Prop 8 discussion....

[jeffislouie]

First of all, I am sick and tired of people saying that the vote for Prop 8 in california, which passed overwhelmingly, is a sign of hatred.  It isn't.  You don't have to hate gay people to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  I'm already starting to see the liberalistic blame/demonization game being played, much as it is when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

Get a clue folks.  You do not help your cause by calling people who disagree with you hateful.  It is not patriotic to get your issue on a ballot and riot when things don't go the way you want.

I've got a little news for those who think small thoughts like this:  get over it.  If you want to get married and are gay, you can accomplish far more by creating a new term that allows you to have the same rights as straight married couples without assaulting what is, essentially and historically, a religious concept.

As a person with many gay friends (the guys call me their husband and the girls make fun of me for having a penis), I can tell you that even some of them are split on the issue.  Sure, they all want the same rights as straight couples, but every one of them understands two things that the radical homosexuals don't seem to:
1)  When you lose a vote on your issue, freaking out is harmful, not helpful
2)  The term 'marriage' is rooted in religious ideology and is, therefore, not likely the right path to take towards equal rights.

Prop 8 passed by a wide margin.  This should inspire those who want to have long term, legal homosexual relationships with the same rights and benefits as straight relationships to find a better angle to pursue.  Wake up!  When the civil rights movement started, there were plenty of obstacles and loads of negative results.  They persevered, modified their approach, and stayed committed.  They did not riot.  They did not start calling everyone who disagreed with them racists.

It is not a good thing to start calling people who disagree with gay marriage hate-filled, especially when such an overwhelming majority voted for Prop 8.  You CANNOT win people over to your position if you start by insulting them.

I believe in the rights of gay people to have committed long term relationships with all the benefits (and detriments) of straight marriage.  I think that gay divorces will help shape divorce law, which is unabashedly skewed in favor of women.  I think gay people deserve to be just as miserable as straight people who get married.

But I still am quite sure that calling it a 'marriage' isn't going to work.  Ever.

Change the terminology and you have a shot.  Riot, attack religious institutions, act like lawless out of control maniacs, and behave like petulant children who didn't get their way and you will fail.  The worst part of the strategy that is in place now is that it is creating more anger and resentment towards the gay community and proving the electorate that you don't deserve what you want.

Malcolm X preached violence as a means for change and it failed.  Then he changed his mind and made some of the most fascinating explorations into race relations in the history of mankind.  And was killed for it.  By black people who disagreed with his new, more peaceful approach.  And history shows that it was Dr. Martin Luther King who was more responsible for civil rights advances.

Wake up, California gays - stop acting like the law doesn't matter and everyone hates you.  Learn to behave like adults.

The fact remains that state's still have a constitutional right to make their own decisions.  The electorate has spoken.  Deal with it.  Inspire yourselves to adapt and create a new way to attack an old issue.

Proceed with the hatred of ol' Jeff.  I can't wait to read the comments that accuse me of homophobia and hatred....

[Kasserole]

Although the term marriage may have religious roots, it is now a state institution.  As a state institution, it should not discriminate against a subset of society because they were born different than the majority.  I believe hatred is a strong word.  I know of a lot of people who voted in favor of Prop 8, and I do not believe their actions were intentionally malicious.  I do, however, believe that supporting the proposition is discriminatory.  You cannot say that you believe gay people are your equal, yet their participation in the insitution of marriage somehow degrades the value of heterosexual marriages.  Although some people want to confer the same rights to homosexual couples without calling it marriage, the separate term implies a certain perception of superiority.  I see this problem very similar to the problem of segregation.  The feeling that two groups need to be separate to "protect" one group creates a "badge of inferiority" for the minority group.  Although a simple majority of voters voted in favor of the Proposition, it has been my opinion that the rights of the majority should be protected from the rash will of the majority.  That is the purpose of the constitution.  The California Supreme Court saw it that way, but the people of California felt it was necessary to change our Constitution to single out a minority group.  So when people get upset, they have some justification.  Furthermore, I do not think it is fair to use such generalizations.  There are so many opponents of Proposition 8 who are challenging the passage of the law in appropriate manners.  The end of slavery, segregation, and the fight for other civil rights have all met with opposition before their end goals were achieved.  Just because Prop 8 passed this time does not mean it will always pass. 

[mugatu]

they were born different than the majority. 

Maybe you need to work on convincing a larger number people that this is true.

wise

[Jamie Stringer]

First of all, I am sick and tired of people saying that the vote for Prop 8 in california, which passed overwhelmingly, is a sign of hatred.  It isn't.  You don't have to hate gay people to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  I'm already starting to see the liberalistic blame/demonization game being played, much as it is when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

You don't have to hate gay people in the sense you speak of, but one of the definitions of hate certainly fits those who voted for Prop 8.  The word can be used to describe prejudice or bigotry against a class of people.  I would certainly say that voting for "seperate, but equal" for a class of people can be described as prejudice and/or bigotry.  Also, way to go with pointing the finger and playing the political blame game again.  I thought you turned over a new leaf with this election?

In addition, I know you like to blame liberals, but would you consider Republicans liberal?  Are all Democrats liberals?  There are plenty of instances of Democrats who voted Yes on 8 and many Republicans who voted no. 

Get a clue folks.  You do not help your cause by calling people who disagree with you hateful. 

I hope you see the irony here.

It is not patriotic to get your issue on a ballot and riot when things don't go the way you want.

Those who are opposed to gay marriage got the issue on the ballot, not those who support it.  Also, peaceful demonstrations != riots. 

I've got a little news for those who think small thoughts like this:  get over it.  If you want to get married and are gay, you can accomplish far more by creating a new term that allows you to have the same rights as straight married couples without assaulting what is, essentially and historically, a religious concept.

If it's all about religion, why are some religions more important than others?  There are churches that will allow gays to marry.  Why does the Mormon or Catholic or any other church get to define what marriage is more than, say, the Unitarian Church?  Also, what about those of us who aren't gay but support the rights of gays to be able to marry?

As a person with many gay friends (the guys call me their husband and the girls make fun of me for having a penis), I can tell you that even some of them are split on the issue. 

So what?  The issue is choice.  Just as has been said to straight people, if you don't want gay marriage, then shut the @#!* up and don't get one.

Sure, they all want the same rights as straight couples, but every one of them understands two things that the radical homosexuals don't seem to:
1)  When you lose a vote on your issue, freaking out is harmful, not helpful
2)  The term 'marriage' is rooted in religious ideology and is, therefore, not likely the right path to take towards equal rights.

Wow, how insightful    People understand it's rooted in religious ideology, but it's no excuse because:
1. There are many things rooted in religious ideology that we don't find acceptable today.  Slavery is a part of the Bible, but we expressly forbid that today.  Mormons used to teach (don't know if they still do) that blacks are cursed with the mark of Cain with dark skin.  Today, they would (rightfully) be called racist.  Many religions subjugate women, but that's not something that is viewed as acceptable today.  I could continue, but I think you get the point. 

Prop 8 passed by a wide margin. 

So what the majority believes = what is right?  I refer you to the antebellum South.  nft.

Malcolm X preached violence as a means for change and it failed.  Then he changed his mind and made some of the most fascinating explorations into race relations in the history of mankind.  And was killed for it.  By black people who disagreed with his new, more peaceful approach.  And history shows that it was Dr. Martin Luther King who was more responsible for civil rights advances.

Please stop showing your ignorance of the African American civil rights movement.  Malcolm X did NOT fail as an agent for change.  In fact, his teachings were instrumental in the founding of the Black Panthers, a group that did a tremendous amount of good for black communities (including, but not limited to sickle cell clinics, free breakfast programs that were the precursor to the Federal Free and Reduced meal program, free grocery programs, forcing the city of Oakland to install a traffic light so young black children would stop getting run over on the way to/from a particular school, etc).  What's more, he was not killed because he changed his mind.  And history does not show that Martin Luther King would have been as successful on his own.  That's nothing but pure speculation on your part.

The fact remains that state's [sic] still have a constitutional right to make their own decisions. 

The fact remains that the people still have the right to challenge Prop 8.  Are you arguing with the constitutionally established system of checks and balances?



Also, I <3 the way your entire post addresses the LGBT community, but fails to consider there's (obviously) a wide swath of the California population that is 1) heterosexual and 2) doesn't agree with Prop 8.  I'll remember this post as I continue joining others interested in fighting for the civil rights of ALL people by protesting outside the Mormon temple on Overland and Santa Monica, in West Hollywood, and anywhere else.

Anyway, I don't know why I bothered since you're obviously just trying to stir the pot. 

[Kasserole]

they were born different than the majority. 

Maybe you need to work on convincing a larger number people that this is true.

wise

First of all, I think that is it is absurd to think that someone would choose to be a homosexual given how difficult it is to be one in our society.  One of my best friends in college was gay, but he pretended to be straight.  He felt he could no longer live a lie and tried to kill himself.  Thankfully he wasn't successful and we were all able to tell him that we accepted him as he was.  This was at one of the most liberal colleges in California. 

Secondly, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether gay people are born gay.

[mugatu]

they were born different than the majority. 

Maybe you need to work on convincing a larger number people that this is true.

wise

First of all, I think that is it is absurd to think that someone would choose to be a homosexual given how difficult it is to be one in our society.  One of my best friends in college was gay, but he pretended to be straight.  He felt he could no longer live a lie and tried to kill himself.  Thankfully he wasn't successful and we were all able to tell him that we accepted him as he was.  This was at one of the most liberal colleges in California. 

Secondly, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether gay people are born gay.

It is my understanding that both hoo and I agree with you.

[Kasserole]

they were born different than the majority. 

Maybe you need to work on convincing a larger number people that this is true.

wise

First of all, I think that is it is absurd to think that someone would choose to be a homosexual given how difficult it is to be one in our society.  One of my best friends in college was gay, but he pretended to be straight.  He felt he could no longer live a lie and tried to kill himself.  Thankfully he wasn't successful and we were all able to tell him that we accepted him as he was.  This was at one of the most liberal colleges in California. 

Secondly, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether gay people are born gay.

It is my understanding that both hoo and I agree with you.

I am happy to hear that, but that is a common argument from the other side, so I felt I should address it once pointed out.  Thanks 

[mugatu]

I am happy to hear that, but that is a common argument from the other side, so I felt I should address it once pointed out.  Thanks 

But that's why the "choice" argument can be a very valid one.  There's been significant research on this lately, and the world has gotten much closer to saying "born in", but nothing is definite.  And, then, the counter argument you posited doesn't count for much.  Your retort shifts the issue, and there is nearly universal agreement that humans are conscious actors and so are able to pick and choose their actions.  And sometimes, humans pick decisions for themselves even when they know there will be fall-out from the decision because they "want to." 

[Kasserole]

I am happy to hear that, but that is a common argument from the other side, so I felt I should address it once pointed out.  Thanks 

But that's why the "choice" argument can be a very valid one.  There's been significant research on this lately, and the world has gotten much closer to saying "born in", but nothing is definite.  And, then, the counter argument you posited doesn't count for much.  Your retort shifts the issue, and there is nearly universal agreement that humans are conscious actors and so are able to pick and choose their actions.  And sometimes, humans pick decisions for themselves even when they know there will be fall-out from the decision because they "want to." 

I have yet to see a legitimate argument saying that gay people are not born gay.  That premise needs as much justification as the premise that they are born gay. 

Also, people who say that homosexuals are not born homosexuals imply that they are deviants from what is "natural," but if we are naturally born heterosexuals, then that implies we are born with a sexual identity.  So who is to say what another person's sexual identity is?

[mugatu]

I am happy to hear that, but that is a common argument from the other side, so I felt I should address it once pointed out.  Thanks 

But that's why the "choice" argument can be a very valid one.  There's been significant research on this lately, and the world has gotten much closer to saying "born in", but nothing is definite.  And, then, the counter argument you posited doesn't count for much.  Your retort shifts the issue, and there is nearly universal agreement that humans are conscious actors and so are able to pick and choose their actions.  And sometimes, humans pick decisions for themselves even when they know there will be fall-out from the decision because they "want to." 

I have yet to see a legitimate argument saying that gay people are not born gay.  That premise needs as much justification as the premise that they are born gay. 

Also, people who say that homosexuals are not born homosexuals imply that they are deviants from what is "natural," but if we are naturally born heterosexuals, then that implies we are born with a sexual identity.  So who is to say what another person's sexual identity is?

A well nuanced position would not agree with the bolded.