California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Do not forget, this country was founded by those that may have had bigotry against Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, etc.

And the shortcomings of others justifies your own bigotry? I thought the declaration of independence stated, "all men are create equal"? Is that all without exception or all without distinction?

2 Replies

@RexRed,

According to Foofie, it's what she believes and opines on a2k is what counts. I agree with her; she can post all the bigoted posts she wants to on a2k; that's her legal and moral right to make herself out the fool she is.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

It's a question rl of whether homosexuality in men, and I'm not really concerned about women in this regard, is genetically determined at birth/ conception or whether it is learned. I'll even allow that our heterosexuality is learned.

The difficulty, it seems to me, arises when arguments defending those who are genetically determined are used to defend those whose homosexuality is learned. There is nothing to say about the former category assuming it exists.

But on the culturally conditioned aspects it seems to me that equating heterosexuality with homosexuality is bound to promote the latter because of the economic advantages it carries. To equate them, as I see it, is what I consider to be mass grooming and the simple fact that the minority is bound to be novel and thus exciting, as an attention grabber, and militant, cannot do other than increase homosexuality just as women wearing trousers socially became "normal" from a situation where it was considered daring. Or casually using obscene language has done to such an extent that kids use it.

It is not very easy for heterosexuals to use their heterosexuality as an attention grabber. They would look silly parading through the streets emphasising their heterosexuality. I'm not sure how they would do it.

The key period in the learning process is that when the sexual impulse is awakening. If it is seen by those in that age range (13-17 say) that they have the two as socially acceptable alternatives, and the opportunities which don't carry the very significant risks that heterosexual relationships do, one might say that they would be fools not to choose the homosexual route and the now guilt-free pleasures will condition them (Pavlov again) to becoming life-long homosexuals and thus provide an increasing number of younger sexual partners for those already established as homosexuals and who are organising the mass grooming I am envisaging.

Of course, once the normality and acceptabilty of homosexual relations is established they will cease to be novel and attention grabbing. They will become as trite and ordinary as heterosexual relations are now which I think would reduce their attractions. The front-running opinion formers will then have a vacuum on their hands.

2 Replies

Moved from the other thread.

Foofie wrote:

failures art wrote:

Foofie wrote:

failures art wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

OSD, You are a little man who is one of the most ignorant on a2k. AJAs fought in the Pacific in American intelligence that ended up saving many American lives and credited with winning the war against Japan. In Europe, the AJAs 442/100th battalion was the most decorated unit of any war that America was involved in.

I had two great uncles in the 442nd. The family is quite proud of this.

A
R
T

Ah, you seem to admit that having a family, that represents one's own biological family, has a value, as opposed to the belief, in the thread about gay marriage, that such concerns were not really important. Gotcha!

Swing and a miss, Foofie. My family includes my gay cousin. I'm proud of the things he's done with his life so far as well.

A
R
T

Gotcha again! Your "gay cousin" is a DNA related relative that you value as a DNA related relative. That is my point. People do value their DNA related family, not the Mr. Potato Head family trees that married gays would develop.

You only set yourself up for embarrassment Foofie. You don't know about the composition of my family, which has led to you make many dumb assumptions.

So you're little "gotcha!" is cute, but it is ignorant of the three siblings of mine which are adopted. It is ignorant of the fact my mother was married once before and that I have a half brother. None of these siblings are any less loved than my full-blooded sister.

My "potato head" family as you've so cutely called them, is no less a family as any other.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@spendius,

I do think that you are correct when you say that we learn from our environment, but I do suspect that there is alot more to it than that.
I try to search out all sides of subject matter, I listen to the church, science and my own observations of life. Not trying to bring up a sore subject but I do think that the catholic church teaches against homosexualality and that it has helped you to be who you are. [maybe not your sexual orientation]
I do have a question though. The same preist that preaches against it and then rapes the young boys, " did he not recieve the same message when he was a child, "that same message that he preaches? How about the boys that were taught [raped] by the priest did they all learn that it is better to be homosexaul?
Your quote [equating heterosexuality with homosexuality is bound to promote the latter because of the economic advantages it carries. ] Are you saying that you might consider homosexuality because of the economic advantages it carries. I would sure hope not.
I realy do not have all the answers on this matter but I do think that we could have a better understanding if we took a crash course on sexual biology. I am almost sure that there are some good youtube videos on sexual biology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&feature=related

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your opinion happens to be bigoted and contrary to the US Constitution; nobody here is trying to stop you from your postings here. We understand the Constitution; and about the freedom of speech.

My opinion is not "contrary" to the U.S. Constitution, since my opinion is only speaking for me and the U.S. Constitutuion is speaking for the United States. That fact is a non-sequitor. Why you point it out above is also a non-sequitor.

And, a synonym for a private citizen being "bigoted" is "discriminiating." I have every right to be discriminating. I have an extra cherry lollipop, and I choose not to give it to anyone who lives in California. Bigoted? No discriminating, and it is my right.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie, CLUE: Your speaking for yourself on the world wide web such as a2k "is not speaking for yourself." You impact the ideas and thoughts of other people, and most people with good will towards all men will challenge you.

Words can be inflammatory, offensive, or benign; if you don't understand the difference, you're living in la-la land.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Do not forget, this country was founded by those that may have had bigotry against Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, etc.

And the shortcomings of others justifies your own bigotry? I thought the declaration of independence stated, "all men are create equal"? Is that all without exception or all without distinction?

The Declaration of Independence was talking for the rationale for founding the United States. My bigotry is in context of my being a private citizen. That is fine. I do not have to invite certain people to my birthday party, so to speak, as a private citizen, regardless of the fact that "all men were created equal." As a private citizen, I do not have to treat these "equal men" equally. I can give a cherry lollipop to those I choose, and my rationale for not giving someone a cherry lollipop can be based on any rationale I choose, as a private citizen.

The "shortcomings of others justifies" my "own bigotry," since I am no better than those that founded this country and did the work to make this country great, before my family came here.

Some of youse guys do not seem to see that just because we were created equal does not mean that we, as private citizens, must treat everyone equally, since oftentimes there are traits that we do not care for that does, oddly, correlate with certain groups. As private citizens we do not have to associate with those groups. And, even more oddly, having been created equally, it is odd that we do not ACT equally; otherwise, everyone I meet should have gone to college, everyone I meet should be a veteran, everyone I meet should be polite. Nyet. That does not happen. Apparently, many of those created equally might not feel that we should act equally. So, to compensate for that lack of "equal acting," we can be discriminating as private citizens, and avoid many people, or at least not give them a cherry lollipop. Some people might misconstrue that for bigotry. It might be so, but it is our right, as a private citizen, and therefore the word bigotry is not a bad word for a private citizen, unless one is "bucking" for sainthood.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

So you're little "gotcha!" is cute, but it is ignorant of the three siblings of mine which are adopted. It is ignorant of the fact my mother was married once before and that I have a half brother. None of these siblings are any less loved than my full-blooded sister.

My "potato head" family as you've so cutely called them, is no less a family as any other.

A
R
T

The "love" in your family has nothing to do with my premise. I am just saying that while you do know where all members of your family came from, regardless of how they entered the family tree, the family tree from gay marriages could look like a pre-Columbus map of the world. One could literally fall off the end of it, and not know how each member got there. You do know where each member of your family tree came from. So, while I cannot now play "Gotcha!," I still have my premise validated.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foofie, CLUE: Your speaking for yourself on the world wide web such as a2k "is not speaking for yourself." You impact the ideas and thoughts of other people, and most people with good will towards all men will challenge you.

Words can be inflammatory, offensive, or benign; if you don't understand the difference, you're living in la-la land.

Who has "good will towards all men"? And, if one does, they should not challenge me, if they understand many of us are discriminating enough, as private citizens, to know that good will to all men is a non-sequitor, just civil behavior is required. Again, I need not give all men a cherry lollipop, since many men have chosen to not act equally, even though they were created equally. You seem to be confusing one's preferred behavior with some template of behavior that one might have learned from a Sunday sermon? We can all get along admirably, if we just act civil to each other. And, while being civil we can be discriminating as private citizens, and not give everyone a cherry lollipop. You do not seem to accept the reality that as private citizens the word bigotry can be a synonym for discriminating. But, we must act civil while being discriminating, and politely tell the person, "No cherry lollipop for you, because I do not care to know you. I do not associate with those of your background. Have a pleasant day."

You see, we do not do that, since we could anger someone by such honesty, and then our own safety might be jeopardized; however, there is nothing legally, nor ethically wrong with such honesty. In a prior time it might have been called being a snob.

0 Replies

When you deny someone equal rights, foofie, you are acting as a public citizen, not a private citizen. If you own cherry lollipops, you don't have to give them to anyone you don't want to. You do not, however, own rights. Therefore you have no right to deny them to others. Cherry lollipops make a truly silly analogy

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

The "love" in your family has nothing to do with my premise.

love is integral to why family has "value." So no, it has everything to do with it.

Foofie wrote:

I am just saying that while you do know where all members of your family came from, regardless of how they entered the family tree, the family tree from gay marriages could look like a pre-Columbus map of the world. One could literally fall off the end of it, and not know how each member got there.

You are not skilled at crafting metaphors. All of my adopted siblings know where they came from. Where they came from is less important than the fact that they are loved.

Foofie wrote:

You do know where each member of your family tree came from. So, while I cannot now play "Gotcha!," I still have my premise validated.

No, you have not had your premise validated. I'm sure you're stupid enough to think that it was.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

The "love" in your family has nothing to do with my premise. I am just saying that while you do know where all members of your family came from, regardless of how they entered the family tree, the family tree from gay marriages could look like a pre-Columbus map of the world. One could literally fall off the end of it, and not know how each member got there. You do know where each member of your family tree came from. So, while I cannot now play "Gotcha!," I still have my premise validated.

No, you really don't. Why wouldn't you know where people came from, in a gay-marriage family tree situation?

I've seen actual family trees that were created by gays who are married, as projects for a Family Relations class in my wife's graduate school. They look just like regular family trees. So yeah; you're completely and totally wrong.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I try to search out all sides of subject matter, I listen to the church, science and my own observations of life. Not trying to bring up a sore subject but I do think that the catholic church teaches against homosexualality and that it has helped you to be who you are. [maybe not your sexual orientation]
I do have a question though. The same preist that preaches against it and then rapes the young boys, " did he not recieve the same message when he was a child, "that same message that he preaches?

You really ought, rl, to at least make an effort to live up to your user name. You could be bringing reasoning logic a bad name.

First of all it is nothing to do with reasoning logic what you think. What you think is beside the point. Why you assume it's a sore subject I cannot imagine. I don't know what evidence I have offered which causes you to leap to a ridiculous conclusion as that in view of my participation in this thread.

How do I know what the effect of a Catholic education had on a few priests when they were in different countries, different schools, in different orders, had different backgrounds, had weaker wills and generally had had as different a conditioning as I had. How many people have been to Catholic schools.

And what makes you think it was my education by priests that helped to orient me. I had never heard of these things until I was 18. Thank goodness. I was a handsome boy and I might have fallen to the temptation to cream a few well off older men had I been tuned in. How do I know what would have happened if I hadn't turned left at the T junction that night I met Mrs Bancroft.

It was girls that oriented me mate. I've never had a male friend who I missed one iota when it came to a parting of the ways. I can't say that for my partings with certain ladies. Blokes were for economic usage. Like chisels and planes and information sources. Once girls got their hands on me they conditioned me a lot faster than Pavlov took to condition a ******* dog. At that time I hadn't a clue there was an alternative. I danced with the most awful scrubbers just to feel them and smell them. I didn't have a chance. It must be a good job being Elton John's squeeze despite not being able to plead the monthlies for 10 days in 28.

I thought all the priests were barmy. Do you seriously think I sat in my desk all agog to soak up their wisdom. I think a catholic school is an abstract concept to you. A figment of your imagination. Which seems to start with a few recalcitrant priests (a dead giveaway btw). I'm not interested in those silly sods. They should be locked up for a stretch with nothing to read but girlie mags as long as it's not unconstitutional as a cruel and inhumane punishment.

Quote:

How about the boys that were taught [raped] by the priest did they all learn that it is better to be homosexaul?

They might have done. It's not for me to say. Some of them might have sent out the right signals to get better marks or more toleration. I shouldn't think it's unknown. It's not PC to speak of that though.

Quote:

Are you saying that you might consider homosexuality because of the economic advantages it carries. I would sure hope not.

I'm at a loss why you would hope not. It's no skin off your nose is it?

But I've already answered the question but in case my meaning wasn't clear I allow I could have gone that way if circumstances had been different. My position is based on circumstances. On Nurture not Nature. And on that period in adolesence when we are a bit vulnerable. I presume you meant "had considered" rather than "might consider". In the present the situation doesn't arise. I might consider letting a chap poke me up the arse, with some Vaseline of course, for $200,000. Me poking him is not possible but I'd give it a try for the same amount. Is it clear now.

Right then-- the circumstances. Now the kids know all about it thanks to the new zeitgeist. I follow the money, as you should know. It's a principle to me, which I learned from a Miles Copeland book many years ago, that the changed zeitgeist has been changed for an economic purpose. "Who gains?"

If that video convinces anybody they shoul take a remedial course in scientific method. There are some videos on U tube on sexual biology assuming psychology is a branch of biology which materialists have to say it is.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendi wrote:

Quote:

I've never had a male friend who I missed one iota when it came to a parting of the ways. Blokes were for economic usage.

You are one sad human being who will never realize the love of a good friend in your lifetime.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Give over ci. (Takes out onion.) "Blokes are like carrots"--the professor said on TV--"cheap and plentiful and easily cooked. " Or as Alan Quatermain's son said--"There's plenty more where I came from."

You're such a sentimental old romantic aren't you? "MEN!!!!" Margaret Rutherford would say, "Baaah!!!!!!" with a most Godawful expression of contempt.

I went to a mate's funeral once. I thought "What the bloody hell am I doing here?" Never again.

0 Replies

@spendius,

My responses are in color

spendius wrote:

It's a question rl of whether homosexuality in men, and I'm not really concerned about women in this regard, is genetically determined at birth/ conception or whether it is learned. I'll even allow that our heterosexuality is learned.

You'll allow that heterosexuality is learned? Yes, so you can go on believing that homosexuality is not genetic... Some people are born whih two genitalia will you allow that as learned? How about if you allow that it is genetic considering the mass of scientific evidence proving it and quell your discrimination? When gay people are asked to smell other gay people's pheromones they "blindfolded" consistently choose another gay persons pheromones over a straight person or pheromones of the opposite sex. How is that learned? Maybe the devil is possessing them... (cynical)

The difficulty, it seems to me, arises when arguments defending those who are genetically determined are used to defend those whose homosexuality is learned. There is nothing to say about the former category assuming it exists.

You don't have to assume it exists just ask a gay person. How does one learn to be gay at three years old? Many of my perceptions were not even developed at that time but being gay was.

But on the culturally conditioned aspects it seems to me that equating heterosexuality with homosexuality is bound to promote the latter because of the economic advantages it carries. To equate them, as I see it, is what I consider to be mass grooming and the simple fact that the minority is bound to be novel and thus exciting, as an attention grabber, and militant, cannot do other than increase homosexuality just as women wearing trousers socially became "normal" from a situation where it was considered daring. Or casually using obscene language has done to such an extent that kids use it.

People, have been cursing since the first hammer or rock hit a fingernail... you can curse in 100 different languages but it is still cursing. How is cursing learned? You fall down and say oops or ouch! Heteros say "****" too.

It is not very easy for heterosexuals to use their heterosexuality as an attention grabber. They would look silly parading through the streets emphasising their heterosexuality. I'm not sure how they would do it.

How about heteros having sex on a park bench (it that emphasizing it enough) The internet is full of heteros having sex in every style imaginable. Or, as my neighbors do it by moaning and panting and screaming in pleasure several times a day in the bed that faces my living room window... How about homophobes throwing in gays faces we can't have kids where gays can have kids but we don't take making children as the priority but the love itself between the marriage. As you recall Michael Jackson fathered at least one child to my knowledge.. and he was as gay as is humanly possible... You haven't thought out any of these things you say, you (again) just repeat talking points...

The key period in the learning process is that when the sexual impulse is awakening. If it is seen by those in that age range (13-17 say) that they have the two as socially acceptable alternatives, and the opportunities which don't carry the very significant risks that heterosexual relationships do, one might say that they would be fools not to choose the homosexual route and the now guilt-free pleasures will condition them (Pavlov again) to becoming life-long homosexuals and thus provide an increasing number of younger sexual partners for those already established as homosexuals and who are organising the mass grooming I am envisaging.

Why an increasing number of partners? Homosexuals are demanding monogamy and marriage equality not more partners. You seem to easily forget what I have said I guess I need to repeat it several times... I was gay at three years old, I remember clearly several incidents where I was attracted to other male children of my age and even younger adults... Although, I was sheltered and never molested... and this occurred long before puberty and continued steadily to the present day, yet, I do not live a promiscuous lifestyle. I am a single gay person, I am disease free and I don't go to gay bars at all and I have had relations with about 4 different individuals in the last ten years and only a few times each while dating them long before sex ever came into the picture. You could call me a homosexual role model. This is not because I am ugly or gross (at least not on the outside hehe) but because I have class and I am old fashioned and I have respect for myself. Marriage is what I pray for. You don't think hetero prepubescent boys and girls don't go under the front porch and play doctor. Gosh you are wearing blindfolds.

Of course, once the normality and acceptabilty of homosexual relations is established they will cease to be novel and attention grabbing. They will become as trite and ordinary as heterosexual relations are now which I think would reduce their attractions. The front-running opinion formers will then have a vacuum on their hands.

In all respect to heterosexuals and/or yourself... You don't think, you just talk and what comes out is often nonsense. Please offer the same respect to homosexuals... You don't think hetero woman flashing their boobs in public is not attention getting? And what of the constant moaning outside my living room window? Even I can have sex without making a peep. Hetero teens used to be locked in a constant suck face during study halls and free periods in the high school I went to. You don't think hetero men on loud unbaffled Harlie's with woman on the backs like trophies descending on towns in mass for their drunkfests is not a hetero statement? And what of hetero porn and hooters are they not also hetero statements? Even your churches which exclude more so than not homosexuals are hetro statements. While you all pray to your god who condones stoning homosexuals to death. You seem to be in a fantasy world maybe you should step out of that ivory palace and come into the real world for a while before you make such blanket statement that have no basis in reality. How about a little bit of equality here? I don't care to flaunt my sexuality it is not my personal style, I have never once been to a gay pride parade and I am almost 50. I do care that I am treated fairly and equally under the laws of marriage equality. That is all I ask.

3 Replies

@spendius,

At least you seem to come across truthful regardless if it may seem hateful to others.
I see all of us to be different and we can not help being who we are just as a gay can not, "neither can you nor I" and this is why I do not try to take away their rights as long as they do no harm to me or others. This is a good one I hope you enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QObhuLxso

0 Replies

@RexRed,

You make me feel so under educated with your replies RexRed. Great post and well informed

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

You make me feel so under educated with your replies RexRed. Great post and well informed

It is not necessarily education, it is "passion" due to many years of being treated without much regard by society as a whole. I am not effeminate so much of the gay community mistakes me as a confused bisexual. So I really have no voice when it comes to other gays. I am gay so the straight community cannot really accept me either. So I have lived in no man's land. After so many years one becomes hardened and can detect the slightest bit of bigotry, racism, elitism, sexism etc... It is about having one charitable and honest self and remaining true to it through thick and thin.

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know