religious institutions have been responsible for much of the world's misery and tyranny, there is a level of religious thinking that is beneficial, if not essential, to leading a good life as a human being.

I particularly recommend Matthew 25:35-40

And from Judaism:

If I am not for myself, who am I?
Iif I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?
                   —Hillel the Elder

Also

In the world to come, they will not ask me, "Why were you not Moses?" They will ask me "Why were you not Zusya?"
                   —Zusya of Hanipol

Me? "Bitter," GfS? Might that not be what psychologists call "projection?"

Suggestion: Let your son know, that you're sorry, for not being there, when he needed you, and how truly important he is to you, and ask him to open up to you. Give him a hug, and hold onto him/each other, as if for dear life. Let him cry on your shoulder. There may be a lot more that he'd like to say to you...probably how much he wanted you..if you'd open up in that way. Pull out the guitar, sing him a song..let him know HE was more important to you, than YOU were to being about YOU. See what happens.

That's very dramatic, GfS, and I wonder if that might not be a matter of projection on your part as well. Are you yearning for some kind of resolution yourself?

Once again, you are dealing with stereotypes and making simplistic assumptions. Understanding, coming as a result of several long frank and open chats shortly after we first met, resolved any questions or any necessity for forgiveness. As I say, he understood our situation and did not see that there was anything to forgive.

My son grew up bearing the surname of another man. He mentioned quietly to Barbara recently that he wanted to have his surname legally changed to mine—whom he regards as his real father in all respects. I would be more than pleased if he does.

GfS, there is no bitterness or recriminations between my son and me. His mother explained things very clearly to him before he met me, and I did the same when we did meet. He understands, and if there is anything to forgive, it was forgiven long since.

And Don, this isn't about imagining winning anything, in a blog. Its about the love between those who we love, and love expressed, to each other.. Must we have heartbreaks, BEFORE we fall to our knees?

Again, GfS, you're dealing in your own fantasies. You and Little Hawk seem to be the ones who are doing all that talk about "winning." And who said anything about "heartbreaks?" None in my corner of the world, thank you.

Physician, heal thyself!

Don Firth

P. S. No, GfS, I take it back! You didn't get your education as a counselor from watching Dr. Phil. You got it from watching soap operas!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 09 - 05:17 PM

""the big fat elephant standing right in the middle of the room that nobody sees....the link between homosexuality and AIDS/HIV.""


The link, as has been pointed out innumerable times is between SEXUALITY and HIV/AIDS, and your PERSONAL AGENDA requiring that it be a homosexual problem will never make it so.




""there are others, like trampling on the beliefs of the majority to accomodate a minority who are more strident.""

So, the fact that it is a minority that is shouting for equality makes it OK, in your strange world, to deny that equality, just so long as you are on the majority side, and therefore having YOUR way.

If that's the case, I suppose you would be perfectly happy if the government banned folk music in pubs......AFTER ALL, WE ARE A MINORITY!!!

Where DO you draw the line, and what in hell makes you think YOU have the right to draw it?

As an example of totally self absorbed arrogance, that takes a lot of beating.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 09 - 05:32 PM

"If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and spends most of its time in the pond with the ducks, I will judge it to be a F**kin' DUCK, and I will call it that."

And you might still be dead wrong, Don. All through the 1970s and pretty well right to the present day I have looked like a long-haired dope smoking musician, talked like a long-haired dope-smoking musician, acted like a long-haired dope smoking musician, and spent a lot of time among long-haired dope-smoking musicians. Several cops have, because of that, on occasion misjudged me to be a drug user...and wasted some of my time with their hostile and supicious pre-judgement of who they thought I was.

But I don't smoke dope and I was never inclined to, not even in the carefree early 70s when everyone I hung out with did.

Your "duck" analogy is therefore not as ironclad and reliable as you think it is, and I think you should not rush to judgement of individuals based on some profiling menu you carry in your head, no more than a cop should.

As for pomposity, hell!...you always give as good as you get in that department. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 09 - 05:39 PM

""As for pomposity, hell!...you always give as good as you get in that department. ;-)""

You are slipping, LH. Further, and slightly more focussed, examination will point up the fact that the word pompous was used, not by me, but by my esteemed fellow member, Don Firth.

However I DO agree with him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 09 - 06:43 PM

Don T, I don't draw lines for you, I draw them for myself.
I am simply giving my opinion on an issue just as you are, your opinion is just as valid as mine, it's just that I dont agree with it.
I have no more power to influence people than you have, but it is people like you, Don Firth and to a much lesser extent my friend Amos who wish to silence MY small voice...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 09 - 07:01 PM

pomp•ous :   adjective
1 : excessively elevated or ornate (pompous rhetoric)
2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant (a pompous politician).

In addition, Little Hawk, our esteemed self-appointed counselor, GfS, apparently believes in the duck analogy, because by counting on toes and fingers, he/she came up with the notion that my son was conceived in the 1960s (as a matter of fact, I believe I told him/her so) and from that, assumed that we were typical members of the "Peace-Love" generation, characterized (according to GfS) by a complete lack of a sense of resposnsibility, and therefore, my son grew up living on the streets and was raised by city pigeons, like an urban version of Mowgli.

If GfS had watched a wider variety of soap operas, he/she might be less addicted to simplistic stereotypes.

By the way, while reading GfS's post of 04 May 09 - 03:12 a.m., although I agree with some what he/she says (regulatory agencies need a good, vigorous "dope-slap" about five times a day), I do get a very strong whiff of "conspiracy theorist."

Scientific findings that he/she doesn't like are because "all the scientist have been bought off!" Next stop, Flat Earth!!

Don Firth

P. S. And Ake, I have no wish or need to "silence" you. The nature of your pronouncements says all that needs to be said. They refute themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 09 - 07:19 PM

Seeing how long this thread has gone on for, I kinda get the idea things don't look too good for the sheep and me, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 09 - 07:47 PM

What's a soap opera?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 09 - 08:02 PM

It has been said, and is actually an old adage...'The argument is lost by the one who starts the name calling'

Hg: "To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest'   In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you."

For you to understand that, try looking up the five blind men and the elephant. Send a copy to TIA....and yes, all that is true, and more, but that's of no consequence on here...yet!

Jeez!...At least they're scrolling back..While you're at it, instead of sniffing for something to wrap your mind around, for the sake of attacking me(favorite pastimes of people with small minds), try reading the stuff and learn something. I assure you, while you were having a hard time getting out of the bedroom, to play your guitar, in front of somebody, I was functioning, Thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 09 - 08:48 PM

GfS, saying that you are a "bigot" or a "pompous ass" is not name-calling.

In your case, it is a diagnosis.

Again:    Physician, heal thyself.

And—oh, yes!

How does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?

You never did answer my question.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 09 - 09:30 PM

Pointing out the obvious:

Guest from Sanity

Your welcome!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 04 May 09 - 09:57 PM

Guest form lalaland, this time I held back to let Don Firth respond to you himself. But I was biting the keyboard. Anyone who has been around here for awhile, read a few of Don's posts, and has even a glimmer of normal reading comprehension, could tell you were shoveling a bunch of pure bullshit that had absolutely nothing to do with Don, as to his attitude toward religion or anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:01 PM

GfS, saying that you are a "bigot" or a "pompous ass" is not name-calling.

Am I imagining things or just hallucinating?? You're how old??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:10 PM

As I said, GfS, it's a diagnosis. You do know what the word means, don't you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:15 PM

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:28 PM

I think that we've gained a lot of evidence indicating that Gfs is a dangerously imcompetent therapist to turn loose on vulnerable people.

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

Maybe people are not as vulnerable as we suppose, and are capable of looking out for their own interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:36 PM

GfS,

You really can't live without me can you.

Neither can Cecil or lansing. And you certainly can't live without myriad commas. It gives away your fake personas every time. Oops, did I say that out loud?

And being as how I have a sibling who is an actual counselor, and being as how she is lesbian, and being as how (that phrase gives you away also) we share everything, the *real* counselor says that your self-important writing and self-promotion betrays you as someone who is pretending on many, many, many fronts.

But I am projecting and accusing others my weaknesses aren't I?

And I surely am a sucker for punishment, so please...punish away.

Go!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:37 PM

Heh! No, we're not getting anywhere...we're just all giving our restless little competitive minds something to chew on, as usual, and basking in our approval of our own wit and wisdom (as opposed to those who disagree with us!)...that is the normal pastime of the human ego when it's not busy dealing with more practical necessities.

But Don (Wysiwig) T.....! This is the second time you have misinterpreted a remark I made toward Don Firth as being directed towards you. ;-) Okay, I realize that my post came immediately after a post you made, so I can understand why you thought it was directed to you, but I think we cross-posted or something, because I did not see your post at all at the time when I was typing mine.

I was responding to something Don Firth had said about GfS being pompous...and to his remarks about how to identify "a duck". My feeling is that duck hunters tend to "see" ducks almost EVERYWHERE, because it's what they want to see and expect to see. This is why Don Firth keeps finding "bigots" on the Mudcat forum, and it's why a series of police officers harassed me over the years for having long hair and carrying a guitar when I don't use drugs and don't break the law. ;-)

This thread won't end until the various aggrieved, blustering, battling egos here get so bored or frustrated with each other that they give up in disgust or disinterest and stop posting to it.

That may take a VERY long time! ;-D I'm betting at least a hundred more posts.

Peace, I think you and the sheep are in for a loooooong night!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:40 PM

speaking just for me...it's not about ego, it's about disgust.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:47 PM

Egos are easily disgusted, TIA. Easily outraged. Easily offended. Easily upset. Easily put on the warpath. It is part and parcel of their defensive and reactive nature.

Ever read any Taoist literature? Cool stuff! Eckhard Tolle is good too. A reading of either of those will serve well to explain just how reactive and combative and addicted to blame and accusation the normal human ego is, how quick to find "enemies", and how unwilling to pardon or forgive a perceived slight.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 May 09 - 11:32 PM

Say, I think it's getting a little heated around here. Whatever you call it, identifying people as bigots and pompous asses is not considered proper in polite company.
Please refrain.
Thank you most kindly.

-Joe Manners-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 12:27 AM

Before the conversation was hijacked, and disintegrated into name calling and defensive rants about themselves, Don T. asked and steered the topic in a direction that was a good one. About the 'churches issue'.
If possible, why can't we hear from a homosexual,(or at least one who is out of the closet)?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 01:20 AM

TIA:"And being as how I have a sibling who is an actual counselor, and being as how she is lesbian, and being as how (that phrase gives you away also) we share everything, the *real* counselor says that your self-important writing and self-promotion betrays you as someone who is pretending on many, many, many fronts."

Let me guess, is she the driving force?..the one pretending to be a man?

You just never cease to snipe a little here, and a little there. You, yourself, have identified yourself as both a man and a woman, and just flat out bullshitted on here. You have some sort of axe to grind. I'm sure your 'lesbian sister' would counsel you, to 'Let it go'...unless, that's another one of your lies, in which I really don't care, Ok?

By the way, (and I'm wasting this on this post), remind your imaginary 'sister', that in counseling, a well placed question, can change a life....assuming people have been stimulated to think deeper, but first ya' gotta get past the ready-made mentally pre-rehearsed lines, and rationalizations....but of course, she knew that, didn't she???

Almost a nice try,..well, at least another feeble attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 09 - 03:03 AM

Do you see the pesky elephant guest?

Sure hope so, everybody else dodges round it, jumps over it, totally ignores it...they don't even clear up the shit!

Maybe I'm hallucinating, but it's so big and fat....then there's the long swingin' trunk....the huge flappy ears.....shit like cannonballs.
Naw, it MUST be an elephant!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 09:30 AM

Akenaton, Well, as I mentioned before, and I'm sure it makes sense now, or at least is clearly obvious, the tip off, when a person is being counseled, and they have issues, and it is not quite clear, even unto him/her, the tip off that it may be homosexual is, emotional immaturity....oh yeah, did I say that before?...absolutely....but then, what do I know???
Maybe, sometime I'll even break it down for ya'. The thing is, they really are not 'trapped' by it, I mean, in reality. It is something they impose on themselves, and keep themselves there, and though wishing sometimes, that they weren't, they resign themselves to it. The frustration to them, is you can't convince those WITHOUT those issues, of resentment, anger, and 'emotional focus', toward a parent, or parent figure, that we should adopt this behavior, as genetic, or the other sex 'trapped in my body' nonsense, and see it for what it is. It's just too much of a hard sell, for people who have a healthy outlook in life. That being said, I certainly am opposed to denying them their rights, and also opposed to calling what they do, marriage. If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable!
By the way, as of yesterday, 60% of Americans disapprove of legalizing, same sex marriage, while 40% of those, would favor some sort of civil union. Hate to be the bearer of such bad tidings. Don't shoot the messenger.
Ake, you've been a good guy. I wish you all the best!
...now, about God..........
Warmest Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 05 May 09 - 10:34 AM

"I assure you, while you were having a hard time getting out of the bedroom, to play your guitar, in front of somebody, I was functioning,"
"remind your imaginary 'sister"

Gfs, talk about underhanded cheap shots; and you don't have the faintest idea whether there are really any targets there or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 11:27 AM

They usually tell me, themselves. You just gotta know the path to draw it out. And by the way, there are, and were no targets
Personally, I'd rather talk about music! And another 'by the way', in two earlier posts, one of them, a long way back, I specifically, said that I didn't want to even broach the subject, unless the person was educated, about the topic. I even let it rest, for weeks!..but, at the same time, why let my friends, and fellow musicians bullshit each other?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 09 - 01:50 PM

Frogprince, GfS is proving to be the master of cheap shots.

Among other things (such as dismissing scientific data as "gay lobby propaganda"), it grows more obvious all the time that GfS is not, nor has ever been, a trained and licensed counselor or therapist. No competent therapist would leap to the kind of assumptions about me that he/she did, or with any person they didn't know a whole lot better than he/she knows me. And no competent counselor would attempt to offer counseling—unbidden—to someone in an open forum such as this. Among other things, any competent counselor would recognize that as, among other things, simply unethical.

Granted, this sort of thing happens: on the Dr. Phil show. But his subjects know they are in public, on television, and they have volunteered for it.

Which I did not!

But—when it comes to personal attacks, up-thread, GfS asked if I had any children and basically ask me "would you want your daughter to marry one?" I responded, staying on subject. Then—

GfS took the details of that response, distorted them and twisted them, then proceeded, unbidden, to "counsel" me about my transgressions as a parent and my alleged ?bitterness? toward religion, none of which bears any resemblance to anything I said or anything in my real life. He/she basically drew from simplistic stereotypes and built a "straw man," then used that as a way to left-handedly attack me by implying that I am emotionally unstable, thereby attempting to undercut my credibility. And "win" the discussion.

There is also a large measure of argumentum ad hominem in that tactic ("Everyone should ignore what you say [even if true] because you are certifiably nuts").

Now why Joe didn't recognize that as a personal attack, I don't know. But other people certainly did.

GfS's desperation apparently knows no bounds.

As to GfS's analysis of the causes of homosexuality (05 May 09 - 09:30 a.m.), it is pure, unmitigated psychobabble, the kind of thing that a freshman who has just escape from a Psychology 101 class is prone to spout.

And, by the way, GfS, you still haven't answered my question.

Don Firth

P. S. "By the way, as of yesterday, 60% of Americans disapprove of legalizing, same sex marriage, while 40% of those, would favor some sort of civil union."

Irrelevant. The civil rights of minorities are not a subject for popular vote. Otherwise, we would still have "separate, but (un)equal" schools. Constitutional Law protects minorities from the majority, and in cases like this, to allow the majority to rule is to condone the "rule of the lynch mob."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 09 - 03:46 PM

Keep pounding away, Don F. Some day you WILL be vindicated...you WILL unequivocally triumph...you WILL drive GfS away in confusion and humiliation, never to darken our dear forum again...AND YOU WILL ensure that such vile, bigoted individuals do not DARE raise their heads in polite society! OOOFAH!!!

(I'm joking...)

Like I said, expect at least a hundred more posts yet on this thread. Man, I wish I could get paid a dollar for every vainglorious keystroke that goes down here. I'd soon be able to buy that vintage Duesenberg I've been dreaming of for all these years...and I'd have enough to bail my delinquent friend Shane out of the lockup too.

Hmmm.

Well, maybe better just leave him in there for a bit, I guess...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 09 - 04:36 PM

Snipe, snipe, shipe. . . .

(I'm joking....)

Don Firth

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

Get a dachshund, man. They're wonderful companions, lotsa laughs, and reduced levels of daily stress.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 09 - 05:37 PM

""I was responding to something Don Firth had said about GfS being pompous...and to his remarks about how to identify "a duck".""

LH you are really having a BAD day. Wrong again, mate.


The "pompous" was Don Firth.

The "duck" WAS mine, and in response to your "still might be dead wrong", NO, not really, having looked at all the other attributes so openly displayed, I think I am more than safe in saying that the plumage and webbed feet DO rather clinch the argument.

When it comes down to it, this particular duck has been parading for some time with a sandwich board giving all the dentifying details.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 09 - 05:43 PM

Actually Don, you're at the misrepresentation again, it was I who pointed out that the website you linked to was being economical with the truth....not the much put upon GfS.

It was perfectly clear from the way they presented(or should I say "spun") their statistics, that they were attempting to hide the clear and obvious link between homosexual practice and Aids
This is not a poor victimised minority, but a vey well organised and well funded operation to make homosexuality appear just like any other lifestyle, all this to the detriment of those who practice it

Homosexuals need compassion and treatment, rather than to be set up like Aunt Sallys by their radical "brothers".....coerced into a battle for "rights" that few of them really want or need.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 09 - 05:47 PM

As a friend Don T.....leave the comedy to the comedians!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 May 09 - 05:55 PM

Just dropped in to see how this was progressing.
I had to scroll to far back to find anything that originally related to the origins of this thread.

We here in NH are just gettin to the same political stage of putting gay marriage on our aggenda.
Hopefully it looks to be going in a better direction than California's direction. I never thought that we'd exceed California in progressiveness but here we go.
We will follow our neighbors to the west, Vermont & to the south Mass. & vote in Gay Marriage.
I haven't been as proud to be from NH in the past 20 yrs as I have been in these past couple yrs since we've gone domocratic.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 09 - 05:56 PM

CLICKY #1

CLICKY #2

CLICKY #3

And now—the opposing view. Compare the differences in methodology.

CLICKY #4.

This latter is from a study by Timothy LeHaye, best know as co-author of the Left Behind series.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 09 - 06:00 PM

It gets hard keeping track of all the rhetoric here without a racing form... ;-)

Okay, Don T., I did make a mistake there...it was you who put forward the "duck" analogy. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I still think that such analogies are often mistaken in the case of specific individuals. You see all the unnecessary nonsense I've been put through by police officers in my life....they were all SURE I must be a drug user, hell, probably a dealer! Why? Well, I did have the very long hair, the blue jeans, the guitar....duh! Ever try convincing a suspicious cop that you don't have drugs on you? It's like trying to convince the JDL that you're not anti-semitic, once their suspicion has been riveted on you.

Hopeless. You can't convince a mind that's on a vendetta of anything.

So...you just let them go through their routine, whatever the hell it is, answer their stupid questions calmly, present them with the bare facts (in my case: "no drugs here"), and eventually they give up and go away....probably muttering to themselves, "I'll nail that damn pot smokinng hippy son of a bitch next time..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 06:55 PM

900, whippee!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:19 PM

. . . and a quiet drifted over the thread . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:38 PM

Don, I answered your question. Somehow you missed it, probably because you had other things on your mind, or where ever.
As so far as your links, citing Tim LeHaye,('Left behind', series) I think was a little on the flimsy side, but that's how you wanted to portray it. By the way, the way you treat the 'Christian perspective', umm, you wouldn't classify that as just a little on the 'bigoted' side, would you? I mean, that DOES seem to be a concern of yours, isn't it?
And so far as your practicing, in public, (like Dr. Phil), you're the one who jumped into it. If you don't want people to respond to your sacred thoughts about the subject, then just keep your thoughts to yourself!..and for Pete's sake, why are you arguing? Can't I reply to your recitation of homosexual propaganda??
Don T. still has ventured into still, one of the best questions yet. This other stuff just smacks of 'all about me'...which, of course, it is. It is not my fault, that, (to quote another adage), 'Once you strike the bell, you can't just take away the ring'.
Dr. Richard Cohen and his son, the link I put twice, I believe, just blows your 'studies' away...especially toward the end, when upon the son, giving his commencement address, all the jaws dropped open. Why do you dismiss that so easy?? Because it contradicts what you WANT TO BELIEVE!!
Other than that, we're done with your responses. You omit whole thoughts, phrases, presuppose what you PERCEIVE we are saying, and lash out, you re-arrange anything you want, from a number of posters, to make up shit, that isn't what is even said! Your hostility to truth is staggering!
Think what you may, of me, and what I've SHOWN,(actually several of you have shown it), but if you want to be, support, believe, that homosexuality is for all of us to swallow(no pun intended), then head on. Sorry, if there are those out there, who don't subscribe to your outlook.
I'd welcome an intelligent dialogue on it, in which cooler heads prevail.
And while you're thinking about it, just why did all those jaws drop?? Could it be because he was a living testimony, that what is presently being 'taught' in our colleges and universities, AT THIS TIME, about the subject, just got busted, for being the poppy cock, misinformation that it is?? So keep your fallacious 'studies' to your group. I'm sure it will soothe you.
Don't even reply with a rebuttal, you're wasting both our time and talents!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 05 May 09 - 07:45 PM

A quiet? 900 posts?

I did not read ANY posts since I said this was not for me.

Did not have to... yer still going on about a basic human drive.

Fact is, ya just don't seem to realize, most of you, that what's good for the Goose ain't necessarily good for the gander. Needer side of the arguement is ever gonna "win" what is simply a matter of choice.... especally when it is NOT yer fucking choice.

Youse are still here? Debating the master of all subjects? 900 posts? Go.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 05 May 09 - 08:11 PM

Dr. Richard Cohen and his son: proof by an anecdote, from a therapist whose curative treatment for gays consists, at least in some significant part, of having them pound on furniture with a tennis racket.
" By the way, the way you treat the 'Christian perspective', umm, you wouldn't classify that as just a little on the 'bigoted' side, would you?" Don has repeatedly expressed his respect for the Christian perspective of the deeply rooted Christian church he attends with his wife. A substantial number of Christian churchs today maintain much the same perspective. Congratulation, Gfs,on being one of those who are qualified to define what a true Christian perspective is. By the way, how do you feel about the Christian perspective of Fred Phelps? Oh. am i being preposterous and offensive, now? Fred and his family are very convinced that their's is a true Christian perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 09 - 08:36 PM

You answered my question? Not so anyone would notice. You've made a few general comments about same-sex marriage being detrimental to the concept of marriage, but I want you to get down to specifics. You didn't have any trouble with that when you decided to dissect my brain and show its diseased parts to the world at large.

And just how is it that I treat the "Christian perspective?" You'll have to be a bit more specific on that also, because there is more than one "Christian perspective" on the matter of gender orientation, or haven't you been paying attention? I am hardly bigoted. There are may differences of opinion on what constitutes the most important aspects of Christian theology. Timothy LeHaye's argument is one of the most succinct examples of the "homosexuality is a sin and it can be cured" perspective, which is why I linked to it. To allow people to compare his approach with the scientific approach.

I am not "reciting homosexual propaganda," I linked to comprehensive articles by authorities on the subject for the enlightenment and edification of those with minds open enough to consider all sides of the matter. There can't be two sides to this, GfS, both "a matter of choice" and "predisposed." One of them has to be wrong. You are so locked into your own position that you won't even consider other opinions, no matter how authoritative. Unscientific and illogical, verging on the irrational.

And just WHO is practicing in public like Dr. Phil? Are you having an identity crisis? You seem to be loosing track of who is who and who said what on this thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 09 - 11:54 PM

Dr. Cohen's therapy of beating the chair with a tennis racket, was merely an example of how one could, take his built up rage out. John Lennon used 'scream therapy'..whatever works, ok?
As far as anecdotal, a son, bio-med graduate giving a speech, and saying his father used to be gay, etc etc, is hardly anecdotal...unless of course you want to minimalize that..which of course father/son bonding in a positive way, homosexuals do. Usually it is a source of great pain, that they didn't. Anecdotal???

Here, in case anyone is interested at all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:38 AM

Again, from the 'For what its worth Department': (If you want the link, I'll post it.


Resolved Question
Show me another »
When are those that are trying to prove there is a gene that causes one to be gay going to give up?
Billions of dollars have already been spent to no avail. No one experiment has proved and concluded that there is a "gay gene," and no one ever will.

Additional Details
By the way, all of those who think that I have no experience with this, and that I'm just spouting from no experience with this issue, you should know that my father CHOSE a homosexual lifestyle after he had 6 children with my mother.


Not to get to personal, but to squash any type of statement about my father already being gay, I'll explain this. He was molested when he was a child by his father and uncle. He learned how to deal with the shame and pain of this act by storing it inside and never talking about it. This, undoubtedly, led to prolonged psychological effects that plagued him and eventually chose him to choose his lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:45 AM

Still no sight of the elephant then?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:01 AM

""By the way, all of those who think that I have no experience with this, and that I'm just spouting from no experience with this issue, you should know that my father CHOSE a homosexual lifestyle after he had 6 children with my mother.""

If true, that would certainly explain the degree of bile in your attitude.

It is still not, however, proof that would stand up in any court, of your father's "lifestyle choice", as opposed to his "predisposition".

Many gays have had hetero relationships before coming out.

One thing YOU might like to ponder, though.

If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin, but learned behaviour, does it not NECESSARILY follow that heterosexuality is also a "lifestyle choice" in the opposite direction?

If this is so, then the question of "normality" or "deviance" surely does not arise.

In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law.

You can't have it both ways, you know.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:55 AM

"Still no sight of the elephant then?"


               Yes, it's comprised of a bunch of people who want to involve themselves in something that is none of their business.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:28 AM

To remain steadfast, in an opinion, while IGNORING FACTS presented, is being WILLFULLY IGNORANT! You, all, holding onto your bent on homosexual activity, being the same as ethnicity, is ignorant.
Equating the two, is spitting in the faces of those who suffered, were denied rights, and fought, and even died, during the REAL civil rights movement.
There is NO homosexual gene, never was, never will be. That is your own CHOICE. Pointing that FACT out, and having it IGNORED, equals the same as trying to get an immature child to stop sucking his thumb. It is by CHOICE..therefore, cannot be considered a right, other than to choose. To be deceived, willfully, or to deceive willfully, speaks for itself, as to your characters. Choosing to suck your thumb, as a child, is it genetic?..or behavior?
Also, throwing tantrums, when a parent pulls the thumb out of the child's mouth, as seen just a few posts back, when Don First, wanted more attention drawn to himself(repeatedly), is nothing more than what it really is...EMOTIONAL IMMATURITY! In reality, it has no power, just a tantrum.
Does he have a right to be, 'the way he is'..sure...but must we make laws, changing definitions, family structures, child rearing,(as if he knew what that was), and laws to accommodate, such immaturity? No, but if he, and others, scream, kick, and wail loud enough, perhaps, they think the parent will let him put his thumb back. It won't change the FACT, that the child is still 'just sucking his thumb'.
So sally forth, gung-ho!...Let's be immature, ignorant, and pass legislation to try to 'dignify' our BEHAVIOR, and for God's sake, make sure those who are able to see this for what it really is, are silenced, because if others are helped out of it, that becomes an indictment for how really helplessly lame and corrupt, our ATTITUDES GOVERNING OUR BEHAVIOR, really are!!!! SUCK AWAY!!!..Kill the truth!!!..Discredit any lifestyle, that preaches otherwise, because as long as we can suck our thumbs, we, at least can feel the power, of being like 'grown ups', by being fascist pigs, to the rest of real world!
Talking about seeing the elephant??...nor the forest ,for the trees?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 06 May 09 - 10:43 AM

The writer in Don's link recent link #4 is definitely writing from a conservative Christian perspective. He clearly states his own "understanding that the cause of homosexuality is a highly complex combination of various factors, some genetic and some environmental". This is from someone conservative enough to cite Timothy LeHaye, an extremely onservative Christian, for support.
As to LeHaye, some of the environmental factors he lists would seem credible; a couple of others would be laughable if they weren't sad: "Youthful masturbator and fantasizer"; it's a wonder males aren't at least 98% gay. "Permissive childhood training", which could mean anything from not ruling with an iron hand to truly inadequate parenting, instilling no values or self-discipline; I would wager that that would in fact correlate with a tendency to promiscuity, but why would it determine what gender the developing child is attracted to?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 09 - 01:37 PM

Regarding your most recent post, GfS, you are starting to rave.

And I'm beginning to understand why you are so dead-set against acknowledging even the possibility that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.

Dawn begins to break. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 May 09 - 01:49 PM

"There is NO homosexual gene, never was, never will be."


How do you know that when scientists who spend every day studying human genes don't know it for sure?
Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:32 PM

"Still no sight of the elephant then?"


               Yes, it's comprised of a bunch of people who want to involve themselves in something that is none of their business.

Rig....would you care to explain that remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 03:21 PM

Dawn may be beginning to break, but I feel it will be a long old time till the light of reason makes it through to the Firth thought processes

As it seems to be "question time" on Mudcat, I would like to ask any here who have taken the time to read the statistics for people living with AIDs
Do you really think that there is no link between homosexual practice and AIDS?

If you answer Yes, could you please give the reasons for that belief.

If any Mudcatters are unaware of the statistics, I shall be pleased to post them for your perusal.

If you think it is none of your business.....go sit in the corner with Rig...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:15 PM

Stuff it, Ake. I'm familiar with all the statistics, both true and bogus.

I've been through all these arguments before--in the real world--so I'm not reading anything here that I haven't heard or read before. Yes, of course there is a link between homosexual sex and AIDS. There is also a link between heterosexual sex and AIDS. There is a link between blood transfusions and AIDS too. It is a contageous disease.

It is not exclusive to homosexuals as homophobes like to claim.

Also, Ake, when you have to resort to attacking the intelligence of obviously intelligent people, you're acknowledging the weakness of your own arguments.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 09 - 05:17 PM

Don...If you cannot see what the statistics indicate very clearly,
then I would have to call your"obvious intelligence" into question.
Homosexuals make up only 2% of the population, yet 45% of "people living with AIDS are homosexual.
In every country in the world, AIDS in humans was first diagnosed among the homosexual community.

Your weasely reference to blood transfusions is a "red herring", as the infection is not behavioural.

The disease can of course be transmitted by heterosexual intercourse,
but if it were simple a disease of "hapstance" the hetrosexual sector of these statistics should be massively larger

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:27 PM

Ake, it looks like your statistics came from font color=blue>freerepublic.com, and arch-conservative web site. The Baptist Press publishes the same statistics.

As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

####

Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

####

How can you avoid infection?

1)   Abstinence: Do not have sex (anal, vaginal or oral). This is the only sure way to avoid contracting the virus by this means.
2) Mutual Fidelity: Stay with one partner who has sex only with you.
3) Correct and Consistent Condom Use: Use a new latex condom every time you have sex. When used correctly and consistently, condoms can help prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
4) Do not share needles and syringes.

So, Ake, what is your objection to same-sex marriage if it encourages stable, single partner relationships? Since neither you, nor all the king's horses and all the king's men can put a stop to homosexuality, one would think that attempting to minimize the spread of AIDS by advocating same-sex marriage would be something that any intelligent person should favor. N'est-ce pas?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 09 - 09:33 PM

Maine joined in today. It's the end of religion. YAAAA!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:44 AM

Don...the figures cited are your own.

They were taken from the statistics of the Centre for Disease Control which you linked to. Personally, I feel they may be a little on the conservative(with a small c) side, but surely you cannot brand your own figures "lies".

I think a couple of days away from this thread would help you regain your equilibrium.

I have explained countless times why I am against homosexual "marriage", why do you keep asking the same question?

If you are really as intelligent as you would have us believe, why do you refuse to acknowlege the "elephant in the room", even to the extent of denying your own figures?

I left school at fifteen with virtually no formal education, yet I can manage to use my powers of reason when the evidence is laid before me. You Don, rely on emotive claptrap, outright distortion and bullying to force through your opinions......well it ain't gonna work on this thread!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:01 AM

I know this is a 'side note', but Rig has been asked a few times about his posts, with no response, so let me venture this, as far as your 'end of religion' posts, I, as well as many others draw a distinction between the 'Great Spirit' of God, and 'religion'...as in...'Religion is man's way of reaching God', but who listens to God, trying to reach man????
In the beginning, God created man,..and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:32 AM

Good morning to you Guest.....Do you never rest..:0)

As a BTW to Don.....I do not "hate" anyone, I am sorry for homosexuals in the same way that I feel sorry for anyone with psychiatric "conditions", but before I start to promote homosexuality as a "normal healthy lifestyle",and bring that lifestyle into mainstream society, some questions require answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:40 AM

Sorry Guest, I meant to congratulate you on your last post(thumb sucking)....excellent!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:53 AM

"In the beginning, God created man,..and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!"


                If it were true, maybe man is just trying to get even!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:09 AM

Rig, God, as defined, by most all, is the origin and giver of life. Just because 'religions' think it is merely a way to 'self righteousness', doesn't mean you are dead, does it? In the Bible, 'God is Love', is a quote. In America, God is materialism, (as once listed as the U.S.'s predominate 'religion' at the U.N.)..but then, in America, people confuse the 'pursuit of happiness' with the pursuit of material gain!
But this might be for a different thread.
Ake, Thanks , I guess...in addition to that, to be 'WILLINGLY IGNORANT', is to be STUPID...and I guess that proves true, to the old saying, "You can't FIX stupid!'
Don't know if you caught this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:23 PM

When people chose to engage in snide personal insults, they know they're hanging in mid-air. All Ake and GfS seem to be able to do in response to verifiable facts they don't like is to resort to personal attacks.

By the way, Ake, you can blow off the idea that AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions if you want, but it's a fact. If you ever have an accident or need an operation and require a blood transfusion, you'd better by damned sure your doctor knows where the blood came from.

This thread has passed it's "sell-by" date. It's starting to reek.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:44 PM

Of course Aids can be transmitted by blood transfusions, I never denied that, but as the transmission is not behavioural it does not affect this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:08 PM

It most certainly does. That's what you're missing.

And Ake, that sort of argument is "begging the question" (a recognized fallacy). You are assuming that what you say is true because you assume it's true. Circular argument.

You just flunked Logic 101.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:40 PM

Gobbldegook! you have lost the debate, please have the grace to retire.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:24 PM

Only according to you. Grow up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:27 PM

Same-sex couples have been getting married in Iowa for ten days now. Our lilacs are blooming and smell terrific, so does the crabapple tree. The robins are in great voice and I heard an owl last night. My rhubarb patch looks the best it ever has, I have made two pies so far and they were both fabulous.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 04:57 PM

My statistics come from the World Health Organization.

Neither Ake nor GfS have an answer to the questions I have asked them.

To Ake:

Since "Mutual Fidelity: Stay with one partner who has sex only with you," is an obvious way of markedly decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS, why would you be opposed to same-sex marriage when it would encourage homosexuals to form stable, permanent relationships and thereby do exactly that?

Or would you prefer that all gays contract AIDS and die so your won't have to obsess about the matter anymore?

To GfS:

In what manner does the fact that David and Steven are married affect, in any way whatsoever, Barbara's and my marriage?

Or is it that you know perfectly well that it would have no effect at all on any conventional marriage, and there goes one of your (and others') major objections?

When some people don't have an answer, they resort to insults and abuse. A sure sign that they have nothing but their own prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 05:39 PM

That's funny, KB. Sounds like earth shattering news.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:43 PM

"Deck the halls with boughs of holly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Tis the season to be jolly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la.
Troll the ancient Yule tide carol,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

See the blazing Yule before us,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Strike the harp and join the chorus.
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Follow me in merry measure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
While I tell of Yule tide treasure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Fast away the old year passes,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Hail the new, ye lads and lasses,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Sing we joyous, all together,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Heedless of the wind and weather,
Fa la la la la, la la la la."

This is where the subversion started . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM

It's been awhile since I heard the San Francisco version:

"Don we now, our straight apparel..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:47 PM

KB: has society in Iowa collapsed yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 06:54 PM

Back in 1966 or 1967 I did a fund raiser at McGill University for the students who'd formed a Gay/Lesbian Society. They and their supporters provided an audience of about 750 people. Had a good time and I got a great laugh from the audience when I told the following with an English (UK) accent.

"Have you heard? Basil's living in Africa with an ape?"

"Male or female ape?"

"Why female of course; nothing queer about Basil."


People's people, folks. I am glad that these new laws are coming into effect. It's about time, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 07:05 PM

I've heard that one too, Peace, only it was "Carruthers", not "Basil". Great joke! ;-) It says so much about the Pukka Sahib, stiff upper lip mentality of the British during their great imperial phase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 07:45 PM

The history of HIV/AIDS.    Where did it come from? How does it spread?

Other deadly diseases:   CLICKY #1.    CLICKY #2.    CLICKY #3.    CLICKY #4 (Today it's estimated that two billion people — or approximately one-third of the world's population — carry one of the three bacteria that causes this).    CLICKY #5.    And there are others.

It would be quite a boon to humanity if a way could be found to alleviate these diseases as easily as legalizing same-sex marriage would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. But that would violate the fine sensibilities of those who are hyper-fastidious about the private sexual practices of others, and we can't allow that, now can we!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 09 - 09:33 PM

Don First,
Re-read my post where I answered your stupid question...and quit bugging me about it. Maybe its your 'non compos mentos', selective comprehension(?) Do you want me to 'cut and paste' it for you???? Or is this just another attention ploy??
And as long as you're at it...aw, never mind, I'll save that one, for when the 'polite gloves' come off!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 09 - 09:42 PM

Serious question, GfS:

I have read all of your posts and I don't recall seeing an answer to my question. I suppose it is possible that I many have missed it. If you can supress your animostity for a moment, would you kindly indicate the date and time of the post in question?

Thank you.

Don Firth

P. S. And as to it being a "stupid question," this is another example of your letting your emotional involvement cloud your judgment. The question, I am sure all here with an I.Q. above that of a brussel sprout, would agree that it is a perfectly reasonable question and goes directly to the crux of the matter.

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

GfS, surveying your posts after I first asked the question, I found what you apparently assume was an answer that would get me to stop pressing the matter, but it struck me as pure tap-dancing. I initially phrased the question making it specifically about Barbara's and my marriage. You responded by asking about our life history, then went around Robin Hood's barn, including an attempt to psychoanalyse me and counsel me about begging my son for forgiveness and commenting on my bitterness toward religion (it took me awhile to figure out who you were talking about), then responded by saying that since both Barbara and I are in our seventies and we have no children together, particularly children who might "choose" to adopt the "homosexual life style," it would probably not affect us.

Good imitation of Fred Astaire.

But that was not the nature of my question. Upon noting your evasion, I asked it again, phrasing it more generally:   how would anyone's same sex marriage affect anyone's conventional marriage? From that point on, I find nothing by way of response from you. I can only conclude that you either don't have an answer, or the only answer you could provide would reveal far too much about you own prejudiced attitudes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:32 PM

I don't think that GfS's main concerns regarding the subject of discussion revolve around how the marriage of homosexuals would presumably affect anyone's heterosexual marriage, Don (F). His or her concerns are in other areas entirely. So are Akenaton's for the most part, since it appears to me that Akenaton is primarily concerned about the possible physical health issues of the male homosexual lifestyle rather than about how a gay marriage would theoretically affect someone in a heterosexual marriage.

It's plainly obvious to all of us that a gay marriage does not in any way directly affect the marriage of some heterosexual couple, so there's no point even arguing about it in the first place.

And that makes me wonder why you would even bring it up? I mean, what does it have to do with Akenaton's or GfS's real concerns? It is a pointless question. It's not relevant to the issues that Akenaton and GfS have about the homosexual lifestyle and its possible repercussins on those practicing it...but certainly not on other people who are in a heterosexual marriage.

In short, it's pretty much a non-sequitor.

Taoist teachings (from ancient China) on the subject are quite interesting. The Taoists did not regard people's sexual choices and sexual practices as being a moral issue at all, providing there was mutual consent between adults. They regarded it strictly as a health issue. (They were not burdened with any of the typical Judeo-Christian-Muslim baggage about sex being "sinful" unless it is done thus and so...)

So...here's what they said about health and sex:

1. Sex is natural, good for you, and it's very healthy to practice it in reasonable moderation, but it's unhealthy to overdo it to the point where it becomes, in effect, an addiction or an obsession, because it then begins to damage your physical and psychological health.

2. Sex between men and women was clearly the most common form in their society, as in ours, and that was obvious...but lesbian sex and male homosexual sex were also recognized as choices people could freely engage in, and there was no moral stigma or judgement attached to either.

3. Lesbian sex was described as "polishing mirrors", and was said to have no ill effects on the health, and was thought to be useful to keep women happy in the palaces, for example, where many women might be left alone much of the time when the men were away at war.

4. Male to male sex was described as "dragon yang". While it was not considered morally wrong in any way, it was considered a (moderate) health risk by the Taoists because male energy is aggressive, not receptive, and they felt that two aggressive energies being brought against each other could in time cause damage to bodily systems and deplete the life force. So...while the Taoists did not proscribe or condemn the practice, they did caution against possible health hazards and recommended not engaging in too much "dragon yang" if you wanted to stay healthy.

I'm not mentioning that to prove anything to you or convince you of anythibg...(That would be very optimistic of me, to say the least!)

However, I think it's quite interesting. Taoists always sought moderation, balance, and Nature's way of maintaining happiness, good health, and long life.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:33 PM

And that leaves only 56 posts to reach 1000 on this thread. 55 with this one. Can we do it? Oh, I'm sure we can manage... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:08 AM

Little Hawk, Thank you for your post. Once again, you have the brain, to cipher what others can't seem to.
Don, Your 'perception of any animosity, toward you is ridiculous. Once again you err in assuming you are the center of the universe....not only that, you are not that close to me, that you should assume I have any 'feelings' other than, maybe a little annoyance, that you keep falling on the trivia, as to avoid commenting on the harder, more direct, and obvious.
One more thing, as long as we're at it, I'm not so sure, that your insistence on me commenting on your marriage, also isn't a ploy, to comment into a trap. What trap, you might ask? ..As i said before, if you can read a whole post through, objectively, is that I said, I needed just a little more information, but I had a hunch about something, remember that? I think there is something far bigger that, not only did you not say, but there is something you are hiding, big time...but, as I said, it was only a hunch..and educated hunch, ok?
So, back off!....That being said, I'm not in the least, anxious, or upset,..in fact, I'm quite fine thinking about more creative things, as I do, most of the day! Normally, until this topic came up, and I began posting, I don't give homosexuality much thought. My field was in marriage and family counseling, and only occasionally did I even have to deal with it, at all. Unfortunately, for you, it might not be such a casual interest.
So, it may occur to you, to lighten up, on wanting me to qualify, and re-qualify, and reiterate my answer, over and over...you might not like the answer! ...but, I'm used to that, too..no big deal. Your call....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 01:21 AM

Damn! How 'polite' was that!?!!?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:32 AM

""As it seems to be "question time" on Mudcat, I would like to ask any here who have taken the time to read the statistics for people living with AIDs
Do you really think that there is no link between homosexual practice and AIDS?""

HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?

Grow up for God's sake, and learn to see beyond your personal prejudice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:04 AM

Don T., Good question, at least an honest one....I've heard, as you may have too, that the HIV virus was released originally to homosexuals, and in Africa. It would not be hard to assume, that once the virus was out, that it could, and has, spread to, and throughout anywhere bodily fluids, are exchanged..either blood, semen, or otherwise. Since the HIV virus has been out there, most all health care professionals (dentists too), emergency workers, police, and fire, now are required to wear gloves, when required to touch or handle other people, in the execution of their services.
So, it is not confined to primarily the homosexual community, but it is certainly, the largest segment of our society, that is a carrier, outside of Africa...where they are dying by the thousands.
Akenaton, is quite correct, however, in his concerns. Not admitting that, or even resisting that fact, is just denial, and a dangerous denial, as well. Actually, it's good you brought it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:36 AM

"KB: has society in Iowa collapsed yet?"

Not just yet but I keep checking out the window.



"Akenaton is primarily concerned about the possible physical health issues of the male homosexual lifestyle rather than about how a gay marriage would theoretically affect someone in a heterosexual marriage."

Well, LH, back in the "On Same-Sex Marriages" thread Ake seemed mostly concerned with how same sex-marriage would affect the institution of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:52 PM

People, this is not a trivial question.

Little Hawk, apparently you haven't been following the discussions about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not me who brought the matter up. One of the standard arguments voiced by those who oppose same-sex marriage—or even domestic partnerships—is that it would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and jeopardize the marriages of "normal" people.

But you can never get an explanation out of them as to how it would do this.

I would like someone to give me an explanation of just how same sex marriage would do this, because, frankly, I don't see how it would have any effect whatsoever, and I would like to hear the reasons—the logic, if any—that endeavors to support this assertion.

Ake claims that if I don't see it, it's because I don't take my own marriage seriously, which is just plain silly. So maybe Ake is the one I should ask to give me his reasons for believing what he apparently believes.

And GfS, your comments that I might be "hiding something" is another of your attempts to undercut the credibility of my arguments and negate whatever I have to say.   But I believe my credibility is pretty well established with Mudcatters who have been around long enough and who have read many of my posts on various subjects, and who know me pretty well, some, in fact, face to face.

"Hiding something." Is it that you are implying that I might be homosexual myself, and that's why I'm advocating for same-sex marriage? That seems to be the thrust of your last paragraph. If not that, then what do you speculate I might be hiding?

No, behind all the psychobabble, GfS, you are one very rude person, and not just a little sneaky.

And I won't be backing off any time soon. Be assured of that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:55 PM

A huge number of moderate Christians worldwide believe in the traditional definition of marriage, they find it ridiculous that marriage can be redefined to accomodate homosexuals.
Traditional marriage was always linked to the process of reproduction and believers in the traditional view feel they are being coersed into the acceptance of a definition which devalues one of their core beliefs. Is there any form of relationship that liberals would ban from the marriage club? to many homosexual "marriage" is simply the thin end of the wedge
THAT is how homosexual "marriage" affects conventional marriage, as I have explained four or five times already

As can be seen from this thread, Homosexual marriage has been seized and used as a political device by "liberals"...something which the traditionalists view as the worst form of manipulation and hypocrisy.

When the very real and serious health issues on homosexual practice are added to the mix, I cannot believe that the self- confessed, "obviously intelligent" people on this forum consider homosexality to be simply an alternative, normal and healthy lifestyle.

Don there is no need for you to back off, as your posts have become so desperate, and nonesensical, that they can no longer taken seriously

PEASANTS 1.......INTELLECTUALS 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:03 PM

"Little Hawk, apparently you haven't been following the discussions about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not me who brought the matter up. One of the standard arguments voiced by those who oppose same-sex marriage—or even domestic partnerships—is that it would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and jeopardize the marriages of "normal" people.

But you can never get an explanation out of them as to how it would do this."

I am aware of that side of the discussion, Don, but it doesn't concern me too much (if it concerns me at all...which I don't think it does). I'm more concerned about health issues related to anal sex. I do not consider it a moral issue, but I do consider it a health issue, whether or not that form of intercourse is being used on men OR women.

People's opinion's about whether or not same-sex marriage could "somehow undermine the institution of marriage" are mostly subjective, just as subjective as their opinions about how a change in dress code, for example, could affect public schools or sports or the morale of the police force. It's perfectly legitimate for people to question things like that and wonder about the ramifications of making a change in some traditional custom. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they are "bigots" or "homophobes", it simply indicates that they are traditionalists, and we are all traditionalists about some things in life.

Therefore, I see no particular reason why individuals should be pilloried and personally attacked for having an opinion on either side of the issue of whether or not to institutionalize same-sex marriage.

As for me, I'm in favor of freedom and personal choice, so I have absolutely no objection to same-sex marriage. It doesn't bother or threaten me in the least, and I'm not worried about the tradition being threatened by it. That's my opinion. It doesn't bother me that Akenaton does not share that opinion....and I DO agree in the main with his concerns about the health issues...but that's not a moral issue, as I've said before, it's strictly a health issue.

I also think it's okay for people to do unhealthy things to themselves if they really want to, because I believe in freedom of choice...as long as they aren't affecting others by their actions.

So....although I think smoking is stupid and destructive, I will not take away people's right to do it, although I will take away their right to inflict secondhand smoke on other people inside an enclosed public area. And I will not take away their right to drink, but I will penalize them if they do it while they're driving or if they commit crimes while drunk. And I will not take away anyone's right to have a same-sex relationship or to have a same-sex marriage...because they are perfectly free to do that if they want as far as I'm concerned, and I wish them all happiness....nevertheless I do consider the practice of anal intercourse in ANY relationship to be an unwise and health-endangering practice, and I would advise anyone against it if I were their doctor.

There's nothing physically harmful about anyone kissing someone else or showing affection...opposite sex or same-sex. There's nothing physically harmful about engaging in oral sex (unless you're already carrying an STD of some kind). There's nothing that shocks me about a man doing any of those things with another man, although I don't find it personally appealing, that's for sure. ;-) It's not to my taste particularly, but why should that matter to me if I don't have to do it myself or watch someone else do it? So it doesn't matter to me.

But...anal sex is physically harmful over a period of time (mostly to the recipient) because the human rectum was simply not designed by nature for that sort of activity. It was designed to expel bodily waste, not to have an erect penis shoved up it repeatedly.

Frequent anal intercourse causes damage to the anal musculature and in time can result in incontinence. It can also cause damage to the intestinal wall, internal bleeding, and sometimes some small abrasions to the penis as well, and given the fact that the inside of the rectum is anything but a clean area of the body, that can lead to further health problems. It's an extremely unclean habit to engage in.

These are not reasons, Don, for banning gay relationships nor are they reasons for banning same-sex marriage, but they ARE a health issue in themselves, and that's my concern.

Another concern I have...and it's a big one...is how politicians, demagogues, and special interest groups and fanatics on both the Right and the Left have siezed upon this issue for their own gain, with the intention of dividing and conquering a confused electorate... They BOTH have the gall to pretend to be occupying some kind of "moral high ground"...they BOTH have no respect for anyone with an even slightly divergent opinion...and they are BOTH continually inflaming this issue in the media. My reaction to that is: "A pox on both their houses!"

Those are my concerns.

Now, if Akenaton feels that a change in a tradition...ANY tradition... is upsetting to him, he has a right to feel that way without being termed a "bigot". And if he feels that it's a health issue, he's right, in my opinion...as regards anal intercourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:17 PM

""Don T., Good question, at least an honest one....""

I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.

On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers.


""Since the HIV virus has been out there, most all health care professionals (dentists too), emergency workers, police, and fire, now are required to wear gloves, when required to touch or handle other people, in the execution of their services.""

And this proves your point about homosexual AIDS carriers because.........................?
I think you'll find gloves are worn in treating ALL patients.

And while we are on the subject of honest questions, was the following from my earlier post TOO difficult for you?:-

(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin, but learned behaviour, does it not NECESSARILY follow that heterosexuality is also a "lifestyle choice" in the opposite direction?

If this is so, then the question of "normality" or "deviance" surely does not arise.

In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)


I've noticed that, whenever anyone posts something you find difficult to answer, you simply ignore it. Why then should any of the rest of us be required to take your comment seriously?

Care to give an HONEST answer?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:23 PM

We cross-posted, Akenaton. Are your fingers as tired as mine? ;-D

You know, Don (F), I wouldn't even object to someone marrying their dog or their sheep....provided that it could be somehow verified that the dog or sheep fully umderstood the arrangement and was in favor of it! ;-D Mutual consent, in other words.

It cannot, however, be verified. Therefore, Don (F), I am not in favor of legalized marriage between a human being and a dog or sheep.

Note to the two Dons: It is Don (F) whom I am directly addressing in these last two posts (aside from one sentence above to akenaton), not Don (wysiwyg) T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:40 PM

Excellent, Little Hawk! I find myself in agreement with everything you just said. In both your most recent posts.

Ake, I recommend that you read what Little Hawk has written. I especially recommend the paragraph that begins "People's opinion's about whether or not same-sex marriage could 'somehow undermine the institution of marriage' are mostly subjective. . . ."

And as to my posts becoming "so desperate, and nonsensical, that they can no longer [be] taken seriously," that's only your opinion, just like your misgivings about same-sex marriage.

By the way, did you even bother to look at any of the material I linked to in my post of 07 May 09 - 07:45 p.m? I didn't think so. Well, don't bother. You'll undoubtedly just blow them off as usual as "gay lobby propaganda," despite the authoritativeness of the sources.

Don Firth

P. S. And bullseye, Don T! Right on target!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:48 PM

I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:01 PM

I don't think I've ever been to a doctor or dentist who did not put on rubber gloves before even the most cursory examination. Standard Operating Procedure, whether operating or not.

It never occurred to me to take it personally. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:12 PM

A whole catalog of diseases can be spread through contact with someone else's bodily fluids by whatever means. Person wipes nose, then a moment or two later, shakes hands with someone. Turning a doorknob or using a banister.

And aerosols! A good, enthusiastic sneeze can do a very large room in not more than a few seconds.

Life is fraught (past tense of fright?) with hazards that are many and varied.

(Pianos falling out of windows. . . .)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:05 PM

Okay, Don (F), I'm glad you understand my position. ;-)

I do think that people have a right to object to same-sex marriage being legalized if they feel it offends their traditional sense of what the term "marriage" means. If so, then they should inform their Congressman or whomever of their opinion, and vote accordingly at election time. I would not automatically characterize them all as "bigots" or "homophobes", however, because many of them may be nothing more than conventional traditionalists...they may not hate gays at all, they may just love the old traditions they grew up with...and it's not a sin to be a traditionalist (whatever the tradition may be).

We've had a continuing brouhaha in Canada, for example, about whether Sikhs who are enlisted as police officers should be allowed to wear their turbans while in uniform. I don't have a problem with it if they do, but the vast majority of Canadians feel that it's not appropriate and that the Sikh police officers should wear the same hats and headgear as all the other Canadian police officers do, because that's the uniform and the tradition in this country. So...it remains a dispute here.

Traditions change, but they usually change slowly. I've seen many change in the last 60 years. I may regret some of those changes, but I have no problem with most of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:47 PM

I don't want to get involved in this argument, I have my own opinions about civil partnerships and marriage - however if I might be excused a small 'thread drift' in reply to LH's post....

Sikh police want bullet-proof turbans

'Sikh police officers in Britain want the government to develop bullet-proof turbans to allow them to serve as firearms officers without having to remove their headwear
Inspector Gian Singh Chahal, vice-chairman of the newly formed British Police Sikh Association, said the Home Office needs to make provisions for Sikhs to recognise their role in the police force, the Guardian reported.'

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

Somebody simply needs to develop a 12 step program to help the Sikhs get over their addiction. It would be better for them, and it would certainly be better for the tax paying public.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:05 PM

I did not intend this digression to reult in any attack on anyone's religious beliefs as I would not attack anyone's 'disbelief'

In the UK there is no problem with Sikh police officers wearing a turban
A Home Office spokesman said on Thursday: "The Government wants a police service that reflects the diverse communities it serves."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:13 PM

Peace: "I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page"

Yes, and was standardized in the early 80's. Before that, one could go to a doctor, or dentist, and they would not..But you are correct.
I happen to be in UCLA, Hospital(Westwood) at the time when, the first, yes, the FIRST, exam was going to given to a patient(outpatient), who had something that no one had a bulletin on yet. It was called AIDS/HIV, but there was absolutely nothing released about the disease yet, and three of the doctors we're afraid, at that time (1982), to administer the physical, and were debating how, who, and what to do, as a precautionary measure. They (two) finally performed it wearing environmental suits! Within two weeks of that time, more information came out about this new, and strange disease. Since that time, the standard operating procedure, was to wear gloves, patient to patient. Later that year, the dentists, at UCLA, were refusing to work on patients with either, Hep, or AIDS. Saw it with my own eyes! Heard it with my own ears. Any one here can remember, not that long ago, when the doctor would merely wash his hands, but not wear gloves, except for certain things.

Don T.: "I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.
On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers....

Don, If Akenaton hasn't posted enough on that yet, then you ain't reading!

"HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?"

Another stupid question, Bi-sexuals, promiscuity, etc etc...(ohhh ye-a-a-ahh, I forgot..)

"(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin,....Blah blah blah" Here, watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

"In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law."

Behavior is not covered the same as ethnicity etc. etc.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)
Neither can you! re-read my post on the civil rights,regarding real civil rights..its just a little scroll away!
Now 79% of blacks opposed Prop 8 in Calif....Ever wonder why????
Maybe they have a better clue about what civil rights is really about, ok?? Oh, Obama does not support it either..pretty far out, for the leftist of the left!(Voting record in the Senate)

So, if it not genetic, which it isn't, not ethnic, not about age(YET), or born with gender, or religious, what the fuck is your basis for harping about it being a civil right????
I've already stated, a bazzillion times, that all should be equal under the law, and all rights are endowed by our creator, etc etc(not by the state), and not based on what genital you put where!..and trying to get acceptance of that behavior, for whim's sake. If two guys, women, goats, pigs, amoebas, etc etc want to live together, fine! They do all the time. If they want to put their sex organs up each others nose, that's their business. I hope they conceive a lot of snot, but to turn this into a Civil Rights issue, of entitlement, and use it to further a political agenda, is ridiculous. Marriage it is not.
Maybe your parents forgot to explain why you are you, how you got here, and what they had in mind, when they got together.

Don First, Yours is coming..set it aside, just for you!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:13 AM

Re turbans. Make them out of Kevlar if they have to be bullet proof. However, that won't stop yer skull from shattering when .357 gives ya a little tap.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 12:46 AM

Turbans don't strike me as a problem. ;-) If I was the chief of Canadian police, I'd say, "Sure. Wear your turbans on duty. No problem with me."

Sikhs have a long military tradition serving the British Empire in its glory days, and they make excellent soldiers and cops. I hardly see how wearing turbans would make them any less effective at carrying out their duties.

A majority of Canadians, however, seem to disagree with me on that. Again, it's a subjective matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:22 AM

The whole thing about turbans is a bunch of crap, imo. I'm with you on this one 100% LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 09 May 09 - 06:28 AM

Don Firth....I recommend that you read Little Hawk's clarification of the paragraph you linked to.
It represents my position exactly, I am simply giving my opinion against homosexual "marriage" and listing the reasons for holding that opinion.

None of the reasons I have given have been satisfactorally answered by you or any of ther others who have attempted to defend Homosexual marriage.

The position of being against homosexual marriage has been widely presented in the populal media as "homophobic" or "bigoted", this makes proper debate almost impossible, and forces people like myself and GfS immediately on the defensive, when it should really fall to the Pro homosexual group to prove the desirability or safety of promoting homosexuality as a normal and safe lifestyle.

My point about the link between homosexuality and Aids has not been answered at all, as I said before it is the "elephant in the room" a glaring black hole in your argument.

You misrepresent my words regularly, now I see you have taken to misrepresenting Little Hawk......I'm sure he will not be too pleased to be used as a "touchstone" for your aggresive syle of argument.

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

"I did not intend this digression to result in any attack on anyone's religious beliefs..."


                   It's not really a digression, Emma. I would attack anyone and everyone's religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are what cause most of the problems in the world, and religioius beliefs are what is causing all of the problems with gay marriage.

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

I would be pleased if people in general would stop their knee-jerk labelling of other people as "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "anti-semites", and other such damning labels in today's society....all of which totally preclude having any chance of a meaningful discussion.......and that is the primary real purpose of those kind of terms. They are meant to silence people on the other side of a debate. They are a form of savage emotional intimidation of other people.

I would be pleased if people would stop that kind of crude labelling of others and would instead try to actually listen and understand the concerns that others have and grasp why they have those concerns. If they did so, instead of engaging in name-calling, they would discover that those others are usually not nearly so far away from them philosophically as they think. They would discover (surprise!) that people on the other side of the argument are also rational, sane, idealistic, and desirous of freedom and happiness for all humanity.

I am pleased by the fact that the overall discussion has become a little more reasonable in most of the more recent posts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 09 - 02:25 PM

Congratulations, GfS and Ake. You win!

No, not the discussion. Not on your bogus data. Not on your convoluted use of illogic. Not on your wit and charm. No, not at all. You win on sheer bull-headed endurance. And the realization that not all the substantiated scientific data in the world will ever change your minds (Flat Earth syndrome).

But at least sparring with you two has given me a good look at the kind of shoddy data, tangled reasoning, and sham studies (including that video denying the genetic connection, which leaves out a crucial piece of information that would negate the message of the video) that I will be meeting in my endeavors in the real world. Thanks for the exercise.

Rather than wasting my time here trying to reason with people, one of whom can't even get my name right, and all of whom a filled to the gills with acrimony and display all the potential for opening-mindedness of tree stumps, I'm going to use my time and energy to lend my support to the cause of same-sex marriage in my state. The law has been passed by the legislature, but the goons are gathering to get up a California-style referendum, so I'm talking with my local state legislator (who lives just a couple of blocks away when he isn't in Olympia, the state capital, and who goes to the same church my wife and I do—and who voted for the same-sex marriage bill) to find out what I can do in the real world to help block the referendum and get the bill permanently adopted. I've already talked to him once, but I'm meeting him again tomorrow at coffee hour after church.

Besides, a wise old uncle once told me, "Young man, don't waste your time arguing with a bull that has diarrhea. He can produce it much faster than you can shovel it away."

Don Firth

P. S. I may look in from time to time to see if this thread is still going. As I said before, it's well past its "sell-by" date.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 02:51 PM

History of AIDS to 1986--article worth reading.

Calling AIDS a homosexual disease is a misnomer. Hell, stories that first came out suggesting that Ebola--which does in 10 days what AIDS does in 10 years--was first brought into the human population because someone had sex with a green monkey. Fact is a child was bitten on the arm by a green monkey and THAT transmitted it to the human population at that time. But, various 'phobes will not pass any opportunity to target the objects of their hatred. (That is not a reference to anyone posting to this thread.)

Read the article; it's worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 09 - 07:38 PM

""I would be pleased if people in general would stop their knee-jerk labelling of other people as "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "anti-semites", and other such damning labels in today's society....""

I'm sure you would, LH, and I wouldn't argue with you if you could explain to me why you feel that I, or anyone else should accept you as arbiter, and accept your opinion as more valid than anyone else's.

You sit on your high moral cloud, looking down on us lesser intellects and comment in judgement on me, and talk about knee jerk reactions, and name calling.

If I see a shovel leaning against a wall, I'm not going to say "That's a manually operated earth shifter".

It's a bloody shovel.

Ditto, if I see the kind of nasty, crude, irrational rants so evident in postings by GfS, and they, IN MY OPINION add up to bigot, then I WILL say so, with or without YOUR approval.

That is emphatically NOT a knee jerk. It is my CAREFULLY CONSIDERED opinion, which seems to be shred by rather a lot of quite intelligent people besides myself.

Ake is a slightly different matter. I don't think he can help his hardwired disgust toward gays, but the logic of his position completely escapes me, and I feel it has escaped him too. His emotions have blinded him to the one fact that destroys his argument completely.

Ake maintains that his major objection to homosexual marriage is on grounds of danger to health.

But he hasn't yet explained how allowing "gay marriage", as opposed to "civil partnership", is going to increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS. Nor does he offer any insight as to how refusing that right will decrease the incidence.

Inquiring minds would like to know the scientific basis for any such belief.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 11:54 PM

You make an interesting point there, Don T. Indeed, I don't see "how allowing "gay marriage", as opposed to "civil partnership", is going to increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS."

There would, in any case, be just as many gay relationships still happening whether or not they were placed under the definition of "legal marriage". After all, if people want to have a gay relationship they will, right? ;-)

I think that Akenaton is opposed to the idea of legalizing gay marriage because he's a traditionalist. He likes the established tradition, established for thousands of years now...and that tradition is that a marriage consists of an adult man and an adult woman who are married to one another.

Akenaton likes that tradition. He is opposed to changing it. That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot or a homophobe, (although you may think it does...and that's your opinion). It makes him a traditionalist.

Now, in my case I am not so attached to the marriage tradition. I'm not worried about it much at all. Accordingly it doesn't worry me if it gets changed to include same sex couples. It seems like an insignificant matter to me...like I've said before: "It's a tempest in a teapot".

So I'm not nearly as attached to the tradition as Akenaton is, that's all.

****

He may find sex between males disgusting. Fine. I find it kind of distasteful, myself...it certainly doesn't turn me on, I can't empathize with it, and I don't get a good feeling from observing it (in a movie, for example), but I am not the least bothered by two men showing genuine affection or love for one another...I just don't much like seeing them have sex with each other, that's all. I don't in the least mind seeing a scene where two women are having sex or a man and a woman are having sex. That's just my own personal taste, period. It's not some kind of moral position, just a matter of taste.

Now, if Akenaton finds sex between males disgusting, that's okay...because he can be allowed his own preferences surely when it comes to what he finds disgusting and what he doesn't? That does not classify him as a bigot.

I find anal sex disgusting...whether it is done to a man OR to a woman. I think it's a disgusting practice. I would not, however, pass a law against it or persecuate couples who freely chooses to do it...because what I find disgusting doesn't have to be made illegal for me to feel "safe"! ;-) I accept the fact that other people will do a certain number of things that I find disgusting....and that's life!

The fact that Akenaton is disgusted by the idea of men having sex with other men does not make him a bigot...it simply indicates his particular taste, that's all.

I find the sound (and attitude) of most rap songs disgusting. Does that make me a bigot? No. It just indicates my own taste in music. I don't go for rap music. Many teenagers don't go for classical music. They're not bigots either...it just isn't to their taste, that's all.

Any comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 12:26 AM

Just a thought before I turn off my computer and retire, Little Hawk:

If someone lives in a society that condones slavery and he comes out strongly against a movement toward emancipation, is he merely a "traditionalist?" And should he be excused on that account?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:30 AM

Don Firth obviously has a "ghost writer" among his weasel minions, his letter of "congratulations" to GfS and myself, although admitting that he has run out of credible responses, is padded out with lies and crass bad tempered insults, which appear a little beyond Don's satirical abilities.

Firstly ....for the umpteenth time,I do not hate homosexuals. Is there no one on the pro homosexual "marriage" side who can carry on an objective discussion? Why does "hate" have to brought into the discussion other than to smear ones opponent?

In answer to Don T's point, I believe homosexuality is a combination of learned behaviour and psychiatric imbalance. It also has been shown to be an extremely dangerous lifestyle....the aids figures clearly show that, but are routinely denied by the pro homosexual "marriage" lobby
This denial has ensured that no proper independent medical study of homosexuality and AIDS has yet been carried out and this state of affairs is neither in the interests of homosexuals nor society at large. The agenda is "normalisation" of homosexual practice....the "rights" to foster children or have their union blessed by the church are huge milestones on the road to normalisation and very soon those "rights" will be used to block any move towards a much needed medical study.
Basically that is why I think the "Homosexual rights" issue affects everyone not just those in a traditional marriage.

I do agree with Little Hawk when he decribes how I feel about traditional marriage....Personally I dont care too much about any sort of marriage other than from the legal perspective, but I know hundreds of ordinary couples who believe that traditional marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, blessed by god, to spend their lives together and bring up their children as good citizens.
They feel they are being used as pawns in a cynical political charade.

Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", buthave just been taken in by modern "liberalisation", which is of course the very antithesis of what a real liberal stands for...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 09:58 AM

Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation", which is of course the very antithesis of what a real liberal stands for...Ake

So very well said!!!

The whole same sex marriage push, is not about being sympathetic towards homosexuals, and their synthetic, over dramatized plight! It has far more to do with non-thinking 'sympathizers' trying too hard to be 'tragically hip', and using the issue, for self aggrandizement, by 'jumping on the bandwagon', to weaken, a society based on the(at least at one time) Constitution, by parsing it, in an attempt to show it being less relevant. While attempting to mock the Constitution, religions, Civil Rights, traditions which our society was based on, they only mock themselves. When it is pointed out to them, that the basis on which the foundation of their cause is based on, is clearly flawed, and erroneous, then come the charges of 'hatred', and the misuse of the term 'bigots', come spewing forth...and that is far more from frustration. Instead of being reasoned with, accurately, they fear facing certain embarrassment, which is, of course, the direct opposite, of their desired goal of being lauded, and noted for being on the 'right side' of being 'hip'. Others, who have posted on here, might have personal reasons, because homosexuality has personally touched them, either directly, or through a family member, and in accepting it, they have had to try to legitimize that jump.
Whether or not, one actually has empathy towards homosexuality or not, some just like the trend of shaking the pillars of our present society, completely oblivious that when the pillars finally go, the temple will fall with crushing force on them, and everyone else. This practice is being carried out quite well, in our nation's capitals (U.S. and U.K.), and is merely the latest trend d'jour...and possibly a fatal one at that.
Now, if what I just posted, was only an opinion(to some), then they are not thinking this, along with other trends, through very deeply...and hence their protestations are equally as shallow.
Usually, the deeper the game, the shallower the motive!
Folks, this nation and founding principles are under a severe attack, by many issues, using whatever cause and arguments to support that attack. The family is under attack. The fabric of our culture, structure, politics and governmental system is under attack. This issue of homosexual marriage, is only one front. As states approve same sex marriage, is only the indicator of how popular the trend, and notion are being received.
Virtually anyone can live with anyone else, doing anything they want, under the present system. This is only being used as a political ploy, and promoted by politicians who don't give a rat's ass, about the quality, nor integrity of the system which they were elected to represent....and that, my friends, is the plain, honest, and simple truth.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:01 AM

Oh, and by the way..Happy Mother's Day!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:28 AM

Don F., you asked:

"If someone lives in a society that condones slavery and he comes out strongly against a movement toward emancipation, is he merely a "traditionalist?" And should he be excused on that account?"

Good question! Okay, let's take a look at that. In ancient Rome, for instance, slavery was a normal practice, and it was a huge and absolutely necessary part of their economy as they did things at the time. So everyone simply took it for granted...well, everyone except a few radicals like Spartacus who led a gladiator and slave revolt against the power of Rome...and almost won it!

All Roman citizens at the time regarded Spartacus as a dangerous criminal. Many slaves, however, regarded him as a freedom fighter. Who was right?

Looking from our present day perspective, we would say that Spartacus was right. If we were Roman citizens back then, though, I bet that virtually all of us would have said that Spartacus was a dangerous criminal and a threat to society...a terrorist, in fact.

People's views are shaped by what they have grown up with and what is in their own interests of survival. This was certainly true of Southerners who fought for the Confederacy.

I would not characterize the entire population of Roman citizens in 100 B.C. or the entire population of the Confederacy as bigots because they thought it was okay to keep slaves. I would characterize them as conventional people, maintaining the social customs of their own time, and looking toward defending their own survival as a culture.

But ideas change as time goes by...

There comes a time in human affairs where some great philosophical minds may publicly question a former assumption, such as that slavery is a legitimate practice.

When they question it, most people are initially shocked! That stimulates a lot of vigorous debate...accusation...counter-accusation, and so it goes.

Anyway, the crucial matter in the debate, the matter to focus on, is NOT whether so-and-so is a bigot. The crucial matter is the subject of discussion itself (slavery, women's suffrage, same-sex relationships, etc).

What we should be focusing ON here is NOT whether so-and-so is a bigot, but we should be discussing the subject OF gay relationships, gay lifestyle, same-sex marriage, medical considerations, and so on....without sinking to the level of personally attacking other people as "bigots" and trying to prove that they are "bad people" for having the opinion they have about something. Look at the bandwidth that has been consumed here by all these attempts to prove that another poster is a "bad person" (a bigot). And to what useful effect?

Discuss the subject. Drop the personal attacks. That's my suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:01 PM

""but I know hundreds of ordinary couples who believe that traditional marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, blessed by god, to spend their lives together and bring up their children as good citizens.
They feel they are being used as pawns in a cynical political charade.""

So, Ake, it's not just Homosexuals you want to disenfranchise, but Mormons, Hindus, and Muslims as well.

The Hindus and Muslims both have a TRADITION of polygamy, whereby marriage is a contact between a man and several women. This tradition goes back, in the case of Muslims, nearly as far as yours, and in the case of Hindus, even possibly further.

The ancient Egyptians had a tradition of rule by a brother/sister pair united in marriage.

There have been multiple cultures practising polyandry, whih predate, in many cases, the Christians.

The Christian tradition of one man/one woman marriage is a man made convention, and as such has seen many changes over the centuries, according to the moral codes of various ethnic cultures.

In view of the above, you will I'm sure, excuse me if I say that your argument on the basis of keeping traditional values is weak, maybe even specious.

As to your oft repeated claims that Homosexuals are responsible for the existence of aids, and form the majotrity of carriers I can only say:-

ASOLUTE BLOODY NONSENSE.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:12 PM

""Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation",""


That is the classic comment arising out of an utterly bigotted mindset.

Translated it reads as follows:-

""I BELIEVE THAT SUCH AND SUCH IS TRUE, AND ANYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH MY VIEWPOINT IS A) DELUDED OR B) STUPID, OR C) BRAINWASHED.

THIS MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE ANY INTELLIGENT, SANE PERSON WOULD KNOW THAT I AM RIGHT!!""

It is arrogant, insulting, and ultimately bigotted, and only two people on this thread have used thi argument.

I rest my case, folks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 01:19 PM

""The whole same sex marriage push, is not about being sympathetic towards homosexuals, and their synthetic, over dramatized plight! It has far more to do with non-thinking 'sympathizers' trying too hard to be 'tragically hip', and using the issue, for self aggrandizement, by 'jumping on the bandwagon', to weaken, a society based on the(at least at one time) Constitution, by parsing it, in an attempt to show it being less relevant. While attempting to mock the Constitution, religions, Civil Rights, traditions which our society was based on, they only mock themselves. When it is pointed out to them, that the basis on which the foundation of their cause is based on, is clearly flawed, and erroneous, then come the charges of 'hatred', and the misuse of the term 'bigots', come spewing forth...and that is far more from frustration. Instead of being reasoned with, accurately, they fear facing certain embarrassment, which is, of course, the direct opposite, of their desired goal of being lauded, and noted for being on the 'right side' of being 'hip'.""


That's the way GfS. You are digging a very large hole in trying the old, largely ineffective, technique of hiding the fact that you DON'T have a logical answer by accusing the other side of doing what , in fact, you are yourself doing.

Do feel free to dive into said hole and pull it in after you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 02:45 PM

Don..I don't think you are deluded, stupid, or brainwashed, I do think you are deeply committed to your point of view....just as I am.
From other threads, I know you to be a fairminded and sincere man, just the sort of person I enjoy debating with and I hope when this thread is over we can get back to discussing current events more amicably....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 02:58 PM

No, Ake, I have not run out of "credible responses." They're all right out in the open here for all to read. It's just that you and GfS don't like them, so you cavalierly blow them off. Which doesn't mean they are not credible or true, it just means that, as I say, you and GfS don't like them.

And by the way, thank you for the compliment:   The idea that I'm such a brilliant and versatile writer that I must be more than one person warmed my heart.

####

And Little Hawk, according to quite a number of philosophers, and some religious figures, there are such things as moral imperatives, derived, not from society or custom or the times in which one lives, but by the necessities of and for human life at all times, among other things, the matter of simple equitable justice. These are things that the human race has been gradually stumbling toward throughout history. The Magna Carta and many of the things the founding fathers endeavored to incorporate in the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights are examples of growing recognition of these moral imperatives.

I have frequently quoted here on Mudcat a statement that I believe describes our condition in a nutshell:

"Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized man. It is us."

There are things that are just plain wrong, regardless of the customs of a particular society or the historical period in which that society exists. And there are actions that people are called to perform, indicated by these same moral imperatives, such as responding to examples of inequities and injustices when one encounters them.

Moral imperatives are not merely matters of opinion.

Don Firth

P. S. I've had my conversation with my state legislator friend. Much good information. And the folks in our monthly writers' group are due to arrive soon, so I'll be busy for the rest of the day.

P. P. S. A little food for thought:—

Moral absolutism:
There are moral judgments (claims of good and evil and right and wrong) that are absolutely true, regardless of the moral framework (society, culture, value system) in which they are uttered.

Moral relativism:
There are no moral judgments that are absolutely true. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the moral framework in which they are uttered. The same judgment may be true in one, and false in another, and there is no exterior standard by which to compare them. It does not make sense to try to judge the truth of moral claims without a frame of reference.

[e.g: The public beheading of a woman accused of adultery. Is this right merely because it's the custom of that society?]

Nihilism:
Begins by accepting moral relativism as true. Then claims that, because moral judgements are relative to their frame of reference, and there is no standard by which to determine the true frame of reference, all moral conversation is meaningless. Morality is entirely abandoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:22 PM

More disinformation:
"P. S. I may look in from time to time to see if this thread is still going. As I said before, it's well past its "sell-by" date."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:30 PM

Petty petty petty. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 03:43 PM

GfS and Ake,

You both assert you are not bigoted, and yet you persist in your diatribes, insisting they are reasoned and based on facts; yet I see no facts presented, and I hear a lot of impassioned rhetoric full of grand conclusions without any analytical basis.

It would be one thing if your rhetoric was in favor of your favorite kind of sherbet or the preferred interpretation of Tolkein's runes. But when you bring the same infatuated gusto and unreason to bear on an issue like whether or not a civil status should be exclusive, you are standing up for an intensely misguided and harmful view which supports close-minded bigotry. Even though, with your layers of rationalization, you see clearly you are not bigoted, it is clear to me that you both esouse an unreasoning dislike for, and a willingness to mistreat, a group of citizens of this country on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Why you think sexuality should be such a compelling and important issue is not clear to me, but there is no question in my mind that prejudice and factless emotional bias based on prejudgement is what you are both dipping in to when you make your enthusiastically antipathetic posts.

I have nothing to add, here, except that you have won no ground, shown no factual case, and said nothing to persuade me you are trying to reason or find truth or even common ground.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:08 PM

Thank you Amos.....hope you enjoyed your holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:16 PM

Why, yes, Ake, I enjoyed it IMMENSELY!! Tropical paradise, perfect diving, good rum, fine new friends, even p[layed a one-night gig at a very posh restaurant. Fun and games and not a care in the world-0-who could ask for more?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 09 - 07:43 PM

""Akenaton: "Most of the Pro homosexual marriage folks are not "bad people", but have just been taken in by modern "liberalisation",""


""Don..I don't think you are deluded, stupid, or brainwashed,""
...Akenaton.


'SCUSE ME?

Now I'm confused.......Is there some other meaning of "taken in" that DOESN'T translate as DELUDED?

Or do you mayhap think that "liberalisation" is affording me living accommodation?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:21 PM

Now I'm confused.......Is there some other meaning of "taken in" that DOESN'T translate as DELUDED?
Well, not exactly. 'Taken in' is more like being a true believer to a deception.
'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work...so, I guess you can be tolerant of other points of view. Make's one empowered to feel 'wide open' to other opinions, as long as they're willing to pay your way.
Well?? You asked!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM

I need drugs . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:30 PM

Soon!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:36 PM

Look in the back of the ambulance, in the triage stuff....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:38 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 10:47 PM

Don F. - Definitely there are moral imperatives. Absolutely. Unquestionably! We are mostly fairly clear on what they are too.

We all know that it's wrong to steal, wrong to commit unprovoked violence on someone, wrong to lie with the intention of deceiving innocent people for one's own personal gain, wrong to rape people, wrong to cheat people, wrong to murder people, wrong to wantonly break the civil laws just because you feel like it, wrong to slander people, wrong to blackmail people, wrong to commit fraud, etc.

We know these things. I know these things. I am not a moral relativist.

We all know NOW that slavery is wrong. That has become obvious to virtually everyone in North America, for example, since roughly about 1865, but it took a long time for it to become obvious. It took thousands of years before the great mass of humanity reached an awareness level where virtually everyone (if not everyone) could plainly see and AGREE that slavery is wrong. That was the point I was making about the Romans, the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, and other ancient peoples. They did not yet know that slavery was wrong. They thought it was totally normal, fully justifiable, and most of us would have thought so too if we'd been born back then into those societies...specially if we'd been born among the slave-owners rather than the slaves.

I was alluding to that not because I am a moral relativist, but to demonstrate how people in one society can take fully for granted a practice that is later seen as VERY wrong in other societies.

Very few people are moral relativists. I don't think I've ever met one in my life, and I am not one. Most people have very definite ideas about what is right and wrong, and I know you and I certainly do...and we probably agree on almost all points.

Nevertheless, I think it brings a discussion to a standstill when someone starts telling someone else he's a bigot or that his opinion is "bigotry". It just derails the entire discussion from that point forward.   People get lost in defending themselves or in attacking the other person, and that gets no one anywhere.

What you need for a productive discussion is to discuss the issue itself and all its various social ramifications, not to set about proving who in the discussion is or who is not a "bigot".

Everyone here has some useful ideas to offer about gay relationships, the institution of marriage itself, and other stuff like that. Let's talk about those ideas instead of fighting about whether someone else on the forum is a "bigot" or some other negative character assessment like that.

Everyone feels at heart that he or she is a good person. You do. I do. Akenaton does. GfS does. Don T does. Everyone here does. We all feel at heart that we are good people, and I think we probably all are good people. It does no good for one of us to say (in so many words) to another, "You're a bad person." It causes an angry defensive response, a counterattack, and things just get uglier from there. I see no point in it.

Instead, let's discuss the actual issues (of same sex marriage and gay relationships and etc). Present your ideas about those issues. See how they fly. Listen to other people's ideas. See if you can relate to what they mean.

There are some useful possibilities there.

There are no useful possiblities in any one of us trying to prove that someone else here is "bad"...a "bigot"...a "racist"...or some other condemnatory definition along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:39 PM

Unfortunately, morality IS relative, and the reason you meet fewer moral relativists than you might expect is because many people live in fairly static conditions. Any act can be a harmful one in the wrong context. And even murder may be the greatest good in the wrong context. We should not confuse the probability of a contextual weighting with the inherent "absolute" goodness of an act.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:46 PM

That's true, Amos! There are almost always, it seems, a few odd exceptions and variations to any moral rule we think we can come up with. ;-) I could have gone into that at length in my last post, but hell....I figured I'd already done enough damn typing already! (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:54 PM

Murdering Hitler, for example, could have been quite a public service to Germany (and the world) anywhere from the 1920's on...although it would still have been, technically speaking, a crime according to German civil law.

Stealing food to save the life of a starving person could also be justifiable.

There are any number of examples one could come up with, but it doesn't change the fact that we all think that murder and stealing are (normally speaking) morally quite wrong.

****

Now, stealing horses was considered a glorious and commendable act among the Indians of the western plains...an act to be proud of...provided you didn't steal the horses from a fellow member of your own tribe!

Tricky business, isn't it? ;-) Those Indians were not moral relativists, they just had a different set of customs, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:55 PM

1000?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 12:19 AM

I knew we could make it! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:13 PM

"'Liberalization', by today's concepts means that you feel comfortable, living off other people's work..."

Really, GfS?? Now we have a whole mew point of major disagreement.

For Crissake buy yourself a dictionary!! And a good book on political science!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:26 PM

"Liberalization" means many things, it seems, to different people. ;-) To me it means easing up on old rigid rules and providing greater freedom and greater latitude for free thinking.

The Catholic Church, for instance, has been greatly liberalized over the past many centuries, as have most of the other Christian churches. As a result, they are now more tolerant in a number of areas and women have a far greater voice in the community than used to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:45 PM

Here's the entire dictionary answer on what the world "liberal" means:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1325–75; ME < L lîberâlis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to lîber free + -âlis -al 1

Related forms:

lib⋅er⋅al⋅ly, adverb
lib⋅er⋅al⋅ness, noun


Synonyms:
1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.


Antonyms:
1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.


*****

It is quite clear that the word "liberal" has been misused a great deal lately in certain American political rhetoric. I know of no other country besides the USA where "liberal" has become a common insult word, but I gather from my history readings that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all hated the liberals of their time with a vengeance...as did the Spanish Inquisition. Authoritarian movements can't stand liberals.

We may have to find some brand new words to express what we're talking about, because the old ones simply aren't serving their proper function anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:50 PM

And.... "liberate" means: to make free

Whereas... "conserve" means: to maintain and not waste

Either proposition is a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:16 PM

One of the standard techiniques of "black PR" skills is the insidious redefinition of terms in order to create a distortion of the things or people who use the label.

Throughout the Bush years, foaming right wing mouths like Ann Coulter and Rush LImbaugh took up the cry to redefine the word "Liberal" from its core meanings, given above by Little Hawk, to some ridiculous epithet laden with the meanings of "Commie", "mooch", "tree hugger", "socialist pinko", "pushover" and "stupid bleeding-heart slob".

The word means none of these things, but Ann didn't mind; she needed a hate-label and she drummed up a huge mess of pottage and slapped it into her vitriolic books in order to make some dough by slandering people of different political philosophy.

That this was an un-American, anti-social, counter-productive course of action seems to have escaped her attention.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 02:21 PM

Of course it escaped her attention, Amos. ;-D She thought she was saving America!

Don't forget, Hitler also thought he was saving Germany. The Messianic complex can justify anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:00 PM

Thanks for posting that, Little Hawk.

The primary thing I was stomping on in GfS's post is the idea that liberals favor living off the work of other people. That is not, in any way, part of the definition of "liberal," nor is it what liberals want. The whole thrust of liberalism is freedom from the kind of restrictions and interference that tyrants, bullies, and the kind of people who think they have the right to tell other people how to live. This is what liberalism opposes.

Of course, it is those tyrants, bullies, and interfering snoop-nuisances who, for that very reason, hate liberals the most. When the world needs changing, it's the liberals and progressives who see the necessity, initiate the action, and take all the crap from those who have a vested interest in trying to maintain the status quo.

I tend to agree with Benjamin Disraeli, who once said, "I regard myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal."

If you think about it, you can readily see that the two are not mutually exclusive, as some would have you believe.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 03:58 PM

For sure, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:49 PM

It is my dog who favors living off the work of other people, and he's NOT liberal! As a matter of fact, he's deeply conservative about everything. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:56 PM

Your dog is a secret commie homo, Little Hawk. Face it.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:59 PM

I think he's a closet Stalinist or something. I keep hoping he won't "come out", for the sake of domestic tranquility around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest From Sanity
Date: 11 May 09 - 10:14 PM

Good Lord!..Don't go into a tizzy!. I was merely being facetious!.Referring to present day political rhetoric, ONLY!
By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??(I mean the real one, not the political nonsense????)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:02 PM

Many (if not most) people are extremely liberal about some things, moderate about other things, and very conservative about still others. ;-) That's what makes the labels "liberal" and "conservative" so misleading.

For instance, here's an interesting conundrum. One of the definitions of "liberal" in the online dictionary I consulted is: "4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

Okay. Now, that would seem to go hand in hand with a cause that is normally espoused by people who call themselves "conservatives" in the USA, namely the cause that says citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Well, if to be liberal is to be in favor of "maximum individual freedom possible", then it should be an extremely liberal position on guns to assert that everyone should be free to buy and own firearms of every kind if they wish to....and it should be a conservative on guns who is in favor of restricting gun ownership and stringently regulating it!

Restrictions and regulations on gun ownerwhip ARE conservative measures on gun ownership, going by the dictionary definition of what "liberal" is supposed to be. ;-D

I find this very ironical.

The truth is that every liberal is quite conservative about stuff he's against, but quite liberal about stuff he is for! The same is true of conservatives...they are quite conservative about stuff they are against and quite liberal about stuff they are for. Whoever you look at, "liberals" or "conservatives", they would clearly both like to shut down and shut up "the other side" of the debate if they could. In that respect, they are both acting in anything but a classically "liberal" fashion, because they are both demonstrating intolerance, prejudice, and a desire to control and restrict the actions of the people they don't agree with.

The conclusion I draw from that is simple: both the "conservative" and "liberal" movements in America today are absolutely riddled with self-serving hypocrisy, prejudice, and delusions of moral superiority. They recognize it as such, though, only when the other side does it...not when they do it themselves.

The pot is calling the kettle black, and the kettle is responding in kind. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:17 AM

"By the way, if you're so liberal, why are you so closed minded to what I've been saying, in regards to being compassionate to the homosexual mind set??"

Not closed-minded at all, GfS. I've considered your viewpoint and rejected it, in the same way I reject stock arguments put forth by the Flat Earth Society.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:19 AM

And by the way, Little Hawk, you're waffling again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:29 AM

Waffles are good with butter and maple syrup.

Re LH's dogs: remember the dog's philosophy of life: if you can't eat it and you can't piss on it, fuck it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:10 AM

No, Don, I am not waffling. I am dealing with EACH thing that comes up with on its own merits, regardless. Only people who think they must always represent one and only one partisan viewpoint in a generalized political discussion will insist on backing every single assertion that is made ON one and only one side of that discussion...and rejecting all those made on the other side as a matter of course.

I am not a "liberal", and am not obliged to parrot all liberal positions, though there are many liberal positions I agree with.

I am not a "conservative" and am not obliged to parrot all conservative positions, though there are a fair number of conservative positions I may agree with.

I am a free being and a free thinker deals with each matter strictly on its own merits.

Both you AND GfS have said many things in this discussion that I find myself in agreement with, and some that I don't agree with. I am under no obligation to exclusively back either one of you at the expense of the other. I do not take sides in that fashion.

I deal with each single statement that comes up on its own merits.

I find it fascinating how both "liberals" and "conservatives" are so often guilty of the same kind of bloody-minded unfairness and prejudice towards one another...yet they cannot see it in themselves.

That's because they have fallen into a partisan ("we're always right and they're always wrong") mindset. It's something to remain alert against, and it's a good reason to avoid being partisan altogether if one possibly can.

And I'm not just talking about political parties when I say: partisan. I'm talking about attitudes shared commonly by various groups of people who have strong opinions of any kind. They form a sort of "club" of people who think alike. Everyone in the club parrots the favored line.

I don't wish to belong to any of those clubs...

This does not mean I'm a moral relativist, as you put it. It means I think independently for myself, regardless of the prevailing styles and preferences of my peer group.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:36 AM

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:26 AM

Legal equality is an issue about which we should be open-minded...how? I have asked for reasonss that would justify legal exclusionism and haven't been answered with any actual ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM

Thank you both for clarifying, "political rhetoric", because that's exactly what I meant, when I wrote it.
Just open your minds, just for a moment. I am not writing this in any contentious manner, but rather trying to give you something very salient, to consider. (A wise man hears all the matter, before he speaks)
As I've said MANY MANY times, especially during the primaries(you can go back and check), is that the right wing, and left wing are on the same bird! (I used an analogy of a boxer, in the ring, beating his opponent, with a right, another right, then a left, a left hook, then another right.)..What he is beating up, is US!!! Both the wings, and political parties these days are nutzo, do not represent the people, have everybody bickering over shit, that they TOLD you is important, while keeping us distracted from the major shit going down!
When I first started posting on this particular thread, I already knew what was going on with the homosexual agenda, verses the actual hurt, pain and resentments that not only bring on homosexuality, but how they, through this issue, are only evading confronting any honest help, or solution, to a situation that they have found themselves in, because they FEEL helpless to do anything about it!!
Now its become a political issue, which is comfortable, and far enough away from their inner needs, and their sense of being helped out of it, to have a normal life, being able to survive and reproduce,(as ALL living organisms on this ball spinning in space), and have to confidence to raise their own natural children, with the woman that bore them with him. Why??? Because their sensitivities,(needed ones, and gifted ones), were neglected, or perceived of being neglected, when they were young?..For the male homosexual, a needed, and not fulfilled place in his heart, from his father...so he resents his masculinity. Why??..Because a child, even you, either created or expected certain attentions, and love, security, and bonding as a given, to and from your parents. It is one's reality he lives in. When he is denied those things, or perceives he is being denied these things, he FEELS two things as a result. One, the realization that he is resented by his father, which leads him to feelings of worthlessness, to be loved by him, and hopelessness, that it will ever come from him. Two, resentment of his own masculinity, because he is like his dad, in that way, can't get the love and attention, gravitates, to the mother, resents the dad, and takes on unforgiveness to him, and learns more feminine traits to communicate closer to the mother..to be of interest to her!
In other words, the love inside them, towards their dad, he sees as ineffective!!
Listen to me,..open up...these two things are prominent, in virtually all homosexuals. The reverse for lesbians, except in cases of sexual abuse, and or, being with a man, who usually they feel ineffective with.
You have heard homosexuals say, "I FEEL like a woman trapped in a mans body(and vice versa)"...Ok?....Who gets trapped??!!?? VICTIMS!!!! Yes, VICTIMS..and who is victimizing them?........a combination, of neglect, and their sensitivities. That's how powerful it was! Ever notice some of the most brilliant artists, are homosexual??...Why? Sensitivities, and learning to speak to the other side of themselves, giving them sometimes a wider perspective!
I had originally thought of sharing a story with you, about a friend of mine, I mentioned in another post, I guy I knew, who was the most brilliant, composer, sound engineer, laser engineer, it think I had ever met, up to that point..and still heads and shoulders above many since. He taught me volumes about sound, and composing, that still is ahead of the pack. He finally opened up to me, when he finally felt no threat from me, or condemnation, but rather objective, caring, interest in him,, and his true inner needs. He and his father were distant, due to a long history of mutual bitterness, and disapproval. This guy was in the USMC Marine Band, had scholarships for music, and could play a variety of instruments..and WELL!
When we talked about sensitivities, I pointed out to him, that being sensitive was a huge quality, and being as he knew that, and we both acknowledged it, and he was gifted with it, I asked him, if instead of either resenting it, or hiding it, why not nurture it, in a child of his own, being as he knew so very well, how valuable, and powerful it was. Just hearing that, tears welled up in his eyes, and he admitted that he always wanted to do that, but didn't think he could because he had been Homosexual so long, that he lost touch with that ability, of what he really always wanted to do.
Not long after, he found his partner, Mark had come down with something he just could shake...and not too long after, Mark died of AIDS. Mark had the same issues with his dad, and in that, they found 'common ground'.
Deeply saddened, bordering on mourning, we talked more, and he opened up more. I asked him if his father had ever heard his incredible recordings. He was resolved to the thought, that his dad wouldn't like them, be interested in them, or him, and so his father never heard it.
Making a long post shorter, I'll skip the details of our conversations,(unless anyone is curious), and he took his recordings, and masters, up, and was going to get 're-acquainted with his dad, in Sacramento...possibly with the hopes of reconciling with him. Turns out, he stayed up there with him for better part of a year....and then died from AIDS, with his father, taking care of him, to the end.
So Dale, (the guy), you told me, that you wish you could have known before, and sooner...so where ever you are out there,..I'm honoring your wish..to all the other 'Dales' out there. I told you I would have, if I would have know sooner too!
Now, dying of AIDS was not the issue, I was trying to underscore. He could have died, for any reason....The thing is, my children's generation, is also denied of that genius and that gene pool is forever lost...NEEDLESSLY!!!!!! THOUGHTLESSLY!!!
What I just related to you, is the absolute truth....and to all those who give me crap, about being a 'bigot' or 'hating' homosexuals,..well frankly, you can go fuck yourselves in you little pea brain. You don't know shit, as your posts so vividly illustrate...OR..you really can, consider another side.
Thank you.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:38 AM

The most interesting phrase in that long tirade is "virtually all homosexuals". How do you know ? Have you asked "virtually all homosexuals" ? You haven't asked me, my partner, my two gay work colleagues, their partners, my ex and my previous ex, or my nephew. And, for that matter, I suspect you might not be in regular correspondence with Ian McKellen, Elton John, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady, Ben Bradshaw MP, Rupert Everett (I'm English so excuse the list of British names).....you get the point.

I would never presume to know about "virtually all heterosexuals". It is a nonsensical term, as it would include John Wayne, Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Tony Blair, Fred Astaire and Fred Flintstone. Not people who have a lot in common, really, except for their choice of gendered sexual object.

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

GfS:

Thanks for the compassionate and insightful post.

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you follow what I mean by that?

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

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

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

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

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

LH:

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(You silver-tongued devil, you!)

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

Your call, big girl.


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was what it was started about.

That is the topic.

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

Examine it- and you will see what I mean.

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

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

And that, my friends, is the point.

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

Bingo.

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

(The bingo was for Ebbie)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it goes! ;-D

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

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

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

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

Good one, Ebbie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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



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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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


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

Ha bloody ha!

Don T.

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Don T.

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

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

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

####

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

For the record.

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 09 - 07:43 PM

". . . it is still a fact that human aids always shows up first among homosexuals."

Wrong, Ake. It first showed up in Africa among hunters who were trying to supply the market for what is known as "bush meat." The meat of monkeys. AIDS, like the Ebola virus, first showed up among African primates, and was then transmitted to humans, probably via bites.

The first appearance of AIDS in the United States WAS among homosexuals. And that's how it got—erroneously—labeled a "homosexual disease." It is no more a "homosexual disease" that tuberculosis is (tuberculosis first showed up in cows).

I know, Ake, I know. . . .   Facts are such a pain in the ass!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:21 AM

TIA:"You really can't live without me can you."
"For the record.
I have never pretended to be anything other than exactly what I am."
"..Not reading any more of this..."
Oka-a-ay?? How about deluded?

Amos: "I GOT that you feel all homosexuality is a deep emotional aberration born from abuse or neglect. I don't think that is uniformly the case"
I know you THINK THAT.....so what? Not how I look at it at all!

Don: "
Wrong, Ake. It first showed up in Africa among hunters who were trying to supply the market for what is known as "bush meat." The meat of monkeys. AIDS, like the Ebola virus, first showed up among African primates, and was then transmitted to humans, probably via bites."

Wrong! First showed up at Fort Kendrick, in a bio-lab.(Actually, that might be a 'news flash' to both you, and, Ake...but at least his concerns are far more real, and less personal).

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

Again, (and you are getting renown for it now, you are misquoting me, and changing the context. I was, as you know, was referring to those who resort to the name calling, and labeling of those who disagree with you as 'pea brains' which they are!....co-incidentally, they are those driven by a liberal agenda, over facts.

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

Afraid to mention that 'fine young man' who comes to dinner, and who he is?? I was being polite, and that last long post was partially meant for you. I know you overcame some difficult realizations, to be accepting, and I would expect that you may have chosen that path, as the most pragmatic to heal old wounds, and to draw closer, for 'mutual acceptance', as perhaps a way to make up for past regrets and damage,..so you copped a lesser plea, a compromise, which I understand. I also understand why you are so vehemently confronting this issue, rather than owning up to the fact that your life has been so much about YOU, that this is the best amends you can offer. I think you may have had a clue, when I alluded to this in earlier posts, but oh well, I guess the last longer post of mine hit a little too close to home...Did it ever occur to you, that because I broached that subject, where I did, and as sensitively that I did, that maybe, just maybe...I was being more of a friend than you even thought??
After all, who else could speak to you there?..not stick salt in your wounds, and be open to talk about it like you never have had before?? But, you still think its all about you, and can't admit or see it, and say 'I'm needing'?
So you twist(phrases) and turn(meanings around), hide(avoid replying to facts, you wish not to address), duck(dodging directness) and weave( lies, things that you say others said that they didn't even come close to meaning), and attack(posted assaults, calling names and trying to discredit) those who understand that your efforts for reconciliation, was short stepping.
Yeah, quite a guy!..and yet, you could be exchanging real dialogues with those who, just may have real insights, and are not fooled by your tactics...and who could actually help you, and your family.
Genetics?? No, try terror stricken, of facing some accountability, then moving onto being able to be a real role model to him, instead of a coward who is afraid. So you turn around on here, and vent the anger you have toward yourself, because of the frustration of knowing that. I would be glad to be of service to you..free.
Hearts only break..that will not bend!
You are only fooling yourself, if you think you portray anything else.
Scroll back....then ask yourself, 'How long did GfS know?' Why was GfS being polite, after all the crap I threw?' Instead of, 'How can I nail him/her now?' What?..Are you afraid that just because someone can see inside you, that I am going to dislike and disapprove of you, who I see?..as opposed to offering something to you? Are you going to stay defensive, because of your sense of guilt and failure? Hey, Maybe I'm on your side...just not the side that you put up, but more on the side of who you really are, inside.
Wanna' talk?..I'm here...I might even surprise you.
Now that's two longer posts, with compassion toward you, and your situation. Attack me?..or get down and get real?
Again, hearts only break, that do not bend.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:22 AM

(Forgot to sign in, again)

TIA:"You really can't live without me can you."
"For the record.
I have never pretended to be anything other than exactly what I am."
"..Not reading any more of this..."
Oka-a-ay?? How about deluded?

Amos: "I GOT that you feel all homosexuality is a deep emotional aberration born from abuse or neglect. I don't think that is uniformly the case"
I know you THINK THAT.....so what? Not how I look at it at all!

Don: "
Wrong, Ake. It first showed up in Africa among hunters who were trying to supply the market for what is known as "bush meat." The meat of monkeys. AIDS, like the Ebola virus, first showed up among African primates, and was then transmitted to humans, probably via bites."

Wrong! First showed up at Fort Kendrick, in a bio-lab.(Actually, that might be a 'news flash' to both you, and, Ake...but at least his concerns are far more real, and less personal).

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

Again, (and you are getting renown for it now, you are misquoting me, and changing the context. I was, as you know, was referring to those who resort to the name calling, and labeling of those who disagree with you as 'pea brains' which they are!....co-incidentally, they are those driven by a liberal agenda, over facts.

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

Afraid to mention that 'fine young man' who comes to dinner, and who he is?? I was being polite, and that last long post was partially meant for you. I know you overcame some difficult realizations, to be accepting, and I would expect that you may have chosen that path, as the most pragmatic to heal old wounds, and to draw closer, for 'mutual acceptance', as perhaps a way to make up for past regrets and damage,..so you copped a lesser plea, a compromise, which I understand. I also understand why you are so vehemently confronting this issue, rather than owning up to the fact that your life has been so much about YOU, that this is the best amends you can offer. I think you may have had a clue, when I alluded to this in earlier posts, but oh well, I guess the last longer post of mine hit a little too close to home...Did it ever occur to you, that because I broached that subject, where I did, and as sensitively that I did, that maybe, just maybe...I was being more of a friend than you even thought??
After all, who else could speak to you there?..not stick salt in your wounds, and be open to talk about it like you never have had before?? But, you still think its all about you, and can't admit or see it, and say 'I'm needing'?
So you twist(phrases) and turn(meanings around), hide(avoid replying to facts, you wish not to address), duck(dodging directness) and weave( lies, things that you say others said that they didn't even come close to meaning), and attack(posted assaults, calling names and trying to discredit) those who understand that your efforts for reconciliation, was short stepping.
Yeah, quite a guy!..and yet, you could be exchanging real dialogues with those who, just may have real insights, and are not fooled by your tactics...and who could actually help you, and your family.
Genetics?? No, try terror stricken, of facing some accountability, then moving onto being able to be a real role model to him, instead of a coward who is afraid. So you turn around on here, and vent the anger you have toward yourself, because of the frustration of knowing that. I would be glad to be of service to you..free.
Hearts only break..that will not bend!
You are only fooling yourself, if you think you portray anything else.
Scroll back....then ask yourself, 'How long did GfS know?' Why was GfS being polite, after all the crap I threw?' Instead of, 'How can I nail him/her now?' What?..Are you afraid that just because someone can see inside you, that I am going to dislike and disapprove of you, who I see?..as opposed to offering something to you? Are you going to stay defensive, because of your sense of guilt and failure? Hey, Maybe I'm on your side...just not the side that you put up, but more on the side of who you really are, inside.
Wanna' talk?..I'm here...I might even surprise you.
Now that's two longer posts, with compassion toward you, and your situation. Attack me?..or get down and get real?
Again, hearts only break, that do not bend.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 May 09 - 09:04 AM

The piehole is flapping all right.
Now the assignment includes posting a link to this quote:

"..Not reading any more of this..."

Good Luck.

Remember, the credibility is on the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 May 09 - 09:52 AM

Don't forget to search TIA and Guest, TIA...the cookie comes and goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:40 AM

Here's an interesting discussion in the NEw York Times about the silliness of anchoring the legal rights of couple-hood to gender. Well worth reading.

"Similar rulings have left couples in similar situations in Florida, Ohio and Texas. A 1999 ruling in San Antonio, in Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes. The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal.

A lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the country's gender laws as they pertain to marriage: "Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.""...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12boylan.html?em

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

Ah, yes, and further to that, Amos, there is the very comparable silliness of anchoring the legal rights of couple-hood to species. My friend Chongo Chimp, for instance, cannot legally marry his lady friend Renata Carson in the state of Ohio...or anywhere in the USA, because he's a chimpanzee and she's a human being! Can you imagine the heartbreak that has caused to both of them? Can you? Furthermore, they have faced gross discrimination and public harassment merely for declaring their love for one another. Truly, we have a long, long way to go before real social justice and equality is established in this world.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of ANY pair of adult beings who freely indicate their mutual desire to marry one another (only and if such mutual consent can be confirmed by impartial witnesses) to have the right to get legally married to one another...regardless of gender, creed, color, nationality or species.

So there. Think you're "liberal", dontcha? Think again, buster. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:07 PM

Just to refresh, the topic revolves around civil rights, being granted based on our constitutional rights. Race creed and color, is not the same as acquired behavior. Genetics, it is not.
Another thing, why is President Obama opposed to it? Hillary Clinton has changed her stance, as well. Why is that? Look at the venom being poured out to Prejean (Miss California runner up) just for giving her opinion? Who is the hostility toward, and from?
TIA. Scroll back and find just one constructive comment from yourself. You come off like a miniature silver poodle yapping at the ankles of grown ups, with your immature snipes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:16 PM

I suggest that the law, being an ass, is not qualified to dictate the nature of gender based on plumbing. Your refusal to examine the other vectors, because of your predilection for psychobabblogical explanations, does not change the experimental results. Why you think the psyche should be defined by genitalia quite escapes me, though. How do you feel about your father's cigarbox?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:50 PM

Can't do it, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:56 PM

GfS, you are a very arrogant and egotistical person.

Frankly, your posts are so convoluted that I find I can't divine what the hell it is that you are trying to imply about me. Are you still rattling on about my allegedly being guilt-ridden over the fact that my son was raised by another man? Well, first of all, I had no choice in the matter. And second, there is nothing to be guilty about. My son thoroughly understands the situation, and he and I have an excellent relationship (apparently a lot better than your relationship with your father). You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Or is it that you are trying to imply that because, often during holidays, one of my wife's and my dinner guests happens to be homosexual, this indicates that I might be homosexual myself? Sorry, Charlie, ain't now, never have been. He and his partner are both invited, along with about eight or ten other people we know who either live alone or do not have relatives living nearby with whom to celebrate such things as Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Frankly, I can't figure out just what the hell you're talking about.

You, sir or madam as the case may be, are going all around Robin Hood's barn in an effort to mask the fact that your veiled implications about my psychological well-being are little more than a convoluted form of the argumentum ad hominem.

Besides, when you offered me "counselling"—unasked for—in open forum—which, in and of itself may be a breach of ethics, if you are, indeed, a licensed counsellor—you operated on the basis of the kind of stereotyped case studies one might find in a Psychology 101 textbook or something one might hear from a radio call-in shrink, and your scenario bore no relationship whatsoever to anything in my real life.

You are quite a piece of work!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:00 PM

Well, if my interpretation of what you say is inaccurate, you must not have been stating it very clearly. Can you offer a few unconvoluted sentences describing your view of the etiology of homosexuality? I can. And mine will include all the evidential work done to date.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:02 PM

You must be planning to type for several days at a single stretch, Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:46 PM

Not at all. I am expert in the use of the back-handed super-dense bullet point.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:34 PM

The most commonly accepted theory for the origin of AIDS is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.

####

Four of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
2. A lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female, also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
4. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s.

####

It is likely that we will never know who the first person was to be infected with HIV, or exactly how it spread from that initial person. Scientists investigating the possibilities often become very attached to their individual 'pet' theories and insist that theirs is the only true answer, but the spread of AIDS could quite conceivably have been induced by a combination of many different events. Whether through injections, travel, wars, colonial practices or genetic engineering, the realities of the 20th Century have undoubtedly had a major role to play. Nevertheless, perhaps a more pressing concern for scientists today should not be how the AIDS epidemic originated, but how those it affects can be treated, how the further spread of HIV can be prevented and how the world can change to ensure a similar pandemic never occurs again.

####

IF, indeed, homosexual men are the primary vector in the transmission of HIV (the truth of which is controversial at best), it would seem that one major step that would reduce the spread of the virus would be to discourage promiscuity and promote stable relationships by encouraging the passage of same-sex marriage bills.

####

Side question:

The first outbreak (of Ebola hemorrhagic fever) took place on August 26, 1976, in Yambuku, a town in the north of what was then called Zaïre. The first recorded case was Mabalo Lokela, a 44-year-old schoolteacher returning from a trip around the north of the state.

Why, then, is Ebola hemorrhagic fever not refered to as "the schoolteacher's disease?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 09 - 06:12 PM

""The only valuable post, following mine, coming your that side was from 'Smedley',""

According to WHOSE criteria?

YOUR credibility as a judge of value has been seriously DE-VALUED by your good self and your interminable rants about HOW homosexuals are made, and how YOU would like to see them re-adjusted.

There was another expert in human rehabilitation some years back. You two would have got on like a house on fire. He KNEW how to rehabilitate homosexuals all right. His name was Mengele.

The subject of this discussion is about HOW homosexuals are TREATED by the LEGAL establishment, and the keyword is EQUALITY.

---------------------------------------------------------------

""Well Smedley of course when the disease is transmitted to the heterosexual population we are bound to see many more cases in the heterosexual sector.""


Same old same old, and just as scientifically baseless as all the comment from these two.

HIV takes ten years plus to develop into full blown AIDS, but it is FAR from consistent in its progress, and the first that doctors knew of it was when patients with AIDS turned up with compromised immune systems. The medics then worked backward to discover that "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" was caused by a virus infection they named HIV.

So, although the first cases discovered happened to be among the gay community, there is NO scientific justification for assuming that it transferred from gays to heteros, rather than vice versa. The truth is that, despite what you DESPERATELY want to believe, NOBODY actually knows for sure.

So, come on Ake. You want to be the great protector, and save a few million lives. Right, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, AND WHY?

1. Ban homosexuals? Been tried before! Didn't work!
2. Ban Heterosexuals? BETTER! You would save many more millions that way. NAAAAH! Wouldn't work either, theres too many of 'em.
3. Ban sex altogether? BEST SO FAR! Would save all those lives, but you would need an awful lot more cops.

NO! OF COURSE NOT! Failing any SENSIBLE response, you would advocate discriminating against gays, such that they enjoy NONE of the marital and concommitant financial rights that you youself enjoy.

Tell me my friend, what is YOUR carefully researched best estimate of the number of lives that will be saved by this remarkable example of lateral thinking?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:00 PM

"I suggest that the law, being an ass, is not qualified to dictate the nature of gender based on plumbing."
Umm, what do you judge it on??.....a fantasy of the mind?

Don, Never offered to counsel you online, in an open forum...that could, and would be done privately...but judging by your response, you seem to think, anyone who thinks they need to see a psychologist, or psychiatrist, oughta' have their head examined!

Oh, and your thingy on what you 'thought' I said, was inaccurate, as well....but you do that a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:20 PM

If all you can do is invalidate others' views, you a pretty thin gruel as a helper.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:38 PM

I've lived in California since 1971, except for a military-required exile from Sept 1971-Nov 1973. I've always thought of California as a progressive state. It seems like San Francisco has forever been the World Capital of Homosexuality. That being the case, it seems strange to me that the voters of California have outlawed homosexual marriage.
Wikipedia tells me that homosexual marriage is allowed in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine (soon), Massachusetts, New Hampshire (soon), and Vermont (soon); and recognized in Israel, New Yor, and Washington (DC). It's also allowed in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden. How can it be that California, of all places, does not allow same-sex marriage?

I just can't figure it out.

Of course, we don't allow taxation to pay for state expenditures, either. That's why we're on the verge of both fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Somehow, we got ourselves in a spot where our state is ruled by talk radio listeners.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:43 PM

GfS, it sure looked like an attempt at counseling to me. It was certaily trying to offer me advice on how to reconcile myself with my son, which was totally unnecessary because there was no animosity at all between us. His mother had explained our situation, and being very bright young man, he understood. And as I said, you went ahead and offered all kinds of advice without having a clue as to the real situation. Your behavior verged on the kind of thing a freshman student of Psych might try to come up with.

And I am not as you would like to think I am:   if I feel that I need the services of a psychologist or psychiatrist--or if someone who knows me well seriously suggests that I do--then I know who to go to and I would go without reluctance. I know the value of psychiatry and psychology and undoubtedly know more about it than you obviously think I do. And I know a charlatan when I encounter one.

If my "thingy" on what you said was inaccurate, then--let me offer you a bit of unsolicited advice:   I have worked as a writer and an editor, so I have no problem understanding the written word when it's written by someone who knows nouns and verbs from pints and quarts. You might try to learn how to write coherently and strive to say what you actually mean instead of trying to be cutely subtle about it so you can slip in your little digs.

And no, it's not all about ME. Nor is it all about YOU!

Try sticking to the subject of the thread for a change.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 09 - 05:47 PM

Don Firth...Guest has suggested that a lot of what you write is "inaccurate", I would go further and say that you deliberately distort and misrepresent; and what you present is in the interests of no one save your own precious ego.
You deny the obvious link between HIV and homosexuality,helping to ensure that no serious medical study is undertaken, and welcoming a destructive and disasterous(to homosexuals)lifestyle, into mainstream society.

Some time ago you linked to a website, when I quoted the infection and mortality figures given on that website, you lied and accused me of fabricating the figures

Here they are in full, if you still deny a serious and deadly link, then you are incapable of meaningful debate
HIV STATISTICS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 09 - 06:44 PM

". . . deliberately distort and misrepresent. . . ."

Coming from you, Ake, that's a laugh! It's your distorted interpretation of the statistics that's the problem. You can make a pie-chart mean damned near anything you want it to.

Those are not the only statistics I checked.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 09 - 06:57 PM

Ake, I'm not going to type it out again just for your benefit. I suggest you find my post at 14 May 09 - 04:34 p.m. and actually read it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:16 PM

""So, come on Ake. You want to be the great protector, and save a few million lives. Right, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, AND WHY?

1. Ban homosexuals? Been tried before! Didn't work!
2. Ban Heterosexuals? BETTER! You would save many more millions that way. NAAAAH! Wouldn't work either, theres too many of 'em.
3. Ban sex altogether? BEST SO FAR! Would save all those lives, but you would need an awful lot more cops.

NO! OF COURSE NOT! Failing any SENSIBLE response, you would advocate discriminating against gays, such that they enjoy NONE of the marital and concommitant financial rights that you youself enjoy.

Tell me my friend, what is YOUR carefully researched best estimate of the number of lives that will be saved by this remarkable example of lateral thinking?

Don T.




NO ANSWER, AKE? It's a question that destroys your claims, if you answer it honestly. Why is it that YOUR side feel that ignoring the facts will make your case stronger?

GfS uses the same tactic, and it is ineffective. All it proves is that neither of you HAS A CREDIBLE ANSWER. I expect that level of ignorance from GfS, but I always thought YOU capable of rational thought, rather than blind prejudice. Was I TOTALLY wrong about you?



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:00 PM

Equal protection under the law. I can't see why this is so complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:18 AM

Don T. Re-read your post to Ake....its so twisted around, its a pretzel.
Ake posts stats from the CDC..and then accused of fabricating???? Now that is a spin to beat all spins! You must have studied under Pelosi.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 09 - 03:03 AM

The data from the CDC is compelling. These guys should be forced to settle down and marry one partner.


If I ran things, you betcha.

Ake's excellent statistics, however, have absolutely no bearing on whether the legal status of marriage should be granted on an inclusionary or an exclusionary basis. From the point of view of that question, it is a very loud red herring, pardon the mixed metaphor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 09 - 03:19 AM

Don, Icant solve a problem of this magnitude.

It will take the combined skills of all the agencies, medical, scientific, psychiatric, even the people who construct our moral codes

You post ridiclous questions about banning homosexuals, heterosexuals and sex.....I take it that those questions are supposed to be a form of satire, as it would be impossible to "ban" any of the catagories you mention.

All I am doing is pointing out the serious health risks associated with homosexuality,and most importantly of all,the madness of denial and the pretense that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, safe, healthy and a suitable environment in which to bring up young children.
The more people who become informed on the hiv statistics, the more chance there is of affecting a change in homosexual behaviour.

As I have said from the start of this thread, "rights" should be conditional on the behaviour of any sector of society, and the effect of these "rights" on all other sectors.

In conclusion Don, I cannot underestand your very aggressive tone, to one who has tried to answer honestly every question which you have posed. I have nothing resonal to gain from my stance here, a stance which seems to have alienated many whom I presumed to be friends....However I always try to give my honest opinion, to be anything other than honest on a forum like this is a complete waste of everyone's time.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 09 - 05:28 AM

""All I am doing is pointing out the serious health risks associated with homosexuality,and most importantly of all,the madness of denial and the pretense that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, safe, healthy and a suitable environment in which to bring up young children.""

Not quite all you are doing Ake. In addition, you are seeking to deprive a section of the community of the protections afforded, as of right, to heterosexuals, by marital status. Incidentally, you, who are so worried about the health issue, are opposing the very measure best calculated to save lives, by promoting long lasting, stable,and healthy relationships.

The thrust of my "ridiculous question", ignoring the ironic references to obviously impossible remedies, was, as you well know an invitation to you to offer some sensible basis for your assumption that refusing to allow same sex marriage would somehow have a positive effect on the health risks, and save lives.

You claim to answer questions honestly, to the best of your ability, and that, I have found to be true, WHEN YOU DO ANSWER THEM.

This one you have ignored. Any chance of one of those honest answers.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 09:36 AM

Ake jogged loose an interesting question..might as well ask it here....
How come the same people who are opposed to gun ownership, second amendment rights, because 'guns are dangerous'..are in denial about AIDS, which is far more fatal? One, requires safe behavior to avoid getting it..and the other requires safe behavior, once you have one. Maybe behavior needs to be looked at, eh?

Another 'jogged loose' question, How come all the ballyhoo over water boarding, and torture,... then we have to watch Pelosi on the news? What's the difference?...matter of fact, you can add all the lame, contrived excuses about the blessings, and wonderful benefits of living a sexually dysfunctional lifestyle, and inundating us with it?

Amos, To answer your puerile question, for the umpteenth time, Homosexual 'marriage' is not a civil right based on race, color, creed or religion. What is it based on??..let's do it that way. Equality?? of what??? Doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want? Well, a lot of things fall under that category, and a lot of stupid, most illegal, and other dangerous activities fall into that category!!..Hey, if its so great, and Obama is your hero, and idol..why isn't he for it..and has stated his opposition toward it? (You keep dodging that one)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 10:28 AM

To answer Joe Offer's great question, (which also steers the thread back to the main topic), California has been under Democratic, liberal 'representative' state government for a long time. The passed prop. 187, which cut off funding for benefits for illegal immigrants, only to have it over turned by their 'representatives', and other things that they directly spoke out either, for or against..only to have it overturned as well. They keep getting taxed beyond belief, by slick shysters who get around the taxing laws, by using the terms like 'surcharge' 'user fees' so on and so forth...so that the actual voice of the people can't even be heard any more. Also, they have the entertainment industry there, which promotes all sorts of 'ills' for 'entertainment' value, as well...making the homosexual question, far more promoted, than proportional to the actual practice, or acceptance. So, where it would be a 'shock' that the ban was passed, the actual will of the people got heard finally...and resoundingly. Now the highly vocal minority political activists, are whining with a deafening roar. Pelosi, the crazy bat that she is, and Feinstein, crooked politician that she and her husband are, are finally getting exposed, co-incidentally at this same time. If California could free itself from the shoddy, crooked non-representative government that it has, this might not be such a hot topic. Frankly, I'm proud that the people have tried to stand up, once again, and tell the politicians, and the entertainment industry, whose state this really is..and to take their hype, and shove it!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 09 - 11:12 AM

"All I am doing is pointing out the serious health risks associated with homosexuality,and most importantly of all,the madness of denial and the pretense that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, safe, healthy and a suitable environment in which to bring up young children.

"The more people who become informed on the hiv statistics, the more chance there is of affecting a change in homosexual behaviour.

"As I have said from the start of this thread, "rights" should be conditional on the behaviour of any sector of society, and the effect of these "rights" on all other sectors." ake

If you fear the "serious health risks associated with homosexuality" just don't do it. It is difficult for me to believe that your concern is for homosexuals' shortened lives. The sooner they die, the better off they'll be. Right?


"Incidentally, you, who are so worried about the health issue, are opposing the very measure best calculated to save lives, by promoting long lasting, stable,and healthy relationships."
Don T

I too would like to hear your answer to that.

"How come all the ballyhoo over water boarding, and torture,... then we have to watch Pelosi on the news? What's the difference?...matter of fact, you can add all the lame, contrived excuses about the blessings, and wonderful benefits of living a sexually dysfunctional lifestyle, and inundating us with it? "
GfS

You know, Guest from Sanity, I no longer believe that you are a licensed counselor or psychiatric worker of any kind. Far more likely, in my opinion, is that you have been/are in therapy yourself and have picked up a smattering of terms. (I would send you a PM to this effect but guests can't receive that courtesy.)

Incidentally, if it weren't for our laws that protect our rights to say anything we please about public figures, you'd be in deep doo doo. You say: "Pelosi, the crazy bat that she is, and Feinstein, crooked politician that she and her husband are, are finally getting exposed, co-incidentally at this same time."

Please document your libel.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 12:10 PM

Ebbie, If you had been following the news, about Pelosi, water boarding and the CIA, you wouldn't be asking that question. Pelosi lied about her knowledge of the water boarding issue, and is presently in hot water over it. Feinstein lobbied for moneys to fund her husband's business, and got it, of selling foreclosed homes..its on the news.   
California has slipped immensely due to their 'leadership' in their state senate... and as far as your 'doubts'...well they're only your doubts...so what? You haven't missed a lick as far as coming on here to smear me, and to contradict anything I say, or to try and discredit me. You and TIA would make a great couple, regardless of your genders!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 09 - 12:32 PM

Ebbie I fear you have "lost the plot."

The legality of "marriage" whether homosexual or heterosexual, is no guide to the promiscuity of the "marriage" partners.
I know people who live together, unmarried, and are completely monogamous, I also know of others who have been married for many years yet attend "swingers" parties.

The danger appears to be male to male penetrative sex, whether done in a monogamous relationship or a promiscuous one.
I have always suspected that homosexual "marriage" was a device to attempt to normalise the practice in much the same way as the word "gay" has been used to deflect public disgust with the homosexual act.

I have absolutely no belief that a piece of paper granting marriage "rights" to homosexuals will cause them to become,as a group, less promiscuous.
From the statistics, promiscuity goes with the lifestyle

Let us begin to be honest, The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous, as dangerous as drug or alcohol abuse and very much more dangerous than other unusual sexual behaviour such as incest....so why not scream for the rights of incestuous couples or drug addicts?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 09 - 12:41 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:09 PM

Here Here!!..or is it Hear Hear?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:13 PM

Dangerous to whom, ake? As I said, don't indulge in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 02:15 PM

"How come the same people who are opposed to gun ownership, second amendment rights, because 'guns are dangerous'..are in denial about AIDS, which is far more fatal?"

Two small problems there, GfS. First, your assumption that it's all the same people. You are doing the "liberals are idiots" thing again. Pigeon-hole thinking. And the second problem:    since when is possibly exposing oneself to AIDS more "fatal" than a bullet between the eyes? There are people infected with HIV who have been alive for years because they can keep the virus in check with drugs. I don't know of any palliatives for having one's brains splattered all over the street.

And a question for Ake:    I have no quarrel with the statistics from the CDC. I do have questions about your interpretation of them.

If AIDS is a "homosexual disease," then why is it that homosexuals are not the only people to get it? And if you are so concerned about the spread of AIDS, why, then, are you so opposed to attempting to confine it by discouraging promiscuity and encouraging stable relationships?

Answer me that, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 16 May 09 - 02:27 PM

Yap, yap, yap.

Seven posts later, and still flapping away without establishing that credibility.

Hint: I only join in when *you* invoke my name in your immature snipes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 02:49 PM

And just for the hell of it, can someone tell me what Pelosi and Feinstein have to do with this discussion?

Other than a feeble attempt to change the subject, hoping that we "idiotic liberals" are actually so idiotic that we'll rise to the bait?

. . . delusional. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 16 May 09 - 02:54 PM

Yo... just stopping by for my usual delusion....

TIA.... "Yap, yap, yap. Seven posts later, and still flapping away without establishing that credibility."

Seven? Hahahahahaaaaaaa... hehehehee. I seem to check in at rather appropriate moments....

See you again sometime. Play nice. Well, some of you, IF you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 03:21 PM

If you'd read, and comprehend, Joe Offer asked why the people in California would have surprisingly voted for the ban. I was offering an explanation to his question. Since Pelosi and Feinstein are the quack 'liberal' senators from California, who have had their way in screwing the state up, and since they are part of the control of NOT representing the people, but rather their own agendas, it seemed like an appropriate answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 03:45 PM

Nancy Pelosi is a Congressional Representative from California, and is currently Speaker of the House. Dianne Feinstein is one of two Senators from California.

Civics lesson (since you seem to have slept through civics classes in high school):   these two ladies are in the National Congress and National Senate. They are not currently involved in the legislature of the State of California.

How are they relevant to the current discussion about laws regarding same-sex marriage in California?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:11 PM

Ake:

The dangers of MMS are many, and AIDS is only one of them.

Clearly not a choice I would make.

Why, though, do you think it is all right to legislate against a group of adult humans because of their sexual practices?

Would you feel better if marriage was denied any couple who did anything other than missionary-position? Would you feel this was a "benefit to society"?

The issue is not sexual practices. No-one here is endorsing a lifestyle except for the life-style of legal equality without prejudice or bias.

How someone gets their rocks of is nobody's business but their own and you keep dragging it into this dialogue as though it were a legal issue.

Equal rights under the law IS a legal issue.

Viva la difference.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:13 PM

Don Firth....Did you not read and comprehend my answer to Ebbie?
You have run out of ideas and are simply being obstructive.

The alternative is that you are an idiot "If Aids is a "Homosexual disease"why is it not just homosexuals who get aids".....Tut Tut Don, I DON'T think you are an idiot, no matter how many idiotic questions you pose.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:21 PM

Amos ..the issue of Aids is everybody's business,and until we have a proper public inquiry to determine why so many homosexuals conract the disease, we have no right to promote the practice as normal or healthy.

Incestuous couples are deprived of rights and criminalised for their sexual behaviour which is deemed abnormal and unhealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:34 PM

Amos: "Would you feel better if marriage was denied any couple who did anything other than missionary-position? Would you feel this was a "benefit to society"?

Now we are getting to the real meat of their agenda....???
Jeez, , and Don's(rolls eyes)
And yes, I misstated about who was in the senate, and congress. Thanks for reminding me...they're both corrupt because of their ilk!

Feinstien represents the San Fransisco district..(relevant to Joe's question...oh yea-a-ahh)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:44 PM

You guys are acting even denser than you could possibly be.

There is nothing in the issue about "approving AIDS" or establishing MMS as normal or healthy.

When you bring sexual practice into it, you are twisting the issue. The issue is simple: exclusionary laws? Or equality under the law?

There are a lot of other sexual practices that are harmful and, according to the straitest mind, perverse. Chains, leather, whips, oxygen deprivation, acrobatic practices without safety nets, to name just a few. None of these are attractive to me, but if you are going to start legislating for Sexual Safety for Everyone, you are opening a can of worms that goes way beyond STD and homosexuality.

Meanwhile the core issue --equality or exclusion--continues to be ignored and bludgeoned into the corner by all this irrelevant armwaving. I think it is somewhat sickening to see such a desperate scramble to defend the indefensible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:45 PM

That's all you have left, eh, Ake? Insults?

Your problem is that you don't have any rational responses to my perfectly reasonable questions. And yes, I did read your "answer" to Ebbie and fully understood that you are trying to say and I reject it. The basis of my rejection is knowing something about the "life styles" of the same sex couples that I am acquainted with.

I don't know whether you are married or not, but the fact is that whenever a relationship becomes a bit rocky, it is very often the public commitment and the public acknowledgement thereof that keeps a couple together and prompts them to work out their difficulties. And this holds true for committed same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples.

Your arguments are based on ignorance of the subject, not to mention a very large dollop of prejudice.

Homosexuality does not cause AIDS, as you seem to be trying to claim.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 05:20 PM

It's interesting to note that those who are not, themselves, in a committed relationship seem to be under the impression that couples who are, are constantly going at it like hyperactive rabbits. [I believe this stems from their own rich fantasy lives.]

The same-sex couple whom I have known the longest, and who have been together the longest—somewhat over thirty years (despite the fact that society and the law does not recognize their commitment to each other)—are as stable and monogamous as any heterosexual couple I am aware of. They each have their own professions and activities, but like any married couple, they do most things together, including taking a yearly extended vacation to England (where one of them is invited year after year to come and give lectures on theater arts—stage and costume design).

They are as devoted to each other as any heterosexual couple could ever be. And interesting enough—for those whose primary focus seems to be on the more prurient aspects of interpersonal relationships—one of the fellows mentioned to Barbara (he and Barbara were old friends, having known each other since high school) that he and his partner had been quite active sexually at first, but they have not had intimate relations for years. They are together, not for the sex, but because they love each other.

The same holds true for the same-sex couple who often join us for holiday celebrations.

For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex.

You might have that made into a sampler and hang it on your wall as a reminder.

People make a lot of assumptions based on their own vivid imaginations, and then, on that basis, want to dictate to others how they should or should not live.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 09 - 05:28 PM

"I don't know whether you are married or not, but the fact is that whenever a relationship becomes a bit rocky, it is very often the public commitment and the public acknowledgement thereof that keeps a couple together and prompts them to work out their difficulties. And this holds true for committed same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples."
OH!!..DON'T FORGET CHILDREN FROM THE SAME TWO PARENTS!! (touchy subject, I know)
AND: "For those who don't know, there is more to love that just having sex"..So what else is the difference between room mates and same sex partners?????? Can same sex DOMESTIC union room mates be granted the same rights as homosexual marriages??????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 07:00 PM

GfS, not all heterosexual married couples have children, some because they can't and some by choice. Yet what I said still holds true. It isn't always a matter of staying together "because of the children." If you were any kind of counselor at all, you should be fully aware that when a couple really should separate, but stay together "because of the children," this can frequently become hell-on-wheels for the children.

You can't be much of a counselor if you aren't up on things like that.

And by the way, the subject is not touchy at all with me. Barbara and were in our forties when we got married, we both have careers, and we discussed the matter before getting married and decided not to have children. So you can just get of your snide little bus.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, your question-mark key seems to be stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 09 - 07:28 PM

For someone who tries to project a measure of authority on the genesis and spread of AIDS, Ake, you don't really know diddly-squat about epidemiology.

In the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, Europeans presented Native Americans with the gift of smallpox. Native Americans returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. The European explorers brought it back to Europe, where it spread quite rapidly, and became known as "the French disease," more because of the stereotype of the French being particularly horny, whereas the disease was mostly likely brought back by the Spanish. But it would have been equally dumb to have called it "the Spanish disease."

("How do you know you have the French disease?"
"I can tell by its accent!")

"AIDS" means "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome," which one catches through being infected with the HIV (the Human Immunodeficiency Virus). It is neither HIV nor AIDS that kills. HIV, as described in my post above (you did read it, didn't you?), was transmitted from African primates to humans. It is not specifically a "homosexual disease" any more that syphilis is a "French disease. Get that straight!

AIDS does not kill. What it does is shut off the immune system, leaving one defenseless against any contagious disease that happens to come along. It's not unlike going onto the internet with no firewall or anti-virus software. You might get away with it for a time, but sooner or later, you're going to get got by whatever comes along. And once you have something, you don't have a functional immune system to fight it with.

And I have already outlined the means by which HIV is transmitted—not necessarily through sexual activity and not necessarily from male to male or female to female—but through contact with an infected person's bodily fluids, particularly blood.

So to single out homosexual males as the sole vector of the AIDS virus means, not that you are barking up the wrong tree, but that you have selectively chosen one single tree to bark up out of an fairly large forest.

(Shite!! Why do I even bother!??)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 09 - 08:05 PM

""Let us begin to be honest, The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous, as dangerous as drug or alcohol abuse and very much more dangerous than other unusual sexual behaviour such as incest....so why not scream for the rights of incestuous couples or drug addicts?""

Don't be bloody disingenuous Ake. As you well know, incest is illegal, and for that reason is dealt with by the legal authorities.

Drug abuse is a physical addiction, rightly dealt with by the medical profession, and where crime is provable, by the legal authorities. Homosexuality between consenting adults, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, HAS BEEN LEGALISED in most civilised countries.

So putting aside those utterly specious red herrings, and taking on board your comment that allowing same sex marriage, will not reduce promiscuity (I would dispute that, and argue that marriage in general has militated against casual sex for most responsible heterosexuals, and would presumably do the same for gays), perhaps you would tell me how you come to the conclusion that refusing it WOULD reduce promiscuity, and save lives?

I'm sorry to keep repeating the question, but without an answer from you, your whole argument based on health lacks any credibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 16 May 09 - 11:03 PM

Yup, there is a huge credibility issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:47 AM

Why is president Obama opposed to same sex marriage???..and the 'so called' liberals, who just love him, are for it???
Who is wrong here??????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:23 AM

Here's a link to AIDS-Free World (my sister-in-law's web site, proud to say she's Paula Donovan)

There are some here that have not the slightest idea about the origins, prevention or how AIDS is being spread or what's happening today in the world of AIDS & the battles that are ongoing (which make same sex marriage pale by comparsion). All they can wrap their tiny brains around is homosexuality & same sex marriage, how it is seen through the eyes of the religious, the voting machines of the sexually biasis, by the slump in their own penises & their fears & insecurities in their own sexuality.

It's a shame that we can't outlaw stupidity, stop the idiots from intermarrying & keep the dumb from having children. I don't see why not as long as we still have all these other draconian laws dictating our lifestyles. There oughta be a law, oh that's the problem. Government in the bedroom is as bad as Government on horseback, thanks Ronnie!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:25 AM

Don T my friend, I remember very well when homosexuality was illegal.
Only a short time ago in real time.

Laws are made and changed by politicians, and we in the UK have seen recently how "incorruptible" politicians are.
Also, when the law on homosexuality was changed, Aids and its obvious link to homosexual practice was not an issue, perhaps the huge increase in homosexual activity since the change in the law, contributed to the current epidemic.
However on all counts your question is spurious, as you certainly knew that Aids was not even medically recognised when the law was changed.

Incestuous relationships are deemed to be illegal on grounds of public health and more importantly the effect on "social morality and public decency"...The very grounds that made homosexuality illegal just a few years ago.


Drug addiction is a behaviour in the same manner as homosexuality is, addicts are refused the "right" to foster children on safety grounds....I feel this is correct, and I would also be in favour of removing addicts own children to a place of safety when required.
Homosexuality has been proved statistically to be even more dangerous in general terms than addiction.......Draw your own conclusions!



Don't try to maintain from what I have written that I believe in the criminalisation of sexual behaviour...I do not, I am simply giving an answer to your question.

The simple reason that you are all skipping around the "elephant in the room" is that in percentage of population terms, Homosexuals are massively affected by AIDS.....WHY??

Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:40 AM

http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=afam&Number=233892&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 09 - 11:50 AM

"The simple reason that you are all skipping around the "elephant in the room" is that in percentage of population terms, Homosexuals are massively affected by AIDS.....WHY??

"Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage". ake

Ake, I am glad to see that your reasoning exempts women from condemnation. AIDS is not statisticly a problem for them.

Good for you. It's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:14 PM

Checking back: I see I didn't make it clear that I was referring to homosexual women.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:38 PM

It seems to me that the problem of AIDS, like the problems of other STDS, needs o be addressed as a public health issue, not a civil rights issue.

Using the curtailment of rights as a lever of advantage in a public health issue is a bad tactic being used as a bad strategy. It is philosophically repugnant. And, it must be clearly pointed out that the two are independent variables, independent issues, and should not be conflated simply to create pushbutton arguments.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:50 PM

Amos, Did you read my link? Makes you wonder just how much the government will treat it like a public health issue, though, you are correct. (don't faint)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:11 PM

GfS, the link you posted 17 May 09 – 04:40 a.m?

You really are losing it! Do you also believe that the earth is hollow and that's where UFOs really come from? Or in the Illuminati? How about pinning down the day when Atlantis will rise again and world peace will prevail on the planet?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:33 PM

Ebbie, very early on I made it clear that I exempted Lesbians from my public health argument.
Statistically Lesbians are even less promiscuous than married heterosexuals.
It has always amazed me why lesbians have chosen to ally themselves with homosexuals. They are totally different in behaviour and psychology and I would certainly have no objections on health or promiscuity grounds to Lesbians becoming foster parents.

Of course there are still the "rights of the religious community to consider...Ake

Ebbie... I was most disappointed to see you imply that I would be pleased to see homosexuals die young. Nothing could be further from the truth, they require compassion,counciling, in an attempt to persuade them to alter their lifestyle; and certainly no encouragement to carry on with their dangerous sexual practice.

If I have misunderstood your meaning, would you please PM me, as I respect much of what you say on many subjects here.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:43 PM

Why? Do you like green monkeys? I have lot's of info on that. The green monkey bit was a cover story...but at least you bought it! Hey, maybe the next pseudo civil rights issue will be whether transgenders can marry green monkeys...when it's voted down in Tennessee, maybe you can post a new thread on Mudcat, to moan and bewail that your family is being denied their rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:49 PM

I guess you mean the link that starts out "Proof that AIDS is a race-specific bio-weapoon. " from 2007.
   

"Throughout the 1960's and 1970's, the United States was involved a EUGENICS programs in which AFRICAN AMERICANS, and others deemed as 'undesireables' were being INVOLUNTARILY SYSTEMATICALY STERILIZED to quell their population growth (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/02/virginia-eugenics.htm )

Also during this period, the United States was involuntarily conducting SYPHILIS EXERIMENTS on BLACK MEN http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/tuskegee_5-16.html

While the United States was commiting these acts against it's black population and others, the Department of Defense was seeking to create a biological weapon for which there was no known cure. (Dept. of Defense request for Appropriation for 1970, HB 15090, from page 129. Quoted is Dr. MacArthur from said Pentagon, speaking to Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, about the need for the above mentioned "synthetic biological agent" ...".


Some people have very wobbly standards for the term "proof".



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:56 PM

Green monkeys, eh? You must get all excited when the neighbor's dog tries to hump your leg.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:15 PM

""Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage".""

The question was How do you think that refusing same sex marriage will IMPROVE the situation?

You talk of the elephant in the room, and others skirting round questions. HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THIS ONE?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:42 PM

""Until that question is answered,I will never promote homosexual "marriage" as a healthy or normal lifesyle and that includes the legalisation of homosexual "marriage".""

The question was How do you think that refusing same sex marriage will IMPROVE the situation?

Actually, refusing it or not won't really do anything. Homosexuals are going to do what they do,'married' or not. That being said, just what is the point of pretending to be married?

The link I posted was just one, there were even better ones, but this one was also the shortest. ..and I never said it was 'proof' of anything. I just posted the link, with nothing else.
You've done that a lot with me, 'reading in' to what I post, then re-acting to what you read in. Same with context. Remember the 'pea brain' comment?..You wrote in 'liberal pea brains'..when I was referring to those who get into the name calling...and even that the 'pea brains' were the ones who resorted to the name calling.
Also, on my longer post, in regards to the the 'go fuck yourself' comment....OR....'consider another side'(you misquoted by omission that the emphasis was to consider another side...which, of course, radicals never do

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:53 PM

In your last post, GfS (17 May 09 - 03:42 p.m.), you are doing some pretty flashy tap-dancing to back off from some of the links to dumb web sites you've offered and from some of your posts where you've obviously lost it, but you're still stumbling over your own feet. Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers you are not.

####

Obama has stated in several interviews that he supports civil unions, and it's up to religious institutions whether or not they would recognize the union as marriage.

And there are a substantial number of churches that are not only willing to recognize such unions as marriage, but will also perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

It was not that long ago that the Catholic church would not recognize a marriage that was performed in any church other than Catholic, even though secular law did recognize it. And last I heard, they still don't recognize the legality of divorce. A divorced person who remarries is considered guilty of adultery (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Recently it sounds as if Obama has changed his position on same-sex marriage, stating that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, BUT—he has stated that he opposes any Constitutional amendments on the subject, and he also came out against California's Proposition 8. Basically his legal position is consistent with liberal philosophy. He has his personal beliefs regarding marriage, but he does not agree that the government, either national or local, should interfere in the matter one way or the other.

I find that perfectly acceptable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:23 PM

Well. I did a lot of reading in the link provided and followed further ones throughout. I watched videos, I followed patents and speeches and messages.

I found this alarmist, misleading and paranoid. Alarmist, in that it is presented as being factually informative on what our government not only is capable of but has done; misleading, in being deceitful in stating certain things while expecting no one to go to the source; and paranoid, in being a rehash of old fears of racial genocide.

(Incidentally, implying one posted a certain site for no particular reason is kind of silly, don't you think? Futile, even? A waste of space?)

Ake, I wasn't really charging you with desiring the early death of homosexuals but rather trying to jar you into facing the implications.

By the way, "homosexual" means 'same sex'. In that sense lesbians are as homosexual as gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:08 PM

The link itself, in its headline, styles itself as "Proof". GtS--it wasn't about you, except insofar as you poted the link. It is not always about you, genera;;y speaking, no matter how unbelievable that seems.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:21 PM

""Of course there are still the "rights of the religious community to consider...Ake""

As far as I know, the ONLY right accorded to ANY religious grouping is the right to worship freely as they see fit, as long as their activities do NOT cause harm to others.

I cannot recall seeing ANY legislation endowing religious organisations with the right to force their views on others.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Re my health issue question:-

Having asked that question four times now, without any response, it has become clear that you have no logical answer to offer, and that your objections are NOT based, as you assert, on health matters.

From that, I can only conclude that your reaction to the idea is rooted more in the kind of mindset that once prevented black/white marriages.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:41 PM

The highest known rate of HIV infection occurs among Swazis - with women disproportionaly affected (60% of cases). Should, perhaps, Swaziland outlaw marriage for women?

Snide question, yes. But I really am trying to follow the logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:44 PM

Just stopped in to see what condition my condition is in.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 17 May 09 - 05:55 PM

Didn't the guy who sang that song go on to work with a woman with really humongous hits?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 09 - 08:00 PM

Lemme see, now. . . .   Was that "hits?" Or "hips?" Or was it sumthin' else?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 17 May 09 - 08:13 PM

I said, "DOCTORRRR, is their sometin I can take? To cure this belly ake?"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 09 - 09:41 PM

Whew! Been away for awhile. I have to say I have never seen a skunk fight that lasted as long as this one. I'm now predicting that this thread will reach 1300 posts. Don't fail me. I've got a bet riding on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:42 AM

Don T: "As far as I know, the ONLY right accorded to ANY religious grouping is the right to worship freely as they see fit, as long as their activities do NOT cause harm to others.

I cannot recall seeing ANY legislation endowing religious organisations with the right to force their views on others.

I'll bet money you argue the other side, saying church and state separation...the state isn't granting anything to a church, if you believe that. They are separate!(or were supposed to be)

Amos:(I'd rather post music)...but in light of this present dilemma, I could post a shitload more..probably better ones, but I went for the shortest.

Ebbie: See above, to Amos.

Don: "In your last post, GfS (17 May 09 - 03:42 p.m.), you are doing some pretty flashy tap-dancing to back off from some of the links to dumb web sites you've offered and from some of your posts where you've obviously lost it, but you're still stumbling over your own feet. Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers you are not."

Up yours! No tap dancing, but I guess you had to get off a snappy piece of rhetoric. Feel better now?

Don(again): "he supports civil unions, and it's up to religious institutions whether or not they would recognize the union as marriage."

Don T..read Don Firth's above quote..Does that answer your question?

Don(again): "...He has his personal beliefs regarding marriage, but he does not agree that the government, either national or local, should interfere in the matter one way or the other.

I find that perfectly acceptable."

When myself or Little Hawk or Ake, say that, you call us 'bigots'..should I 'go figure', and waste more time?

Look, What will probably happen is that some states will agree, some not. Others for religious reasons will not. Some sects will. The more spiritual, who are not church goers, but spiritual, will shake their heads with bewildered disgust. The 'spiritualists' will agree with 'whatever', as long as they are perceived as 'heavy'. The educated will reason it away, then predict when it will go the way of the hula-hoop. The entertainment world will promote it as long as there is 'shock value' to it, and prolong it way past its 'chique-ness d' jour'. Amos will change his mind, once he finds out Obama's position was his all along. You are stuck with it, hoping the genetics of it were on her side, and you were framed. Don T is going to re-arrange thoughts of posts, to suit his eloquence, and perfect grammar...but to real no effectiveness, because its all based on a political opinion, and re-act to his own perception of a good rebuttal! Meanwhile, the public will have to have their noses rubbed in it, as an issue, that most of the time, they couldn't give a flying fuck about, just don't teach my kids about the wonders of it,..Joe Offer, is going to wonder when his patience runs out, and him stretching the parameters, by not yanking off some of these posts..*(but at the same time realizes that it has been a hot, entertaining thread..more posts than the Obama Administration one)...By the way, Joe, Thank you!..and I'm going to hope for the best, insofar some good things were presented to think about(like we need it!?)...but I hope you will. Nobody is going to convince anyone else, of jack doodlie squat,.....and let's just hope that the selfishness that produced this coming generation might be overcome their parents selfishness...ok?


But if you want.................
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:20 AM

GfS, I didn't notice anywhere that you said you find same-sex marriage acceptable. In fact, you've been saying the opposite all along.

Have you suddenly changed your mind?

(And "up yours?" Now, really! The very soul of wit!)

You're starting to sound a bit frantic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:53 AM

Acceptable??? To whom? me? No..I think its lame, unnecessary, dysfunctional, dishonest to one's own self, lying to himself about his own gender, and sad...and I understand it! Absolutely tragic!..from both sides. Acceptable?..Maybe to you ..but then you have given yourself little option...and intentionally stay comfortable in your lack of knowledge or understanding. That, too, is sad.

Personally, I think that unless a man, mounts a woman, and with her hearty help, at least one time in their life, for the soul purpose of bringing forth a life, and willing to raise that child with her, keeping LOVE as the central focus of their family, you can take all the mystics, politicians, religious fanatics, and used car salesmen, and go bark and howl at the moon, for anything they want...and it won't take away the fact, of the wonder of that miracle, nor will they argue it away. Doing that, is the hottest experience humans can do well, on this planet!...Now if you haven't done that...what did you want to say???



I can't hear you.........
(Don't even post it)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: polaitaly
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:09 AM

"A man mount a woman??????" What are we, animals to be "mounted"??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:20 AM

""Don T..read Don Firth's above quote..Does that answer your question?""

NO! My question was addressed to AKE, not Don Firth, and NOT YOU.

--------------------------------------------------------------

""I'll bet money you argue the other side, saying church and state separation...the state isn't granting anything to a church, if you believe that. They are separate!(or were supposed to be)""

You would lose! I live in the UK where there is an established church (i.e. NOT separate from the state). The US pays lip service to separation (though republicans like G W Bush don't seem to know that), and I really don't give a shit either way.

My comment stands as I phrased it. It is not the business of religious organisations to force their views on others, especially when the argument is about civil rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------

""Don T is going to re-arrange thoughts of posts, to suit his eloquence, and perfect grammar...but to real no effectiveness, because its all based on a political opinion, and re-act to his own perception of a good rebuttal!""

Could you run that by me again please, preferrably in ENGLISH this time?

As far as I can recall, eloquence and perfect grammar have never been accepted as reason for disqualification from debate. Rather the reverse in fact.

The rest of your comment makes NO sense at all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 05:02 AM

I'll put it to you this way....You so very well, in your grammar and eloquence say a bunch of bullshit nonsense...got it? ..and vent your emotions that you work yourself up selectively misreading posts you can re-arrange their meanings.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 09 - 09:40 AM

My mind is not going to change, dingbat, regardless of Obama's position. I am fortunately not in the crucible of pressure he is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:51 AM

Amos, I believe you..I think you probably have more integrity than he does!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:15 PM

GfS, I was a little dissapointed to not be mentioned in your post of 18 May 09 - 01:42 AM. What am I, chopped liver?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:18 PM

Of course I meant disappointed. How embarrassing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:49 PM

People who are absolutely determined to find something offensive in whatever another person posts are seldom disappointed... ;-)

Those who most need to apply that observation to themselves, rather than to the person they're continually arguing with on this or some other thread, will not do so...because the concept of self-criticism does not even enter their thoughts.

They will think I was just referring to "the other guy", not them!

And the thread will go on.

And on.

And on.

And I will win my bet when it hits 1300!

Life is good. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 12:59 PM

"People who are absolutely determined to find something offensive in whatever another person posts are seldom disappointed... ;-)"

I find that comment to be highly offensive. Take it back - right now. And if you don't I'll continue to beat this old dead horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:07 PM

Yeah??? Do your worst, Wesley! Just wait till you see the 9,000 word reply I will post in response. You will crawl off licking your wounds, overwhelmed by my wit, sarcasm, and brilliant use of language and vocabulary. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:20 PM

And I take umbrage with that, Little Hawk. How are you going to use language without utilizing vocabulary?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:35 PM

Ah, yes, Ebbie...but there is mere common vocabulary...and then there is VOCABULARY, the language of the intelligentsia! A person of great intellect can immediately detect the difference. Bobert, for example, uses (cough!) vocabulary of, well, the most primitive sort....

But Don Firth and Amos use VOCABULARY!!!!!!

Then there are those who can seamlessly move from mere vulgar and common vocabulary into the true heights of VOCABULARY and back again in the wink of an eye! To do that enables one to comfortably exist, like an amphibian, in both worlds. It's a useful survival tactic. Johnny Depp is a good example of someone who can do that with consummate ease, and that's why he gets such good roles in the movies.

I aspire to being more like Johnny Depp. Who knows, I might still get to date Winona Ryder one of these days... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:44 PM

VOCABULARY - from Canada? The country that gave us "Eh"?? I figure if you're from Canada and use a VOCABULARY then it's proof you're gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:51 PM

LOL! You are walking on thin ice, Wesley. Just watch it, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:54 PM

Oh, LH, your infinite capacity for transcendental meta-analysis just gives me frissons!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:57 PM

Ha! I betcha. ;-) I love rambling on in that fashion, as you well know.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:06 PM

As far as 'vocabulary'(among other things) goes, its not size..but how you use it!...."When loving comes to giving, some people stop at nothing!".......(mine)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:17 PM

"One Dachshund is entertainment. Two is a carnival!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:19 PM

..and three is a voyeur?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:50 PM

No it's a menage-a-mutt

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:52 PM

I don't care what Obama thinks about same-sex marriage as long as he is opposed to trying to prescribe marriage with a Constitutional amendment. That is what I find "acceptable."

One of the characteristics of a liberal, which Guest from Sanity (!?), Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter don't seem to have the grey matter to grasp, is that liberals often don't agree about many things. This idea that liberals are robots walking in lock-step is pure reactionary fiction (wishful thinking, actually). After all, the Democratic Party (which, frankly, I don't find all that liberal) has been described as "a firing squad formed in a circle." In the meantime, the Republican Party is trying to decide who best exemplifies the ideals of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney.

I have never met a bigot who believed he was a bigot. Nevertheless, I have met a number of people who think they have the right to deny rights to minority groups they disapproved of.

GfS, I mention above that you're sounding a bit frantic. Let me amend that. You're beginning to sound a bit like THIS.   Or THIS.

####

You want vocabulary, Little Hawk? Here's a man with a vocabulary:   BEWARE (this is not "G rated").

By the way, for those who are concerned about kinky sex (and for GfS, who claims to know all about "hot experiences":    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:03 PM

Don T ...I have answered your question about a dozen times in this thread and I could answer it again in one sentence,
but I believe that your inability to comprehend what is written for you, will provide those who read this in months to come, with a better guide to the validity of your argument.

All that I have written here has been accomplish despite having a very limited vocabulary. I rarely write anything other than on mudcat. I try to be honest and highlight hypocrisy when ever i see it, the fact that Homosexual "rights" has become a political issue has attracted hypocrites from throughout the political spectrum and as far as I can see the last people they care about are the homosexuals themselves....encouraging them to think that their deadly lifestyle is healthy and normal is in my book a form of abuse.

I may be poorly educated, but have the intelligence to see beyond the political spin, or the madness of fundamentalism.

Interestingly, there is a group of homosexuals who wish Aids to be designated as a "homosexual disease" in the hope of a proper medical inquiry and perhaps some guidelines on the practice of homosexuality.

When I have time, I will post the details....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:11 PM

Homophobic homosexuals

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 03:50 PM

Ake, try to be careful not to bump into yourself as you go in and out the door simultaneously.

First, you characterize AIDS as a "gay disease."

Then, when a group of gays in Los Angeles claim that it is a "gay disease," you deny that it is.

What do you really believe? Or does it depend entirely on who says what?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:00 PM

Ake - I read the article you linked to and then went to it's home page. What really suprised me was that the US armed forces attacked a UFO over Los Angeles in 1942. That's for that tidbit. That homepage a wealth of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:08 PM

Well, well, well!   The straight skinny from the Flat Earth Society . . . again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:11 PM

The webpage has no real effect on my argument, I just though it might be of interest to some here.
The writer, who tries to refute what the homosexuals are saying is obviously a conspiracy theorist who believes the US govt tried to exterminate homosexuals by the use of Hiv/Aids.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:38 PM

"The webpage has no real effect on my argument, I just though it might be of interest to some here." ake 18 May 4:11

"The link I posted was just one, there were even better ones, but this one was also the shortest. ..and I never said it was 'proof' of anything. I just posted the link, with nothing else." GtS 17 May 3:42

So now the both of you are posting links that mean nothing? Even though both articles linked to refute your core arguments?

lol Incoherency is a sad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:47 PM

Yes, there was a rather extraordinary "air intruder" incident over southern California (the L.A. area) in 1942 and a lot of AA guns were fired and searchlights directed at something in the sky which was assumed to be of "Japanese" origin at the time, not surprisingly, but it was definitely not of Japanese origin nor was it of domestic origin. It's in the records. There is no confirmation to this day as to just what it was that was seen and fired upon. The reports suggest what is nowadays termed as "a UFO" by most people, but the terminology changes. They were intially called "flying disks" or "flying saucers" by most people. What you call it is usually whatever you have heard someone else call it in the media. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you call something...its essential nature remains unchanged regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:55 PM

Thank you, Ake, for the post, and link. Apparently the two Dons didn't get it, but what else is new? Since the 1980's I had gotten information alluding to the story, along with documentation, that AIDS was, in fact, man made. Your link seems to coincide with the information, I had gotten, back then. Do you think the story about the military attacking a UFO, over L.A., possibly with green men from Mars, were actually green monkeys from Africa???(wink)
..And by the way, Ake, you're self flagellation, about 'not being very well educated', can go out the window. You've shown more 'common sense' that those who are actually well educated, in denial! ..or indoctrinated in political excuses, and cover-ups!!!

Oh, and KB in Ohio, Your post reminded me of an old episode of the T.V. show, 'Who do You Trust' with Groucho Marx. However it was said to a couple from Nebraska, instead of Ohio. Groucho was well known for his insults, to the guest contestants,(in fact, that was the vehicle for his comedy, on the show). Nervously, tittering around a bit, the very straight and conservative husband(married contestants were the norm), said to Groucho, in the opening few words, before the quiz part began.
"My wife has been waiting for weeks to come on this show, and be insulted by you.
To which, Groucho, leaned a little back, looked the wife up and down, and looked back at the husband, and quipped, "Judging from the looks of your wife, I'm surprised you couldn't think of your own insults!"
Got both of them, in one shot! None the less, KB, you only came on briefly, and I found nothing to indicate that you were a 'bonehead', and in fact, asked a reasonable, non-contentious question. Whether my answer was in your agreement or not, was certainly no reason, to, as you indicated, 'put you in my cross hairs'...that's reserved for contentious 'knowologists'(know-all-o-gists), who, in their lofty rhetoric, are void of understanding, ..OR..grasping and considering another side, of the same subject...See?..You got spared, as requested.(wink)...unless you want to start it up, for shits and grins.
Regards To All,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 07:17 PM

Hey Ebbie, when you get done rolling your whole wheat flour, while looking out over the canyon with glazed eyes, I found something for you,...and it was only a fraction of what was there! You read, and you decide..there are both sides posted!

netowne.com/conspiracy/konformist/manmadeaids.htm

www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/aids_origin.htm

www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

www.boydgraves.com/timeline

www.eaec.org/dove/IsAids.htm

www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/6.Strecker Memo.html

www.biblebelievers.org.au/46a.htm

www.rense.com/general71/gaycancer.htm

aidsbiowar.com/page1.htm

www.rense.com/general75/mmo.htm

www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/Aids.html

www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1597.shtml

www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc754a.html

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/AIDS3.html?q=AIDS3.html

www.cultural-expressions.com/thesis/aidstheory.htm

www.straightdope.com/columns/read/941/is-aids-a-manmade-disease

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origins_opposed_to_scientific_consensus

www.righto.com/theories/strecker.html

whatsthecrack.net/AIDS-origin-is-Man-Made

scheria.it/Members/aidsmanmadevirush

mosaicvirus.blogspot.com/2005/10/is-aids-man-made.html

www.originofaids.com

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 08:21 PM

DISCLAIMER:

No homophobes or bigots
were injured in the making of this thread.
Many did, however, become quite annoyed,
some irritated to the point where they,
rhetorically speaking most assuredly,
but in some cases in actuality,
ran around in ever-decreasing circles
and vanished up their own
imploded into black holes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 09 - 09:48 PM

A sullen retreat to the fringe, where the wild memes can eat you alive...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:15 PM

DISCLAIMER:

No homophobes or bigots
were injured in the making of this thread.
Many did, however, become quite annoyed,
some irritated to the point where they,
rhetorically speaking most assuredly,
but in some cases in actuality,
ran around in ever-decreasing circles
and vanished up their own
imploded into black holes.

I didn't see any, did you??
Beauty, as well as ugly, is in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:29 PM

GfS, I am overwhelmed by your keenness of your wit!

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:40 PM

It's totally obvious what GfS means.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 12:41 AM

Gosh...umm..I'm not sure..wanna' take a stab at it??
I mean you re-interpreted everything else I posted, to suit you, therefore, ..nothing I post should upset you.....(or something like that)

Satire aside, all that is in here are 'Mudcatters' having a discussion, and sharing ideas. Though I may not agree with all of them, perhaps, at times even you, I wouldn't go as far as to call them 'bigots'....would you? ..Perhaps maybe I'd call them part time musicians, or wannabees, but not haters of mankind, or themselves. Perhaps, less informed than others, but I don't think, in real life there is a 'Mudcatter' in here that would wish anyone any real harm..well, maybe a little embarrassment, or chagrin,..maybe....but I think these here are all pretty far out folks...even TIA, when it sports a new poodle cut..but if they were real ass holes, would they be on here, SHARING their thoughts, no matter how ugly, or ridiculous??..Besides, if I thought that, I wouldn't try so hard, for those I feel need the input....right?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:09 AM

Beauty? Ugly?

I know a warthog when I see one. Beautiful only to another warthog.

But it's still a warthog.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:13 AM

By the way, I'm going to bed. That'll give some highly dedicated soul the opportunity to cop the 1200th post.

Don't say I didn't do you any favors, Little Hawk.

Nighty night.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:22 AM

2000.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:40 AM

..V peace

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 04:11 AM

I thought folks like Don Firth etc were meant to be well educated and possess huge vocabularies. If so, why is it that we "numpties" on the anti side are so often asked to explain what we post in words of one syllable?
The link which I posted has been commented on by Amos, Ebbie and Don Firth so far( Don T will doubtless be along when he catches up. They seem to think that the article counters my argument, which it does not,

The article concerns a large group of homosexuals in Los Angelese, who see the only hope of ending the aids epidemic in America is by admitting that homosexual practice "triggers" the disease and to impliment a serious medical study into homosexuality and AIDS.
If any of you have been paying attention,you may remember that this is exactly the view I have been expounding for months.

The guy who has written the article, is very much against this view, assuming that it will lead to "increased homophobia". He goes on to promote a conspiracy theory about the US govt trying to extermiate homosexuals by the use of the AIDS virus.

His denial of common sense echos the views of Don Firth, Amo, and Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 05:19 AM

He, like Don, Amos and Ebbie, sees Homosexuality as a normal healthy lifesyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:12 AM

""If any of you have been paying attention,you may remember that this is exactly the view I have been expounding for months.""

Is it really only months? It seems like a bloody lifetime.

And it still doesn't address the issue of how refusing same sex marriage will HELP to improve anything.

Nor does it take any interest in the MUCH larger number of heterosexual HIV/AIDS victims.

Same old same old! Try changing the record, because that on is worn out.


GfS, Still as incomprehensible as ever, running round in circles and veering erratically between bad science, and mad conspiracy theory.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:01 AM

Having been away for a few days, I note that (a) this is turning into a very circular argument, (b) I was 'name-checked' a couple of times and my viewpoint even praised, but nobody even remotely engaged with what I was saying.

C'est la vie...........

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:03 AM

Godammit, Ake, don't you dare go putting owrds in my mouth.

I have never said "normal" or "healthy". That's your shtick.

You aren't listening either, pal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:10 AM

While bigot is a strong word, it needs to be faced squarely that the desire to legally exclude some humans from equality under the law is bt definition a categorical prejudice (judging a head of time), and is the kind of prejudice that bigotry is made of.

It is also a categorical reaction that violates our fundamental legal principles of equality under the law.

That's not the way citizenship under law works.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 09 - 10:53 AM

LEt me add this:

I have never faulted Ake for seeking a traditional-marriage culture, and the correct source of that tradition is a church; he does not have the right to require others to comply with his nostalgia or his cultural bent as a legal matter. Of course it is understandable, just as it is understandable to prefer Mom and Pop neighborhood stores to Walmart, or to prefer all-white small schoolhouses where one kindly schoolmarm teaches five grades, or to prefer a world where penny candy still costs a penny, and where Christmas still evokes fantasies about flying saints.

Preferring it, or yearning for it, does not make it legally right or fair. Hungering for injustice that is favorable to oneself is not hard to "understand" but it is hard to condone, and should be abjured as public policy.

The bias for these things may not qualify as bigotry, but it comes very close, to the point where it is a semantic quibble of a distinction.

It would be pleasant (by some rose-tinted standards) if we all lived in a world where homosexuality had never come out of the closet and could be suppressed by "normalcy" the way it once was. Mayberry may be pleasant but it is not honest, just or truthful.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:11 PM

DonT: "And it still doesn't address the issue of how refusing same sex marriage will HELP to improve anything."

It was voted DOWN, in California.,,to which the pro homosexual crowd is trying to circumnavigate our system, to ram it through anyway. I suppose there are a few more people, for various reasons, of that issue alone, who have their reasons for opposing it, based on that.

DonT, The people IN THE WORLD, by a huge majority, see homosexuality as a bit on the 'abnormal' side of things, not to mention most all religions, with sects excluded, who also see it that way. Homosexuals make up just a very small percentage of populations. We've gone around and around on this, but homosexuality, is not based on any Constitutional grounds, as religion, race, color, or anything covered by that. Now you, being a Brit, or U.K, citizen, may not fully understand why that is relevant..but here, it is. Homosexuality, IS, either a choice, or the product of victims of circumstances. It is NOT, genetic, as pro homosexuals would like to argue, or you to think...not only that, it CAN be reversed, and has been. Being black, or Red, or white, on the other hand, can not.
Societies, are based by the norms set up by either 'common law', traditions, or legislated law, morals, or common sense. So far, homosexuality has not fit into any of those categories. Though I can see why some would want to differ, and argue that point.
Marriage, is an institution that dates back THOUSANDS of years, though in form, it has taken several incarnations, ie, polygamy, etc etc..but, in this society, the norm is one man, one woman, based on the traditions of family. If some people want to have a union, based on sexual preference, and pass it off as the same function as a nuclear family, it just isn't going to fly. Though men and women, usually get together for one reason, or another, the product is USUALLY going to PRODUCE offspring. That, in itself, separates the difference between their relationship, and a homosexual living arrangement. Equality, should be based on citizenship, not what you do with your genitalia...or any other part of your body, or brain. Actually, equality, is, according to our founding principles, were 'Endowed by our Creator'..not by the King, not by the government, not by privilege, not by ancestry.
The people in California, voted the ban, much to the surprise, of a lot of people, due to the WILL of the people, to vote what they really though, and turning aside from the over hyped, over promoted notion, that this train was going to run them over. They didn't buy it.
Now, I could have listed a list of reasons that bring on homosexuality, based on the psychological profiles of homosexual root causes, but so far, some in this grown, you in particular, along with a few others, have been predisposed to believe the political press on this. The political press, on this issue, is NOT based on fact, biologically, psychologically, sociologically, nor religiously.
You can jump up and down, wave your arms frantically, scream at the top of your lungs, and it will NOT change that FACT!
The other side, may wish to be 'tolerant' of what they may wish to view as an 'aberration', but at this point, they, which comprise the majority, do not wish to see the union of two same sex people, given equal status legally, as those of two different sexes, who see this issue quite differently, as so far as PRODUCING, a family, and raising their natural children,
Now, this last generation, through various self absorptions, and selfish behaviors, have raised the divorce rate, to where the traditional nuclear family, is now almost a rarity...yet even through break-ups, one or the other, still looks to restore that model, but with perhaps a different person..but still usually, with a Mommy and Daddy. PRETENDING to ROLE PLAY THE OPPOSITE SEX, IS NOT, BY ANY SHAKE OF THE IMAGINATION NOT THE SAME!!! Women and men are wired different from birth, and those two HALVES make the whole of the unit...
So get mad if you want, pout, write another 'almost' eloquent post..it will not change men into women, and women into men...for the sake of a sexual CHOICE they make!..ok??..Get it? Got it? Good!
However, Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:16 PM

Typo: fouth paragraph...."some in this grown,''
meant to type, " some in this crowd"
Sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:16 PM

You got spared, as requested.(wink)...unless you want to start it up, for shits and grins.

I'm guessing, GfS, that when you addressed 'KB in Ohio' you were actually referring to me (As an aside, I used to have a T-Shirt that said "Universtiy of Iowa - Idaho City, Ohio. Ha ha, we certainly are a jovial bunch!). Anyway, no I do not want to start it up. I was just shitting you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:20 PM

Ake, we wouldn't have to ask you what the hell you are trying to say so frequently if your reasoning (or whatever it is) were not so convoluted and obscure. Rational ideas tend to be fairly clear and easily understood, at least when they are stated in plain English.

". . . homosexual practice "triggers" the disease. . . ."

I don't think there is a competent health care practitioner or researcher in the world who would make such a claim. That posits the "spontaneous generation" of a virus. This is the medieval belief that piles of garbage spontaneously generated rats and mice, because if you leave a pile of garbage somewhere and come back later, chances are that you will find rats, mice, and other vermin in evidence. Believers in "spontaneous generation" weren't able, for some strange reason, to grasp the idea that the garbage attracted the vermin, because they hadn't see them arrive. So obviously—the garbage spontaneous generated the rats and mice.

Some homosexual--and heterosexual--practices can transmit the virus from an infected person to a previously uninfected one. But homosexual practices do not "trigger" the existence of the virus!

Join the 21st century, guy!

####

Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire signed the domestic partnership bill into law yesterday, and already the dark forces are gathering. The "Faith and Freedom" ("Freedom!??") coalition is assembling to get up a proposition modeled after California's Proposition 8 in order to get the law rescinded. To these people, the idea of same-sex marriage is totally beyond the pale, and they won't even tolerate the existence of domestic partnerships. The screaming and caterwauling is only beginning.

I find that analyzing the arguments that Guest from Sanity (?) and Akenaton put forth and checking them for facts (if any) and seeing how they try to interpret those facts to favor their own position, gives me a very good idea of what I am undoubtedly going to encounter in the Real World as I argue the case against whatever proposition the "Faith and Freedom" folks will come up with.

Thanks for the opportunity to get some practice and exercise before I join the battle in the Real World.

I never was deluded that there was even the slightest chance of converting either GfS or Ake. Their minds are made up and all the scientific evidence in the world will not jar them loose from their position. But as I say, it was good exercise.

So long, folks, and thanks for the fish!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 09 - 01:32 PM

"He, like Don, Amos and Ebbie, sees Homosexuality as a normal healthy lifesyle." ake

You presume too much. You are putting words in my mouth that I never spoke or even thought. For ME, it would not be a 'normal, healthy lifestyle.' That is because homosexual is not what I was born to be.


"It was voted DOWN, in California.,,to which the pro homosexual crowd is trying to circumnavigate our system..." GtS

You still don't get it, do you? We're not "pro homosexual" on this thread, we are pro-LAW.

Ake, not being American, may not understand the American concept of constitutional law which governs rights but you, imo, have no excuse.


"Now, this last generation, through various self absorptions, and selfish behaviors, have raised the divorce rate, to where the traditional nuclear family, is now almost a rarity...yet even through break-ups, one or the other, still looks to restore that model, but with perhaps a different person..but still usually, with a Mommy and Daddy." GtS

Have you ever been married? Ever been divorced? Have a happy marriage? You may be part of today's problem.

(Given your proclivities, I would hazard a guess that you have been through at least one marriage. Perhaps more. That is because I would most certainly not have stayed married to you. And I am the only person I can speak for.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:01 PM

Is this tangental, or not?

What of a person born physically intersexual, who has been surgically conformed to one sex so far as outward appearance and function? Assuming, for the discussion, that the individual is infertile. Should that individual be allowed legal marriage? And if so, to whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:13 PM

Good question, frogprince.

To whomever they wish, presuming full disclosure and mutual consent.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:15 PM

Smedley...I apologise, your views deserved more respect than they were given, in fact we could have started a whole new thread based on the points you mentioned.

Unfortunately there are only two of us (and occasionally Little Hawk) trying to defend our opinions against a pack of rabib weasels, so many good points get overlooked.

Of course the onus should be on the weasels to defend their position, but that would almost certainly be beyond them.
Perhaps if you were to start a new thread setting out your ideas you may get a very good reaction.

Regarding Ancient Egypt,what we now call incest was common among the ruling class but I have never read anything connecting Akhenaton with same sex practice. In fact the first representations of Royal family life,depicted Akhenaton with his wife and daughters, engaged in common pursuits like listening to music and behaving like a modern family.

Amos ...I'm sorry, but i cannot apologise to you.

If you really believe that those who practice homosexuality should be able to "legally marry" then you MUST believe the lifestyle to be normal, safe and healthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:26 PM

Most of us rabib weasels think that onus is a dirty word.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:31 PM

If you really believe that those who practice homosexuality should be able to "legally marry" then you MUST believe the lifestyle to be normal, safe and healthy.

Yes. Whyever not?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:41 PM

""DonT, The people IN THE WORLD, by a huge majority, see homosexuality as a bit on the 'abnormal' side of things, not to mention most all religions, with sects excluded, who also see it that way. Homosexuals make up just a very small percentage of populations. We've gone around and around on this, but homosexuality, is not based on any Constitutional grounds, as religion, race, color, or anything covered by that. Now you, being a Brit, or U.K, citizen, may not fully understand why that is relevant..but here, it is. Homosexuality, IS, either a choice, or the product of victims of circumstances. It is NOT, genetic, as pro homosexuals would like to argue, or you to think...not only that, it CAN be reversed, and has been. Being black, or Red, or white, on the other hand, can not.""

1. One hundred years ago the people of the World (by which, I suppose, you mean the Western world) thought it fair to classify black folks as subhuman, and keep them as slaves.
Fifty years before that, the people of the world saw no evil in sending small children to work down coalmines.
We have, I hope moved on quite a bit since those halcyon days when people just like you went to war against their own countrymen in order to preserve their right to buy and sell human beings for profit.

2. Being British does NOT preclude an intelligent grasp of current affairs, nor does it reduce the ability to understand the relevance, or the logic, of an argument, so please desist from trying to patronise me, my friend. In a battle of wits, it would be advantageous for you to arrive better than half equipped.

3. That description of homosexuality is the one espoused by yourself, and a number of pseudo scientific cranks. Serious scientists and doctors have a totally different slant, and many might feel that you are more in need of a cure than gays.

------------------------------------------------------------

""Homosexuals make up just a very small percentage of populations. We've gone around and around on this, but homosexuality, is not based on any Constitutional grounds, as religion, race, color, or anything covered by that.""

That's very nearly an exact parallel to what Hitler said about Jews in the thirties, and from what I can see, is a rationalisation designed to permit you to suggest that homosexuals should have NO rights under the constitution, NO rights in law, and NO human right to legally exist. What a piece of work you are.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:46 PM

Define "normal," Ake.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:48 PM

For that matter, also define "safe" and "healthy."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 09 - 02:50 PM

Ake:

1. I am not a weasel.
2. I am not rabid.
3. Your assertion about what I must believe is erroneous.

I know that homosexuality is a fact among human beings and among various other species.

I know that public health is not the topic under scrutiny here.

Sometimes I get the impression you would like to bury both these facts in other concerns.

As a right under law, the right to claim partnership for life with another human, and have it legally recognized with any priveleges or processes usually accorded that status, is not defineable by gender or preference in sexual practice.

I think there may well be churches who on religious grounds would not sanction same-sex marriages, but that is no reason for the commons defined by civil law to be bullied into the same exclusionary stance. To the contrary it is all the MORE reason for the civil codes to be firmly opposed to exclusion, because they represent the universality of the civil code without regard to individual quirks or opinions or idiosyncracies such as color, religion, gender or the like. The CIVIL code of law, starting with the Constitution, cannot be allowed to be discriminatory in the rights it establishes for citizens of the commons. A brief survey of the history of the Jewish people will demonstrate why. I am neither JEwish nor homosexual, myself, but even if I were both, the principle would still be independently sound.

If you will not learn the history of your kind, including the misery that is brought about by civil discrimination against minorities, you will find yourself re-experiencing them sooner or later, my friend.

All the arguments about "them" not being "normal" are exactly the kind of thing that people have used for centuries to discriminate and oppress each other. Our hope in establishing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to bring about a civilization which could do better than that.

We're still working on it, in spite of the many hurdles.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 03:12 PM

Good Grief!! Speaking about 'brain lock'!!
..

As to its a matter of law.....yes????? Which one are you referring to?
Certainly not majority rule, so explain your point.

As to no scientific proof, I unlike yourself, and your cohorts, have definitely STUDIED it. I have come to the conclusion, that you are full of 'it'....yourself(?)

As for practicing, don't forget to spit out the bones of that fish..or you might choke. What a weasel!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 03:35 PM

Never mind the definitions I asked for. That is irrelevant. And so are the arguments being put forth by GfS and Ake.

Amos's most recent post, and what he has been saying all along, is that it is a matter of the civil rights of a minority. An often oppressed minority.

And in civil rights issues, "majority rule" is also irrelevant. One of the purposes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect individual and minority rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Why does this seem to be so hard for you two to grasp!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 03:49 PM

Because the minorities that you speak of, are not ones by choice, but rather, race, creed, color. This other stuff is hogwash! People who engage in voluntary choices of lifestyle or sexual fantasies, are not exactly what the framers of our form of government had in mind. Shoulod we have special rights for sado masochists, or infantilism? Swingers? Pedophiles? Those are not the same thing as RACE...CREED...COLOR..ETHNICITY....GENDER..You are just blocked, if you can't understand that!..Sorry for your personal situation. .but sexual practices are just not an issue of equality, under the law..nor under natural law.
Now here comes the shit about animals....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 03:54 PM

You are denying substantial recent scientific findings. From your locked-in position, you have a vested interest in ignoring those findings.

Bogus!

And that goes for your pet weasel, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 04:12 PM

OK Amos...would you say that we should scrap the incest laws and make incestuous "marriage" legal?

Why do a large group of homosexuals wish to "own" Aids? (see my last link)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 09 - 04:20 PM

Sorry about the rabid weasel thing Amos, my mind was on someone else when I wrote that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 05:00 PM

"
"You are denying substantial recent scientific findings. From your locked-in position, you have a vested interest in ignoring those findings."

I am rejecting any and all POLITICALLY BASED propaganda, not based on actual FACT. 'Truth is what works'..and homosexuals who have gone through therapy, OR, decided to come out of it ON THEIR OWN, are testimony that what I've posted is accurate.
Sorry to disappoint you..if it was any other way, and I knew about it, I'd post it in a heartbeat....but your views are that of ardent, radical homosexuals....and for that, there is no 'equality' issue.
Grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,gunshowsigns
Date: 19 May 09 - 05:48 PM

Gay judges should resign or be recalled. I hope they throw out 8 so we can recall them then go after civil unions. This will force the northeast to withdraw from the Union and SF gays out of CA. Gays said it Civil Rights or Civil War. I prefer Civil War in the literal.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 09 - 05:52 PM

Dang! That should throw some gasoline on the fire...as if this thread hadn't got combative enough already. Look, if you do decide to have a civil war, try and keep it south of the US-Canada border, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:10 PM

The incest laws, which are NOT the subject of this thread, are a different issue. The only reason for prohibiting incest as a form of sexual congress is that it produces offspring who are a burden on the public, at least probably. So it became, over the centuries, a moral code to prohibit it. Aside from that risk, there is no reason to mess with cousins or siblings who want to screw each other. I certainly don't want to screw my own siblings, but that may just be canalized cultural bias, but more importantly it is none of my business.

Gay couples not only never have offspring, they often take on excess offspring produced by others who are emotionally ill equipped and raise them well.   

As far as I can see the only core reason for your energetic rejection of the idea of civil rights in marriage for gays people is that you despise the thought of their carnal activities.

Have I missed some other factor? Leave STDs out of it--they are a direct function of promiscuity, and marriage is a palliative to promiscuity, not an aggravator of it.

Aside from that, then, the issue becomes a desire to pass judgement on others' private affairs. Its not the marriage itself you protest, but the sexual congress that accompanies it.

If you were to see those as independent factors--in the realization that gays, like heterosexuals, have sex whether they are married or not--wouldn't it seem that you were promoting an injustice against hum,an beings you have never met and about whose strengths and weaknesses you know absolutely nothing?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 06:44 PM

"I am rejecting any and all POLITICALLY BASED propaganda, not based on actual FACT."

Then why do you keep spouting it?

I posted this before, GfS, but either you didn't read it, or chose to ignore it. I'm guessing the latter, because it contains facts that blow your contention out of the water.

Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether.

Another characteristic of gays or lesbians who have been "cured" by one method or another are frequent bouts of depression and anxiety.

Robert Spitzer of Columbia University claimed to have developed a "cure" for homosexuality through therapy he had devised, and published a study on his results. He called it "reparation therapy" and claimed that it worked successfully, thereby proving that gender orientation is not "hard wired." However, a follow-up study by John Bancroft of the Kinsey Institute a few years later found that

Only six of the 202 "gay" men and lesbians who had been through counseling reported changing their sexual preference to heterosexuality. According to the interviews, 178 failed to change their orientation and 18 reported adopting celibacy or becoming conflicted about sex.
What's more, the majority of subjects were left with a mistrust for mental health professionals and had to relearn how to form intimate relationships. Many said they were misled by counselors into thinking homosexuality was caused by child abuse, bad parenting, or an unspecified "psychological disorder."

Other methods of "treating" homosexuality involved so-called "aversion therapy." These treatments involved tactics such as pairing homosexual imagery with electric shocks to induce feelings of revulsion.

So much for the claimed "cures."

The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it.

There is also the discovery—in identical twins, who should be genetically identical—that occasionally one will be heterosexual and the other will be homosexual. Rather than supporting the idea that gender orientation is a matter of choice, this unexpected phenomenon has been traced to imbalances in the infusion of hormones in utero during a crucial stage in the development of the fetuses.

So—no matter how you slice it, there is every reason (supported by physical evidence) to believe that gender orientation is "hard-wired" one way or another, and not a matter of choice.

Also there is the phenomenon of very young children behaving like, even wanting to dress like, the other gender. These children almost invariable become homosexual when they sexually mature.

The above material is derived from well researched and peer-reviewed studies and is NOT "politically biased."

Unless, of course, anything that disagrees with what you WANT to be the case is, ipso facto, "politically biased." Which, it is becoming clearer all the time, seems to be the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:04 PM

..and others report way better therapy results. Also your mention of..here, I'll copy it.....

"Most of the "cures for homosexuality" usually include a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion, involving "accepting Christ as one's Savior" and deliberately choosing a life of denial. More often than not, the participants in these programs either "lapse" after a brief time, or become sexually inactive altogether."

Talking someone into a religious belief, is a FAR cry, from those having a very real spiritual experience.

Ever tried 'talking' someone OUT of their favorite sexual fantasy??
It too, would only last a short while.

Your post, is better than your childish rants, but still far too lacking. Perhaps it is only enough to keep you going, in your mind, but it still is not enough to raise the bar, as far as a legal or valid civil rights issue!

I suppose that Obama won't sign on to it, but rather appoint a judge who may, washing his hands of this hot topic issue. So take heart, you won't have to hide, any more!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:09 PM

Gfs, This came to mind, and I asked it, yesterday. I was particularly interested in your answer, but you didn't get back for awhile, so you may have missed it:

What of a person born physically intersexual, who has been surgically conformed to one sex so far as outward appearance and function? Assuming, for the discussion, that the individual is infertile. Should that individual be allowed legal marriage? And if so, to whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:40 PM

I don't set the policies...but, wouldn't you consider that a bit of a 'freak of nature'?
At that point, I would defer to someone, who deals with that issue MEDICALLY, not politically. Wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 19 May 09 - 08:48 PM

"Civil War"

I don't get it . . . . Kinda like Jumbo Shrimp, Vegetarian Meatballs?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:01 PM

Yes, that would be a "freak of nature", rare but by no means unknown. None of us here have the individual right or ability to set the policies; I just wondered how you would feel about it.

What you do have, from what you've said, is the ability and credentials to do counselling. So let me turn the thought this way. The individual was born intersexual, and surgically assigned (so far as that is possible) to one gender. That person later identifies him-or-herself psychologically as the other gender, with desires for the "opposite" sex. How would you be counsel that person to resolve the personal delimna?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:02 PM

...after removing the "be" from that last sentence...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:58 PM

Frogger, you ask a good hypothetical question...and I think I would answer it this way, but leaving some room for more consultation. I'm sure that tests would be run, to determine one over the other gender, BEFORE the operation was performed. With consideration of the parents, their clergy, (if one was requested), and the family. I'm sure that if that operation was performed, there would be counseling that could be referred to, by the physician, or facility responsible for the operation. I've never been in that situation, and could counsel possibly, but, again, I'd rather defer to those more suited and qualified. That being said, I feel strongly, that I could counsel the parents, as to other related issues.
I'll tell you, if, that ever arises, which I'm pretty sure it won't, I'll think of you, and your question.
I, mostly, have taken on any more counseling, for marriage and family, and presently work pro bono...though I assure you my results have been astonishing, as to percentage of recovery.
Good question, though. My answer is certainly not 'etched in stone' infallible.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 09 - 10:41 PM

"Far too lacking" in what, GfS? Scientific facts that you approve of? That appears to be the way of it. You've rejected as "politically biased" or "gay lobby propaganda" well documented and peer reviewed studies that contradict your thesis that gender orientation is a matter of choice.

I do have my theories as to why, but I'll let that lay.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:40 AM

You are a counselor, and I am the King of France.

Having a little trouble finding the links, aren't we Cecil?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:25 AM

Amos...that answer is a complete cop out.
As you well know incestuous relationships can involve much closer members than cousins.
As ever, your core argument comes back to the point that other peoples behaviour is none of our business, I strongly disagree with that contention on several grounds public health being one.
Homosexual behaviour and incestuous behaviour were viewed in much the same way by the public in general, before the large number of homosexuals inthe entertainment industry and in the media began to push back the boundaries against a voiceless majority.

I notice that you refused to answer my point about the homosexual group who believe that Aids is a "homosexual disease"(their words not mine")and who believe the disease can only be irradicated when evertone accepts that contention and medical research is concentrated on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:28 AM

Don First, Because I answered honestly, ONCE AGAIN you take the opportunity to attack me! ..as with the poodle yapper. Not very many people, in the medical fields have had to deal with the question 'frogger' asked. If I wanted to find a link, I would have done that. I didn't even try...Why?..because most everything I've answered you and your homosexual com padres, has been off the top of my head....I did my homework!
So do go try to put me on the defensive for nothing more, than someone pulling the thumbs out of your mouth. That includes the non reader, TIA.
You want an intelligent discussion, keep it mature. Once again you resort to your little games of trying to kick the grownups in the shins. Once again, grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:01 AM

Three brief observations:

(a)   It is naive to place medicine/science and political views as some sort of polar opposites. Medical & scientific discourses have always existed in social, cultural and political contexts and been influenced by them

(b)   Heterosexuality isn't normal, just common.

(c)   The Bible (that great & influential work of fiction) prohibits and condemns all kinds of behaviour & activities, yet same-sex love is the one which seems to trigger the most virulent response from conservatives/fundamentalist quarters in the USA. As a Brit, this intrigues me & I wonder why it is so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 May 09 - 06:15 AM

Smedley, You posted opinions, which is ok, but can you support them. They are pretty polarized emphatic statements.

Don, "The brain research that led to the discovery of the differences in the hypothalamus of heterosexuals and homosexuals definitely establishes that there is a physical component. The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it."
Note the question at the end of that paragraph you posted"The question raised is "are these differences the cause or the result of a particular gender orientation?" This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it."
So it appears you were able to answer that question all by your lonesone...and it was only a question that was raised...proving absolutely nothing!
Don, you are wasting our time!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:48 AM

Ake:

It is not for me to go to bat every time some dingbat group comes up with yet another air-brained concept. I really don't care if some gang of homosexual supporters want to name AIDs as a homosexual disease anymore than I would if a whacky gang of women decided to claim headaches as a female disorder. It doesn't change the vectors or the realities involved.

The thing is, though, the health vector would actually be reduced by less promiscuity, an effect that marriages would tend to bring about, generally.

As you seem comfortable generating moral codes for other people, you might do more good in the world if you confronted the tough items like moral codes for politicians and business executives, a bit trickier than "thou shalt not fuck" postures.

The bottom line, though, is that you wish to reserve a civil, legal status for a perceived "us" and deny it to a perceived "them". The usual word for this very human impulse is discrimination. And as the people of Mississippi learned, every individual has to face that dark stain of the soul on their own and decide for themselves whether to be for it or agin it. Me, I'm agin it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 May 09 - 09:42 AM

Like I said, I only appear when my name is invoked in your immature snipes. So, why do you keep summoning me?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:52 PM

Why do people keep hitting the ping pong ball every time it comes at them across the net?

Same reason, TIA. They get caught up in the game, and they want to win. To "lose" would diminish their sense of self.

This is just as true of you or me as it is of GfS or Don Firth or anyone else who keeps coming back here....but we all have our own characteristic style of play, of course. ;-)

And a year from now? It won't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:58 PM

GfS, you are a real piece of work!

I am the one who included the sentence "This question has yet to be answered, but researchers are still working on it" in an above post, and I did so in the interests of scientific objectivity. It is you who is claiming to have the only true and final word on the matter.

I am calling for "benefit of the doubt." You are being a complete absolutist.

You, sir or madam as the case may be, are the one who is wasting everybody's time!

But this still does not address the civil rights issue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 01:00 PM

Leave STDs out of it--they are a direct function of promiscuity, and marriage is a palliative to promiscuity, not an aggravator of it.

Aside from that, then, the issue becomes a desire to pass judgement on others' private affairs. Its not the marriage itself you protest, but the sexual congress that accompanies it.

If you were to see those as independent factors--in the realization that gays, like heterosexuals, have sex whether they are married or not--wouldn't it seem that you were promoting an injustice against hum,an beings you have never met and about whose strengths and weaknesses you know absolutely nothing?


Ake:

Have you considered the possibility I mention, that you are actually promoting an injustice against people you have never met and which is actually suppressing their lives and well-being?

If so, what do you think about it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 09 - 01:37 PM

I think Amos, that you and those who think like you, are the ones who are suppressing the lives and well being of homosexuals.

You appear to be content to let homosexuals live with a disease which has decimated their community and will continue to kill hundreds of thousands, through the denial of "liberals" everywhere that AIDS is strongly linked to homosexual practice.
You deny not only the truth, but the chance of a proper medical study which may determine the link and save millions of lives!

Now GO! and lecture me no further. If Mr Firth is still off on his daily sulk, I would address the same to him, only in much stronger terms!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:14 PM

Ake:

Come off it.

I did not deny anything of the sort. I denied this thread was about health issues. I denied that AIDS is "a homosexual disease" in the sense that homosexuality causes it in some mysterious way. That ain't so. It is probablky true that the practice of anal penetration is a significant vector in transmitting AIDS. But aside from that I expect it transfers as readily to an opposite-sex partner as to a same-sex partner.

You seem uncomfortable though. Did my question about discrimination strike a bit close? Sorry. I really do think it deserves careful thought.

Do you believe that if two sexual partners are the same gender, that fact alone can bring about AIDS if neither of them is previously infected? Or, that that fact alone can increase the probability of transmission, without the added complication of anal sex (not to put too fine a point on it).

When anal sex IS added in, do you think same-sex transmission of AIDS is more probable than opposite-sex transmission of AIDS if one is already a carrier?

ANd what do you think the effect of marital status being allowed to same-sex couples would do to the rate of promiscuity (multiple short-term partnering) in the same-sex community?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:23 PM

No reason to sulk, Ake. I'm in fine fettle. You seem to be the one who is all flustered.

Interesting observations, Smedley.

"(c)   The Bible (that great & influential work of fiction) prohibits and condemns all kinds of behaviour & activities, yet same-sex love is the one which seems to trigger the most virulent response from conservatives/fundamentalist quarters in the USA. As a Brit, this intrigues me & I wonder why it is so."

This is because there are people in the conservative/fundamentalist quarters in the USA (but not confined to the USA, it's just that there seems to be a lot of them here, probably due, historically, to the immigration of Puritans a few centuries back) who compulsively fasten less on the positive aspects of religious, but on the many prohibitions the can dredge up out of "cherry-picking" Biblical verses out of context. What it boils down to is that there are people in this world who stay up nights, pacing back and forth, repeatedly pounding one fist into the other palm and agonizing over the possibility that somebody, somewhere in the world, might be having fun!

Sex, being a most enjoyable activity, tends to be the focus of these sad folks. And unless sexual activity directly addresses the matter of procreation (after all, God commanded, "Go forth and multiply," so they can't forbid sex altogether), they feel they have a religious duty to attempt to prevent anything resembling "recreational" sex (sex for the fun of it).

Even in your country, this attitude at least used to exist. Sex was to be for procreation, and enjoying it was to be avoided, discouraged. Remember the admonition to brides on their wedding night to "Grip the headboard firmly and think of England!"

Since same-sex activity, by its very nature, cannot produce offspring, it becomes a major target for these folks.

I believe I noted somewhere above that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sinful ways. Those of a fundamentalist bent immediately leaped to the conclusion that, in Sodom at least, the Sodomites practiced homosexuality, even going so far as to call anal intercourse "Sodomy." Yet, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about this! (Does that mean that "Gomorrahmy" is Lesbian sex?)

Evil to him who evil thinks!!

There are some interesting aspects in the Bible in this context. For example, Paul never explains the "thorn in his flesh" that gives him so much spiritual distress. An Episcopal bishop (retired) wrote a most interesting book on saving the Bible from fundamentalists in order to better emphasize the more spiritual and humane teaching of religious principles, such as caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, comforting the suffering, etc. The bishop notes that Paul was the major voice in the Bible to speak against homosexuality. Could it be, asks the bishop, if the thorn in Paul's flesh is that he knows himself to be homosexual, but is doing his utmost to repress it? The bishop has some fairly compelling arguments to support his thesis.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:26 PM

""Shoulod we have special rights for sado masochists, or infantilism? Swingers? Pedophiles?""

NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS, YOU PRAT. EQUAL RIGHTS!

And your ploy of lumping homosexuals in with groups of lawbreakers (Paedophiles) is in keeping with your presentation of spurious crank scientific "evidence" as FACT, and EQUALLY POINTLESS.

Many S & M practitioners already have an equal right to marry, and I believe you might find it's the norm for swingers.

And YOU say I'M full of it. Go look in the mirror, and you'll see what an enemy of democracy looks like.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:45 PM

"We can forgive those that bore us...we can never forgive those who We bore"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:34 PM

LOL!!! That has to be one of the classic quotes of all time, GfS.   Who is the author?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:56 PM

Oscar Wilde.

Who was gay.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:31 PM

But, sadly, unmarried.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:38 PM

Excellent. Good quote from Oscar Wilde. We would all do well to meditate upon it frequently.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 20 May 09 - 04:57 PM

'In 1883, Irish-born Oscar Wilde returned to London bursting with exuberance from a year long lecture tour of the United States and Canada. Full of talent, passion and, most of all, full of himself, he courted and married the beautiful Constance Lloyd.'

The couple had two sons, Cyril (1885) and Vyvyan (1886).

'Cyril was killed in France in World War I. Vyvyan also served in the war and later became an author and translator. In 1954, he published his memoirs, entitled Son of Oscar Wilde, which relate the difficulties he and his family faced in the wake of his father's imprisonment.'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:23 PM

There is a massive link between aids and the practice of homosexuality....Even large numbers of homosexuals are now saying this.
I dont have to prove anything, but you have to prove that the link with homosexuality is no greater than any link with practicing heterosexuals.
If you fail to prove your point, this would suggest that homosexuality is a dangerous and unhealthy practice,and "marriage" between homosexuals should not be legalised in the same manner as incestuous "marriage" is not legalised.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 05:34 PM

You're not paying attention.

Your assertion that the link is between the disease and homosexuality per se is off the mark, and cannot be justified. There is nothing inherent in the biology of gender that could possibly account for it. There is however a clear ans understandable vector in the nature of anal sex. The term "massive link" is semantically null. I doubt you will find any high-incidence link between same sex couples absent the anal vector, compared to comparable hetero conections. I'd be very surprised.

And no, the burden on proof of this case is on your assertion that homosexuality is the causative factor.

We should probably outlaw skydiving and gambling, while we are at it -- they are both dangerous practices, n'est-ce pas?

I would suggest that if your concern is public health, as you assert it is, that you put your energy into promoting condoms instead of trying to marginalize your fellow humans.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:00 PM

Just curious, Ake. Is there also a "massive link" between syphilis, gonorrhea, and genital herpes—and for that matter, AIDS—and promiscuous, unprotected heterosexual sex? There isn't? My, my! I'm sure that will be a great revelation to the public health service, because they tend to think otherwise.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:21 PM

Oh, my gosh!! Don, I have seen the light here--we must get to work and ban marriage on BOTH sides. THAT will put an end to STDs once and for all!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:58 PM

I am not sure that Ake grasps the concept of statistics. He leapt on that 47% on the CDC pie-chart with inordinate glee. But does he fully understand that it is not saying that 47% of homosexual men are infected with HIV, it is saying that of all people infected with HIV, 47% of them are homosexual men.

To say the former is like saying the 100% of men have prostate cancer, when in actuality such a statistic is saying that, of those humans who have prostate cancer, 100% of them are men.

I leave it to Ake to work out why that is the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:25 PM

You all "leap with glee" on ANY scrap of info or wretched bit of sarcastic innuendo which you imagine might damage or embarass your various opponents in this discussion. You're silly, spiteful, vengeful people engaging in petty mutual character assassination to no useful end and wasting a lot of bandwidth here in the process. ;-) But at least it's giving me some daily amusement, so it's not all bad, eh?

We are rapidly approaching my predicted goal of 1300 posts. Go, team, go!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 08:29 PM

Wait. Let me rephrase that to be more fair about it.

You're behaving like silly, spiteful, vengeful people engaging in petty mutual character assassination to no useful end and wasting a lot of bandwidth here in the process.

I wouldn't want to suggest that you are incapable of change or improvement in that respect...anyone can change their behaviour as soon as they decide to.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 10:06 PM

Little Hawk:

You are behaving like a supercilious, patronizing, disengaged pseudo-intellectual with a superiority complex. Not that you ARE one, of course, and I wouldn't even dream of suggesting you couldn't change such behavior with the snap of your fingers. Anytime you decided to, you could, I am confident. But, that's how you are behaving.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 09 - 10:14 PM

You worry me not one whit, old pard. I have no difficulty engaging in self-criticism, as it is an essential part of the spiritual path. ;-)

I am recommending that you here who are busy personally attacking each other do what Barack Obama suggests in his recent superb address at Notre Dame: Stop demonizing the people on the other side of a debate. Stop turning them into caricatures. Stop insulting them and degrading their worth. Realize that they, just like you, are motivated by some genuinely legitimate concerns and ideals, and that they, just like you, wish the world to be a better place and all people to be happy and free.

Watch the Barack Obama address again. If you don't get it, watch it again. Then watch it again. Maybe you will someday realize the point he is so eloquently making.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 09 - 10:29 PM

Tell you what, amigo. Tell me what your fees are, and when I need down-the-nose, pedantic and arbitrary moral instruction, I'll be sure and give you a call.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:58 AM

Little Hawk: "You're behaving like silly, spiteful, vengeful people engaging in petty mutual character assassination to no useful end and wasting a lot of bandwidth here in the process."

Guest from Sanity: "..the tip off is 'emotional immaturity'...."
Said, how long ago??

Your pedantic, emotionally charged, witless, rhetoric..once again proves my words 'correcto mundo',....again....along with..

Pelosi being a piece of crap.(About ready to face resignation over lying).
Corruption being the biggest cause of pseudo representative government.
Left wing and right wing are on the same 'bird'.
Parrots, squawking about WHAT to think instead of HOW to think.
Californians swinging away from their absolutely crappy, left wing state 'representatives'..with their vote yesterday!
You will see a further swing away from the left wing(except for the party leaders..President included) 'taken for granted' support for homosexual marriage.
Homosexuality not being genetic.
Homosexuality is a PSEUDO CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE...you may see mainstream America move away from it. (Tired of having it rammed into their faces).
Shit, you might as well engage me in an intelligent dialogue, instead of ..umm...whatever you call your neo-left, radical rants, along with twisted knickers lodged near your brains.
Hop aboard the 'clue train', sonny ..SNAP NOW AND AVOID THE RUSH!

OH! And Sanity has very little to do with today's politicians or politics!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:03 AM

Just dropped in to make sure everyone's gettin' along . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:38 AM

Stumbling out of the back of the ambulance, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:08 AM

So my take on the logic of some on this thread is that Lesbian Marriage is OK?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:17 AM

I never thought homosexual marriage only meant men...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:55 AM

Barry,   Sex between women appears to produce few negative health issues, which is the main thrust of my argument.

However there are other issues concerning same sex "marriage" which many other folks see as a barrier and although I may not share their religious conviction, I do see that they have a valid point of view.

As Little Hawk has so eloquently pointed out some here care more for their ego than for the welfare of those they pretend to champion.

I am being generous in that assessment, inreality most of them are more interested in scoring worthless political points than in improving the diabolical homosexual health statistics.......which is simply criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:04 AM

"There is a massive link between aids and the practice of homosexuality....Even large numbers of homosexuals are now saying this."

Recently a large group of politicians have been claiming that God speaks through them too, but it doesn't make what he say true of fact

Homosexuality is not just a civil rights issue, it has long been a human rights issue, so much so that they needed the protection under law (protection under genda basis & gay bashing), granted by the same law that denies them their right to same sex marriage. Can the law protect & discriminate at the same time? Can the law be an umbrella only when it rains? "NO"!

Your "normal" society has tried, after granting civil rights, to force Blacks to behave White, Woman at work to hide their idenities as Mothers (as well as asking them to act as men in the work place & then call them bitches when they do) & Gays to (don't ask, don't tell) act straight. "Your Normal" society does not really protect the minorities because "Your Normal Society" is bigoted, just as you are but to you that is "normal". What it is, is unjust, unfair & IMHO criminal.
As I mentioned in my privious post gay woman, by your logic must lead healthy lifestyles, they are low on the AIDS meter so they sould be able to marry, but wait that's a same sex issue too.
Is it that their "normal" sexual acts may meet with a more exceptable view in the eyes of a homohater as opposed to "2 guys takng it up the ass"?
Call yourself what you are.
You are who Blacks had to struggle to survive from, who Jews had to run from & who woman had to vote against. You are no different now than what you were 50 or 100 or 150 yrs ago. You make the lives of those who are different from you a course in survival trainning.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:07 AM

"religious conviction, I do see that they have a valid point of view"

What has civil & human rights got to do with religion? Civil & Human rights have been trampled on by Religions as well as Governments!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:32 AM

I'm sorry you feel that way about me Barry. I can only say that you are wrong, not in holding strong views, but in your assessment of me,as a person.
I don't include you among the egoists I described earlier, I know you care deeply about every word you write on this subject.....What more can I say?...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:47 AM

Ironic, how pro homosexuals find no problem discriminating against Christianity, even to the point of hatred, yet want to be accepted and sanctioned in their churches....slaps self on head...and all this time I was under the impression that they were so much against bigotry.
Makes you go 'Hmmmm'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:14 AM

I would like you to substantiate your wild-eyed remark by naming one instance where "pro-homosexuals" (whatever that means) sought to establish some kind of discriminatory infringement of the civil rights of Christians. I doubt you can find any. You are blathering and tossing about sweeping conclusions not supported by substance.

Unless I am wrong, in which case I am sure you will be able to speak specifically about what you mean.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:48 PM

I am debating the notion of what payment you could send, Amos, and I have not yet decided what would be best. I wouldn't be so crass as to ask you for money! Hmmm. How about some fresh California fruit sent by air for each bit of sage advice I can offer? I like pineapples and mangos.

I really think we need Barack Obama here to chair this discussion and get people to settle down a little. It would help a lot. I suspect, however, that he's got more important things to do... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:13 PM

Jeez, we have perverts right here on Mudcat! Anyone who shows such an interest in other peoples' sex lives is really sick. Any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. Really, really sick.

Perhaps we should talk about the sex lives of the homophobes here. GfS, what sorts of sexual activities do engage in? Please be very specific, since you seem to think it is OK to be specific about the sex lives of others. Akenaton, what about you? Are you a man or a woman? (and yes, it is my business, as much as anyone elses' sexuality is your business). Do you engage in oral sex? What about anal? Dress up? Any interesting fetishes?

Oh, you don't want to talk about your sex lives? Then shut the fuck up, you bigoted, sick bastards. I'm about sick to death of people trying to justify their bigotry with all sorts of weak arguments. It all just comes down to the fact that you don't like it. Hardly a good basis for making laws.

Sorry, I don't usually like resorting to name calling, but bigotry is bigotry and I refuse to countenance it. If you don't want to be called a sick bigoted bastard, don't be one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, Little Hawk, settling down in the face of injustice is just another way of supporting the injustice. We really shouldn't be settling down about this. Aren't you glad folks didn't settle down about civil rights for black folks in the 60s, or for women in the 70s?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:30 PM

Thanks, John. Let me chime in with this: LH, you may bemoan this thread is overlong, overzealous, or overwrought, but standing up for the kind of human decency and equality I am advocating is not something you settle down on, as John points out. Being aloof is great relaxation but it does not chop any wood or draw any water.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:48 PM

""I'm sorry you feel that way about me Barry. I can only say that you are wrong, not in holding strong views, but in your assessment of me,as a person.
I don't include you among the egoists I described earlier, I know you care deeply about every word you write on this subject.....What more can I say?...Ake""


So, are you going to tell each of us who individually takes you to task that you know we care deeply about......etc., or is there something special about Barry?

Tell me pal, just how do you decide who is sincere, and who is an egoist? I'd really like the lowdown on how long you've had this undisclosed talent for telepathy.

Perhaps you could enhance it by developing some EMPATHY for your fellow man, but I doubt that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 03:01 PM

GfS, your ignorance of various matters is reaching monumental proportions.

"Ironic, how pro homosexuals find no problem discriminating against Christianity, even to the point of hatred. . . ."

You make a blanket statement like that, displaying total ignorance of the large number of main-line churches in the United States who have signed on to the "Affirmation of Welcome" statement. I'm sure you include me in your "pro homosexual" category, and yet you can say something like that after I have posted several bits of information on the Affirmation of Welcome.

Are you just not reading what I post, or do you have reading comprehension problems?

Educate yourself! Here is one example (out of legions) of a church who has adopted the affirmation. READ THE STATEMENT and stop yammering on about things you know nothing about.

####

Little Hawk, let me ask you this:

What would you say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi?

Also, I presume that you are familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller. If not, HERE IT IS.

What would you say to Pastor Neimöller?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:30 PM

Yes Don there is something special about Barry....he is absolutely sincere.
I 'm sure he won't mind me saying that we have corresponded by PM on a few occasions, and I find him one of the best people on this forum.

We agree about many things but I am really sorry that this is one which we cannot agree on....I feel I may be losing somone who could have been a valued friend.

You Amos and Don Firth probably don't deserve to be given this information, you would all certainly be more at home in the company of Mr Peekstock, the foul mouthed idiot who now posts under John P.

He has a trunk full of second prizes on threads like these, he cannot debate and relies on personal abuse to try to intimidate the opposition.
He says.."Sorry, I don't usually resort to name calling"...he's a liar as well as an idiot. Check the other "gay" threads for a quick look at his M.O.
Really surprised at you Amos, as someone who understands debate, what do you have in common with that clown?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:52 PM

And you, Ake, know absolutely nothing about Mr. Peekstok, save that he does not suffer fools gladly.

You are full of insults for people who do not agree with you or who call you on your faulty logic and biased interpretation of statistics, so your remarks about rational debate are a bit hollow. And then you bellow like a goosed moose when someone indicates thet they get the impression that you have your alimentary canal in backwards. You get especially nasty when someone calls it like it is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:09 PM

Ach, AKe, let us drop the ad hominem aspects of this discussion, as LH has asked; they add no merit. I felt John was being sincere, if impassioned, and see no reason to call him a liar. THere are many people in Mudcat town who resort to name calling much, much more readily than he.

I would point out for example that this thread was fairly civil until 30 Dec 08, when GfS began to assert that those who did not see things her way were stupid idiots, assholes, ignorant and arrogant, etc. Since then there have been lots of civil posts and a handful of uncivil ones, some of them from me, for which, as usual, I apologize.

I have no objection ifg, in your view, the unproven dynamics behind the phenomenon of honosexuality seem to be aberrations and even if they seem to be "chosen".   I don't think the existing evidence p[oints that way, but it is not a hard-proven issue, so extrapolate and hypothesize whichever way you like, for all o' me.

But you will not change the issue that Prop 8 was a mass effort to vote to deny certain core liberties to a certain minority. That's cut and dried.

'Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 05:34 PM

And I have a horse in that same race, Ake. In Washington State where I live, Governor Gregoire has signed a domestic partnership bill into law. And the forces that put forth Prop 8 in California are now gathering to do the same thing here that they did in California.

It is, as Amos just said, another "mass effort to vote to deny certain core liberties to a certain minority."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 06:39 PM

Not too much time right now, but I'll reply to John P. who asked me:

"Aren't you glad folks didn't settle down about civil rights for black folks in the 60s, or for women in the 70s?"

Of course. I'm very glad of it. I'm also glad that gays can now openly be who they are in this society without fear. I am not suggesting for a moment that people should not fight for the rights of others who are discriminated against. I am not suggesting being aloof or standing apart from social issues. My greatest heroes are among those who did not stand aloof and apart. Joan Baez and Gandhi, for instance. They didn't stir up negative energy, however, by name-calling and insulting their opposition.

I suggest you listen to Barack Obama's entire address at Notre Dame, note how he conducts himself (specially when someone heckles him from the crowd), note what he advises people in any cultural or political debate to do in order to keep that debate productive, and take a few pointers from it. Accusing other people of being perverts and bigots is no useful contribution to a discussion.

And that's all I have time for right now. I'll get back to the rest later.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 May 09 - 07:07 PM

Ake, you didn't share any details of your sexual practices with us. From this, I assume you are a hypocrite as well as a bigot, since you want privacy that you deny to others. I shouldn't be surprised, since you enjoy civil and human rights that you deny to others.

Unless you are willing to have your privacy invaded, you shouldn't invade the privacy of others. Unless you're willing to live without basic rights, you shouldn't deny them to others. It's not hard to understand. I'm just talking to you the same way that you talk to gay people. Deal.


Little Hawk, get real. Why do you think gay folks get to live their lives without fear? Look up Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King. A gay friend of mine recently had his house burned down by an anti-gay person. He came out of it owning half a pair of pajamas. Have you heard about all the gay folks who lose their belongings when their partner dies, because the family of the deceased comes in and just takes things? And this is after being barred from the hospital room because of not being "family". Do you really think gay folks don't get discriminated against in the job market?

The bigotry won't end until it is illegal and deeply frowned upon by society as whole. That was true of discrimination against blacks and women, and I see no evidence that it's not true for homosexuals as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:33 PM

Just got back from my local Safeway store, where, among other things, I browsed the magazine stand.

GfS and Ake, you two experts* might like to take a look at a special issue of Scientific American which is currently on the stands. Several articles on sex, the sexual brain, matters of sexual orientation.

Then again, you might not. Here, from the Scientific American web site is one of the articles, CLICKY, with links to several other articles on related subjects.

I think I just heard your tenny-runners screech to a halt.

But there are the latest findings, guys. Do you want to know? Or would you rather not?

*Footnote:   the word "expert" comes from two Latin words. "Ex" meaning "has been" and "spurt" being "a little drip under pressure."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:58 PM

A short excerpt from the SciAm link above:

"Researchers using brain scans have found new evidence that biology—and not environment—is at the core of sexual orientation. Scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that gay men and straight women share similar traits—most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala—an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. The same is true for heterosexual men and lesbians.

Study author, neurologist Ivanka Savic–Berglund, says such characteristics would develop in the womb or in early infancy, meaning that psychological or environmental factors played little or no role.

"This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there's a biological reason for sexual orientation," says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. "It's not just a reflection of people's behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it's something that people are born with.""

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:04 PM

Am I the only one who reads the posts from ALL the posters?..Jeez, scroll down and read the 'anti-Christian' rhetoric. Just another case of 'selective comprehension'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:19 PM

I am sure it feels that way, but its not an uncommon delusion.

Can you cite one specific point where someone tried to infringe on the civil rights of a Christian or Christians because they were "pro-homosexual"?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 May 09 - 12:54 AM

GfS, you add greatly to the contention that you have some sort of reading comprehension problem. I just did a search on the word "Christian" on this thread and other than a couple of people who are characteristically anti-religion, no one here, particularly "pro-homosexuals," have said anything to support what you are saying. If I missed one or more that do support what you are saying, you're going to have to point them out.

I am indeed against the fundamentalist Christians who feel they have the right to restrict the freedom of others on the grounds of their particular beliefs, but even if they are louder than more liberal Christians, they are most assuredly not representative of all Christians—although they want you to think they are.

Have you not read anything I've posted on the main stream churches who have adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome?" Or others here on this thread who, one way or another, have identified themselves as Christian who support same-sex marriage?

Apparently not.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 09 - 01:18 AM

GfS: Despite that we seem to differ on this issue, I gotta tell ya, you have a great sense of humour. I read your remark to my last post and if I'd had a mouthful of coffee, I would have sprayed it all over everywhere. Thank you. I needed the laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:28 AM

Seems like it wasn't "selective comprehension" so much as "slap-dash inaccurate impressionism", GfS.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:50 AM

I have to wonder why y'all are still discussing an cuss'n this issue. It should be plain now that no one is going to change their mind. No one is going to have a V-8 moment and slap their forehead and say - "Now I understand - he's been right all along and I was wrong". So is there a point here other than getting the post count up over 1300?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:00 AM

Peace, Yeah, we use to call that 'aerosol mouth'...it's great when you can get someone to do that in a restaurant!..sometimes, when they try real hard to 'hold it in' and try to laugh with a bunch of drink in their mouths, it just dribbles out..Love it!..Even better when they are formally dressed,..and there with their date!!..Shit, it's really cool if they try real hard, and it comes out of their noses!!!....Then the restaurant calls the ambulance, and all the crew stumbles out of the back of the ambulance.......and goes into a different building....What a score!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:01 AM

Wesley S, Probably...its wide open go for it!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:06 AM

I dunno, Wes. Little Hawk kinda said we had to break 1300, so we're trying to find something more to say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:31 AM

Done.


"Overturning Prop 8 would reaffirm basic American rights

If the California Supreme Court overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage in the next few days, it would give renewed strength to two fundamental and deeply cherished American ideals and operating principles.

The first is that though majorities rule in democracies, majorities cannot tyrannize minorities, deny them rights, criminalize their very existence on subjective grounds or religious grounds, or on any grounds whatsoever, nor turn them into second class citizens.

This fundamental principle applies to everyone and every group, save criminal gangs and conspiracies, because all of us are potential victims of the tyranny of the majority. All of us — women, people of all colors, all races, cultures and religions, the disabled, people who hold dissenting political views, and members of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered community.

Because the founders understood that everyone is a potential victim of some majority's prejudice against their ideas or communities, the U.S. Constitution was designed to safeguard all of us through the principle of equal protection under the law.

The second fundamental principle is that when you are a citizen of the United States you are entitled to the full rights and privileges of citizenship. There is no hierarchy of citizenship. We are all equally citizens and all equal under the law. That is why laws that discriminate against minorities, of any kind, are unconstitutional, including any statute anywhere that supports mandatory segregation or diminished citizenship for anyone.

In this country, there isn't one group which gets all privileges and other groups who are cheated of their equality and denied their basic rights. And though the founders made mistakes in the Constitution regarding the so-called superior rights of property owners, and the status of African Americans as property, American principles of equality and fairness have worked to correct those errors so that no caste system, no social hierarchy, no aristocracy exists in the Constitution.

The California Supreme Court's decision to overturn Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage late last year, would almost certainly do so on the grounds of equal protection under law, which would make any kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. Such a decision would also indirectly reject the overwhelmingly religious nature of Proposition 8's support. As the First Amendment makes clear, religion cannot be used to deny full citizenship to minorities either.

Proposition 8 supporters would be aghast at such a judicial decision, decrying that the voice of the people, expressed in the referendum, would have been denied. But the courts are the voice of the people too.

Elections can't be used to turn minorities in American culture into pariahs, into second rate citizens, into legal serfs and untouchables. That kind of thinking, associated with many contemporary conservatives, is based on old views of hereditary hierarchy which hold that some people are inherently better and more deserving than others...." (from Examiner.com).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:56 AM

On the matter of choice, aside from all the scientific findings, have any of the anti-gay folks here actually talked to a gay person about it? From the standpoint of the people experiencing puberty, it usually doesn't feel like there was any choice.

Think back to when you were 12 or 13 and started getting interested in members of the opposite sex. Did you decide to be interested in little girls or little boys? If you're anything like I was, and like everyone else I know, you were single-mindedly focused on one or the other. What makes you think it is any different for anyone else?

If it is a matter of choice, perhaps we should hire gay people to teach our children how to control their sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:25 PM

John:

A wonderful idea. But I suspect even if the only driver was individually selected change, it would be impossible to teach the art, or replicate the emotional pressure leading to the choice; even if it were NOT for the purely biological drivers that dictate it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:28 PM

"Overturning Prop 8 would reaffirm basic American rights"
Hogwash!..You mean to tell me president Obama, is on the side of not "reaffirming basic American rights'????????
Amos, how dare you??..Are you two breaking up?

John P: "On the matter of choice, aside from all the scientific findings, have any of the anti-gay folks here actually talked to a gay person about it?"
Did you just come upon this thread?...if so, scroll back..there is a long post by me, explaining a story, about Dale and Mark. It might be on the previous page...I'll see if I can find it for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 09 - 09:34 PM

John P, The post I was referring to was, From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:28 AM .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 May 09 - 10:15 PM

GfS, there are men who have had the same sort of relationship with there fathers that you describe in you post above, who did not become homosexual, and there are men who have perfect fine relationships who did grow up homosexual. So all you have is anecdotal evidence.

Read the Scientific American article.

####

'Twould appear that this thread is pretty well winding down. Little Hawk won his bet that it would go to 1300 posts, so there must be great rejoicing in that quarter, with Chongo buying the beer all around and all of the world's dachshunds wagging there tails and smiling broadly.

It's pretty hard to quarrel with the overwhelming weight of the latest scientific evidence published in those Scientific American articles on the origins of gender orientation, establishing that discrimination on that account is, indeed, a civil rights issue, and there is just no rational response to the argument that stable same-sex marriages should greatly reduce the transmission of HIV.

Sorry, guys. But life can be a bitch sometimes.

Get a more defensible cause next time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:09 AM

As usual, you lose all accuracy when you start deploying rhetorical devices. Obama has not offered any position about Proposition 8. Although he personally prefers marriage, as a term, be reserved for hetero breeding, and civil union be used for other cases, he has never suggested enforcing this with a Constitutional amendment, as his dim-witted predecessor once did.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 09 - 01:07 AM

Don, Get a life! There are articles, and there is reality. This issue, can be argued forever, if you base your 'proof' on the trend d'jour, or what really is. Here's a tidbit for you....I mentioned a while back, that the majority of people were tired of getting their noses rubbed into the over hyped wonders of homosexuals. Little Hawk weighed in and agreed...so I'm not alone in this. I've said repeatedly, though it somehow escapes your one tracked mind, that equal rights are there because of our citizenship, in a country that believes in it, so we all have them...and not because a person CHOOSES his or her sexual preference, for one reason or another. You argue that churches must accept the 'affirmation' dealy..when churches DO NOT HAVE to accept anything of the sort...That's YOUR DEAL. Whether or not, a church accepts homosexual marriage is irrelevant in California, anyway...so it is a non issue here. Either way, your argument is based on giving homosexual marriage some sort of legitimacy, and therefore bringing acceptability to homosexuality into the mainstream, which of course, Hollywood is trying overtime, too. That being said, here is a little bit of something that has happened over the last few days that you should, of all people take notice to. Note, this may sound trivial, but it DOES point out my point in case. (I can't believe I'm citing this, but it's true, nonetheless. In regards to the American public's response to homosexuality being so acceptable...this week, an infinitely more talented showman, singer, dancer and personality lost on 'American Idol' due to one simple thing....He flaunted his homosexuality...and it cost him winning to another lesser performer who came across as wholesome, married, and a church going Christian, with family values. Why?..Because of exactly what I've been telling you, as well as Ake, in the beginning...That society, as a whole rejects the whole idea, as far as being 'acceptable' or desirable. With 100 MILLION votes cast, THAT'S HOW IT SHOOK DOWN. So you may be impressed with all the so called 'studies',(refer back to what I said of who was funding those 'studies'), and or anything you want, but you will NOT VOTE IN RESPECTABILITY!! ..and as I said, and you should have noticed BY NOW, people really are tired of having their noses rubbed in it!..Like it or not.
Not only that, Obama has favored the 'Don't ask, don't tell policies' in the military, he does not support it, will not endorse it(unless it becomes politically expedient), and even in your state, there is going to be a challenge to it, whose results will be of interest to both sides, as to the outcome. Hilarious Clinton has done an about face on it('Why?' would be interesting to find out..I doubt it has anything to do with 'personal conviction'). Numerous 'celebrity's) careers, have tanked out, because of it, when they 'come out of the closet'(some have done better than others), but on the most part, they took a hit. Now don't get pissed off at me, because I merely point this out to you, and others..but take an objective look at it. Even with the ramming down our throats, on the subject, and the hyping of it, the most that the majority is going to go for ir, AT THIS TIME, is placating them, by throwing them a 'bone' of 'Civil Unions'. That, my dear pal, is the plain and simple truth, as to THE WAY IT IS!
And, by the way, a question I've asked, a few times on here, but it gets 'conveniently' ignored, is, 'if two, same gendered people live together as room mates, and NOT sexually active with each other, how does the homosexual community feel about them being able to claim certain 'benefits' as a 'married' same sex couple?..(as in tax dependencies, insurances, so on and so forth). Shoe goes on the other foot now, doesn't it? Just what, and how does that issue get resolved, without infringing on the 'rights' of a same sex couple, living as 'married'.
No, my opinionated fellow Mudcat poster, married is a different ballgame as live in lovers, homosexual or hetero,..and marriage, IS and should be continued to be regarded as the union between a man, and a woman...not 'role play' pretenders...it just doesn't work.
Anyway, think about it, first, before you jump on the keyboard. Think about the lost revenues, as tax deductions, that the politicians think about before they endorse such nonsense. Think about the fraud, that anyone could claim....and think about the fact, that the majority of the public, not only disrespects homosexual behavior, but resents having to be force fed a steady diet of it, and their children, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:47 PM

PShaw, GfS. You must lead a shallow life indeed. Thousands of perfectly heterosexual, married couples have little or no sex. They are wed, share their lives, and turn their energy to other things.

Focus on the core importance: two adult, free human beings choose each other for a permanent partnership.

There is no fraud that a same-sex couple could claim, that has not already been discovered by hetero couples--marrying, for example, to change their tax rules or manage their citizenship or work permits. Sex is a wholly independent variable, which I think hs been pointed out frequently on this thread.

The right to claim marriage with another for life is the key, and it is typically supported socially by priveleges of mutual representation, certain insurance priveleges, right of survivorshoip, right of co-ownership, and so on.

There is no rational reason why that status and those rights should be denied a minority because you disapprove of their orientation, no matter how histrionically you voice you disapproval.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 09 - 02:29 PM

GfS, get a brain! And get a pair of reading glasses. You claim I have said things that I haven't said at all, such as "You argue that churches must accept the 'affirmation' dealy..when churches DO NOT HAVE to accept anything of the sort..."

I do not argue that at all, which you know perfectly well, but you do have a penchant for putting words into other peoples' mouths and then attacking them on that basis ("straw man" fallacy, Philosophy: Logic 101). You are grossly disingenuous.

A substantial percentage of Christian churches have already signed on to the "Affirmation of Welcome" of their own volition, after a vote of their congregations. Get that through your thick skull! Other that participating in the discussion and the voting in one congregation, I had nothing to do with it. I am in no position to dictate to any religious persuation.

Your invoking of the American Idol thing (I never watch the show) is really pretty pathetic, and yet another example of non-thinkers fixing on the unimportant, both on your part and on the part of those who voted.

As far as the many scientific studies that I have cited and linked to, your blanket claim that they were all funded by the "gay lobby" (including the Swedish study) is just plain asinine, and you know it.

Let's cut to the chase here, GfS:

Face it, counselor. The reason you are so adamant about gender orientation being matter of choice rather than a genetic predisposition is because your father lived most of his earlier life in denial, then finally gave in to his genetic nature and embraced his true gender orientation. The thing that has you trembling in your boots is the possibility that you may be carrying that genetic time-bomb yourself.

That's called "denial," counselor. And my suspicions about you are more that supported by your passionate devotion to trying to convince others of the rightness of your position in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. The fact is that you are trying to convince yourself.

Methinks you protest much too much.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 09 - 04:21 PM

""You Amos and Don Firth probably don't deserve to be given this information, you would all certainly be more at home in the company of Mr Peekstock, the foul mouthed idiot who now posts under John P.""

Thank you Ake, for confirming that your argument is based purely on prejudice, and making it obvious to anyone who reads your post, that, without any knowledge of who or what we are, you feel qualified to make judgement of the sincerity or otherwise of our thoughts.

We are simply Mudcat members posting under monikers which may or may not bear relationship to our real world identities. You know just as much as we have told you about our lives, and that small amount may or may not be true, and yet YOU profess to know what we are thinking.

Talent for mindreading?.........I THINK NOT!
Talent for mindless prejudice?..........DEFINITELY!

I WILL tell you this. My views come from an absolutely sincere abhorrence of prejudice and bigotry, and as a result YOU are a person with whom I shall NOT communicate in the future.

Ditto Guest Gone from Sanity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 09 - 11:22 PM

Prejudice has nothing to do with it. Common sense these days is about as elusive as being apolitical! Sanity has nothing to do with either side of the political wings....Hop aboard the 'clue train', boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 12:55 AM

I think prejudice has everything to do with it, and the rest is just crass rationalization and justification.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 09 - 02:31 AM

Little Hawk has won his bet, everything worth saying on this subject has been said, endlessly repeating the same stuff and becoming more and more abusive proves nothing.

This could have been nothing but a cheerleading thread for homosexual marriage, garnering in a few mindless votes for the Dems in the process, but thankfully a few here like Guest from Sanity have turned a taboo subject into a thought provoking article.
Little Hawk's defence of free speech was also valuable.

Indirectly, the abusers played a valuable role, showing future readers how not to conduct a debate, and the real nature of the abusers themselves.


I intend to say no more on this thread other than to thank GfS for his/her support and contributions.....Little Hawk as always for his admirable fair mindedness...and to absolve my friend Amos from any abusivness and congratulate him on a well thought out and conducted debate.
To many this must have been a long and boring thread, but I think Mudcat is a better place for allowing every voice to be heard
Thank you for that Joe......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 09 - 06:21 AM

I have to echo Akenaton's post, and add one more thing. The people from California, have democratically voted twice, to ban homosexual marriage, and for the non stop whining of the LOSING side, whose banner is FALSELY accusing the electorate of 'bigotry' and not being as 'smart' as they are in this matter, shows that the freedom's that we have enjoyed, as being a FREE country, of self determination, are nearing their end...not just on this matter, but other things as well. A lot of you just won't 'get it' until you finally see, that when it is all said and done, and all the policies that you so ignorantly, and foolishly bought into, are implemented, and the quality of your lives, go into the toilet, will you scratch your heads, and ask, "What happened?"
When you see that the rhetoric from Washington, is directly OPPOSITE from their ACTIONS, when you finally are trapped, because you believed, the lying propaganda, that has indoctrinated you into WHAT to think, and like a bunch of blind lemmings, you so recklessly followed, without questioning, or educating yourselves.
I, in NO WAY, know that what I've posted on here, was motivated by hatred, bigotry, or anything less than sound facts, proven time and time again...only to be ignored by the frothing band of mob mentality, flock of babbling parrots. Your posts, and you know who you are, are, in the nature, and content, MORE than proof, that what I've said, all along is absolutely true. But, as Akenaton, has said, nothing new is being posted, and that which is sound, is not being addressed..so why try to turn on a bunch of rocks? I'll be checking in, once in a while....
By the way, when you see, that the mindset that you have, demonstrates to you, once in for all, that voting will effectively be 'useless' when the will of the people is ignored, and deferred to by a 'political' committee, to make your decisions FOR you, and TELL you what is 'good for you', then it may occur to you, that YOU are the people, that the civil rights movement, were trying to be free from! After that, its just a matter of who makes what policy..right?
And one more note, especially for Amos, who was mostly a lightweight in this issue, so that issue is not a biggy, Amos, note the difference in what Obama SAYS, and what he actually is doing..this is a continuation of the policies, that we've had, no accountability, no paper trails of the money, that he promised we could follow, online, foreign policy the same, continuing the 'bailouts' started under Bush, and virtually a take over of the private sector..Yes my dear friend, the was no change, as I said earlier, during the campaign..but to his blind 'supporters', at least he can make you FEEL good, while he's ripping you off, from the freedoms you once enjoyed...just as his predecessor. See you around..maybe even on this thread, if anyone posts something new, and enlightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:22 AM

Calling something a fact--even vehemently--does not make it one. Your posts have continuously tried, for example, to invoke lifestyle choice as a basis for supporting proposition 8. You assert repeatedly that this is the key behind homosexuality.

You do this in sheer despite of evidence. "LIfestyle choice" is a straw man..

Ake has sturdily and steadfastly brought the conversation to another straw man, health issues and STDs. But marriage has not hinged on health issues for decades. I don't know if anyplace still requires the blood test for a marriage license. And in any case, that was not the core issue of the thread.

Nor have either of you spoken seriously to the actual issue, which is discrimination against minorities.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 03:16 PM

"Blind Lemming." Wasn't he a blues singer from days gone by?

I find GfS's last post really kind of pitiful. His/her efforts to write off all the scientific evidence that has been cited here as presented by "a frothing band of mob mentality" and a "flock of babbling parrots" is pathetic. Simply asserting that the evidence that yanks the rug out from under his/her position is merely propaganda from scientists who have been bought off by "the gay lobby," without ever trying to substantiate that claim, is in the ream of the message T-shirt and the bumper sticker—a flat assertion with no substantiation whatever. It's like screaming and stamping one's feet.

It reminds me of the woman from the Flat Earth Society who got into an argument with a young astronomer. When asked what her flat earth rests on, she responded, "on the back of a huge turtle." To which, the young astronomer started to ask, "And what does the turtle rest on?" when she interrupted him, saying, "That's no good, young man! It's turtles all the way down!" then turned on her heel and stalked away.

Amos is right. It is a civil rights issue. A matter of discrimination against a minority.

And what are people who insist on doing that generally called?

Don Firth

P. S. And just a little reminder:   neither GfS nor Ake has answered my question as to how same-sex marriage adversely affects Barbara's and my marriage. Or affects it in any way whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:01 PM

... And just a little reminder:   neither GfS nor Ake has answered my question as to how same-sex marriage adversely affects Barbara's and my marriage. Or affects it in any way whatsoever.

Who said you were really married to a woman..for all we know that is a ruse...

As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big foreheads, too!

You are so phony..it staggers the imagination!
Amos, you dodged my questions about Obama...........AGAIN!

I guess a minority is defined as anyone who makes a choice, that everybody doesn't make..according to you!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM

My guess is that you, sir, are not long for this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM

Yes, GFS, I am married. Have been since December 17, 1977. To a woman. Most definitely a woman.

And you, sir or madam as the case may be, are really showing the level of your desperation. In fact, your last post is downright contemptible.

You have really revealed yourself!

In times past, people with physical or mental disabilities were considered a matter of shame, to be locked away in a back room or institutionalized and never spoken of—when in actuality, they were perfectly capable of leading full, satisfying, and useful lives. Fortunately, civilization has advanced to the point where this is no longer true.

Yet, there are still people out there who are so medieval in their outlook who, when they see someone with a limp or with a speech impediment (or, God forbid, both!), automatically assume that they are mentally deficient as well. Or someone who needs to use crutches or a wheelchair. There are people who assume that, because parts of the body don't work well, that the mind doesn't either, failing to realize that the person may be a college professor, an artist, a musician, or—seventy years ago, the President of the United States.

"As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big foreheads, too!

"You are so phony..it staggers the imagination!"

No one ever suggested that someone, be it a sports team or a construction company or an accounting firm, should be required to hire someone who is physically or mentally incapable of doing the job. I know a woman, the daughter of a good friend, who is developmentally disabled and who works for a local Ikea store. Her comprehension is not keen, but she has a very tenacious memory, and she knows where everything in the store is. She works as a greeter, asks people what they are looking for, then directs them to where they can find it. She enjoys the job, feels (and is) useful, pays her own rent, and pays taxes.

And you would lock her away in a back room somewhere, out of sight of the rest of the world? It sounds to me like you would favor rescinding the Americans with Disabilities Act. It sure sounds like it.

You? A psychological counselor? I don't think so! You are grossly in need of psychological counseling, GfS. And a major dose of general humanizing!

The level of your vitriol sprayed in my direction undoubtedly comes as a result of the palpable hit I scored regarding your fear of the very DNA that you carry yourself.

As far as having anything worthwhile to say on much of anything, you have just committed suicide with the same weapon that Samson used to slay the Philistines.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 07:33 PM

My bona fides are solidly established, GfS, by the fact that I have been a regular on these threads since 1999, and am well-known by many Mudcatters, including a fairly large number of people here whom I have met in person, and even more who, on one occasion or another, have been present when I performed somewhere (such events as the Northwest Folklife Festivals, one of which is currently running). Some of these people also know my wife, Barbara.

In fact, one regular Mudcatter is the daughter of late John Dwyer, a former guitar student, good friend, and the best man at our wedding in 1977.

And who might you be? You haven't even registered, and word has it that when you wear out the credibility of one identity with your deplorable ideas, you simply bail out and come back with a new identity.

So who, exactly, is the "phony" here?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM

GfS:

I don't recall dodging any questions relevant to this thread. I ignored about fify red herrings between there and here, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM

In the meantime, however, GfS dodges my question by accusing me of not being married at all.

Okay, GfS, just suppose I'm not. How about answering the question theoretically?

Hmm?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:34 PM

I was away for a bit....busy....but I see that you DID reach 1300 posts in my absence. Bravo!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I knew you could do it.

I have won my bet and am now the proud owner of a gilded birdbath that rests upon a marble likeness of Winona Ryder. Life is good. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM

SOme folks never learn. LH is one. Sheeshe!!

Are you sure you don't want to lecture us about the triviality of our discussions?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:39 PM

Congratulations, Little Hawk. I rejoice in your happiness.

It's a boon and a blessing to know what's really important in this life, isn't it?

Don Firth (smiling beatifically)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:51 PM

Too true, Don, too true. (grinning back atcha in a good-humoured fashion...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:35 PM

Come on boys....you're starting to talk to yourselves.
Don't you realise that the arguments have all been made, bad, good, for, against,leave it to the Mudcatters of the future to pass judgement. To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM

""To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.""

?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM

Far be it from me to paint you 'desperate', ake. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM

And there go GfS and Ake, streaking toward the horizon with their asses on fire.

prejudice   def.   Suffering from premature evaluation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:19 PM

Does he who posts last "win" then...? ;-) Remember, I once started a thread devoted to such a premise, merely for laughs, and after a vast number of posts Bearded Bruce decided to post his sonnets on it endlessly until finally everyone else around here just gave up and left him to it, so I guess he "won". (?)

But what is the prize for such a victory? And is it worth the time consumed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM

Little Hawk, I don't know what planet you're from, but you just don't get it, do you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:57 AM

Well, I was in the studio, working on some stuff, couldn't get 'right back' to ya'...but I think this covers it!!
IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME, BUT I HOPE YOU ENJOY IT, AND IS ENLIGHTENING!!!
hAVE FUN!!--GfS

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:45 PM
"To keep talking just for the sake of the "last word" looks like desperation.""
?
Don T."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sPDV-ERLIs   Don T

From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 09 - 04:11 PM
"My guess is that you, sir, are not long for this site."
...and the perfect musical note, just for you...(reminds me of you)....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

"From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 05:33 PM.
"And you, SIR OR MADAM as the case may be, are really showing the level of your desperation. In fact, your last post is downright contemptible.

You have really REVEALED yourself!......."

Huh? Did you proof read that?? If I 'really revealed" myself, why can't you make up your mind???? (sir OR madam)......so a song for you...and its all about you, too!....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5BnCEPr7cU   and...

In times past, people with physical or mental disabilities were considered a matter of shame, to be locked away in a back room or institutionalized and never spoken of—when in actuality, they were perfectly capable of leading full, satisfying, and useful lives. Fortunately, civilization has advanced to the point where this is no longer true.

Shit!..You're older than I thought!!

"Yet, there are still people out there who are so medieval in their outlook who, when they see someone with a limp or with a speech impediment (or, God forbid, both!), automatically assume that they are mentally deficient as well. Or someone who needs to use crutches or a wheelchair. There are people who assume that, because parts of the body don't work well......"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug6EISLttG4

"..that the mind doesn't either, failing to realize that the person may be a college professor, an artist, a musician, or—seventy years ago, the President of the United States......"...do you mean?....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxhcMyn8rU&NR=1

    "As so far as a minority,..what about the discrimination of the MAJORITY, oh wise one??? Not only that, where is your crusade for autistic people who want to play pro football?..Wasn't that a real condition from birth???..Big
foreheads?"

Well, being as you were so concerned about "differences in the hypothalamus"..Where is your crusade for those who really have big ones?? Why can't they play Pro football???? You have two homosexuals 'playing' married, don't you?? You seem a little selective here! (actually, I've done a benefit that autistic people had their bills paid..what did you do?) ..and besides THEY, UNLIKE HOMOSEXUALS, REALLY ARE THAT WAY FROM BIRTH...DUMMY!......so, here's another song for you......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4

From: Amos
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:43 PM
"GfS:
I don't recall dodging any questions relevant to this thread. I ignored about fify red herrings between there and here, though."

What?...IGNORED????...LIKE DODGE, RIGHT??
Jeez!..Those liberal double talkers...no wonder this guy loves Obama!!

From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:40 PM
"In the meantime, however, GfS dodges my question by accusing me of not being married at all.
Okay, GfS, just suppose I'm not. How about answering the question theoretically?"

You mean ignored??..you know, like Mrs. Amos Obama?..Here, here's a song for you, being as your married,and so steadfastly obsessed with the homosexual issue, perhaps this explains your dilemma....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMXnk16kiE    ...AND/OR...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_zyy51iOY4&feature=PlayList&p=FAA35986A785C3DD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45

From: Amos
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:19 PM
"SOme folks never learn. LH is one. Sheeshe!!
Are you sure you don't want to lecture us about the triviality of our discussions?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6rAD3Tcq4

From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:06 PM
"Far be it from me to paint you 'desperate', ake. :)"
Here's a good one!!...(too good!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIJtKxdRQzY

From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:24 PM
"And there go GfS and Ake, streaking toward the horizon with their asses on fire"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIPv9AtZ2zE

From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:33 AM
"Little Hawk, I don't know what planet you're from, but you just don't get it, do you?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8qMUuQTdc&feature=related

And to JOE OFFER...FOR WHAT HE MUST HAVE TO PUT UP WITH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWzbZGk3eA&feature=related

Signing off!....    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4heQyu1bijs

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:34 AM

There are lots of ways to destroy a communication channel; one is to pepper it with vitriol; another is to glut it with too much traffic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:05 AM

It was meat for humor~

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:09 AM

And yet another is to have little or no respect for the people whom one is debating with, and to attempt to prove over and over again that they are in some way evil or bad people, people of lower moral stature than oneself, and whose opinion should be silenced.

Ping!

(I now await the "pong!" which should naturally be coming back across the net any time soon...)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:12 AM

The operational phrase was "red herrings". The place is crawling with them. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:15 AM

I'd hate to disappoint!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlbQPmXg08

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM

There is a sentiment I can agree with. In fact I just performed that number--minus the shadows--at a wedding last month, at the bride's request.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:02 PM

Little Hawk:
And yet another is to have little or no respect for the people whom one is debating with, and to attempt to prove over and over again that they are in some way evil or bad people, people of lower moral stature than oneself, and whose opinion should be silenced.

Well, when the people on the other side of the debate really are evil and bad people, it's pretty hard not to notice that and call attention to it. These people believe in denying basic rights to a class of people (bigots), and think they have a right to legislate what other people do in bed (perverts). Do you deny this?

Akenaton is very angry because I started talking about his sexuality, even though every statement he's made on this subject is talking about someone else's sexuality. He calls me an abuser, while he is busily abusing a whole class of people. Do you not understand that?

If they were white supremacists who were going on about how blacks shouldn't be enjoying any "special" rights, would you think we should be careful about saying what we think of their moral stature?

Little Hawk, your silence is golden to the bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:28 PM

Well, it's just been announced that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, with a 6-1 majority. The one vote to overturn the initiative was from the sole Democrat on the court. You can see more details here (LA Times).

The court upheld the validity of gay marriages performed last year, but outlawed future gay marriage. I think getting Prop 8 overturned was a long shot, but it seems to me that this sort of bullying by the majority doesn't follow our principles of government. I thought our constitution was set up to protect the rights of minorities.

But the people have spoken with a 52% majority, and the Court has spoken with a 6-1. I guess people feel more comfortable controlling what gay people do, but I wonder what it is that they're afraid of. One guy drove to San Francisco from Sacramento today so he could show off a sign that says "Gay = Pervert." Whey do people even care whether gay people get married?



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:46 PM

My feelings about this issue are well documented in this thread.

The California Supreme Court, however, was not passing judgement on the issueof same-sex marriage, but on the qualification of the process of modifying the State constitution by means of a popular referendum. They did not, apparently, address the issue of whether the act itself was counter-constitutional, merely the porocess of enacting it.

I believe this is a flawed method, because it allows no dampening effect against mass reactionary thinking, one of the most severe dangers to a constitutional democracy. The contrast between mass reactionary thought and the ideal model of educated and informed citizens debating and then voting is dramatically illustrated here, as it was in the McCarthy era, and as it has been in many other moments in recent history. California's referendum system has a certain beauty to it, but it needs to be said that it does enable rash thrusts to be embodied in law. It could be argued the the same thinking that laid down Proposition 13 is a contributing vector to the current near-bankruptcy of the State budget, in that it slashed a revenue stream without responsibility for meeting budgetary commitments.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:01 PM

I can't say I have any faith in the California government-by-referendum process, Amos. The California voters have enacted a lot of bad law over the years, and they have bankrupted the state by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a budget or raise a tax.
If they're going to require a 2/3 vote for anything, it ought to be required for things like restricting the rights of minorities. Outlawing gay marriage by a mere majority, just doesn't seem fair to me.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:08 PM

Hear, hear, Joe. The simplicity of it is that it not only does not seem fair, it is unfair in fact.

The core of the problem, back when, was a conflation between religiously-imposed moral strictures and legal standards. ONe of the reason we HAVE a constitution is to prevent this kihnd of bleed-through from tainting the circus of law with the stench of bottomless reactions and opinions based on moralization. Or at least dampen the infiltration! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:17 PM

John P, I already have a long enough acquaintance of both Akenaton and GfS, based on their many, many postings both here and on a great many other threads, a long enough acquaintance to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are neither evil nor bad people...nor are they bigots. It's that simple.

You imagine them as being someone they are not.

Now, there are people out there who definitely fit your definition of "bigots"...people who truly hate gays and wish to do them harm.

Akenaton and GfS are not among those people. We've only had one such person post on this entire thread that I recall...they posted once as a supposed "Guest"...and it was either a troll trying to stir up trouble here or it was some Mudcat member on your favored side of the argument here who was trying to be an "agent provocateur" to embarrass the people on the other side of the argument (stir up trouble, in other words). Members also act as trolls when they do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:33 PM

Thank You, Little Hawk,..just for that.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkkM78lcjDU&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:44 PM

"The California voters...have bankrupted the state by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a budget or raise a tax"

Sorry, Joe, wrong. The legislature has done that almost by itself. As a life long (emphasis long) Californian, I have seen the state spending increase sales taxes from 3% to, now, nearly 10%, and that doesn"t count special taxes on fuel, or so called sin taxes that have also ballooned, making the actual sales tax rate much higher.

The legislature, and the special interest groups...prison guards, teachers' unions foremost among them want more an yet more...good times or bad. One would have thought that the taxpayer revolt culminating in the passage of Prop. 13 would have made these groups realize that programs and spending needed to be both prioritized, and kept at reasonable rates.

The legislature blew off Arnold when he came into office, and likewise the voters, when he had subsequently gone to them, by rejecting his program...all of which was opposed by the groups I mentioned.

There are many and complex reasons aside from the above that the state is in trouble...the least problem is the common voter like you or me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:48 PM

Little Hawk, I am so touched by that eulogy that I feel a proposal coming on......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 04:02 PM

I'm honored, but I have already given my heart to Winona. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Gust from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:11 PM

Winona?..ride her?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:18 PM

Amos... what the hell is "mass reactionary thinking", you have the audacity to accuse Little Hawk of "psychobabble", yet come out with nonesense like that.
For over thirty years, the popular media and the entertainment industry have busily promoted the homosexual lifestyle to the extent that the "mass" of the population are unable to question the health statistics or the "rights" of other sections of society without being branded bigots...or worse

Any reactionary thinking has come from groups who promote what is clearly a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle and coerse the mass of the population into believing that it is safe and healthy.

Clearly you hold to the "liberal" view that any line of thought which you disagree with is "reactionary"

The good thing about this thread, is that the questions are finally being asked, forcing creatures like our resident "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" Mr Peekstock, out of the woodwork.....allbeit late in the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:39 PM

Altogether off the mark, Ake. The words have particular meaning.

Mass means held by large numbers of people in agreement, with connotations of thinking as a group, not as individuals.

Reactionary means responding to a stimulus, without inspection, on a somewhat blind response basis rather than by differentiating and discriminating.

The push-button reaction is based on fear. For example, believing that there is something dangerous about allowing adult individuals to legally marry, because they belong to a different life-style set than oneself. There is no danger inherent in such a freedom.

There is nothing unhealthy about legally honoring individuals who wish to make a permanent commitment to each other. Believing that the act of marriage is the "same" as any health vectors involved in sexual practices in a large unmarried population is a clear example of blind associations, reacting to categories instead of the actual elements being discussed. This "categorical association" as a basis for what one feels "must happen" or "must not happen" is just reaction, not analysis.

As to what line of thought I hold, I will thank you not to tuck it into your neat little boxes. I have explained myself completely clearly to you over and over again, and you persist in ignoring my insistence that things which are different be differentiated.

If that is your actual choice, then go on your way--knowing you have chosen to think automatically instead of consciously, because you could not be arsed to look clearly at what you saw.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:02 PM

GfS, I hope you had a lot of fun screwing around with YouTube, but all it accomplishes is to more than amply demonstrate that you have no answers to what I've said, and you can't come up with an answer to the question I keep asking.

You're toast!

####

And Little Hawk—

Back in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement was at it's peak and the anti-Vietnam war was building, I knew people who were into magic mushrooms, read Carlos Castaneda, got involved with Eastern religions, hung out at their local Vedanta center, dinked around with the I Ching, "tuned in, turned on, and dropped out," although not always with drugs. While other people were getting involved in the Civil Rights movement and were protesting the war, marching, demonstrating, writing or talking to their political representatives and were generally indicating their level of concern, catching the attention of our political leaders and basically forcing them to do something about these matters, there were others who would not sully their pristine souls with such earthly matters, looking askance, and "tut-tutting" and "tsk-tsking."

When such struggles for human rights manifested themselves in their vicinities, they would retract their landing gear into the lotus position and rise above it all, sometimes levitating to really impressive altitudes, to the point of pissing off the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board by cluttering up the flight control radar. But—they were above it all.

Aloof. Uninvolved. Neutral. Smug. And feeling quite superior, but adamantly denying that they felt that way because that would be inconsistent with the purity of their souls.

If they ever did tune in on the discussions of world affairs to the point where they actually did get a grasp of what was really going on, they would be in dire danger of abandoning their neutrality and forming an opinion. They frequently grow so upset when they found themselves in danger of getting involved in the real world, they lost their powers of levitation and wound up with their feet all braided around their knees, head down in a potted plant.

Some became so uninvolved that they shaved their heads, donned saffron robes, and became "hairless Krishnas," bugging people in airports for small change. This, while many genuine Buddhists who wore those saffron robes were so concerned with the plight of their fellow humans that they registered their protest, not through violence to others, but by self-immolation.

No, Little Hawk. I've heard your kind of kibitzing many times before. It's easily recognized for what it is. It's nice and safe up there near the ceiling as you look down on those who are not afraid to express their viewpoint and then defend it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:34 PM

"The good thing about this thread, is that the questions are finally being asked, forcing creatures like our resident "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" Mr Peekstock, out of the woodwork....." ake

I can't let that statement go by without clarification. For the record, I am another "hetero sexual, homosexual activist" (whatever that is). I agree with John Peekstock. He may be blunter than I but I assure you that does not denote a difference in our core beliefs.

Also for the record: Whether ake and/or GfS are bigots I can't say with finality. For all I know they are yanking chains with all their might. I will say, however, that the terminology and code words they have chosen to employ are the same ones used by bigots.

They remind me of a young (white) man who, a few years back in Juneau, shaved his head, donned a perpetually grim look on his face and walked around wearing camo clothing. He then complained to a friend of mine that people were putting a label on him, that - for no reason! -they treated him as though he were a white-supremicist skinhead.

He evidently didn't recognize that he had chosen the uniform, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:42 PM

As usual, Don Firth, you're talking about someone else, but not me. Whoever it is you're talking about, I was just as fed up with those dippy types back then as you seem to be now, I still don't like them, and not surprisingly! I do not resemble them.

You completely fail to understand what I am saying in this thread or where I am coming from or what my concerns are. You sound to me like a blind man attempting to describe a rainbow.

Watch the Obama speech at Notre Dame again and pay close attention to what he says.

****

Ake, Amos is so very good at psychobabble himself that he resents it when he thinks someone else like me is horning in on his turf. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:47 PM

Well, maybe not, Little Hawk, but the way you've been sort of sarcastically trying to take people with strong opinions to task certainly sounds familiar.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:56 PM

What I am taking people to task for, Don, is NOT their opinion, but their penchant for making personal attacks on other people who have a different opinion and defining them as "perverts", "bigots", "homophobes", and bad people.

As Mr Obama so eloquently pointed out in his speech at Notre Dame, that is what we must not do if we wish to have any kind of productive debates over divisive issues.

You know my opinion on this issue. I have no objection at all to gay couples getting legally married.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:09 PM

From: Don Firth
"GfS, I hope you had a lot of fun screwing around with YouTube, but all it accomplishes is to more than amply demonstrate that you have no answers to what I've said, and you can't come up with an answer to the question I keep asking.
You're toast!"

Toast??..You're not trying to butter me up, are you?

From: Amos
"Altogether off the mark, Ake. The words have particular meaning.
Mass means held by large numbers of people in agreement, with connotations of thinking as a group, not as individuals".....OH!, you mean a meaningless bunch of people called the majority electorate??..Those stupid, know nothings!!!..Shit, they even elected your guy too!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:17 PM

By the way, Little Hawk, I'm quite familiar with Barack Obama's speech at Notre Dame and I think you should be directed GfS and Ake to it.

Does the contempt displayed by that barrage of YouTube links GfS posted—along with his (or her) accompanying remarks—not to mention the abuse and insults he/she and Ake have thrown at Amos, myself, and others who don't share their viewpoint—look like "good faith" to you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:23 PM

No, Little Hawk, these two are beyond hope and I'm not trying to convince them. I know they will never come around. Nothing will change their minds.

This phenomenon, too, I have encountered before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:38 PM

GfS:

You are sticking words into my posts and then refuting them, which is terribly clever, if somewhat onanistic of you.

The narrow majority you speak of was not based on clear reflection, any more than your and Ake's reactions are--they were bought with fear and false advertising that had no solid connection to the central issue. The votes were cast from superstition.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the process was sufficient to change the state's constitution, but has not made any decision on the merit of the law itself, acceding, as you have, to the will of numbers.

There will be another count, at another time, and we will see who can raise the most persuasive rhetoric. The national Constitution has a thing or two to say about inquality under the law. Pushbuttons or no pushbuttons. Your reactive field of loathing is fated to be over-ridden by a more reasonable voice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 09 - 08:41 PM

If one objects to being characterized as a bigot, there is a sure-fire way of avoiding it.

Don't act like one.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:06 AM

"There will be another count, at another time, and we will see who can raise the most persuasive rhetoric."
You are probably right on this one...as to your other part of your post about 'sticking' words, and re-acting to them...(cups hands around mouth, and yells across the canyon).."Did you hear that, Don??"

Don:"If one objects to being characterized as a bigot, there is a sure-fire way of avoiding it."

What's a bigot?.O-O-O-h-h, one of those people who accuse myself and Ake of being one....because of our beliefs??...Oh, I got it now!

Hey Ake, I just figured out that we are 'bigots' because we believe in the right to believe in morality, and are not ashamed of it...even though we have compassion and understanding to the people who we are accused of being 'bigots' toward.....and those accusing us of it, are claiming NOT to be those people!
They have such a way with words!
I'll explain my position in another post, just why I see it the way I do....then you can agree, or disagree, and decide to call me one too, ok?
Until then, I found this song, performed by a close friend of the family. He died last year, though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7YjCdNT27c&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:10 AM

(CBS/AP) In choosing sides over the legality of gay marriage, two of the nation's top lawyers are saying, "I do."

Opposing attorneys in the 2000 election fight for Florida - David Boies, who represented Al Gore, and Ted Olson, George Bush's lawyer and later the U.S. Solicitor General - are teaming up to ask a federal court to throw out California's ban on same-sex marriage.

The two filed a lawsuit Friday on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is a federal question," he said. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

And they may go up against Ken Starr, the former prosecutor who almost got President Clinton removed from office over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Starr successfully argued before the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8.

Dustin Lance Black, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of the film "Milk" about the late gay activist Harvey Milk, said the case would seek to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage not just in California, "but sea to sea."

"Like so many civil right battles before the gay and lesbian movement, it's only clear we can win our full and complete right [in federal court]," Black said on CBS' The Early Show. "There will always be states and counties that will have to be pulled to full equality."

Black said part of the reason opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in passing Proposition 8 last year was that activists did not look to history and reach out to those outside the gay community.

"Harvey Milk understood we need to reach out, educate," Black said. "Thankfully, we've now identified the community that voted against us, thanks to Proposition 8. We need to reach out to them, educate them and tell our personal stories."

In their decision, the Justices emphasized the legal issue before them was not same-sex marriage (which they voted last year to legalize) but rather the right of California voters to change the state's constitution. .."(CBS)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:51 AM

Little Hawk, you object to my tone, but you don't actually respond to what I said.

What is your definition of bigot?

In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted?

Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed?

Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?

Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women?

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?

You can disparage my tone all you want -- I am certainly sick of yours on this topic -- but you should also explain yourself better than by saying "I know they aren't bigots". You sound a bit like George Bush looking into Putin's eyes and "knowing" the man.

Yes, I'm asking you to take a stand on this issue. Don's story from the 60s fits you like a glove. You sound like one of those who stood back and let McCarthy run wild in the 50s.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:00 PM

we believe in the right to believe in morality

GfS, I can't believe you pulled out this old chestnut. "I want my morality to extend to everyone, so I will force them all to live according to my morality, and I'll claim to be discriminated against if I don't get to tell everyone else how to live their lives." If you don't want to be gay, don't be gay. If you don't want to catch AIDS, don't have sex. It really isn't complicated. Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?

Why don't you just go live in Saudi Arabia? You'd probably like it there. In the USA, thankfully, we believe in freedom.

Please, please, please answer the question:

Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:24 PM

And John P writes:
"Who is denying your right to be moral in whatever way you choose, as long as you don't force your views on others?"
And John P answers his own question:
"Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?"

GfS points out: Now, was that very 'moral' of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:39 PM

One of the most important points to come out in this thread has been virtually ignored.
It concerns the group of homosexuals from the San Fransisco area, who wish Aids in America to be regarded as a disease mainly affecting homosexuals,in their words, they want to "own" AIDS.

These brave people are accused by "activists" like Peekstock(I refuse to bracket you with this person Ebbie) of encouraging homophobia.....but only one thing matters to these people, they want to stop this horrific disease from killing thousands of their brethern and from their point of view, denial of the truth is adding to the deaths. Only by coming out and saying openly that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the disease can they hope for a nationwide medical investigation concentrating on why so many homosexuals become affected by AIDS.

People like Peekstock and "liberal" opinion have another agenda, they don't really care how many homosexuals die from the disease by being simply allowed to live with it and die with it.
What is important to these people, is the "normalisation" of homosexuality in every area of life. The current concentration on "human" rights is a disgusting con being perpetrated on the very people these "activists" are supposed to represent,They deny the link that some homosexuals are imploring society to recognise, it is an exercise in cynicism, like most "activists", they are more interested in their ego than their cause. Some use the issue as a badge of their "liberal" credentials and denying the link as it may impede the drive for normalisation, again condemning more young men to an early death in the furtherance of a political "ideal".

Neither GfS or I are "bigots" we do not hate homosexuals....we hate premature death, whereas many on the other side of the fence seem prepared to leave those whom they supposedly care for to fend for themselves, against one of the most savage diseases ever to inflict mankind.

Personally I don't really care what anyone calls me....there are only a handful here that I have come to respect, most of them have different views from myself on various issues but these differences are insignificant when I know them to be sincere and decent people.

I have no respect for those who take social and sexual politics before the premature deaths of our brothers.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:53 PM

How is what other people do in the privacy of their own homes affect you in any way, Gfs?

Oh, I see! So you really are that interested in other people's sex lives!

Yes, that IS sick!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:11 PM

Akenaton,
Go write a novel, since you're so good at making up stories about people. Your statements bear no relationship to truth, logic, or common sense. If you can find any posts I have made that supports the bullshit you're spreading around, please share. If not, please explain why you think it's OK to make libelous statements. Incidentally, telling lies about people is not a good way to act if you're also trying to pretend that you are on high moral ground.

As for me calling you a bigot, I see you denying civil rights to a whole class of people. That's being a bigot in my book. If you're a friend to gays, I hope they never have any enemies!

Why do you keep talking about AIDS? Do you really think it has anything to do with civil rights? Maybe we should stop letting cancer victims vote? Maybe people with diabetes should be segregated in their own communities? Who cares if a group of gay folks in SF is making stupid statements?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:22 PM

Akenaton,
Try telling the millions of straight AIDS victims in Africa that AIDS is a gay disease. As I understand it, many of them would be insulted to the point of violence at the suggestion that they are homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 May 09 - 04:57 PM

I wonder what Akenaton has done to prevent "the premature deaths of our brothers"--besides ranting in internet forums, that is--

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:23 PM

Don writes:"How is what other people do in the privacy of their own homes affect you in any way, Gfs?
Oh, I see! So you really are that interested in other people's sex lives!
Yes, that IS sick!!"

GfS: You're losing it Don, get some rest, ok?

John P writes:...AND I AGREE!!..."Why do you keep talking about AIDS? Do you really think it has anything to do with civil rights? Maybe we should stop letting cancer(a physical illness) victims vote? Maybe people with diabetes(a physical illness) should be segregated in their own communities? Who cares if a group of gay(an emotional illness) folks in SF is making stupid statements?".....You mean stupid statements like, "Because I can't 'get it on' with the opposite sex, and rather choose to have my daily rump rogering, let's call it marriage?'
(Ohh boy, that's going to draw ire!)..but so what? If you REALLY want to know, if I'm being 'crass'...talk to an ex-homosexual. He, or she, will be far more direct..and crude!!...and they will go on to explain about the degrees of denial he, or she used to expound on, about how they rationalized their former BEHAVIOR...but as of right now, we've only heard from the currently practicing homosexuals.
ASK a former one!!!
As so far as AIDS being a homosexual illness, (which it is not altogether, but they ARE the largest group of people here in America of spreaders),All you have to do, is go into ANY clinic, that caters to the homosexual community, and plastered all over the walls are warnings about AIDS. In 1985, L.A. passed an ordinance, where 'bath houses' had to display warning signs, in regards to homosexual sex, and the dangers of AIDS.
If you minimalize this FACT, you are in FACT endangering those to whom you wish to..ummm....not offend(?)....jeez!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM

gay(an emotional illness)
OK, GfS, I'm adding "willfully ignorant" to "bigot" and "pervert".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:07 PM

Only by coming out and saying openly that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the disease can they hope for a nationwide medical investigation concentrating on why so many homosexuals become affected by AIDS.

Ake, there, in your own words, is your answer as to why some homosexuals are trying to "own" AIDS.

If you don't see that, your eyes are shut.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:26 PM

I object to almost everybody's tone on this thread, John P, not just yours, because all that most of you are busy doing here is suspecting the very worst of anyone who has a divergent opinion of any kind and seeing only evil and nastiness in everything they say. You are seeing them as the cardboard stereotypes of something bad you imagine in your mind. You're so busy looking for evil that I doubt you would ever find time to concentrate on anything good in the other person. If you want to improve society and find freedom and equal rights for everyone, gays included, you must get off this attack-dog mode of continual demonization of others in a debate and start finding something in common with them instead.

That was what Mr Obama was talking about in his speech.

Most of you here are continuing to project your own fantasies of evilness on the various people you are arguing with here. They are then (presumably?) obliged to waste their own time in trying to prove to YOU that they're not evil...a thankless task! And a task that can never be met, by the way, because you'll never believe them. So it isn't even worth trying to meet it.

The degree of blind prejudice that people are displaying here toward each other on a personal basis....not toward gays, necessarily...is blatant.

It's a sad joke. It prevents you from having a useful discussion. You're all just out to hurt someone as far as I can see (and I don't mean hurt gays).

That's what has caused me to come back again and again to this thread. I hope to divert your frenetic little attack-dog energies toward something more productive than mutual character assassination.

Your questions? (sigh) Oh, I'll get to those presently, John, I suppose. Yes, I will. But they are not my real concern here.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:46 PM

Bloody hell, Little Hawk, aren't you reading what some of these folks are writing!??

". . . because all that most of you are busy doing here is suspecting the very worst. . . ."

"Suspecting" hell! No suspicions about it. They're saying it flat out!

What Mr. Obama was not saying in his speech was that you have to shut up when people promote the suppresion of other people's civil rights. To do so is to abdicate any kind of moral responsibility. And when you do that, you're resigning from the human race!

I asked you once before about what you would say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, or if you were familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller and never got an answer. If you don't know who these people are, then I suggest you look them up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:05 PM

Ebbie we don't seem to be disagreeing about anything in your last post.I can see very well why those courageous people would want to "own" the disease.....to save the lives of many of their number!

If we agree on that, why do you agree with Peekstock that I am evil/bad/bigotted?
The homosexual "activists" and "liberal" political aparatchiks, with their policy of denial, are the ones who deprive homosexuals of a proper medical investigation of the current situation in developed countries in regard to AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:06 PM

Okay, John...

"What is your definition of bigot?"

It's the dictionary definition. Here it is it its entirety, straight from dictionary.com: bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, isn't that interesting? ;-) By golly, I think we have a whole collection of suspected at least part-time bigots on this thread, because most of you here ARE utterly intolerant of those whose opinion differs from your own! My, my. However, I am certainly not going to call you "bigots", because I hardly see how it would help encourage you to be more tolerant of one another. It would just get your backs up.




In what way is denying basic rights to gay people not bigoted?

I don't think bigoted is the right word for that at all, going by the dictionary definition of the word "bigot". I would say that denying basic rights to anyone...gays or otherwise...is unjust, and in the case of the USA, it is also unconstitutional. This did not, sadly, keep Americans from denying certain basic rights to Blacks, women, Indians, Orientals, Hispanics, poor people, and gays for a very lengthy historical period.



Can you refute the statement that any conversation about homosexuality is a conversation about what other people do in bed?

Why would I wish to refute it? It's a conversation about other people's sexual preferences and habits, obviously.


Do you know that most of society thinks that kind of interest in other peoples' sex lives is sick?

It depends on how the interest expresses itself and toward whom and under what specific conditions. Buggery was an illegal act for a long time, probably due to religious beliefs, possibly also due to health concerns. Now it is not illegal in most places, in fact it seems to be enjoying much popularity among porn merchants.

All society is deeply concerned about the sexual abuse of children...and there is good reason for such concern.

All society is concerned about rape and other forms of sexual violence, and there is good reason for such concern.

On the other hand, I think people have no business peering into other people's bedrooms, as it were, and bothering them about their private sexual lives...whether or not they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place.

Would you be taking the tone you are if the discussion was about blacks or women?

Yes. I would be objecting to the blind personal prejudice being demonstrated by various people IN the discussion toward various other people IN the discussion...but not necessarily toward blacks or women.   I would be objecting to character assassination, insults, sneering, contempt, name-calling, and personal invective directed toward the people IN the discussion.


Do you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else?

Yes, I do.

*****

You are behaving like someone in the Spanish Inquisition, John. You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them. That is what poisons the discussion. The anger it causes in those you target results in some of your opponents attacking you back in a similar manner. That further poisons the discussion.

You are like two sets of people at a party pissing in the same punch bowl, then complaining bitterly that the punch is no good, and that it's all the other guys' fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:09 PM

Little Hawk, the anti-gay people around here might be perfectly nice folks in most ways, but when they are denying a class of people basic rights based on who sleeps with who, they are, on this topic, agents of evil. I'm not really so much an attack dog as I am completely FED UP with people poking their noses and their laws into places they don't belong. I've been putting up with it in various ways all my life, and now I'm angry.

While I think Obama is the best president we've had in a long time, I also strongly disagree with him on several topics, with gay marriage being close to the top of the list. At some point, someone has to just say "Enough is enough" and take a strong stand.

When we finally win, and all the gay bashers are relegated to the dustbin of history, who will we demonize next? My problem is not only with the details of the fight for gay rights, but with the concept that it is in any way appropriate to treat any group of people like second class citizens. I was raised to think that the United States is greater than that. Freedom, Truth, Fairness, that sort of thing. What I see from the anti-gay crowd are a lot of lies that curtail freedom, as long as it's others who are having their freedom curtailed.

I keep reminding myself of Gandhi's statement:
First they ignore us.
Then they laugh at us.
Then they fight us.
Then we win

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:21 PM

My impression of you has always been as a thoughtful independently minded woman, with good powers of reason and the sparkling sense of humour of a young girl.

I would be very disappointed to think you had much in common with Mr Peekstock

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:36 PM

Sorry, my last post was being written when Little Hawk posted.

Little Hawk: You have ALREADY decided in your own "righteous" mind who the terrible sinners and heretics are here, and your only concern now is to catch them, condemn them, silence them, and punish them.

Yes, I have already decided that it is bad to deny civil rights to a group of people, and to pass laws about what they do in the bedroom. By every ethical and moral precept I can think of, these people are greatly overstepping the bounds of decent behavior. I don't have any interest in whitewashing that fact. I have no concern with catching them or punishing them. They have already, by their words and actions, condemned themselves. They will eventually silence themselves, in the same way that the anti-black and anti-women folks have mostly learned to keep their strange ideas to themselves.

As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:41 PM

Well, John, I applaud your efforts to follow Gandhi's path and to struggle peacefully for freedom, truth, fairness and equal rights.

I also think that Obama is the best president in a long time...and I do disagree with him on some things, same as you. I would be astounded if I agreed with him on everything. ;-) Politics is the art of the possible. Accordingly, Obama must deal with the hand he's been dealt and the conditions around him in the USA and in its government, and he'll have to compromise between this and that extreme to do so. He has to walk the tightrope and watch out not to fall. It's inevitable that we will all disagree with him on some of his policies and decisions.

****

One thing you must keep in mind, John, when assuming someone on the other side of a debate is "evil"...is this: They may, unbeknownst to you, be motivated mostly by a desire to defend something that they love rather than by some form of hatred toward someone else. They're focusing from a different angle than you, that's all.

An example: Take a German soldier who fights for Germany in WWII. Is he necessarily an evil person? No. He is most likely fighting for something he loves...the country he was born in, his town, his family, his culture, the men in his unit beside him, his ideas of tradition and service and duty, everything he has known and been familiar with from the day he was born. That's not evil. He fights on account of love, not hatred. Is he fighting for an evil political cause? YES! But he probably is quite unaware of that, or he may become partly aware of it at some point...but still he is caught up in what's happening right in front of him day by day on the ground, he's doing the best he can in a terrible situation, and he's doing the very same thing all the other soldiers out there are doing....fighting for his country and trying to survive.

Now take a Russian soldier in WWII. He too is fighting mainly for the things he loves....the country he was born in, his town, his family, his culture, the men in his unit beside him, everything he has known and been familiar with from the day he was born. That's not evil. He fights on account of love, not hatred.

Is the Stalinist regime he fights for evil? YES! But the Russian soldier is not primarily fighting for that regime, he's primarily fighting for the things I mentioned in the above paragraph. Furthermore, even though the regime is undoubtedbly evil, it's legitimately defending itself against an outside invasion by Germany, and that's a good thing for a Russian to do.

So...do not be hasty in assuming that a person who is on the other side of the debate is evil just because you think they are supporting a cause that you may consider evil. They are probably in their own minds defending something they legitimately love, and not trying to do anything evil whatsoever. They probably have high ideals, just as you or I do, but their attention is fixed on another angle of the situation.

We're all standing around the elephant. Some of us see its trunk. Some of us see its tail. Some of us see its back. Some of us see its ear.

Who can see the whole elephant? Whoever can, he's the one best qualified to fully understand the situation. I think Gandhi saw the whole elephant, and that's why he espoused non-violence.

If all Germans and Russians had fully understood the situation, they would never have ended up being ruled by vicious dictators like Stalin and Hitler, would they? Most people are basically good people at heart, but their awareness is limited to whatever they are most familiar with, and they can and do make mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:43 PM

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

bigot - one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigot

The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm

bigot - A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion ...
www.iyfradio.com/reference.htm

---

The intolerance of people who are homosexual expressed in this thread has been pr"etty rigid, with respect to the civil right to marry.

MArriage:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

---

Oddly enough none of these definitions include the sexual criterion as a critical standard in the definition.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:50 PM

Don F, you said: "I asked you once before about what you would say to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, or if you were familiar with the well-known quotation by Pastor Martin Neimöller and never got an answer. If you don't know who these people are, then I suggest you look them up."

I know only a little about Aung San Suu Kyi at thie time, but enough to think she is a very brave person living under a very bad government. I have to do more reading about her before I can say more than that.

And Pastor Martin? I know nothing much about him at this point, and will again have to do some reading before I can offer any useful comments about him.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 08:02 PM

Little Hawk says: So, it's a complex subject, John. Your question does not address it in a relevant manner, but is crafted to presuppose something (that the people you are disagreeing with on this thread are "sick"). As such, it's a useless question with no good intentions behind it in the first place.

One of the points here is that it is not a complex subject. I disagree that my questions doesn't address it in a relevant manner. It's really simple to understand: They shouldn't be involving themselves in what other consenting adults do in bed. I'm not crafting a question to presuppose anything -- I really do think these people are kind of sick, and if you take all references to homosexuality out of the discussion, most other people would think so, too. I suppose maybe one intention behind the question is to try to bring the anti-gay folks some of the public disapprobation that they have spent so many years bringing to others. OK, you're right, maybe that's a desire to punish them. But I see myself more as an agent of the Golden Rule.

As I said before, the main cause of my strident tone is that I'm really sick of putting up with people who want to impose their beliefs on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 08:10 PM

The famous Martin Neimöller poem:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 08:24 PM

I was just about to post the Pastor Martin Niemöller quote, but John beat me to it. The Gandhi quote that John posted is the positive side. But Pastor Niemöller graphically illustrates what happens when you remain passive and apathetic in the face of those who feel it's perfectly all right to try to deny the civil rights of others.

I posted a link to information about Aung San Suu Kyi above, but here is some more:   CLICKY.

She had the bad judgment to speak out against the forces of repression. And she has been back in the news during the past week or two. Wouldn't life have been easier for her if she had not written what she wrote and just generally kept her mouth shut? Or said, "I don't want to get involved?"

Speaking of quotes, here's a good comment by the great newsman Edward R. Murrow:
If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants.

And from Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.:
For most Americans, the Constitution has become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions, but forgotten in the daily transactions of life.

Think about it.

Don Firth

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

My, my my..things heated up...but the discussion is getting better!
Look, let me say this, without the encumbrance of some people's misguided, interpretations...ok?
People can, and will do, anything they want, with whomever they want(or at least to whom they get to agree), and there should be no legislation one way or another about it, as long as it does not infringe on the personal freedom of another, property of another, or well being of another..etc etc., okay??
However, that being said, there are personal consequences for the actions we wish to do, whether it be sexual in nature, or otherwise.
Rights, as guaranteed by our form of government(or supposed form of government), are there for all citizens(unless convicted of a felony), to enjoy, and do what they want, freely.
Now, if a person wants to have sex, with as many people as he, or she can, for fun, or working out fantasies, or just to prove to themselves that they can, ..they will and can do that, under our form of government, and do..all the time....BUT, because he or she can, and do, they should know, (and mostly don't care), that there are consequences, as to cause and effect, that they will set in motion. This is true, in any case, hetero, or homosexual. Here's a couple of examples, that most all are aware of, by now.
Musician plays a gig, some girl digs his act, he's horny, see an opportunity to get laid, he has or knows a place, takes the girl there, gets laid, maybe or not pretty good sex, has a smoke, and goes off to the next place to play, not a thought given one way or another, except he had a good night, or not as good as others,..ok?
After a series of those, he gets bored with it, either concentrates more on his music, or not..not the point. He gets desensitized to a certain type of woman, who is the type who is the kind he finds arousing, but who wants to settle down. Because of that, his choice as to the type of woman that is 'good' for him, in the long term is effected...Just cause and effect.
The girl, perhaps had hopes, and is blown off, after all, she was only a lay, and she availed herself, for either fun, or reassurance, or whatever, could be to hook someone she feels will lift her reputation, doesn't matter..she was willing, or not to pay an emotional price, for availing herself, to someone who really, only wanted to get laid. After a series of those, he self esteem lowers, she makes excuses to herself,..good guy comes along, not interested, because he sees her as 'loose'..bad investment, only will bring heartache,..blows her off, She is left with even lower self esteem, perhaps depressed, and needy, as time goes on...Cause and effect.
Perhaps she gets pregnant. Has baby, or gets it aborted. She has baby, needs support, turns to the guy, who doesn't want to support it, sees her as a 'dumb bitch who was stupid enough to get knocked up', and blows her off, AND his child..to pursue his 'career' as a musician, till he's either 'not into' playing gigs anymore, and takes a day job, and tries to settle down, and pay bills...maybe enough time to jam with the guys when they come over.
If the baby is aborted, the woman WILL and DOES pay an emotional cost, to that too!!...Meanwhile, the guy is relieved, that she didn't have it.
Down the road, in life, they're 'still' looking for love.
Okay, not too much controversial argument about that?..(Well, except for folk singers)..but , you know what I mean.
Homosexuality, also has its 'cause and effect' consequences, as well. One of them, is walking away, from having ones own blood offspring, with the child's own 'Mommy AND Daddy'...and for the homosexual, to have his/her own natural child, in lieu of having, and keeping their relationship, with a same gendered partner....EVEN THOUGH, ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS MIGHT HAVE MADE AN EXCELLENT PARENT!!! That need, may not be as easily disposable, as assuming the role of the opposite sex, and or, being so much in 'love' with your partner, who they cannot conceive natural children with, (each other, that is),
that they are willing to sacrifice being in that role, to their natural born children, in pursuit to living a life, that 'imitates a family'. Eventually, they will want to legitimize their decision, at least part way, by wanting to be socially acceptable, as married. ..Cause and effect.
Can we all agree on that? Not saying good or bad..no value judgment..just cause and effect....and there doesn't have to be any bickering, name calling, reading into, presupposing where its going..just cause and effect. Now in saying that, there are other examples, but a couple listed here should do for now, ok.
Let's go there, if you will...and leave out the nasty comments...
Anyway, there it is....let's discuss THAT...and the latest in California, in relation to THAT.


(besides, I think it unfair if I get into a battle of wits, with unarmed folks).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 27 May 09 - 09:23 PM

Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 10:10 PM

GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 09 - 10:38 PM

GfS, can't you see that the situation you describe, particularly when you get to your scenario about the homosexual walking away, is no different from what can happen when a heterosexual couple with children break up?

That has no bearing on anything specifically having to do with same-sex relationships. Whether a man leaves his wife for another woman--or for another man--the situation is the same as far as the children are concerned.

Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general.

Wouldn't you say, counselor, that that's a distinct possibility?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:47 PM

Excerpt from the FOurteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified 1868:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


That "equal protection" clause is a far-reaching postulate indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 09 - 01:42 AM

Well, I was hoping to draw some scenarios, to show 'cause and effect'. I chose one for each person, with NO value judgments, to establish a common ground, that should be easy to follow, and easy for any, and everyone to relate to. I figured there might be a little nit picking, but I thought it would be self evident, that doing that would be ridiculous. So, to address the nit pickers, and address the valid questions, here we go..

Jeri: "Not that I don't care about re-hashing this stuff endlessly, but maybe somebody could count the commas in that last post, because I think it might be a record. Maybe on the whole Internet. I got 16 in one sentence, but there were also 78 words and a pile of periods."

With a post like that, you probably can be expecting another period,..within 72 hours!

Don: "Except, of course, if the father leaves for another man, one or more of the children may find themselves bitter about homosexuality in general."

Yes, or possibly immolate him, depending on what he has created about him, in his mind. He will, however, have questions as to his own worth, if he feels his love for his father, is unrequited. That could turn to bitterness toward his father, if left unresolved. I could expound, but let's go on. If you want more on that, I'll be happy to do so.

Guest: "143 commas
105 periods
855 words "

How many grooves were on The Beatles 'Abbey Road' LP? when you get done counting them, you might enjoy listening to it, too! Never mind, I'll save you the trouble, there is one.

John P: "GfS: Discussing that is easy: It's none of your business. Nor is it the business of the State of California."

John, Oh dear John, I'm going to cut and paste something for you, to make your life easier.."Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban". That is the topic of this thread. Perhaps you meant to be in the "Pros and cons of conflict resolution thread"
Pay attention.

Amos, Your post was a BIG BINGO! The case is NOT being argued, on the merits of race, creed or color...Because if they argued it on the 'genetics' issue, it would fail immediately!! (Did somebody say that in here, before?) It is, as you stated, going to be under the 'protection' clause...Which can be argued, by those determinations of CHOICE! (Shit, didn't that get mentioned in here too?...somewhere in the previous posts).
So, Amos, in your penchant for 'cut and paste', ..'you done good'!

Now there was a part of a post, before I was going to address..hold on, I'll get it....(tippy toe..tippy toe)...ok, back..

John P:"As soon as someone says that gay folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose sex lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better."

Okay, let's rephrase that question, to read the other way around, and you will see the crux of the merits of the case...

"As soon as someone says that STRAIGHT folks - or anyone - are second class citizens whose MARRIED lives ought to be invaded, they open themselves to the negative comments of those of us who think that we as a society could and should be doing better."

That IS the controversy..both sides....CAUSE AND EFFECT.

So, in keeping of NOT telling you WHAT to THINK, but HOW to think, think about this openly and freely in your minds, because one side feels 'oppressed' and the other feels 'threatened'...and vice versa. If you promote EITHER side, with false data reports, to back your argument, you will lose!..unless there is a bias, in the court...in that case, who knows?

Note: The one vote that did uphold the ban, came from a Democrat! (scratches head)

So, in closing, the civil rights, will be determined by equality, due to citizenship, NOT by any other factor, so get over it! Use the last analogy, posted by JohnP, and my re-write together,..and think about it.
See ya'!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 09 - 02:57 AM

Ah, yes, Don F., I am quite familiar with Martin Niemöller's poem. I have read it many times in the past, many times on this forum over the last 10 years or so, and it's a good one. It makes a fine point. I just had forgotten his name for the moment, that's all.

It applies well as a warning against any and all repressive regimes or societies or groups or social movements that are setting out on a witchhunt against someone...anyone...whomever they have decided to target for the time being. Such people are often, in fact almost always, found on both sides of a highly divisive issue. They are the zealots and the haters. They accuse, they condemn, they attack, they hate, they do not forgive, they do not seek any accomodation, they do not look for common ground, they do not admit to their own faults and errors, they are proud, they seek total 100% victory over all those whom they hate and despise and feel morally superior to.

But the targets keep changing, that's all.

Here's another great quote I've seen many times on this forum: "even the devil can quote scripture"

Anyone can quote scripture. But do they live up to it? Do they do unto and for others as they would wish others would do unto and for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:28 AM

Are you people still having these circular & insoluble arguments?????

To those on the (excuse the simplification) pro-gay side, when will you realise that your opponents on this thread are never going to be swayed by what you say. They are people who sincerely seem to believe that there is such a thing as an 'ex-homosexual', or that being gay is an illness of some kind. They are unable to distinguish between particular sexual acts and lifelong cultural identities. They are going to listen to you just after hell freezes over. Give up !! They are beyond help !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:00 AM

A recent (26 March 2009) report:

'The response of mental health professionals to clients seeking help to change or redirect same-sex sexual orientation'

from UCL and St George's, University of London indicates that a significant minority of psychiatrists and therapists still attempt to help lesbian, gay and bisexual clients become heterosexual, despite a lack of evidence that such treatment is effective or even safe.

However, it was found that the reasons given by these psychiatrists and therapists for offering this kind of assistance ranged from the counsellor's own moral and religious views on homosexuality to a desire to help patients who were suffering stress as a result of discrimination.

Professor Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at UCL Mental Health Sciences said
"There is very little evidence to show that attempting to treat a person's homosexual feelings is effective, and in fact it can actually be harmful, so it is surprising that a significant minority of practitioners still offer this help to their clients."

In fact the research found there was a degree of ignorance among the practitioners about the lack of evidence surrounding the efficacy of such therapies – in particular, that no randomised control trials showing that therapy is effective have ever been conducted.

Professor King believes that it is important to raise awareness among both therapists and the wider public about homosexuality and its so-called treatments:

"The best approach is to help people adjust to their situation, to value them as people and show them that there is nothing whatsoever pathological about their sexual orientation.'

He concludes

'Both mental health practitioners and society at large must help them to confront prejudice in themselves and in others.'


Wellcome Trust Audio: Interview with Professor Michael King.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:43 AM

""(besides, I think it unfair if I get into a battle of wits, with unarmed folks).""

Are you going to pay me royalties for pinching MY comment, which I, earlier in this thread, applied to YOU?

Very poor form. Work out your own jibes if you wish to be thought witty and erudite.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 28 May 09 - 09:27 AM

1400

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 28 May 09 - 09:42 AM

Ake, I have a question for you.

If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:40 AM

How do the Republicans square the two desires they seem to have?

Government should be smaller, and stay out of peoples' lives.
Government should legislate what people do in bed.

Or Akenaton:
Let's do everything we can to help our poor dying brothers.
AIDS is a gay disease that means gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 28 May 09 - 11:04 AM

Little Hawk: It applies well as a warning against any and all repressive regimes or societies or groups or social movements that are setting out on a witchhunt against someone...anyone...whomever they have decided to target for the time being. Such people are often, in fact almost always, found on both sides of a highly divisive issue. They are the zealots and the haters. They accuse, they condemn, they attack, they hate, they do not forgive, they do not seek any accomodation, they do not look for common ground, they do not admit to their own faults and errors, they are proud, they seek total 100% victory over all those whom they hate and despise and feel morally superior to.

Th difference, of course, is that some groups want to force others to live a particular way, while other groups simply want everyone to mind their own business. In the current discussion, I see no reason to try to make accommodation with people who are denying civil rights to a large part of our citizenry. The two sides of this debate are clear, and there isn't much ethical gray area here. So I object your using words like "witch hunt","zealot", "hater", and applying them to both sides in this context. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if there weren't a lot of people who simply won't leave us alone. I have no desire to be in a debate, or to have any negative interactions at all. But I also refuse to have my civil rights trampled. Someone who isn't willing to defend freedom will soon not have it.

Little Hawk, your accommodation just makes you sound like you think they have something serious, thoughtful, or good to say. Should we debate with the folks who want to have Intelligent Design taught as science, or should we just say, "There is no debate. The whole idea is nonsense."?

Oh, and going back to a previous platitude of yours, I understand that they think they are being good and defending something they believe in. That doesn't matter -- it doesn't change the fact that what they think is good is a gross injustice and a horrendous invasion of privacy, and what they are defending is rights they claim for themselves but deny to others. And they should know better. There is enough information available to kill all the science arguments, and anyone with any moral sense knows you don't try to tell other people what to do in bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 09 - 01:05 PM

PIshtush. Don--that particular insult is at least fifty years old!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 09 - 03:18 PM

LOS ANGELES â€" An openly gay teen was voted prom queen at Los Angeles' Fairfax High School in a campaign that began as a stunt but ended up spurring discussion on the campus about gender roles and teen popularity.

Sergio Garcia, 18, was crowned queen Saturday night at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel.

"I feel invincible," Garcia said in his tiara and charcoal-gray tuxedo.

A few days earlier, he gave a speech that won over some cynics and led to an ovation and his unlikely victory.

"At one time, prom may have been a big popularity contest where the best-looking guy or girl were crowned king and queen. Things have changed and it's no longer just about who has the most friends or who wears the coolest clothes," Garcia told a gymnasium full of seniors. "I'm not your typical prom queen candidate. There's more to me than meets the eye."

Garcia assured the crowd he wouldn't wear a dress on prom night.

"I will be wearing a suit," he said. "But don't be fooled, deep down I am a queen."

The school, which sits at the end of the rows of chic shops on Melrose Avenue and was once attended by members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, has long been a haven for students who would be considered outcasts at many schools.

Garcia said he saw fliers advertising the prom and the election, and they didn't specify that the queen must be a girl. He thought the role would suit him better than prom king.

"I don't wish to be a girl," he told the Los Angeles Times. said. "I just wish to be myself."

Senior class president Vanessa Lo said she and many other students were initially against the idea but were won over by Garcia's speech and became convinced he wasn't just an attention-seeking clown.

"It just goes to show how open-minded our class is," Lo said.

Seventeen-year-old Unique Payne called the speech "great" and said she voted for Garcia "because I support the gay community." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:25 PM

All I can say, is that I am happy with what I have written.
I believe bringing out these issues is good for society and for homosexuals and I wish the brave people of San Fransisco success with their campaign.

It would be sweet to go on making the vultures who prey on these unfortunate folks face up to what they are actually doing, but that is for a later day, when truth is valued above politics and human life is valued at all......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:30 PM

Ake, was that a response to me, a response to John P, or just a general comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:38 PM

""PIshtush. Don--that particular insult is at least fifty years old!!""

Iknow that, Amos, and you know that. Nonetheless our clever (NOT) friend GodforSaken borrowed it from further up the thread, where I had applied it to him/her/it.

The least that is necessary is to be able to debate using ones own language capabilities.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 09 - 07:31 PM

". . . the vultures who prey on these unfortunate folks face up to what they are actually doing. . . ."

Umm . . . I'm assuming that by "unfortunate folks" Ake is referring to homosexuals, and I'm just wondering who "the vultures" are who "prey on" them, why they are preying on them, how they are preying on them, and what they get out of it.

Considering the vagueness of some of the verbiage used by Ake, especially GfS, and also Little Hawk, it's sometimes not real easy to follow what the hell they are trying to say, if anything. Perhaps that's the point.

And before someone attempts to cast aspersions on my ability to comprehend, let me remind them that I majored in English as well as Music and I have worked ("day jobs") as a technical writer (often trying to translate "governmentese" into plain English) and as a radio station news director.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 09 - 09:25 PM

...and in the post, i gave, i8f you remember, when Dr. Cohen's son, told his class, in his graduation speech, that his own father, USED TO BE a homosexual, their jaws dropped open. So, who is in error?? Dr. King's summation of his studies, or Cohen, whose personal story pisses in the milk, of an obviously flawed 'study'?..Nice to know who funded the study, and for what reason, as I have mentioned before! Sorry, it doesn't fly!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:03 PM

I think i tis silly to take a statistical study, find one outlier from the trend, and dream that that somehow invalidates the whole study. That's not the way scientific rationale works, if that is what you are pretending to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:29 PM

"Doctor" Richard Cohen has long since been exposed as a self-promoting charlatan

Cohen has been a bombastic embarrassment to sex therapists over the years, appearing about anywhere that would have him. His demonstration of "bioenergetics" on CNN has him beating a pillow with a tennis racket while yelling at the top of his lungs. The same appearance includes a session of "holding" or "touch" therapy where Cohen cradles his client in his arms while on a sofa. He has repeated this and other stunts in multiple venues.

During a class, Cohen (who claims to be "ex-gay") asked for a volunteer to demonstrate on. His volunteer was instructed by Mr. Cohen to lay on the floor and spread his legs wide open. Dr. Cohen then laid down on top of this other man face to face and embraced him.

Mr. Cohen made the comment, "This might cause some stimulation. However, what goes up must come down, I always say." He made other vulgar comments of this nature.

Cohen has no license to practice any sort of therapy. The licensing authorities in his state, Maryland, stated that a license is not required there to offer services as a "psychotherapist" as long as one does not try to diagnose and treat from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, also known as DSM-IV-TR (a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association [APA] that includes all currently recognized mental health disorders).

Also in 2007, Cohen claimed to stop counseling clients.

Excerpt from one of those pesky scientific papers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:47 PM

Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:11 AM

That last post must have been the most sensible message you have managed to compose Don. Not bad at all for a "major in English".

Well I'm a builder, but I'll put your mind at rest.
The vultures are those, primarily "liberals", but some conservatives working from the opposite direction, who use the homosexual condition as a political weapon to gain worthless political advantage.

Even more disgusting are the "activists", who are also politically motivated and see "human rights" and a perceived "victory" in gaining those "rights" as being worth depriving homosexuals of a proper medical inquiry into Aids and homosexual practice
By "normalising " homosexuality and bringing it into mainstream society, they delay an inevitable inquiry and contribute to the horrific Aids/ homosexual health statistics.

Does life have any value to these vultures?....I think not!!

Fin.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:06 AM

From faulty premises anything is possible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:25 AM

Ake, how does normalising homosexuality and bringing it into mainstream society delay an inevitable inquiry and contribute to the horrific Aids/ homosexual health statistics?

That makes no sense to me whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 29 May 09 - 10:37 AM

To continue with actual research rather than one discredited personal account ......
Smith et al revealed some of the personal views and experiences of medical and psychology professionals in the United Kingdom who tried to make homosexual men and women heterosexual in the 20th century.

- from Treatmentsm of Homosexuality ...the experience of professionals

Most of the professionals provided behavioural treatments, which included aversion therapy and covert sensitisation. Aversion therapy with electric shock was the most common treatment:

From a Clinical Psychologist -

"Here were people coming along who seemed to be asking for help, it was against the law, they wanted to change their behaviour, that's how it was presented to us. You never thought about the morality of what you were doing.
You were effectively a technician."

"We had to become electrifying geniuses! The situation was you had the screen, the person sat at the table with the things [equipment] on and with a lever that they had to pull to avoid the shocks. The pictures started off with pretty men, working their way through ugly men into ugly women and into pretty women. That was the whole process literally."

Talking to patients was believed to compromise the effectiveness of aversion therapy

Most doubted the treatment's efficacy, however, and came to question whether they were acting in patients' best interests.

They began to think that treatment was underpinning questionable social values and that patients might say anything to convince them that it had worked to avoid yet more treatment or further legal repercussions:

"People were referred from the courts as voluntary patients as an alternative to prison, which isn't terribly voluntary. People were motivated to say things that weren't actually true."

Several peofessionals also spoke of their guilt about their use of these treatments, which they now regarded as a form of punishment, and their unease in talking about their involvement with family, friends, and colleagues:

"I feel a lot of shame. I don't think I've ever spoken about it since then apart from now. I'm sure I've talked about a lot of the other clinical experiences."


Fortunatly, modern medical practice requires an adequate evidence base for treatments and requires that clinicians and members of government consider the adequacy and appropriateness of disease entities that originate from the interplay of scientific and social perspectives

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 09 - 10:53 AM

KB....Why do you think the San Fransisco homosexuals want to "own" Aids.....When you have worked that out the answer to your question will be obvious.

If you are going to participate in these sort of discussions, you must be prepared to use your brain box....and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

Don Firth has continually asked me to clarify my meaning throughout this thread, and I don't think for a minute he is as stupid as he pretends to be......Its what's called a debating tactic......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 29 May 09 - 11:01 AM

Ake, when things are marginilized they tend to not get the attention they may deserve. When issues are brought into the mainstream is when there is normally some action.

I would still like an answer to the question I asked you on 28 May 09 - 09:42 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 09 - 11:28 AM

Ake:

While you continue to promote these broad-brush "scary pigeonholes" in which you stack on all kinds of supplementary attributes to people the minute they self-identify and favoring the same sex, you seem to ignore my earnest request up-thread that you pause and consider the possibility that you are promoting a line of reasoning which will actually harm others whom you do not know, have not met, and cannot truly judge the merit or value of. Why you would choose to pursue a course of harm to others escapes me, but I urge you to reflect on the issue.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 09 - 01:02 PM

Ake, what is unclear to me—and to any thinking person—is how encouraging stable, monogamous relationships is going to increase the spread of what you erroneously seem to believe is only a venereal disease.

And I am neither stupid nor am I pretending to be. The cause-and-effect relationship you postulate is totally bass-ackwards. What boggles my mind is why you—a presumable reasonably intelligent individual—can't seem to see the obvious.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 09 - 02:18 PM

The fuzziness of your syntax comes from the fuzziness of your logic.

When editing a piece of writing, I would often find something that didn't make much sense. I would ask the writer, "Is this what you really meant to say?" If they said, "No," I would suggest that they rephrase it. If they said "Yes," then I knew that there was a flaw in their reasoning, and we'd have to get that straightened out.

Simple as that, Ake.

The problem with trying to understand much of what GfS writes is that he/she often doesn't write in complete sentences (complete thoughts), nor does he/she separate paragraphs. In the Mudcat forum format, a blank line between paragraphs, rather than just running everything all together, helps with clarity. And on top of that, he/she apparently writes a piece, then loads a shotgun full of commas, and lets blast! There are so many commas splattered everywhere that you can't tell which clause belongs to what.

And I'm pretty good at that sort of thing. As I said, I used to have to translate government documents into plain, understandable English.

I find this kind of thing is pretty common in political writing. And, for that matter, in advertising copy. It allows one to write a lot of sheer blather while hiding the lack of logic behind it.

I recommend a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style to both of you. That would tend to help you clarify what that you are really trying to say. But, of course, it would have the disadvantage of making faulty reasoning obvious as well.

(Thank you, Mrs. Beasley.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 09 - 02:27 PM

In my last paragraph, delete "that" from the second sentence, i.e.; "That would tend to help you clarify what THAT you are really trying to say."

Proof reading, especially after revising a sentence, is important, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:30 AM

Emma:"..From a Clinical Psychologist -
"Here were people coming along who seemed to be asking for help, it was against the law, they wanted to change their behaviour, that's how it was presented to us. You never thought about the morality of what you were doing.
You were effectively a technician."

Gosh, do you think with this going on, that it might have just a 'little 'teeny weenie' to do with why the results of the study, were as silly as the are???..I'm mean, ..umm..just a little???

The other problem, from where I see it, is I have met, and talked to people who were former homosexuals. So, to me, when I see a study that says, "It can't happen"...I'm sorry, I just have to simply disagree. Hey, What can I say??..Not only that, most of them WERE NOT people who came out of therapy, but on their own, by one of several means, and realizations. They were not stupid people. I'd Love one to talk to you! And another, 'by the way', those people are so against same sex marriage, they make either myself, Ake, or anyone else on this thread, who has posted against same gendered marriage, look like 'softies'

Next, Ake posts figures from the CDC (Center for Disease Control), and some nitwit writes, (and I don't recall who), writes, "Impressive", and goes on with some guttural, babbling noises, sorta like puking word like syllables, trying to discredit the figures, and the post. HUH???!!!???
Hey, the figures, from the CDC, whose very purpose is to track this kind of stuff, show very clearly that AIDS's largest transmission is in the homosexual communities. The homosexual communities freely admit that, and ask for help, even if it means, through desperation and frustration, it has to ASK that it should be listed as a homosexual disease, (which we all know, it is larger than that), and now we're reading posts, put up by different people with one thumb in their butt, and the sucking the other one, while picking their noses, saying "No ithh's' thnot". Come on, now!! Do you want to be taken as complete mental mutant gnomes from the rainbow, Kool-Aid' land of 'Odds". Do you ever want to taken seriously?..or are you just arguing, because you have terminal brain lock, and itchy fingers??
Now let's get back to the issue, and the legal points for the argument, on both sides...or something beyond trying to test the endurance of reading inane posts, and if it can keep up with the endurance of pubescent listening to 'Rap' 24/7 ??....then trying to communicate as adults.
I posted, a rather impartial post on the legal merits, both sides, of the challenge...nobody can pick up the issues???...or are they not as relevant, as some rather 'talking point' erroneous, misinformed, political wing nut's opinion? Come on, its getting a lot better than the present national debate! Let's not be small....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 May 09 - 03:36 AM

I'm not quite sure about this society that feels they need to treat those not in the mainstream as flawed cause they're different & put expections & values on them that would have them feeling that they needed to be treated in the first place.

Fuck all those studies & experiments & theropies. There were those that at one time only wanted to let blue eyed blondes be masters of the races. I could've been a CEO or Furrier :) except for the tainted Jewish blood in me.

Why would anyone feel it necessary to be treated because they're homosexuals. If that's the way they are society should take that as who they are & leave them be. Them being what they are is not normal or abnormal, it just is. (Boy are we knee deep in our own shit) The same as I'm White & someone else is Black. It is what & who we are & nothing more or less & until our society can swallow that pill there will always be a "different" or "Not Normal" crowd or minoritey to ostracize or deny human rights to, we will always find a scapegoat for our problems. Today it is them, tomorrow it may be you, yesterday, but for the grace of God, it could've been me. I won't stand for it, not for myself, my friends my kids or for the society I choose to live in.
When you see a kid hit puberty & they're scared shit & want to exit life because of the taboos & expections that society has placed on their backs that society sucks when they make a life to unbarable to face. They are handing that kid a razor blade rather than a soft shoulder. What, only the strong are allowed to survive, if they're different?

So any of you who would put that on a kid consider how you react if the kid took their own life & that kid was yours.

"Walk a mile in their shoes"

Well, there are just not enough shoes going round for people to stand in that'll cover all the differences that make up our human race, so when you're next faced with that dreadful choice of trampling on someone's human or civil rights. Look out side yourself, look outside of the box, go with the truth that we are all flawed & that we all have differences & we all have to live with each oth, like it or not. Cause if we don't the only option is someone's gonna suffer drasticly & it may be one of your own.

Live & let live is more than a two street, it's a byway for the world
we live in. An' don't give me the shit that the way they live affects any of you that's in the least way that's detrimental to your selfish lifestyles, you're lying to me & to yourself!

Stop being selfish, stop thinking only about yourself, stop aiding in the suffering of others & start to help with easing the misery your tunnel vision views are putting upon others.

No matter how you explain it, it's bigotry.
You can be forgiven for your ignorance but not for the pain.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 09 - 04:28 AM

Barry: "I'm not quite sure about this society that feels they need to treat those not in the mainstream as flawed cause they're different & put expections & values on them that would have them feeling that they needed to be treated in the first place.
Fuck all those studies & experiments & theropies.....

Why would anyone feel it necessary to be treated because they're homosexuals. If that's the way they are society should take that as who they are & leave them ....."

EXACTLY!!!!! If they want to 'change, and or heal', allow them! All this other stuff does, is deny them, because it says that it doesn't exist, and there is nothing that can't be done, once they're in the box, that denies there is anything TO deal with!!!!!!

They know their issues, I know their issues, and those of them that know that I know their issues, are ok with talking to me about them, and the political wing nuts think that their only issue, is wanting a granted 'status' of being 'married'..and to give them that, they virtually give up all acknowledgment, of any other emotional, mental, or even spiritual issues, that might have its roots, in why they are homosexual, in the first place!!! That is STUPID!!!

Let's see how long it takes for name callers to finally 'Get It'!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:43 PM

The point is that it's society & people like you want them changed & they by their narrow minded beliefs put the pressure, expections & values on them in order to have them "ajust" to YOU! No way you'd allow them to just be what they are.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:49 PM

GfS, you don't get that "YOU" are a pain to society & it's you & others that reinforce the bigtory that so many suffer so harshly.

If only we could do away with the rights of those that would deny others! But they'll only ever see it 'one way'. their way without any concern for those with differences.

If you think being anything but hetrasexual you live in a very small & dim world

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 09 - 02:17 PM

"If they want to 'change, and or heal', allow them! All this other stuff does, is deny them, because it says that it doesn't exist, and there is nothing that can't be done, once they're in the box, that denies there is anything TO deal with!!!!!!"

No, GfS, it does not. Undoubtedly the argument will go on. And while you favor laws banning same sex marriage, no one is advocating passing a law to prevent a homosexual person who would like to try to change his or her sexual orientation from going to some kind of therapist who claims they can help them do it.

And as to the CDC's statistics, the pie chart shows that 47% of those who have AIDS are homosexual men. You and Ake are conveniently ignoring the fact that that leaves 53% of those with AIDS who are not homosexual men.

Male homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS, as you and Ake keep trying to imply. It is one of several different ways that HIV can be transmitted—including heterosexual intercourse.

By the way, in your last few posts you are seperating you paragraphs with a blank line, making them much more readable. Thank you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 09 - 04:26 PM

Don...You claim not to be stupid and I have no real reason to doubt your claim......so why do you continue to post rubbish like the above.

How many times have I explained how these figures in real percentage terms, state uncatagorically that Aids in America and all over the developed world is primarily a disease related to homosexual practice.The TRANSMISSION of the disease in Africa is different mainly because of the polygamous nature of male heterosexuals

I can't believe that you are unable to understand the figures, so must conclude that you are simply being obstructive.

BTW...I am quite satisfied with how I construct my posts and need no advice from someone who seems unable to comprehend independent statistics, or the rudiments of the issue we are discussing....Even if he is a "major in English"

Wolfgang is a real statistician, perhaps you could PM him and get him to explain what "in percentage terms" means.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 09 - 06:53 PM

Ake, I do understand the figures. It's your erroneous interpretation of them and the fact that you are trying to make something more out of them that they indicate that I am calling you on.

Perhaps you need to take a good course in statistics. Not to mention trying to get a grasp of the concept of "cause and effect."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 09 - 01:23 AM

Barry: "The point is that it's society & people like you want them changed & they by their narrow minded beliefs put the pressure, expections & values on them in order to have them "ajust" to YOU!.."

You missed the point completely..and are interjecting your perceived thoughts of what I said, altogether. What I said was, IF THEY WANTED HELP"....that there are issues rooted in homosexuality, that if people deny that, or that they even exists, they will be denied help. What is so hard to comprehend that??? Do you think that the issues in regards to interactive relations are the same as hetero?..either gender?? They do in fact have different priorities, in relation to where they are. Some similarities, in certain places, and a whole different ball game in others.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 May 09 - 07:22 PM

""Wolfgang is a real statistician, perhaps you could PM him and get him to explain what "in percentage terms" means.""

It's really astonishingly SIMPLE Ake.

OF all the people in the world WHO HAVE AIDS, LESS THAN HALF ARE HOMOSEXUAL.

AIDS is NOT a PREDOMINANTLY HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE.

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

To put it another way DON F. IS RIGHT!!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 01:41 AM

AMOS,...something we can agree on...enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXeNNXhHotc&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM

AMOS,...The link in the first post, might not get it...TRY THIS ONE, instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXeNNXhHotc

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 08:58 PM

Did you ever notice that "conservative" moralists don't usually object that much to skinnydipping unless it's a heterosexual experience?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Jun 09 - 09:08 PM

I never in my life thought I'd see a time when my state of New Hampshire could be consider more progressive & liberal than California. Will wonders never cease?

Hoo-ray for NH

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 10:29 AM

Congratulations to New Hampshire. But Barry, it did happen once before that NH was more progressive than California. SOmewhere around 1776....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 12:08 PM

GfS:

That number, despite its pure kitsch garnish and effusive sentimentality, was very touching. Thanks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM

As Amos pointed out earlier in this thread, it's not just   people who are "gay."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM

I wonder how long it will be until there's another attempt to legalize gay marriage in California. I hope it doesn't happen too soon, because a premature attempt is very likely to lose. Every state that approves gay marriage makes it more likely that it will gain approval in California, but I think California proponents of gay marriage need to wait a good five years before trying again.
Heck, even Barack Obama said in a debate that he is not in favor of gay marriage. Before it's time to make another attempt, California promoters of gay marriage need to spend a good amount of time and effort, changing the mind of the electorate. It won't work to just keep browbeating and shaming the electorate and calling them bigoted - it will take positive efforts and hard work to turn this around.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

You may be right, Joe; but it appears so far that the "No on 8" contingent is taking there chance for next year, assuming they were just underorganized in their persuasions of the voters. May be so, too; I don't really know. Despite all the braggery upthread about the majority's decision, the fact remains there was a LOT of out of state money mobilized to pass Prop 8.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM

Yes, indeed, curmudgeon.

And they're so elegantly dressed. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jun 09 - 08:24 PM

Officially recognised "Civil Partnership", with full legal equivalence to "Marriage", seems to work well enough in the UK, among other places.

What's wrong with that as a way of avoiding hassles about what is really a matter of dictionary definitions?

And of course, since people use language how they wish, people getting hitched in this way often do refer to this as "getting married" and send out "wedding invitations" etc. So in time, regardless of what the law says, maybe the dictionary definitions will change - and there's nothing any court of law can do about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 11:17 AM

I think such an arrangement would work, Kevin, if it were quietly implemented; in fact another approach would be to have all State approvals be civil partnership, and leave the term Marriage to the churches.

At present, of course, the storm has been built already on the semantic underpinnings of "marriage", so it might not be acceptable in the face of all the Sturm und Drang PR afoot.

In this country, also, there is a strong negative connotation to policies of "separate but equal", which for many years was used to justify extreme segregationist discrimination in the South in particular. So even though the policy might make sense, it could easily get swamped by PR backlash.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 01:48 PM

". . . another approach would be to have all State approvals be civil partnership, and leave the term Marriage to the churches."

This, I believe, is an excellent solution and the one I favor.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM

". . . another approach would be to have all State approvals be civil partnership, and leave the term Marriage to the churches."

This is, in fact, the only solution that makes any sense. Since so many folks seem to think that marriage is a religious thing, it has no place in our government. We either need to redefine marriage as non-religious, or get rid of it except as a religious practice for those who want it. The legal joining and the religious joining really don't have anything to do with each other, and shouldn't.

Whatever we call the legal joining of two people, it needs to be the same for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM

My impression, from having ridden herd on a couple of dozen marriages over the last thirty years, is that the State (here, anyway) does not mind who the officiator is--J of P, minister, priest, witch doctor, rabbi, or atheist guru poet. And that is quite as it should be. The officiator signs the form which was issued with the license, dates it; the witnesses sign it. Thus the legal transaction called marriage is completed, and the form gets mailed in to the county office and in due course a marriage certificate is returned to the couple.

Note that the State, in this transaction, is completely neutral about the formal role or lack thereof of the person who guides the couples through the vows; but the presence of witnesses is required to be affirmed.

In some States, I believe, the least religious person who may preside over a wedding is a magistrate or justice of the peace. I am not sure about that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:14 AM

Please note that if you wish to participate in discussion threads, you have to use a consistent name. Posts with the "from" box empty and likely to be deleted.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:34 AM

The last few posts, with the exception of Mr McGrath's are excellent examples of what the pro homosexual marriage issue is really all about......"normalisation" of an extremely dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle.

As Mr Mcgrath says all legal rights could be assured by civil union, but that does not satisfy our "homosexual activists" who require that the whole world accept homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" regardless of health statistics or the religious beliefs of others worldwide.

As I have said many times, I have no religion, but a huge majority worldwide have deep belief in the teaching of their prophets....much deeper than the conservative christians in a big part of America.

But I suppose as they disagree with homosexual marriage, they don't deserve the right to believe what they wish.

Personally, the more I have looked at this issue during discussions on this forum, I have formed the opinion that even "civil unions" are wrong until a proper medical study of homosexuality and AIDS has been set in motion and some conclusions reached.

To attempt to normalise this preactice while so many homosexuals are still suffering from the disease, seems stupid, arrogant and cruel.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 03:35 AM

The term 'Gay Marriage' is an insult to those of us who married women and produced children. How on earth can any Church reconcile homosexuality with the term 'marriage'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 04:12 AM

"Fuck the Churches"! They don't like it let them call it "Co-joined" or otherwise and the state can continue to legally call it "Marriage", now we change words, laws & rights for the sake of religion? Since when did they determin the use of language?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 04:05 PM

Akenaton is, as usual, laboring under a number of misapprehensions. He has it stuck in his craw that homosexual activity causes the AIDS virus, and not all the scientific evidence in the world is going to disabuse him of the idea.

He wants it to be true because—   Well, you figure it out.

And, of course, he simply ignores the question I've been asking him repeatedly:   

In what manner does encouraging stable, monogamous homosexual relationships (such as domestic partnerships, or for that matter, marriage) increase the spread of HIV?

And he completely ignores the fact that it's a matter of civil rights and equal protection under the law. Civil rights are the basic values of any free country, and they are not subject to legal prohibition, referendum, or popular vote. They are inalienable rights, and any government, Federal, State, or local that condones the withholding of them is engaging in an exercise in tyranny.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 04:54 PM

"The last few posts, with the exception of Mr McGrath's are excellent examples of what the pro homosexual marriage issue is really all about......"normalisation" of an extremely dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle." ake

The solution, ake, is simple: Don't sit next to one. That way, you won't catch it. :~)

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

Well, no-one in this thread is talking about--or should be, anyway--the role of religion in marriage. The entire and sole issue here is the civil protection under the law.

The injection of false data--such as Ake's idea that monogamous relations between same-sex couples is an increased danger to public-health, which is unreasonable on the face of it--does not make the issue any clearer, to the contrary. But it does not change what the issue is: civil protections under the law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM

WAUGHHH!!!!!!!!

Still rollin' along, folks? Good, because I have got another wager going. I bet someone that this thread will reach 1500...count 'em...1500 posts! Oh yeah. Don't disappoint me. I promise not to post further here between now and then, so as not to have a conflict of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 07:19 PM

If you can keep your head while others around you are losing theirs, then you don't understand what's going on.
                                                                                                                   —paraphrase of Rudyard Kipling

Having fun, Little Hawk?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM

""As Mr Mcgrath says all legal rights could be assured by civil union, but that does not satisfy our "homosexual activists" who require that the whole world accept homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" regardless of health statistics or the religious beliefs of others worldwide.""

As usual Ake, you have the wrong end of the stick.

What has been said is that the terms "Civil union" and "Marriage" should apply across the board, and not be based on sexual orientation.

If a marriage with no religious input is called a civil union, it should be so for all who have that ceremony performed.

If a religious order is prepared to recognise gay marriage, that should be OK. If not, then that too is OK. The couple can go to a church with a less discriminatory policy.

The point is, that they should be recognised as married in law.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM

The distinction between Civil Union and Marriage is mute in Michigan, anyhow. The amendment here clearly prohibits any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship, under either or any name. The moral luminaries who pushed it made a point of saying that it wouldn't take rights or benefits from anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 07:11 AM

"The injection of false data--such as Ake's idea that monogamous relations between same-sex couples is an increased danger to public-health, which is unreasonable on the face of it--does not make the issue any clearer, to the contrary. But it does not change what the issue is: civil protections under the law"

Come on Amos, surely we're all adults here, why stoop to tactics like that! A couple of others have tried to misrepresent what I have written on that issue, but I didn't expect it from you.

Monogamy in all sexual behaviour is good.....no argument.
One of my issues is with the health figures, and there is no guarantee that homosexuals en-masse will wish to adopt either homosexual marriage or monogamy....severe promiscuity appears to go hand in hand with homosexual practice.....in general terms of course. I am sure you will all trot out once again, the couple of exceptions that you know.......I prefer to stick with the CDC statistics.

When are you all going to get it through your thick skulls, that this is not a "rights" issue, but a political issue dressed up as rights.

If you are really interested in "homosexual rights", try giving them the right to life.....support the San Fransiscan group who are demanding a proper medical inquiry into the homosexuality/AIDS link.

Or would that spoil your cosy little "Liberal crusade"?

Fucking hypocrites!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 01:34 PM

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that it IS a civil rights issue?

When you have nothing else, you resort to insults and abuse. And, of course, to your so-called mind, the ultimate insult is to call someone a "Liberal."

Grow up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM

Ake, don't be resorting to slanging your correspondents, or you'll never drive this thread to the size of MOAB.

A "political issue"? In what way? Civil rights IS a political issue, to be sure. But clearly you are making a distinction, but you have not taken the pains to draw it. What is it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM

"severe promiscuity appears to go hand in hand with homosexual practice.....in general terms of course."

Where in the world do you come up with claptrap ideas like this?

"When are you all going to get it through your thick skulls, that this is not a "rights" issue, but a political issue dressed up as rights."

You seem to have made this into a health issue when it has nothing to do with politics & everything to do as a human/civil rights issue just as equality for Woman & Blacks

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:29 AM

"........when it has nothing to do with politics & everything to do as a human/civil rights issue just as equality for Woman & Blacks"

WRONG!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:57 AM

HAH!! Missed again, GfS!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:25 AM

Amos...you are of course exempt from any ill considered remarks on my part...:0).

But homosexual practice is a health issue, whether any of you like to admit it or not.   The figures show a massive link in real percentage terms.....please stop denying this as it damages the credibility of your argument.
Other types of behaviour also have health issues....such as incest..drug abuse...smoking etc and the "rights" of the people who practice them have been curtailed accordingly.

Before you start on about legality, remember laws are made and ammended on the whims of politicians, they are never finite, nor are our much lauded "rights"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:53 AM

"HAH!! Missed again, GfS!!"
Don Firth

Now there's a post with lot's of....umm...blank spaces between the ears(?)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 04:08 AM

Being gay is not a behavior any more than being female or Black but I guess that will never come through to you. You will continue to wear blinders so you may see the world as you choose not as it is, that's an unhealthy behavior you should see to fixing.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:01 AM

gay females are one of the lowest of risk groups for HIV.
Gay men are the highest risk group in Western countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:04 AM

UK stats.
http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM

Homosexuality entails health issues, and is probably higher-risk than heterosexuality.

In both hetero and homo, the increase of promiscuity is (I am fairly sure) proportional to the increase in risk. Authorizing monogamous relationships and granting them certain protections is a wise idea, and the tradition of hetero marriage has enjoyed this benefit for centuries. No reason it should not be extended to lesbians and gays, though. It REDUCES the health risk to do so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 12:24 PM

Here's what I've learned recently:

Sick people should be denied basic rights until we know everything there is to know about the disease (what about all those cancer victims? Smokers engage in risky behavior but still get to get married).

Men are promiscuous (duh!!).

We should continue to make homosexuality illegal because we (here in the land of the free) might offend religious folks in other countries.

Health care and civil rights are both political issues (duh!).

People who want homosexuals to have the same rights as the rest of us also want them to die (huh?).

The incidence of AIDS has more to do with sexual orientation than it does with membership in an affected community (who needs science?).

If any homosexuals believe one thing, they all believe it (who needs common sense?).

If I met either GfS or Akenaton in real life, I would get away from them as soon as possible after they opened their mouths.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

Can anyone honestly make sense of that drivel.

A complete misrepresentation of what the anti's have been writing

The last refuge of a loser!

Mr Peekstock is typical of the "activists" I described earlier, the normalisation of homosexual practice in political terms is his "raison d'etre" and to acknowlege the elephant in the room would surely scupper his argument......Aids deaths are incidental to one cell organisms like Mr Peekstock.

I repeat, if he really cared for homosexuals he would support the homosexuals of San Fransisco in their campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM

Before my message box is again inundated.....apologies to unicellulars everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:41 PM

Akenaton: our "homosexual activists" who require that the whole world accept homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" regardless of . . . the religious beliefs of others worldwide

My paraphrase and comment: We should continue to make homosexuality illegal because we (here in the land of the free) might offend religious folks in other countries.

Akenaton: even "civil unions" are wrong until a proper medical study of homosexuality and AIDS has been set in motion and some conclusions reached.

My paraphrase and comment: Sick people should be denied basic rights until we know everything there is to know about the disease (what about all those cancer victims? Smokers engage in risky behavior but still get to get married).

Akenaton: severe promiscuity appears to go hand in hand with homosexual practice.

My paraphrase and comment: Men are promiscuous (duh!!). If it weren't for women not liking it, lots of straight men would be severely promiscuous. Lots are anyway.

Akenaton: there is no guarantee that homosexuals en-masse will wish to adopt either homosexual marriage or monogamy

My paraphrase and comment: If any homosexuals believe one thing, they all believe it (who needs common sense?).

Akenaton: The figures show a massive link in real percentage terms

My paraphrase and comment: The incidence of AIDS has more to do with sexual orientation than it does with membership in an affected community (who needs science?).

Akenaton: People like Peekstock and "liberal" opinion have another agenda, they don't really care how many homosexuals die from the disease by being simply allowed to live with it and die with it. . . . I have no respect for those who take social and sexual politics before the premature deaths of our brothers. . . . Aids deaths are incidental to one cell organisms like Mr Peekstock

My paraphrase and comment: People who want homosexuals to have the same rights as the rest of us also want them to die (huh?).

Akenaton, this last statement of yours is a vile lie. Have you no honor at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

"Now there's a post with lot's of....umm...blank spaces between the ears(?)"

That the best you can do, GfS? You still haven't answered my question. You know, the one I've asked you a couple of dozen times (don't tell me you don't remember!??).

Talk about "blank spaces between the ears." (!!)

####

John, your post just above is right on the money. This is exactly what these two have been saying all along. But they don't want to own up to the fact. Or quite possibly they don't recognize their own words when quoted back to them.

####

Germaine to nothing in particular, it's just a memory that, for some strange reason just came to mind:   a wise old uncle once told me, "My boy, don't waste your valuable time trying to argue with an idiot."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 02:57 AM

You know, I'm reading this thread, and all over the place I see people rationalizing promiscuity, behavior of animals, homosexuality, so on and so forth...but leave out morality. Morals derived from generations of rules, as to what works, and what doesn't. Promiscuity doesn't work, without someone getting hurt, homosexuality doesn't work, in the long term, and comparing human behavior by basing our behavior by the acts of animals, is super folly! How can you justify 'because the animals do it, we can do it, and it's all fine', and still get angry at the acts of nations?...After all, aren't we a little more advanced than animals? Do we roam around sniffing to see who we can sleep with, like dogs, and then think we are 'really great lovers'? So let's knock off the bullshit rationalizations, and try thinking a little higher.
If you, who are married, think your wives, can be replaced with another man, or if you think you can be a better woman, than your wives, well, keep it to yourselves...or at least discuss it with your wives, before you announce it to the world!
In a free society, people can and do just about anything they want...but to go around trying to convince everyone else, that they have to 'like' or approve of what you do, to get you off, you might, and DO have a problem. I imagine for some guys, jerking off is fun, but do you walk down the street doing it in public, because it 'feels good'?...then expect everybody who thinks you're 'loony tunes' is a bigot, or a hater of 'mankind'?
If people want to live together, either sex, must they have to be fucking each other demand equal 'civil rights'?..Who cares, what they do?? There is nothing that people who live together, with or without sex, that denies them their rights, one way or another. Is there??? If however they are trying to legitimize some sexual dysfunction, and go about painting it as some 'noble cause', I'm sorry, a lot of other people, without that dilemma, just aren't going to buy...and it is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT ISSUE...it's more akin, to a common sense issue...and by the way, don't some of you see, that the homosexual community, has pushed their behavior, just a little to the 'extreme', flaunting their 'lifestyles'...don't you think they go a little bit overboard, to rub it in people's faces??..and THAT is one of the big things that the rest of society gets offended by!..That, and trying to have our children taught that this is just hunky dory, and normal as apple pie!..GET REAL!
Now most everything that has been said, about it, on both sides, has already been said, except for the late 'dropper inners'....if you think homosexuality is just so great, teach your kids about the 'wonders' of it, and raise them to be that way, and be proud of them!!.......but down deep, you know that's NOT what you'd wish for them......if you ever wonder why, you've answered your own question!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM

It is amazing to me, after the major poinrs in question have been said so many ways, so many times, that you can jump up and haul off with such blarney all over again.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM

Tell me, Amos!..I know!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 04:08 PM

Just one selected item out of a wide choice in that blob of blather you've just posted, GfS:

"Do we roam around sniffing to see who we can sleep with. . . ?"

Yes, GfS, as a matter of fact, that's one of the things that humans do do. Have you never heard of pheromones? Humans have them, too. There has been serious research done in this area in relation to sexual attraction. Very valuable to the perfume industry. Have you never heard of such things as scented after-shave lotions? Have you never heard of deodorants?

"Do we roam around sniffing to see who we can sleep with. . . ?"

Yes, normal, grown-up human beings do respond to smells.

For Chrissake, get a good book on sex and human reproduction and read it! I'm not talking about a "how to" book or "what every little boy and girl should know," I'm talking about—well, a good start would be something like Sex: A Natural History, by Joann Ellison Rodgers. And there are others.

For someone who claims to be a counselor, I am appalled at your abysmal ignorance!

And morals? What about the morality of poking your nose into other peoples' lives and trying to dictate how they should live, who they should mate with, and how they can and cannot go about it?

You're a bloody fine one to be trying to lecture other people about morals!

And you can deny it from now until Doomsday, but the issue of same-sex marriage IS a civil rights issue, and it will stay a civil rights issue, no matter how many temper tantrums you throw.

(Like my wise old uncle once said. . . .)

Don Firth

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

What a huge bunch of shit, Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:07 PM

"How can you justify 'because the animals do it, we can do it, and it's all fine'"

Opps, animals are a bit more civilizied than some of us humans

"After all, aren't we a little more advanced than animals"

Never heard of an animal getting arrested for rape, murder, kidnapping, stealing land, swindling old folks retirements, abusing children

"Do we roam around sniffing to see who we can sleep with, like dogs, and then think we are 'really great lovers'"

Humans can get down right dirty when it comes to sex & have dogs beat. Never heard of a dog getting it on with a dead mutt. Dogs have nothing on us humans, we could teach them all a trick or two

What's the difference betewwn a whore & a Lawyer? The whore will stop fucking her client once they're dead!

"Who cares, what they do??"

Then why do you protest so much?

Barry

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

". . . a huge bunch of shit. . . ."

WOW!! Now, GfS, that's what I call a really devastating refutation. So well thought out! So reasonable!

Or were you talking about the contents of your cranium?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:01 PM

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.


(I think Robert Heinlein wrote that, inter alia).


A

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

You responded to my post, completely ridiculously. You answered things I never said, or alluded to. That's what I thought was so full of bullshit! I think the bias, is all in YOUR heads!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 12:55 AM

You need to read your own posts, GfS, so you'll at least have an idea of what you said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

GfS, I just reread your post of 09 Jun 09 - 02:57 a.m. for the umpteenth time, trying to make some kind of rational sense out of it, and I can only come to the conclusion that you are simply raving. No one here is advocating all of the bullcrap that you are accusing them (us) of. And checking some of your posts on earlier, similar threads, you seem to be totally obsessed with how others should conduct their sex lives.

I have a pretty good idea of the source of your problem. In fact, you said as much way up-thread.
        
I think you need a long vacation. And I also think that you could use the services of a good counselor.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM

Hey! How are you guys doing getting this sorted anyway? I haven't read any of it since the last time I was here.

Hmmmm.... seems to me the last time I was here was to... oh... the drier just stopped. Gotta fold laundry.

Carry on. Smoke em if got em.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 04:53 PM

Well gnu the pros seem to have found their niche after all this time.
No attempt to address the issues just a lot of cliche ridden crap.

I'll check in from time to time just to call any lies,or misreprestations they might come up with......don't suppose there's much chance of any further serious debate, as their side of the discussion seems to consist of shouting as loudly as possible "It's a Civil Rights Matter!!"

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

Ake,

If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:03 PM

Don't have to shout, Ake. No all caps, no string of exclamation points. The whole matter is idiot simple.

It's a civil rights issue.

Simple as that. Exceedingly difficult for some people to grasp, obviously, but it's as simple as that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:06 PM

That poor horse is still dead.

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

And I might add, Ake, that the only people around here who seem to be shouting in full caps, splattering their post with exclam points, and generally having a s**t hemmorage over the fact that it is a civil rights issue are you and GfS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM

Thought I might check back in... it is a civil rights matter. It's about the right of people to fuck off when they ain't got the right to say shit about what other people do.

But, everyone knows that. Most know that the perpetuation of this thread is only for two reasons. To educate the ignorant and entertain the trolls.

Odd that the trolls who would seek to disseminate their vile would actually help educate.

Ahhhh, sometimes, it all works out.... in the end.

Sorry... can't resist a joke, me. Heheheheee.

Right... see you in another hundred... thousand?... posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM

Apparently the latest country to suffer an Aids outbreak is Cuba.
80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals.

The very low number of Cuban Aids cases is said to be because of Castro's controversial quarantine policy in the eighties.
AIDS in Cuba

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:51 PM

""If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?""

OF COURSE HE WOULD!

He'd just find another specious argument as to why it would be right to do so.

And it would bear as much relationship to his real reason, as his current excuse.......i.e. ZERO!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:53 PM

97

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM

98

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM

99

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 05:55 PM

1500

Can we go now?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

Leaving so soon Don?......run out of answers have we?
Not to worry about the loss of reasoning ability, at least you can still count!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:34 PM

AWRIGHHHHHTTTT!!!! I knew you could do it. 1500 blithering posts!

Bravo, cheers, congrats to all. I have won my free trip to Montreal in August. I am in your collective debt.

Dare I hope that you will march on resolutely now to 1600 posts?

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

Akenaton: Apparently the latest country to suffer an Aids outbreak is Cuba.
80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals.

If this data were in any way relevant, there would be no straight people with AIDS. But who needs science or common sense?

Akenaton, it has long been obvious that you can't come up with any rational reason to oppose gay marriage. It all boils down to the fact that you don't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:32 PM

"80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals."

That ought to make you very happy, Ake. Let the buggers kill each other off!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM

By the way, Ake (since you're such a whiz with statistics), how many of those Cuban homosexuals are in committed, single partner relationships?

I didn't think so!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:58 AM

Is that really all you can say about the issue?
These figures are a shattering blow to your liberal stance on Homosexuality/Aids and you prattle on about
"If this data were in any way relevant, there would be no straight people with AIDS"....Do you think you are debating with a fucking idiot?

This is a relatively new out break. Aids has been almost nonexistant in Cuba, due to the Cuban governments strict quarantine policy.
Now that "Liberalisation" has begun to take hold, we see a rise in aids cases, almost exclusively among homosexuals....is there something you don't understand about that?

Every one on the planet knows that Aids can be transmitted by hetro-sex, but have you never asked yourself why it always starts in the homosexual community?
The homosexuals of Los Angeles have asked themselves that question and have come up with the answer that Aids is primarily a disease of homosexuality. These people don't care about your "Liberal right on" agenda, they want a full medical inquiry, they want to stop Aids dead......and to stop it killing their brothers.


"80% of all Cubans affected are homosexuals."

That ought to make you very happy, Ake. Let the buggers kill each other off!"


Don Firth you have gone to a new low.....keep it up and you may become a real "bottom feeder" like your ally Mr Peekstock....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:09 PM

Akenaton, yes, in fact I do think I'm debating with a fucking idiot. Well, an idiot, at least. You get really pissed when I talk about whether or not you fuck, even though you seem to think it's OK to talk about what other people do in bed. Didn't your mother teach you the Golden Rule?

Idiocy #1: You seem to be saying that I don't want to find a cure for AIDS, and that allowing gay people to get married will slow down research on a cure. This is a lie, and you know it is. Saying things like that makes you an idiot, both from the standpoint of rational debate (unsupported, illogical statements) and from the standpoint of using slimy lies to attack people who don't agree with you (a place you go when you are challenged on your unsupported, illogical statements).

Idiocy #2: You are saying that the fact that AIDS has hit the gay community harder than others means that it's a gay disease. Any small, closed sexual community that gets a disease will see it spread throughout the community. The widespread incidence of AIDS started in the gay community. That's the only conclusion that be drawn when talking about a disease that affects people of all sexual orientations and genders. The male homosexual community is also made of men, who are by and large promiscuous, gay or not. Add to that the fact that young men are almost by definition stupid risk-takers, and you have a bad mix. Attributing any of this to homosexuality, however, is not supported by the evidence. If AIDS had hit the rampantly promiscuous college campus community first, would you call it a student disease?

Idiocy #3: You are saying that we shouldn't allow gay people to get married until we have done a complete study of AIDS. You are, without real reason, separating AIDS from all other diseases that we don't understand and that kill lots of people. You might as well say that we should deny civil rights to cancer victims, smokers, drinkers, and people who talk on the phone while driving.

Idiocy #4: You object strongly to being called a bigot while advocating denying rights to a group of people. We get to call racists bigots for the same reason. If you don't want to be lumped in with them, don't act like them.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:10 PM

""If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?""

No point in further arguing or trading barbs without an answer to this simple question.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM

Oh, yes, Akenaton, if you're going to keep calling me things like "bottom feeder" and "one cell organism" you should say why you think I'm those things so we can debate the point. Just calling people names really doesn't do anything for your standing as an intelligent adult. Please note that all the names I've called you (bigot, pervert) have been supported by reasons -- based on your own statements -- for calling you those names.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM

Conflating contemporary events and calling them causes and effects is a risky business, a sure way to make statistics lie.

The correlation, I submit, is not in the sexuality of the couplings but in the frequency of anal sex. At least, this seems much more probable to me, as it obviates the need to discover some mysterious aspect of homosexuality that spontaneously generates the disease when it occurs. That's just magic-think--there is no evidence I have ever seen that there is some cellular or molecular kickback mechanism that makes AIDS happens if intimate same-sex contact occurs. Your numbers also do not differentiate between Male Sex with Males (high probability of using the anal approach) versus Female Sex with Females (lower probability of same due to easier plumbing).

Nor does your assertion take into account frequency between multiple-partner series and same-partner series, which is an important differentiator.

I think it far more probable that the correlated vectors would turn out to be promiscuity and anal penetration, rather than homosexuality itself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:34 PM

Yes, Amos. Perhaps we should make anyone who has anal sex into second class citizens. Let's put cameras in every bedroom!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:42 PM

"Let's put cameras in every bedroom!"

Judging by what's available on the Net lately, I think we may be almost there already, John P. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:43 PM

John:

I quite disagree, and am surprised that that remark should be aimed at me. I was merely commenting on Ake's one-eyed interpretation of bad statistics and jumping to conclusions therefrom. I have no interest in controlling people. Educating them about health risks is quite sufficient.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM

Sorry, Amos. I was being tongue-in-cheek. Obviously not obviously enough ;^)

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

Nothing worth responding to since my last post...just more misrepresentations by Mr Peekstock, who would be well advised to go back and re-read my posts,   he either lacks any comprehension, or is simply an outright liar.

Amos... I think you were making quite an interesting point, but I have serious problems understanding some of your posts, could you please try some plain English....The grand style may have been OK for Shakespeare, but has really got me scratchin' my head.

Mr Peekstock was being "tongue in cheek", when he is usually "Foot in mouth".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:58 PM

""Leaving so soon Don?......run out of answers have we?""


No, not answers, just the patience to suffer brainless, bigotted fools.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

What John said, Ake. You're blinded by your own rabid prejudice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

I'll be waiting for some relevant points to emerge from the pro-HM side, I'll just ignore the abuse for now......weeeell they've got to say something....haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM

Ake:

It's not the huggery, its the buggery.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM

:0)   Up spake Sir Amos, and a goodly man was he!
      "Not Godly, but goodly!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM

You're a fine one to complain about abuse, Ake. Read a few of your own posts. You do have a tendency to froth at the mouth.

But then, that's nothing new. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

Ake,

If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:01 PM

Hmmmm. To repeat: If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:08 PM

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM

Are you going to answer the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

Look.... you've wakened me up now with your bloody stupid questions.
I am against homosexual "marriage" on several different issues, none of which you evidently understand, the health issue is the most glaringly obvious to all but a few numbskulls.
Anyway what does my opinion have to do with the points in debate?

Now be good children and go play in the traffic for a while!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM

Man, it's rolling! We've already made it one quarter of the way to 1600. I'm impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:26 PM

"Look.... you've wakened me up now with your bloody stupid questions.

It was just one question, ake.

I will telll you why I asked. You have made HIV/AIDS central to your argument calling it "the elephant in the room" and I wondered if this issue were to be resolved would it change your opinion. I expect I have gotten the closest I will get to a direct answer so I will stop asking now.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM

In fact KB, I believe you have gotten precisely your answer.
I think there is a gigantic red herring in the room.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM

Pleading the Fifth Amendment there, Ake?

"I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."

I understand. We all do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

Are you blind? I thought I had just answered the question???

Will I explain my answer?.....Block capitals?....Underline words?

Perhaps I have to answer the question three times?(that happened with another question upthread)

I'll do anything to aid comprehension for those with learning difficulties.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:58 PM

Akenaton, given that a whole thread full of intelligent people think that your statements and reasons don't add up, and we all have the same reasons for thinking so, you may want to ask yourself if the problem of rational comprehension is with everyone else or with yourself. I'm a big believer in self-confidence, but if enough people all tell me I'm wrong, I start to wonder about it. I wish you could say the same. Ever wonder about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 08:53 PM

John raises a good point.

Yes, Ake, we know you're ". . . against homosexual 'marriage' on several different issues, none of which you evidently understand, the health issue is the most glaringly obvious to all but a few numbskulls."

We understand all too well what those different issues, which you don't want to specify, happen to be.

And calling people who don't buy the goods you're selling "numbskulls" merely shows that you know perfectly well that you would thoroughly indict yourself it you did spell those reasons out.

You've been squawking about this issue since as far back as 2004. Can you say "obsession?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:49 PM

"I'll do anything to aid comprehension for those with learning difficulties."

I appreciate your indulgence. I really am having difficulties. I am afraid that I cannot comprehend anything other than a simple YES or NO.

Can you tell me which it is?

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

Seems to me its the same few people who have continued to argue the point over the months this thread has been running. The vast majority of the Mudcat membership have not posted at all!

I certainly dont feel intimidated by being called names and I see you have stopped shouting "bigot", contenting yourselves with snide comments.....that must take a lot of the satisfaction away...eh?

Actually I have had several PM's from members who agree with my stance, but just don't want to face the shit which is throw at anyone who wishes to hold an objective discussion on this issue.

I have also had PMs from friends and members who disagree with my views but are happy to conduct discussion in a friendly fashion in private.

Now I'm not going to waste my time reponding to name calling(that is what the last few threads have been basically),I will be happy to discuss any posts which relate to the issue, but it's a while since you came up with anything new or relevant.
Certainly not since the Cuban figures were posted.

I would remind Don Firth, that he has also been involved in this debate from the start, posting very little of value, just the usual "we all think you're wrong...so you are wrong."

I suppose basically where we differ is that you think everyone should have the same "rights", regardless of how they behave or the effect of their behaviour on society, and use "the law" to back up that belief.
Unfortunately "the law", which is formulated by politicians not the people, has never been a great aid to universal equality!

As I have said a dozen times, everyone does not have the same "rights", their "rights" depend on how vociferous they are or the political strength of their particular pressure group.

Just look at this thread as a window of oppertunity to look into another world where people begin to think about these matters for themselves and do not dumbly follow a path set down for them by self serving political correctness.

I have admitted to my friend Amos that I have learned a lot in these discussions..and have changed my stance a fair bit due to my participation here. I hope every one has found something to cause them to re-examine this very important issue....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:55 AM

Well said, Ake. But I don 't think anyone is calling you names just now--more like waiting for an answer to that last question. Because it appears that you've mis-analyzed on the causal links in AIDS cases, it keeps coming back up: ""If medical science were to find a way to eradicate HIV and the threat of AIDS were no longer an issue, would you still be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?""

So far it appears that your view is that you would still be so opposed on general moral grounds. In short, "Yes". Yes?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:40 PM

Good stuff, Akenaton! You are quite right that a lot of people wouldn't bother to post here, because it's simply not worth putting up with all the shit that would get thrown at them by people intent on labelling someone else as a "bigot", but apparently oblivious to other legitimate areas of concern which do not in any way connected with bigotry.

Bigotry, by the way, is defined in the dictionary as "utter intolerance for views which differ from one's own".

It is not defined as having hatred for Blacks, Jews, gays, Asians, women, Native Americans, red-headed barbers or mime artists.

Nope. Just utter intolerance for views which differ from one's own.

Thus, bigotry is very, very common these days and it is often found being shown blatantly in the ranks of those who congratulate themselves daily on their courageous support of Blacks, Jews, gays, Asians, women, Native Americans, red-headed barbers AND mime artists. ;-)

As for me, I am happy to support most of the above groups of oppressed people and see that they too secure their place in the sun...but I must admit to being only lukewarm when it comes to the mime artists.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:00 PM

Amos.. I am against homosexual "marriage" on health grounds, I think bringing homosexuality into mainstream society stupid, dangerous and not in the interests of homosexuals, as exceptance of the lifestyle would mean that proper medical inquiry into the link with aids would be almost impossible to set up. That is why the Los Angeles homosexuals want aids redesignated as a "homosexual disease".....to facilitate such an inquiry.

As you know, I am an atheist, but that does not prevent me from understanding the concerns of ordinary Christian people, who see homosexual "marriage" as a redefinition of something very important to them. I understand the feelings of these people although I am not one of them, they must feel that the "liberal"/homosexual agenda is bulldozing thousands of years of tradition and Christian belief, leaving them no voice to stop it.    If they do object, they are jumped on and abused as can be seen in this thread,by people who as Little Hawk says are the most illiberal on earth.

I of course dont include you in that description Amos, as even when the debate was at it's height, you remained civil and attempted to address the points raised.

In conclusion the answer to the hypothetical question is not yes/yes, but yes/maybe...and what the fuck diffence does it make to the debate.
I could be a homosexual and hold the stance which I do now.....that would be quite vadid taking into account the reasons I have given...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

I am sure I am missing something. In what way is HIV/AIDS actually a homosexual diusease, given that it infects heteros as easily as homos under the same transmissive condiitons--as far as I know the difference is just that same-sex couplings create such conditions more frequently.

Second, I hear you offer a conclusive statement that same-sex marriage would change the pressure of medical investigation to resolve the AIDS virus. Why on earth would this be a logical consequence of same-sex marriage? I don't see the chain of effects at all, and it bewilders me that you assert it as though it is entirely too obvious!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

what the fuck diffence does it make to the debate.

I will explain again (more fully) why I asked. You have made concerns about HIV/AIDS central to your argument against same-sex marriage (in fact you did it again in your post of 2:00 PM). You have made this connection so strong as to make it seem as though it is the reason you are opposed. You had LH convinced of this some time back as he defended your stance as being based on concerns about HIV/AIDS. I believe you would be opposed to same-sex marriage even if HIV/AIDS had never existed. I am not questioning your concern about HIV/AIDS and the devastating impact it has had (and continues to have) in the world. I am questioning your use of this issue front and center when making your case against same-sex marriage since I do not think your opposition would disappear if HIV/AIDS were to disappear. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM

Akenaton, the reason your opinion is germane to this debate is because all the "logical" points you've made don't add up, as you have been told many times. You haven't offered any defense of these points, or any reasons for saying things that don't make any sense, despite repeated requests for you to do so. We are left to assume that you are casting about for some reason that gay marriage shouldn't exist that isn't just your opinion. Your dislike of something is not a good basis for the making of laws. Another point you've made is that gay marriage is offensive to religious folks, which is also a terrible reason -- and in the U.S. at least, an unconstitutional one -- for the making of laws.

When it comes right down to it, the only reason gay marriage is still mostly illegal is because of the opinions of a whole bunch of folks. You're just the one espousing that opinion who happens to be in front of us right now.

Little Hawk, on the definition of bigot: Ho hum, been there, done that. If you wanted to make that point again, you should have done so as a rebuttal to the rebuttals that were made after the first time you defined it, up-thread a ways. Do you have anything new or real to offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM

Serious question: How does one forcefully oppose intolerance without being open to the accusation of intolerance? (Intolerance of the intolerant persons intolerance that is...)

That is, if someone is a bigot, and you call them a bigot, does that automatically make you a bigot?

Not sarcastic. I have faced this before, and don't have a good answer. Maybe this warrants a separate thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:18 PM

Reproving intolerance is not intolerance; it just has to be done with a modicum of civility and clarity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

Synonyms of bigotry

intolerance
bias
discrimination
fanaticism
injustice
partiality
racism
sexism
unfairness

Not quite as benign a mindset as the one definition given above.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:09 PM

I haven't read ALL the past posts in this interminable thread, John P. I do have a life, you know! ;-)

At least, I'm trying to...

And I don't really give a damn who among you imagines that he's "won" something here. It's about as silly as Don Quixote's adventures with the windmills. I don't object to anyone's opinion here, I just object to people launching mean personal attacks on other people here and characterizing them as racists and "bigots" (your meaning of the term, not mine) instead of calmly addressing the issues and leaving the personal attacks out of it.

But I'll stop in again in a bit and see if you guys have made it to the next century. If so, I stand to win a week's free movies from Blockbuster. Don't fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:24 PM

You have a life, Little Hawk? Do you give lessons? ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM

There is nothing the least bit benign about having utterly no tolerance for views that differ from one's own, Ebbie. Such intolerance leads to such evils as (and I quote directly from your list)...

intolerance (obviously)
bias
discrimination
fanaticism
injustice
partiality
racism
sexism
unfairness
cruelty
abuse
jingoism
hostility
violence
hatred
exaggerated self-righteousness
witchhunts
kangaroo courts
hazings and harassment
insults
bullying
mob rule
lynchings
and authoritarian oppression by those in positions of power

It also leads directly to the suppression of lawful free speech in a society.

If a great many people here who imagine themselves to be good "liberals" (and they're not such good liberals as they think they are) were not showing that just sort of bigotry toward people with any different opinion than their own and thereby attempting to gang up on and SILENCE those people, I would not be posting here at all.

The gay marriage issue is not one that I have much personal interest in...nor do I object to such marriages. I object to gangs of people (whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives") bullying, insulting, and demonizing someone else who's not in their "club".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM

In short, Little Hawk, you are just not concerned about the civil rights of certain minority groups. But you will defend those who are practicing bigotry against they're being identified as bigots?

Ake, you claim that I have posted nothing of value. I have posted, clearly and precisely what my viewpoint is and why it is what it is, and I have also posted a considerable amount of scientific information with links to back it up. If anyone doubts this, I invite people merely to read my posts. They can read, or re-read them and judge for themselves whether or not what you have just said is true.

And you still have not answered the question I have repeatedly posted. Simple. You don't have an answer.

When it comes to abuse and name-calling, you, sir, are the champ. I also recommend that those who question this read a few of your posts.

Idiot. Numb-skull. Blind. Stupid. Bottom-feeder. One-celled organism. And those cute little bons mots are just a few of those you use chronically. You pepper many of your threads with that kind of verbiage, directing it at people who disagree with what you say, particularly at those people who are most adept at showing the flaws in your arguments.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

The rumor of Little Hawk's life are greatly exaggerated.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:08 PM

hello, i thought i'd pop over to see if you had gotten any further but it seems not, so i shall put my two penneth in.

AKE, why are you banging on about HIV/AIDS when hepA/B? is much more of a worry?
why not concentrate on other stds? if that is your' only arguement then you have nothing. both me and my other half live in a quite area, we are not banging on about it, and apart from on here it generally doen't come up in conversation. so why should not have the right to get married? over here in the U.K it is called a civil partnership, why i haven't got a clue, except like someone else said to not offend the church. the same church that is constanly exposed to be hiding preists that like to fiddle with children.

if you feel that strongly maybe you should consider joining that group in the states that harass gay soldiers funerals shouting god hates fags.   

okay maybe over the top but you see the amount of shit WE are facing anyway without your' help, please listen to reason and base you opinions, not on general but a case by case basis.


phew it's a long way up there on my soapbox,i have come down now.

it may be apperent that i haven't read he entire thread but i have read the beging the bit in the middle and the last 19ish posts, i hope i am not repeating anone else if so, i'm sorry.

take care
jade

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

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

Sorry about that .....No time to respond ....big emergency!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:35 AM

i hope it's nothing too serious, take care x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 11:20 AM

Little Hawk: "If a great many people here who imagine themselves to be good "liberals" (and they're not such good liberals as they think they are) were not showing that just sort of bigotry toward people with any different opinion than their own and thereby attempting to gang up on and SILENCE those people, I would not be posting here at all.

The gay marriage issue is not one that I have much personal interest in...nor do I object to such marriages. I object to gangs of people (whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives") bullying, insulting, and demonizing someone else who's not in their "club"."

No truer words have been posted, as to the mentality, (or lack of it) on this thread! This 'pseudo liberal' issue, is being used to give the most mentally impaired, a shot at being a voice against common sense!!!..and do so, while congratulating themselves that they actually have something to say...even if it is completely inane! I don't think that the mob of raging parrots have really given much 'gray cell' exercise to what they are affirming..nor are they even championing, anything they actually believe in...that is unless you actually ARE a homosexual.....then they turn around, and slam Christians, or even suspected Christians, with unbelievable nasty vitriolic, rhetoric...and think that they themselves are NOT being the bigots that they accuse anyone opposing their worthless point of view.
The shallowness of their rap is beyond their own comprehension.. and repeatedly, they misquote, and pre-suppose what I, Little Hawk, Akenaton, Paco have been saying, and post a rebuttal TO THEIR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS!!....Try thinking about it....maybe that's asking too much, ..working without tools!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM

I recognize that weapon!! It's an Aldebarian Froth Gun, isn't it? Takes a cubic millimeter of content and expands it into six cubic meters of gummy, obscure froth designed to immobilize all rational life-based activity in contact with it. Glad I thought to don my SIlurian high-frequency Oscil-Field power-vest before opening this thread--it repels froth and admits substance. A perfect defense. BTW, did you read the owner's manual on that gun, where they list the safety hazards? Excessive exposure to the weapon or its ammo induces uncontrollable arm-waving and imitative labial froth emissions. Your mileage may vary.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 12:53 PM

has anyone been christain bashing here? if they have i have missed it. i accept any religon on a personal basis, just not the whole organisation, that seeks to control people using fear.i personally have not been bigoted to anyone here, if i have made a mistake i have happily admitted it.if you really have no problem with gay marrage GFS then why are you atill here,as far as i am aware there has been no "club" mentality here so why are you getting so worked up? might i suggest a hot bath and some candles and relaxing music before you self destruct.

take care of yourself, because by the sounds of it you are single and have no one to look after you,

jade   x x

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

So the oft confused Amos, has found a new rap here, and just had to try it out....however non-applicable it is!
Jeddy, scroll back a few pages, and you will see very much an anti-Christian bias, very similar to the projected 'bias' that those who support homosexual 'marriage', accuse others of.
I, myself have been 'chastised' for correcting a misquote of scripture, in which some self thought of intellectual posted wrongly. Then was hassled for possibly coming from a 'religious' point of view, because I referenced the correct words of Jesus. I pointed out that I have also referenced the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, John Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.
Anyway, have a great day!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:27 PM

I don't recall having been confused anywhere in this thread, oh large-mouthed lass. I have been consistent and explicit and quite clear on what I have had to say. I think you might be projecting your internal state onto your impression of me, woefully sketchy though it may be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:55 PM

""I pointed out that I have also referenced the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, John Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.""


YOU READ A BOOK?..........WHOOPEE!

Pity you didn't learn anything from it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:07 PM

No, Don T., GfS said that he/she/it had "referenced" the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, Johh Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.

He/she/it didn't say that he/she/it had actually read them.

GfS, upthread, you accused me of being bitter about religion (along with giving me lots of advice that I neither asked for nor needed), apparently assuming that was the case because of my stance favoring same-sex marriage. There are a few people here who view religion unfavorably (the usual suspects), but certainly not everyone on this thread. And nor are all Christian churches anti-gay-marriage, which you would know if you actually read what I posted about the number of main-line Christian churches that have adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome" statement. I belong to one of those churches myself. But let's not get into a dragged out discussion of my religious beliefs. Other than your prediliction for spurious assumptions, I have no idea what grab-bag you got the idea that I was "bitter about religion" out of.

And what does religion have to do with a civil rights issue, anyway? Passing or rescinding laws on the basis of religious belief is a violation of the First Amendment.

"Pseudo-liberal?" When you hear the civil rights of a minority ground defended, those who want to abridge those civil rights always resort to such epithets as accusing the proponents of being "pseudo-liberal." Here's a bulletin, GfS—and Ake. There's nothing "pseudo" about it. Attacking people who are pro-civil rights with that sort of thing is one of the marks of an obvious bi—

Oh! That's right. There are people here who object to applying the correct labels to other peoples' behavior.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

i am alomost sorry for asking now, as i don't want that part of the debate so far to go around again, but while we are,why are most marriages and funerals for that matter seen as something religious?

surely we can agree on a compromise? gay couples should have the same right as straight people whether in marriage, work, housing and children.

adopting a child is a wonderful thing to do and as long as the child is loved well cared for and provided for then whats the problem?

there are plenty of straight couples who die young or premeturely, does anyone have the right to say they can't have and shouldn't have the right to keep their child after one of the parents dies?

it seems to me that the gay community are only asking to be equal to the straight population,if you beleive in human right why is this so hard to understand and agree with.

jade
x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:41 AM

"WHEN I ran in the Democratic primary for governor against Eliot Spitzer in 2006, I vocally supported civil unions for same-sex couples but did not endorse equal marriage. I understood the need to provide equal rights for gays and lesbians, but as a practicing Catholic, I also felt that the state should not infringe on religious institutions' right to view marriage in accordance with their own traditions. I thought civil unions for same-sex couples would address my concerns regarding both equality and religious liberty.

I was wrong.

I have listened to many well-reasoned and well-intentioned arguments both for and against same-sex marriage. And as I talked to gays and lesbians and heard their stories of pain, discrimination and love, my platitudes about civil unions began to ring hollow. I have struggled to find the solution that best serves the common good.

I now support same-sex marriage. This is a subject of great debate before the New York State Legislature (although the legislators there are a little distracted right now), and I hope that same-sex civil marriage will be approved within the month.

Under current New York State law, same-sex couples are deprived of access to the employment benefits, life and health insurance and inheritance laws that heterosexual couples have. If the state were to institute civil unions for same-sex couples, that discrimination would end, but we'd still be creating a separate and unequal system.

Civil unions for both heterosexual and same-sex couples would be an equal system, but this compromise appears unlikely at the current time. Few heterosexual couples would give up their current civil marriage for a civil union. While some states would recognize civil unions for all, others would not, causing legal problems for New York couples. Advocates of same-sex marriage don't seem in favor of such a compromise either.

According to the last census, there are an estimated 50,000 households headed by same-sex couples in New York, many who were married in other states. Those marriages are recognized by New York courts as valid. As a result, we have same-sex marriage for some in New York (albeit performed out of state) and no marriage at all for other same-sex couples.

Any change in the New York law can, and must, balance equality while making sure that religious institutions remain free to choose whether to marry same-sex couples. By following the example of Connecticut and Vermont, which included protections for religious institutions when they recently legalized same-sex marriage, we can ensure that churches are not forced to consecrate marriages they do not endorse. This will require a strong liberty clause allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriage, which also applies to the provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions.

Many civil marriages are not considered "holy matrimony" by religious institutions because they do not conform to the rules of the religious institution. Those marriages have not challenged religious liberty. We must see that civil marriage, which has always been separate from religious marriage, will remain so.

But most important, gays and lesbians have suffered too long from legal discrimination, social marginalization and even violence. They are entitled to clear recognition of their equal status as citizens of a country that is founded on the principle that we are all inherently worthy. By delivering a clear message that same-sex couples can no longer be treated as separate and unequal in New York, we will also reduce discrimination in everyday life. We will all be better for that.

Equal civil marriage should, and likely will, pass because of the public's growing unwillingness to sustain inequality. Society will also be strengthened as more people take responsibility for one another in marriage. I now encourage others who oppose gay marriage to re-examine the reasons they do so, and to consider changing their minds too."

Tom Suozzi is the Nassau County executive.

This piece of his is taken from the New York Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:24 PM

Amos, and Don, you posted nonsense! You are arguing STILL, about your preconceived positions you (almost) THINK, I'm saying, therefore misleading the thread! Typical, for your political wing to do that!!

To quote Neil Young.."Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself?..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

GfS, you are downright pathetic. You can shout "nonsense" until your throat gets parched and dry, and your teeth drop out, but that does not make it so. And as far as our not correctly reflecting what you are saying, we call you on something you've written and you whine that we're misrepresenting what you said, then you say something else along the same line. Then, when someone quotes it back to you, once again you complain that that isn't what you are saying. Make up your flippin' mind!

Reading your convoluted and constantly shifting posts is a bit like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

By trying to claim that same-sex marriage laws are only some "liberal agenda," and that we advocate it only because we are "idiotic liberals" doesn't wash. I—and I'm sure others here—advocate the idea because it is a civil rights issue, not unlike desegregation of schools back in the 1960s and passing laws against job discrimination and other matters of balancing the books more fairly; and because denying a minority group their equal rights and equal protection under the law is the right thing for a civilized country to do. If it is a "liberal issue," that is because most liberals tend to see the rightness of the cause, not just because of some Word from Liberal Headquarters. To claim that is to confuse cause and effect.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue—equal protection under the law, the idea that this country is based on.

You are archaic, GfS. One by one, the states are passing laws permitting same-sex marriage or removing the laws that prevent same-sex marriage, and thereby the world is lumbering slowly toward civilization. You and those who think as you do are being left further behind.

Go ahead an call it "nonsense," GfS, if it makes you feel more secure. But that doesn't make it so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:07 PM

Typo in above post: omitted word.

". . . and because denying a minority group their equal rights and equal protection under the law is NOT the right thing for a civilized country to do."

Lest I confuse the too easily confusable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM

don, as the most easily confusable person on here, even i knew what you meant, but i think others would have jumped on that as they have no legitamae arguements and just enjoy the arguement for it's own sake. right now i don't think that GfS or AKE, are ever likey to come to the cunclution that they agree to dissagee or stop posting complete twaddle just to get reactions from you and amos.

i have said what i think and since no one has tried to argue witth me on this, i assume they just like tormenting you.
these people are not worth my time if all they do is go over the same ground, without listening to reason or providing decent answers and finding a solution.

take care don, amos and others too far up the page who want a decent conversation

jade x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:10 PM

I'm sure you're right, jade. I don't know why I have wasted so much time trying to argue with a pair of solid concrete heads. Shame on me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

It would be far more constructive, coherent and considerate of others, lass, to say what it is you think was nonsense, and give a good reason why. Otherwise, the charge just blows back on you, and since you are busy arm waving, finds you defenseless.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:52 AM

Well, as we are now deaing in hypotheticals,(KB in Iowa's oft answered question), has it occurred to any of you, that if the current AIDS figures were available in 1967, homosexuality would still be illegal and we would not even be discussing "gay marriage" in these pages.

Oh yes Don Firth!.....I almost forgot that you had taken me to task on name calling.....now let me see, you state in your post...10June 8:32 that you fee I am the sort of person who would take pleasre in the deaths of people affected by AIDS.............I respond that you have fallen to a new low in the dicussion, almost (but not quite) reaching the level of Mr Peekstock, who is a proven "bottom feeder"

Weeeell, on reviewing these remarks, I think you are probably right and my remark to you is much more of an insult than yours to me, so I apologise unreservedly.

I first encountered Mr Peekstock on the Gay Parents thread, when he entered a post full of insults, shouting and bluster, he is simply a bully and tried unsuccessfully to intimidate myself and others who disagreed with Male Homosexual fostering.

Since then Mr Peekstock has altered his tactics slightly, but in my experience a bully is always a bully and will always attempt to intimidate until confronted by people of courage.

Don....I know you from many years of posting here, you are not such a person and I regret the language we have used towards one another on this thread and I would never accuse you of taking pleasure in the deaths of anyone.....even bigots.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:53 PM

Ake, my apologies for that remark. I'm quite sure that this not the case, because I don't believe you are really that kind of person.

However—believe it or not, I have met people who think exactly that! So sometimes, when the discussion gets heated, it's a little hard to tell.

Beside Interstate highway 5, a main north-south highway in southwestern Washington State not too far from the Oregon border, some person who lives in that area owns a large signboard. The messages he characteristically puts on that signboard are arch-conservative to say the very least, and blatantly bigoted as a general rule. Lately, he's been conducting and anti-gay campaign with his sign. A recent message read:

AIDS, The Miracle Disease
It turns a fruit into a vegetable.

Now, a few people found that very amusing. But others considered it to be an obscenity of the lowest order. In fact, that was too much for the local townspeople, and they got together and demanded that he change the sign. He tried to claim his right to free speech, but the local townspeople and those in the surrounding area agreed that this level of hate speech goes beyond the intentions of the First Amendment.

And I have heard a few rabid homophobes, even unreligious ones, say, with a satisfied smile, such things as "AIDS is God's punishment," and "I hope that disease wipes those filthy perverts off the face of the earth!"

When I hear people expressing that level of hatred, frankly, I consider them to be dangerous.

So, again, my apologies. You're right, we should try to keep this discussion civil. But I think you can understand my reaction.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM

Just did a little checking.

I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, Ake. But I just read through the "Gay Parents" thread—which I note, you started. Did you really think that you weren't going to get a lot of strenuous opposition?

And I'm sorry! I can't find anything that John Peekstok said on that thread that exceeded your own modes of expression. He expressed his viewpoint with as much vigor as you did, so, as the saying goes—

If you can't stand the heat, don't sit on the barbeque.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: plnelson
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

It would be far more constructive, coherent and considerate of others, lass, to say what it is you think was nonsense

But Amos, that's all they've got!

The anti-gay-marriage argument comes down to two things:

1. Religious objections.   
-- Fine; they are welcome to believe whatever they want - we have freedom of religion in this country - but that doesn't give them the right to impose their religious views on others. I have no problem with gay-marriage legislation that includes an "out" for clergy who don't want to preside over a gay marriage due to religious objections (e.g. the recent NH bill), although I don't see why it's necessary because why would a gay or lesbian couple want to married by someone who objects to their marriage?

2. Dark but vague references to some threat represented by gay marriages to straight marriage.
-- I've long since stopped wasting my time demanding examples or clarification because they haven't GOT any. My wife and I have been married for 24 years. She's a musician; I'm an artist and poet. We often hang out or vacation in artsy places (e.g. Provincetown, MA), where, true to the stereotype, there are large gay populations. So we have lots of gay or lesbian friends and acquaintances. So I think we would have noticed any problems by now. But I asked the right wingers: What are the clues? What are the warning signs? Does it have something to do with interior decorating?   But answer came there none.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM

hello, right (rolling sleeves up) the things that people saying on here that AIDS and HIV are gay diseases astounds me to the point of frothing at the mouth. have you not heard lately that HIV for hetros is on the up too?it is not just gays that are being less cautious, and not practicing safe sex, we all know that. so why only pick out THE GAYS?

AKE, i do not agree with you on most things but you are a gentleman when it comes to admitting where you have overstepped the mark.

question.... do you have GAY clergy in the states?.. i haven't figured that one out yet,how one can follow the bible and tell you not to be who you are born to be. hummmmm

if you have, would it not be such a leap to have at least one gay church in every town/ city?

no has got back to me on the comarison between gay and sraight couples having and keeping kids.    i am sure you all know of someone who has kids and can't be bothered to raise them right.
just because biology says they can have them it doesn't mean they should. on the other hand you have people who can't have kids and would make wonderful parents. why would this group of people exclude gay couples?

i don't understand!!!!!!

take care all and be grateful for the loves in your' lives, whatever form that takes

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:12 PM

The same experience here, plnelson.

Both my wife (of 32 years) and I have been involved in various aspects of the arts, she primarily in writing and poetry, and me in music, although she is quite a good musician and I've been doing one form of writing or another all my life. We have a number of gay and lesbian friends, some of whom are quite prominent in their fields, which range from theater arts to law.

Unless one lives under a rock, in this city one could hardly avoid meeting gays and lesbians (whether one was aware of it or not!), even if one wanted to. I just recently saw the statistic that Seattle's gay and lesbian population numbers 12%, second only to San Francisco with 15%. Somehow both cities seem to be thriving quite well, thank you.

If they weren't so bloody nasty about it, I could almost feel sorry for the homophobes of the world. There's no place they can go to avoid one of the Facts of Life:   there are a lot of gays and lesbians in the world and it's beginning to look like Kinsey's figures actually were considerably closer to the real percentages than the miniscule numbers that Akenaton prefers.

The anti-gay marriage argument is based on nothing more substantial than narrow-mindedness and prejudice.

And, of course, the unspeakable "B-word."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:03 PM

Yes, jade, there are gay clergy in the United States. Sometimes they find themselves in conflict with their church, but often not. As to gay churches, there may be a few around, but I don't really know of any (perhaps others do).

But actually (and I mention this a couple of times above), there are a fair number of churches all over the country, perhaps more in some areas than others, who not only welcome gays and lesbians, but are willing to perform marriage or commitment ceremonies for them. They have signed what is called an "Affirmation of Welcome" (google it for more information), announcing that their doors are open to ALL people, no matter what race, ethnicity, national origin, OR gender orientation.

And regarding children. Adoption should include gays and lesbians. I know two gay men who adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage, and with "Papa" and "Daddy" (along with a couple of doting aunts), the boys are thriving. One is an acolyte in the church to which his parents belong, and the other is still a toddler.

I also know two gay men who have one son (a toddler) fertilized in vitro by one of the men and born by a surrogate mother. The other man has done the same thing, and they've just been told that the surrogate mother is pregnant with triplets! Needless to say, they're a bit stunned!

It's the same surrogate mother, so the children will be related to one father, a common mother, and to their siblings.

Their church is looking forward to quite a baptism!

So many people have no problem with this. It's too bad that there are so many others who allow themselves to get all tied up in knots over how others pursue their happiness, especially when it doesn't effect them in any real way.

Don Firth

P. S. An added thought on the idea of a specifically gay church: I'm not sure that all that many gays and lesbians would be happy with a church that was just "gay." The gays and lesbians that I know prefer a specific denomination, such as Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc. And since there are individual churches who have signed the "Affirmation of Welcome," it's a matter of finding one of the desired denomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:21 PM

There are a number of "Metropolitan" churchs around; my understanding is that it's essentially a gay denomination, or at least founded by gays as churchs where they could worship in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

"But actually (and I mention this a couple of times above), there are a fair number of churches all over the country, perhaps more in some areas than others, who not only welcome gays and lesbians, but are willing to perform marriage or commitment ceremonies for them. They have signed what is called an "Affirmation of Welcome" (google it for more information), announcing that their doors are open to ALL people, no matter what race, ethnicity, national origin, OR gender orientation."

As well they all should be & as the guy who started the christen movement would want.
Now I don't care much for churches & religions, they don't mean much in my life but what I've heard & been taught about Jesus is that he saw all as his family & children of his father. I think to myself, in todays world he'd just take a razor to his throat & end it seeing as there are so many that suffer at the hands of the righteous & in his name.
Maybe some day we'll all have equal rights without the agony of some one else's extasty (pun)

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 11:15 AM

i have always wondered how the church can justify their beiefs on a number of issues. why can't they remember that the bible wasn't actually written by god or jesus, if i remember right it was written a long time after he 'died' so whatever is in there, and i haven't read it, is only for that era, alot of it doesn't work now.. wasn't there something about eating meat on a friday?

DON, thankyou for pointing out to me that there is more than one typre of christian,as a non practising pagan i forget that other religions aren't simple to understand.
although(slight thread drift) i still can't understand the differences that make them all argue so much.

how can a preist say that gay couples can't get married or adopt because it is against gods will, then be found out for kiddie fiddling,the world has gone mad!!!

alot of christians beleive so much they think they will be forgiven for anything.i hate these kind of religous people no matter what religion they worship.
it is easy to manipulate to say what ever you want it to say.


it sounds like i hate religion, i don't BUT i do hate the way it is used to make everything and anything seem to be acceptable. when to the thinking mind is obviously not.

i am wondering whether it is time for all church groups to unite and rewrite the bible, more suited to modern life.. i can but dream..

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:34 PM

The not-eating-meat-on-Friday part is entirely a Roman Catholic tradition, now largely if not entirely abandoned. I'm not noting that to argue or berate you, Jeddy; there are lots of rules in the Bible itself that are comparable in being irrelevant now.

Yes, it would be a major step toward a healthier situation if everyone grasped the fact that ordinary fallible humans wrote the Bible. A few fundamentalists will say, in so many words, that God wrote the Bible, not man. Most (in my experience) fundamentalists say that God "inspired" the Bible so that it is free from human error; to me that is just mincing words while effectively saying that God wrote it.

A rewrite of the Bible such as you suggest will probably never happen; if it does, it will be rejected and firmly condemned by most churchs. While I wouldn't argue against anyone attempting it, or publishing it, I personally wouldn't care to see it replace the original. It's not that I see the Bible as authoritative now; but it's the closest thing we have to prime documents on the earliest thought and experiences of the church, to keep us aware of where we started.
As analogy, I wouldn't want to see the papers and documents of America's founding fathers rewritten to adapt them to every modern sensibility, and then passed off as an accurate representation of the originals. I think it would be a violation of history.
                               Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:46 PM

And if, by any chance, such a rewrite of the Bible occurs, it's entirely possible that it will be done by someone who convinces some followers, and very possibly himself, that that volume is now the new authoritative "Word of God"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM

Only 20 hits to go...
Doo-dah! Doo-dah!
Only 20 hits to go...
Oh, Doo-dah-day!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:38 PM

When I cite people who are against homosexual "marriage" on religious grounds I am not referring to fundamentalist "bible thumpers" as you all seem to be suggesting.....I mean ordinary Christians who probably dont read the bible from one years end to the other.
Ordinary folk with ordinary lives, they like to get married in church, have a couple of kids and try to bring them up to be good citizens......There are dozens of them round here,although they don't go to church every Sunday, they have a set of beliefs...rules for living...traditions....call it what you will, but these are the people who believe they are being trampled on, their beliefs trashed, their voices silenced to accomodate what they see as a very strange but vociferous minority, a minority who use every means at their disposal to normalise their lifestyle.

These people, my neighbours, are not religious nuts(although you all like to paint them as such), they are ordinary folk who can see no reason to have their values re-defined to accomodate a lifestyle that not so long ago was illegal and would still be illegal if the present health statistics had been available.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:47 PM

The current discussion does not bear on the Christian meaning of marriage; I am sure none of the neighbors you describe are fundamentalist extremists, Ake.

The issue before this thread is the CIVIL aspect of marriage, the legal rights and protections of the relationship in the eyes of the law.

Just as your neighbors do not want their religious conventions redefined, neither should civil rights be redefined because of one or another religious groups preference; hence the age old principle of separating Church and State.   THIS dialogue is about the state side of the question.

(I think I mentioned this distinction before, but you may have missed it...).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

as i said i did skip quite alot of this conversation. why should everyone not have the right to be heard and be proud, not apply to everyone? i thought you had a constitution that all people are equal, why does thatv not apply here?

from what i gather and maybe i am wrong,please correct me if i am, but it does sound like america is coming away from that philosophy.

everyone, i am not saying that the regligious folk are extremists or nuts, just that i don't understand their way of thinking, i wouldn't deny anyone anything if it did not HURT anyone else physically or mentally,so why should they? i think beleif is a wonderful thing as long as you remember that is is only an idea.

why couldn't someone rewrite the bible, why would that not be seen as the ammended word of god? i don't mean scrape the old one, but how many important acient documents are hidden from the public?

a flippent example might be ... i have read.. river god by wilbur smith,.. but i wouldn't have a clue on how to read the ancient scrolls from which they came, just because he has slighly altered the story doesn't make it any less relevent or inspiring.

everyone comes to the table with different perspectives, like a session shouldn't we try to keep an open mind and try to come to a compromise?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM

Akeneton, you've raised a slightly different spector recently. It sounds a lot like you're implying that it would be better if homosexual activity in and of itself were still illegal.

In my own experience, when more "casual" Christians are adamently against gay rights, in many cases they will sooner or later mention that they have heard that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible, and relate their stance to that.
As to folk who simply object because they were raised with objections to, and raised to object to, such things as a simple matter of generalised cultural tradition: that brings us right back to the sort of thing that has already been mentioned repeatedly already. Many, many people felt that their valued traditions were violated when the laws against interracial marriage were overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 02:27 AM

...Then again, Its quite a different thing, when homosexuals demand that churches, of whom the want to be recognized by, already have a long standing stance and objections to homosexuality...then demand that they change their views to accommodate them!! Churches have even split over it.
Even Obama is caving in, under the pressure..so he's going to sign a watered down version to give them benefits..but personally he is opposed to it.

So much for his personal integrity!
Biden still does not support it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_gay_benefits

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:30 AM

Just in case this interest anyone, the book in the Bible which calls same-sex activity an 'abomination' says the same thing about eating pelican flesh and seeing your uncle naked.

Odd that nobody campaigns so obsessively about those.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM

Frogprince.... Please don't put words in my mouth, I stand by everything I write and how you interpret what I post is your problem.

I have never said that I would be in favour of re-criminalising the practice of homosexuality. I believe these people need medical treatment both psychologically and physically, not jail.
Inter-racial marriage has never been a problem to the people in this area, even tho' the area was considered quite conservative in the past. If you are referring to the racial problems in America, I think they are based more in right wing political manipulation than biblical teaching.

Jeddy...It might be worth your while to take a little time to read the whole thread....see how the different points have been discussed and argued over, it would save much useless repetition.
I think it simply good manners to familiarise yourself with the issues and how they have been dealt with on this this long and convuluted thread, before diving in at the deep end. A few of us have spent
months arguing the details and just can't be arsed repeating them for every newbie who appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:30 AM

If you are referring to the racial problems in America, I think they are based more in right wing political manipulation than biblical teaching.

I will cut you some slack on this because you are not from the states but the issue is incredibly more complicated than that.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:44 AM

I would agree that, in recent years, Biblical teaching has little or nothing to do with racial discrimination in America. What passed for Biblical teaching was commonly used to justify discrimination in the past, and there are probably a scattering of hateful cranks still trying to sell that. That line of "Biblical" teaching was such a desperate attempt to find support, by reading things into irrelevant Biblical passages, that even a good share of very conservative fundamentalists saw it for what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM

AKE,
you are right in saying that i have been rude to miss out so much of this thread.for that rudeness i am sorry, i just haven't got 3/4 days spare to do that, i am a slow reader at the best of times and alot of the posts use such complicated langauge that it takes a few reads just to understand what they mean.

please, give me a break. i might not be as inteligent in the use of language as some, but i still have the right to put forward my ideas and thoughts, just the same as you do.

even though you would wish me to change who and what i am, i wish you the best of everything.

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM

Bible, schmible.

Whatever fancy rationalizations you use to cover it up and sugar coat it, the fundamental impulse involved is to create a clump of "them" and dramatize the difference between "them' and "us". It might bear pointing out that doing this is in direct contradiction to Jesus' instructions about loving your brother as yourself. But the point is that dividing and pigeonholing groups of people and posing as better than some categories is all very well for social clubs, cults, and religious circle-jerks but is NOT allowable within the domain of civil law. IF equality under the law means anything at all this is surely a tesr case.

How many years must some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
And how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend
Is blowin' in the wind.
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

Amos...the people I know are not trying to portray themselves as "better" human beings than homosexuals, they just have a very different definition of marriage.

The problem is that civil law does not treat every minority equally, people with psychological problems, drug abuse, or sexual health issues, are routinely deprived of "rights" afforded to "normal" members of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

It does seem funny though that some of the same people who get so exercised about their doubts concerning the vote count in Iran want to overturn the vote of the majority in California.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 07:32 PM

Ake:

"We" are entitled to a legal state of "marriage" because we are "normal", and deserve the legal right to name each other on insurance papers, inheritance, representation, and other implications of that civil state.

"They" should not be entitled to that legal state because...


(they are not normal) (they are unnatural) (they are repulsive) (they are condemned by our religion) (they are just wrong)....

CHoose the one you like. However you slice it, it is claiming legally a superiority of entitlement for very shallow reasons, by reason of categorical prejudice. And it is deeply unfair, unkind, and unChristian.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 08:04 PM

Ake: The problem is that civil law does not treat every minority equally, people with psychological problems, drug abuse, or sexual health issues, are routinely deprived of "rights" afforded to "normal" members of society.

This is a hollow argument. No member of these groups get deprived of their civil rights because of membership in these groups. They only get deprived of some rights if they, as individuals, are convicted of a crime -- just like criminals who are not members of any of these groups. And even incarcerated criminals are allowed to get married.

Keep trying, Akenaton! Somewhere out there, maybe in a universe far away, there's an argument you can put forth that will stand up to even the most rudimentary logical examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 08:14 PM

The Biblical "basis" for segregating Blacks is another one of those situations of certain people wanting to find some reason in the Bible for oppressing or excluding someone, attempting to justify it by "cherry-picking" a verse here and a verse there, and putting these previously unrelated verses together. One contention is that Blacks are the descendants of Cain, the first murderer, cast out of Eden. The dark skin is considered by the advocates of this view as "the Mark of Cain." Another is that Blacks are the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, who allegedly committed some unspecified sin, and was banished for it. The most vile thing he did that has any Biblical basis is that he saw his father, Noah, lying naked in his tent in a drunken sleep, and he went into the tent and covered Noah with a blanket.

No Biblical basis that any reputable theologian would ever endorse, nevertheless, one heard one or the other of these quoted as reasons for racial segregation at its best and a justification for enslaving Blacks at its most aggregious.

Regarding homosexuality, it was God's command that the Hebrews "go forth and multiply." Since homosexuality does not produce offspring, nor does "coitus interruptus" (Onanism), or masturbation, these activities were regarded as disobeying God's command, therefore sins.

This "cherry-picking" of verses, one from here, another from there, and still another from somewhere else, taking them out of context and recombining them to support what one wants to "prove" accounts for the vast majority of pure, unadulterated crap that passes for "religious principles" these days. But this is nothing new. Even the Bible itself, as we know it now, was a picking and choosing from a far huger collection of scrolls and manuscripts.

The Bible, if read as an anthology of stories, myths, poems, and legends is one of the world's greatest pieces of literature. But as the pastor of Central Lutheran Church in Seattle said as she held up a copy of the Bible, "This is not a rule book. This is not a history book. It is a book filled with questions!"

Thus endeth the lesson for today. Go in peace.

Don Firth

P. S. When I was in the English Department at the University of Washington, I took a course entitled "The Bible as Literature" (the same professor, David C. Fowler, also taught "The Popular Ballad as Literature"). When one reads the Bible in the same way that one reads any other literary anthology—instead of hopping from around and reading individual verses—it becomes a whole different thing entirely.

P. P. S. By the way, GfS, I have mentioned a number of times on this thread that there are a large number of churches in the United States and in a number of other countries, signatories to the "Affirmaton of Welcome," who welcome gays and lesbians and include them fully in the sacraments of the church—which includes marriage (whether local civil law recognizes it or not). So your complaint that gays and lesbians are trying to force their way into churches who don't want them is a bit of a straw man.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 11:19 PM

AKE,   i am reading the thread the whole way through, but i will continue to post whilst catching up.   

your' arguements so far up until the 1 jan which is where i have gotten to, seem to sway one way then the other, is this because you are listening to others or just because you can't make your' mind up?

i thnk i have an answer, i think that you are scared of being gay yourself, you have been taught that it is a sin and cannot justify your' own feelings towards other men.

it doesn't matter to me but it might be good for your' soul to just come out.   

i have had people like you to condend with for nearly my whole life.
"it's nothing personal i just don't like it"or "it's not "normal".

or worse do you have to explain yourself constantly?

do you have people ask weather you and a woman are sisters?

i still don't understand anyones interest in other peoples sex lives or if you are there plenty of dvds around for you to take an interest in.

leave the public alone and concentrate on your' own lives.

right that is me done for another day,
take care ALL

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM

Jeddy...I'm just beginning to think that I was correct the first time!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:34 AM

Amos...I don't really understand your last post, but perhaps you are saying that everyone should have the same human rights, regardless of their behaviour.

"Rights" are given or witheld in the interests of the individual AND society, sometimes what is in the interests of one is not in the interests of the other.

This is the point I have been making for some time, that "Rights" are not universal, but conditional. It is absolutely nothing to do with "hatred" of certain minorities, merely a protection device for society.

If you wish to argue "Same rights for all"...why do you curtail your argument to one sector....one minority?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

Mr Peekstock...you are wrong, recovering heroin addicts in the UK, who have committed no crime and are on the legal methadone programme are deprived of the "Right" to foster children...Quite rightly

Laws are made by politicians more in their own interests than society's, thus we get some minorities who are criminalised for certain behaviour and others who indulge in more dangerous practices, do so within the law......In these matters the law is an ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:57 AM

maybe not then AKE,i apologise. i still don't see why you are so against gays having the same rights. you didn't answer the questions though. although not terribly important i thought that it might make you think of what it is like to be on the receiving end of people like you.

your' earlier posts do go from poisonous to really rather well explained, even though i dissagree with you entirely, i can see why you would think that the gay community are trying to dictate to the church, if you ask me the church could do with a bit of a restructure. just like some of our archaic laws that have not been lokked at for hundreds of years.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:31 AM

You don't have to apologise Jeddy, I have heard it one hundred times...."if you hold a differing opinion to us, you must be a homosexual in denial", Its just another way of silencing dissent....Real bigotry in action in fact; and usually practiced by "liberals"......I don't accuse any of the pro's here of being closet homosexuals or have any wish to silence them, discussion is always good and I like to encourage it, unlike the "liberals" who are continually trying to scare people off or bring the discussion to an end. They know that discussion opens people's minds to different ideas.....they want to stick to the formula "if you don't agree with us, you are a homosexual in denial, bigot, facsist, or any other term of abuse which comes to hand.

A lot of people just arn't interested and I can sympathise with them, this thread has gone on for months....much of it repetition, but the "rights" issue is very important and should not be hi-jacked by one minority just because they have huge leverage in the media and entertainment business.   If something is continually promoted as being "so simple", it is usually a con, and minority "rights" are far from simple, as I have tried to explain in my posts.

One question for you Jeddy, why do Lesbians generally ally themselves with male homosexuals? The lifestyle, behaviour, and health risks seem so totally different.....Do you really think it is in the interests of lesbian women? they appear to be taking on all the problems of homosexuality yet leading a lifestyle more akin to monogamous heterosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 10:21 AM

You're going in circles, Ake. There is a clear case that a violation of uniform civil rights has occurred without any criminal offense having been committed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM

where's my post gone???? i will repost it later

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM

Hmmm, I never thought of being allowed to foster children as a "right". Of course society should refuse to allow people who look they won't be good parents to foster children. Equating being able to marry with being able to foster children is like equating pears and fish. Is this the best support you can come up with for denying marriage and other real rights to a group of people?

Akenaton, you have so far, in all the hundreds of posts on this subject, failed to support any of your statements. You say something, several of us refute it with logic and ethics, and you ignore our posts and move on to other statements which we refute. You then ignore us again, and either move on to yet another statement or go back to the original -- all without supporting your arguments in any normal way. Your words stand on their heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

I don't know how things are in Scotland, Ake, but in the United States, a person's civil rights can't be denied unless they have been convicted of a crime or have shown that they are mentally incompetent, and / or constitute a danger to themselves or others, in which case, any abridgement of civil rights must be by due process of law and is limited and conditional.

Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it a sign of mental incompetence or a danger to others.

[Now, before you hop on the AIDS wagon ("constitute a danger to others"), a person can be prosecuted if they knowingly expose another person to AIDS infection—or hepatitis or tuberculosis or any other infectious disease.]

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM

Haven't much time at the moment, but I'm just dropping in to say, "Thanks for reaching 1600." You have all done very, very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM

Some of the 1600 were yours LH so you have a share in the glory.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM

Ya know what, Little Hawk? Screw you.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM

If only Winona would take that attitude... (sigh)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:22 PM

Akeneton,
Since 1. You do not see lesbianism as a health threat to society

2. Your objections to the fostering or adoption of children by homosexuals seems to be primarily, if not totally, concerned with gay males.

Would you object to marriage between lesbians, if it were still prohibited for males?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 03:55 PM

right now i have time to repost, i just hope it doesn't go missing again, i never realised how annoying it is.

ake, i did not mean to insult you or block the arguement but i have known a number of people who have protsted too much.

i don't see how the lifestyles are so differnt. you SEEM to be saying that men are incapable of having the same emotional depth in a relationship as women, the men can be just as insecure and emotional as us, and just as broody. have you never known a straight couple where the man has desperately wanted a child and the woman doesn't? btw, the only things i get broody over are very small puppies lol

i am with you on that herion addicts should not have sole custody of children, purely on the basis that an overdose is so easy, i have witnessed first hand just how easy.   however i don't see how you can compare that to a loving couple who would give up anything for the sake of that child.

gay women(i hate the word lesbian, just my opinion)also get alot of hassle in the street maybe not quite so forceful but it is there, so it is nice to be around and support those who get the same and understand how it feels. maybe another reason that women in general feel so comfortable around gay men, is that they don't expect anything from them, we can feel safe around them, we can act and do as we please without thinking is he going to come on to me or what does he expect.

as for the HIV/AIDS thing, not everyone who has been infected gave consent, this happens to both men and women, you would be suprised at how many men.

but back to the issue of marriage. if there was a gay couple living next door to you and they decided to get married, how and why would this affect your' marriage, family or life living next door?

maybe i am just too broad minded but i still can't see why this is not a simple matter.

i d not object to biligamy(?) if everyone agrees then why not?

if i may say so you do seem to be sofening in your' thoughts on this AKE, i hope that you are anyway. we have to remember that this issue isn't just politics this is peoples lives and hearts and where emotions are concerned everyone has the right to be happy and has the right to love and be loved.

AKE, please be careful what you say to people, i do not agree with you on this, but i don't want you to get assulted because you said something to the wrong person.

take care all

jade x x

please don't get loste, fingers crossed, here goes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM

I'll have you know that when I was at the grocery store the other day there was a newspaper at the checkout stand. It said the Michelle Obama is going to have a baby to prove that the President isn't gay.

I thought it was bad enough to see that he was a socialist, muslim terrorist that was born in Africa. But now I find out he's gay too! That's just too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:36 PM

Ake, I can understand what jeddy is saying about gay women often preferring the company of gay men. I knew a young woman at the university who was gay, and during the time I knew her, she had at least three men trying to get her into bed. Their idea was that "All she needs is a good roll in the hay, and that will straighten her out!" And they, of course, appointed themselves to the job.

Around gay men, she wouldn't have had to worry about guys like that constantly hassling her.

And here's another bulletin:   more than one straight woman also prefers the company of gay men for essentially the same reason. They don't want to be hit on all the time.

And jeddy asks the same question that I have been asking all along: "if there was a gay couple living next door to you and they decided to get married, how and why would this affect your' marriage, family or life living next door?"

I keep asking and asking, and no one seems to be willing to answer.

It's a legitimate question and it deserves an answer. If it doesn't come, the only conclusion one can draw is that it would make no difference whatsoever—unless you allowed it to, and then that would be your problem, no one else's.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM

Well Don - If there were a gay couple living next door to Ake he would feel all "ickey". Is that a good enough reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, he could file a complaint at his local law enforcement agency and see how far "ickey" gets him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

I've answered this a dozen times....marriage doesn't concern me personally, if I believed in God or was a Christian I would be very concerned that my beliefs were being undermined.

What I am concerned about is the campaign by homosexual activists and PC "liberals" to normalise a lifestyle which according to the current medical statistics is extremely dangerous and destructive.

Right from the start I have stated that Homosexual "marriage" was a device to normalise the practice, there has been no evidence presented that the mass of homosexuals are interested in monogamy or "marriage" .....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM

".....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Please document - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:58 PM

""if you hold a differing opinion to us, you must be a homosexual in denial", Its just another way of silencing dissent""


That's hilarious! You are claiming that liberals use this argument against those who agree with you, while GfS (who agrees with you) is using the identical approach to try to discredeit Don F.

Best laugh of the year

Don't you read your posts before pressing submit?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

AKE "there has been no evidence presented that the mass of homosexuals are interested in monogamy or "marriage" .....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite! "

i thought half the reason you were against gay marrage was not for the thing itself but because you didn't want these issues being shoved down your throat? ..... well which is it? the fact that a large group of people want to get married and are protesting and marching or that they don't give a toss and don't want a manogamos(?) relationship.    i don't see how you can think both at the same time.

why would someone getting married undermine anyones belief in god?
does the church persectue the marraiges that don't happen in a church, do they deny that those marriages are legal and binding? there are loads of marriage services that have nothing at all to do with religion, but we don't here the church banging on about that, WHY?....because although these people may not be religious they are NORMAL, methinks that gay issues are just an easy target.

i do not deny your' right to think or feel the way you do, i just don't understand why, and you don't seem to be able to anwer my questions in a way that makes any sense to me.

i am not trying to change anyones beliefs or change the church,but i think i have the right to say that i think that the church needs to look at its own behaviour before it tries to condemn mine, if i am willing to listen to those who think i should be in an assylum then i think the least anyone else can do is try to understand who i am and what i beleive in before condeming me.

i do not try to corrpupt kids, i do not start fights, i do not rob anyone or hurt anyone in any way so why can't peope just let me live my life in peace?

take care all

x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM

Ake, the body of Christian belief covers so many areas—all of life, in fact, to a devout Christian—that if the one's Christian beliefs could be undermined simply by the institution of same-sex marriage (remember, many Christian churches find no problem with it at all), then I'd say one's beliefs were never very strong to begin with. Within the canon of Christian belief, there are far many more reasons to include it than to forbid it.

I've been through this discussion a number of times and heard clergy discuss the matter extensively, so I know what I'm talking about here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM

I've answered this a dozen times....marriage doesn't concern me personally, if I believed in God or was a Christian I would be very concerned that my beliefs were being undermined.

Not relevant -- this doesn't have a place in a discussion of whether or not gay folks should be denied civil rights. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it.

What I am concerned about is the campaign by homosexual activists and PC "liberals" to normalise a lifestyle which according to the current medical statistics is extremely dangerous and destructive.

Who is interpreting these statistics? Is it just you, with your contention that AIDS is a gay disease? Do you understand that everyone can get AIDS, gay or straight, and the fact that a higher percentage of gay folks have AIDS just means that it hit that community first? Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it. Also, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being PC "liberals" (thus making their opinions immaterial? or what?) is a put-down of almost everyone else on this thread; in short, it is an ad hominem attack. This is generally considered to be bad form if you want to be taken seriously. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it.

Right from the start I have stated that Homosexual "marriage" was a device to normalise the practice, there has been no evidence presented that the mass of homosexuals are interested in monogamy or "marriage" .....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Again, not relevant. If even one gay couple wants to enjoy the benefits of marriage and are denied it, their civil rights are being trampled. In fact, tens of thousands of couples have sought marriage -- the evidence is easily available. What statistics say otherwise? Please direct us to them. Has a reputable organization really canvassed a relevant sample of gay people and reached this conclusion? You are making statements that have no basis. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it. Also, what evidence do have that being homosexual is not normal? Virtually all professionals in the field of medicine and mental health disagree. Please acknowledge this, refute it, or drop it.

In the interest of drawing this thread to a close, if you don't choose to acknowledge these points, refute them, or drop them, I will declare you the "loser" of this debate. You have to support what you say if you want to continue this conversation. If you can't, you should admit that you don't like gay marriage simply because of the "ick factor" and for no other reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

There is nothing about the lifestyle that is dangerous, Ake. There is a transmission vector which has a statistical correlation with certain sexual practices when they ar epursued unprotected. The same statistical correlation can be found relating to unprotected hetero sex as a transmission vector for syphilis, but no-one goes around saying its the "hetero lifestyle". That's just armwaving. Butt-buggery, whether done by heteros or homos, without protection, is a good way to pass on a disease. Any disease. That has nothing to do with the issue of the right to marry being denied some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM

good point AMOS, isn't syphilis the one that drives you insane, affects your' skin and then kills you if left untreated?

that was what i was trying to say but you are far more eloquent than i.

what happens with the other common deseases i wonder,, hepititus a/b/c whatever?

what about gonarhea(?) what does that do?

urm i have run out because i don't have to pay attention due to the fact that both me and my mrs are faithful,but these deseases are making us the worst country for STDs and teenage pregancy. but you don't hear anyone say they are discusting and should be kept at arms length do you? we frown upon it but do not shun the kids involved.

now don't start thinking that i am all for sunning them, they are the ones who need the most support of all and some education wouldn't go amiss.



how the hell did i end up there?????

i still stand by it but i am sorry for the SLIGHT thread drift.
have a wonderful night everyone

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:35 PM

phew, for a moment ther i thought i had done the wrong post to the wrong thread, glad to see my paranoia is in check. LOL

j x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:25 AM

Akenaton,
The highest rate of HIV in the world is in Swaziland, and males and females are affected almost equally (and there are offically no homosexuals there). Should marriage be banned in Swaziland?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:28 AM

PS.
And LH, your glee at the length of this thread is condescension pure and simple, and superiority run amuck. You accuse us of needing to "win", and then celebrate your own particular brand of "winning". Welcome to our level.

BTW, I do respect you, but must point this out so that I can win :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:14 AM

I need to refute nothing Mr Peekstock, just read the statistics regarding homosexual practice/Aids/Homosexual promiscuity!

You can declare me the loser 'till you're blue in the face, I prefer to stand by what has been written here.
Anyone who reads this thread in the future, will have an objective document to study and may make up their own mind as to who or whether there is a "winner" or "loser".
Personally, I think society is always the winner when objectivity and freedom of speech are allowed to be heard.
Of course you might have completely different ideas on what freedom means?

Amos.. the lifestyle is extremely dangerous to those who practice it.....they are people too you know, not just pawns in the "liberal" game.
That is the whole point the Los Angeles homosexuals are making, the link between homosexual practice and Aids is massive in real terms, denial of this is simply stupid. The Los Angeles people are determined to find out why and stop the deaths.....not just allow them to continue in the cause of "liberalism"!
Don says that the reason there are more homosexual deaths, is that it started first among homosexuals, and given time things will even up and hetero deaths will soon outnumber homo deaths. This of course is correct, due to the huge difference in scale between the hetero and homo populations....What he fails to address is why every new outbreak of this disease ALWAYS shows up first in the homosexual community.

Tom....please read CDC figures on homosexuality/promiscuity.

Jeddy....There may be reletively large numbers marching in support of homosexual "marriage" and other homosexual issues, by when given the oppotunity to avail themselves of their "rights" how many actually do so....the numbers are miniscule and tend to bear out what the figures state on homosexual practice/ promiscuity.

BTW I would just add that lesbians seem to be more monogamous and less promiscious than even heteros....why dont you come and join us? :0)....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:17 AM

AKE, why don't i join you in what i am confused, but then i have just woken up!!

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM

Amos.. the lifestyle is extremely dangerous to those who practice it.

What, then do you mean by "lifestyle"? It's an empty generality. Unprotected anal sex is dangerous, I am sure. Promiscuity is dangerous. Are these, in your mind, automatic concomitants of two men or two women loving one another? My point is that you have created a large, ugly generality about what is dangerous, and as a result you are defending rank prejudice and discrimination. The things that are dangerous are dangerous when heteros do them, but no-one is crying out to prevent marriage among heteros who do them. You cannot take this one attribute and assign it to the whole class, because it is an individual attribute, not a class attribute, especially when in doing so you are justifying injustice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM

oh something which i forgot to add: how many hetro couples live together in a common-law marriage? you would be up in arms if someone said that you had to marry or do it within a certain time or you would lose that right.

i do wish you would imagine yourself in the position where you had to explain yourself all the time, you would soon get fed up with it ake, and be squaking for the right to live in peace, just the same as the agy community are now.

i still don't understand why there has to be a vote on a civil human rights matter, as alot of folks have said, surely all man is created equal?


have a great day all

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM

OK, Akenaton, you refuse to acknowledge, rebut, or drop the issue. You lose. C'mon everyone, let's all go home. He's just saying the same nonsensical things over and over without being willing or able to support any of it. Why are we wasting our time with this fool?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM

Right, John. This is bloody useless. As my wise old uncle once told me, "My boy, don't waste your time arguing with an *****!"

One last correction and I'm out of here. I've got better ways to spend my time that by trying to educate the ineducable.

Ake:

"Don says that the reason there are more homosexual deaths, is that it started first among homosexuals. . . ."

I did not say that, Ake! Unless, perhaps, you are referring to Don T. But I don't believe he said that either. To avoid confusion, perhaps you had best specify which Don you mean, because from what I have written, it looks to me like, once again, you are refusing to get it right because it disagrees with what you want to believe.

What I said, way up-thread (in response to you trying to claim that HIV is "spontaneously generated" by homosexual activity, which is a totally medieval concept), is that the AIDS virus was first found in African monkeys and was transferred to humans through the practice (illegal, I believe) of hunting and eating "bush meat" (monkey meat), possibly by a hunter being bitten by an infected monkey or by consumption of the meat itself. It began to spread through Africa, and like such contagions, it then spread to other countries. It can be spread a number of different ways, not just through homosexual activity. It was an equal opportunity infection. And it still is!

It was first identified in the United States among homosexual men. This was happenstance. It could just as easily have been first identified among heterosexual Peace Corps volunteers, or Presbyterian missionaries from Scotland.

I would suggest, Ake, that you take off the blinkers. But, of course, that would mean that you would have to acknowledge mounds of evidence that contradict your prejudices.

And stop deliberately misrepresenting what I have written. When you have to do that, you are declaring that you have lost the debate!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM

And Little Hawk, I'm sorry, but although I generally think that you are a pretty bright guy, I have to agree with what TIA says at 19 Jun 09 - 01:28 a.m. During this thread, you've behaved like a frivilous twit!

I remind you once again of what Dante said about people who aloofly maintain a "colorless neutrality" in the face of an ethical question.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:11 PM

The only GOOD thing about beating your head against a stone wall is that it is such a pleasure to stop doing it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM

My apologies Don....On reviewing the thread I discovered that it was your friend and accomplice Mr Peekstock who made the comment... pity he's buggered off to celebrate his victory :0) I could have nailed him again for that one

However, it's nice to see you all so pleased with yourselves...fair full o' it... the icing on the cake would have been if you could just erase this thread....then you would be really happy, "liberalism" triumphing over and silencing any dissent.

Not today! and not any day!....the Scots don't TAKE prisoners!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

I am a Scot, Ake.

And, no, I don't want this thread erased. I want people to read it and judge for themselves.

Goodbye. The philistines are gathering, so I have work to do in the real world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM

Parting shot:

Feeling a little shorter now, Ake?

"Oh, I see! Runnin' away, eh?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:26 PM

ake, don't you love me anymore?

when someone talks to you it is only polite to answer even if it is to say fuck off.

you have hurt my feelings!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:47 PM

Ithought lesbians didn't fuck off!

Please correct me if I'm wrong....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:34 PM

Nar, nar, Ake ain't even hurt--it was only a flesh wound! Who needs legs to stand on, anyway? Take that!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 11:18 PM

i might be gay but i can still ...
have you never heard of things with batteries?   lol

what is it they call it,.. ah yes vibration white finger!!

this is getting rather silly, it is a good job i don't embarass easily.so any 'come' backs?

take care all

jade x x

p.s. still waiting for answers ake. x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:45 AM

Amos... We don't really know why the link between homosexual practice and Aids occurs, all we do know for sure is that homosexuals suffer a far greater incidence of the disease than homosexuals, in real percentage terms. In addition to that, every new outbreak,(even those in Africa, where most of the transmission ts heterosexual)is first diagnosed in the homosexual community.
Surely this cannot be dismissed as "happenstance" as Don suggests we do?

The homosexuals of Los Angeles, want the disease officially recognised as primarily "a disease of homosexuality", so that funds and energy can be concentrated on a proper medical study of the behaviour and its consequences.....They see Aids killing many of their number and wish to defeat the disease. According to their literature, they are of the opinion that if resources are not concentrated in this fashion, a cure will never be found.

The denial by "liberals" everywhere to recognise the link, is actually hindering the setting up of the study, to the long term detriment of the community they say they are supporting.

Admission by the "liberals" that the link exists would of course raise questions about the safety of the practice of homosexuality on health grounds, and also the safety of the wider population through transmission of the disease, through bi - sexual activity, injection of drugs etc.
This in turn would lead to questions over the short term rights of homosexuals, which may have to be curtailed,(as happens with other sexual behaviour deemed "unsafe".)

So you see the "liberal" homosexual rights issue may not actually be in the interests of homosexuals in general, may be hindering the search for an Aids cure and leading to the deaths of more homosexuals.

Sometimes I think that the people who drive these issues(often non homosexuals with a chip on their shoulders) should take one step back and look at the bigger picture.


Most of the battles fought by us humans are more to do with personal glory for those who drive them, rather than any benefit which might accrue to those really affected.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 07:50 AM

how on earth can you say, that being liberal,takes away the research into a cure for HIV or AIDS? thi a a cross sexualitly, worldwide problem. do you not thnk that straight people want to find the answers too?

i am glad that you now seem to recognise the fact that it can be spread by the sharing of needles,but you still seem seem to think that it is a gay thing,when someone (can't remember who) up thread has already said it comes from eating african monkey meat. thus the spread of this was a hetro problem. the same someone also said that just because it was first discovered in gay males does not make it a gay disease.

sorry that i have paraphrased or if i got the two mixed up.

i think that you are one of those people who just love the arguement, and don't really care about educating others or finding a compromise in our beliefs.

so i will bid you farewell sir, this is not a climb down but since you don't answer questions or admit when you have been wrong or misguided then i see little point in carrying on.

i will keep reading and post only when i read something intelligent.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:36 AM

sorry i forgot to say that was to AKE, if anyone else got offended i appologize !!!

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:44 AM

Ake:

I am sorry. You've said this before, and I dismissed it, somewhat churlishly. And you might ask why? The reason is that the hypothesis that there is a causal link between AIDS/HIV and one's sexual preference is prima facie absurd. I can imagine the link, in some lengthy chain involving a homosexuality gene==>modified immune defense==>cellular vulnerability to virus or failure to recognize virus. I mean, it is conceivable, although it strikes me as very far-fetched.

But let me point out that this could only be true if homosexuality were a genetic disorder.

Imagine that!   It would mean homosexuality was no more a "choice" than eye-color.

Wouldn't that shake things up in the human rights department?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM

I have blue eyes. And red hair, but I am balding. I don't wear jeans anymore and I have been celebate for about a dozen years.

OMG! Am I a procrastinator! Is their hope for me? I must seek out a priest and confess my sins... perhaps there is redemption in the way of the Lord Jesus! Hmmmm... he got down with prostitutes...

Say... would procrosstitutes be shemale hookers that are picky about who they fuck? Now, there is a thread. Self-mutilation for sexual preference.

Self mutilation? Hmmmm... if a shemale was into autoerotic self flagellation, would s/he be a masterbeater?

So many questions, so little sand in the glass.

Guess I'll go pound sand for another week or two. If you come up with any revalations, book a page for me eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM

It was not happenstance that AIDS was first found in the gay community.
It was then not known outside that communuty in California.
Remember that it just presented as an upsurge in some known but previously rare dideases.
It took a long time to track down its viral cause, but it was clearly being caught, hence the A for acquired.
One early theory was that repeated exposure to sperm in the anal tract was the cause.
In the eighties it was assumed that it would spread in the heterosexual community as it did in Africa.
I remeber gravely telling my students that within ten years everyone would know personally an AIDS victim, becuse that was the current belief.
That should have happened years ago but it has not.
The reason is not clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:35 PM

maybe the reason it hasn't happened was everyone was so scared, so thet made sure they were careful? even now people are unaware that you can't get it from touching kissing or hugging.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:49 PM

And, just to be clear, it was first detected not in a homosexual community but in a heterosexual African community.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM

No Amos, it was detected first in the gay community in California.
It was then traced back to Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:13 PM

You are right--that was the first detection. But to relate that to a causal vector is entirely unscientific.

"AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[132] In the beginning, the CDC did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[68][69] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[133] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[134] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined "the 4H disease," as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[135] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[133] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[136] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[137]"

Source here

The risk vector is unprotected sex; it is increased by unprotected sex amongst already-infected populations. It is increased more by unprotected anal sex.

It is NOT increased by the gender of the sexual partner being the same or the opposite.

The partner's gender makes no difference in the transmission vector. Calling it a homosexual disease is therefore either rampant superstitious ignorance, or rednecked prejudicial bias.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM

"IDS is a homosexual disease. False. Although AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) was first discovered in the homosexual community, anyone can get the disease regardless of his or her sexual preference. The high-risk groups include sexually active people with multiple partners, those who use non-sterile hypodermic needles, infants born to mothers with the AIDS virus, and infected blood transfusions. So don't be fooled into thinking that just because you aren't homosexual, you won't get AIDS. In fact, the World Health Organization said that the vast majority of people with AIDS worldwide got the disease from heterosexual - not homosexual - intercourse."

From here

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:20 PM

Making AIDS 'A Gay Disease'

(Click title for article)

New AIDS Disinformation Program Spread By
The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center
By Alan Cantwell, MD
c. 2006 All Rights Reserved
9-29-2006

"In an unbelievable and unfathomable turn of events, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has undertaken a new campaign to convince Gay/Lesbian/Bisexuals/Transgendered people that "HIV is a gay disease".

As a physician who has written extensively over the past two decades about the origin of HIV/AIDS, I am shocked and saddened by this misguided campaign to make gay men "own" and "end AIDS." The Center's gay media blitz is being conducted ostensibly to stop the excessive rate of new HIV infection in gay men in West Hollywood.

The slogan: "HIV is a gay disease" is certainly not scientifically correct for the simple reason that HIV is a virus, not a disease.
HIV, however, is the accepted cause of AIDS.

Is AIDS a gay disease? Of course not! In fairness the Center's campaign ad explains (in small print) that "OK, diseases don't have sexual orientations." Yet the full page ad I saw in the gay-oriented In magazine proclaims that "HIV has been, and continues to be, our disease." The full details of the new AIDS prevention campaign can be found on www.OwnItEndIt.org. People are encouraged to post their views on the site.

When the AIDS epidemic began officially in June 1981, it was widely considered exclusively a "gay disease." Now everyone should know that AIDS is a worldwide epidemic; and most AIDS cases are heterosexual, not homosexual.

During the early years of the epidemic when the cause was unknown and when HIV was in the blood supply, hemophiliacs were decimated by AIDS. Hemophilia does not cause AIDS - and neither does homosexuality. AIDS is caused by a virus, not by a genetic defect or by a lifestyle."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM

Proposition 8, however, is not about disease, except the disease of bigotry and discrimination. THERE's a disease for you. No-one knows where it was first detected. But the vectors are fairly well known. There's a few of them in this thread as an exercise for the student.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 05:09 PM

Amos ....Stop waving your arms about. Nobody knows if homosexual practice causes Aids, what we do know is that statistically and in real terms, a very much higher proportion of homosexuals develope Aids, than any other group.

The Los Angeles homosexuals are demanding a medical enquiry into why this link occurs. To get that enquiry they also demand that Aids be re-designated as a "homosexual disease" which can be transmitted to heterosexuals.

What do you not understand about that??....These people are in the front line, not like you, Don, or Mr Peekstock, merely "liberal" activists and highly unlikely to aquire the disease.
It's easy to be committed to homosexual rights from your position of safety, these people are concerned about bigger issues....like life and death!!

I would rather listen to them than listen to you, no matter how much you try to negate what they are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:28 AM

I think we can go back to Ronnie Reagan & thank him for part of what Ake is spouting. Ronnie denied aid, money & research to the AIDs outbreak at the beginning by putting it as sometime that belong & should stay in the gay community when in actually it was out it the hetro community just as well but with the power invested in him by God he swept it under the rug & just said "no".


So those that supported the unliberated Ronnie continue to be unliberal. Just say "No" is all they'll ever know.
Just keep saying "no" & everything will be alright Ake.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:05 AM

Ake, stop and take another look- that article was not written by Amos but a knowledgeable physician. If you take the time to read it - and understand it - and if you are at all interested in truth, you should feel your stance getting severely shaky.

Unless you are a guy who finds it impossible to say, "Hey, it appears that I was wrong. Let me rethink this."

We would all respect you for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:07 AM

There was a thread about nuclear war that had fewer posts than this one. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:15 AM

Hello Ebbie.....I don't think I am wrong, nobody here has yet addressed the link between Aids/ homosexuality satisfactorally.

As Bruce has said, this has been an extremely long thread, if I am so wrong why have some of you spent so much time and energy tying to refute what I say?
If you really thought I was so wrong, you would have tired of this long ago and moved on to something else.
If you think my stance is getting shaky, read and think again, I sense a tone of desperation appearing in the "pro's" posts, as their real agenda on homosexual right becomes exposed!

And remember Ebbie, every cut and paste you read here(very few from me), was originally pruduced by someone with an "axe to grind" no matter how emminent they are.

I'll give you a tip Ebbie, one Iv'e used all my life....QUESTION EVERYTHING!!.......Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:43 AM

"In fact, the World Health Organization said that the vast majority of people with AIDS worldwide got the disease from heterosexual - not homosexual - intercourse."

True globally, but not true in Western countries where heterosexual infection is very rare, especially if you discount those infected abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:06 AM

1. More heteros than homosexuals suffer from HIV/AIDS.

2. You have presented no data and no theory that could possibly conceive your somewhat outlandish concept that AIDS was in any way more likely to strike a homosexual than a heterosexual, assuming other factors were equal just as diversity of partners and the kinds of sexual practices they engaged in. And, myself, I seriously doubt you will be able to come up with one. This is like the guy who waved his handkerchief around and around on a corner of New York. He said it was to keep the elephants away, and when they said "Don't be silly, man-there aren't elephants for thousands of miles!" he smugly replied that proved it was working.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:13 AM

HIV infections acquired through heterosexual intercourse within the United Kingdom represent less than 10% of all HIV infections amongst heterosexuals diagnosed in the UK, according to a paper published in the March 12thon-line edition of the British Medical Journal. The authors, from the UK's Health Protection Agency, emphasise that HIV transmission amongst gay men accounts for over 80% of HIV infections acquired in the UK. However, they acknowledge that even though small numbers of individuals are infected with HIV through heterosexual sex in the UK each year, the number is growing and is likely to continue to do so, particularly amongst ethnic minorities.
Although there has been a substantial increase in heterosexual HIV in the UK, the majority of cases involve individuals who originated from, and were infected with HIV abroad, most notably Africa.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/0B40A041-6ED6-4E6D-8014-942C373655C5.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:17 AM

When reading these stats, remember that as a proportion of the population, the risk is vastly greater for gay men than shown here.
These stats show only percentages of HIV victims not populations.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:09 PM

HIV/AIDS WORLDWIDE

As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide -- 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years -- were living with HIV/AIDS. More than 70 percent of these people (25.3 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 16 percent (5.8 million) live in South and Southeast Asia.(1)

Worldwide, approximately one in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 8.8 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected. In 16 African countries, the prevalence of HIV infection among adults aged 15 to 49 exceeds 10 percent.(1,2)

Approximately 47 percent of the 36.1 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are women.(1)

An estimated 5.3 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2000; that is, about 15,000 infections each day. More than 95 percent of these new infections occurred in developing countries.(1)

In 2000, more than 6,500 young people aged 15 to 24 became infected with HIV every day -- that is, about five every minute.(1)

Through 2000, cumulative HIV/AIDS-associated deaths worldwide numbered approximately 21.8 million -- 17.5 million adults and 4.3 million children younger than 15 years.(1)

In 2000 alone, HIV/AIDS-associated illnesses caused the deaths of approximately 3 million people worldwide, including an estimated 500,000 children younger than 15 years.(1)

An estimated 13.2 million children younger than age 15 had lost their mothers or both parents by the end of 1999.(2)

Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.(1,2)

Mother-to-child (vertical) transmission has accounted for more than 90 percent of all HIV infections worldwide in infants and children.(1,2)

From NIAIDS Fact Sheet, here.

However, the issue is not AIDS, but civil rights and Proposition 8. It should be reversed promptly as an illegal infringement on a minority's civil rights.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:24 PM

"However, the issue is not AIDS, but civil rights and Proposition 8. It should be reversed promptly as an illegal infringement on a minority's civil rights."

well said AMOS!!!

no one seems to be able to convince me that it is not a good idea, in fact apart from the HIV/AIDS arguement, no one seems able to anwer direcr questions or be able to produce any backup for their opinions exect for the yuk factor, which to me is a personal thing and should be stated at such.

lets be honest people please!!!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:17 PM

Right Amos!...Can you explain in plain English what the fuck this means?

"You have presented no data and no theory that could possibly conceive your somewhat outlandish concept that AIDS was in any way more likely to strike a homosexual than a heterosexual, assuming other factors were equal just as diversity of partners and the kinds of sexual practices they engaged in. And, myself, I seriously doubt you will be able to come up with one."

I am neither a doctor nor a scientist, how would I know the cause of AIDS?......What I do know is that a far larger proportion of homosexuals develope Aids than any other sector of Western society.

Why do you keep on trotting out the figures for other sectors?...We all know that Aids can be transmitted by hetero sex.

The point in question is why New Aids outbreaks alway start among homosexuals and why such a very large percentage of them are affected by the disease.

I suppose what you are trying to say is that if homosexuals stopped having anal sex and being promiscuous the AIDS figures for homosexuals would drop......Well hell, thats pretty profound!

Unfortunately for the purposes of your argument......anal sex and promiscuity pretty well come with the territory!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 02:48 PM

Just cruising by to see how (if) things are progressing and this caught my eye:

"I am neither a doctor nor a scientist, how would I know the cause of AIDS?......"

THAT'S bloody obvious!!

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, what has all this to do with same-sex marriage (which will have the effect of encouraging stable relationships and decreasing promiscuity)? One would think that if someone is genuinely concerned about the spread of AIDS, he would be in favor of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM

Ake is predicating much of what he says here on the idea that HIV/AIDS is spontaneously generated by two previously uninfected homosexual males engaging in anal intercourse.

"Spontaneous generation" was a hard-held belief for many centuries, but it was duly slain by Louis Pasteur and a number of others.

A general survey of the idea of Spontaneous Generation

FYI.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

The issue of marriage rights, as a part of civil rights of citizenship, is what the topic is about.

Pondering the etiology of AIDS/HIV is, essentially, irrelevant to the issue.


And imagining it is spontaneous is just absurd.

If, as Ake points out, we all know heterosexual sex can transmit AIDS then either Ake should take a stand against ALL marriage, or he should leave AIDS out of the question of same sex marriage.   There's no way to have it both ways!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM

What we need to know is why so many homosexuals are affected....pure and simple!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:11 PM

Amazing! Swished right by it as if it wasn't there. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:12 PM

ake, i still don't understand WHY you are so worried about this.

you are not gay so why should it bother you so much?

"What we need to know is why so many homosexuals are affected....pure and simple!" WHY?

this has no bearing on the subject, are you saying that gay people with HIV/AIDS, should not have the right to be married? if this is the case please just say so!!

what aboout hetro people who have it should they be shunned too?

jade x x

i couldn't help myself!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:25 PM

Amos, this may be peripheral to the main debate, but it has been raised and should be dealt with honestly.
You posted a page of data but no conclusions.
What were we suposed to understand from all that?
This debate is about western countries.
The epidemiology of HIV is quite different in third world countries, especially africa.
USA does not permit immigration of AIDS (or TB) sufferers.
UK does, and gives them free treatment for life.
That makes UK an attractive destination for many victims and the influx distorts our statistics.
We have 20% of aids sufferers who are straight.
Only 10 % of those were infected within Europe.
That makes only 2% of our AIDS victims are straights infected here.
1 out of 50 straight, 8 out of 10 gay.
But the gay population is only about 10 % of the whole population.
Thus a gay man has 400 times the risk of a straight person of being infected here.
Unless they are 400 times more promiscuous, there must be some other factor that does make gay men a higher risk for HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM

Well, Keith, that's a reasonable question, and I do not have a hard answer. I am sure it has to do with the incidents of contact and there are a lot of cultural angles that surround that into which I have no insight at all.

If, for example, all gays were kept in ghettos, or self-elected themselves into ghetto-like conclaves to avoid being harassed, it would explain such a concentration of incidents in combination with the other risk factors mentioned above. But this is all speculation, I have no idea what the factors are. I am fairly confident, however that they are NOT simply the homosexuality per se. The social fabric in which homosexuals operate, may be. The known factors I have read of are unprotected anal sex and promiscuity. These make sense on purely mechanical grounds of transmission.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:13 AM

Jeddy, the reason I am concerned about this, other than the obvious suffering being inflicted on homosexuals by ignoring it, is that I believe there is a political agenda at work here, involving PC"liberals" and homosexual activists to present homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and deny the very obvious heath risks involved in that practice.

The process of normalisation, involves the granting of "rights" like marriage and fostering, to a section of society who are involved in dangerous sexual practices while refusing such "rights" to other minorities who behave in less dangerous ways sexually(for examples read the thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:16 AM

Amos, I agree that it is not homosexuality per se, but some behavioral/lifestyle factor(s).
I think that Akeneton's point is that society should not appear to condone or promote such a life style.

A similar situation?
In your country and mine parents have the right to withdraw their children from the vaccination programme.
In your country, if they exercise that right, they forfeit their right of access to the public school system.
In the interests of public health their civil rights are curtailed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 10:22 AM

There's a BIG difference which undermines that analogy. Laws like Proposition 8 tend to force the system toward greater promiscuity, not less, by demeaning the status of commitment. Same sex marriage does not expose a greater number to the "dangerous lifestyle" (which I think is a silly expression and semantically warped). It would tend to do exactly the opposite.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 10:28 AM

Only here, do 'grown up's have to be explained to, that there IS a difference between men and women..and anything else, as far as trying to 'define' that, is merely a behavioral CHOICE!...sorta happens when emotionally immature people get horny, and don't have it together enough to relate to the other sex, other than imitating them, to get laid!
To equate, this 'cause' to the real struggle of race, is absolutely the 'thumb suckers' mentality! As seen before, it is not a matter of race, creed, or color...or even gender,..just a matter of "I want to do what I want, and call it a different thing than it is!...Want to buy some health cigarettes?"
By the way, Father's Day, is a day that you thank your father, for having sex with your mom! Mother's Day is a day you thank your mom, for not swallowing you!
I got get caught up, on the thread, been away doing real things. Hang in there Ake!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:10 AM

Please DON'T hang in there. This is already the most pointlessly circular thread since the invention of the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:06 PM

"refusing such "rights" to other minorities who behave in less dangerous ways sexually(for examples read the thread)"
I'll admit up front that I'm going to reply to that without re-reading the whole thread. I don't believe that there are other examples given of minorities who are denied marriage because of their sexual behaviours , unless the reference is to someone who wants to marry their sibling, parent, or child.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:12 PM

Once this thread pasted the first 100 posts it became bait for the 2 trolls GfS & Ake both bottom fish, fishing. Between the 2 of them I'd be amazed if they posted 1 musicial post out of 100. They live only here in the lower kingdom & when they breathe they spout vile, when the talk it's all shit.
Why do they come to this folk forum? Not for the music, they have absolutly no interest in folk music at all, so ask yourselves what is it that keeps them returning? I doubt, with their sensibilities that they even enjoy music, probably disdain it.

Stop feeding the unmusical bigots.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 04:02 PM

"Please DON'T hang in there. This is already the most pointlessly circular thread since the invention of the internet."

Actually Smedley - No it isn't. Believe me - there was a time here when a certain member thought we had a problem with censorship.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM

i think the reason we can't leave it aloneis the fact that these two are spouting so much crap and i get outraged with what has been put forward as fact. i know they are out to wind us up, but i just can't help reacting,even though i know i am giving them what they want.

I MUST TRY HARDER!!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:40 PM

As far as the two trolls here are concerned, at first I thought that the patronizing attitude they show to those who disagree with them (especially the ones who supply masses of documentation and scientific evidence for what they say) is deliberately and intentionally offensive. But I have revised that opinion. Offensive it is, but if they really believe what they say they do, it displays a new low in bloody-minded dedication to rank ignorance, solidly based on personal prejudice.

As my wise old uncle said. . . .

Don Firth

P. S. Let's all go have a beer and leave these two alone together. I mean, who knows. . . ?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM

""Jeddy, the reason I am concerned about this, other than the obvious suffering being inflicted on homosexuals by ignoring it, is that I believe there is a political agenda at work here, involving PC"liberals" and homosexual activists to present homosexuality as "just another lifestyle".""

To the contrary Ake, we have been refuting allegations by YOU and GfS that Homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice".

WE have maintained that it is an "inborn" state.

If the best you can do is to attribute YOUR prejudices to US, then you HAVE INDEED lost the argument, as well as the plot.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:57 PM

to both dons, a beer sounds like a fantastic idea, who is up for a game of pool?

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 12:20 PM

I have not really joined in the discussion here about whether homosexual behaviour is a result of nature or nurture although I think, in many ways, it is absolutely pertinent to the original subject of the thread..

If it was possible to prove people were born gay it would probably give them wider social acceptance as an American Conservative think tank expressed it
"(it) would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism"

In the last decade polls have shown that this "biological" argument has gained momentum especially amongst young Americans.

Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights, which view point we have seen represented quite forcibly in this thread.

An alternative belief that has also been equally strongly expressed is the one that dominated the thinking during much of the 20th century that is to say that homosexuality is connected to upbringing.

Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped to produce homosexuality

Since then there hasn't been much science produced to support the old, generally rejected, theories tying homosexuality to upbringing and it has been argued that Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective.

Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem has proposed an intriguing theory for how childhood gender nonconformity CGN might lead to homosexuality which stresses environment over biology but still considers this pathway to be triggered by biological traits

The American Psychiatric Association finally removed "homosexuality" from its manual of mental disorders until 1973

In 1991, Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist in San Diego claimed he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied
A small clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men.
Although, theoretically, the clumps could, have changed size because of homosexual behaviour that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.
Studies of identical and fraternal male twins demonstrated that there was a greater chance of both being homosexual than the usual incidence in the population and homosexual brothers were found to share a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers.

However the studies for biological origins have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest.

The gay gene theory has taken some hits; a Canadian team was unable to replicate the findings and a team from Dean Hamer's own lab reported only mixed results after having done the first scan of the entire human genome in the search for genes influencing sexual orientation.

LeVay himself is quoted as saying
."But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."

In 2005 Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones

This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams; researchers had found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones; although again, admitted that it was conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.

During fetal development, sexual identity is set before the sexual organs are formed perhaps it's the same for sexual orientation


By now, there is substantial evidence showing correlation - though NOT causation - between sexual orientation and traits that are set when a baby is in the womb
The research suggests that early on in the womb, as the fetus's brain develops in either the male or female direction, something fundamental to sexual orientation is happening.
But -nobody's sure exactly what's causing it.

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 there is simply no consensus about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. and, while the doctrines of the world's largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively, concerns will continue to be expressed about such unions on religious grounds
However, in the light of increasing research the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, said that he no longer believed homosexuality to be a life choice and, while still an opponent of homosexual relationships, warned that
"If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."


The legalization of same sex marriages (as opposed to civil unions) may also be argued by some to be an attempt to impose the concept of homosexuality as an immutable characteristic analogous to racial determinants in the absence of any empirical evidence.
But, if the theory of maternal stress during pregnancy resulting in the release of androstendione is correct then the process is environmental and potentially preventable.


Others may perceive societal impacts and indirect consequences of same-sex marriage (for example a redefinition of marriage opening the door to the right to have polygamous marriage)
I hear that there is a strong lobby for this oppressively paternalistic and ultimately (given the proportions of men to women in the population) socially inequitable form of heterosexual 'marriage' in some American states



I'll look in again after the next 1688 posts

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 12:57 PM

Good post, Emma!
As so far as some of the usual political hacks, homosexuality is, in fact, much on the level as 'genetic masterbaters' or 'genetic porn addicts'!....That doesn't make much sense, and neither do your uneducated posts. Neither Ake, or myself, are trolls...we just have a different opinion, based on reality...but, then, I guess, because you've substantially lost this premise of yours, you resort to your usual name calling tactics...as if that convinces anybody of anything, other than you've run out of other fiction!!
"We often wish to ennoble those faults that we wish not to correct!"
Just because, unlike the masterbaters, or porn addicts, homosexuals cry out and demand 'sacred victim status' means absolutely nothing at all..except to those who wish to champion that particular cause, especially 'folkies' who have been out of the mainstream loop for a few decades now..but miss the 'good ol' days'.
Perhaps getting dialed in, BEFORE you take up a 'cause', might be a good suggestion....
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM

You certainly offer nothing to support your histrionic assertions; and I do not see that jumping up and downand insisting they are reality-based makes them so, or even adds credibility.

For one thing, you seem incapable of making a simple declarative sentence offering facts; the vast majority of your posts have been sweeping generalizations,mostly of a negative camber, accompanied by energetic insistence and stylistic shrillness. But no hard data.

If all your dialogues are conducted this way it is a wonder you get through a day at a time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM

'genetic masterbaters'

I'd like you to meet my wife, I call her 'Lefty'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 03:26 PM

GfS's last post was conceptless, except for a blanket argumentum ad hominem against those who do not agree with his/her position, liberally mixed with straw man. He lumps us into a totally fictional group of people ("'folkies' who have been out of the mainstream loop for a few decades now..but miss the 'good ol' days") that more than amply demonstrates just how out of touch GfS is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 04:13 PM

"masterbater"

Better look that one up.

Not one, but two problems I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:04 PM

I figure that has to be someone who has a master's degree in putting red herrings on hooks. I didn't know they offered master's degrees in that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

With the exception of Emma's well crafted post, the last dozen or so have just been a heap of abuse with no value to the debate.

When the pro homosexual marriage "team" hit the rocks(as they have at this point), they assume their default position......doesn't everyone see how naturally they slip into the vicious personal attack mode.
They care about nothing but the small matter of silencing those who don't agree...it has now become a personal issue to them....they must not lose face. Well just for information,the last few posts have cost you any credibility that you ever had in this discussion.

In todays Times, Ian McKelleren the actor wrote in defence of homosexual "rights", his argument, or lack of one, was remarkedly similar to the one held by many here......"We are right and you are wrong; and if you continue to disagree or even speak, we will smear you"
The excrement they use is there for all to see in the posts above.
When reason fails to keep their position afloat, the mob mentality takes over.

I have written here for many years, in that time I have never had a post struck by Forum Admin, other than accidental Guest posting.
I never use any other handle than akenaton...and stand by everything I write. If I make a mistake I will immediately offer an apology, and certainly do not spend months arguing my case on threads like this is order to "wind folk up"......grow up Jeddy!

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

Well, except that the criticisms about GfS' post were completely accurate, Ake. It was just armwving.

For particular arguments based on facts, in support of Proposition 8, or in support of those who wish to see it overturned, there are only a small percentage of posters here who have gone to the trouble to male clear statements of facts--or for that matter of policy. The rest has been clouds of energized opinions floating back and forth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM

In repsonse to Emma's post, I would just say that if homosexuality were genetic I should be very easy for modern science to determine that fact. the genetic differences should be pretty marked.

In the event, it has proved impossible, and many emminent scientists have come to the conclusion that there is "absolutely no genetic difference between hetero and homo sexuals."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM

I feel a bit like Galileo must have felt when Pope Urban VIII told him that his ideas about a heliocentric solar system had "hit the rocks."

The truth will eventually triumph, and I'm quite content with that.

Don Firth

P. S. And as far as heaping insults and abuse, Ake, you and GfS most definitly take the prize there. If anyone objects to being thought of as a bigot (a legitimate term descriptive of a set of attitudes), there's a way to avoid it. Stop being one.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:56 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

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

""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!
KB in Iowa said:-

""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.""


I too picked up on that and my comment was as follows:-

""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""



Come on Ake. You are very selective in what you choose to quote, but ask for accurate response from others.

So take your own advice, QUOTE, DON'T PARAPHRASE, especially since you are pretty crap at maintaining the meaning when you do paraphrase.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:23 PM

And it was just starting to get fun...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM

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

What other areas, ake? Have you seen some data showing what happens when same-sex marriage becomes a legal option? Who gathered the data and by what method? I'm not giving you sh*t here but I am hoping that if you are going to make a statement like that ("results from other areas") there is data to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:37 PM

Well I don't mind a bit of argy/bargy, over the finer points of the English language....as she is wrote......But Don is starting to lather up again, so a tea break seems in order.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM

so a tea break seems in order.

I was thinking more along the lines of a beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:42 PM

As I understand it, very soon after same-sex marriage became legal in California (prior to Proposition 8), some 18,000 same-sex couples got married.

It would appear, Ake, that your "view that the vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in 'marriage' or monogamy" has about as much solid foundation as Wile E. Coyote standing about on thin air about twenty feet out from the canyon's rim.

Don't look down, buddy! Hitting reality that hard can really smart!!

CLICKY #1 and CLICKY #2

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

Shi gan!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM

Cha ryuht!

Seijak.

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

What language?

The first thing I thought when you wrote 'Cha ryuht!' was 'Suing lo, sueyt', but you were probably actually saying something intelligent. (Don't destroy the myth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM

Korean.

Good one on the "'Suing lo, sueyt Cha ryuht!'" LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM

Time to pay attention Jeri :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:27 PM

i can't say that i speak any other lanugage but english, but even to me the last 4 posts have made more sense.

hey where's my beer? well ok lemonade please. i am a very cheap date!! PMSL

what i really want to know is why does AKE, seem to respond more to some than others?

i was starting to learn those "quotes" off by heart. thankyou for not carrying on with that.

like i have said before i may not be the most eloquent among us, but i have the right to be answered.

enjoy the rest everyone battle commences at sunrise!!

cheers!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM

Jade,

Not to worry. Indeed you deserve to have your posts answered. But sometimes people just don't HAVE the answers. I'm still wondering why anyone else's sexuality should be another person's business.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM

"I'm still wondering why anyone else's sexuality should be another person's business."

And that, Peace, is the crux of the whole matter.

Quentin Crisp, the famous English eccentric, writer, raconteur, and homosexual (subject of the movie "The Naked Civil Servant" starring John Hurt) was on an interview show a little over a decade ago, and the interviewer noted that his appearance was quite androgynous. His voice was light and well-modulated, his hair was blue and fairly long, and from his appearance and the way he dressed, it was next to impossible to be certain if he was a man or a woman.

The interviewer (might have been Charlie Rose, but I can't recall) noted this and asked him if people ever asked him, and if so, how did he respond?

"It happens quite often," Crisp said. "My standard answer to this question is, 'Does it matter? What did you have in mind?'"

Touché!!

Exactly the point!

Quentin Crisp is also said to remarked on more than one occasion, "I am one of the stately homos of England!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM

Just one of many, from a homosexual website to boot!

why so few gay marriages?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM

ake, did you read the article you linked to? First of all it is three years old. Also, the numbers it gives came from an anti same-sex marriage group and the article questions if the numbers are correct. It goes on to give several possible reasons for the low numbers if they are correct.

I like this quote from the article:

"Low marriage rates among gays make it even harder to see how this tiny fraction of the population will cause any practical harm to marriage as an institution ."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:42 PM

I'm gettin' all fucked up here. Which round is this?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 08:45 PM

Always the numbers game, Ake?

First of all, it is as KB noted. The article is prior to the same-sex marriage movement getting well under way, and it is obviously biased.

What it all boils down to is that, no matter how many or how few gay couples want to marry, it should be among their CIVIL RIGHTS (equal protection under the law) to have the same rights and privileges as hetero couples—the same protections that other committed couples have. The same rights of ownership, the same tax privileges, the same inheritance laws, and the same hospital visitation rights (as a spouse) in case of illness. And the same right to have their union religiously sanctified in a church that is willing to marry them (and there are many such churches, as I have noted several times above), and have that union recognized under the law.

Don Firth

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

i noticed this in that article too


"Of course, if you believe that a "change in the definition of marriage" to include same-sex couples is itself harmful to marriage then marriage will be worse off even if no gay couple actually gets married—but you don't need studies to make this argument. To me, this definitional fear has always seemed far too abstract to count for much."

it seems you have shot yourself in the foot what?

thankyou bruce,
i thought the whole point of a debate like this was to present your' arguements and reasons whilst being honest. if someone asks you to imagine yourself in a situation, then if you cannot or will not then i would expect someone to admit it. of course that is if someone is capable of such things that grown ups do.

the lack of empathy for someone else is something i have been told to be wary of in a person, there was that thread a while ago to do with sociopaths and pycologically disturbed people. that displayed the same symptoms.

back on point, if that is the best you can do for evidence then you are scraping the barrel my freind.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:33 PM

Akenaton,
I respectfully ask; please try to think back and remember the occasion when you decided to become heterosexual. How old where you? Had you heard about gay people yet? If not, when you did hear about gay people, did you have to rethink for a moment? Or, was it never an issue?
Thanks very much for considering this question.
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:30 AM

The purpose of posting the link above was to show that homosexuals are aware of the low rates of homosexual "marriage".

The web site makes many observations that I disagree with, including various reasons for the low rates....all of course simply opinions just like mine.

Shooting myself in the foot?....certainly not, the link(there are many others) bears out what I have been saying, that the majority of homosexuals have no interest in "marriage"

Basically this is a political issue, driven by the current "liberal agenda" and homosexual activists.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 AM

Tia....17th feb 1955 9:45am(just after breakfast)...a veritable bolt from the blue!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:09 AM

""like i have said before i may not be the most eloquent among us, but i have the right to be answered.""

It's nowt to do with you, or with your communicative abilities, Jade.

Some people simply ignore those to whose questions they have NO valid arguments.

I, like you, tend to get snide, sarcastic, brush-off comments from them, and when that happens, I know that I've either hit a nerve, or posted something they can't logically refute.

Don (not the least lathered up) T

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:21 AM

""Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures.   Ake.""


NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT! IN EITHER DIRECTION.
Any small effect there might be would, on the face of it, tend to militate against promiscuity.


OK, now tell us again. What is YOUR reason for wanting it banned?

Don T.




So, no NEGATIVE effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:24 AM

""Another reason for posting of course, was to nail the idea that homosexual "marriage" per se, can have any significant effect on the abysmal homosexual health and promiscuity figures.   Ake.""


NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT! IN EITHER DIRECTION.

Any small effect there might be would, on the face of it, tend to militate against promiscuity.
So, no NEGATIVE effect.

OK, now tell us again. What is YOUR reason for wanting it banned?

Don T.


P.S. It got scrambled for some reason, so here's how it should read.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:53 AM

cheers don, i was beginning to wonder whether i made sense to myself but no one else!! lol i do that quite alot.

i am wondering AKE, if you want to put a time limit or a maximum on sexual partners for sraight couples to allow them to get married.

should athiests be allowed to get wed?

what about straight folks who have been together for more thasn say 5 years, if they don't get wed before that, they cannot?

i am confused as to your' logic, first the reasons were becuase of HIV/AIDS, and now it is the fact that there is a low number who get married when they are allowed.

PLEASE just admit that you don't like the idea of two people of the same sex, finding love and happiness in each other and stop with the pretence that you actually have valid reasons. it would be so much easier to respect you if you just admitted that is is something you cannot get over, rather thn trying to justify yourself.

personally, if someone is stupid enough not to use protection then they ultamatly canot then bitch when something happens to them, harsh but true i am afraid. i am not without compassion but in the end, ones sexual health is ones own responsability. APART FROM THE OBVIOUS SITUATION!!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:19 AM

Well Don, If you say if you say no significant effect either way, I will accept that....I never thought homosexual "marriage" would have a negative effect on homosexual promiscuity(can the current figures GET anymore negative?)

But now you must go and tell the rest of the "team", that homosexual "marriage" has no significant positive effect on homosexual promiscuity, as they have been wittering on about the positive effects for months, this news should come as something of a shock!

Jeddy my failure to respond to you is not meant as any kind of rejection or insult, I just have no great stomach for shooting fish in a barrel.
My friend Ebbie once warned me that going against the grain on Mudcat was "Hard...Hard I tell you!"......to which I responded that fending off the insults was easy.

Trying to reason with morons was Hard!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:18 AM

Morons, ake? That's kind of harsh.





Hi jeddy. I know you are here and have enjoyed your contributions (I know you weren't talking about me but still).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 09:44 AM

hello KB thankyou for your' welcome it is nice to know i am not talking to myself!! although i do it loads but usually very mundane stuff. thankyou to all those who have welcomed me!!!

ake, why would you be shooting into a barrel by anwering my questions? i appreciate that you are not insulting me with silence and i understand is very hard to stand against the tide. i applaud that you have the courage to keep your' point of view.

i do not understand it and like i have said before i wish i could understand where you are coming from and why.

i think this is something we will never agree on, but it would be nice if you were seen to make an effort to see the other side.
like i said some honesty as to why this affects you so much that you take such a hard line on this, would make me able to at least stop the questions and badgering for answers.

on a different note my other halfs family is coming this weekend so wish me luck for the late night and very early morning!!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:30 PM

"Morons."

Very good, Ake! Let me ask you this:   if people who don't agree with you are all morons, then why do you waste your precious time?

You, sir, have managed to achieve and entirely new low!

Shame on me! Shame on all of us for wasting our time trying to argue with you! Bigotry doesn't need reasons. It just IS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM

KB and Don....Some of my best friends here do not agree with me, but never stoop to replacing reason with invective.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM

"Shame on me! Shame on all of us for wasting our time trying to argue with you! Bigotry doesn't need reasons. It just IS"

Typically, another verse of "We are right.... you are wrong" from Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:08 PM

""Well Don, If you say if you say no significant effect either way, I will accept that....I never thought homosexual "marriage" would have a negative effect on homosexual promiscuity(can the current figures GET anymore negative?)""

And there you go again Ake. I didn't say that!    YOU DID!!

My response was to the point that if there were no SIGNIFICANT effects, there could be no justification for YOUR health red herring.

So what is your REAL reason for objecting?


""ake, why would you be shooting into a barrel by anwering my questions? i appreciate that you are not insulting me with silence and i understand is very hard to stand against the tide. i applaud that you have the courage to keep your' point of view.

i do not understand it and like i have said before i wish i could understand where you are coming from and why.""


It's really very simple Jade. Having been taken to task for insulting you by ignoring your presence, our ill mannered friend has changed tack, and is now insulting you by:-
1). A strong implication that you are his mental inferior, and that it would therefore be unsporting of him to engage you in reasoned argument, and
2). Lumping you in with those of us he refers to as morons.

What it really means is that we ask questions which he cannot answer without exposing his REAL motives, and so he resorts to the kind of ad hominem attack, and vituperation, which he commonly attributes to us half witted liberals.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM

""KB and Don....Some of my best friends here do not agree with me, but never stoop to replacing reason with invective.""

You have friends here?

Try to learn from their example then, and dispense with words like moron.

You are well aware that most here are at least as well educated as yourself, and likewise intelligent.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:25 PM

"Some of my best friends here do not agree with me, but never stoop to replacing reason with invective."

I believe you missed something there, Ake:   it is YOU who are stooping to invective.

"Moron," indeed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:14 PM

I was actually referring to other morons Don.

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

DON T i know he feels like he doesn't have to explain himself and normally i would agree he shouldn't BUT he has made this seem like apersonal crusade. i don't feel insulted even if i should do, i just feel bewildered as to why he won't be honest and try to see things from anothers point of veiw.

i feel that unless we have some truth this is going to go on forever.

i can understand that SOME men might find male gay sex as abnormal, BUT did you know that one of the erroganous(?) zones in a man is a half way up his arse?   i have no idea why but it is.

i thought a naughty sentance coming on, but feel you deserve more than petty insults AKE.


i have no problem in admitting my faults and i have done plenty of times in the short while i have been here, why can't you?

i really want to respect you and have a feeling that, about any other subject you are a reasonable chap. please prove me right to put my faith in you.

if you are homophobic because you just cannot get your' head around it, but have tried to, then that is aplauddable(?) because you have at least tried and been honest.

that i can respect, but i cannot until you have at least been honest.

please try to imagine how you would feel if we ever met, we like each other untill you find out i am gay, would you shun me or accept it and carry on a really good chat? i would be very interested to find out which??? the same goes for a bloke, who has not have come on to you?   would the two reactions be different? if they would then why????????

anyway i am rather mashed and this has taxed my few brain cells that work.

goodnight all sweet dreams

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 10:57 AM

Charles Blow, of the NYT, writes in the context of the flapdoodle about the governor who went meandering to Argentina:


"...Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Sanford called Clinton's behavior "reprehensible" and said, "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally" to resign. "I come from the business side. ... If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone." Remember that Mr. Sanford?

And this kind of hypocrisy isn't confined to the politicians. It permeates the electorate. While conservatives fight to "defend" marriage from gays, they can't keep theirs together. According to the Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, states that went Republican in November accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates in 2006.

Conservatives touted abstinence-only education, which was a flop, when real sex education was needed, most desperately in red states. According to 2006 data from the Guttmacher Institute, those red states accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest teenage birthrates.

And, a study titled "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" that was conducted by Benjamin Edelman, an assistant professor of business at Harvard Business School and published earlier this year in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that subscriptions to online pornography sites were "more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality" and in states where "more people agree that 'I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.' "

They could avoid this hypocrisy by focusing more on what happens in their own bedrooms and avoiding the trap of judging what goes on in everyone else's."

---

Those who promote inequality based on an absorbing interest in other people's sexuality should read the above twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM

Am I one of the morons Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 03:39 PM

Naw.... you've a little ways to climb yet Tia.....I'm afraid you're still down among the "bottom feeders"   :0).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM

TIA,   i would say not!!! from what i can remember you talk alot of sense.
don't worry, anyone who does answer questions and gives their honest opinion could never be a moron as long as they have tried their best!!!

AKE, you really need to be more precise with your' insults as you could end up offending the innocent!!

i suspect the moron was me, thts okay i have been called worse.
if it makes you feel better to belittle others then i think you need counceling to improve your' self esteem., no one should have to resort to that to make themselves feel better, unless of course you are playing verbal ping pong,in which case you can do alot better than that AKE.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM

Ake,
Please steer me to my "bottom feeding" post(s), so I can know what to avoid in the future. No need for a link, just the date and time is okay.
Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 07:42 PM

Anybody care to define "bottom feeder?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM

Not sure about "bottom feeder", but there's a bottom I nibble on at bit sometimes...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM

...a bottom I nibble on a bit sometimes...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM

I hate it when that happens! You've got a great line, then blow it with a typo. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:22 PM

bum nibbles sounds good can i get some delivered???

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM

Here I am an apparent "bottom feeder", with an empty plate so to speak!

Actually, it occurs to me that a bottom feeder is one who puts the nibbles into to a....oh, never mind. Unwanted visual.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:04 PM

whoosh

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:09 PM

please tell me where i can get some nibbles, i am starving!!

hey, does anyone know where GfS has gone?   i kinda miss him!

well done guys this has reached 1800 posts, i am proud of you all for not giving up!!

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:12 PM

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!   Together you reached 1800 posts! I am eternally grateful, because it won me this art object:

Beautiful lamp!

Keep them posts a-rollin' IN! You would not believe what I stand to win if you reach 1900...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:18 PM

that is a nice lamp. but i don't understand why/how you won it, do you have a bet on or something? i will try for you and unless we get some answers i think you might just win!


jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

Yes, it was a bet. You see, the person I'm betting against has repeatedly been quite convinced that this thread couldn't possibly go on as far as another 100 posts. What would be the point, after all? And yet it does! Due to this extraordinary phenomenon, I have won a series of bets with this person whose only failing is that they don't realize just how far some people will go to prove that another person is "wrong"! ;-)

I do realize how far people will go when it comes to that. They'll go to the end of the Universe and back again. They'll die rather than not get the last word. I know this. That's why I keep winning the bets.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 09:40 PM

surely they give in?? they must have lost most of their furniture by now!!!

i don't THINK i am trying to get anyone to change their minds or admit to being wrong, what i would like is (excuse the pun) straight talking and honesty. when i get that i will be happy,but if not...i think you should bet for cars or houses!!!

good luck!!

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 11:17 PM

Thanks. ;-) Okay, I've said enough. Any more and I would be rigging the bet unfairly. See you at 1900 if it gets that far.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 12:36 AM

Jade:

Don't be fooled by Little Hawks pretentious veneer of aloof superiority. It is just a justified position of disengagement that keeps him safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

Not to mention that he likes to prove himself right. He's not as different as he sometimes thinks. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 05:52 AM

""They'll die rather than not get the last word. I know this. That's why I keep winning the bets.""


Of course you know that, LH.

YOU are one of them!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 07:36 AM

Now, don't keep tempting me to post here, folks! ;-)

It's satire that I'm engaging in.

And, yes, of course I'm one of them (those who wish to be "right")...and I know it. The fact that I know it helps me to:

- laugh at myself as well as others
- realize that I am not always right, even if I think I am
- see what we all have in common in that respect
- and thereby, remain relatively tolerant of a variety of differing viewpoints, remembering that we all all fallible...

And that always helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 12:04 PM

This, Little Hawk, is the kind of satire I understand.

The Homosexual Demon

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM

The War of 1812!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 12:34 PM

Ebbie - Yuck! I read a paragraph or two of it and that was quite enough, thanks. It's a tale of mutual hatred and loathing, combined with utter certainty of one's own moral superiority to someone else, and those are the emotions which fuel that particular confrontation...from either side. I see no possibility of it leading to anything useful on either side. The religious fanatics in that church will just be all the more sure that THEY are in the right and are saving humanity by driving the "demon" out of a boy...and the guy writing to them will wallow gloriously in his own righteous loathing and detestation of them, sure that HE is making the world safer for humanity, and everybody's day will get a little bit nastier.

A good basis for launching a war, if that's what you want, but not a good basis for improving anyone's attitude on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 02:15 PM

EBBIE, THAT WAS HORRIBLE!! sorry didn't mean to shout, i couldn't read more than a few paragraphs either.

i wonder if they gave the poor sod any drugs or whether he had epilepsy that was triggered by the stress of it all?

yet that shows the sort of thing that AKE? and GFS would like to see happen more often.

AKE, as you can see, i have given you the benefit of doubt here as i don't think you are quite as hardcore as GFS.

i confess i didn't see what year this was in, but i am sure this still happens somewhere in the world as a valid way of "curing" homosexuality.
mmmm nice thought!!!

it works on the same theory that if someone shouts it into my arm, they could make me "normal" by then cutting it off, worrying isn't it? that someone could have that much belief i would call that a zelot, but someone else would call that faith.

i am glad it is not late at night i think that would have given me nightmares.

take care all

jade x x

ps i feel dirty, did that article make anyone else feel like that?
x xxxxx x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 02:56 PM

It once again reminded me that there are still people alive in this world who have not advanced beyond the most abject forms of medieval superstition.

That's not religion or spirituality. That's mass delusion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 04:44 PM

Hi Fans....I've been busy with work over the weekend and had no time to read the thread....nothing of any value other than Little Hawk's patient attempts to educate.

I don't think you guys realise how lucky you are to to have a genuine philosopher all to yourselves.
Personally , I think he's wasting his time.....as my wise old uncle used to say, "ye cannae educate pork".

Ebbies link has me puzzled, is this satire as she suggests? or simply a piece of propaganda.
No one in their right mind would advocate this sort of abuse. I certainly would not, and I am equally certain GfS wouldn't either.

I have absolutely no truck with mad religious fundamentalists.

I have stated earlier, that I see homosexuality as a psychological problem, and as such I agree with GfS that the problem could respond to counselling or therapy, but only if this course of action is requested by the the homosexual.

To imply as Jeddy does, that either myself or GfS would promote the "medieval" treatment described in Ebbie's link, is frankly ludicrous.
I see Jeddy awards me "the benefit of the doubt"...I am deeply honoured to have this benefit bestowed upon me, but cant help wondering, with friends like Jeddy who needs enemies?

I am also beginning to take stock of people who post that sort of stuff, does it take the discussion forward or drive a phoney wedge between us?....and what does it prove in the context of the debate....that their are mad people in the various churches? Surely we all knew that already, and the fact that they are victimising a homosexual is incidental, I could just as easily be the demon of lust,psychiatric illness, or blindness they were attempting to excorsise.
I see a large portion of ill considered mischief in Ebbie's link.
Fortunately folks you have me here to guide you through the minefield..:0).....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 05:48 PM

normally i have quite a sick sense of homour, but that went beyond me.

AKE, iam really trying to get to know you and you are not making it easy for me to like you.
your' reaction to that article suprises me, as much as you condemn the people who do this, they believe like you do, that being gay is something you can fix,though you do not agree on their methods.

why WON'T you answer any of my questions? do they make you think too much or is it that you are incapable of giving answers?
i will worry about you if it is the latter.

i am not trying to make you feel inadaquate(?)i am merely interested in why you think how you do and how you came to those conclusions.

it is so easy for you to try and make me feel bad, but the thing is you cannot, because i simply refuse to let you get to me. i did at first but that was before i remembered that...you don't actually know me and i don't know you. so why don't you stop with the petty insults and actually talk TO me and not AT me.


take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 05:53 PM

ake, i forgot to say hello. sorry that was bad manners.

i hope the work thing wasn't stressful!!

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 08:27 PM

"No one in their right mind would advocate this sort of abuse."

I agree with the "right mind" part of it, Ake, but there are a distressingly large number of people like that out there.

He's no longer around here, but there was a man living in the apartment building where I live who was pretty close to this type. He was highly "religious" (very fundamentalist) and he hated, loathed, and despised gays.

One time he dropped by my apartment to rage and storm (knowing my wife and I were fairly regular church-goers, he assumed that I agreed with him) because he had just seen two men walking in the nearby park and holding hands. I think he was furious because God didn't immediately strike them with lightning.

I thought he was going to have a stroke!

A real sick-o!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 08:33 PM

I've often wondered why he cared so excessively. What did two guys holding hands mean to him? How could it affect him unless he let it? And why would he do that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 09:06 PM

Don, I rather hope that is a rhetorical question as there is no doubt that those who are most phobic are those who fear that could be "that way" themselves. This man must have been terribly insecure about his "masculinity."

As I do not have the time/patience to go back and read 1800 posts, perhaps this has already been addressed. However. It is quite clear that there is every range of human, and other animals, from very masculine to very feminine. Research has actually shown that those who are androgynous tend to be the most contented.

I do not care to try to convince anyone of anything other than the simple goal of respecting each person where they are as we each move through our life experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 09:30 PM

Yes, it has been thoroughly covered, Dorothy. And my question is, indeed, rhetorical. I have asked it many times of those who seem to be the most (what else can I say?) homophobic here on this thread, but of course, I don't expect them to give me an answer. It would be far too frightening for them to even consider the question. Nevertheless, I think one should keep asking it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 09:43 AM

""I don't think you guys realise how lucky you are to to have a genuine philosopher all to yourselves.
Personally , I think he's wasting his time.....as my wise old uncle used to say, "ye cannae educate pork".""

No invective there then!

Yeah, right.
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 09:57 AM

Still waiting for the bottom feeding link....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 11:06 AM

And, still bugged by sarcasm and superiority...

Am I to understand that:

Ghandi opposed the British occupation because of his need to prove the British wrong and get in the last word.

MLK did not quit the civil rights movement because he had a deep need to prove the segregationists wrong.

Simon Weisenthal's ego drove him to prove that HE was right.

The Abolitionists simply wanted the last word.
.
.
.
.
.
and so forth?




I am not saying I am in the same class as any of those. But belittling efforts to stand-up to oppression as simply ego-driven seems pretty snarky.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 12:38 PM

As far as I can see, the only people doing any "oppressing" are the two Ronnies....sorry Dons and yourself Tia, Mr Peekstock having fled the field long since.

I thought we were supposed to be holding a discussion, is that "oppression"?

You make the case for homosexual "marriage", we make the case against, we are not in a position to oppress anyone, so your delusions of saving the world for "liberalism" are a bit premature.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM

Oppressing whom, Ake?

We're advocating civil rights, not trying to deny them.

You've got things bass-ackwards again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:01 PM

The case for denying the right to formalize a loving bond and commitment between two adults--with the legal cognizance and rights it entails -- is a case for oppression. The case for defining a second-tier class of citizenship with special-case constraints not imposed on the majority, is a case for oppression. THere are no two ways about this aspect of it, regardless of anyone's obsession or lack thereof on the subject of sexuality.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:05 PM

"Research has actually shown that those who are androgynous tend to be the most contented."

Interesting point, Dorothy! I think that would be so, because they wouldn't be afraid of showing either side of themselves, so to speak...the "masculine" aspects and the "feminine" aspects.

I've always felt a bit androgenous...that is, I have no trouble recognizing both the masculine and the feminine qualities existing in myself side by side (despite the fact that I am male and heterosexual)...and I feel fine about both archetypes. Seems to me that a truly balanced human being would show both masculine and feminine nature to some extent, and would harmonize the two. This doesn't have to translate into being bisexual or homosexual...it doesn't have to affect sexual choices at all...instead I'm talking about all the various subtle and obvious aspects of a person, not just their sexual preferences. Some people (a very few) even choose to be celibate, don't forget. I don't see why people should be defined so much in the public mind by their sexual choices! Is it really that important?

I have no desire to have sex with men cos they don't physically attract me...so I'm happily heterosexual...but I do see in myself and I value some of the feminine psychological aspects. I consider that an asset, not a liability. It allows me to enjoy life more than I would if I were afraid to show any of that side...and many men are deeply afraid to, so much so that they turn themselves into very defensive, uncommunicative, and emotionally rigid people. They also often tend to be very authoritative people, and you find that in these extreme religious groups. You even find women in that mode! (and to me those women are expressing a lot of their masculine side) I detest authoritarian thinking and rule making, whether it's done by men or by women, and I avoid groups of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:08 PM

Following that line of reasoning, Ake, I suppose Abolitionists prior to the American Civil War were oppressing the slave owners by advocating freeing the slaves, which would deny the slave owners the "right" to sit on the porch of the plantation house and sip their mint juleps while the slaves labored in the cotton fields.

Or civil rights workers working for school integration were oppressing the parents of white children who didn't want their children to have to go to school with Blacks.

If Don T. and I are "The Two Ronnies," I'd say that makes you "Mr. Bean."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:24 PM

I think what he's objecting to is your personal attacks on specific individuals who don't agree with you on some issue, Don, not your general political stance or your opinions on social issues.

But, hell, I've been telling you that for years...and what good did it do? ;-) None. You figure you have 100% righteous license to behave that way to people, since you are defending "the oppressed". As soon as you have identified "the witch" in our midst, you feel it is okay to subject them to that form of treatment.

Anyone who breaks rank here on this forum on certain key trigger issues...anyone perceived as "outside" the ruling political orthodoxy that's in sway here....will be treated in that particularly abusive fashion by a little self-righteous gang of passive-aggressive individuals here who delight in attacking people personally. I've never liked that sort of bullying gang mentality. I saw plenty of it when I was in school, and I remember.

Just discuss the issue itself, I say. Quit looking around with your lean and hungry eye for another "racist", "sexist", "bigot", "anti-semite" or other such convenient witch to burn. Those who do so are usually far worse than the supposed "witches" they catch.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM

Thats right Hawk....I dont want to oppress anyone, blacks, homosexuals, even Canadians (against my better judgement),all I want to do is discuss the issue objectively....let the views for and against be aired.

I dont object to Don, Don T, or Tia giving their opinions, I try to put up a counter argument, open a few minds, but when I give my opinion it is deemed "oppression".

Who amongst us is the liberal and who the bigot?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:04 PM

so now we are on an even keel AKE, please tell me whether finding out someone was gay would change your' mind on their character, and would you continue to be their friend?

i still can't see what all the fuss is about?????????

married or not should not make any difference to anyone, i don't know who among you are married and it really doesn't matter to me, what does matter is whether you are happy, this i think is alot more important.
your relationships have no effect on what we can talk about nor does it influence my personal feelings on what you post. i go by what i read and the feeling i get when i read it, yes alot of the time i feel very confused!! after a few reads i nearly understand some of them too   LOL

anyway take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM

My "personal attacks on specific individuals who don't agree with [me] on some issue. . . ."

That's a crock, Little Hawk!

You're going to have to substantiate that. The most you can say is that I've given as good as I've got, and I am not the one who initiates the slagging matches. I have not repeatedly called Ake or GfS "liberal morons," "half-witted," or of "spewing bullshit," nor have I, as GfS does, persist in misspelling the names of people who disagree with me. They have indulged in such personal insults and put-downs all through this thread.

Yes, I have alluded to their being homophobes and bigots. And by any definition, they are exhibiting all the characteristics of people whom these terms describe. And I am not the only one who has made that identification.

Little Hawk, why are you singling me out? What's your problem?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

Ake, GfS, here is a slide show for your amusement. Please view it thoughtfully.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:14 PM

"I think what he's objecting to is your personal attacks on specific individuals who don't agree with you on some issue, Don, not your general political stance or your opinions on social issues.

But, hell, I've been telling you that for years...and what good did it do? ;-) None. You figure you have 100% righteous license to behave that way to people, since you are defending "the oppressed". As soon as you have identified "the witch" in our midst, you feel it is okay to subject them to that form of treatment.

"Anyone who breaks rank here on this forum on certain key trigger issues...anyone perceived as "outside" the ruling political orthodoxy that's in sway here....will be treated in that particularly abusive fashion by a little self-righteous gang of passive-aggressive individuals here who delight in attacking people personally. I've never liked that sort of bullying gang mentality. I saw plenty of it when I was in school, and I remember." Little Hawk

Ye gods, Little Hawk. If you really believe what you say there you are letting your own biases color all over it.

All you need do - if you have the time to do it - is to go through all these posts from ake and GfS on one side and the Dons on the other and post them onto a Word document and you would very quickly and definitively see who has been abusive. And it most definitely has not been the two Dons.

For that matter, Little Hawk, no matter the dispassionate manner in which you give your opinions, what you actually say is insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM

The only answer to such propaganda Amos, is that if the vast majority held such demonstrations demonstrating their pride in being heterosexual they would immediately be smeared as bigots, homophobes,
lynch mob......all the stuff we've been hearing on this thread.

The "liberal" agenda is eveywhere,in race, sexuality, even how we bring up our families, smothering discussion, free speech, democracy, its tentacles are choking the life out of society.

Look at this thread on what shoud be an open free forum, do you think the views expressed on this thread represent the views of society at large,or even the views of the membership?

"Liberalism" is the antithesis of freedom. "Liberalism" intimidates, it makes voices silent.....it is social death....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM

I think I fell through the looking glass.

Questioning someone's opinion is oppression now? Some are very easily "oppressed" I would say, and wanting very much to be the victim it would seem.


Like I said a few months ago -

It is impossible to oppose intolerance without opening oneself to accusations of being intolerant.

The intolerant will accuse you of not tolerating their intolerance.

Here we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:35 PM

"Liberalism" is the antithesis of freedom. . . ."

Sweet mother of Zeus!!!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM

if i have read this right, how can you say that being liberal, means you don't let everyone hold their own point of view?

i thought that was the whole point, everyone is entitled to sayhow they think and feel how they wish, as long as it hurts no one else or affects anyone elses life.

i would say i try to be very liberal, not always successfully, that is why i have been trying to get you to open up and explain how you came to think how you do AKE, i am not giving up!! i know there is a decent bloke in there and i am determined to get you to admit it!!!!!! LOL

i think a straight pride would be great, as long as there was no trouble why not? the whole purpose of such marches is to feel included, why not have a combined one, we could even have a proud to be british,or proud to be ginger.
it is all about saying i am here and i feel confortable within myself.

GO FOR IT!!! whoever you are you have something to be proud of within you so why not shout it from the rooftops?

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM

For the benefit of those who seem to be badly bewildered:

lib•er•al
Function: adjective
Etymology:   Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lçodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts ; b: marked by generosity : openhanded (a liberal giver) b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way (a liberal meal) c: ample, full
2 a: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms; b: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism   capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

synonyms : liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given (a teacher liberal with her praise). generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift (a generous offer of help). bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing (children spoiled by bountiful presents). munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes (munificent foundation grant).

####

liberal
Function: noun
Date: 1820
a person who is liberal: as a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways; b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party; c: an advocate or adherent of liberalism, especially in individual rights.

Your welcome. Glad to oblige.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM

TIA:

The oppression I am objecting to is legally denying certain aspects of citizenhood to a subset of adult citizen because of their sexual orientation.

That is, pure and simply, a bias against a minority that those motivated by hatred wish to codify into law, much like those who espoused eugenics in the late 19th century.

It is not disagreeing with me that is oppression. Get your facts straight before you claw for the high ground, buddy. Your points of view have been confused summat.

Denying equal civil rights is a choice to oppress.

While you may not feel this as a member of th emajority, you surely would if you were one of those whose ox was being gored.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM

No matter where ya go, there ya are.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 08:37 PM

Amos:

"The oppression I am objecting to is legally denying certain aspects of citizenhood to a subset of adult citizen because of their sexual orientation."

Exactly. Me too.

My last posts were:

1) at 11:06 AM, a swipe at our resident gloaty goat who seems to think we are opposing such oppression only from an egotistical need to win or have the last word, and

2) at 5:31 PM a response to Akenaton who seemed to claim that simply questioning his (IMHO) dubious opinions is a form of oppression. That is, we are intolerant because we stand up to his intolerance.

Which of these two put shite in your oatmeal my friend? Or was it an earlier one?

I am certainly oft confused, but I think you may have outdid me in confuzzlement on this one.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA...confused
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 08:39 PM

Me above, devoid of biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 03:03 AM

The key to your confusion is that the political creed that you follow ("Liberalism") bears no relation to true freedom or liberty.

You still live in a world where the label is king.....call it something and it will be so.....hense the labels used to define those who disagree with you.

Try opening your minds and examining the effects of your brand of "liberal" politics, it should soon become apparent that freedom can never live as an "ism".

As I said earlier organised "liberalism" is the antithesis of liberty. Coming to terms with this unfortunate fact requires a certain amount of mental effort, or do you prefer to be spoonfed your sanitised and pre packaged beliefs by the masters of manipulation?

By the way Tia, go back and read your post, you were the one who said you were here to "stand up to oppression"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM

COME ON GUYS!

Can't you see what he's doing.

Once again he's dragged that bloody great red herring across your paths, and you're off in the direction he wants you to take.

Ake DOESN'T have an argument that stands up under the most cursory application of logical analysis, so he obfuscates.

He ducks and dives and spins to divert the topic from the basic civil rights issue.

He indulges in invective and vituperation, then complains when his attitudes and opinions lead to comments about bigotry and homophobia. If we were Morons (which we patently are not), it would be an accident of nature. His bigotted attitudes are a personal choice.


In classic passive/aggressive style he turns the whole thread into a discussion of HIS victim status, standing up to a gang of bullies.

And AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE LET HIM DO IT!.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:49 AM

Well if you stopped biting every time he went fishing, this preposterously protracted thread could die a long overdue death.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:10 AM

i think i am no good at this manipulation thing.

i hadn't noticed!!!
come on i think it time to go down the pub again even though it is early.

AKE, the whole point of being liberal is not to judge and pigion(?) hole someone, but take as you find them. it is fine to disagree, but not to try and force your' ideas and thoughts on someone.
the labeling we do is often self inflicted.

i have given you ample time to try and see the other side of this, as have several others, i have run out of ways of asking you, if you were gay how would you feel about being told you were abnormal and your lifestyle was undesirable?

i don't expect an answer because i don't think you can give one.i will only say this once more i am not picking on you, i respect you PMing me and i am grateful.

i still don't understand why civil rights don't apply to all? they are not then civil rights, they are more priviliges for the chosen ones.

criminals forgo alot of their civil rights but as someone said already, even they are allowed to marry in prison.

why would anyone want to stop people saying to the world, we are together, we are stable and we are happy?

why would anyone want to stop a couple being finacially secure after the tragady of death?    the one that is left behind is already in emtoinal termoil why would anyone wish to make that worse by making it more difficult?

now i have morbided myself i shall leave you to ponder.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:23 AM

""Well if you stopped biting every time he went fishing, this preposterously protracted thread could die a long overdue death.""

Well, your enlghtening contribution just made it one post longer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:16 AM

"By the way Tia, go back and read your post, you were the one who said you were here to "stand up to oppression" "

Yes. I know. I am. And your point is.......?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM

No point.
Someone please have the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:26 AM

Now now girls, don't be getting all catty with one another....remember unity is strength, and we're just coming to the interesting bit!

Remember how this thread was started?....as an opportunist attempt to drum up support for the Democratic presidential candidate, and how those "nasty right wingers" were going to be horrid to the "gays"

A vote for the Dems is a vote against homophobia!

Give me a fuckin' break.... I suppose there are as many right wing homosexuals as there are left wing.

And even God doesn't agree with homosexual marriage!...(that's President Obama, not Little Hawk).....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM

Ake:

With all due respect, that is pure horseshit.

I wrote the title of this thread.

I wrote the first post, saying "IF there is any chance yoou will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed rightwing Ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls. This could have a serious, even life-changing impact on someone you love. Or someone you could learn to."

There was nothing opportunistic about it; it was a protest against what was in fact a heavy right-wing campaign.

Furthermore your natter about liberalism fails to impress because you do not know the definition of the word and apparently are wholly out of touch with the intellectual traditons that inform it.

As for the belief that labeling something makies it so, you seemto have convinced yourself in that very manner about what anyone to whom you apply that label must think, and what character flaws they must have. It is disingenuous projection on your part.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM

ABBA's "Dancing Queen" filled the East Room, as more than 200 prominent gays and lesbians gathered for the first ever celebration of Pride month at the White House. The President and First Lady entered to thunderous applause. President Obama told the group he is committed to equality for their community.

"This struggle continues today, for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and will not put aside issues of basic equality," he said, "We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love."

Many gay and lesbians believe the President has been slow to act on major issues like the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and the Defense of Marriage Act. The President asked the group to focus on what has been accomplished so far.

"I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said, "But I say this: We have made progress. And we will make more."

The President spoke about his recently signed memorandum, guaranteeing benefits to same sex partners of federal workers. While those include benefits like relocation and emergency evacuation - health care, retirement and survivor benefits are left out.

"There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop," Mr. Obama said. Among those, the President said, the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Obama also said he has called on Congress to a domestic partners law, which would guarantee a range of benefits, most notably healthcare, to same sex couples. The President also vowed to pass a hate crimes bill that would include protections for gays and lesbians, and said the bill will be named for Matthew Shepard. The gay University of Wyoming student, whose parents were in the audience today, was tortured and killed near Laramie in 1998. His attackers were not charged with a hate crime. The President also said he is committed to ending the ban on entry to the U.S. based on HIV status.

As to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the President said he believes the policy works against America's national security.

"My administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress," he said. "I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."

Still, the President said government can only do so much. "Even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change, but, as I said before, on the hearts we open," he said.

He ended his speech with a promise to champion their cause in the days to come.

"I want you to know that, in this task, I will not only be your friend; I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 01:02 PM

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage.

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

I believe that is also the stance of the number of black and white (many of them firm Obama supporters) Christians who voted to once again ban gay marriage in California.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation in 2008, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

While opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law, people such as Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign said
"We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage....."

As a heterosexual who is not a Christian, I was married in a civil ceremony and personally agree wholeheartedly with the civil unions that give committed same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples including the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM

Ake's idea of what liberalism is all about more than amply demonstrates that he is either totally clueless in the area of political science or is deliberately and intentionally trying to muddy the waters with irrelevancies. Maybe a liberal (if I may be forgiven for the use of the word) mixture of both.

I harken back to the Black Knight scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." His argument is armless, legless, and totally without merit. Yet, he keeps blithering on. Naught to do but, as Schiller said to Dante, "Look once, pass on, and think no more about him."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM

Amos your copy of a report on 30 Jun 09 - 12:17 PM doesn't say what event it's describing or atribute the source.

A recent BBC report on the progress for anti discrimination laws against homosexuals in America seems to portray a somewhat less 'spun' situation

"US President Barack Obama has signed a measure extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal government workers.

The move comes amid anger from Mr Obama's gay supporters that he has not done enough to protect the rights of gay Americans.....

...what is being seen as an incremental step forward was not well-received by critics.

"When a president tells you he's going to be different, you believe him," John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist was quoted by AP as saying.

"It's not that he didn't follow through on his promises, he stabbed us in the back."

Mr Obama has indicated his opposition to the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, under which gay servicemen and women are allowed to serve, but only if they do not publicly disclose their sexuality or engage in homosexual acts.

But since entering the White House, Mr Obama has done nothing to overturn the policy, and has declined to intervene in the cases of gay soldiers who have been thrown out of the military for being gay.

Mr Obama's failure to repeal the military ban is not the only issue that has frustrated gay rights campaigners.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DoJ) issued a legal opinion in response to a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Defence of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A justice department spokesperson insisted that the president is opposed to the Defence of Marriage Act, but that until the act is repealed in Congress, the DoJ has a duty to defend the law as it stands.

But the controversial opinion prompted at least three prominent gay donors to the Democratic Party to withdraw from a party fundraiser, which is due to take place on 25 June."

from BBC News / America 17 June 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM

Clinton blew it. When he went into the meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the idea of integrating the Armed Forces on the "gays in the military" issue, he started out by asking "How hard are you going to fight me on this?" Pretty damned hard, it turned out. After a long, dragged-out battle, the best he was able to get was "don't ask, don't tell."

When Harry Truman met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the idea of racially integrating the armed forces, the J. C. of S. had their heels solidly dug in and didn't plan to back down an inch. But Give 'Em Hell Harry, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, simply walked into the meeting, issued an Executive Order, and walked out again. It took about thirty seconds and left the J. C. of S. with their mouths hanging open and mad enough to spit nails, but with a clear picture of what their orders were.

I've always kinda liked Harry Truman.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:37 PM

"Clinton blew it."

I though it was the other way 'round . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:55 PM

bruce you are being very rude and i am shocked!!!!

i thought you were a nice guy too   LOL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 PM

"Look once, pass on, and think no more about him."

Thats a joke worthy of the two Ronnies coming from someone who is totally obsessed by the need to "win" this debate.
How many months have you been here Don?....Its certainly taken you quite a while to pass on!

So, after all the bullshit by the gang of four....and thanks to Emma, we finally have an unequivocal statement from the President "that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."(would you care to underline THAT Don?)
I suppose that means he's on our side, and I have a mind to do a Mr Peekstock and declare victory, for even Don x 2, Amos, or Tia would surely hesitate to bullshit the great Obama.......but no, I shall continue, for I believe this thread may broaden into an examination of "Liberalism" as currently practiced.

Not far from where I live, as the crow flies,is the island of Jura and the small farmhouse of Barnhill, where George Orwell wrote his masterpiece "Nineteen eighty-four", I would recommend that the "liberals" here read or re-read Orwells great work, for although his vision of a Communist or Fascist totalitarian regime dominating the world is no longer feasible, all the stereotypes are alive and well in the creed of "liberalism". They practice "doublethink", they manufacture labels which mean exactly the opposite from what is written on them, their ideas and beliefs are protected by the "thought police", they are adept in the use of "soft power", not so brutal as Orwell's "jackboot to the face forever" but just as insideous and soul destroying.
The creed of "liberalism" is danger to freedom and human happiness and will inevitably create a society very like the one described here by George Orwell.

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 08:59 PM

Ake, in your unwillingness to be informed you are tiresome to an extreme. As a Scott, would you agree that you know diddlysquat about it means to be a liberal in America? And Emma, as good as she is and as fair as she tries to be, does not have any particular insight into America's president.

If you keep it up, ake, I'm going to think it's just the nature of the Scottish beast.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:13 PM

Ake, You surely don't realize how totally irrational you've sounded with that last couple of posts. Ebbie may have touched on the problem; perhaps you're reacting to what is being marketed as political liberalism in the UK and/or Europe. It may help us get a handle on what you mean to say if you can answer this: What political or philosophical tradition do you think we should look to, to avoid the dangers you see in liberalism? Conservatism?
Radicalism? Anarchy? or?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 10:23 PM

akenaton - there's not a 'our side' / 'your side'

It seems to me that it appears to be necessary to be either 'with us' or 'agin us' on threads these days with little opportunity for pointing out and discussing the often 'grey' areas.


Ebbie, I don't claim to have any 'insight' into the American president I merely quote what I perceived as an unequivocal statement of belief; if you can discern a different meaning I would be grateful as a mere English woman (not a Scot, Scott is a surname btw) if you would enlighten me.

The irony is that, for a country which has disestablished church and state, 'christian' dogma seems to influence thinking/legislation far more in the US than it does in this country which still has bishops in Parliament but a far greater degree of equality between the rights of heterosexual married couples and those in a committed civil partnership

In addition, in 2008 army chief, Gen Sir Richard said that respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers was now a command responsibility and was vital for operational effectiveness as people of any sexual orientation could make a valuable contribution.

It's not too surprising then, I think, for Brits to consider 'liberalism' in America as something not quite in synch with Don Firth's excellent definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:13 PM

Sorry I failed to note the origins. I believe it came from Slate. It was a description of a White house event, and i see no reason to think the reported statements are not accurate.


Obama has made it clear that even MORE than not believing in gay marriage, he believes in equality under the law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 05:48 AM

Emma... as I'm sure you know, my remarks regarding "winning" a discussion such as this were tongue in cheek.

Personally, I am more interested in encouraging debate and objective thought than any meaningless victory.
Many here are content with comfortable knee jerk responses to complex issues, this is most unhealthy and a sure sign that "liberalism"(the cult) is flourishing.

Frogprince...Although we rarely agree, I've always had you figured as an intelligent and genuinely liberal person(something in the mould of Emma) and your question deserves an answer. I am more in the business of posing questions than providing answers, but I'll try to get back to you.

Due to work commitments, I have very little time to write on this forum...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:13 AM

Amos, I don't doubt that the report you quoted is 'accurate' but it seems unecessary to point out to you that journals/journalists can be extremely partisan in their reporting of the same event and a certain 'filter' is required when digesting tedious, repetitive large tracts of copy/paste articles such as the ones that dominated the threads during the US Election campaign.

For example, it's unsurprising that an article by Rex Wockner in the San Francisco Bay Times quotes the Associated Press -

"His (Obama's) critics - and there were many - saw Wednesday's incremental move to expand gay rights as little more than pandering to a reliably Democratic voting bloc."

and Gay writer Dan Savage:

"If this shit is 'fierce advocacy,' Mr. President, we'll take benign neglect."

or that a blogger in the Daily Kos comments that many gay democrats who contributed to the election fund now feel duped and betrayed on this issue

"what do those few rights do for all of us (in majority) that don't work for the Federal Government? ....
...how can this Memo be seen as anything but a roadblock to equality when it fails to protect Military personnel, the majority employee group of the Federal government!? "
Thu Jun 18, 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM

since i am english i tend to think of everything in an english way, i know nothing of america, or what it means to be american.

i can't imagine that the feeling is that much different to being proud of being english, there have been alot of folks who contribute to UK threads that have the same problem, but you don't get the same jump down your throat response,so please be a little more patient and understanding?

we are always taught that our american cousins are forward thinkers and true freedom fighters, it has been a revelation to learn differently.

ake, since i haven't read the book in question (even if i tried i don't think it would make sense to me) i cannot get the full picture, as i have said most of the labels in existance are self made, even someones name is a label.

hello my name is jade, i am english, i am 31, i have 3 dogs and i am gay. oh and i am a short arse.

you see what i mean?

to say that then would mean the opposite just confuses my tiny brain. i think george might well have been stoned!! lol

i don't understand the not answering questions but asking them, unless you mean philosophical questions and not personal ones but i always thought the two were similar, surely you cannot think they are not related?

i hope this makes sense as i am off my face on painkillers right now.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:41 AM

My last post to this thread. Not with the intention of "winning" (what would we win anyway, a f***ing medal), but purely in the hopes that our self styled "more an asker, than an answerer of questions", might break his lifelong embargo on answering.

1. Some homosexual couples want to be officially able to marry, and intend by that to commit to a stable monogamous relationship.

2. Such a relationship, by its nature, would tend to reduce promiscuity, and because of that, have a beneficial effect on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals.

3. Legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).

4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

My question is:- WHO or WHAT is damaged by this, and why is there such determined opposition?

I think I already know EXACTLY what the answer is, but I'd like to see it spelled out in some manner that bears critical examination, because all I've seen thus far is obfuscation and prejudice, and denigration of those who have asked the question.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

Ake, I am beginning to think that you envision yourself on this thread as being a gadfly attempting to expose, a devils advocate, rather than exploring your own beliefs. Is that it?

(Thanks, Emma. "Scott" was a slip of the finger; I have several friends named Scott but I do know the difference.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:33 AM

Don, in the interest of a non combative exchange of opinion may I just consider your points in more detail

1. Some homosexual couples want to be officially able to marry, and intend by that to commit to a stable monogamous relationship.

At present, as you point out later, in the UK at least legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).which affords same-sex couples almost all the same benefits as heterosexual married couples
i.e. gain rights to survivor pensions, recognition for immigration purposes, hospital visitation rights, and equal treatment for tax purposes.
Inheritance tax is waived as it is with married couples, and there is a right of succession for tenancy.
They will also be exempt, as married couples are, from testifying against each other in court.
In addition they will be deemed stepparents of each others' children, and able to formally adopt.
As with U.K. marriages, civil partners will not be able to file for dissolution until they've tried marriage for a year.

Indeed the term 'marriage' is commonly used synonymously with civil partnership as reported on the UK Immigration Workpermit.com web site

"Sir Elton John, 58, and his partner of 11 years, David Furnish, will be married in the Guildhall in Windsor, the same place Prince Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles"


2 Such a relationship, by its nature, would tend to reduce promiscuity, and because of that, have a beneficial effect on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals.

I tend to agree with you on this point although in countries where same sex marriage has been practised longer than the UK, like Sweden, the breakdown rate is considerably higher than heterosexual marriage


3. Legislation already exists to permit civil partnerships (effectively marriages in law).

This is now true in many counties and, in the UK, there are few differences.

One technical difference is that a civil partnership becomes legal when the registration certificate is signed by both partners without the necessity of 'witnesses'
This does not mean that it must be signed during a ceremony that is public or during any specific event.
This allows the partner to enter into the partnership on a private basis. There need be no words exchanged.
During a civil marriage, typically words are exchanged and then the register is signed.

But now comes the crunch……..!

A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage often contains religious aspects during the marriage.
The word marriage is a religious word in itself.
Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.


4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

This is also true but they are in a minority.
Many heterosexual people can be, and very often are, refused marriage in the Church of England during the lifetime of a former spouse whether the 'innocent' party in a divorce or not

The Judeo-Christian religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are too numerous to mention here

According to Reverend Rick Warren, the spiritual leader chosen to launch Obama's inauguration, homosexuals are people who "think they are smarter than God" and who choose "to disobey God's sexual instructions."



My point is Don that it is primarily a religious stance,
- as reflected in the attitudes of the 'current leader of the free world' and the likes of Rick Warren the Megachurch leader praised in Obama's second book "The Audacity of Hope."
- that opposes same sex marriage and inequality of recognition, benefits etc in the US   and that, until there is a separation between state and religion in America, this is likely to remain a major obstacle to the equality that has been advocated by many people in this thread and elsewhere.

My apologies for a very long thread but I feel it is an important subject

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM

Question: In the UK are known gays permitted in the military?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:58 AM

"The United Kingdom's policy is to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden.
It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out."
Wiki

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Oc NY Times May 21, 2007

"Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military.
The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news.
It has for the most part become a nonissue."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, told members of the Army-sponsored Fourth Joint Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Matters that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the Army.

In a speech to a conference in London in October last year, – the first of its kind by any Army chief – Gen Sir Richard said that respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers was now "a command responsibility" and was vital for "operational effectiveness".

He also added "We have made real progress in our understanding of equality and diversity in the military context, and there is a desire to achieve more yet.
My recent Equality and Diversity Directive for the Army sets the standard that we must live by, and, importantly, it communicates that standard to everyone in the chain of command.

"Respect for Others", one of the Army's core values, is at the heart of this directive."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Discrimination on religious grounds has only one legitimnate home--the centers of religion.

Civil law, contrariwise, may not and must not be colored by one or another temptation to discriminate maong people on any but civil and legal grounds, and never on simply religious principles. To embrace one set (or part thereof) of religious principles is effectively to favor the religion which asserts it in their catechism. This is a can of worms no far-seeing government should even want to open.

If good principles cannot be embedded into religion-neutral law, they need to be redrawn as principles.

I am pretty sure God does not give sexual instruction, beyond the fundamental appetites thereof.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM

Glad to hear it, Emma B. Good for the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

". . . coming from someone who is totally obsessed by the need to "win" this debate. How many months have you been here Don?"

No, Ake, not at all obsessed by a need to "win" this debate, because I know there is no "win" with someone as rigid and inflexible, and who clings so fiercely to the erroneous ideas that you cherish so dearly. Apart from my own comments, any of my rebuttals of your posts were to set the record straight for those who might be taken in by the misinformation in them. And, of course, to try to get an answer to the question I asked you way back—and which others have been asking you repeatedly—and which you still haven't answered.

It isn't always about you, you know.

And by the way, if you go back toward the beginning of the thread, you will note that you've been posting for somewhat longer than I have.

Also by the way, judging from your remarks about liberalism, it must be far different where you are than it is where I am. Refer to the dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster on-line) that I posted 29 Jun 09 - 06:50 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:06 PM

Why We Are Liberals and

Origins of Liberal Thought

might be good places to start your eddification, Ake. You don't want to be a dour redneck reactionary for the rest of your life, now do you?


A

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

I thought that Akenaton was a committed leftist and a left wing political radical deeply opposed to right wing policies and redneckism in general. Matter of fact, I know he is, from long acquaintance. He's also a fervent atheist. He just doesn't fit the stereotypical reactionary political profiles that are being ascribed to him on this thread by those individuals who happen to disagree with him here on this one thread, but very seldom on most other threads.

It's downright odd if you ask me. ;-)

Well...we're rapidly approaching 1900 anyway, so it's not all bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:34 PM

Whatever category you decide he belongs in, the fact is he is reactionary and distinctly illiberal in his thought processes in this thread, which is where (in case you did not notice) I placed the remark you refer to.

I know how good a man he is at heart, which is why I dare to make such rude remarks to him when he is being obstreperous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM

Little Hawk, read what Ake has said in recent posts about liberals and liberalism.

Among many other things, in his post of 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 p.m., he says "The creed of 'liberalism' is danger to freedom and human happiness and will inevitably create a society very like the one described here by George Orwell."

That's completely bass-ackwards.

And he has been using the word "liberal" all through this thread as an epithet.

I'm not in a position to observe his actions, so how else am I to know what he believes than by what he says?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:53 PM

Well, Amos, when people get locked in long circular arguments they sometimes inadvertently slide into some rather extreme rhetoric, don't they? And they do it when they get sarcastic or satirical too. Wouldn't you say that tends to happen even to the best of us at times? People like...say...you or me?

Akenaton ain't a perfect human being, but he's no reactionary redneck.

Remember that old phrase in the Bible warning people not to judge the speck in the other guy's eye whilst ignoring the log in their own eye? ;-) It's not that I'm quoting the Bible for authority...I'm not...but it's still a useful thing for any of us to think about from time to time.

I think that if people here were more interested in understanding where someone else is coming from and why, and less inclined to stereotype one another in some way, then they'd get a lot farther and not get so ticked off at each other.

Are we "Spear chuckers"? "Honkys"? "Tree-huggers"? "Rednecks"? "Homophobes"? "Sexists?" "Anti-semites?" "Bleeding Heart Liberals"? Etc...

No. We are none of those simple-minded, one-dimensional negative stereotypes that those pejorative words convey. We are all complex and multifaceted human beings, all of us quite unique, and we will agree and disagree about a great variety of things for a great many unique reasons.

If those reasons were better understood, the snap negative judgements we make on others would not be so easily made.

One other quote I like from the Bible: "Blessed are the Peacemakers"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:05 PM

"I am pretty sure God does not give sexual instruction,..."

                And the reason he doesn't is because he ain't there!

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

"he"?

I always pictured "God" as looking sort of like Liv Tyler... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:20 PM

If it were a He I wouldn't be interested in his sexual instructions anyway!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM

Excellent point, Amos! ;-D

I need a God I can really worship. One I am willing to serve hand and foot. One whom I will do just about anything for. That is why my idea of God closely resembles Liv Tyler. I'll go a long way for a God(dess) like that, lemme tell ya...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM

Aw, Little Hawk,

Ulla, Winona, Ms Tyler--you're all mixed up with the bandwidth of protoplasm, not Gawd's favorite hunting ground.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:46 PM

If God can't love protoplasm, what good is she?

And who's "Ulla"?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:00 AM

jeddy,
You make more sense drugged-up than many do substance-free.
What variety of dogs?
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:15 AM

Oh, sorry--wrong fantasy. I meant Uma Thurman and as far as I know she is not (yet) one of your visionary inspirations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:24 AM

In the midst of all this fantasy and non-fantasy, would it make sense to remember to support Dan Choi?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:15 AM

Silly fuckers, I'm not against liberty or freedom, why do I have to explain that to educated people?
I'm against what has replaced liberty and freedom, it has "liberty" on the label, but in reality is as insideous and repressive as the totalitarianism Orwell warned against.

It is a set of political rules for the manipulation of society.....to make us all think identically, some call it political correctness, but it's much worse and more far reaching and should be fought against in the same way as that other medium of manipulation "Capitalism".

Any system, social or political, which sets out to destroy reason and replace it with cant,is evil and repressive.

The most obvious example lately of how this works was Blairs manipulation of the British people and the UK parliament to drag us into Iraq, citing "Liberal" values and the defense of "democracy" as the reasons......when we all knew the real reasons.
One of the only politicans with the guts to come to America and throw the truth in the faces of the Senate members was George Galloway who has been a lifelong leftist, but will NEVER be a "liberal"......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM

""4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

This is also true but they are in a minority.""

This is a nonsequitur Emma. I don't believe anyone is asking for all churches to perform same sex ceremonies, so what possible grounds can there be for refusing to allow ceremonies to be performed in that "minority" of churches?

All the coercion in this affair is on the anti side, as far as I can see.


""until there is a separation between state and religion in America, this is likely to remain a major obstacle to the equality that has been advocated by many people in this thread and elsewhere.""

I believe that there is already such a separation in the USA, in fact it is, I think, part of the Constitution. Of course, some Americans don't seem to know that, even some Presidents.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:19 AM

This is gettin' like one long Service of Remembrance.....so many "Last Posts"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:31 AM

"a nonsequitur" Don? - I do not follow

I replied with the simple factual statement that only a minority of Christian churches were prepared to support blessing of same-sex unions whereas "the Judeo-Christian religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are too numerous to mention here"

Nowhere did I express any personal opinion or judgement on this situation or even suggest there ANY grounds for refusing to allow ceremonies to be performed in that "minority" of churches

Same sex civil unions as a 'legal status' between individuals does not by itself conflict with Church teachings about the sacredness of "Marriage" however The Episcopal Church in America, (many dioceses of which permit the blessing of same-sex unions) nevertheless rejected at their 2006 General Convention a resolution allowing the solemnization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is recognized by civil law.
British Quaker meetings celebrate same-sex commitments by a special act of worship but none has yet called this marriage

please note this was information for discussion purposes or
are you really looking for a fight that isn't there Don?

I'm beginning to feel like LH!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:55 AM

I think he's already spoken for Emma.. :0)

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

I think he's spoken for himself.

I believe this (edited) is an all-time classic: 'A non-sequitur? I do not follow.'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:14 AM

No, Emma, not looking for a fight at all, but the number of churches for or against is not germane to the topic under discussion, since nobody is asking ANY of them to change their stance on this matter.

As most of them adhere to vastly differing dogma and liturgy, it is difficult to see why they would not agree to differ on this particular issue, which leads to the suspicion, as with the argument about health issues, that there is a sub agenda which has more to do with prejudice than with reason.

Don


Akenaton,

The lady responded to my "last" post with one which, in my opinion, needed a reply. I replied.

That is what we refer to as good manners.

I know you can't wait for me to disappear, so that YOU will never have to show me the same courtesy.

Know what? I don't give a damn. Your twisting, turning, avoidance of the REAL topic has become boring.

Bye Now

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

right, firstly what on earth is protoplasm? i know what ektoplasm is, is this simialar?

secondly there is not much i agree with ake over, but the machanisation of the human mind in schools is one of them. i had this dreram once when i was 14ish that all my school freinds were going into this big machine and coming out with big metal plates over their faces, so they would all be the same, is that the sort of thing you meant ake? i figured out that this starts in school and how on earth are young kids suppoesed to figure all this out when they are too confused to even figure themselves out.

george galloway is a true free thinker he works for the sole purpose of his constituantsand i believe he is a gentleman, why would you not call him a liberal though?

tia, thankyou it is good to know that i am getting my point across, sometimes what is in my head doesn't always come out right, of course it helps that i have to think about it and then type it so my brain has time to get it right.

we have 2 collie crosses and a mongrel thing who(don't tell the other two) is the cutest one of them all, not to mention that he is also the stubborn and crazy one, so it is no wonder we called him keith!(donnelly).

what does this mean
'A non-sequitur?' it sounds alien to me. i like using big words i can't always spell them, but you lot make me look simple!! lol

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:10 AM

Nineteen Hundred.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:13 AM

Jeddy: The first Micky Mouse cartoon was released on May 15, 1928.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:18 AM

frog prince, please take it slower than you normally would with me??i am not feeling very intellectual today!!

what does mickey mouse have to do with this, i always thought he was a good guy lol, and i am still not sure whether him and minnie are married?

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM

I don't think Mickey and Minnie ever got married, although they certainly discussed the possibility. Their relationship was for years clouded by the disturbing rumours that kept going around in the comics world that "Minnie is fuckin' Goofy!"

One thing for sure, though. They've never seen one another with their gloves off!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:45 AM

The Micky Mouse thing was in answer to the question, "what's a nonsequitur". A nonsequitur is anything verbal that has no connection to the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:51 AM

"A nonsequitur is anything verbal that has no connection to the context;" it doesn't follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:52 AM

Yes, well, Bob Dylan did once say, "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters".

If you follow...

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

or as Les Barker (sadly not the new poet laureate) said

Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead
Do not walk in front, for I may not follow

Go over there somewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:04 AM

thankyou i now realize i have been talking like that for years!! except i have been calling it going off on a tangent. i can now impress people !!

i am wondering whether jerry has a thing for tom, they do say that if you constantly torrment someone you are likely to fancy them, maybe it is the other way round and jerry is not interested.

jade x x

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

I've always suspected that Sylvester the Cat has a thing for Tweety Bird and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:13 AM

i have always wondered the same thing. it is very suspisious that he always wantsd to eat tweety.
lol

j x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:15 AM

oh i forgot to say well won LH whats next?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM

JEddy:

As one of the side benefits of owning an Internet connection and a browser, you have the language of the world at your fingertips.

Type "define:protoplasm" into a Google search box, and voila!!

Here, I'll do it for you:

define:protoplasm

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:27 AM

LH describing locked together antagonists on another thread -

This reminds me of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner...except the odds are more evenly matched.
Either participant may run off the cliff, jump the shark, etc...

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:32 AM

are you trying to get my head to explode amos? the link was good but it refered to science, a subject i am even more useless at than english language puntuation
...........      SPLAT........ now lets see if there is any difference??

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM

The shark jumping thing was definitely a non-sequitur. This THREAD 'jumped the shark' a long, long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:35 PM

OK, I've taken my water skis off and apologize to Dorothy Parshall for the quick trip into some tension reducing silliness

I confess that I was unaware of the situation regarding Lieutenant Dan Choi but todays Times online article Dan Choi ordered out of US military for announcing his homosexuality has rectified that.

At West Point Dan Choi majored in Arabic language and environmental engineering, skills that he put to use during a 15-month tour of Iraq beginning in 2006.
He has been ordered out of the US military after publicly announcing his homosexuality in a direct challenge to the army's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

'He said that his declaration was a protest against a policy that forced soldiers to lie in order to serve their country. "It's an immoral code that goes against every single thing we were ever taught at West Point with our honour code," '

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

Damn right, Jeri. ;-D It's like an equine graveyard at this point. All kinds of dead horses lying around and every one of them is mysteriously beaten to a pulp.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 02:35 PM

Little Hawk:

Would you just stop with your aloof superiority? It is self-serving and ungentlemanly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

The Dan Choi case is intriguing. I hadn't heard about it before.

On the one hand, I understand his concerns.

On the other hand, "the army's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy" seems like a pretty sensible idea to me, and here's why.

Why should anyone be asked BY anyone else what their sexual preferences are? That's entirely their own business.

And why should anyone make a point of telling everyone else about their sexual preferences and thereby turning it into a public issue, when it's a private matter and nobody else's business?

If they do choose to make their sexual lifestyle a public issue, then they are going to probably arouse opposition in some quarters, specially if they directly challenge a bureaucratic organization like the Army or the Police. Such organizations do not like being challenged by a member of the rank and file, and their normal reaction to such a challenge is to penalize, demote, or expell the member.

So, seems to me that Dan Choi has deliberately waved the red flag in the face of the bull...and the bull, not surprisingly, has charged...and Dan Choi feels hard done by on account of that. What did he expect?

Who is responsible for Dan Choi's problem then? The Army or Dan Choi?

Is he a martyr to a noble cause, or is he a person with somewhat of a chip on his shoulder, and out to prove a point, and bringing unnecessary trouble on himself by so doing?

That will depend on whom you ask...Dan Choi or the Army. ;-)

Like I said, I can sort of see both sides of the coin on this one. I wonder why anyone, though, wants or has to be seen and recognized "officially" as being heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, polysexual, asexual, or any other darn choice they make? What for? It's nobody else's business anyway.

There ya go, Amos. Real comment. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Little Hawk, part of the problem is that "don't ask, don't tell" isn't the whole story. A military person will be discharged if they are found, by any method, to be gay. There have been instances of both malicious and accidental outing. The soldier didn't tell and still got fired.

It is also true that someone's sexual orientation is other peoples' business if the other people are their friends and family. How would you like to live in a situation where you could never introduce your wife to your friends and coworkers for fear of being barred from continuing to pursue your profession? Always going stag to company parties, leaving your spouse at home? Especially since always going stag while living with a single member of the same sex is often seen as a road sign pointing to "gay".

Also, living with institutionalized bigotry is very hard. It's unconstitutional and dishonest, and military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

the military and being gay is one of the big differences between UK and US here it is not a problem.
i would think that most soldiers have photos of loved ones back at base, why should it matter if it is a picture of someone of the same sex or not?

it does not cause a problem here and i do not understand why it would do anywhere else.

i am not sure about the police force or firefighters but i would think that if the military can make it work then so could they.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM

Any culture, sub-culture, society or whatever, which forces people to lie in order to survive, has weak underpinnings - is, in fact based on lies.

A dear friend of mine had to lie in the late '30s when she pretended to be male in order to get her "electrical engineer" paper. Then she had to pretend to be male in order to get a job. She loved her work but finally gave up the lie for fear of being found out and beaten to a pulp.

I am sure there are still places in these United States where any male (particularly) who is gay has to pretend/LIE in order to survive. A government agency where he is a servant of the people must not be one of those places. Else we, the people, are condoning the lies perpetuated by our government. That government is us. We are liars when we allow the lies of this government and in as much as we do not insist on changes in this policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM

Forgot: Appreciated what John T said.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:57 PM

Very well put, John!

####

"Silly fuckers."

Been taking a vocabulary building course, there, Ake?

####

". . . two countries divided by a common language."
                                       —George Bernard Shaw

Tony Blair (born in Edinburgh in 1953) did not belong to the Liberal Party, he belonged to the Labour Party. Not being up on British politics all that much, I'm not too sure what that all entails, but among other things, he did establish the Scottish Parliament, for which I would expect that Scots would be pleased. Other than that, many "liberal" Americans (and British, too, I've been told) regarded Blair as George W. Bush's lap dog. George W. Bush (himself, not the sharpest knife in the drawer) was regarded by many Americans as the lap dog of the ultra-Right and, among other things, Dick Cheney's hand puppet. Being something of a dunce, Bush was easy to manipulate.

As I understand it, the British Liberal Party is a whole different breed of cat, and rather a paper tiger compared to classical Liberalism. But according to a website I encountered, the British Liberal Party's most recent incarnation, the Liberal Democrats, has an official policy statement that sounds quite good in relation to classical liberalism. But as I say, British politics (other than that outlined in the British comedy, "Yes, Minister" and its sequel, "Yes, Prime Minister") is not my area of expertise.

In any case, from my limited knowledge (of British politics), there is no correspondence between Tony Blair and what knowledgeable Americans would regard as "liberalism."

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. The Magna Carta (signed in England, 1215 CE) is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Germaine to the last sentence in the John Stuart Mill quote, the legalizing of same-sex marriage, rather than causing harm to others, would discourage promiscuity and promote the establishment of stable relationships among same-sex couples, thereby decreasing the spread of HIV. That would be an example of the rightful exercise of power for the self-protection of the community that Mill spoke of.

Interestingly enough, Ake, Scottish thinkers and scientists of the period known as the "Scottish Enlightenment" during the 18th century were Francis Hutcheson, Alexander Campbell, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, Robert Burns, Adam Ferguson, John Playfair, Joseph Black and James Hutton, all advocates of what is subsumed under classical liberalism as outlined above. You might want to spend a little time learning something about your own history.

The terms "liberal" and "liberalism" have fallen on hard times due to those people who simply cannot accept the concept that, in a nation that wishes to claim that it is civilized, ALL people must be "equal before the law," and that everyone, including the rich and powerful, are bound by those same laws, and that all people must be treated as equals regardless of their race, national origin, ethnic background, gender, or gender orientation, or the size of their bank account. Particular enemies of the whole concept of Liberalism are many members of the ultra-Right, with spokes persons such as the frothing-at-the-mouth Rush Limbaugh and the sneering, spittle-spraying Ann Coulter (who equates liberalism with treason). I cannot see a rational person wanting to ally themselves in any way with the views of those two.

Many liberals in America tend to prefer the term "progressive." However, I would prefer to stand my ground and defend the term "liberal," harking back to the true philosophical meaning of the word and the concepts to which that word actually refers, not the loose and deceptive way some news commentators (and unfortunately you as well, Ake) are wont to use the word.

When I was quite young, my mother used to say," Before you use a word, be sure you know what it means."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:04 AM

You made some good points there, John P. I would agree with most of them.

I'm not sure about military officers making an oath to be "honest", though...

Honest about what? Everything? I bet there has hardly been a single military officer in history who's been honest about absolutely everything....

As for upholding the Constitution...yeah, they swear to do that. The only thing is, though, that what they usually serve in any given moment is the order they just received from some superior officer and he may be violating the Constitution when he gives the order, but that may not be evident to the soldier obeying it (since his knowledge of the Constitution may be quite limited), and anyway, there usually isn't time enough to sit around and mull over whether the order you've just been given is constitutionally valid or not.

One must remember that these military oaths are idealized formal and ceremonial notions which don't always jibe so accurately with the real situation on the ground where people are damn short of time and must act at once upon receiving an order. Most of us are not constitutional lawyers and we're not really equipped to evaluate every situation on that basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 03:18 AM

Blair himself was another example of not being "what it says on the tin."
Labour in name only, Blair could not even bring himself to use the word socialism, a protege of Thatcher(Cons) and Clinton(Dem), Blair moved the Labour Party(re-labelled as "New Labour") from a left of centre organisation to a position well to the right of the UK Liberal Party.
He was a stereotypical "liberal" who used the Orwellian ideas of "Newspeak" and "Doublethink" to his great personal advantage, until the "proles" finally realised what he and his administration really were.....they are now in the process of removing from power the remnants of the Blair/ Brown project.

Seems to me "liberalism" has much more of a hold in the US than the UK and may be much more difficult to remove. Having watched its progress from inception to decline in the UK I believe it to be a sort of communal madness.

The supreme irony being that if the right wing Conservatives had been in power in the UK instead of Blairs "liberals", we would certainly never have followed America into Iraq.

The Labour Party would have opposed it in opposition, and the Conservatives would never have been capable of the machinations required to coerse the British public or their own rebel MPs.

"Liberalism" stifled the debate on Iraq, most people believed that the "liberal" agenda of regime change was reason enough.

"newspeak " and "doublethink" had triumphed in a "liberal" society, George Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

We see the same scenario in race, emmigration, homosexual "rights"
dare to discuss these issues and you become a "Non person".....Ake

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

ake, having ideas and wanting to debate things turns someone into a non person..... oh shit, i have been talking to no one,all this time i thought i was real, thanks for putting me right.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:43 AM

With all respect , to define bush war policy as a liberal agenda is newspeak doublethink, and double ungood, semantically . It is very clear you are using the term in your own private sense.

And isn't your legal position of reduced civil rights for some and not others an Orwellian gem of thought-twisting in itself??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:58 AM

Little Hawk, you're blathering. We're not talking about a soldier arguing with a superior officer during a fire fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM

No need to overreact, John. It's not that I'm attacking or attempting to dismantle your position. It just got me thinking about another aspect, that's all. You know...one thought leads to another. I'm just thinking out loud as one thought leads to another.

I'm not trying to fight a battle with you here, I'm simply discussing various things that come to my mind because I find them interesting in some way.

Did you miss the part where I said I fully agreed with most of what you had said? ;-)

***

Amos, do you remember that sarcastic song Phil Ochs once wrote called "Love Me, I'm A Liberal"?

I think that is the sort of liberalism that Akenaton is troubled by. If so, I would agree with him on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM

Amos...don't put words into my mouth, I was not defining Bush war policy, but the "liberal" agenda of Mr Anthony Blair.

Bush went to war, and the "liberals" supported him, in all likelyhood through cowardice and "being hung by their own petard"

The American Neocons certainly knew how to use "Liberalism" for their own purposes, The "liberals" could hardly object to the removal of Saddam regardless of the consequences, that would be questioning the "liberal" mantra.....and there you have it ...."Doublthink"

In the same way, they cannot bring the homosexual health figures, life expectancy, or promiscuity into the equation, oh no that would be anti- liberal, regardless of the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

On the military issue.....why the fuck would anyone in their right mind, homosexual or heterosexual want to join the military?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:23 PM

Yeah! ;-) I've always wondered about that myself, Ake. Why would anyone want to join the military? Really, the mind boggles at the thought of it. First they tell you what a good guy you are for joining up and defending your country....THEN the torture begins.

They process you like an animal for the slaughterhouse. They cut off most of your hair and make you wear bloody uncomfortable clothing. A sadistic pit bull of a sergeant puts you through basic training, doing his best to completely humiliate and break you and crush any tendency you have toward independent thought or action. You go through that hell for an extended period until you are thoroughly cowed and regimented to obey every order without hesitation. They also feed you crummy food and make you live in crummy accommodations with your fellow sufferers.

When you have survived and passed basic training they congratulate you for having been turned into a mindless, emotionally battered automaton with severe hostility issues simmering somewhere down in your tortured psyche...and then, if you're not too lucky, there will be a war somewhere that they can send you to. In that war you will face short intervals of sheer terror and long intervals of boredom in some foreign land. You will get to be hated by people who are from a different culture, and you may get to kill some of them...or be killed by some of them. You will see towns destroyed, homes burnt, young women raped, children blown up, and valuable equipment turned into scrap. You will see friends getting their arms and legs blown off. You may presently come home missing various parts of your own body, and you will find when you do that very few people care and that your society doesn't really have a lot of time to deal with your personal problems.

You might recover. You might not.

"There's No Life Like It!" (the old Canadian forces recruiting slogan...)

****

In Canada, most of the young people who join the military do so because they can't find a job...and it seems like one good way to solve that problem. So they are mostly coming from economically and socially disadvantaged families or localities.

Then there are the "military families"...meaning families where there's been a long tradition of serving in the forces...and that's where you'll find quite a few of the officer types coming from, I would think. For them, it's seen as a noble career. I can understand that, from their point of view. I don't share that point of view, but I can understand it. It's like any other kind of career: if you believe in the basic concept, then you can see it as a noble career.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM

"Bush went to war, and the "liberals" supported him, in all likelyhood through cowardice and "being hung by their own petard" ake

The liberals supported him? ?? Just who were you listening to?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 01:59 PM

Once again, you've got the wrong end of the stick, Ake.

In the United States, it was the ultra-Conservatives (Neo-Cons) who wanted the war in Iraq, and it was they, along with their propaganda mouthpieces such as Limbaugh and Fox "News" Service who flooded the media with the administration's (Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) lies to support it. This, along with such things as muzzling news correspondents and intelligence agents who knew the real situation. It was the propaganda blitz and the inability of the American populace, along with many politicians, to get accurate information.

One notable exception was the Congressional Representative from my legislative district, Jim McDermott (Democrat), who had been to Iraq and knew that Sadddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and in fact that Hussein and Osama bin Laden hated each other's guts. He tried to spread the word. The administration coulden't muzzle him, so they tried to slander him instead. Called him "Baghdad Jim." And then tried to sue him when he caught Newt Gingrich (Republican) in some illegal behind-the-scenes political hanky-hanky and exposed him (after all, McDermott was on the Congressional Ethics Committee, and that sort of thing was his job). And they tried to do the same thing to one of my Senators, Patti Murray (Democrat), who spoke out against the impending war: they dubbed her "Taliban Patti."

That's the kind of cheesy, lying government the Bush Administration was running.

The Junior Senator from Washington State, Maria Cantwell (also Democrat), went along with the administration, but she is a bit more experienced now and has seen the error of her ways.

The vast majority of Liberals saw through the whole thing:   the establishment of a military presence in the Mid-East to safeguard American oil supplies, and, of course, the U. S. oil companies—and also to keep a hand on the tap and be able to determine which other countries (such as China) would get a share of the oil the U. S. would then control, and how much, depending on how nice they were to the U. S.

In the United States, it was Liberals, not Conservatives, who opposed the Iraqi war.

There must be vast differences in terminology between American and British politics. Unless, of course, you, Ake, have things completely turned around.

You're attributing all the Evils of the World to "Liberals," in exactly the same way people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News do and generally talking the same hysterical line And nobody but nut-cases and arch-Conservatives take those shriekers and bellowers seriously.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

"the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society."

What consequences... of doing what ? Do you believe that the health problems of the homosexual population will be better addressed if they are "quaranteened" from the "mainstream"? Do you believe that, if homosexuality is less stigmatized, more people will want to become homosexual, or try a little homosexual experience, thereby spreading HIV more widely? Do you believe that if homosexual males are no longer stigmatized your daughter may want to marry one?
How would allowing same sex marriage increase the danger to anyone's health, or any other aspect of their well being?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

Akenaton is on the same side of the great political divide as you are, Don, only I think he's a bit farther left. You are misconstruing his criticism of modern "liberalism".

Are you familiar with Phil Ochs' song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal"? Rhetorical question! ;-) I know you must be familiar with the song. That song points out a form of liberalism that is very hypocritical and self-serving, very enamoured of its own "liberal" rhetoric, but not at all in the interests of genuine liberty, freedom, and equality...and in fact deeply opposed to genuine classical liberalism. It's a form of liberalism devoted to silencing anyone who doesn't parrot the going party line, whatever the going party line may be. That is what Akenaton is criticizing in modern "liberalism".

You seem not to have the will or the inclination to bother actually trying to understand what he is saying.

You're reacting to the crudely rote definitions of words like "conservative" and "liberal", and you're not paying attention to more subtle nuances.

You're thinking, again, in all-or-nothing terms when you say something to Akenaton like:

"You're attributing all the Evils of the World to "Liberals" in exactly the same way people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News do and generally talking the same hysterical lin "

What nonsense. Akenaton is deeply opposed to the neo-conservative political movements and to people like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. For you to act like you don't know that is either quite disingenuous on your part...or else you're getting a bit carried away with your own rhetoric. Or you're losing your grip on reality. ;-)

Which is it?

Can you not grasp the concept that some, indeed many people who characterize themselves as "liberals" and indeed think they are liberals nevertheless act in such a way as to betray classic liberalism?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM

Frogprince, that's the question that Ake keeps ducking. He just doesn't have an answer that won't blow his whole argument.

Sad, really.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:28 PM

I think I understand him perfectly well, Little Hawk, and I really don't need you to translate for me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM

Well, if you did understand him you would not for a moment dream that he is in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 02:35 PM

It may very well be, Little Hawk, that I'm seeing nuances that you are missing. How come you seem to think that you're so much wiser than everone else?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 03:24 PM

Hi Little Hawk,
Thanks for agreeing with me. I knew you would even as I was typing it, actually. The reason you seemed to me to be presenting statements that were pertinent to the discussion and meant to temper or modify what I had said was because you prefaced those comments with The only thing is, though . . . and One must remember that . . .

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

Little Hawk: Well, if you did understand him you would not for a moment dream that he is in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.

Dude, he is exactly in the same camp as Limbaugh and Coulter: presenting, with no facts or logic or sympathy, extreme positions that tend to demonize another group of people. I care less that Limbaugh et al are far right conservatives than that they are loud-mouthed know-nothings who are full of hate. Rather like Akenaton, in this thread at least. How you can call someone a far-left true liberal who wants to deny civil rights to a group of other people is beyond me. I'm sure, like most of us, he has some stances would be considered liberal and some that are conservative, but on this topic he is a knee-jerk reactionary anti-liberal.

And: It's a form of liberalism devoted to silencing anyone who doesn't parrot the going party line, whatever the going party line may be. That is what Akenaton is criticizing in modern "liberalism".

I've asked you this before and didn't get an answer. What makes you think anyone here is trying to silence anyone else? Akenaton has said that several times, and you've said it at least twice, but I've yet to see any actual evidence of it. Also, Akenaton has been referring to anyone who disagrees with him as one of these "modern liberals." Since the basic premise seems to be that "modern liberals" are complete assholes, don't be surprised when people who really are liberals get a bit hot about it. I actually don't know anyone who fits the modern-liberalism-as-anti-true-liberalism mold. Do you? Can you provide some examples? I understand that every movement has its jerks, but do you really believe that fair-minded individual pays any attention to them?

And: You seem not to have the will or the inclination to bother actually trying to understand what he is saying.

I've also asked this before without getting an answer: Haven't you noticed that most everyone on this thread has been asking Akenaton to explain himself? He hasn't done so, of course, because he doesn't have any real basis for the things he's been saying.

If you understand him so well, perhaps you could let the rest of us know what it is he's really saying. So far it's been "normalizing homosexuality is dangerous" and "AIDS is a gay disease." Can you rationally support either of those statements, or explain them from your position of superior Ake-understanding?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM

No, John, he isn't in the same camp as Limbaugh or Coulter. He just happens to disagree with you and Don on ONE single specific social issue...gay marriage. That does not place him "exactly" in the same camp with anyone such as Coulter or Limbaugh...because if it did, he would agree with them about EVERYTHING.

And he doesn't.

It is silly to assume that because a person disagrees with you on one single issue that he must therefore be identical with some extreme nutcases among whatever political enemies you have. To imply that he is identical with your favorite neo-conservative stereotypical demon figures is to attempt to establish Akenaton's guilt by association, when in fact there probably is no association between Akenation and those people...and not bloody much common ground either.

It's lazy thinking and it's gross stereotyping to do that. Better to deal with someone as a unique individual than to try to shoehorn him into your favorite all-purpose "bad guy" stereotypes, don't you think?

When you call someone a "homophobe" or an "anti-semite" in today's society, you ARE attempting to silence them through their fear of the accusation itself. There is no way a person can prove he is NOT a "homophobe" or an "anti-semite" when he has been accused of it. It is about the same tactic as calling someone a "witch" in medieval times...there is no adequate defence against the charge, no matter what the circumstances. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one is NOT a homophobe or an anti-semite.

Akenaton has been accused of homophobia a number of times on this thread. It is that accusation which I am objecting to. It's not that I agree with Akenaton on all his opinions on this thread...I don't. I am not opposed to gay marriage. I don't care about it one way or another. It makes no difference to me if gay people get married.

But....I DO care if people on this forum label other people on this forum as "homophobes", I DO consider it an attempt to stigmatize and silence another person when that is done, and I feel there is no place in a respectful and rational debate for those sort of labels to be put on people. It's as if you called him a "nigger" or a "commie", as far as I'm concerned. It carries a similar emotional intent which is to totally dismiss the other person as being a worthless character who has no good qualities whatsoever.

It's not people's opinions on gay marriage that I'm objecting to here...it's their personal attacks ON those people they disagree with that I'm objecting to...and their use of gross stereotypes to label the people they disagree with.

That's the only stake I have in participating in this discussion. I am not here either to defend or to oppose gay marriage.

One should be able to have a discussion without personally denigrating the people on the other side of the argument and equating them with extreme fanatics like Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh....or whatever other demon haunts your particular anxiety closet.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM

As of 2007, it was estimated that there are 33,000,000 people living with HIV. That is equal to the population of Canada.

Science now suspects that AIDS first entered the human population somewhere between 1884 and 1924. There is an excellent article via this link: http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm

To say that HIV is a 'gay' disease is to ignore the research. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

Another thing, John. It is facile to assume that being a "leftist" automatically means that one wants to give freedom, equality, and civil rights to all people. There have been some extremely authoritarian and oppressive leftists in the history of the world. Authoritarian and oppressive people are found on both the Left and the Right.

Matter of fact, if you go far enough either to the left or the right, authoritarian people are the ones you will find at those extremes.

Akenaton strikes me, after long acquaintance, as a non-authoritarian leftist atheist radical who is indeed in favor of freedom, equality, and civil rights for everyone. He is very opposed to capitalism and to organized religion.

He has reasons for opposing gay marriage, and he has articulated those reasons over and over again in the hundreds of posts on this thread. I'm not going to waste time trying to recap them all. What good would it do if it hasn't registered on you and Don yet? It would not register the next time either.

I agree with some of his reasons to some extent and I disagree with others, but I do understand his reasoning. If I were putting as much energy into trying to prove that his opinions are "bad" and therefore that HE is "bad"...if I were doing that, which is what you and Don are doing, then I doubt I'd have much attention or energy left to understand his reasoning...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 04:54 PM

Little Hawk, you're waffling! Ake is in the same camp as Limbaugh and Coulter on this issue!. THAT is what I have been saying. I have never, at any time called Ake an "anti-Semite."

And regarding homophobe and/or bigot: I think that is exactly what he is. He certainly talks like one in this thread and a similar one that was running about five years ago. This is not an attempt to silence him, it is, if anything, and attempt to get him to re-examine his own position. Granted, from what I've seen so far, this is a totally futile hope.

But how can I silence someone like Ake, who is bound and determined to spew is hate for homosexuals no matter what I, or anybody else, calls him?

And as far as having a discussion is concerned, Ake doesn't discuss:    he makes the same pronouncements, over and over again, no matter how many times they have been shown to be wrong. And he doesn't respond to questions.

"Demons" haunting my "anxiety closet?" Now you are getting insulting. Leave the pseudo-psychology to Gfs.

Get real, Little Hawk!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM

I was simply using the term "anti-semite" as an example, Don. An example of a common tactic used to silence people (and, in the case of some people, like politicians or authors, to ruin them professionally. That last part obviously doesn't apply here to Akenaton.)

I've explained before what the word "bigot" means. It means someone who is utterly intolerant of opinions, beliefs, or creeds that do not match his own. It does not mean someone who hates gays or some other minority.

Most of the people on this thread have shown utter intolerance to opinions that do not match their own. Therefore, they have behaved in a bigoted manner on this thread. That includes you, Don.

I do not, however, call you a "bigot", because that would be an all-or-nothing label of you...it would imply that you are nothing BUT a bigot, which is not so...and all-or-nothing labels are almost never true when it comes to individuals.

I simply say that your utter intolerance of Akenaton's views on this thread is a form of bigotry in itself...as would be someone's utter intolerance of your views as well.

It's not political opinions that concern me here. It's attitude that concerns me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:24 PM

Little Hawk, you are, of course, once again, barking up the wrong tree. Please read what I said again, especially the part where I said, "Rather like Akenaton, in this thread at least". Do you get the nuance? I was not trying to make Akenaton guilty by association with Limbaugh. I don't think he holds the same opinions as Limbaugh on every topic. What an idiotic idea! I didn't say that, I didn't mean it, and accusing me of lazy thinking sounds like the pot calling the stainless steel pan black. Learn to read before you start mouthing off.

Yes, Akenaton has been accused of being a homophobe. Not by me, but when someone makes so much noise about how normalizing homosexuality is dangerous, one does get the idea that they don't like homosexuals. He has also, often, referred to homosexuals as if they were all the same. That may not be homophobia, but it looks a lot like its little brother. Since homophobia is a reactionary stance, and since reactionaries usually reply to being asked for logic and facts by calling people names, surely even you can see how Akenaton appears to fit the description.

You seem to be confusing confronting bigotry with an attempt to silence. Too bad for you. Ake has the right to say whatever he wants, and the rest of us have the right to let him know what we think of it. It seems to me that you have spent more time than anyone on this thread trying to silence people. It is actually fairly easy to avoid being called a homophobe or an anti-semite: don't act like one. If someone calls you that, demand that they prove it from your words and actions. You've been asked several times, without, of course, answering: What if someone was saying that black people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us, simply because they are black. Would you still chide people for referring to them as bigotted? Would you still try to defend them?

I also notice that ALL of the complaints you have made about how people are acting on this thread have been directed at me and Don. I agree that one should be able to have a debate without denigrating other people. The names that Akenaton has been called are all supportable by the available evidence. On this thread he is acting like a bigot, a homophobe, and a pervert. Also illogical and unwilling to support anything he says with any facts. I can support all these characterizations with quotes from him. In fact, I have done so. He, on the other hand, throws around names like moron, fucker, bottom-dweller, and anti-liberal. If you think you are being fair-minded in your complaints, take to heart the "lazy thinking" thing. Or maybe it's just selective reading.

You still haven't explained what it is about Akenaton's positions that Don and others don't understand, even though you imply that you have some deeper understanding than what is available by reading his words. Please stop making statements you are unwilling or unable to support. That's Ake's game.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM

Yawn.... I wish there was a Reader's Digest version of this thread... weekly.

I can't be arsed to read all the posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Little Hawk, perhaps you should spend less time worrying about the dictionary definition of bigot and try to wrap your mind around how the word is commonly used in our society. But be that as it may, yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. Someone way up-thread pondered what to do about that, but I'm not sure there's a good answer. Suffice it to say that my intolerance goes toward trying to get people to not force others to live in a certain way. The people I am intolerant of want to get other people to live the way they think they should -- like denying a group of people normal civil rights.

Oh, and calling someone a bigot does not mean one is saying that person is nothing but a bigot. What an idiotic idea! You need to re-visit the lazy thinking idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM

bigot   Function: noun
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

####

Note, Little Hawk, that the definition found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says "members of a group." And in no way in hell does it apply to me or to others on this thread the way you are trying to say it does. Or that any given person is "nothing but a bigot" as you claim. A person can be prejudice against one particular group, and beyond that, love everyone else and be a generally all around fine person. BUT—regarding that one group, he is a bigot.

If I, and others, have shown "utter intolerance" for Ake's views on this thread, it is not because they are bigots, it is because he advocates restricting the freedom and civil rights of a particular minority group. YES, I am utterly intolerant of people who want to do that sort of thing!

And if that makes me—us—bigots, then, Little Hawk, make the most of it!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Another thing, John. It is facile to assume that being a "leftist" automatically means that one wants to give freedom, equality, and civil rights to all people. There have been some extremely authoritarian and oppressive leftists in the history of the world. Authoritarian and oppressive people are found on both the Left and the Right.

Yes, yes, yawn. Everything is a circle and opposites end up right next to each other. This is really basic stuff, and doesn't, of course, represent anything about what I think, or what I (or anyone else) generally means when they talk about someone being on the political left. But you know that. You always throw out this sort of silly misdirection when you can't think of anything real to say.

If I were putting as much energy into trying to prove that his opinions are "bad" and therefore that HE is "bad"...if I were doing that, which is what you and Don are doing, then I doubt I'd have much attention or energy left to understand his reasoning...

Earth to Little Hawk: I suspect that Ake has some very positive things about him, but on this topic his opinions ARE bad. He wants to deny civil rights to a group of people. By any ethical standard that makes any sense, this is bad. He has, so far, failed to come up with any reasons that stand up to any logical or factual analysis, despite repeated requests that he do so. You saying that I think this means he is bad in general or ALL bad is disingenuous and, dare I say it, an example of lazy thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

And by the way, Little Hawk, if I am intolerant of people who want to restrict the freedom and civil rights of others, and you are intolerant of me for being so—what does that say about you?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 06:39 PM

Little Hawk has given a concise summary of my meaning, he is perhaps the most insightful person that I have ever had the good fortune to encounter.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, to denigrate someone so obviously fair minded and pacific.
He is a much better person than I.....you bite him and he will patiently attempt to explain his meaning or defuse the aggro with a touch of the whimsical humour that is all his own.
You bite me.... and I bite your fuckin' head off.
That's how I am, brought up the hard way; and try as I might I dont I'll ever change.

I don't really think you are stupid people always requiring explanations, you all know what I mean, your stance is just another way of giving yourselves the opportunity to twist my words and meaning.

Mr Peekstock says that I stated "AIDS was a gay disease" that is a downright lie. I cited a group of homosexuals in Los Angeles who were campaigning to have AIDS re- designated as a "Gay disease", so that funds and energy can be concentrated on the link between homosexual practice and Aids,and hopefully a cure related to that link, found.

What I did say, was that the link was obvious, Keith earier produced figures which suggested that if homosexuals comprised 10% of the population, they were 400 times more likely to contact the disease.
Homosexuals in fact, make up 2-3% of the population, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I am indeed familiar with Phil Ochs excellent song, he expresses the same sentiments as I do, yet I hear not a word against him from the "mob".

"the consequences of bringing a dangerous and destructive lifestyle into mainstream society."
We are travelling full steam ahead integrating homosexuals into mainstream society, without any medical study being undertaken as to why the link between homosexual practice and aids is so massive, homosexual marriage, fostering of children by homosexuals ect are all devices to normalise homosexuality, before we know anything about the medical consequences. As I have said before on many occasions, people who engage in incest or polygamy are refused their "right to marry", the first group on health grounds....are they basically any different from homosexuals?

Don.. correct me if I am wrong, but did the Dems not support the invasion of Iraq en masse and did they not continue to support funding of the war well after it became obvious that Saddam had been "set up" and the prosecution of the war had become a disaster?
After it had become obvious that there would be no WMDs and no new sparkling "democracy"?
After it had become obvious that we "Liberals" would leave Iraq in a much worse state than when we entered it?...and that was after eight years of sanctions.

In conclusion, I don't need to defend my left wing credentials to you people...you only play at politics, you wear the liberal label, but in reality you are more wedded to the system than the neocons you despise so much.
I've lived and bled for socialism, risked losing my job and my home for being a "Commie"......just like some of the old time folkies to pretend to revere....Hawk is so right! you are a half dozen Don Quixotes on your knackered steeds tilting at windmills.....and if you need anyone to explain that analogy just go ask yer maw!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 06:46 PM

I am simply intolerant of people launching personal attacks on other people on these political threads, specially if they make personal attacks that use words such as "bigot" or "anti-semite" or "nigger" or "faggot" or "asshole", etc.... What's so hard to understand about that? You've done it to Akenaton and he's done it to you. Other people here have done it to Akenation and GfS and they have retaliated in similar fashion, and around and around it goes forever and ever, and people get more and more short-tempered and het up over it, and their rhetoric gets nastier and more accusatory. I encourage all of you not to launch personal attacks over your political differences...but just discuss the issues calmly and give your reasons for having the opinions you do on those issues.

To put it briefly, just stop trying so hard to prove that the other guy is a "bad" person...or that his opinion is "evil".

Now, tell me. How much time do you really wish me to spend daily on this thread? How many more of my statements will you conveniently misinterpret in some way in order to have something to fight with me about? How many more frenzied and intemperate questions will you ask me that are not founded in anything I really thought in the first place? And when will the Fat Lady sing? Soon, I hope... ;-) It's only curiosity as to what happens next that brings me back...a form of common mental addiction that we all fall prey to...plus I find it amusing at times. It's fun. I know perfecly well that I'll never reach any peaceful or reasonable resolution with you guys...so what do I come here for? Laughs, I guess.

Oh...thaks for reaching 1900 posts. I am now the proud owner of one of these:

Oh boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

Bruce.....Don linked to the Avert website near the top of this thread, I looked up the site and found it very biased, Any figures which question homosexual practice are ignored, the obvious linkis never mentioned....the site is very pro homosexual.

There are many such sites, some fundamental Christian and some pro homosexual .....both are to be treated with suspicion.

For truly independent data use CDC (Centre for Disease Control).Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:41 PM

No time to fully answer at the moment, Ake. Busy tonight

But let me just point out that the Dems did not support the Iraq invasion "en masse." There were a large number of them that were bamboozled by the phonied up intelligence reports, and there were, indeed, some who favored the invasion--mostly on the rather naive basis of removing Hussein and establishing democracy in Iraq. Yes, a distressing number of Democrats did support the war. But they were outvoted by Republicans in Congress in giving Bush war powers.

And beyond that, a feature of American politics that may have escaped you is that currently the Democratic Party is essentially centrist, not Liberal. The practical reason that most Liberals vote Democratic is because of the locked-in two party system. The Democrats are the most liberal party that has a remote chance of winning. It's a "lesser of two evils" situation, which genuine Liberals in this country are not happy with.

Third party candidates rarely get more that three or four percent of the general vote, so other than "making a statement," voting for a third-party candidate is essentially wasting your vote. In this advertising-driven country, third parties simply don't have the money it takes to run a sufficiently powerful campaign.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that what the Democrats do necessarily reflects the wishes of American Liberals.

More when I have time. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM

i am not trying to shut him up either, i have,as others have asked him numerous questions and he has not asnwered a single one whilst demanding answers from others.

i have tried to understand where he and others that think like him are coming from and guess what?.. no reply.
i have even tried to be his friend and have PMed him on a personal level, thinking we could put our differences aside, guess what?... no reply.

i get the hint ake, you don't like me and that is fine i can handle that without falling to pieces, but nobody can accuse me of not trying to be reasonable.

i have called him a homophobe because his in posts on here have been unable or unwilling to see the side of the arguement
that said i respect his regilious views, and am not trying to change them.

take care ALL

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM

Little Hawk, you seem determined to side-step the issue, miss the point, fail to respond to points that other people make, and come to unsupported conclusions. Be sure to let us know when you have something new to say.

Akenaton, no one is asking you to defend your leftist socialist credentials. Just to explain why you think, in the face of so much contrary evidence, that AIDS and homosexuality are inextricably linked. And even if they were, why that means that having homosexuals be part of the cultural mainstream is a bad thing. I know you think you've explained it over and over, but every explanation you've made has been refuted multiple times, and you haven't answered any of those objections. I can see that the whole thing seems blindingly obvious to you, but please keep in mind that the obviousness is lost on a whole bunch of very intelligent people. When I am confronted with that much well-reasoned opposition to my ideas, the first thing I do is check my logic, my facts, my assumptions, and my emotional state. You?

I know that we are having two different discussions, which are using two different sets of values and two different sets of basic assumptions.

You have never addressed the civil rights issue at all. In this life we often have to compromise between two mutually exclusive ideas. Even if you think that gay marriage is a very bad idea for whatever reasons you have, isn't the denial of civil rights an even worse idea? You obviously don't think so, and this is why you are seen as a bigot, where bigot is defined as someone who wants to deny normal rights to people based on their membership in a specific group. It's sort of like abortion -- no one thinks abortion is ever a good idea, but most of us have concluded that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is an even worse idea, as is government interference in intensely personal decisions. We are asking you to conclude that the denial of civil rights is worse than the hypothetical danger of admitting homosexuals into normal society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM

OK, I need a break from this. Akenaton, I assume that your membership on Mudcat means you're into folk music of some kind. Are you a musician? What instrument do you play? Do you play Scottish music? Sing?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

Ake: Do you or do you not believe that if homosexuals are accepted into the mainstream of society, they will spread aids to the mainstream of society?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 12:37 AM

Ake has been and continues to be my friend. He, like most folks has ideas that he has considered and conclusions he's reached on this and other controversies of our times. He's a good man despite our views differing (as they do on this and one other issue). He may be the guy many folks need to single out as the 'bad' guy, but that doesn't make him bad. He's just another one of us with a view. And no, I do NOT recall Ake saying AIDS (HIV) was a gay disease. If anything I said indicated that, my apologies, Ake.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM

There is no need for an apology from you my friend at any time, I respect every opinion that you hold, no matter how opposed I may be to it, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs with no hidden agendas.

Like a very few others here, you wear your heart on your sleeve and it is a badge of courage!
Just for the record Bruce, I at no time thought that you made the statement you refer to. Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:35 AM

Jeddy I do not dislike you, in fact from what I have learned about you, I think I would like you quite a lot...in the real world.

I don't like discussing PMs on the open forum, but you know I have written to you to apologise for my earlier rudeness. It is difficult to strike up a relationship with someone who continually posts derogatory comments but I did not willfully ignore your latest PM, I simply have not had the time.
Nor have I the time to respond to questions which can be answered by a quick view of my posts
I have spent a lot of time explaining my position here, this is not a simple issue as others would like us to think, understanding the issue fully demands a bit of work, a bit of reading and most importantly a large measure of independent thought.....Now away ye go and practice.....:0) xx Ake

Froggie and John....you're playing games again!...Naughty boys!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 03:49 AM

John....You have referred to me as a homophobe, bigot and even pervert since our first encounter on the "Gay parents" thread I have responded from time to time by using derogatory language to you, which I think you fully deserve. Like Little Hawk, I see people of your mindset as the real "bigots" in society, though I do not generally use the word.

When Orwell's 1984 does finally come to pass, I expect to see you as one of the chiefs of staff in the "Dept of Love"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 07:28 AM

ake, i have tried very hard not be derogatry and i am sorry if you feel that i have been, i had hoped that we could be friends but thought that since i hadn't heard from you that you just weren't interested.

the problem is i fail to understand that people are very busy because i am not!!

i am thinking that i may not be as confident as i come across as.
although in a debate it is hard for someone to hurt my feelings, in real life i am a softy and like most folks need alot of reassuring.

it doesn't help that it is it TOTM and my emotions are running wild!!!!LOL

anyway now i have made all the men feel really uncomfortable i will go.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 08:16 PM

Hell, I'vw been married for 30 years ands have survived both sides of the Red Moon's Passage, so, no, you haven't made me uncomfortable. You live with your miracles, and I live with mine! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 08:43 PM

LOL amos thanks i needed that!!!!

love and hot water bottles are the same thing!!!!

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

Akenaton, I've never referred to you as a homophobe -- I have no idea if you are or not, since I can't see inside your head. Just as you don't know anything about my mindset in an Orwellian sense.

The names I have called you have been, in my world, names you have earned by your statements. I believe that denying civil rights to a group of people is bigotry. I believe that advocating government intrusion into people's marriages and sex lives, as you do by calling for gay marriage to not be legalized, is a form of perversion. I believe you have thereby forfeited the right to have your own sex life kept private. The names you have called me and the conclusions you've drawn about me are not supported by anything I have said.

Trying again, just because you seem like an intelligent person who thinks he's doing the right thing:
You have never addressed the civil rights issue at all. In this life we often have to compromise between two mutually exclusive ideas. Even if you think that gay marriage is a very bad idea for whatever reasons you have, isn't the denial of civil rights an even worse idea? It's sort of like abortion -- no one thinks abortion is ever a good idea, but most of us have concluded that forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is an even worse idea, as is government interference in intensely personal decisions, like who you get to marry. We are asking you to conclude that the denial of civil rights is worse than the hypothetical danger of admitting homosexuals into normal society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:41 AM

There are many sections of society who's "rights" are curtailed due to their behaviour....I am saying this for the millionth time!
"Liberals" would have us believe that "rights" are universal, but they patently are not....nor should they be.

The homosexual lobby is strong and controls media and entertainment, they have bullied and coersed the public into a tacit tolerance of homosexual practice and will continue to do so....with the help of "liberal" activists until all voices against have been silenced.

Unfortunately for them, the health statistics tell a very different story.....that there is something very wrong with the homosexual lifestyle.

What I am saying is that any further integration of homosexuality into mainstream society should be put on hold 'till a serious and far reaching medical inquiry into the link between Aids and homosexuality is thoroughly investigated.

Why is homosexual life expectancy so low compared to heterosexuals?
Why do homosexuals have such a much greater risk of contracting the disease than heterosexuals?
Is it as Don claims......simply "happenstance"?

If you dont care, and want to continue integration regardless....you are doing no service to homosexuals, your political ideals mean more to you than the deaths of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:50 AM

Re abortion.....Isn't "abortion on demand" an even worse option than the two you have cited?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:18 AM

Akenaton: Mr Peekstock says that I stated "AIDS was a gay disease" that is a downright lie.

And later: What I am saying is that any further integration of homosexuality into mainstream society should be put on hold 'till a serious and far reaching medical inquiry into the link between Aids and homosexuality is thoroughly investigated.

And later: you are doing no service to homosexuals, your political ideals mean more to you than the deaths of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Ake, do you really not see your lie here, your unsupported conclusion, and your doublespeak? Making your words stand on their heads is almost too easy, and you're so blinkered you don't even know it's going on.

Oh god, here I am again trying to reason with Akenaton. Bad John! Bad John!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:24 AM

There are many sections of society who's "rights" are curtailed due to their behaviour....I am saying this for the millionth time!
"Liberals" would have us believe that "rights" are universal, but they patently are not....nor should they be.

The black man's lobby is strong and controls sports and entertainment generally, they have bullied and coersed the public into a tacit tolerance of integration and will continue to do so....with the help of "liberal" activists until all voices against have been silenced.

Unfortunately for them, social statistics tell a very different story.....that there is something very wrong with integration.

What I am saying is that any further integration of blacks into mainstream society should be put on hold 'till a serious and far reaching medical inquiry into the link between Aids and colour is thoroughly investigated.

Why is Black life expectancy so low compared to the White?
Why do Blacks have such a much greater risk of contracting the disease than Whites? Is it as Don claims......simply "happenstance"?

If you don't care, and want to continue integration regardless....you are doing no service to Blacks, your political ideals mean more to you than the lives of thousands of people whom you claim to support.
In other words you are a "liberal" devotee of "Doublethink"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 10:31 AM

Ake:

The difference is that rights are curtailed for criminal behaviour, not for civil, private conduct. Furthermore, your implication that it is homosexual activity that causes AIDS is so far-fetched as to be unreasonable. Furthermore, irresponsible transmission of the disease (or any other STD) is as much a hetero problem as a homosexual one. Although you dislike this assertion and keep boggling up the numbers to reject it, it remains the fact that transmission does not care whether the sexes involved are the same or opposite. Yet you have no conscience about allowing hetero transmission to continue uncontrolled.   

ANd using such dubious reasoning to support the treatment of a natural class of people as a set of social criminals reflects poorly on your respect for actual Nature, as opposed to the Victorian impression of it you may have inherited.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

Re abortion.....Isn't "abortion on demand" an even worse option than the two you have cited?

OK, Akenaton, I said that no one was questioning your leftist/socialist credentials. Now I am. You sound just like any other totalitarian who wants to insert government into peoples' private lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:17 AM

ebbie,
isn't it weird that if you swap one or two words that statment takes on a whole new context, well done you.

i have been reading your' posts for a while and even i had to read it twice!!!

i hope that new readers of this will not take you the wrong way as we all know here that you were proving a point, and did it rather well.

i wonder if what you have written has made anyone think? it has me.


ake, re. abortion on demand, the only thing i think is wrong with this, is that young girls have now got it into their heads is that abortions are now a form of birth control. this scares me.
as asked before there are enough unwanted and unplanned pregnancies in the world as it is why would anyone want to force women into keeping the child, would you make exceptions? say if a woman was raped and ended up pregnant? or are you taking about giving birth and then putting the child up for adoption??

why put someone through that? it seems a barbaric thought to me.


no matter what the subject i believe in taking personal responsibility,whether it is sexual health, unplanned pregnancy, or down to the small stuff of how you talk to people and how your actions affect others.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:26 PM

Ebbie...your post is absolute nonesense and deserves no further comment!
If that is you're opinion I will not condemn you for holding it but cannot agree that the homosexual issue and the race issue are in any way similar.
I think you would find that millions of coloured people would be very insulted to have their struggle for freedom used in such a cheap manner.

Your last few posts have gone beyond the realms of civilised discussion, this one ranks about as low as the Christain Fundies who tortured the homosexual in a bid to cure him....these people are mad Ebbie end of story!

How many times on this thread have desperate people tried to link my argument to the racial issue?....There are plenty of issues in the UK regarding race...and they need to be discussed, the Sharia Law thread is a sign that this Forum is beginning to open up, but no sensible person can have any objection to interacial marriage or racial integration.

My point here concerns the health issues pertaining to homosexuality
There are no health issues concerning interacial marriage as far as I am aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

It used to be used as an argument for legally outlawing miscegenation, Ake, have you forgotten? Adulterating the gene pool as a public health hazard?

The similarity is that you are using specious, shallow, unjustified assertions to support what is essentially a denial of equality under the law.

It might make sense to claim that the law should prosecute anyone who irresponsibly transmits an STD as being guilty of assault with a cellular weapon.

But you go further than this and link it to homosexuality, which is clearly an independent variable, and insist on treating it as a willful criminal act, which it is not, and therefore a justification for the suspense of civil equality, which is offensive, and narrow-minded, illiberal and inhumane of you. In these respects your posture IS similar to racism. I stress "similar", not "the same as" or "a kind of", and only because of these particular similarities.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 03:35 PM

I have asked before: The highest rate of HIV in the world is in Swaziland, and males and females are affected almost equally. Should marriage be banned in Swaziland?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM

Ebbie's post is right on the money, Ake, and you know it!

My God, man, reading your last few posts alone, how can you--or anyone, for that matter--legitimately claim that your are not a bigot?

Condemned by your own posts. Case closed!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:22 PM

Thanks, jeddy and Amos, for seeing my point. The point, of course, is that the language used in both cases is virtually identical.

tsk, tsk, ake. You have previously intimated that yours is a voice for the other side, and that it does not necessarily mean that you yourself are homophobic- may I say, sir, that you are definitely on the "other side".

You like to dispute that you are homophobia, but to be homophobic means to have a (quote) unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.(enquote)

Wouldn't you agree that you have a fear of or antipathy toward homosexuality?

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

Ake seems to be trying to convince others—and he may possibly even it believe himself—that AIDS springs up between two or more previously uninfected homosexuals. In other words, he appears to be claiming that HIV/AIDS is generated by homosexual activity. He has posted this contention several times.

This is the medieval belief in "spontaneous generation."

Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified. The second version is heterogenesis (sometimes called xenogenesis), in which one form of life emerges from a different form.

Modern epidemiologists, bacteriologists, and virologists consider the idea of spontaneous generation to be as rational as the idea that ships sailing too far offshore may fall off the edge of the earth. Both of these ideas were believed at one time, but modern science has long since shown them to be false.

Viruses are transmitted from one infected individual to another uninfected individual by various means. HIV seems to be transmitted in body fluids. And it can be transmitted regardless of the gender(s) of the individuals involved. A particular virus can mutate into a different form, in the same way that any living organism can (and viruses are particularly adept at this:   the wide variety of flu viruses, with a new variation almost every year).

But homosexual activity does not spontaneously generate HIV, nor does it cause some other virus to mutate into HIV.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:03 PM

Wriggle away, the figures are there in black and white.
All you are saying is that you are right and I am wrong, you have no argument other than to call me a bigot, to equate what I am saying with racism is a sign of desperation and a lack of any clear answer to the points I made and the questions I asked.

Amos says that rights are only curtailed for criminal reasons this is quite wrong. "rights" are often curtailed for medical reasons,
psychiatric reasons, many reasons.

Its not so long since homosexuality was a crime, if the present health figures had been available then, it is probable that it would not have been de- criminalised.

Amos talks about the Natural world, in nature it is common for close relatives of most species to engage in sexual intercourse, yet extremely uncommon for same gender sex to occur.

Humans who engage in incest are criminalised even if they are incapable of having children and there are no other other health risks, yet same sex intercourse is allowed regardless of the huge risks cited in the health figures.

No one in the "mob" has even attempted to explain the homosexual health figures, and these are the crux of my argument, it seems madness to promote homosexuality in society while such a huge question mark hangs over the safety of homosexual practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:30 PM

ake,
not to be too agressive or anything but it seems to me that you have enough time to post what are fairly long posts but not enough time to answer questions, whilst at the same time demanding answers from others, it seems a little one sided to me.

i have not the inclination to read through a bunch of statistics, that i don't really trust.
it is not just this i don't trust it is pretty much every survey and statistics list, numbers are too easy to manipulate, take a look at the schools table!!

the simple fact is that if EVERYONE would practice safe sex, there would be no extra problems.

you seem only able to see HIV as AIDS.
AIDS is the result of numerous infections at once that the body cannot fight because of the problems with producing white blood cells and antibodies. it is not HIV that kills people, it is the everyday infections that we all get.

but like i said if everyone used protection we would cut off it's life support, so to speak.

ebbies' point was just to illustrate the type of language you use. i for one don't see this issue as similar to the'black' cause, although things have been really bad for gays in the past, it pales to insignificance(?).

there are alot of deseases we need to spend time and money looking into and HIV/AIDS are just two of them.

maybe we should broaden the arguement for a while and say that maybe some dying from cancer cannot get married.

or meateating males cannot get married becuse prostat and bowel cancer has the highest rate of deaths in men.
could the same be said for women with a family history of breast cancer?

one of your' concerns AKE, was that gays should not be able to adopt because of their decreased life span but surely you can see there are decent arguements for some of the straight folks not to have children to pass down defective genes to?

i don't expect answrs from you AKE as i know you are a busy man but i hope i have given you something to think about!!!

i think we should all be concentrating on how to manage the sexual health problems of everyone rather than just THE MAINLY GAY DISEASE.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:58 PM

Ake, the figures you speak of are carefully selected and interpreted by you, not unlike a person with a particular religious viewpoint carefully "cherry-picking" Biblical verses and putting them together in an attempt to provide a Scriptural basis for his particular belief. You're the one who's doing the wriggling

I take it, then, that you actually do believe in spontaneous generation? If so, I'd suggest you take it up with Louis Pasteur, who finally put that persistent medieval belief to rest once and for all back in 1864.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM

please don't ask for the figures to back up my arguements because i have none. all the number crunching and science talk i will leave to those who understand it. which isn't me as you all know!!
i do try to understand but .. nope still not happening.

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 08:06 PM

Yes I agree with you there Jade hepatitis is a big problem in this area due to the large number of heroin addicts in the small towns on the West Coast

I agree we need to concentrate on eradicating all disease, but this thread was specifically about homosexual marriage and while responding to another poster I stumbled upon the figures from the Centre for Disease Control, an independant body, who's data I can find no reason to distrust.

I had honestly never read any homosexual health figures before and what I read shocked and amazed me. I do not know why these figures are so bad, why so many homosexuals are affected,but I do know that answers must be sought.
To sit back and do nothing, to bury these figures and forget about them....or even worse deny them, is not an option.
I repeat, to deny these figures does not serve the interests of homosexuals or society at large...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM

Ake:

There is absolutely no reason, as far as I can tell, to conflate extending equal civil rights regardless of sexual orientation with ignoring the figures concerning AIDS. They are independent variables, and have no reasonable link, although it is possible that enabling formal monogamy among homosexuals will reduce the contagion vectors just as people who get married reduce their chances of contacting syphilis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:26 PM

Ake, what I have tried to point out to you a couple of times (and it seems to have simply bounced off your steel helmet) is that the 43% in the pie-chart on the CDC's website does NOT say that that 43% of homosexual men have AIDS, it says that of ALL the people who have AIDS (including non-homosexuals and women), 43% of them are men. I grant you, that's a large segment of the pie-chart. But the way you are trying to present it is deceptive.

And as I have also pointed out before, by the same token, I think I could claim without fear of contradiction that 100% of those people who have prostate cancer are men.

You have to know what the pie-chart is supposed to cover. You can't just grab a figure and run with it—unless, of course, you're trying to bamboozle people. Not an unusual phenomenon, and easy to spot.

####

I know four male homosexual couples who have been in stable, monogamous relationships (whether anyone else recognizes them or not), one for over thirty years, and the shortest of the short-timers for at least six years. Two of the couples are good friends of my wife and I (one of the men in the thirty year couple was a friend of Barbara's in high school).

And NONE of them have AIDS.

So much for spontaneous generation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM

"...AIDS springs up between two or more previously uninfected homosexuals. In other words... HIV/AIDS is generated by homosexual activity."


                   It's like rubbing two sticks together to make fire!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

Why does extending equal rights to gays promote homosexuality? Do you believe that continuing to make homosexuals second-class citizens somehow deters their sexual orientation?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM

"...AIDS springs up between two or more previously uninfected homosexuals. In other words... HIV/AIDS is generated by homosexual activity."


                   It's like rubbing two sticks together to make fire!

NO, riginslinger. It IS possible to rub two sticks together and make fire. The former statement is not possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

There are any number of medical problems which tend, at least, to be linked to ethnicity. Those would be rooted primarily in heredity, rather than behaviour. But can anyone imagine that the medical problems of a marginalized, stigmatized group would receive more appropriate medical research and care, compared to a group with "mainstream" acceptance? Why would the dynamic be reversed, because a group is identifiable for different reasons? There is a whole field of athletic medicine, focused on a group who are identificable by their behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:38 PM

May I suggest that we have exactly four more posts and leave this hanging at 1999 just to torment LH?   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

OK by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:44 PM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:52 PM

1998...wait for it now....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

Hold on......

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM

WHOOOOAAAAAAAAA! 2000!

Incredible.

But always remember this....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

Yes, it's true. I have no shame. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 06:32 PM

To take such a serious subject and turn it into a trivial came of supercilious quantity; and then to goad others about that game, instead of discussing the proper, serious topic of the thread; and then, finally, to CHEAT at your own game, denying others even the dubious satisfaction of winning at i...you are scurrilous, sirrah, a margay, a coarse and contumacious scamp, a coarse and unworthy blackguard, a reprobate rapscallion, an opprobrious ne'er-do-well, scandalous and lascivious lowlife, deformed and sullied in the eyes of all right thinkers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:49 PM

VERY well said, Amos! Ooo-wah! You are so right. I am all of that and MORE. I am unconscionable, pesquitatious, and concupiscient in the extreme.

But....you used the word "coarse" twice in your otherwise brilliant description of me...or rather of my character flaws. That was not so good. I shall therefore have to reduce your A+ to just plain A. Watch those little slips. Other than that, you are clearly well on the way toward some sort of literary prize, possibly even a Pulitzer. Your name will one day resound amongst names such as Faulkner, Twain, Walt Whitman, Henry Miller, and Harry Lee Wigley. I get a small frisson just thinking about it.

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

little hawk,
could you explain those big long complicated words that i can't even pronounce please?
i would be grtaful as i feel lie the dunce of the class, standing in the corner.

cheers
jade x x x

PS you did cheat abit!! i don't think you should accept whatever is was going to be next since alot of the last 100 has been you! x x

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

Those big long words? Well, Amos and I sometimes make up big long words that just sound good...but you won't find them in the dictionary. ;-) You have to imagine what they mean. We also may use a real word, but out of context, just for effect.

As for cheating, well, yeah....the thing is, I stood to win a night of passion with Bette Midler this time around....and, well...I just find her a bit overwhelming.

So I deliberately arranged to break the rules and lose the bet...

There's method in my madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM

Jade:

Man invented the dictionary just to help his fellows in situations like this.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:59 PM

that may be true amos, but the thing is my tiny mind won't let me remeber them long enough to make sense of them from a dictionary, so i thought that LH could explain them like he would to a really thick person.. i.e.... me.

i also wanted to check that he knew what they meant.

are you a he LH? just wondering, i assumed you are.
fair enough for losing the bet, i would be intimidated too, although she is just a woman with womanly needs.

my brain is calling for sleep, so i will try and oblige.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM

Sorry to break up the cosy climate of goodwill, but the Orwellian "Liberals" have suffered a long overdue set back to their agenda.
They had tried to sneak through legislation which would make it a "hate crime" to criticise homosexual practice, by removing a clause in a bill which cited "free speech" as a defence against any such charges.

The house of lords has thrown out the amendment Here

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Royston
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:52 AM

Sorry to break up the cosy climate of goodwill...

Akenaton, forgive me if you know this (I don't know who is UK-based and who is not).

The House of Lords is an unlected chamber whose only statutory power is to house the "Law Lords", who form the highest court of legal appeal.

The HoL has no function in the passage of legislation except to review legislation and, if they object, to send a bill back to the house of commons for legistlators to think again and choose to ignore the HoL or not.

I am not up to speed on this piece of legislation, sorry, but thought it was worth explaining that anything the HoL can do can only ever be a temporary - couple of months - setback to the will of the Government, if it is not minded to change its direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:56 AM

This is important in the context of this thread, as Ebbie and others have tried to equate "race" and "sexual practice".

The agenda is of course to silence all opposition to any given issue,
race is already covered by legislation and no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....but we should all be FREE to criticise others, and be criticised ourselves on our behaviour......how we treat our fellow humans, and what we practice.

This is more than anything else, what has motivated me over the last few months on this thread.....not "hatred of homosexuals", not being a "homosexual in denial", not being "afraid of homosexuals", but simply understanding that if we do not start protesting about the "liberal" agenda, we will soon be tethered by laws to such an extent that we have no voice and will have become what George Orwell termed "non persons"

Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights and must be defended strongly, if they take that right from us, we are nothing...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 AM

Yes Royston ...I am from the UK and understand the need for vigilance......Thank you for your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:26 AM

Earlier this week a move to remove the threat of prosecution from those who go abroad with a loved spouse or relative to help an "assisted suicide" was defeated in the unelected House of Lords.

Peers and bishops heve also again thwarted the government by voting 186 to 133 to keep a "free speech" defence to the law on inciting homophobic hatred

Lord Waddington, a Conservative peer whose voting record has opposed equal rights for homosexuals, argued that the government should be "declaring boldly" that letting people express their views, including views other people may not like is what a free society is all about.
He argued that strongly urging someone to change their sexuality or criticising homosexuality does not constitute any intention to 'stir up hatred'

"In theory this means that individuals – such as bishops and comedians – are free to criticise homosexuality without fear of legal reprisals"
points out Riazat Butt in yesterday's Guardian
but adds
"gay rights groups said the threshold for prosecution under incitement to hatred laws was set so high there was no danger that people who criticised homosexuality would be subject to police investigations should the clause be dropped.
This being the case, what is it that really worries the bishops?"

The new law against incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlikely to be used frequently.

Similar laws against inciting racial hatred have only been used around 20 times in the 30 years since they came into force.


Law in practice?

Pentecostal Christian Theresa Davies, 58, is appealing her demotion to a desk job on the same salary after refusing to oversee same-sex civil ceremonies saying that it was contrary to her religious beliefs.
Her case mirrors that of Finsbury registrar Lillian Ladele. Ms Ladele, a devout Christian who believes gay couples are "sinners", took Islington Council to a tribunal in 2008 after they demoted her

Ms Davies wrote to every member of the Lords asking them to vote against Clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which would remove a previous law allowing people to criticise homosexuality.

"This clause, if enacted, will have devastating effects on freedom of expression for citizens like me... The introduction of civil partnerships has caused many Christians (and adherents of other faiths) considerable disquiet; whilst they can exercise legal rights, it is entirely wrong that someone should be made to act in a manner contrary to their conscience. I do not want to participate in civil partnership ceremonies as I believe I would be violating clearly mandated biblical principles."

In a recent discussion on UK radio it was pointed out that the bible clearly 'mandates' the punishment for any woman living under her fathers roof who is not a virgin

"Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

As it also decrees -
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..... for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
I may be looking forward to a warm afterlife unless I get rid of my walking trousers etc :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:52 AM

"anything the HoL can do can only ever be a temporary - couple of months - setback to the will of the Government, if it is not minded to change its direction.

'Fraid not Royston on this occasion - it's all down to the 'timing'

'The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill had to become law by May 8th 20088, when prison officers' right-to-strike provisions expired under an industrial relations procedural arrangement.

For that reason the Waddington amendment was kept in the bill, but ministers made clear they were unhappy with it.

Justice minister Maria Eagle described it as "undesirable and unnecessary; it does not add anything to the law as it would stand without its inclusion." '

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 06:05 AM

20088? - good grief that should have given them enough time! :)

sorry, not my typo, just posting something that was in the press to explain why the ammendment will not be taken back to the Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

Akenaton,
This really sums it up well. You say:

"...no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....but we should all be FREE to criticise others, and be criticised ourselves on our behaviour......how we treat our fellow humans, and what we practice..."

No one is being Orwellian here, and I don't see anyone trying to shut you up.

Your sentence addresses the very crux of the disagreement.

You think race is congenital and sexual orientation is a choice.
Many, many others think they are both congential.

Thus, we completely agree with your statement "...no sensible person would seek to criticise anyone on grounds of their race.....", but we add "or sexual orientation".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM

Having a religion is a choice, but religious people get legal protections. Ake describes himself as extremely non-religious, but he doesn't seem to see the dangers inherent in the religious lifestyle. Given the number of religious wars that have been fought, and the number of religious people who have extra-marital affairs, it is completely obvious to any rational person that we need to make sure that religious people aren't brought farther into the mainstream of society. It's really just the "religious" agenda to get more and more special rights for church-goers. Trying to convince us that believers are normal is truly an example of Orwellian doublespeak. Pretty soon we won't even be able to say what we think about them! The God fearing minority will impose their will on the rest of us -- a mockery of freedom! A generation of silence! By allowing believers to run around just like normal people, my right to a life untainted by any contact with religious people is being trampled.

Nothing more needs to be said. The figures are there in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: MMario
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:48 AM

my right to a life untainted by any contact with religious people is being trampled.

Excuse me?

Since when is that a "right"? As a matter of fact, it contradicts the constitution!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:53 AM

jeddy - Yes, I'm a male. I would be quite willing and happy to be a female...provided I could also be a lesbian, that is. In other words, that's what I'd opt for if I was gonna be a female at present.

The marriage issue is not one I have much direct personal interest in, though. I've never married and I've never wanted to. I think it has to do with unresolved family issues. That is: if you go out with someone or live with them...then they're your friend. I feel safe and good around friends. But if you marry them.............they become....FAMILY!!!! Ouch. I do not feel particularly safe and good around family.

Yup. I think that's it in a nutshell. A troublesome issue indeed.

I've seen any number of couples who lived happily together for many years...then they got married and the relationship broke up in a year or two. I think it was possibly their subconscious ideas about "family" that brought things crashing down.

Actually, my friend Daylia (a female) put that forward as a theory awhile back when we were discussing why many people seem to get along fine living together and then they don't get along soon after they get married. She suggested it's because their "friend" has now become "family" in their mind....and I think that was quite perceptive on her part.

This would not be a problem, however, for people who are NOT deeply conflicted around issues of family. If family, to you, means safety, happiness, and good times....well, then, this issue would not come up when you get married, would it?

And that could account at least partially for some of the happy and enduring marriages I have seen around me.

Not that I'm saying there aren't other significant factors. I'm sure there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM

The situation in the UK

The Lords Spiritual of the United Kingdom, also called Spiritual Peers, are the 26 bishops of the established Church of England who serve in the House of Lords along with the Lords Temporal.

The Lords Spiritual normally do not vote on matters of law or state in the House of Lords, but they have done so in special cases

The presence of religious leaders in the British legislature is strongly opposed by secularist organisations such as the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society who have consistently campaigned for their removal.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Reverend Michael Scott-Joynt, in the debate in the House of Lords declared that the current orthodoxy was that sexual orientation was "more akin to ethnicity than it is to religious belief".

Rt Rev Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester -
Criticised by Cheshire police after suggesting homosexuals should seek medical help to reorientate their sexuality.

The newly formed Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which counts five homegrown bishops among its backers, is aimed at congregations and clergy unhappy with the Church of England's position on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women as priests.

One of the English churchmen supporting the FCA is Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, who continues to draw criticism for his views on homosexuality, he has issued a 'warning' "The values of culture are not necessarily values of the Christian faith" adding: "We will resist compromise ... We need to make sure that God's will for human beings and their flourishing is set forth clearly."
He advocates in the press and the pulpit that homosexuals should "repent and be changed"

The bishop, who retires in September, was one of several high-profile clergymen to address congregations in the Greater London area recently to rally support.

Not all UK bishops share these views however, many in the Church of England are concerned about the tail wagging the dog

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

MMario, I was being facetious, ironic, making a parody. A joke, son. I'm experimenting with channeling Akenaton, tying to see how writing the things he does feels from the inside. All I can say as a result of this exercise is -- Let me out of here! My brain can't contain this much faulty logic, disinformation, and mean-spiritedness.

I'd try to channel Guest from Insanity as well, but the comma key on my computer is broken and the paragraph return key works too well. Besides, my fingers automatically put in periods when I come to the end of sentence-length thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:07 PM

(MMario, read it again- you'll see that John P was doing the same thing I did, using the analogy of 'putting up' with religion as compared with 'putting up' with homosexuality. I used race, not religion, but the approach is the same. Thanks, John P.)

"I've seen any number of couples who lived happily together for many years...then they got married and the relationship broke up in a year or two. I think it was possibly their subconscious ideas about "family" that brought things crashing down." Little Hawk

You may be right, LH, in fact, I'm sure that is the case at least sometimes. However, in my observations, I think that more often when a marriage breaks up relatively quickly even though the couple had lived together for years, it is because in all likelihood their relationship had gotten rocky- and they got married in an effort to shore it up. Just as people sometimes have a baby in the same effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM

That's a possibility too, Ebbie.

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

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

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

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

i do hope not.

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

take care all

jade x x x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have written nothing which incites hatred to homosexuals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ebbie you do not have SMEDDUM.

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

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

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

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

I'm following my uncle's advice.

Don Firth

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

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

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

Frankly, he may not have got there yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, like the Fox Network for instance.

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something along that line... ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send for the "thought police"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sheeeeit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

Why was such a custom even started?

Well, the reasons appear quite simple.

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

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

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

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

How much of the above relates to a gay marriage?

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

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

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

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

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

Not good.

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

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

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

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

"It takes roughly 20 years to raise a child"

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

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

Good one, Peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm just sayin'.

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

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

The marriage symbolized:

    * love
    * mutual respect
    * equality
    * and sacrifice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the matter of law, equality must govern.


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICKY

Don Firth

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

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

I suggest you read my post below:

CLICKY

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

Is this the War of the Clickies?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

..and though neither remembers
What they are battling for,
They'll post one more link
In the Blue Clicky War!

In the war of BLue Clickies
Information will rule
And the man who posts more
Wins the day.
But though links multiply,
You may still feel a fool
Finding new kinds of nothin to say.

Oh the Blue Clicky War,
Oh the Blue Clicky War
Can anyone tell me
What these links are all for?
There's a screed waiting for you
Behind every door
Beware what you step in,
In the Blue Clicky War!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM

LOL!!!

Peace, Don's "Clicky" was a link to this entire friggin' thread....so it was taking a long time to load, and I thought...WTF?

So then I posted him a "Clicky" to the entire "Mother of all BS Threads" thread. You can sit there all afternoon waiting for that one to load. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM

:) The MOAB? That's cruel.

By the way, Don's link did indeed after a moment go to his own post.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM

Knock that shit off! Copy and paste it or yer gonna fry the server!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:36 PM

Did it? Hmmm. It was taking ages to load here for some reason, so I finally assumed that he had just made a link to the entire damned thread...sort of a humorous jab in my ribs, as it were. ;-)

Well, sometimes things are slow on computers and there's no clear explanation why. This one's usually quite fast.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM

I will copy and paste the entire TMOABST when hell turns into green cheese and is sold in little cellophane wrapped packages at the World's Fair.

Don't worry, okay? It's not something I'm intending to make a habit of.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:27 PM

Paste it? Hell, he ain't even READ it!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:33 PM

I've read enough of it to be able to say "I was there". ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:21 PM

Little Hawk, I'm sorry my link did not work as well for you as it did for me. I tested it before submitting and it worked just fine for, and it apparently worked all right for Ebbie. I am, however, highly impressed by your assumption about me and the maturity of your response.

Perhaps I'm just being silly myself, but I do consider the subject of this thread to be a matter, even if there are others who do not.

So here, in case you're at all interested, is a cut-and-paste of the post in question—in response to your comments about passing one's genes along.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth - PM
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 orphanage, 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: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM

Missing words above:

". . . I do consider the subject of this thread to be a matter of importance. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM

No problem, Don. If you scroll down some through my recent posts, you will see that I myself said to Amos that: "Any combination of people can effectively raise a child if they are good people and they do it well."

I am not opposed to a gay couple adopting and raising a child. All human beings are unique, thus all relationships are unique, and each should be assessed strictly on its own merits alone rather than on some artificial or steretypical ideas based on the partners' gender, race, religion, political affiliation, etc...

I've done a fair bit of serious talk on this thread...and also a fair bit of humour and satire. I use humour and satire sometimes to make a point...or sometimes just to provide some relief in a discussion that is getting too negative or hostile. It's kind of like playing a set of songs...you don't want them all to be deadly serious. You mix it up some for the best effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:37 PM

Fair enough. But I'm quite sure that you can understand that when the subject is a serious one, such as the denial of civil rights to a particular group of citizens who are guilty of nothing other than offending the sensibilities of some (not too different from someone of a different ethnic group or religion moving into the neighborhood) when that life-style truly has no effect on those others other than they don't like it, that someone breaking into the discussion and acting the clown can be just a bit annoying.

It's especially annoying when the jester, especially from a position that at least appears to be one of lofty superiority, takes people to task (no matter which side of the argument they are on) for having strong feeling on the matter. One tends to think that the jester fails to see the issue for what it really is. Either that, or just doesn't care one way or the other.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:46 PM

OR one remains silently resentful, convinced that the jester's impersonation of enlightened insight is actually a woebegone dramatization of apathetic resignation and indifference, glossed over with the thin but sour veneer of condescending righteousness characteristic of unjustified acts of claimed superiority.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM

wow that took a long time to catch up.
i love this thread, i have had a history lesson, an R.E one a language one and a political one with some humour and seriousness thrown in, now where else can i get that?

LH, correct me if i am wrong but i can sort of see where you and ake, are coming from. example(may be wrong) animal rights groups,people who spout rights for animals and then neglect their own pets by not fleaing or worming them, they take them to rallies and protests where there is alot of noise, where they cannot see anything but legs. just to prove how much they love their dogs,and cats but they do not get hauled around as a sign of comitment. is that the type of people you are both refering to, only about rights of gays.

the ability to have children should not be an issue, there are plenty of people who cannot have kids, does this mean that society would frown upon them getting wed?   
or what about widows and widowers who are past child bearing age, should they be stopped from having their union recognised by others as a marriage?

the abitilty to have kids should be the same as science,just becuse we can, doesn't mean we should.
don't get me started on the people i know who have them and don't look after them as they should do.
just a sec

aaaaarrrrrrhgggggggggggggg!

thats better.

take care all and never take for granted those who love you

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:36 PM

Man, that gal sure can put oil on troubled waters.

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

Nice post, jade. ;-)

Amos, your complaints about my style are not justified, and I'll tell you why. The only reason I came into this thread...as I have explained again and again and again...is that certain people on it were personally attacking other posters in what I consider an immoderate and unreasonable fashion. That's it. Period. That's why I started posting here.

Then I got to talking about some other things that interested me as well.

Whenever I see people perched high on the pillar of their own smug self-righteousness and using it to personally attack other people and call them things like an "anti-semite", a "commie", a "homophobe", a "sexist" and other personally damning terms of the present political era like that, I don't like it. It reminds me of the behaviour of a lynch mob or a bunch of witch burners. Even if it's in a good cause....I still don't like it. And I will toss humorous barbs at people who do it because I'd like to puncture their little vainglorious ego balloons.

You, of course, think your own conduct is of the best...so does Don...and you think that mine is lacking in some way. Well, that's the world, isn't it? We all believe that our own conduct is quite appropriate. Everyone's like that. And yet we're all different... ;-) So one can expect these differences of opinion about whose conduct is most appropriate, no matter what is going on.

But you won't hear me call you or anyone else here an anti-semite, a homophobe, a commie, a sexist or any other term like that. And if you do catch me doing that, then toss a humorous barb my way, because I will deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:50 AM

Little Hawk... Don't waste your time trying to explain your position to them...they already know your position, just as they know what I have been saying for months.
By objecting to the words they use to close discussion, you have committed a thought crime and your place here is about to be lowered accordingly, you have planted the seed in their minds that you may be a dissenter....and a very popular and persuasive dissenter at that!!.......You will suffer in future threads...:0)

They will not be satisfied until you or I get down on our knees and apologise for our heretic views, tell them that they were right all along and promise never to mention those views again.

The "Orwellian liberal" agenda will have been satisfactorally achieved......silence will reign, there will be no need to deal with "inconvenient truth", no need to engage in the troublesome thought process.....all will be well with the world.

The older I get and the more I examine political thought, the more I come to realise that the enemies of society are not the "right wing" with their mantra of individual freedom and personal responsibility, but the ideologues of the centre left, with their crazy Orwellian ideas on mass manipulation.

The sad thing is that they don't even believe the shite they preach, the "centre left" is awash with hypocrisy, they simply bully and brainwash most people into giving them tacit support.

They talk of egalitarianism, but what they really want is a society free from dissent, fashioned in their own image and most importantly, with the word "freedom" expunged from the dictionary of "newspeak".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:48 AM

AKe:

I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned your last diatribe is pure horsepucky, and comes close to being wildly paranoid and delusory. I have addressewd you throughout this thread on one issue, and only one, the one defined at the beginning of the thread.

Little Hawk, I have always forgiven you your occasional foray into vaunting superciliousness and condescension, because you a a blithe spirit and I generally like your style. But spare me the marshmallow wisdom; even if you mean it, it still sounds sanctimonious.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM

Little Hawk:
But you won't hear me call you or anyone else here an anti-semite, a homophobe, a commie, a sexist or any other term like that. And if you do catch me doing that, then toss a humorous barb my way, because I will deserve it.

And Little Hawk earlier:
And that is the problem on this thread. Period. People's own hysterical righteous posturing is interfering with their ability to actually listen to and understand anyone else who doesn't agree with them. And what else is new? ;-) I've been watching this ridiculous reactive BS go around for years here between the terminally righteous and the terminally vain.

Sorry Little Hawk, I don't seem to have a humorous barb at my fingertips. Let's just say that accusing people of posturing, of not listening, of willfully not understanding, of being ridiculous, of being reactive, and being terminally vain is a whole bunch of name calling. It's a type of name-calling that is intended to shut others up and to make it OK to marginalize their statements -- exactly what you've been bitching about. "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to what Don and John say, they're just being reactive, not really thinking at all." You are being condescending, dismissive, and rude. And accusing us of things we're not doing, like not listening to Akenaton and not trying to understand where he's coming from.

In fact, we've been listening very closely to Akenaton. We've been begging him to explain his statements, since they don't add up either factually or logically. You can tell us what a great, liberal, left-wing, thinking, caring person he is all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he supports denying civil rights to a group of people, that he thinks there is some link between AIDS and homosexuality, that he thinks there hasn't been any research done on this theoretical link, that he thinks admitting homosexuals into normal society is in some way dangerous to straight people, that he refuses to respond when presented with facts that disagree with him, that he calls anyone who disagrees with him a moron, and that he thinks there is some left-wing conspiracy to impose thought control on everyone. All the names he's been called here are supported by the evidence he has presented about himself in this thread. Neither Akenaton nor you can say the same about the names you've called other people.

I freely admit to being angry about this topic. But you seem to be confusing anger with reactivity. Sorry, but you don't get to draw unsupported conclusions about what's going on in my head. Reactivity usually implies a lack of reality and logic. Almost everything that has been said to Akenaton has been a response to things he's said. Which is a very different thing than being reactive toward him.

One of the reasons people are getting pissed at you for trying to get everyone to act nicer on this thread is because you are doing it in a supercilious, superior, condescending, dismissive, inaccurate, and not nice manner.

Let's start with the accusation that I'm not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM

Well, John, there is a strong tendency in any society to "impose thought control on everyone" through conformity. It's always there to some extent. I wouldn't necessarily call it a conspiracy...I'd just call it the weight of conventional thinking, herd instinct, trendiness, the desire to fit in, the desire to avoid criticism, the fear of what others may think, etc.

That causes people to all repeat the same stuff like a bunch of parrots, because they're trying to fit into the going trend.

And if you don't fit in you get picked on unmercifully by some of those conventional-minded people.

I've always had an instinct to fight against that kind of herd mentality. If I saw a gay person here being persecuted in that fashion, I'd defend him. I don't like gang bullying of people who are outside the norm of opinion in some way, but who are not harming anyone.

You follow?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM

amendment to my last post. what i meant to ask was: was the animal rights example similar to what you are talking about on the liberal way of thinking, not the gay issue.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM

Little Hawk,
That causes people to all repeat the same stuff like a bunch of parrots, because they're trying to fit into the going trend.

Oh, good, now we're parrots as well.

Let's just say that accusing people of posturing, of not listening, of willfully not understanding, of being ridiculous, of being reactive, and being terminally vain is a whole bunch of name calling. It's a type of name-calling that is intended to shut others up and to make it OK to marginalize their statements -- exactly what you've been bitching about. "Oh, we don't have to pay attention to what Don and John say, they're just being reactive, not really thinking at all." You are being condescending, dismissive, and rude. And accusing us of things we're not doing, like not listening to Akenaton and not trying to understand where he's coming from.

Let's start with the accusation that I'm not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up.

You follow?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:00 PM

I don't like gang bullying of people who are outside the norm of opinion in some way, but who are not harming anyone.>/i>

Can you define "not harming anyone" in the context of someone repeatedly calling for denying civil rights to a group of people?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM

John, why are you taking everything I say as a direct personal insult to you? I'm simply talking about why I defend underdogs and why I don't like slavish conformity to trends. I'm discussing general problems that can and do occur in ANY society, I'm not condemning you as an individual.

I don't see that Akenation is harming anyone. He's expressing an opinion which diverges from yours in some way. That doesn't harm anyone. If we are to have a free society at all, then we must be able to allow a variety of opinions to be expressed freely without treating people like heretics or monsters just because they don't echo our own viewpoint...or the latest fashionable trend.

But in saying that, I am clearly bucking the entire tide of history, because the majority of people everywhere have always looked down on people who don't support the latest fashionable trends.

Well, I resist that tendency. My belief is that resistance is not futile...and I will defend those few who are ganged up on and bullied by an aggressive majority in any peer group.

I'll defend them if they're gay.
I'll defend them if they aren't.
I'll defend them if they're on my side.
I'll defend them if they're on the other side.

See...I was in a minority of ONE when I was in school. I've seen how bullies and groups of people who follow trends operate. I will resist them.

My issue here is not about matters of law as regards gay marriage. My issue is about how a group of people choose to treat a nonconforming member of the group.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM

THe point that you miss is that we are not trying to overwhelm one set of opinions with another. We are trying to clarify a policy based on the facts which are germane to it.

The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law?

The facts: The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it.

So far no such facts have been presented. Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread. Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual.

AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights.

Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement?

Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

Little Hawk, if you aren't directing your comments to people on this thread, why are you making them? We could as easily say that calling Akenaton a bigot is making a general comment about people who oppose equal rights for all, not talking about Akenaton in particular. When you respond to things others have said by saying that you don't like it when people are parroting the prevailing party line, are slavishly conforming to trends, see others as heretics or monsters for the views they hold, and are being reactive, one gets the idea that you are addressing those comments to the people you're talking to. If that's not the case, then you are just blowing wind and wasting peoples' time. Please find something real to say to the real people you are actually in a conversation with. As it is, all you are doing is strongly implying that many of us don't really think for ourselves. This is very insulting.

Let's try again to get into the specifics of what you've been saying, third time for this question:
Let's start with the accusation that we're not really listening to what Akenaton is saying. I challenge you to present your evidence for this. If you can't, then please stop bringing the issue up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM

"The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law?"

I don't see why not. (?)


"The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it. "

I agree with that.

"Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread."

I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument.

"Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual."

I don't know if they're factual or not, but they are significant in a social sense. Customs are based on a society's consensus as to what people like to do and think is "normal and proper"...as such, customs are more a subjective than an objective manner. They don't rest upon measurable facts as much as they rest upon people's preferences...and their expectations.

"AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights."

I agree with you on that.

"Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement?"

I am not arguing in favor of any such infringement nor am I looking for such facts.

"Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement."

Absolutely. Look, I've said before on this thread that I do not object to ANY pair of consenting adults marrying one another. I don't necessarily object to the custom (in some societies) of one man having several wives...and I wouldn't object to one woman having several husbands if it were customary in that society...AND IF all the adults involved consented freely to the arrangement. I wouldn't object to a man or a woman marrying a dog IF it could be clearly established that the dog understood the arrangement and was in favor of it. (It can't though...so that negates that possibility, doesn't it?)

I am in favor of free choice for people, Amos.

I don't miss your point. I'm just talking about a different point that concerns me, that's all, and it has to do with the hazing of individuals who in some way don't conform to the majority opinions of people in some peer group. When those individuals start being labelled as "homophobes", "anti-semites", "racists", "sexists", and other highly charged words of that sort, I don't like to see that.

I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy. The aforementioned terms however (racist/homophobe/sexist/anti-semite) are tantamount to an accusation of heresy in today's politically correct climate. They are terms commonly used now to brand and destroy people in a professional sense, and to silence them, and sometimes even to bring legal actions against them under what is called "hate" legislation.

I regard that as fascism in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

Hmm. Seems that we just reached 2100.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

Well, just between us mindless parrots from the Orwellian mind-controlling thought-police Liberal conspiracy, Little Hawk, you have agreed with my points, except one on which you cleverly disagreed and agreed simultaneously, a deft art of avoidance indeed.

I think you will find the name-calling and mud-slinging on this thread has not been unidirectional, and Ake and the unlamented sister in panic, GfS, have between them waved their arms and spat out reviling characterizations more energetically than the rest of us. I have no objection to Ake defending his opinion, and supporting it with data if he can. I expect as much from him as a stout Scots lad.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Oh, but you're not directing these observations to anyone on this thread, right? Or are you, as seems to be the case, accusing anyone who tells Akenaton that he's acting like a bigot of being a fascist? If you're not making that accusation, why are you bringing this issue into this thread?

One more thing: how is dismissing peoples' opinions as being part of some "politically correct climate" not an attempt to marginalize and silence them?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:34 PM

". . . perched high on the pillar of their own smug self-righteousness and using it to personally attack other people. . . ."

And you are doing exactly what, Little Hawk?

I am not adding my voice much at this point because I just looked in this morning and found that both John and Amos have said very much what I would say.

Ake is the master of the personal attack and the collective attack as well, dismissing both moral argument and established scientific data with epithets like "Orwellian liberalism" and accusing those who don't agree with him of trying to force their agenda on people like him--when it is he who wants to force his agenda on a whole category of people.

And Ake also uses the term "hypocrisy." Yes, indeed, Little Hawk, there is a lot of hypocrisy going around. You and Ake need to look in a mirror.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:07 PM

Amos: "Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread."

Little Hawk: "I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument."

Can you be more specific, Little Hawk? Exactly what merit? Exactly how would this miraculous infection work? Before you respond, remember that your answer, in order to make any sense, has to refute all the rebuttals to that idea that have been posted here. Or are you just talking out your ass again?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM

You all insist on taking everything I say about society personally, eh? I have not named any of you as being a fascist, a hypocrite, a bigot, or anything else like that. It would be wrong to, because you are all complex people, and you can't be summed up by one derogatory word. I'm talking about the behaviour of human beings in general. I'm discussing philosophical things about human nature.

John, I don't have to agree 100% with either side of this argument. It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument. I don't think in "all or nothing" terms.

You guys seem to resent that. I have to assume you do think in "all or nothing" terms, and your rhetoric certainly suggests so.

Is it not good enough that I agree with most of your points?

Why must I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING you or Don or Amos or Akenaton say on this thread? And what prize would I win if I did?

Really, I think you all protest overmuch. I think you're getting carried away with your own need to completely win something here...not a prize...not a medal...not anything that will last...just a longwinded argument here on an obscure internet forum that doesn't matter and that won't change anything for gays in California. You won't quit until you think you've "won" or until anyone who says differently from you stops posting and goes away.

Well, I don't care. (shrug) I see it in shades of grey, I see some reason on both sides, I see that you all have high ideals and are defending something you deem valuable, I mostly favor you guys on the legal arguments, and I respect the fact that you all are sincere in what you say.

And if that ain't good enough....too bad. ;-) I have no emotional need to prove anything to any of you and it would be a waste of my time trying to. I come here because I like to talk. Period. And so do you. But you can't talk and remain friendly, it seems, unless you get your own way on everything. That's unfortunate.

I will continue posting here until I get too bored to bother or until it's just not fun anymore. And so will you.

Anyone want to hang in for 3000 posts? Man, I wish I was getting paid a penny letter for all this bla-bla....I'd be able to retire by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM

HELLO CLONE??? Could you remove those links please? The Café has been loading SLOW ever since they were posted.

IF this has nothing to do with the fact the site is so slow... nevermind.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Amos....you're at it again you little devil!

You know very well that I never said homosexuality brings about Aids, what I did say....for the thousandth time, is that the figures state that percentage wise homosexuals are many times more likely to be affected by Aids than heterosexuals.
I don't know why this is so, but it patently is so!

As I have said many times, I would like to see an extensive medical inquiry to determine why this is so.

Now would you weasels leave Little Hawk alone, he has explained his position many times, he does not share my views on homosexual "marriage", he is simply a fair minded individual who hates to see bullying and mob rule, he is quite correct to say there is merit in my argument regarding the health statistics....no one could seriously refute my argument without refuting the CDC figures! Little Hawk is very well respected in this forum and you are unfit to lick his boots.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

"It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument."

Not all that rare, Little Hawk. There are moral and ethical issues—such as this one, the denial of civil rights to a specific group of people—where that is the case. And you can't dodge them. You have to take a stand when you encounter them. Not to do so is moral cowardice (and you fall into the category that Dante spoke about in The Inferno).

Don Firth

P. S. And you keep chanting this mantra about "winning." That indicates to me that you simply don't understand the issue. You're the one who seems to be hung up on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

Ake:

Fair enough; if you do not believe that homosexuality causes AIDS but are just curious about the statistical correlation in some areas (not world-wide) I can understand that. But it is no argument against equal civil rights. The exclusion based on sexual orientation should be limited to privileged clubs, like churches, where discrimination is not reviled. In matters of civil law it is anathema.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:14 PM

""I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy.""


A very neat piece of work this. In two sentences you have managed to state that all the epithets used by Akenaton and GfS are perfectly acceptable, in spite of being demonstrably untrue when applied as a stereotypical description of a whole group, and at the same time all the descriptions applied to the demonstrably biased, one sided, attitudes and language displayed BY them, are unacceptable and amounting to bullying.

As a self styled supporter of the underdog, you have ably proved that your support bears no relation to truth and honesty. I for one am happy that you support bigotry, because I would begin to doubt the honesty of my own position were I suddenly to find you agreeing with me.

Tell me LH, WHO appointed you arbiter on the rights and wrongs of a situation you, by your own admission, don't give a damn about.

My advice?........Tend your own potato patch, and leave us to tend ours.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM

The latest figures from the Cuban outbreak show between 78 and 85% of Aids sufferers are homosexual or bi-sexual.

Amos and Don seem to think that the reason for the large number of homosexual Aids cases compared to heterosexual Aids cases can be explained by extreme promiscuity and dangerous practices by homosexuals, if this is indeed the case,should this behaviour not be taken into account when we decide whether or not to accept homosexual practice into mainstream society.

Extreme promiscuity, and the practice of anal sex appears to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle in general terms, if this behaviour does cause Aids(as you suggest)....where does that leave your argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Amos...I have already given instances of other minorities who are discriminated against regarding civil rights, not just marriage rights, but fostering rights etc
These minorities are deemed to be disqualified through their behaviour or their psychological condition.

Do you think that everyone should have the same civil rights regardless of their behaviour or psychiatric history?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:51 PM

You all insist on taking everything I say about society personally, eh? I have not named any of you as being a fascist, a hypocrite, a bigot, or anything else like that. It would be wrong to, because you are all complex people, and you can't be summed up by one derogatory word. I'm talking about the behaviour of human beings in general. I'm discussing philosophical things about human nature.

OK. But you still haven't said why you say things in response to other people that you don't mean to apply to the conversation, and don't mean about those people. I ask again: why are you answering people with generalizations that you don't think apply to them? If I may say so, that's a really stupid thing to do. If nothing else, it makes people think you are talking to them while you're talking to them.

John, I don't have to agree 100% with either side of this argument. It's rare that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right in an argument.

No one says that you have to agree with anything. I do think you should either support the things you say or shut up.

You guys seem to resent that. I have to assume you do think in "all or nothing" terms, and your rhetoric certainly suggests so.

This is where you are on shaky ground. Our rhetoric has been directed toward encouraging Akenaton to support his statements with both facts and logic.

Really, I think you all protest overmuch. I think you're getting carried away with your own need to completely win something here...not a prize...not a medal...not anything that will last...just a longwinded argument here on an obscure internet forum that doesn't matter and that won't change anything for gays in California. You won't quit until you think you've "won" or until anyone who says differently from you stops posting and goes away.

Really shaky ground here. Saying this just shows that you don't know squat about me or my motives. I don't feel any need to win anything. I do feel a need to confront injustice, since I believe that not doing so is going along with it in a way.

Well, I don't care. (shrug) I see it in shades of grey, I see some reason on both sides, I see that you all have high ideals and are defending something you deem valuable, I mostly favor you guys on the legal arguments, and I respect the fact that you all are sincere in what you say.

Thank you. That's a much nicer thing than just about anything else you've said on this thread.

And if that ain't good enough....too bad. ;-) I have no emotional need to prove anything to any of you and it would be a waste of my time trying to. I come here because I like to talk. Period. And so do you. But you can't talk and remain friendly, it seems, unless you get your own way on everything. That's unfortunate.

Back on shaky ground again. Trying to draw conclusions about my inner emotional state. Please stick to things it is possible for you to know about.

Here's the deal, Little Hawk: I'm tired of being taken to task by you, especially since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about most of the time, and you really don't know what's going on in my head. Every time you come up with one of your rude "generalizations" about what's going on in this discussion, I'll demand that you support what you're saying in more than general terms. I've asked three times now why you think that we've not been trying to understand what Akenaton has been saying. You've said that several times, and haven't offered any evidence for the statement. Since you repeatedly haven't answered, I am left to assume that you can't support that sentiment. So is that one off the table now? Can we trust you to not wait two or three days and then say it again, as has been your pattern here?

Here's time two for the next question: Why do you say insulting things to people in the middle of a conversation, and then, when you are called on it, say that you are just making general comments? If you don't mean the statements to apply to the people you are talking to, why say them? Don't you understand that both sides of that are rudeness? Either you are insulting people, or you are putting up straw men and wasting everyone's time.

You see, Little Hawk, your involvement in this thread has largely been what looks to me -- and apparently to Don and Amos as well -- being a sanctimonious prig who doesn't pay attention to what other people are saying, and who says outrageous things without bothering to support them in any way. Perhaps you should consider following your own advice and consider what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM

See what I mean LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

Ake:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, a challenge you to do so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM

Amos, we've been over this ground about a dozen times now. Akenaton doesn't have an answer for this. He either won't respond, or will say something about the figures speaking for themselves and nothing further needing to be said. Then he will, in two or three days, make the same claim that you so elegantly and effectively refuted just now. During those two or three days, he will make one of his other off-base comments, and they will get refuted, and he won't answer, and then we're back at the beginning again. This is what causes the debate to go in circles and why a while ago I declared -- facetiously, of course -- Akenaton to have lost the debate.

Why do we keep going? Perhaps because Akenaton comes across as an intelligent person who believes he's doing the right thing, and we just can't believe he can't see the error of his ways. Maybe we just like debating issues, and this is a favorite. Maybe we can't stand not confronting injustice. Maybe just to see how deep Little Hawk will actually dig his hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM

"Extreme promiscuity, and the practice of anal sex appears to be part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle in general terms, if this behaviour does cause Aids(as you suggest)..." Just for the record, ake, no one is saying that "...this behaviour does cause Aids ". Not cause, ake, but facilitate the transmission perhaps due to torn tissue.

And again, just for the record, you and a host of thousands can parade past a host of AIDS sufferers and not a single one of you will pick up a single AIDS germ.

So relax.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:34 PM

Even if they are married!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM

". . . you weasels . . . are unfit to lick [Little Hawk's] boots. . . ."

No, I don't think Ake cares to debate anything in good faith. Too many times he resorts to that sort of thing. My natural reaction is to respond with some truly acid remark, but I will not lower myself to his level.

As to Little Hawk, I regard him as intelligent and knowledgeable. However—he seems to have a streak of shallow frivolity larded over with what he probably regards as being some kind of "peacemaker." "Now, children, let's not raise our voices. . . ."

He lectures us from the viewpoint of his dabbling in Eastern philosophy, and this is old stuff to me. Back in the 1960s, there were hordes of self-appointed Zen Buddhists and Taoists, and God only knows what all, wandering the streets, especially around the University District. I've talked with dozens of them (which is to say, I have been talked at), and all too often Little Hawk sounds just like them. The problem is that their dipping into Eastern philosophy is on the dilettante level and they never really gain any kind of deep understanding of what it's all about. They get off on the ideas being exotic and different, and they never seem to get beyond the feeling that they now know something beyond what everyone else knows. And behind the mild and pacific exterior often resides a monumental ego!

I knew a lot of foreign exchange students when I was at the University of Washington, including many from India and Southeast Asia in general. Deb Das was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, and he and I spent many long hours in fascinating conversation. And I also went many times with a friend to the Vedanta Center on Seattle's Capitol Hill and listened to lectures (I wouldn't call them sermons) by a genuine Hindu swami.

Comparing what I learned from Deb and what I heard at the Vedanta Center with some of these self-appointed gurus who have read a book or two and gone all "spiritual," I find the self-appointed gurus to be shallow in the extreme and often a royal pain in the ass to their friends and acquaintances. It's always their air of detachment and superiority.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:50 AM

Oh I see! the "we are right you are wrong" default position, haven't you used that before somewhere?

The head of that pin must be getting very crowded....what with all the dancin' that's going on.....wriggle, wriggle.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:44 AM

Well Ebbie you may or may not be correct in suggesting that homosexuals spread Aids by their promiscuity and sexual practices, but personally, I would rather wait on the results of a proper medical study before making such a suggestion.

I agree that the figures do point in that direction but the issue requires a scientific examination before anything regarding homosexuality and Aids can be proved or disproved.

You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "homophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.

It would be a tragedy to see someone with so many decades of "life experience", reduced like myself and Little Hawk, to the stature of a "non person"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:49 AM

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, a challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:26 AM

Are all Scots so ignorant? I don't think so - I know Giok - but it does make me wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM

This thread certainly has become all about a small vocal minority demanding special rights (in this case the right to not have their viewpoint challenged) and avidly embracing victim status if others do not acknowledge this "right".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:02 PM

This thread certainly has become all about a small vocal minority demanding special rights (in this case the right to not have their viewpoint challenged) and avidly embracing victim status if others do not acknowledge this "right".

This is profoundly mistaken interpretation, TIA.

This thread is about a long-suppressed but now vocal minority demanding equity of rights under civil law, and dispelling the slightly obscene rationalizations used by the majority to deny those rights.

It seems clear that you are a subscriber to those rationalizations. If you peruse this thread you will find all the known ones trotted out and individually countered with reason and facts. If you, in your depths of understanding and compassion for your fellow human beings, have one that has not been addressed which informs your summary judgement, by all means express it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM

Amos -
I am referring to a "victimized" vocal minority other than the one you seem to think!
Second time in the last few weeks that you've missed my point in this fashion.
If you've caught many of my posts in the last year, it should be quite clear where I stand on this issue.
Perhaps I am too cryptic?
Cheers,
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "Scotsophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.   ;^)

TIA, why should anyone have to put up with being disagreed with? Are you seriously suggesting we should take away their right to have the world be exactly what they want it to be?

Taking away someone's right to live in a world that doesn't include gay marriage is also a very serious matter. How could they hold up their heads in society if somewhere there are gays or lesbians with the right to inherit property from each other? Or if the government isn't regulating what happens in their bedrooms? Unregulated sex! I shudder to think of it!

One of the things that I wish they understood is that if we give the government the right to regulate any sexual/marriage relationship, that means we are giving them the right to regulate any other relationship. It's not much of stretch to go from denying rights to gay people to denying rights to, say, left-handed people. After all, left-handed people are, or so the story goes, the sons and daughters of Satan. I just don't know why people think they should be allowed to have jobs, at least not until we've done a thorough study of the results of having the children of Satan sitting next to us at work. How do we know it doesn't rub off on us? How would you like to wake up some morning to find that you've become Satan's step child?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

TIA:

Yes, entirely too cryptic. Let us be clear, as there has been entirely too much misdirection, indirection, and passive aggression in this thread to make for a good discussion.

1. Specifically what minority are you referring to? In my various posts I have generally been referring to the minority of adult, consenting citizens wishing to enter the civil state known as marriage by mutual choice, who happen to be of the same gender as each other.

2. What "special rights" are you referring to? In my mention of denied rights I am talking specifically about the legal privileges of spousal representation, joint ownership, beneficiary status, insurance coverage and any other civil privileges that are endowed on people in married status.

I am being clear and specific. Do me the courtesy of being likewise and do not ask me to go trawling through your posting history in order to perform an exegesis on your obscure referents.

Thanks and cheers,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:52 PM

ormer President Bill Clinton said in a conference for progressive students that he supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

"Yeah," Clinton said when asked after a speech at the Campus Progress National Conference, according to The Nation . "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from honoring marriages for same-sex couples. He Also approved the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" law, which banned openly gay military personnel from serving.

In a 2000 interview with The Advocate, Clinton said that "people who have a relationship ought to be able to call it whatever they want. And insofar as it's sanctified by a religious ceremony, that's up to the churches involved."

He added about the fight in Congress over DOMA, "I think what happened in the Congress was that a lot of people who didn't want to be antigay didn't feel that they should be saying that as a matter of law, without regard to what various churches or religions or others thought, that the United States policy was that all unions that call themselves marriages are, as a matter of law, marriages. I don't think we're there yet. But I think that what we ought to do is to get the legal rights straightened out and let time take its course, and we'll see what happens."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Amos, TIA was being funny. The vocal minority he's referring to are the ones who get angry when we disagree with them, mostly Akenaton in this thread. Ironic role reversal.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

Thanks, John. My apologies, TIA--I guess I have become somewhat short of patience and I deserve to have my better perspective refreshed!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"You must also be careful Ebbie, that your words are not construed as "bigotry" or "Scotsophobia", there are many extremely sensitive people contributing to this thread, and posting here can be a little like walking on eggshells.   ;^)" John P

I know, John P. I would have preferred to use a stilleto rather than a bludgeon but I couldn't find one. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

TIA:

I have revisited your earlier post, and find I have an entirely different view of it and agree with it quite cheerfully between guffaws.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:31 PM

Amos-

My brilliant humour seems far less so when explained, but here it is:
I find it terribly "Orwellian" that those who are arguing to deny a civil right to a group of citizens have wriggled themselves into the role of victim in this thread. They deride the "vocal minority" (while clearly behaving as one); they claim to be subjected herein to oppression, because some challenge their advocacy of oppression of others; they claim they are being silenced, when a simple scan through the list of postings indicates anything but silence emanating therefrom.

Summary (in liberal fascist doublespeak); we are the intolerant ones because we will not tolerate their intolerance.

Clear as mud, eh?

Best Regards,

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:52 PM

Please try to get yourselves into some sort of order girls, you are all over the place at the moment.
This is the trouble in concentrating on personal attacks, you yourselves losing the thread .....as it were...:0)

Instead of getting yourselves into such a muddle, why don't you have a try at discussing the points I have made regarding the homosexual lifestyle and whether we should be promoting it.
Don and Ebbie appear to feel that homosexual promiscuity and the practice of anal sex cause the health problems which have been highlighted by the Centre for Disease Control; and certainly the figures on homosexual promiscuity make shocking reading....even for a Scot!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM

I think we would all agree that promiscuity and anal sex increase the risk of health problems. Now why do you keep inserting homosexuality into that discussion? And how does marriage promote promiscuity? If you can answer those we will be right back on track.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:00 PM

Oh yes, the irony fountain continues to bubble:

"Please try to get yourselves into some sort of order **girls**, you are all over the place at the moment.
This is the trouble in concentrating on **personal attacks**..."


Emphasis by me of course.

Brilliant humor explanation number two for the day: "girls" is clearly intended as a *personal attack* (now be honest). And isn't it insulting to actual girls to use that word as an epithet? But I would certainly not want to be oppressive and intolerant and object to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

Episcopalians were moving today toward ending a de facto ban on the ordination of gay bishops and toward sanctioning marriage blessings for same-sex couples despite warnings from church conservatives that the liberalized policies could further divide the influential denomination.

The actions by leaders of the 2.1-million member Episcopal Church at their General Convention in Anaheim are likely to deepen a theological fissure that already has led to the departure of traditionalist congregations and dioceses.

And they are almost certain to trigger a backlash among the wider Anglican Communion, whose members in Africa, South America and elsewhere have asked their U.S. counterparts not to relax their positions on the two controversial issues. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the communion, which has 77 million members.

The church's two governing bodies -- bishops preside over one house, clergy and lay leaders head the other -- already have endorsed the gay bishops measure. A final procedural vote is expected today.

Meanwhile, the bishops this morning are debating a resolution that would effectively allow them to oversee the blessing of same-gender couples in states or jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal. Clergy and lay leaders have been supportive of the measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

Just for the information of anyone who may be interested, I never get "angry" on internet forums, and very rarely in real life

You flatter yourselves if you think that you have the capacity to raise me to anger.
I know what you are and I know the "game"!

Mr Peekstock on the other hand, admitted to "anger" just a couple of posts ago....his anger is evident in his writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM

AKe:

What point have you made about homosexuality that has not been addressed? I mean, one that has any bearing on the civil rights issue?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM

Yes Amos...very interesting, I have been reading that article in today's Times. It certainly looks like the church is heading for the inevitable split.....interesting times ahead eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM

Sorry Amos...Looks like we've been cross posting.
There is no point repeating our differing views another time, I think we both understand one another pretty well.
You always address the issues.....surely you and I can move on?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:40 PM

Ake:

Well, sure, then, lad. But dinna be faschin' about non-response to yer points if one of our lads has done answered 'em!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:51 PM

Amos, there has been no satisfactory response to the health or promiscuity figures.
You maintain that these figures have no bearing on the civil rights of homosexuals...I respect your view, but disagree, for all the reasons I have already given.

The accent is showing marked improvement old boy...have you been taking lessons?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:58 PM

There can be no satisfactory response because you cite them, and say they speak for themselves and when we say "whaddaya mean by that?", you say "I will not waste my time repeating myself". So, by all means you are entitled to your opinion - whatever the heck it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:50 PM

Akenaton, just trying to keep things on track here. I'm a very goal-oriented person and would like to get to the bottom of the various ideas that have come up in this thread. In the interests of putting one of them to bed, please answer this post from Amos:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:34 PM

My mother used to claim that none of her children ever saw her angry, that she was merely 'wounded.'

We knew better.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anger, in itself, is not indicative of bad character. I, for one, would rather that a person be passionate in his or her beliefs and actions than detached and supercilious and uninterested in truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM

i am confused by where you mean in cuba, do you mean the rich part, the smaller part or do you mean the run down ghetto side of cuba who's rights are severely curtailed as it is?

tia, i understand your humour as mine is very similar, thanks for making me giggle.

the transmission of HIV is seems to me the way we should be trying to tackle the spread of this horrble disease. anal sex is just another way of contracting it, whether gay or straight. the 'normal' way is just as risky if you are having unprotected sex just as sharing needles.

heck in the good old days you could even get it by a blood transfusion.

i know yoiu all are very busy and those of you from overseas will not know who i am going to talk about, but the rest of you should maybe skip through a weeks worth of jeremy kyle.. i know, but it will show you all the lack of care that people have towards sexual health. in fact you watch any talk show..ricki lake.. jerry springer...any of them and they all do the same thing. "i slept with too many people and i don't know who the father of my child is"

you will see what i mean.

if we cannot get people starting to take some responsibility(?) then we will have more and more infected people not just gay but this will become a serious problem..again.

in everyday life we are forced to be responsible why not in bed, well anywhere that takes your fancy?

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:03 PM

"Don and Ebbie appear to feel that homosexual promiscuity and the practice of anal sex cause the health problems which have been highlighted by the Centre for Disease Control. . . ."

I'm really sorry to learn that you have a reading disability, Ake. Where, exactly, did I say anything like that?

I have been trying to point out to you that HIV can be transmitted by homosexual practices (and heterosexual practices and blood transfusions and any other exchange of bodily fluids between an infected person of either sex and a not-infected person of either sex), but the virus is NOT created spontaneously by homosexual practices per se. I have posted this information a number of times—along with the historical data that the concept of "spontaneous generation" is a medieval superstition that was finally laid to rest by Louis Pasteur in 1864.

Ask any competent epidemiologist. Ask any competent doctor.

Be so kind as to stop misquoting me.

HIV/AIDS is NOT a specifically "homosexual disease" (even if a group of Los Angeles gays, for some cockamamie reason, want to own it!). It's an equal opportunity viral infection. The way to protect yourself is to avoid exchanging bodily fluids with an infected person (of either sex), and if you don't know if the person is infected or not, either avoid that kind of contact with them or, at the very least, make sure you take the necessary precautions.

And encouraging stable relationships by legalizing same-sex marriage will go a long way toward reducing promiscuity among gays. To simply ignore fact that is to turn away from the obvious.

But you already know all this. You just don't like it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:07 PM

"Not that there's anything wrong with that. Anger, in itself, is not indicative of bad character. I, for one, would rather that a person be passionate in his or her beliefs and actions than detached and supercilious and uninterested in truth."

Amen to that, Ebbie!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM

there is a fine line between rightous anger and self rightous anger. the first allows us to admit when we are wrong, the second will never let us admit guilt for anything.

crap spelling again i am afraid as i am knackered.you know what i mean!

sleep well all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:57 AM

Still dancing Don? Some day you're gonna fall off the head of that pin...:0)

Please explain why homosexuals are so many times more likely to contract Aids than homosexuals; and why any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community.

The containment policy employed by Castro in the eighties means that even since "liberalisation" the numbers of people living with Aids in Cuba is relatively small.
Of these unfortunate people, approx 80% are homosexual or bi-sexual.

Now I don't know why this is so, I have certainly never mentioned "spontaneous generation", to be honest, I had never even heard the term till you mentioned it, but nobody knows for sure what causes Aids or "triggers" it.....so as far as I am concerned, everything is "on the table."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:55 AM

any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community

You have made this statement a number of times. Is there some documentation for this (from as unbiased a source as possible)?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:17 AM

Ake:
You ask "Please explain why homosexuals are so many times more likely to contract Aids than homosexuals; and why any new outbreak of Aids has always shown up first in the homosexual community."

Actually the people many times more likely to be infected are black. From the CDC:

**************************
African American males continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection. In 2006, the HIV diagnosis rate for all black males in 33 states (119.1 per 100,000 population) was the highest of any group— more than 7 times that for white males (16.7), more than twice the rate for Hispanic males (50.9), and more than twice the rate for black females (56.2). The diagnosis rate for Hispanic males was approximately 3 times that for white males.

African American females are also severely and disproportionately affected by HIV infection. In 2006, the HIV diagnosis rate for black females (56.2) was more than 19 times the rate for white females (2.9). The rate for Hispanic women was 15.1, more than 5 times that for white females.

reference
*************************

It is a hugely loaded question, but I am trying to understand your logic, so here it is:

Should marriage between blacks be outlawed?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:36 AM

And, sorry, your question does deserve and answer.

The CDC's answer is:

"The reasons for these disparities are varied and not well understood."

reference


I am not an MD or biologist, but here is my answer constructed from what I have read and heard since living with one of the first diagnosed AIDs sufferers in 1981 (a hetero female nurse).

Several factors:
1) early on, gays got more attention than straights because they were reporting it more, and were more aware of it themselves.
2) the vagina is built for sex, the anus is not. It tears more easily, allowing infection to enter. Also, the vagina has beneficial flora whose purpose is to produce a pH and chemicals that are hostile to invaders.
3) Gay men do not have a vagina (see 2 above).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:39 AM

Akenaton, before we phase back into the link between AIDS and being gay, there's a different question still on the table. You have claimed, many times, that a precedent for denying a full range of civil rights to homosexuals exists in that we deny certain rights to certain other people, mostly drug addicts, felons, and madmen. Besides the fact that all of these people, even murderers in prison, are allowed to marry, Amos presented arguments that seem to completely refute your position on this question. Rather than wait two or three days and then repeat yourself again, and then ignore it when Amos, one of the Dons, or I refute your comments again, perhaps you could answer this one now. It would be lovely to start taking the open questions one at a time and discussing them fully. Here is the statement from Amos again, just to refresh your memory:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

"Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying "we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules" is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled."

"The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means "treating everybody the same way", but "treating people appropriately", which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant "the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire".


Ho ho!! Somebody's been reading my mail!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:35 AM

My link was not meant as an answer to the poster immediately above.

I would have thought that by now he would have deduced that I have no interest in conversing with someone who thinks me a homophobe, a bigot and a pervert.

Tia...would you, for fuck sake go see a statistician....ask about percentages and how they work....after that you might have a go at simple addition or subtraction.....who knows, the world may be your oyster!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:55 AM

The rhetoric you excerpted is interesting in its illogicality. The assertion that justice does not mean giving in to every sexual desire is a complete strawman.

If you take a class of people and outlaw them in some way, you are in fact declining to test each case on the merits, preferring to do your thinking in large categories and treat everyone int hose categories the same way. As your proponent points out, this does not serve justice.

If you insist on linking categories that do not really tie together (such as the capability of bishops and the sexual orientation of the people who act in that capacity) you are not serving logic, either, because you are asserting false-middle and hidden-premise distortions.

"No-one should be a bishop who will not safeguard the young" is a fine principle. "All homosexuals threaten the young with corruption" is highly debatable. Linking these propositions together automatically is a betrayal of reason, preferring reflexive or reactionary modes of thought. It is exactly the same failing that militates for dictating about sexual orientation to people and denying civil rights to people because of some attribute or category instead of the merits of individual cases.

It is lazy, reactive, irresponsible thinking.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:19 PM

"Still dancing Don? Some day you're gonna fall off the head of that pin..."

Standing on solid, scientific ground, Ake, and you know it. You just don't like it because it pulls the rug out from under your "homosexual activity generates HIV" argument, which is pure medieval superstition. And you know that, too.

Or if you don't, your scientific education is sadly lacking, and you need to learn a great deal more before you venture into making the kind of pronouncements you seem so fond of making.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM

As a charter member of the moronic pseudo-liberal conspiracy of Orwellian thought control, it seems to me that complaining about being called names is a bit odd. Be that as it may, if you don't want to respond to me, perhaps you would be so good as to respond to Amos:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:36 PM

Akenaton -- just to be clear, I've never called you a homophobe. As I've said, I have no idea if you're a homophobe or not, since I can't see inside your head. The names I have called can be supported, in my world, by the things you've actually said. That's a claim you can't make. But that's all a digression. Really, the best thing would be to answer Amos' post, or acknowledge the point and don't bring it up again. Otherwise you run the risk of being seen as an inadequate thinker and conversationalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM

". . . any new outbreak of Aids has always [emphasis mine—DF] shown up first in the homosexual community. . . ."

Not true, Ake. The first outbreak of AIDs was found among African hunters, illegally poaching monkeys for "bush meat." It then spread rather indiscriminately among Africans of both sexes. It was first found in the United States among homosexual men, where the nature of the virus was identified.

As I said, it is an equal opportunity infection and it is transmitted like any other virus.

Spontaneous generation is a medieval superstition (repeat that to yourself until you finally get it).

####

United Nations, May 30 (Prensa Latina)

Cuba was highlighted on Tuesday as the Caribbean country with lowest HIV-AIDS levels as well as for carrying out one of the most efficient programs in the world to prevent the transmission of the illness from mothers to children.

The recognition appears in the UNAIDS report on the world AIDS epidemics, presented on Tuesday at the UN headquarters in New York, and contrasts the Island with the panorama in neighboring Caribbean nations, which is today the most affected region in the world after Africa for this scourge.

Last year alone the pandemic took over 2.8 million lives in the world, and four more million people were reported to be newly infected.

The document says that in the case of Cuba, there was a 0.1 percent rate for adults by the end of 2005, with some 4,800 people living with HIV and fewer than 500 dead due to diseases associated with AIDS.

The Cuban program to prevent mother-child transmission of HIV has kept the number of newborn HIV children under 100 so far, the report states

####

Ake, I have checked what sources you have used that I've been able to ferret out, in addition to the BBC story about AIDs in Cuba that you linked to many posts above, and I find that not only do you exaggerate what these sources say, you pad the statistics you quote. Naughty boy! Most unscientific. Most unethical!

When it comes to dancing on pins, you're liable to find the point of that pin in most uncomfortable place!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM

"Tia...would you, for fuck sake go see a statistician....ask about percentages and how they work....after that you might have a go at simple addition or subtraction.....who knows, the world may be your oyster!"

Please note that until this exact post, I have never called Akenaton any names, nor have I used any foul language in adressing him. That just ended.

Akenaton,
Thanks very much, but the world is already my oyster. I teach math at a fucking university (you, and all, would recognize the name). Steering me to a math primer is a fucking dodge on your part. Easier (and ridiculous) to pretend that I don't understand math than for you to try to justify your fucked-up logic.

I'm sorry if my tone is oppressive. I certainly don't wish to silence you, but I really don't get the blather that comes out.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:48 PM

AN interesting tidbit from the reference TIA provided:

"A survey using a convenience sample of more than 6,000 middle and high school students across the United States found that
• Nearly 9 of 10 gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender students were harassed at school in the past year.
• Six of 10 felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation.
• Almost a third skipped a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe.13
Such victimization, in turn, is associated with HIV risk behaviors. The Massachusetts YRBS found that YMSM who had been threatened or bullied at school were more likely to have ever been diagnosed with an STD, injected drugs, had more than four sex partners, and not used a condom the last time they had sexual intercourse than those who had not been threatened or bullied at school.¹⁴ "

¹⁴Goodenow C, Szalacha L, Westheimer K. School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools 2006;43:573–89.

What this suggests is that by promoting bias against homosexual individuals on categorical grounds, the impact of voices like GfS and Ake in a community would be to increase the transmissions of STDs through the mechanism described.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM

One of Ake's methods of discussion (in addition to posting bogus information and dodging straight questions) is to attempt to denigrate those who disagree with him by displaying contempt for their knowledge, background, and intelligence, when those he tries to denigrate obviously know more about the subject than he does.

Thus, like Wile E. Coyote, he avoids looking down, lest he notice the he's standing in mid-air, twenty feet out from the canyon's edge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:34 PM

Tell you what, at Ake's suggestion, I will have a go at simple addition.

I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM.

sum=0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:40 PM

Tia....I am astounded! You teach maths yet are unable to work out simple percentages!
Who hired you?.....he should be sacked immediately!
I am only a stonemason, but am able to calculate quite easily that in real percentage terms, homosexuals are by far the largest group of people living with Aids.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were being facetious and obstructive with your "blacks" comment.
Better watch out for the thought police tho'.....ask Ebbie   :0)

Hmmm....Maths teacher, I suppose that explains the quality of your jokes!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:57 PM

Tell you what, at Ake's suggestion, I will have a go at simple addition.

I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM.

sum=1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM

Ake! 2171 posts! You da troll! Troll on dudette! Have a gay old time.

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

Akenaton:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Tia....A friendly word of advice, this course of action could prove difficult for you.
As I have already answered Amos's point regarding the status of homosexuals in relation to marriage "rights"(several times)and wont be repeating it again, there is a real and present danger that you may run out of fingers....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM

Answer again, please, this time responding to the specific points that Amos made:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:17 PM

cough, sputter, and complete disbelief at your point that gays are the highest group of poeple living and dying from HIV/ AIDS.

what type of drugs are you on there ake? can i have some please as you must be very intoxitated.
how many times must we point out the conditions in africa?

i am getting very dizzy going round in circle, although i am learning some cool stuff along the way,but unfortunately not from you ake.

i got outed in school and i can tell you it was a very unpleasant time and i lost alot of friends over it. however that was high school, which was 16 years ago.
times have moved on now, it is about time you moved with them.

may i ask how you feel about gays being in the military? i would love to know if you think they would be a risk out there with a whole bunch of men, in the middle of nowhere?

anyway, that is me done for now but please stick to the facts as it was a good job i did not have a mouthful of coffee because it would have gone all over my pc.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM

Good for you, jeddy. If his feet are held to the fire long enough he might wake up.

Eb

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

Jade...I think you know that I was referring to the situation excluding Africa, which has been dealt with earlier in the thread.

The transmission of the disease in Africa, is related to the general promiscuous behaviour of African heterosexual males.

In Western developed countries, the figures state that homosexuals are by far the largest group living with Aids " in REAL PERCENTAGE TERMS"....not absolute numbers, as absolute numbers are completely misleading in this case.

Now whether you like it or not, this is stated as a fact by the highly respected Centre for Disease Control, please address any complaints to them, not to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

sorry ake, i took you literally. please be abit clearer, you know how easily confused i get.

LOL

love jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:46 PM

I will simply add-up the number of times he posts before answering the question posed by Amos, and repeated most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 12:24 PM.

sum=4

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:57 PM

Akenaton keeps citing the Centers for Disease Control as his source of dire statistics. From research I did on the site, I can only conclude that Ake excerpts what he wants from the site, gives it his own twist, and simply ignores the rest.

It is a good, informative site. I would suggest that whenever Ake quotes something from the CDC, you check it for yourself.

Centers for Disease Control--HIV/AIDs

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:58 PM

That should say "most recently by John P on 15 Jul 09 - 06:45 PM"
Sorry John.

no change in sum.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM

you know that the risks of transmission from oral sex are very low.

you need to have an open cut or wound in ones mouth or throat for the virus to actually get into. you cannot be infected by swallowing.
the same for kissing, it said a casual kiss, but it is known that the only way you can catch it is if you swallow a bucket load of an infected persons saliva.. nice.

by the way i learnt this stuff when i was in high school and went to various terance higgins trust talksd on the subject.
i did not see that sort of awareness from the hetrosexuals.

it also went on to say that other STDs increase the risk, so why are we not shouting at all the staight people too?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:07 AM

Jade...I am not "shouting" at homosexuals, that would prove absolutely nothing.

I am appealing to the "liberals" and homosexual activists, who seem hell bent on promoting a lifestyle which the figures suggest needs much closer scrutiny before being accepted as healthy and harmless by society at large.
The "marriage" issue is simply a cover for the furtherance of a "liberalist" political agenda, with all it's attendant horrors like the suppression of "free speech and free thought"

Homosexuals are basically uninterested in the marriage "rights" being pushed by political activists, the take up figures for homosexual "marriage" support that. In general terms, the lifestyle as it is practiced by male homosexuals is high risk and very promiscuous and marriage/ monogamy would appear to have very little place in that lifestyle.

Most homosexuals who are in a committed relationship, seem to prefer a little privacy!

Quentin Crisp, who was mentioned earlier by someone, was a homosexual icon, but opposed "homosexual rights"
He is on record as having said "the world would be a better place without homosexuals".

You are beginning to sound the most sensible of the pro's Jade...well done....its a start...:0)XX

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:26 AM

As far as Homosexuals in the military are concerned, my opinion is that anyone, homosexual of heterosexual, who wishes to join the military must have severe learning difficulties.

Another example of vulnerable people being used to further a political agenda.

In other words, it does not matter how many young men and women die in these Capitalist wars, as long as the agenda keeps moving forward.
Any excuse will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 06:45 AM

I have been on holiday for almost two weeks.

And this thread is still going.

Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM

ake, thankyou for the commpliment kind sir, (not being sarcastic.) also thanks for answering my questions i appreciate it.

it seems we are talking about two different issues here.
1) the normalisation of gays.
2)the right to marriage for gays.

the two are completely different to me.
the first is accepting someone for who they are and allowing them to love who they want.
if we do not ackowledge their feelings then we condem them to a life on the outside of society and i sm sure you will find there would be more deaths through suicide than new cases of HIV. there is alot of predjudice out there as it is, without people saying they should be shunned even further.

the second issue is a legal and political thing and it should not matter (as long as everyone involved is legal age and consenting) what happens in someones bed as to what rights they have.


i understand some of the reasons for joining the military, not all of them. if it is a family thing and thereis no outside pressure then i think it is a worthy cause. we should all support them and i for one feel better that we ahve one of the best military in the world. i applaud the courage it takes. without them we would be in serious trouble by now from world war II.
our countries are build on war from as far back as you can trace through history.
i know you would never beleive i am a peace lover.
anyway i digress.
it is a good thing you do not make the distinction between gay or staight in the barracks, does this mean you are in favour of changing the rules in the US military?

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 08:56 AM

It's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock.

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 10:05 AM

What baffles me is why those of you in this thread whose views I support (and as a big ol' homo that's been involved in assorted aspects of gay politics for more than twenty years you can guess which side I'm on) are still trying to get Akenaton to change his mind. It's never going to happen. He is impervious. You might as well get a polar bear to go vegan. And worst of all he is also clearly having loads of fun by getting you all so stressed out.

Why keep throwing him fish ??

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 11:46 AM

ahhh, thats hardly fair to call ake a polar bear. they are dying out,as much as i disagree with him i don't want to think of him on a small bit of ice slowly starving to death.

i do agree that we are rising to his arguements but i feel the need to counter them, however much i wish to rise above, i simply cannot.

the fault is mine.   (ashamed face)

ake, if you could address the first part of my last post,i would be gratful. cheers x

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

6

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 06:05 PM

Quentin Crisp was very amusing with his repertoire of witty remarks, but he also spoke a lot of sheer balderdash. He definitely did not speak for all gays, and I don't think he would get much agreement on statements like, "The world would be a better place without homosexuals." If, indeed, he actually said that.

And Ake's statement that homosexuals are basically uninterested in same-sex marriage (pushed, as he says, by those nasty, meddling "liberalists") is nonsense, as are his comments about the "lifestyle" of homosexuals. Not what the real, live homosexuals of my acquaintance tell me, by any means.

Does Ake know any homosexuals? Has he ever take the time to talk with a gay person? And more important:   did he listen to what they had to say?

It's putting forth misinformation, such as GfS's insistence that sexual orientation is a matter of choice (when you reach puberty, you just toss a coin), and that it is a psychological aberration (not what the American Psychiatric Association says) and can be cured with counseling and/or psychotherapy (proven ineffective, if not downright hazardous to the patient);   and Ake's increasingly obvious thesis that homosexual activity by itself spontaneously creates the AIDs virus (based on "spontaneous generation," a long since debunked medieval superstition) that gives homophobes and bullies the kind of excuses they look for to commit hate crimes against gays.

Hassling and bullying of gays is almost a national sport with some people, and almost all kids even suspected of being gay have had to undergo it. It's called by some "fag bashing." What it really is, however, is a HATE CRIME.

And sometimes it can lead to unspeakable atrocities. Have you ever heard of Matthew Shepard? If not, google the name. It will give you an idea of how far this sort of thing can go. Here's a start:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Ake:    since when has it been reprehensible to have a "political agenda?" All politicians have one, otherwise why did they run for office in the first place? And all thinking citizens have one, otherwise why would they bother to vote, in the hope that the politicians they vote for will actually do what they say they intend to do?

No—if you don't have a political agenda, you have your head up a very dark place.

Your political agenda seems to be the prevention of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, what are all your posts on this thread, and at least one other thread awhile back, all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 02:42 AM

6 already Tia, soon be time to get your socks off mate!
After that you'll only have one digit left.....:0o !!

Never mind, I'm about finished here, once I've addressed the points made by Don and Jade....so you should be safe enough and won't need to navigate the minefield of "double figures".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:19 AM

Hello Jade...I wasn't being sarcastic either, at first you seemed "too good to be true" but I can see that you are sincere and not at all politically motivated.....but you "are" running around with some real bad company :0).

I dont really know what it is you want me to answer, but I guess what you are saying is that "love" conquers everything and every other issue is incidental.... well that may apply to you and your partner, in fact I'm sure it does, as seems to be the case with most lesbians... who are mostly monogamous.

The promiscuity figures for male homosexuals are totally different, showing multiple sexual partners in a short period of time, and from what I've read on the subject, the typical male homosexual liason is a pretty sad, lonely and loveless affair....the user and the used both requiring something completely different from the experience.
Perhaps this eternal search is the reason for the promiscuity which seems to be endemic in male homosexuality.

Everyone here seems agreed that exteme promiscuity can be one of the reasons that homosexual health statistics or so bad, if that is the case then the lifestyle must be questioned and its promotion as healthy and normal opposed.

By that, I don't mean that homosexuals should be criminalised or persecuted, but that they should be given the means, to address their problems, psychologically and physically, by providing funds and expertise.....not just leave them to die in their thousands by sticking our heads in the sand, or blindly following an Orwellian political agenda.
Please PM me at any time, I will try to reply when I can, but I work usually from seven 'till eight in the evening... seven days a week so my time here is limited......best wishes Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:21 AM

Hi Don....Firstly, before I finish here, I would like to apologise for any offense I have given to you personally, but trying to paint me as a psycopathic hate filled bully, as you have done in your last post, hardly encourages friendly debate. When I am attacked in such a manner,I usually respond in kind.

I have no objection to anyone having a political agenda...I have one myself, which would seem outlandish to most people here, but it does not involve the manipulation of people or their views in its pursuit.
The "liberal" political agenda, as opposed to liberal thought, is "Orwellian" in concept and practice. I believe that implicitely and my views are borne out by many who are much better educated than I am.
I know two homosexual couples, they are both appalled by the controversy engendered by the "liberals" and activists, they feel it is serving no useful purpose and that legal rights can be achieved through a civil union.
Neither of these couples are in a civil union at present, and have no desire to be...."they just wan't a bit of peace"

From my view regarding the health figures this may be rather selfish, but these couples see themseves as separate from mainstream homosexuality and its attendant problems.

In conclusion Don, my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it.

For me it has meant months of repetition and much of my valuable time, but at the end of this thread we are addressing the issues, rather than attempting to stop a politically "inconvenient" discussion.......Apologies and best wishes Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:57 AM

ake, thanks for that it was a really nice post.
when you put it as simply as that i can see where you are coming from. although beleive me i have known some real sluts in the lesbian world too!
i just think they way men and women search for someone is different, gay or straight. the risks of unprotected sex is just so much greater for gay men ( not just HIV but tearing and bruising too)and hetrosexuals.
for me a person can sleep with as many or as few as they want to, it is a matter for them and whoever they settle down with to come to terms with, as long as it is safe sex!!!!!
just a personal thing but sex in a toilet is meaningless and degrading, unless it happens to be with ones partner. i feel sorry for those who do it purely on a 'they are worth moe than that' basis.

i did think about sending this to you in a pm but i have given you alot of stick here and wanted to say this in public.
you are not a bad guy and i do believe that you are trying to make the world a better place.so many people just don't care, so good on you. just some of the langauge you have used has been abit full on.

right that is enough being smoochy

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM

"...the typical male homosexual liason is a pretty sad, lonely and loveless affair."

Therefore we should ban the happy, long-term, loving ones.

Sheesh.

And the sum=9

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM

my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it.

This is a beautiful mission statement, Ake, and I applaud it.

However, it should never be found so dazzling as to blind you to human wrongdoing in its name. All politics is persuasion, by its nature, and it is wiser to choose among voices by reason rather than simply stand against all of them. There's a fuzzy line between persuasion and manipulation.

But aside from that general principle, the intention to have equal civil rights equally administered is not manipulative; it is simply a desire to see equable justice under the higher principles of our great experiment over here, to make a democratic republic work under the law and strive for an ideal of justice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:13 PM

Being "married" does not necessarily mean "long term, happy or loving"......are you saying that those who choose to remain unmarried

Oh fuck what's the point!.......10!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 12:49 PM

2200!!!!!! Whoo-Hoo! Still rollin', eh?

And now........a word from our sponsors:

Don't let THIS happen to you!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

OR this:

"Reporting from San Francisco -- The blogosphere has been buzzing for days over the perky widow who stole the handsome gay guy from his longtime partner.

She's been called a "home wrecker" and the sobriquet that rhymes with witch, and lambasted as a wretch "who only lives for her own happiness, no matter who gets hurt."



    *
      Opinion L.A.: What about the Tango dads in Central Park Zoo?

Cherchez la femme notwithstanding, the saga of Linda and Harry and poor, cuckolded Pepper has ignited a fierce debate about whether homosexuality is a choice. Even People magazine has called for details.

So it goes on Penguin Island at the San Francisco Zoo, where the news recently broke that Harry ditched Pepper, his male burrowmate of six years, leaving zookeepers scrambling to explain what one described as "the big philosophical issues."

The love triangle has spurred a "nature-versus-nurture debate about whether animals or people are hard-wired to be heterosexual or homosexual," said Harrison Edell, curator of birds. "There are people who are trying to draw conclusions from our birds, and I'm not really sure whether that can be done."

One recent zoo guest posed the other big question about the avian antics: "Is this something that only happens in San Francisco?"

The answer to that one, thank goodness, is a lot simpler: No. At New York City's Central Park Zoo a few years back, Silo left Roy for Scrappy, a California girl who joined them via Sea World.

The East Coast's unhappy threesome are chinstrap penguins, the West's are magellanics. Aside from that, the saga's pretty much the same: Boy meets boy. Boy loses boy. Girl takes blame. Talking heads take notice.

Christian website OneNewsNow.com quoted a "pro-family advocate" on Thursday who parsed the Harry-Pepper split as proof that "nature prefers heterosexual relationships."

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with the conservative Liberty Counsel, took a more tongue-in-cheek approach in a column on Townhall.com that ended with a veiled comparison of Pepper and former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested for homosexual lewd conduct in an airport bathroom.

"In recent days he has reportedly been spotted waddling around the zoo's public men's room, skulking in stalls and inexplicably tapping his flipper. There's even speculation that, as things continue to spiral, he may consider a run for public office."

Other commentators were more sympathetic to Pepper. John wrote on a blog called "The Friggin Loon" that he is "heartbroken" for the lovelorn loser and "hopes that he finds another male penguin that is ten times hotter than Harry!"

The blog Queerty.com floated another possibility: "Maybe," the writer posited, "Harry is actually bi?"

In their six years together, Pepper and Harry were foster fathers to a couple of abandoned eggs and hatched a chick named Norris.

They lived near Linda and her partner Fig, a kind of Penguin Island older statesman who controlled "not one but two burrows," said Edell, the bird curator. Fig died in January, and Linda kept them both.

"For penguins, real estate means a lot," Edell noted, so "as far as penguins go, she was a pretty attractive prospect."..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:34 PM

LOL! Disturbing stuff indeed, Amos. The complex love lives of Penguins are quite notorious in the Avian world. Well, it's nice to know that we humans are not alone in struggling with the delicate negotiations that can arise around sexual roles, isn't it?

What we need to establish harmony and tolerance is inspiring moral leadership from individuals like this fine man from Austria:

"Ich vant to be uber-famous..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

Trivial to the last, eh, Little Hawk?

####

". . . trying to paint me as a psycopathic hate filled bully, as you have done in your last post. . . ."

Is that how you read that, Ake? Once again, you're putting your own spin on what you read. I was not trying to imply that at all. It's not always about you, you know.

I think you are just abysmally misinformed, and quite prejudiced. I do wish you would try to drop you preconceptions and learn something about what this whole business is all about.

I mirror your own words back to you. ". . . my agenda is to get people to start thinking for themselves and be unafraid to stand against political manipulation where ever they encounter it," including—particularly including—political manipulation based on ignorance and prejudice.

Thank you for the debate. Here, I have learned the kind of arguments that those in Washington State who wish to rescind the recently enacted domestic partnership law and oppose the forthcoming same-sex marriage law will be using. I consider this debate like a fencing match in which I have had a chance to practice my skills before going out to fight a real duel. I now know what to expect and I am fully prepared.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM

Prepare to meet thy maker!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:18 PM

Don - Avaunt, vile wretch! Get thee hence to thine abysmal haunts where thou canst ply thy usual corrupted habits amongst the thieves and cutpurses who are thy favoured companions, and trouble me no longer. Truly, thou art more vexatious than a pox, more inglorious than a rodent, more irritating than a rash, more undesirable than scurvy, and more noisome than a chronic skin ailment. May thou meet a hideous fate and be buried in a nameless plot on unhallowed ground, thou pettifogging, humourless scoundrel. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:22 PM

Not bloody likely. I know my state legislature. And I know the nature of the out-of-state religious coalition that's pushing the anti-gay legislation. And I know the kind of tactics they're laible to use.

And so do most of the state's voters. They tend to react pretty negatively when out-of-staters try to tell us how we should run things.

Touché!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM

Which state dost thou live in, churl? And are they accepting immigrants at this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM

Fie, foolish jester! Get the hence, lest you feel the toe of my boot!

In answer to your query, knave, I live in a state of tranquility and bliss.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 04:57 PM

Ah, that is good, Don! So do I. Indeed, this little enlightened enclave in which I happily repose (the Commonwealth of Simcoe County in the Principality of Ontario) is a liberal paradise of grand social tolerance, openness, and impartiality, albeit pining at present under a certain number of remaining oppressive restrictions put in place by bureaucratic chuckleheads and religious fanatics.

I am fighting the good fight here so that my friend Daniel can legally marry his love and life partner, Cha Cha....


Daniel and Cha Cha

Until everyone is free, no one is free!!!! Let that be our battlecry!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:04 PM

Daniel and Cha Cha: All I get is "HTTP 403 Forbidden."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:06 PM

Damn! The fascists may have shut down the link. Hang on...I'll see if I can fix it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:11 PM

I see LH has succeeded in his long desire to derail the thread and reduce it to mental frippery. Well done, Sir Hawk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Hmmm. You're right, Don. I can't open it now either. Dang. One more blow against freedom and tolerance. I have the picture saved in "My Pictures" on my computer, but that doesn't help too much, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 07:07 PM

Just to establish that I am not a "pettifogging (whatever the hell that means), humorless (why do Canadians always insist on misspelling that word? Brits, too?) scoundrel (I am greatly loved by multitudes)."

Now, with that firmly established, step aside, Little Hawk. I have some bloodletting to do, and you don't want to get in the way.

####

Actually, however, unless something new and startling manifests itself, I have said about all I care to say (several times and well-documented), so I see little point in continuing to try to educate the ineducable. That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to retire from this thread, but I'm really getting tired of pointing out the obvious, documenting it thoroughly, only to hear the same old superstitious nonsense repeated back to me yet again, still being presented as if it were sensible argument.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM

the one more thing i will say(for now) is that we should all have the freedom to be who we are and love whom we please, but this freedom comes with responsibility.
as do most of the freedoms we all enjoy.
driving for example, is very dangerous and kills loads of people because of the idiots who have misused their freedom to do it. personal ownership of ones actions must be brought into question more.

i think that covers where i am at right now.

take care all

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:51 PM

"Humourless" is the Canadian (or British) spelling, Don. In Canada and the UK we do certain things differently. We spell our words as follows:

humour
rumour
harbour
rancour
honour

The additional "u" in these words is one of the very few forms of cultural independence we have left to distinguish ourselves from the USA! As such it is celebrated here. ;-) Matter of fact, there's a humorous singer here in Canada, very well known for her satirical songs, and she did a song at the recent Mariposa Folk Festival about the extra "u" in our British spelling.

We love it, eh? Another thing we do here that is different is how we pronounce the name of the letter "z". Americans pronounce it as "zee", we pronounce it as "zed".

It's almost all we have left, Don! (other than poutine) So be tolerant.

Pettifogging is a Lachaesian word. It means something similar to taddlewanking which is another Lachaeasian word. A pettifogger is one who harps on petty technicalities in an argumentative, maundering, and crabby fashion and it also implies one who lacks humour. Oh, sorry....maundering is another Lachaesian word. It means to carp, bellyache, and complain incessantly. Woody Allen is a classic maunderer...well, at least he portrays such types in his movies at any rate. Whether he's really like that in real life I can't say.

Now I shall step discreetly aside and let you engage in the promised bloodletting... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:14 PM

Wise. One should avoid placing oneself in the position of Mercutio, Romeo's cousin in Romeo and Juliet, who lay on the ground bleeding from a fatal sword thrust: "Tis not so wide as a church door, nor as deep as a well, but 'twill serve. Inquire after me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man. . . ."

Just out of curiosity, Little Hawk, did you know that before I changed my college major to music, I was majoring in English? You tell my nothing I don't already know.

Comprenez-vous irony?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:23 PM

By the way, I won a game of Scrabble against an English professor (whom I knew socially) with the word "zed." He challenged it, I informed him that it was the British rendition of the final letter in the alphabet. He doubted it, so we consulted a dictionary, which verified what I said.

Don Firth

Now back to our regular broadcast.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM

Of course I know that you already know, Don. I'm just playing the role of the straight man when I patiently explain to you the many things you already know. But you already knew that too, didn't you? ;-) I am Canadian, and proud of it, eh?   We live for irony in this country.

God, we are a clever and urbane pair, you and me! We are true philosopher kings of the North American zeitgeist. Savants. Heroic intellectual adventurers. We may even be a tad smarter than Spaw. We might as well be rubbing shoulders with the likes of Woody Allen, Alan Alda, and Noam Chomsky. Damn shame you and I can't meet for a coffee now and then and share our brilliance together... ;-)

It's also a damn shame I can't work out a link to that picture of Daniel and Cha Cha. (sigh) It would shed much light on this discussion.

By the way, I love that scene with Mercutio. The ability to show humour in the face of death is indeed a noble attribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM

The trick is to remember that when the time comes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 09:58 PM

Yessiree. It's not that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM

"Just out of curiosity, Little Hawk, did you know that before I changed my college major to music, I was majoring in English? You tell my nothing I don't already know."

Hi Don.....I was just wondering, were you by any chance attending the same college as Tia?

As far as irony is concerned you are still in the first grade, in Little Hawk you are challenging a master.

If I were you, I would stick to windmills for the present.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 03:12 AM

Or would "Don Quixote" be a little too ironic?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 07:38 AM

There is nothing more breathtaking than sitting in a Starbucks nursing one's Grande Latte and watching 5 or 6 English majors at the next table over trying snottily to outdo one another at irony...

I've observed this. In Barrie, Ontario. They have a Starbucks there right next door to the Chapters giant bookstore. The drinks are way overpriced and not all that exceptionally good either, but it's worth it just to be able to eavesdrop on the local intelligentsia.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 09:57 AM

The real score on this thread:    Peasants 1.....Intelligentsia 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 10:44 AM

Ake,

That is rude, and inaccurate. First, there are no peasants on this thread. Second, if, as one must assume, you are counting yourself and you condescending irony-monger as constituting the peasants, you are swept up in imagined events as a sixteen year old reading Playboy.

I think the real score was Liberals 10, Bigots 3. I am sure that will sit well with you, but I do not mean it. I write it just to demonstrate what a witless assertion yours was, and how inappropriate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 12:32 PM

Jeez, Amos, these ding-dongs are prejudiced against all kinds of people. Now that's ignorance on the grand scale.

I write them off as not worth debating with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

Akenaton,
Since you summoned me, I will point out that:

sum=14

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 02:10 PM

When it comes to engaging in the coming referendum battle in Washington State, I don't think I need to prepare to meet my maker just yet.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is just a matter of time, and a brief time at that:    CLICKY.   Not just in Washington State, but all over the country. And, it would appear, the world.

One Larry Stickney, self-styled head of the "Washington Values Allliance" is pushing Referendum 71, which would repeal Washington State's recently passed domestic partnership law. So far, it's not going too well for him. The referendum has been out there for awhile, and it has until July 25 (one week from today) to gather a total of 120,577 valid voter signatures to secure a place on the November 3 ballot. So far, there is another petition being circulated, gathering the signatures of registered voters who pledge not to sign the Referendum 71 petition, and I understand that's doing quite well!

The arguments that Stickney is putting forward are from a fundamentalist Christian perspective, which tends not to go over very well in this area, especially with members of more liberal Christian churches, of which there are many here—some of which perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, whether the law recognizes them or not.

This is not going to be any kind of duel at all. I was expecting more sophisticated arguments than this!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 03:26 PM

Even though I spent a couple of years as an English major in college, I don't think I quite fit the stereotype that Ake and Little Hawk are tittering about. And sitting around in Starbuck's? Although Starbuck's started in Seattle and there is either a Starbuck's or a barista's cart on practically every corner, I have never been in a Starbuck's, and I've only drunk Starbuck's coffee a half-dozen times in my life. This was when a friend of mine came over to my apartment a couple of times a week to read me his novel manuscript, to get my input and general expertise as a former English major, editor, technical writer, and one-time radio station news director. On the way over, he would stop at the local Starbucks and buy a couple of lattés.

I take it they don't personally know any real, live English majors. Only self-generated stereotypes. And for that matter, not all English majors are created equal. Pigeonhole thinking again.

And, Ake, Little Hawk is a master of irony? Mildly amusing from time to time, but "a master of irony?"

Sorry, Little Hawk.

"Irony has always been a primary tool the under-powered use to tear at the over-powered in our culture. But now irony has become the bait that media corporations use to appeal to educated consumers. . . . It's almost an ultimate irony that those who say they don't like TV will sit and watch TV as long as the hosts of their favorite shows act like they don't like TV, either. Somewhere in this swirl of droll poses and pseudo-insights, irony itself becomes a kind of mass therapy for a politically confused culture. It offers a comfortable space where complicity doesn't feel like complicity. It makes you feel like you are counter-cultural while never requiring you to leave the mainstream culture it has so much fun teasing. We are happy enough with this therapy that we feel no need to enact social change."
(Dan French, review of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 2001)

The irony of irony is that true irony generally grows out of situation. When one tries to be ironic, it generally falls flat.

Don't bother to thank me. Always glad to help.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 05:52 PM

LIttle Hawk,

First, I urge you to absorb the distinction between irony and mere sarcasm.

Second, your grandiose screeds posed from Olympian heights remind me of nothing more than Mark Twain's wife.

For one thing, Mark Twain was an inveterate but not invertebrate swearer -- swearing was in his bones.

His wife, Olivia, refined, gentle, pious, waged a continuing battle to persuade him to stop. Once in frustration she uttered a string of curse words in the hope he would realize how crude and disreputable they sounded. His reply:

                        "You know the words, my dear, but you don't know the music."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 09:52 PM

LOL! Mark Twain was a true wit, Amos. I have nothing but admiration for the man...and also for his no doubt long-suffering wife.

Don, you mentioned that "these ding-dongs are prejudiced against all kinds of people".

Yikes! Who are these despicable people you refer to who are prejudiced against all kinds of people? Why do we permit them to go on living? They must be ferreted out and dealt with! Send me a list of names, would you? I'll pass that list on to Chongo Chimp, he will pass it on to some of his good friends in Chicago, and THEN they'll see, by God, what happens to the prejudiced when they have gone too far!

Intolerance will NOT be tolerated! No sir. To the guillotine with them all, I say!

* Note: (You go far astray, Don, when you insist on taking personally my every satirical comment on this thread when I am speaking about the various silly human foibles that amuse or annoy me as I observe society percolating around me...but if you are bent on doing so and imagining that my comments are all directed specifically at YOU, I hardly see how I could ever convince you that I intended otherwise.)

If you go to some other threads, you will note that I'm also making ruthless fun of Valley Girl types who use the word "like" 8500 times an hour and stretch the boundaries of vapidity to unheard of dimensions. More prejudice on my part! (Could it be another sly attack on Don Firth, though, with the gender of the attackee switched as a camouflage of my true intentions?)

I'm also making fun of Canadians and of Don Cherry and his dog on another thread. More prejudice! (But how does it link to Don Firth? Hmmmm...gotta work on that and find out the connection...wait a minute! Don Cherry...Don Firth. Aha! I think we have the smoking gun.)

Whoo-wee. Whole lotta stuff to track down, eh? Look through all my other posts for yet more evidence of prejudice and report it to the human rights commission and Homeland Security ASAP. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 09:55 PM

Oh, by the way, Don....I am a real live English Major. That's one reason why I find the jokes about them so funny. I know the territory...and its joys and its pitfalls.

It's the same reason I find jokes about Canada and Canadians so funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 07:02 AM

Well....I'm "proud to be a peasant"!
The intelligetsia love themselves far too much as far as I'm concerned....you can all see it here, boasting about their academic qualifications...pathetic!{I exclude Little Hawk from whom the information has had to be extracted by force!)

The trouble with academia is that it appears to give one a feeling of superiority in EVERYTHING, as if no one has a right to hold differing opinions.

No one needs qualifications to see the health problems in the male homosexual lifestyle, or the effect behaviour has on "rights". My view is as valid as the view of anyone with a bunch of "parrot papers" or a "liberal" agenda, I just keep my eyes and ears open to the real world, non the world according to some manipulating power hungry politicians.

Our humanity is gradually being eroded, not just in the realms of minority rights but in every facet of life.

We now live by committee, there is no personal responsibility.
Do you know that in our local primary school, children are not allowed to run in the playground! not allowed to speak to adults unless vetted by the school, we are raising a generation of automatons, without empathy or the power to decide for themselves.

But they will make fine citizens in the brave new Orwellian "liberal" world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:19 AM

""If you go to some other threads, you will note that I'm also making ruthless fun of Valley Girl types who use the word "like" 8500 times an hour and stretch the boundaries of vapidity to unheard of dimensions.

I'm also making fun of Canadians and of Don Cherry and his dog on another thread.

....my every satirical comment on this thread when I am speaking about the various silly human foibles that amuse or annoy me as I observe society percolating around me""


This is the man who has nothing of value to add in the way of "on topic" comment, but appears on multiple threads seemingly to disrupt and disparage.

This is the man who writes reams of exhortations to treat each other with respect, to listen to each other's point of view, to eschew pejorative language, and then derides whole groups of people with stereotypical comment and treats them as somewhat lower in the scale of human existence than his exalted self.

This is the man Akenaton looks up to as a shining wit.

DR.SPOONER WOULD AGREE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:23 AM

That GUEST was me, sans biscuit. Don't KNOW why.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 10:06 AM

It was just a phase.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 10:35 AM

"Do you know that in our local primary school, children are not allowed to run in the playground!" ake

You know, somehow, I just don't believe that. To me, it sounds like a statement coming from someone who has never or not for a long time had a child in the school system and is taking someone else's statement at face value.

Please amplify.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 10:54 AM

that wouldn't suprise me. as some schools have banned the noble art of playing conkers, either that or you have to wear goggles.

it is down to the i will sue theme we have gotten into, the schools are now so terrified that they have to be so careful, just in case.

jade x x x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

Well, it would surprise me greatly.

Well, I just ASKed Jeeves. It appears that in 2007 the Thomas Deacon Academy was planned to have no break times (only 30 minutes for lunch) and no outdoor play.

The premise is that children "won't need to let off steam because they won't be bored."

And that with so many students (2200) any playground would have to be huge.

hahhahahahahahahhha

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

"You go far astray, Don, when you insist on taking personally my every satirical comment on this thread when I am speaking about the various silly human foibles that amuse or annoy me as I observe society percolating around me...but if you are bent on doing so and imagining that my comments are all directed specifically at YOU, I hardly see how I could ever convince you that I intended otherwise."

You flatter yourself, Little Hawk. I don't take anything you say personally because you don't know me at all (although the above quote indicates that you egotistically assume you do), and you have generally indicated that you don't really grasp much of what I'm saying. Among other things, for someone who has been dubbed "a master of irony," it's kind of funny the way you don't recognize irony when you read it. And as far as your "satire" is concerned, you'd undoubtedly get a much better response from your dachshunds and your imaginary chimp.

It's a bit hard to believe that you didn't intend your barbs personally when you kept mentioning my name throughout your post. But as they say, I consider the source.

No, Little Hawk, not only do I not take what you say personally, but considering you ever-increasing penchant for descending into the abyss of mindless frivolity, I find it increasingly difficult to take anything you say seriously.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 01:55 PM

Don W., I'm a philosophical type of person. Philosophers comment on society and the foibles of man in a general sort of way, because it helps them understand what makes people tick, and that's what mainly interests a philosopher.

Mark Twain was such a person, and his books are full of humorous jibes at the common failings of humanity...and I bet you respect Mark Twain, don't you? You probably would have been quite ticked off at him had you lived in his time, though, because he might have made fun of one of your sacred cows!

I don't sound a single note here. I play the whole scale. I make serious comments when I want, and I engage in humorous satire when I want. I apologize for none of it, and neither did Mark Twain (who pissed off a whole lot of people in his time...but delighted many others).

If I were to try and please everyone, which would mean trying to please even you and Don Firth, then I'd be wasting my time, because it's impossible to please everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

Ho-hum.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM

Interesting analogy:

"Mark Twain made fun of many things and made many people angry. I am making fun of making things and making people angry. Therefore I am the equivalent of Mark Twain...".


But, unfortunately, it does not work quite that way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 03:39 PM

no outdoor play? surely that is sending the wrong message to kids who(hipocrite time) spend too much time doing nothing as it is.

what about their vitamin D intake?
kids need to be able to let off steam after being cooped up for so long in a classroom.
however they could do it as a shorter school day but with less breaks.   i know i found it hard to settle again after break time so maybe they have a point.

as someone without kids it is hard for me to make up my mind as to the best way forward on this.    (helpful aren't i?)

take care all

jade x x x

ps    i have no idea who mark twain(e) is so i am keeping out of this one x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 03:52 PM

I anticipated a response such as yours, Amos, even before I hit "submit" on that post of mine you allude to. :-) I really should have pre-emptively posted in order to head it off.

No, I do not think I am the equivalent of Mark Twain. I regard his contributions to humanity as vastly, simply vastly ahead of my own. So far beyond my own, in fact, that it would be sort of like comparing a trip to the moon (in Mark Twain's case) to an amble across the street to sit comfortably in the park (in my case).

I was suggesting that my satirical and philosophical motivations are perhaps a bit like Twain's, but certainly not my accomplishments.

jeddy - Mark Twain is one of the greatest writers of all time. I suggest you read some of his books. Try "Huckleberry Finn" or "Joan of Arc" for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:13 PM

A philosopher? Easy claim to make, but hard to back up.

Was Mark Twain a philosopher? Only in the loosest sense. He was a writer, a humorist, and a satirist. And a very good one. But I don't find him listed anywhere as a philosopher, other than one of the crackerbarrel variety.

Little Hawk, can you give me a brief definition of Metaphysics (no, it doesn't mean "the Occult" the way many people use the word)? Or Epistomology? Or Ethics?

How much Aristotle have you read? Socrates? Plato? Aquinas? Machiavelli? Descartes? Hobbes? Spinoza? Berkeley? Hume? Rousseau? Kant? Locke? James? Hegel? Marx? Mill? Nietzsche? Wittgenstein? Russell?

Other than the popular Eastern philosophers, who have you read? Or have you just read a book or two on Taoism, a bit of Alan Watts, browsed through the Bhagavad Gita, then taken occasional side-trips into Carlos Castaneda?

Anybody can call himself a philosopher. And everyone is a philosopher in his or her own way. But I think if one is going to tout himself as a philosopher and sit around, look down from one's lofty position, and make pronouncements on the human condition—and be taken seriously, not just as a blowhard—it takes a bit of formal study of the field, otherwise you're no different from old Charlie, who spends his days sitting on the front porch of the general store, whittling and spitting and making wry comments on the passing parade.

Charlie ain't no philosopher. He just takes up space.

Ethics. I, personally, am especially interested in Ethics, because Ethics is philosophy in action. For example, should one just sit, observe, and comment from a nice, safe position? Or should you get involved and transform your beliefs into action?

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Jade is perfectly correct Ebbie.....so prepare to be "very surprised".
Everyone over here is so wrapped up in their "rights" that they are prepared to sue anybody they can....local councils, schools,public services who are all held responsible for the safety of children and adults, no matter how stupidly they behave.....another bi-product of "liberalism"...."rights for all"

Does anyone care about the right of kids to have a free and normal upbringing...I don't think so!

I think I find myself agreeing with the Bishop of Durham

"Justice does not mean treating people equally, it means treating people appropriately"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM

Ake, your view of what constitutes a "liberal" is diametrically opposed to the American idea of liberalism.

And who, Ake, determines what is "appropriate?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM

Its impossible to define a philosopher.........But you sure know one when you read what he writes!

And as I paraphrased earlier Don, "You Mr Firth are no Confucius!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:45 PM

Gnu....."John, writing on "The Frigging Loon" blog, said he was "heartbroken" about the split and that he hopes Pepper "finds another male penguin that is ten times hotter than Harry!"

Mr Peestok I presume?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM

And you, Ake, are no judge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

ake, how about posting something further about schools disallowing children to run on their playgrounds? Are there schools other than the Thomas Deacon Academy that plan(ed) such a thing? According to the responses to the idea that I read online, there was an outcry regarding the plan.

You imply that there are others or perhaps, even that children in Scotland are not allowed to run in their playgrounds. I still don't believe that. Surely Scotland is not that ignorant or backward. (On the other hand, you are a Scot..? *g*)

As for Jade, unless I missed something writ large, I don't recall that she had information on the phenomenon but simply agreed with you that she "wouldn't be surprised" to hear it.

Sit up, mon.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM

Don F. - I would much prefer to think of yourself and I as equals rather than engage in fruitless attempts to establish who resides at a loftier position of intellectual grandeur...or who has acquired the more prestigious reading list in the last 50 years of his life. ;-)

As you said, "everyone is a philosopher in his or her own way". Correct. That's good enough. If a person is strongly interested in how people think, and why, and interested enough to spend some time on understanding it, and interested in self-observation too, then he's a philosopher in his or her own way. And that's what I am.

I've read plenty of fascinating books in the last 50 years. I am not going to start listing them, because I'm not even slightly interested in trying to outdo you or impress you. It doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:23 PM

to think of yourself and I as equals...

Nah, you're right--it doesn't matter...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:52 PM

speaking of taking people to court,do companies and things like that still ofer compensation or a good will gesture when someone has an accident?

as ebbie said ,i am not sure whether the trying to stop kids running around is true or whether it is one of those rumours that gets out of hand. what i do know is that the conker thing opens the floodgates to being able to take the school to court over the most innocent things. the same as any other public place really.

so really do take care out there... LOL

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 07:43 PM

Once again off the mark, Little Hawk. I have no desire to impress you. But you keep making grandious claims about your own intellectual prowess and how it gives you the license to comment on what others do and say, so I think it's perfectly fair to ask you for your qualifications to do so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM

Which is to say, Little Hawk, that this thread was an attempt (at least on the part of most people) to be a serious debate on a serious civil rights issue, but it got derailed when you put your oar in with irrelevant observations on how the debaters where conducting themselves. Now, had it been Joe Offer, that would have mattered. But from you, it was just your usual static.

You did successfully manage to drag the focus of the thread to you.

Now, once again, if there is anything more to say on the subject of the thread, I suggest we get back to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:27 AM

If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the landuage you and others used to me very early on.
As it is, the issues have been aired and the discussion is in stalemate.   The important thing is that all views have been voiced and anyone reading this thread can form a reasoned opinion.

People must be made aware that to hold a contrary view of any issue does not necessarily make one a (bigot,homophobe, pervert, or any other term of abuse that can be used to scupper discussion).
That is indeed "Orwellian"


So you see Little Hawk's point was very relevant!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:24 AM

""Mark Twain was such a person, and his books are full of humorous jibes at the common failings of humanity...and I bet you respect Mark Twain, don't you? You probably would have been quite ticked off at him had you lived in his time, though, because he might have made fun of one of your sacred cows!""

So you see yourself as another Mark Twain!

I it weren't so tragic I'd be falling about laughing.

Not within a million miles mate. Just another wannabe, bigging himself up at everyone else's expense.

Come again when you have something to say which is germane to the topic........or any topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:35 AM

""If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the landuage you and others used to me very early on.""

Is that so?

Well,..... NO, actually!

Far from trying to silence you, virtually the whole thread (disregarding the input from our resident disruptive child) has been about the opposite; Namely, trying to get a straight answer from you that actually made any sense at all.

You would have made a fine addition to Gordon Brown's ministerial team, judging by the skill with which you managed to avoid giving any such answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:45 AM

""how about posting something further about schools disallowing children to run on their playgrounds?""

Sad but true, Ebbie.

For the last fifteen years I was caretaker/playground supervisor at a local primary school.

For about the last six years, conkers allowed only under supervision, no football on the playground, no hard balls of any description and no running or tag type games.

Basketball (shooting hoops only...no running
Hopscotch No stones allowed (safe markers only)

In summer on the grass playing field football allowed, but No cartwheels, headstands or somersaults ecept under close supervision.

The list goes on...and on...and...well you get the idea.

It is due to the fear of being sued.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:47 AM

That should read "for the last fifteen years of my working life".

I retired in 2006

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM

Getting back to the SUBJECT, folks, I would suggest if there is more to say about conkers on schoolgrounds it become a thread of its own; if there is more to say about how grandiloquent and Twainesque Little Hawk is or is not, it become a comic book somewhere.

If there are any further developments on the issues surrounding Proposition 8, or similar propositions in other states, I would love to be apprised of them here. For example, Don Firth mentioned reactionary efforts afoot in his state. New York's own equal-rights law was delayed by their endless procedural entanglements and congressional incompetence, but not on its merits.

On 17 July a Federal judge rejected pone action against prop 8: "In the July 17 ruling, U.S. District Judge David Carter removed the state of California as a defendant in the lawsuit against Prop 8 and DOMA. Only the U.S. government will remain a defendant when portions of the case will be heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.

Carter's ruling stated that because the gay couple who brought the challenge against DOMA in December 2008 were married during a short window of time when same-sex marriage was legal, they had no standing to challenge the measure. The California State Supreme Court already decided that marriages such as theirs would stay intact even after voters approved Prop 8. ".

It is ironic, to me, that the judge disqualified the action because the plaintiffs were legally married gays. Yet the right-wing factions announced this was a win for those in California who did not want gays to marry, as if other grounds had been cited when they were not. This is the sort of illogic that permeates partisan politics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

sheesh I thought it is the US that is litigious.

What kind of childhood are children being given if for 7 or 8 hours of a work week they are not allowed to do the normal things of childhood! It would appear that every single person who signed on to this insanity has never seen the young of EVERY mammal at play- running and tumbling and chasing, in addition to expressing health by working off energy, teach coordination and cooperation and builds and strengthens muscle whether in the legs or the heart itself.

It seems clear that the 'auld' country is farther down the road to perdition than we in the new. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

An op-ed by David Boies that runs in Monday's Wall Street Journal :

"When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.

Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM

"Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."......And justice is not about "treating people equally, but treating people appropriately"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

Woah, Ake, you have grabbed an indefensible position for sure there, mate. "Appropriately"? According to....which subculture's definition? While I grant you that tempering the codes of justice with mercy and a due consideration of extenuating circumstances is a vital aspect of justice, the core framework absolutely has to be based on the notion that all men are equal under the law. There are no special exceptions by reason of status, wealth, etc. This is of critical importance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

The Bishop also said "We want to be in your club, but we want to change all the rules".....a good example of "doublethink"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

"If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the language you and others used to me very early on."

As far as not wanting this thread to exist, Ake, I'm quite glad that Amos brought the Proposition 8 controversy to people's attention. I don't know where you get the idea that I "and others like" me, wouldn't want it to exist. The injustice of the issue needs to be called to peoples' attention and I'm happy that Amos started it.

As to your claim that I "and others like" me are trying to muzzle you: it's obvious to any thinking person (as you well know) that I "and others like" me have no way of doing that. No one save the moderators of this site can stop you from posting anything you want to say. So why don't you just get off that bus? You're not fooling anyone.

And as I mention in a couple of posts above, I have found some of your arguments quite valuable, because the battle is joined here in Washington State, and you gave me a pretty good idea of the kind of arguments the proponents of a proposition similar to the one in California will put forth, enabling me to analyze them, find their flaws, and be able to successfully refute them. Muzzle you? No. Thank you for the practice. I'm well prepared for what's to come.

As far as the language I have used, if you can't stand being called a "bigot" and a "homophobe" when things you have said and the tactics you have used (particularly doctoring statistics to make them appear to say what you want them to say when they clearly do not) indicate that you fit the dictionary definitions of those two words, then you apparently lack the courage of your own convictions, along with having a very thin skin.

Orwell has nothing to do with it. Rather than engaging in "doublespeak" as you claim, I am bluntly using the proper name for a person who holds a particular set of attitudes and prejudices. I have expressed liberal ideas. You have "accused" me of being a "liberal." Same thing, Ake.

"As it is, the issues have been aired and the discussion is in stalemate.   The important thing is that all views have been voiced and anyone reading this thread can form a reasoned opinion."

True indeed. There is no way I can convince you of my viewpoint and there is no way you can ever get me to change my mind if all you can do is present the arguments that you have presented so far. I am happy to have anyone read this thread who wants to and let them come to their own conclusions on the merits, or lack thereof, of the arguments.

Not to mention, hoping that readers will take note of who is and who is not willing to answer various questions put to them and figure out why the questions remain unanswered.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:32 AM

Two nights ago here in Seattle, two women were attacked in their bed at 3:00 a.m. One of them is dead and the other is in critical condition. It was known in their neighborhood that they were about to get married. We don't know, since the attacker is still at large, whether the impending marriage was the thing that set him off or not, but the timing makes it possible. In any event, it seems very likely that this was a hate crime.

Little Hawk: This isn't a game we're playing here.

Akenaton: This is what happens when people who are different than us are legally discriminated against, when our society thinks it's OK for us to hate "others". I know that you would never do anything like this, but I still lay part of the blame for it at your doorstep and at the doorstep of everyone else who behaves in a bigoted way toward homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:57 AM

john, that is awful!!! have they caught the bastard who did it yet?

i am not having a go at anyone but this is why we have to be careful, not about what we think but about the language we use sometimes. there are plenty of nutters out there who hear something then act without thinking and then blames something innocent. example: how many times have we heard about kids beating someone to a pulp and then blaming video games?

i admit that the two really long posts from amos i think, sorry if i have that wrong have intimidated me so i will have to get my few brain cells together and have a proper read.

until then take care all
love jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:59 PM

My God, John, that gave me a bit of a start!    Seattle Times article.

Barbara and I know two women who are getting married this coming weekend. Neighbors. Nice ladies, and they've been living together for several years now. For a moment, I was afraid it might have been them (because they did announce their marriage, but only to their friends and relatives), but—not so.

They share an apartment in a secured building. Still, I hope this puts them on their guard.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

Well, Ake, seems like hatred and discrimination don't make for societal perfection after all, do they. Hmmmmm. I know it is not hatred, as you have yourself made clear several times, that drives your attitude, but, ya know, sometimes we have to honor the consequences of our attitudes as well as their precedents.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:47 AM

Amos....Thank you, I know you are aware that I have no hatred towards homosexuals.
That particular scourge has no place in this discussion in my opinion and anyone introducing it to bolster the argument for homosexual "marriage" is simply being obstructive.
The people who commit hate crimes against any minority group should be dealt with severely by the courts.
We will unfortunately always have deranged people in our society.
I thought Mr peekstok had sunk as low as it was possible to in his accusations and insinuations....apparently I was wrong.

Getting back to justice, to be "appropriate" the rights granted to any behavioural minority group, should not be seen to have a retrograde effect on others, as in allowing one minority the right to redefine the rules of the game.

The last few posts are disgraceful...(on re-reading, I include you in that Amos), the accusations made against Little Hawk and myself, have no basis in reason!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:39 AM

ake, i do hope you know i was including myself in what i was saying in my last post?
i have been known to be inflamitory and knee jerk in my reactions. just wanted to let you know that i am as fallible as anyone, probably more so. please don't take it personally???

right back to sleep fo me!!
sweet dreams all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 AM

""The last few posts are disgraceful...(on re-reading, I include you in that Amos), the accusations made against Little Hawk and myself, have no basis in reason!""

Since you seem incapable of actually answering the questions posed by others, this is probably a forlorn hope, but let's give it a try anyway.

You are very keen to defend Little Hawk from a number of contributors, who are less than impressed with his nonsense, and I rather suspect that you are doing so to distract attention from the untenable nature of your own stance.

So would you like to tell us what, in your opinion, has been his contribution to discussion of the topic of this thread?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:09 PM

Actually, it doesn't make any difference if Akenaton hates gays or not, since the conclusion he reaches through non-hatred is exactly the same as the position of people who do hate gays.

Akenaton, Here's another question for you to refuse to answer:
I know you don't like being called a bigot, and have said several times that you are not bigoted. Can you explain how supporting legal discrimination against gay people is not a bigoted stance? I mean, really, if it's not bigotry, what is it? Bigotry is the only word I can think of right now that covers the territory.

Also, do you know that giving equal rights to black people and to women was one of the biggest things that stopped violence against them? The lynching of black folks pretty much stopped with the passage of civil rights laws, and domestic violence against women wasn't taken seriously by the police until we declared women to be full-fledged people.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:29 PM

"Full-fleged people"... 2278 posts... gosh...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM

Getting back to justice, to be "appropriate" the rights granted to any behavioural minority group, should not be seen to have a retrograde effect on others, as in allowing one minority the right to redefine the rules of the game.

OMG! A definitive statement from Akenaton! Will wonders never cease? He's totally incorrect, of course, but at least he's saying something real. Here's what's wrong:

Justice is never inappropriate. Gays are not a "behavioural" minority, and it wouldn't matter if they were, since religious folks (a real behavioral minority) are specifically granted the same rights as everyone else, and it's also illegal to discriminate against them. There is no evidence for and no sense in the statement that gay marriage will have any retrograde effect on others. How would that manifest? The reason we have a Constitution in this country, and whatever it is that the UK has that's similar, is so that the rights of minorities are not trampled. Redefining the rules would be changing the Constitution to allow discrimination against minorities. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history, and means different things in different places. There is a pressing legal and societal need for gay marriage now, and allowing gays to get married is less of a redefinition than our government telling two people who want to become a legal unit that they can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM

Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized humans. It's us.

We still have a way to go.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM

The rules of the game ? Well, did the purchase and sale of Africans, very well-established as the rule of the game, give the lie to the pretense of dignity and nobility and enlightenment that was pretended to by the dominant white clans? How about the discrimination and harassment of the Clans by the redcoats? Well within the rules of the game, no?

Dominance always brings with it a cheap set of rules established by agreement supported by force, as Matthew Shephard found to his dismay. It is much, much harder to evolve rules cleaving to justice and equality, because one has to overcome the crusty inertia and blackguard hostilities of individuated, small-minded people more interested in the status quo.

Perhaps you mean that heterosexuality is the "rule of the game"? Do you consider human homosexuality to be a recent development? The earliest civilizations we know about were rife with it.

Or do you believe that dominating the culture is a form of progress on the part of heterosexuals, a step into a better civilization, which the odball minority will just have to suffer with, because it is just naturally better? God-given, even?

Say, how DO you justify this notion of "the rules of the game", anyway? I am not quite getting it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM

Oh I see! we're back to equating this with the race issue, you really must be pissed off when you sling in all these obstructions.

As gnu implies, if my stance is so stupid and untenable, why have you invested so much of your time trying to refute it!

All the questions you ask have already been answered further up the thread and I have no intention of either responding to someone who thinks me a "pervert" or constantly repeating things.
Latest research on memory loss suggests strong coffee three times a day.

The posts on the Seattle murder are indeed disgraceful, on reading the various links it seems the police believe it to be "random", committed by a young homeless black man.....even if it had been a hate crime, there are murders committed by lunatics against all sorts of people all over the world every day. It doesn't mean that all black men are murderers, or that people who disagree with homosexual marriage encourage murder......fucking grow up!

Political correctness ensures that even in a murder investigation more obscure terminology has to be used in the official description!...the world has certainly gone mad!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM

Ake:

Cool off, there, sirrah! I did not equate "this" with a race issue. I point out that your argument about "retrogressing the rules of the game" is sieve-like, that's all, and offered several parallels to illustrate thepoint. Specifically, they illustrate "rules of the game" born from dominance without merit. Your argument is not a race issue, but it IS a plea for the continuation of a system of injustice through dominance.

And I notice, although my last had several questions in it, you did not answer them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Yes OK Amos, I wasn't addressing you on the race issue, I don't think you've ever mentioned it. As I've said before, we know one anothers position very well, I respect yours and you appear to understand mine, I don't think we are going to change our views after all this time.
I'm just in from work and if get time later I'll have another look at your posts.....Peace!....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM

Re: The break-in, assault, and murder in Seattle's South Park neighborhood.

The Seattle Police, so far, are being non-committal about whether or not they consider it to be a hate crime, but a number of the neighbors say they are sure it was. Among other things, according to news reports, nothing was stolen, so……? Motive?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM

you all know where i stand on this subject and i can't think of any different ways of saying the same things.    why am i posting?.. i just wanted to ask don to keep us informed if anything else comes to light about this possible hate crime? i would be grateful.

take care all

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM

Listen to THIS 86 year old gentleman/veteran. Makes me proud to be an American.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:36 AM

Kat, HE'S WONDERFUL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:19 AM

Dang, ma'a'm, thank you for posting that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM

"Tonight, President Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is 'unwavering.' He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change. But these remarks weren't just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where "no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit."

"And we heard unequivocally about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That is my commitment to you.'

"Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President: 'You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.'

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented."...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:33 PM

Update.

Twenty-three year old Isaiah Kalebu has been arrested and charged with the murder of one South Park Seattle woman and the attempted murder of her partner. He tortured and repeatedly raped the two women before he tried to kill them both.

Kalebu has a history of mental illness and repeated run-ins with the police. He as plead "not guilty," but the evidence, as I understand it, is overwhelming and the prosecutor has asked for the death penalty.

Kalebu has also been accused of setting a house fire in which his aunt died after she urged him to join a mental health program. And he also threatened to kill his mother for making the same suggestion.

Apparently he had been arrested a number of times, but had to be released because of failure of the complainants to follow through and press charges (I think there's a lesson there!).

Whether the gender orientation of the two women was a factor in the brutal assault has not been determined so far.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:00 PM

Reporting from San Francisco - A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, ruling that a trial was required to resolve legal and factual disputes over the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, ruling after nearly two hours of argument in San Francisco, rejected arguments by Proposition 8 proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure was permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Walker's decision means the case will proceed to trial as scheduled in January, unless appeals delay it.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May that Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of voters, did not violate the state Constitution. The suit before Walker says the measure violates the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

During the hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate "naturally."

Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate.

"Just last month," Walker said, "I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation."

Proposition 8 backers also argued that precedent required Walker to uphold the measure as constitutional. They cited a 1972 case involving a Minnesota law that limited marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge of that law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without issuing a full-blown opinion, declined to hear an appeal.

"We can't put much stock in that case, can we?" Walker told the lawyers. He described the case as "old," "very limited" and "not a considered decision of the Supreme Court."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:40 PM

The silent majority have spoken ....Prop 8, 31......."liberals" 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:28 PM

You are enshrouded in a cloud of delusion, pal. Having a bunch of far right activists prop up an idea with money does not make it a winning idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:23 PM

31 to 0...yeah, what does that stupid majority know???????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 04:35 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The biggest U.S. gay rights battle next year is brewing in a California federal court as raucous fights over same-sex marriage in state legislatures and at state ballot boxes subside.

U.S.

In part, 2010 will reflect a growing move by same-sex marriage advocates to building support for their civil rights cause outside of the election process.

The federal challenge to California's ban may be the only conflict in clear sight after a mixed 2009 that saw Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire legalize gay marriage and Washington, D.C., vote for legalization, while there were setbacks in other states that had been expected to follow.

"The focus is very much on this one case," said Andy Pugno, a California lawyer who successfully defended California's ban in the state supreme court and is helping in the federal defense as well.

New York state legislators failed to back gay marriage and a New Jersey effort has hit snags and has a few weeks to act before a new governor who opposes such gay unions takes office. Maine voters rejected same-sex marriage by a thin margin similar to the California 2008 ban, which is being contested in the San Francisco federal court.

"We believed that this is something that needs to be vindicated at the federal constitutional level, and I think that that is reinforced by what's happened in Maine and what did not happen, for example in New Jersey, and what did not happen in New York," said David Boies, one of the lead lawyers in the federal case.

Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 and California had a summer of legalization in 2008 before voters banned it.

Trial is set to start January 11 in San Francisco. Boies and co-lead Ted Olson argue that marriage is a U.S. constitutional right too fundamental to limit and that gays and lesbians are a discriminated group that deserve special court protection.

Opposing attorney Charles Cooper says restricting marriage to a man and a woman reflects a reasonable government position that heterosexual couples are best for families. It is not a question of hate, and gays and lesbians have plenty of political power, making special court protection unnecessary....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

Gosh, I can't find that post...refresh my memory....my father was NOT ever a homosexual....let me see if that post is even there...or show me.
(or someone used my name).....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

2300!....Jeez!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Leadfingers
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM

2300

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM

(PhysOrg.com) -- "This is the first we know in the history of medicine that clinicians are actively trying to prevent homosexuality," says Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.


Dreger and collaborator Ellen Feder, associate professor and acting chair of philosophy and religion at American University, have brought to national attention the first systematic approach to prenatally preventing homosexuality and bisexuality. The "treatment" is targeted at one particular population of girls, but the researchers involved in the work say their findings may have implications beyond this population.

The girls and women in question have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a serious endocrine disruption that sometimes results in ambiguous genitalia. Their endocrine problem will require medical management from birth onward. Research has shown that females born with CAH have increased rates of tomboyism and lesbianism.
The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies.
Dreger and Feder's paper on the topic appears in the Bioethics Forum of the Hastings Center and can be read at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140 .

A new consensus from seven major medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics) will be published in August indicating that this use of prenatal dexamethasone is experimental and not to be treated as standard of care. This comes in the wake of Dreger and Feder leading an investigation showing that the chief proponent of this off-label use, pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, treated hundreds of women with this experimental drug without proper research ethics oversight. Time magazine related that aspect of the story: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1996453,00.html .

The FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections are now investigating these formal complaints.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM

Just when you think homophobia couldn't get any worse.

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

(NECN) -A Boston judge has issued a landmark ruling on gay marriage, one that has caught the eye of the Department of Justice.

Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that they federal gay marriage ban, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of a state to define marriage.

Plaintiffs argued that the law led to the denial of benefits like Medicaid for same-sex couples. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argued for the plaintiffs in court. She called the ruling a civil rights victory, but gay marriage opponents disagreed.

The Justice Department is currently considering an appeal of the ruling.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Dean Hara, was married to the late Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, the first openly gay person elected to Congress. Studds died in 2006.

As part of the suit, the plaintiffs successfully argued that they had been denied a range of important benefits. Hara was a guest on NECN Morning, and discussed the case.

"I was excited -- it's another milestone," Hara said. "I see it as another step forward toward equal rights for all people in this country."

The changes stemming from this ruling go into effect immediately, but are not retroactive. It only applies to Massachusetts, but could set a national precedent.

"As a widower, I've been denied the same kind of protections that any other widower or any other family is afforded by the federal government," Hara said. "In my instance, it is Social Security, pension, health benefits and the like. But for all the other plaintiffs, it is very many things that affect families on a daily basis."

Hara said the timing of the ruling fits in well for the cause of equal rights.

"It's quite appropriate that this decision came the week of the Fourth of July holiday, when we celebrate the values of this country. I think that Judge Tauro's decision really reaffirms the values of this country and the importance of family."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

A federal judge Wednesday struck down a California ban on
same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, according to reports.

The ruling by Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District
Court in San Francisco represents an important victory for
gay rights advocates in a case that many believe may end up
eventually going to the United States Supreme Court.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM

Good. Maybe we can now take a solid step forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM

Invade Iraq? The people said "no." Too bad.

Obamacare? The people said "no." Too bad.

Homosexual marriage? The people said "no." Too bad.

Government of the people, by the people? Less and less.

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:14 PM

Fortunately the majority did not agree with your perspective, David. A loud and obnoxious minority tried to block health care and a similar one tried to block the rights of privat eindividuals to marry as they pleased.

On Iraq, I am inclined to agree with you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:40 PM

Republican mayor of San Diego "thrilled" by Prop. 8 ruling
August 4, 2010 | 7:15 pm
The Republican mayor of San Diego, who defied elements in his party by declaring in 2007 that he supports same-sex marriage, said he is "absolutely thrilled" by the court ruling striking down Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that banned same-sex marriages.

"I think Judge Walker did a great job of listening to the arguments and making the right decision," said Mayor Jerry Sanders, just minutes before attending a celebratory rally at San Diego's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual Community Center.

Sanders said he would like San Diego County to resume issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples but he understands the need to wait until litigation is complete, probably with a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a candidate for mayor in 2005, Sanders, a former police chief, said he opposed gay marriage. When the City Council in fall 2007 passed a measure supporting a lawsuit favoring gay-marriage rights, Sanders was expected to veto it.

But in a tearful news conference, Sanders said that out of respect for his lesbian daughter and gay members of his staff, he could not veto the measure and could not support the idea that same-sex relationships are less worthy of respect than those between straight couples.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:46 PM

Marriage Is a Constitutional Right
Published: August 4, 2010
(NYT Editorial Excerpt)

Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation's most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law.

The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.

The case was brought by two gay couples who said California's Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum's outcome was 'irrelevant,' he said, quoting a 1943 case, because 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.'

He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.

One of Judge Walker's strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage 'exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,' he wrote. 'That time has passed.' ...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM

I believe I've mentioned this a couple of times on this thread.

Majority rule a totally good thing? One graphic example of an unregulated democracy is a lynch mob.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM

Homosexual marriage? The people said "no." Too bad.

Integration of schools? The people said "no." Too bad.

Blacks in the military? The people said "no." Too bad.

An end to Jim Crow? The people said "no." Too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM

Guest David E, please read any basic text book on how our government works before typing your opinions. The majority only gets to make decisions when those decisions don't come into conflict with the Constitution.

I find it interesting that so many anti-gay folks also claim to be Constitutional strict constructionists. "If it's not in the Constitution it shouldn't be in our laws" seems to be their main point. Just try asking them where the Constitution says gay folks can't get marrried . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM

What ever side 'won', both sides said they'll appeal. So no big deal, either way. Also, the judge put a restrainer on the decision, so nothing goes into effect...for now. And, as it turns out, the judge claims to be a homosexual. This should be rather interesting, the next court arguments, in the appeals!

No value judgments here, just thought I'd update you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:18 PM

Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight," Walker writes.
"Blankenhorn gave absolutely no explanation why manifestations of the deinstitutionalization of marriage would be exacerbated (and not, for example, ameliorated) by the presence of marriage for same-sex couples. His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered.

(Judge Walker)

"Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come..."

Marc Ambinder, politics editor of The Atlantic.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:57 PM

Well, I hope the decision sticks. It just doesn't seem right for California, of all places, to prohibit homosexual marriage.
If it makes it through Supreme Court review, I think gay marriage will soon be considered "normal" in California. People get used to things quickly, once they find out they have nothing to fear.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:30 PM

While there was never a huge outcry here when same-sex marriage was legalized it seems to be a non-issue now. There are some heated political races here this election cycle but I have not seen a single reference to the issue. Maybe that will come later.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:11 AM

Doesn't this just prove what a sham "democracy" we have.

and to those who try to equate this issue with racism....Fuckin' grow up.   You insult the name of Dr King and all who stood against racism.

The promotion of homosexuality, which is basically what this issue is about (very few homosexuals want monogamy or "marriage" according to the available figures)...can be opposed on many reasonable grounds.....racial discrimination can be opposed on none!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:16 AM

Sorry, that should read...racial discrimination can be defended on no reasonable grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 04:06 AM

"Promotion" of homosexuality? "Don't delay, kiddies, call now. Operators are standing by. You to can become a homosexual." Puh-leeze.

Even if "most" homosexuals don't want to marry (I'd like to see the sources of your statistics), why shouldn't the ones that DO want to, be prohibited? Maybe "most" heterosexuals don't want to marry either. That shouldn't matter either. (A good selection of them don't seem to want to stay married.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM

Akenaton, please describe in great detail how denying civil rights to gay people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing is any different than denying civil rights to black people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing. Please back up every assertion you make with facts, including scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals.

Did it ever occur to you that denying rights to a group of people is the best way possible to insult the name of Dr. King?

You seem to be eager to impose your sexual values on other people, without any reason for doing so. As you say, fuckin' grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 10:05 AM

Akenaton is correct; an analogy between race and sexual orientation is flawed. A better one is between right vs. left handedness and sexual orientation. Thus, I suppose that left handedness can be opposed on many reasonable grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM

Your notion that this issue is about promoiting homnosexuality is really off the wall Ake.

It's a real simple straightforward thing: a minority has their civil rights abused; the courts seek to correct the abuse.

Got it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:01 PM

"This week's ruling in California represents more than a setback for opponents of same-sex marriage. It lays bare the sparseness of their evidence, the emptiness of their legal arguments and the hollowness of their claims that gay marriage would somehow undermine straight ones.

In 136 pages, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker analyzed testimony and studies that were scientific, historical, sociological and personal. He examined arguments constitutional and political.

And when he was done, he left little obvious room for reversal on appeal. However conservative the U.S. Supreme Court has become, and however sharply it is divided, chances are decent that the thrust of Walker's order will survive.

What he said was this: It violates the Constitution's equal-protection promise to deny a minority group the fundamental right to wed. He found no compelling state interest in forbidding such marriages.

There was no credible evidence that society, the institution of marriage, children or anyone else would be harmed if gay people marry, he ruled. In fact, all evidence pointed to the benefits of letting people marry those they love and giving their children a more stable, legitimized family life.

Without any rational basis for banning these marriages, all that's left is "the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." Whether the belief stems from religion, moral disapproval or animus, none can justify discrimination, Walker said. "

(Bloomberg Opinion)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM

As was said, why should the ruling of a homosexual judge on this matter be less valid than the ruling of a heterosexual judge? Both may have biases.

A ruling must be based on law and common sense- and when that is done a bias is not important.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM

For the trillionth time Amos "human rights" as presented by the current "liberal" mafia, are not universal, but conditional on the behavior of the people involved.

The promotion of homosexuality is conducted mainly by the "liberal" media....which apparently contains about the same percentage of homosexuals as the Catholic priesthood.
Once the media ball starts rolling, opportunistic politicians jump onto the bandwagon and use the issue to boost their "liberal" credentials....and the beat goes on.

The victims are homosexuals themselves, who are left with the "normality" of their horrendous health statistics.....and society in general, which has to deal with a situation in which the traditional family structure is seen as at best as curiosity, and at worst as a reactionary structure.....along with Christianity!

Fortunately the madness of unbridled "liberalism" appears to have run its course and the ordinary folks are beginning to see beyond the smoke and mirrors.

As a lifelong leftwinger who is not ruled by political dogma, i can see that the decadent West would benefit fron a dose of "compassionate conservatism"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:16 PM

Mousethief mentions the death penalty, and that is rather a good example of what I mean by the conditionality of "rights".

Although I am against the death penalty on principle, there are certain crimes, for example the rape and murder of babies or small children, which are so abhorrent and against all natural laws.... are so utterly beyond redemption, that removing these people permanently from the human race seems the only option.

I would happily put these people out of their misery personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:23 PM

Tia ....Only if left handedness led to higher rates of HIV, higher than normal rates of psychiatric illness, or much lower life expectancy!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM

"The promotion of homosexuality is conducted mainly by the "liberal" media....which apparently contains about the same percentage of homosexuals as the Catholic priesthood." ake

sheesh I realize you are not American, ake, no matter how often you say "we", but you might note that in recent years the politicians caught in embarrassing same-sex encounters have not been liberal- whatever that means, in this context - but conservative Republicans. You appear to never miss a beat in bashing liberals, which I must say, brings your own 'leftist' leanings into question.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 06:16 PM

As I recall (having been around in the 1960s) the same argument, that equal rights is a heinous plot by the "liberal mafia," was heavily used by rabid racists.

. . . one sick puppy!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM

Ake:

There's nothing compassionate about any of your statements here. You are so confused about cause and effect, and your own emotions versus matters at law, that you are hollering from way off the mark. I'm sorry, but it is true.

Here's the point: CIVIL rights are a separate and distinct matter from love, hate, approbation or revulsion. Your states of affinity have NO bearing. Medical statistics have no bearing. Religious convolutions have no bearing.

What has a bearing is evidence at law concerning the equality with which peopkle are treated by others, or lack of it.

That is the only thing at issue here--the equality of civil rights.

The OTHER issues you raise are matters for a DIFFERENT discussion, not a matter of civil law or civil rights for a minority.

(You are equally misguided on some of them as well, but I say that with the sincerest respect!! :D)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:18 AM

Moments ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions opposing a stay of Judge WalkerÕs decision to overturn Prop. 8.

This is the kind of extraordinary leadership we need from the next governor and attorney generalÑthe kind Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris will deliver.

Thank you to everyone who has signed our petition to Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, urging them not to defend Prop. 8 in Court.

(From Equality California, a liberal activist conscientious progressive group.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM

Mousethief mentions the death penalty

I did? Where?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:37 AM

Amos......Are you really tryin to contend that all should have the same "civil rights".....regardless of behaviour?

This is patently untrue. Many minorities have their "rights" curtailed because of health or safety issues.

Rights are assigned by pressure groups, not "democratic govt"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:59 AM

Ebbie.."You appear to never miss a beat in bashing liberals, which I must say, brings your own 'leftist' leanings into question. .."

You are quite wrong Ebbie, those who bring left politics into disrepute ARE the "liberals".....a group of people who whine about the conditions of minorities, yet have no intention of facing up to the real problems of society and the corporate system.

Pseudo lefties,   the chattering classes, they don't want "change" at all!.......how dare they attempt to compare themselves to Dr King or those who took real risks in supporting him.

The recovery to reasonable health of "Fidel" in Cuba has made me very happy, like it or not, Fidel's regime is the closest thing to socialism we are likely to see in our lifetime.

Fidel should be an inspiration to all left thinking people.....but could never, and would never wish to be termed a "liberal"....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:10 AM

You are so full of it- unlike Amos, I don't say that with the deepest respect because in my opinion you are a sadly deluded person.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:28 AM

Mousethief mentions the death penalty

I did? Where?

Ah. No reply. You must realize you were lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM

'T is better by far to be liberal than to be obsessively illiberal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM

"'T is better by far to be liberal than to be obsessively illiberal."

And heaven knows that these days we are either one or the other in each others eyes.

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:41 PM

Nicely put, Guest David. It is a good question how we have been induced to generate such antagonistic costumes for each other!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:29 PM

Apologies mousethief, dont know how I linked you with the remark...maybe it wasn't on this thread.
It had to do with the idea that a majority would favour the return of the death penalty for murder.

I never intentionally lie on this forum or in real life...you little snake!

Guest D....I like your posts...hope you stick around and become a member

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:58 AM

An interesting legal question has been pointed out, namely, that there may be no appellant to the Supreme Court to defend Prop 8 who would also have legal standing to do so in the Court's eyes:

article here explains why.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM

John P: "Akenaton, please describe in great detail how denying civil rights to gay people based on their membership in a group NOT OF THEIR CHOOSING is any different than denying civil rights to black people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing."

John P: " Please back up every assertion you make with facts, including scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals."

John, can you do the same?????? PROVE, that it is the same!
Can you back up your position???
We KNOW that it is NOT genetic, That's been beaten around earlier in this thread.....So, what is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM

We know no such thing, Madam. Some of us believe we know as much; others of us accept the ongoing scientific process reported inn peer-reviewed journals (some mentioned upthread) which offer no such hard conclusion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM

I know lots of gay people. I've asked them how they "became" gay. ALL of them report being gay right from when they first became sexually aware, or horribly conflicted until they finally realized/admitted they were gay. No where in any of that is any choice.

gfs, do you remember when you were 12 or 13 or whenever you first became interested in members of the opposite sex? Was there any chance at all that you would pay attention to members of the same sex instead? Did you have any choice in the matter? Do you really think there's a bunch of 13 year olds wracked with hormones and coming to grips with being a sexual being who are saying, "Gee, I think I'll be gay! All those raging hormones that are pointing me towards girls can be ignored! I'll pay attention to other little boys instead!"

Besides, even if it were a choice, where do you get off telling other people what to do in bed? I know, I know, they can do anything they like in bed, yadda yadda yadda. But you support punishing them for it by insisting that they remain second class citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:27 PM

So, what both of you are saying is that nobody has a reason, or proof that it is genetic...which I agree!...So, it may, in fact be behavioral, right?

Comparing it to 'left-handed/right-handed' is therefore, not true, being as that is genetic..comparing it to blacks, also genetic, again not true.

OK, just checking........

(Hint: It has to do with receptors).....which is not a 'civil rights' issue....but a behavioral one)...That is a FACT!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM

Well put, John.

I'll check in again in another thousand posts or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:45 PM

I didn't say any such thing, gfs. Nor did I imply it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM

That's not at all what I am saying. Are you off your freaking meds?

I don't have time to do your homework for you just now. But don't twist words.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

GfS: ...So, what BOTH of you are saying...."

What I meant by BOTH, is that between you, you are equating a 'civil right' issue, (genetic), to a behavioral(non genetic) issue.

Different animal.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:04 PM

It is in fact a matter of civil rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM

How so??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM

A civil status is being unequally administered on the basis of a pre-judgement concerning a personal attribute. The civil status needs to be administered equitably. What is so hard to understand about that? We are not talking about religion or any other form of sanctimony, thank you. We are talking about civil statuses and who may enjoy them or not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:53 PM

"We KNOW that it is NOT genetic, That's been beaten around earlier in this thread.....So, what is it???"

No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't. But there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that gender orientation IS genetic. The specific gene or genes have not been isolated yet, but the basic principles of genetics established by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century definitely point to this being the case.

I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be. Only a small percentage of genes in general have actually been isolated and identified as to their function, and the project is on-going. Trying to claim that gender-orientation is not genetic is way premature and no reputable geneticist would ever make that claim.

No matter how much you, personally, wish it to be true.

Also, attempts to "cure" homosexuality have been a dismal failure, usually resulting in high rates of recidivism, or recipients of these "cures" simply abandoning sexual activity entirely, which is hardly evidence of a successful cure. A fairly large percentage of the latter wind up suffering from serious depression, and there has been a fairly high rate of suicides by supposedly "cured" homosexuals.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

Amos Lightfoot: "A civil status is being unequally administered on the basis of a pre-judgement concerning a personal attribute.

Civil status, such as marriage, can not be with held do to race, creed, or color. Civil status, and the statutes regarding them are determined, by democratic process. That vote has never passed.

Perhaps we should be run by the courts, and their interpretation?...and if that was the case, under what grounds do you make an exception? Race, creed or color?? Preference??..of any kind??

Nobody, even our illustrious Mr. Firth, has been able to produce ANYTHING in which Homosexuals, should get preferential treatment, and/or exceptions to the law.

Donny Firth: "No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't. But there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that gender orientation IS genetic. The specific gene or genes have not been isolated yet, but the basic principles of genetics established by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century definitely point to this being the case.

I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be."


That is speculation. Since when have 'civil rights' issues, regarding the law, are passed on speculation?????

You need to do a bit better....shit, let's speculate that 2012 everything is going to be destroyed..and pass a law that we party till then, at government expense!!..EQUALLY!!

Nope!..Bad foundation to build a case on!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:05 PM

You know, after I posted my last post, I re-read Firth's again...let me comment:

First: ""No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't.""

Just think about your statement..."WE do NOT know"...so in my mind I don't want to believe it?????
Actually, I'd rather believe in what we DO know!!..How about you, Mr. Fantasy?

Mr. Fantasy First: "I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be."

Now you're a 'geneticists'....I thought you were a radio news guy, who just read what they gave you??....When did you promote yourself?..or is that just more of your 'fantasy speculations'?????

I can't believe that you want to go through this again...but then, just because it's you, maybe you do!!!

(Symptoms of psychotic, includes doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results...in other words, They just don't learn, from repeated mistakes!!)

Suggestion: Relax, just read the mail.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:26 PM

Rave on, little critter. There is ample evidence that gender orientation is indeed genetic to make the civil rights issue valid. You can be as snotty and insulting as you want, but it still doesn't make you right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM

I wasn't being 'snotty'...I was quoting you...and trying to make sense of it.

Look, chances are the 'marriage' ban will be lifted, but it would only come as a twisting of the law, as it stands. It doesn't make it right, but it IS agenda driven...not by rule of law.

That's what is called 'corruption'!

OK, back to your genetics research, Doc!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM

actually.....research HAS closed in on the issue

and more

Took me 15 seconds to find 2 quick articles. Many others out there...yes, including from those who do not WISH to believe the science, just as they do not WISH to believe in Global Climate Change caused by humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:32 PM

Wow. Interesting finding. Especially: "By using all these variables, we were able to predict sexual orientation in 95 per cent of the cases," she said.

It sounds like they are zeroing in on it.

I have a friend who is gay, as is his sister. Their brother is not.

Interesting stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:08 PM

Ah-HAH!!!

Try THAT on your little ukulele, GoofuS!!

Thanks, Bill! I felt sure they'd nail it sooner or later.

Don Firth

P. S. And you were being snotty, GfS. And childishly so. The idiot games you keep playing with my name when your back is against the wall is worthy of a petulant second grader.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:35 PM

GfS- What age were you when you chose to be heterosexual? You must surely remember such a momentus decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:43 PM

Besides-- what is special privilege about the right to have one's union with another recognized under law? We of the hetero persuasion take it for granted as a right.

Why should it be denied on the basis of sexua orientation?

And why are we doing Groundhog Day on this discussion?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 11:36 PM

That link was no more PROOF that it is genetic than the Popsicle man going by. Don Firth's posted link earlier was a study done after, the date on the link, posted more recently. That study confirms that it has not been isolated to a gene,..and it was done by a homosexual researcher. For that, I give him credit, for not having his outcome determined by his 'preference'.

As to the law, a black man and woman heterosexual, having a child,will have a black child....But in your thinking, a hetero man, and a hetero woman, will bear a combination of mutated cells, grouped together, to make a homosexual. THAT is the sticking point, boys and girls...and California is delaying lifting the ban, as of yesterday, because that very issue has been raised, among others, and now the Constitutionality is being challenged. The Ninth Federal Appeals Court agrees, and now the question goes on.

So, AH-HA, nothing. You are prematurely reading into what the link is saying, and the courts have not found that argument to be conclusive.

However, as I have said before, and continue to say, and I am accurate, the receptors can be conducive in grouping genes together,
in the womb, depending on the Mother, and her responses, and emotional state(if you will). The Mother and child are linked together, and those impulses are set up, during gestation.

Now, I've said that before, and whether or not homosexuality is looked upon as a moral issue as not, does not change that FACT!.
Can the same be said about pedophiles? ....or polygamists?....bestiality??..celibates??...necrophiliacs?...any number of sexual 'preferences'. It's just that this one has everyone emotionally whacked over it.

I'm sure the courts will have all that at their disposal.....until then.....

Objectively,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 11:56 PM

Seems clear ya don't know much about recessive genes or adaptation.

In any case, there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that it is not a matter of an act of will. So why legislate against it? That's just stupid, like legislating against tooth decay.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:03 AM

"Now, I've said that before, and whether or not homosexuality is looked upon as a moral issue as not, does not change that FACT!.
Can the same be said about pedophiles? ....or polygamists?....bestiality??..celibates??...necrophiliacs?...any number of sexual 'preferences'. It's just that this one has everyone emotionally whacked over it."

You cannot possibly lump all those together. It would be too insanely ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:47 AM

Where do bisexuals stand in all of this, is it the genes or a case of having their cake and eating it as well so to speak?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 10:18 AM

Like most other things in this world, sexual orientation is a spectrum, with some people completely one or the other and most people somewhere in between. Bisexuals are closer to the middle of the spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM

That is the most idiotic post I've read for some considerable time, 10:18am.
Homos and Bis are compose a tiny part of the "spectrum", the vast majority are heterosexuals,with normal sexual impulses.

If that were not the case, prospects for the continuation of the human race would be bleak indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:31 AM

Your VAST majority is typical distribution along a Gaussian curve, Ake. A bell-curve. JP's point is probably true--pure hetros are the ctral peak of the bell, and bi-sexuals to either side. It depends, of course on what you are charting and how you go about it. Nothing idiotic about it!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

Sanity is perfectly correct, if the scientists were anywhere close to isolating a homosexual gene, it would be trailed across the "liberal" media daily. It just does not exist, if it did exist, it would be the simplest thing in the world to isolate, given the "progress" made in genetic research over the past decade.

Sanity is also correct to question why "rights" should be granted to one behavioural minority and not all.

Marriage rights are denied to couples in incestuous relationships and many other types of sexual relationships...health grounds are cited.....I would submit that incestuous sexual relationships if not used for the production of children, are much less dangerous to health than the lifestyle of the average homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

You are quite right, but the avoidance of fertility is much harder to guarantee in incestuous marriages. Both my sisters were quite fertile, for example. (Not that I was even tempted!) SDame sex marriages are quite safer. And I woudl say to you once again that you really need to differentiate -- the health hazard is not caused by marriage and in fact is lessened by it. So you are defeating your own bias here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:48 PM

"That is the most idiotic post I've read for some considerable time, 10:18am.
Homos and Bis are compose a tiny part of the "spectrum", the vast majority are heterosexuals,with normal sexual impulses.

Good grief! JohnP's post didn't claim anything about total numbers!
"closer to the middle of the spectrum" refers to the position, relative to other configurations.

Of course, heterosexuality in more common! Genetics just determines occasional variations, like white tigers and very tall people!

Ake and GfS strike me as persons who are emotionally sure they know the 'truth', and therefore shove everything they read into some logical pattern that 'fits' what they are already convinced of.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM

"A safe lifestyle"?.....I think not

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:10 PM

Sorry, try again

Link to article

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:21 PM

C D C F A C T S H E E T
1 JUNE 2010
FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED...."HIV and AIDS among
Gay and Bisexual Men....CDC JUNE 2010.
Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all
races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in
which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of
new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000
MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
t MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Black
MSM
White
MSM
Black
Heterosexual
Women
Black
Female
IDUs
Hispanic
Heterosexual
Women
White
Heterosexual
Women
Black
Male
IDUs
Hispanic
MSM
Black
Heterosexual
Men
13,230
10,130
5,360
7,340
3,290
2,310 2,010 1,910 1,470
number of new hiv infections
subpopulation
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
Estimates of New HIV Infections, 2006, by Race/Ethnicity, Risk Group, and Gender for the Most Affected U.S. Subpopulations*
*Subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this chart.
Gay and bisexual men of all races and black heterosexuals account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
1 The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection,
rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
C D C F A C T S H E E T
2 JUNE 2010
t According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any
other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected
subgroups in the U.S.
t The primary ages at which MSM become infected differ by race:
• Young Black MSM: Most new infections among black MSM occur among young black MSM. In fact, there are more
new HIV infections among young black MSM (aged 13–29) than among any other age and racial group of MSM.
The number of new infections among black MSM in this age group is roughly twice that of their white and Hispanic
counterparts (5,220 infections in blacks vs. 3,330 among whites and 2,300 among Hispanics).
• White MSM in their 30s and 40s: Most new infections among white MSM occur among those aged 30–39 (4,670),
followed by those aged 40–49 (3,740).
• Young Hispanic MSM: Among Hispanic MSM, most new infections occur in the youngest (13–29) age group (2,300),
though a substantial number of new HIV infections also occur among those aged 30–39 (1,870).
White Black Hispanic†
13–29
30–39
40–49
>50
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
–
Estimated Number* of New HIV Infections in Men Who Have Sex with Men, by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group,
United States, 2006
* Incidence estimates are adjusted for reporting delays and reclassification of cases reported without a known risk factor for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but not for underreporting
† Non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks are referred to as white and black, respectively. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race
Note: The "I" bars denote the data range for each confidence interval
t A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected
did not know it.
• Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with
HIV than other MSM.
• Among all of those who were infected, about half were unaware of their HIV status. Results were particularly
alarming for black MSM and young MSM, with more than two-thirds of infected black MSM, and nearly 80 percent
of infected young MSM (aged 18–24), unaware that they were infected.
t AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 279,000 MSM
with AIDS have died.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM

Yes, Ake...those are **statistics** which may be fact..(I haven't any opinion on the details),,..

But those statistics, even if they are absolutely accurate, have no bearing on morality, or who ought to be allowed to marry...etc.

They DO tell you that you should be careful taking a chance on wild one-time experiments with known persons in certain categories.. ☺ ... you will be careful, hmmm?

They also make clear that those IN such categories should be very, very careful of specific behavior and habits.

I'm sorry, but you have at some point jumped from something YOU don't like and disapprove of, to judgments about character or morality.

...and there ARE statistics that make clear that gay men in monogamous, stable relationships as close to marriage as they can manage are far less likely to contract AIDS...less even than many straight folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 04:57 PM

If some sexual minorities are disallowed "rights"on health issues, why should the demographic with the wost record on sexual health be granted those "rights"

It is also illogical to extrapolate that I "don't like" (hate) homosexuals, from my stance against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe and normal lifestyle,

I am sorry that the behaviour associated with homosexual practice has such a devastating affect on the lives of so many young men.

I am angry with political factions which are happy to see the suffering continue for their own selfish purposes(the pretence that all is well in the homosexual community), to justify "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:08 PM

Preventing kids with four arms and sexually transmitted diseases are both "health" issues in completely different ways. They're not the least bit related. Even if they were, letting gays marry makes for LESS risk of STDs, not more. Unless -- wait, I know your prejudices well. You're going to say that those queers just can't keep it in their pants even if they are married. (Unless heteros, who are perfectly monogamous.) Why did I bother to type this? A tiger can't change its spots and a homophobe can't change its prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:09 PM

I thihnk it goes without saying that promiscutiy mukltiplies the vectors of STDs in ANY population.

Marriage, of course, tends to reduce the rate of promiscuous sexual encoutners and reduce dramatically the number of partners.

It should be obvious even to you, therefore that allowing same sex couples to marry is a good act of social betterment, no?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

Bill......."and there ARE statistics that make clear that gay men in monogamous, stable relationships as close to marriage as they can manage are far less likely to contract AIDS...less even than many straight folks."

I see nothing logical in that statement.

The statistics from Scandinavia which I linked to way further up the thread prove conclusively that the vast majority of homosexuals have no wish for monogamy or marriage, the take up rate is extremely low, you are simply cherry picking a few cases, whereas the stats say that for the majority of homosexuals, promiscuous hedonism goes with the territory.

"Monogamous homosexuals are less likely to contract AIDS than many straight folks".....not very concise or scientific is it Bill?

Looks a little like personal opinion(or belief) to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM

The statistics from Scandinavia which I linked to way further up the thread prove conclusively that the vast majority of homosexuals have no wish for monogamy or marriage, the take up rate is extremely low,

So if so few are going to get married anyway, what harm is there in letting them do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

I'll tell you what the "harm" is!
The "harm" is the unnecessary sickness and death of thousands of young men, simply because it is not in the interests of the "liberal" lobby to investigate properly the obvious link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids

Richard Bridge and his ilk would call a proper medical inquiry.....oppression!

I call allowing young people to die for political advantage murder!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

My Gawd, GfS and Ake! You two guys are pathetic! All the facts in the world and you two clutch onto your beloved misconceptions all the harder. It's like trying to reason with a couple of rocks!

Waste of time. Live on in ignorance. But be aware that, like flat-earthers, no matter what you want to believe, the world is not the way you wish it were.

####

I remember an old movie cartoon, one of Wile E. Coyote's first appearances. Rather than the roadrunner, Wile E.'s quarry was Bugs Bunny. Not really an even match in the brains department! At one point, having been flummoxed several times by Bugs, Wile E. was sitting in a dynamite shack and making booby traps by boring out the middle of carrots and stuffing them with dynamite.

Suddenly, the shack begins to shudder, as if there were an earthquake. Wile E. looks out the one window, but he can't see anything in the dark. He goes back to work. But what you see is that Bugs has the shack hooked up to a tractor and he's dragging it onto the railroad tracks.

A few minutes later, as Wile E. continues making booby traps out of carrots, he hears a train whistle, very loud! Again, he looks out the window and sees the light from a locomotive engine swiftly bearing down on him!

He turns and looks at the audience with a silly, nervous smile and beads of perspiration breaking out on his brow, then reaches out and pulls down the window blind.

Then— Ka-BOOM!!!

Think of it this way, GoofuS and Ake:    You are Wile E. Coyote. Bugs Bunny represents Facts. The train is the Real World!

You two make quite credible cartoon figures.

But when you want to deny a whole category of people their civil rights, you're not all that amusing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 07:07 PM

Mousethief you seem to be saying(correct me if i'm wrong), that homos are no more promiscuous than heteros?

If this is your belief, would you mind explaining to me why homos are 44times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heteros....is there some other vector?.....Do you know something that we do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

Mousethief you seem to be saying(correct me if i'm wrong), that homos are no more promiscuous than heteros?

No, I am not. That's what you think I'm saying because that's the only claim you have an answer to. Allowing gays to marry is NOT going to make them any more promiscuous, and arguably will make them less so. Hence the level of "health" harm is at least a wash. Hence there is no good reason to deny them this right.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 09:27 PM

Within my wider social circle (including church), there are some five gay male couples who have been in stable relationships for years, in one case, over thirty-five years. At least two of these couples were married in church ceremonies, and are considered married by their church and their friends, whether the laws of the State of Washington recognizes their marriages or not.

One gay man is a member of the writers' group my wife and I belong to, and he and his partner have been together in a stable relationship for at least five years that I know of.

None of them has HIV/AIDS.

####

I find the only web sites that substantiate Ake's figures and GfS's contention that gender orientation is a matter of choice, hence curable with therapy, are sites such as NARTH, "the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," and a number of religious sites, including the Mormon Church, which was largely behind California's Propostition 8, and which also tried to push a proposition in Washington State to overturn a recently passed law allowing same-sex domestic partnerships. It lost in the election. Some of the anti-gay web sites are downright rabid, and display little regard for scientific evidence or rational thought. Not unlike our resident homophobes.

Two questions usually raised by opponents of the genetic basis of same-sex orientation:   since homosexuals rarely if ever sire or bear children, why doesn't homosexuality simply die out? The opponents maintain that this proves that homosexuality is not genetic, but a matter of choice. And why is it that the "homosexual gene" seems to be so elusive? Because, they maintain, it doesn't exist. Marked differences in brain structure in homosexual males has been established, but this fact is simply ignored.

Okay, both questions are answered by the fact that the "homosexual gene" is carried by one or more females in the family into which the homosexual male is born. And the gene in question seems to relate to an inconsistency, or "mis-timing," in when particular hormones are released to the male fetus when the female in question is pregnant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 02:45 AM

The figures I presented, are not "mine" but were gathered by The Centre for Disease Control.

Are you saying that their statistics and conclusions are incorrect?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM

Are you saying that their statistics and conclusions are incorrect?

No, I'm saying your conclusions are incorrect. The story you posted doesn't draw any conclusions at all about gay marriage. In fact it doesn't make any distinctions at all as concerns gay men in or out of long-term relationships. It's just not intended to answer that question. Or, to put it bluntly, it's irrelevant.

It says MSM are most likely to get HIV/AIDS. Ya-boo. What a surprise. But let's put our thinking caps on. Which MSM are most likely to contract AIDS, the men who are in monogamous, long-term relationships, or the ones who are not? Hmm. Hmm. This is hard. Can I use my lifeline?

But the study doesn't differentiate between men in long-term relationships, or not. Or indeed doesn't talk about any walk-of-life decisions at all. Nor does it support your view that if we allow gays to marry, it will increase the number of them contracting HIV/AIDS.

In fact, when it comes right down to it, this data has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of gay marriage. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Nichyego.

Why? Because it's just about MSM as an undifferentiated group. But the question of gay marriage has to do with differentiation: gay men who want to be married and monogamous, and gay men who do not.

And yes, I know, you've said there are all too few gay men who really want to be married. And I keep asking you why that's relevant, and you keep not answering.

In fact you have given no reasons whatsoever why gay men who wish to, shouldn't get married. None. Not one.

And of course nothing you have to say has anything at all to say about whether Lesbians should be able to get married, because Lesbians' incidence of AIDS is so low as to be irrelevant.

Not that MSM's incidence of AIDS has anything to do with it either -- sorry to be sloppy about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 04:21 AM

Mousethief I agree that gays should be allowed to marry to lessen the risks of HIV. There is every possibility if two men really love and respect each other they would not want to risk their relationship by being unfaithfull the same as a faithfull hetero one. In a hetero relationship there is no guarantee about anyone's orientation or faithfullness men are very good at being secretive. For instance if the husband has been a closet gay for most of a hetero marriage and goes out seeking rent boys etc. unbeknown to his wife surely this is far more dangerous. This is one of the reasons I sort of distrust bisexuality because if the bisexual is promiscuous as well, be it man or woman surely that is like a ticking bomb waiting to go off.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 07:01 AM

You completely misunderstand my stance mousethief, either because you are slightly dim, or intentionally.

As I have said many many times, I am not anti homosexual that would be illogical, as homosexuals are a fact of life.

I have always been against the promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy and normal lifestyle by "liberal" govts, and "gay marriage" is part and parcel of that promotion.

The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.

We need an inquiry now into the link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids......normalisation of that practice will delay that inquiry and lead to more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:32 AM

promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy and normal lifestyle

First of all, for many people, it is. Furthermore, your revulsion about the lifestyle is not of standing regarding the civil rights issue.

It has nothing to do with promoting an issue and everything to do with setting a standard of equitable regard for human beings under the law.

I think your revulsion is exagerrated and under-informed, but its irrelevant in any case to the legal issue.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:04 AM

Amos my friend, please stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that I was revolted by the lifestyle....I am revolted by the deaths which it seems to cause, and the people who appear to think that the granting of equal rights makes up for those deaths.

You talk of equality, yet only a few posts ago we discussed the unequal treatment of sexual minorities.

The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated.

Homosexual marriage would not improve the aids figures to any significant degree, and by the process of normalisation of a very dangerous lifestyle ensure that the deaths continue at an ever increasing rate.

If this rate of infection among male homosexuals continues, an inquiry will be forced upon us, but in the meantime,young men will still be dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:06 AM

And finally, there is no "promotion" involved in the civil issue. What is being "promoted" is equality under civil law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

Ake does not seem to be making any real argument whatsoever against gay marriage. He just opposes it because he opposes it. Legalizing gay marriage will tend to lessen the spread of HIV/AIDS rather than increase it, so if he is really concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDs, he should be all in favor of promoting stable, monogamous relationships instead of opposing them. He therefore contradicts himself and gives the lie to his stated claims.

And the argument that GfS advances for prohibiting gay marriage is spurious in the extreme. He says that allowing gay marriage will deny gays the right to seek therapy for their "perversion." But gay marriage doesn't deny anybody anything. If anyone wishes to seek therapy, gay marriage certainly does not prevent them from doing so. He wishes to force people into therapy, whether they feel they need it or not. By what right?

It all boils down to simple homophobia. And their revulsion and disapproval is simply their problem, nobody else's. Not a good enough reason to deny a selected group of people their civil rights.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM

Sorry, ake, I'm not dim, but I think maybe you are after reading this:

The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated.

Um, so if only 10% of all Americans said they wanted "X" -- would that prove that the demand for "X" wasn't driven by those 10%, but by politics? That's stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 09:58 PM

"The fact that the take-up rate for homosexual marriage is so low, proves that the issue is not driven by homosexuals themselves, but is politically motivated."

Ake, when the gay marriage law was passed in California, some 18,000 gay couples got married before Proposition 8 was put forward (by the Mormon Church and other out-of-state religious groups) and passed*. And if the "take-up rate" seems small, the fact that most states don't allow it might have a lot to do with that.

And--the issue is not being driven by some "liberal cabal," it is being driven by homosexual men and women themselves, many of whom go ahead and have marriage ceremonies, often in churches, as a simple declaration--whether the local law recognizes their marriage or not.

The civil rights issue comes in because gay married couples, even though their friends, family, and churches recognize them as married, are not granted the same legal rights and privileges granted by the state to heterosexual married couples.

* And the fact that Prop. 8 was passed by a narrow margin of voters does not mean that Constitutional Democracy was truly in action. Civil rights issues should never be a matter of popular vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 12:20 PM

This is my stance in a nutshell...what do you not understand about it?

None of our opponents has even addressed it. I will repeat it for the final time, an say no more until someone posts more misleading rubbish.


"The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.

We need an inquiry now into the link between homosexual practice and hiv/aids......normalisation of that practice will delay that inquiry and lead to more deaths.

"Gay marriage" is part of the normalisation process."......Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 01:51 PM

Homosexual encounters do not cause HIV, Ake; they are a vector for passing it on. Anything which reduces the number of MMS contacts will obviously reduce the frequency of that vector and lower the hIV statistics.

And let me remind you that the original development o f HIV was not among homosexuals but was a case of a transported Scot in Africa buggering a chimp because he could find no sheep and had forgot his Wellies. But, it was a female chimp--nothing odd about him...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

lol, Amos


ake, just in case you are counting, "when the gay marriage law was passed in California, some 18,000 gay couples got married", that means that 36,000 people got married. That is not an insignificant number. It is about 5,000 more people than the entire population of Juneau, the capital city of Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 02:19 PM

Ah, heck. 2400

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 03:38 PM

Once again, for the umpteenth time in the duration of this thread, Ake abandons all science and rational thought by reasserting the medieval belief of "spontaneous generation:    the idea the living creatures, such as insects, mice and rats, and miscellaneous other vermin (and as Ake seems to be postulating, viruses) are generated spontaneously under unsanitary conditions, without any kind of living forebears, such as parent organisms.

News Flash, Ake!!!!   Louis Pasteur conducted a number of rigorous experiments back in the mid-1800s that refuted this belief once and for!

The HIV/AIDS virus was essentially confined to African monkeys, and was transmitted to humans during the illegal poaching of primates for the "bush meat" trade. The virus is found in blood and other bodily fluids and is transmitted by this vector.

Not by homosexual activity per se.

One of the two people has to be infected already for the other to become infected by the virus. If there is no virus there to begin with, all the sexual activity of any sort between the two people in question will not create the virus.

This is basic epidemiology!!

Get it?

Reread this at least twenty times a day for as long as it takes for it to finally sink in.

(Of course Amos might have it right. Some horny Scotsman who happened to be in Africa, lovesick for his favorite flock of ewes [especially the one with the long eyelashes], turning to an infected monkey for solace. But the other monkeys observing this, wound up laughing among themselves and chattering, "Good grief! Of all the cutie-pies in the pack, he picked Ugly Myrtle!!")

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 04:12 PM

LOL, Don!!

Chongo was probably on the scene at the time...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 04:47 PM

So, has anyone gotten in the last word yet? ;-) Did I miss anything vital and unforgettable in the last few months? No? Okay, then. I'll check back in 2011. (Maybe sooner if I get really desperate for entertainment.)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 05:35 PM

"""The horrendous health statistics will never be improved while people in general see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle" and young men will continue to die in their thousands.""

Now who is putting words into other peoples' mouths?

There are just two on this forum who see homosexuality as "just another lifestyle".

The rest of us recognise that gay is not what they choose to be. It is what they ARE, like it or not, and no amount of twisting words, or pseudo scientific claptrap from you and Goofus will change that.

Given that fact, homosexuality is here to stay, and denying the right to marry is counterproductive in reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS, as well as discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation.

In pursuing that line of argument you are stepping almighty close to the legal definition of homophobic hate crime.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 06:25 PM

I dont know what causes hiv/ aids.

What I do know for a fact(because CDC says so) is that male homosexuals are 44times more likely to contract aids than heterosexuals...and the rate of infection is rising every year(homosexuals are the only demographic to show this ), among heterosexuals and even introvenus drug abusers, the rates of infection are falling.

If these rates of infection were to show in heterosexuals men or women there would be nationwide panic and a medical inquiry instigated immediatly.

Why is there no inquiry into homosexual infection rates as demanded by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian centre in 2006? How many have died since then?

The reason that there has been no inquiry, is that gay equality issues have become a "liberal" cause celebre.....and as the great Bill Shankly used to say, "liberalism" is not a matter of life or death....its much more important than that" (irony).

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 07:11 PM

I dont know what causes hiv/ aids.

HIV causes AIDS. HIV is a virus that attacks the human immune system. AIDS is a syndrome of secondary diseases that are able to attack the body because the immune system is weakened. At one time I could list all the diseases in the definition but alas that was 20 years ago and my brain isn't what it used to be. In fact I can't even remember what it used to be. Anyway you should learn at least the basics about this epidemic before you start spouting off about it.

There is no "investigation" into the numbers of AIDS cases in MSM because we already know why, what causes it, and what can be done about it. What more do you want to investigate?

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, no matter how many times you say that. If you say it again (and I know you will), that still won't make it true. Profligate sex with multiple short-term partners is a lifestyle, and one that greatly increases one's risk of contracting HIV (and many other sexually transmitted diseases).

And what lifestyle reduces risk of spread of the HIV? Why, monogamy! What a surprise, eh? Because "homosexuality" is not a lifestyle, and "monogamy" is! Amazing what logic and a dictionary can do for a person. I feel so edumacated.

Most large cities in the US (actually I'd wager all large cities and most medium-sized cities and population centers) have health initiatives already in place to reduce the cases of AIDS in MSM. (Well to be precise, lower the incidence. You can't do much about the prevalence at this time.) Some work better than others and none are 100% effective (as your statistics show). There are, however, many people both in and out of the gay community who are working like hornets to slow the spread of HIV. If you think they could do better, why not lend them a hand? I'm sure they could use your help, and that you could do a service, although small as but one person in a sea of people, to the cause. Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Go for it!

Impugning gay people's civil rights isn't going to reduce the epidemic. Really. Unless you lock them all up in a concentration camp and let them slowly die out (or kill them, I suppose). What will reduce the epidemic is education, safe sex procedures, and hopefully someday a vaccine. Inflaming public hatred and oppression of gays isn't going to help at all. At all. Really.

None of this of course will sink through. Nothing ever does. I might as well talk with a brick wall. Still I am nothing if not hopeful.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 08:49 PM

You know, Ake, I've been all through the CDC's web site, and I can't find your 44% figure anywhere!

Are you sure you didn't just pull that figure out of your . . . ear?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 10 - 09:49 PM

He gets it from places like this one, Don:

One of Several Places

I didn't check the CDC site for the stat.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 03:00 AM

Do you people bother to read the thread at all, or are you simply focused on branding all opposition "homophobic?

I have linked to the CDC figures for June 2010 three times just above, even printing them out specially for those who dont know which button to press.

Typical that this important information is not widely broadcast...one has to go looking for it.....If this information was carried out to the general public, I believe the process of normalisation would be perceived quite differently.

And you think the media dont have an agenda?.....aye right!!

Final time children! CDC AIDS FIGURES 2010

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 10:38 AM

OK. What do you propose be done about it? Are you on the front lines spreading the word and reminding young males to use proper protection against HIV?

Incidentally, do you have friends who are homosexual? Do you have friends that are HIV positive?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 06:20 PM

Without wishing to be objectionable Ebbie, I feel you have no right to ask these sorts of personal questions in a discussion like this.
If I decide to give out personal information,I shall do it voluntarily.
You would also be unwise to draw any conclusions from that response.

Homosexual behaviour has existed for millenea, it would be nonesensical to be "anti homosexual"

"liberalism" dictates that homos and heteros should be treated with absolute equality regardless of the fact that thousands of homosexuals are dying annually from a disease that nobody appears to fully understand....this mindset in defence of a political ideology is beneath contempt.

If the rate of infection amongst homosexuals continues to rise, while the rates in all other demographics are falling, I feel we have no alternative other than to instigate compusory testing of high risk groups with isolation, treatment and education made available....along the lines of the Cuban model.

People must be given the facts about homosexuality and Aids(isn't it disgraceful that these CDC figures were never published in the national press or national tv)

Only when people are made aware that something is badly wrong, can a start be made on tackling that wrong.
Perhaps the most distressing part of the CDC figures was the discovery that 80% of 18- 24 year olds who tested positive, did not know that they had been infected.
If compulsory testing is not brought in very soon, these young people will become a time bomb in the homosexual community.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 06:49 PM

"If the rate of infection amongst homosexuals continues to rise, while the rates in all other demographics are falling, I feel we have no alternative other than to instigate compusory testing of high risk groups with isolation, treatment and education made available....along the lines of the Cuban model.People must be given the facts about homosexuality and Aids..."

I agree with that statement. But when it comes down to it, we cannot force feed the information to every gay male We can - and should - make the information available, but we cannot force them to assimilate the information. As the CDC says, it is the young men who are engaging in the least protected risky behaviors- that is very much like a young male that drives too fast - in all likelihood he will have more accidents than the older driver, but he likely will not slow down until he is older. Youth has its own behaviors.

"isolating" them opens up a tremendous can of worms. What are you actually suggesting?   

"...(isn't it disgraceful that these CDC figures were never published in the national press or national tv)"

I don't know that they were not published in 'the national press or national tv". Do you? Surely you don't keep up with everything that is published in the American press? I am sure that I rarely see a news item from Scotland.

I'm going to post a separate item about homosexuality in Cuba. I find it hard to believe that you agree with their position.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 06:55 PM

Is this what you think the rest of the world should do? If so, I congratulate you.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/172.html

"In 1986, the Cuban government went through a rectification process (dubbed "a return to Che") in which it assessed the impact of the social and economic model of the Soviet Union in Cuba. The Cuban leadership made a conscious effort to combat and turn away from what they saw as mistakes the Soviet Union had committed in stifling democracy.

"Since 1986, the Cuban state has consciously tried to counter homophobia. Ian Lumsden, in his book Machos, maricones and gays, says there is "little evidence to support the contention that the persecution of homosexuals remains a matter of state policy".
In 1993, a sex education workshop was held in Cuba on homosexuality. Cuban physician Celestino Alverez explained that all laws regarding homosexuality had been repealed and that homophobia was a question of "prejudice, not persecution".

"In 1993, Fresas y Chocolate (Strawberries and Chocolate), a film criticising Cubans' intolerance of homosexuality, was produced by the government-run Cuban film industry (which can only afford to produce three or four films a year). In 1995, Cuban drag queens led the annual May Day procession, joined by two queer delegations from the US, one from the New York Center for Cuban Studies and the other from the Bay Area Queers for Cuba.

"The US activists joined with members of Cuba's Action Group for the Liberation of Sexual Choice and Expression to carry a 10-metre piece of the rainbow flag from the June 1994 Stonewall celebration in New York. They were cheered by Cubans who lined the streets.
The improvement in Cubans' attitudes to homosexuality are documented in the 1995 film Gay Cuba, which combines interviews with gay men and lesbians, government officials and average citizens, with musical performances and gay pride parades. The interviews which form the core of the film show that the changes in government policy and the opening of channels for the discussion and celebration of different sexualities have allowed gay Cubans today to lead much more open lives."

Earlier:

"During the 1980s, Cuba was also criticised for quarantining people with HIV. After much public discussion in Cuba, the incarceration law was lifted in 1993 and HIV patients enjoy free health care and housing, and full wages if they're able to do some work. In contrast to capitalist countries where most people with HIV struggle to afford decent medication, all HIV patients have always received free, high quality medical care in Cuba."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 08:00 PM

The article you cite by Ellis, is simply a rant against "homophobia"
irrelevant to this discussion. The article was written in 1999 and the Aids and Hiv figure have worsened considerably since then.

I was referring to the period in which Fidel Castro introduced compulsory testing, compulsory treatment in sanatoria and sexual education, without these preliminaries, the relaxation of the rules we see today in Cuba could never have come about.

I note that since the partial liberalisation Aids figures have started to rise yearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM

"I was referring to the period in which Fidel Castro introduced compulsory testing, compulsory treatment in sanatoria and sexual education,"

Perhaps you should specify that you like Cuba's attitude toward the homosexual/HIV problem pre 1993. It appears you are not keeping up.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM

changing American attitudes (NY Times)

"A CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage — the first poll to find majority support. Other poll results did not go that far, but still, on average, showed that support for gay marriage had risen to 45 percent or more (with the rest either opposed or undecided).

"That's a big change from 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. At that time, only 25 percent of Americans said that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, according to an average of national polls."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 11:55 AM

Should have added this final paragraph:

"This trend will continue. Nationally, a majority of people under age 30 support same-sex marriage. And this is not because of overwhelming majorities found in more liberal states that skew the national picture: our research shows that a majority of young people in almost every state support it. As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting pool, it's likely that support will increase, pushing more states over the halfway mark."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 04:22 PM

"While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men."

Okay, Ake, fair enough. Pretty deeply buried, and I combed through an immense amount of material on the CDC web site without finding that. How much time did you spend?

Two points:   first of all, early on you kept implying that 44% of homosexual men have HIV/AIDS, which is patently untrue. As I said way up-thread when you posted that "data," the way you were phrasing it was as if you were saying something like "Of all victims of prostate cancer, 100% of them are men." Well . . . yeah! Doesn't tell you much, unless you include the fact that only men have prostates. So that statistic, the way you were expressing it, is meaningless.

Second point:   as has been said many times by many people on this thread—and which you keep blowing off—is that this rate of transmission is a product of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se. The option of allowing gay men (and Lesbian women) to form stable, monogamous relationships, i.e. same-sex marriage, with all the legal rights, privileges, and advantages that heterosexual married couples enjoy, could change those statistics dramatically. The many advantages would ipso facto provide an incentive to same-sex oriented folks to form such stable relationships. There is really no difference between gay men cruising the bath-houses and gay bars and heterosexual men cruising the singles bars. It's not a "gay" thing, it's a male thing.

You keep insisting that gay men don't want to form stable relationships like marriage. If this were true, then how do you account for the fact that during the brief time that the law allowing same-sex marriage in Californian was in effect, before an out-of-state religious organization carpet-bagged their way into California and put forth and financed Proposition 8, some 18,000 same-sex marriages took place in California. That's 36,000 individuals who opted for the stability and legal advantages of marriage.

So who is the villain here? Those who would encourage stable relationships, such as the "liberal cabal" that you seem to despise so much (including a very large percentage of same-sex oriented folks themselves)? Or the interfering religious and "family values" groups, and others who feel they have the right to cram their ideas of morality down other peoples' throats?

Unfortunately, Ake, that includes people such as yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 03:07 AM

Just got back from a major gig, so I've been away, for a week or so. Not going to go into this much, other than I read that some clown thought one could change a law of the land, and culture, with 'anecdotal evidence'...Sheesh, is that ignorance first class!!!!!

Second, its a good thing a lot of you aren't Judges. Your biases completely shroud the objectivity of the rule of law, and its intent.

That's all, folks.
To argue that, in depth, is to point out the shallowness, of one's thoughts.(if you could call them, that!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 03:20 AM

Don... I have never said, or implied that 44% of male homosexuals have AIDS.....How could anyone know that? One would have to test the who homosexual community.
The CDC figure extrapolate the incidence of the disease from various samples, the rates of infection are shown on the fact sheet.

My remarks concerning low uptake of homosexual marriage were based on the scandanavian study which I linked to.

After the legalisation, there was a rush of mainly female "marriages", this soon fell away and the take up rate is described as "disappointingly low".
The study also found that a large portion of these "marriages" were for tax, insurance, or benefit purposes.
In general terms, it was found that homosexual "marriage" lasted a much shorter period than hetero marriage.

Throughout this thread, I have been citing "male homosexuality", in which high rates of promiscuity appear to be indemic.

There appears to be no physical health problems attached to lesbian "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM

Oh, they were even in the shurb's white house offices! FROM HERE:

A FORMER head of the Republican Party says he wants to become an advocate for same-sex marriage, after coming out as gay.

Ken Mehlman, a former campaign manager for George W. Bush, acknowledged yesterday that he could have resisted more strongly anti-gay policies pursued by the Bush administration if he had come out earlier.

But the former director of White House political affairs and chairman of the Republican National Committee said it had taken him 43 years to "get comfortable with this part of my life".

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 10:44 AM

Two mothers are better than one, study shows.