Just a few reasons to be against Prop 8
Comment away.
And for those who give a shit about equality, please visit noonprop8.com and donate whatever you can spare to make sure this so very true commercial (unlike the Yes on 8 ads) will be aired.
Special thanks to Vern Nelson at Orange Juice Blog.
SMS
Labels: bigotry, marriage equality, prop 8, state constitution
Posted by Sarah Michelle Spinosa @ 10/15/2008 07:10:00 PM
16 Comments:
In a previous thread you remarked you are not "for" gay marriage. Would you explain what you mean?
If God wanted it, he would have set it up like the other animals that were homorphidates.
Hey people, look at this psycho-bitch's comments on Higby's thread below, Road Rage of a Political Kind and then ask yourself if you should read anything this nasty nut says.
I'd cut and paste the exchange but it's too long and not worth my spending another minute on -- see for yourself.
A nasty POS like this telling us how to vote is really too much.
No more comments from me here what this Michelle creature says, though, since she's even more desperate than Haikula to drum up hits anyway she can. Nastiness is her stock in trade.
This woman is literally a sociopath, a menace to society and a dangerous influence on children.
You're too late, Sarah... I've already voted Yes on 8.
Too bad, so sad!
The Yes-on-8 radio spot is very effective. I'm a life-long proponent of marriage equality and my stomach turns every time I hear Gavin Newsom bellow, "Whether you like it or not!" I can only imagine how this sound-bite affects those who have yet to form conviction either way.
anon 8:14-
'In a previous thread you remarked you are not "for" gay marriage. Would you explain what you mean?'
My position is simple. Ideally, civil unions would legally be 'separate but equal.' Gee, where have we heard that before? Obviously, they are not equal.
While I would never force a church to perform a ceremony for any couple that they chose to refuse, it's also unfair to relegate the relationships of gays and lesbians to second-class status in the eyes of the law.
So I guess to be more accurate, I wasn't for gay marriage until my 'friends' on my right decided to hand me an ultimatum, and frankly, when someone does that, they're not your friend.
If Prop 8 wins, expect to see me on the front lines for stronger civil unions, which is what we'd have in a perfect world.
Alive, Free, Happy - Libertarian!
SMS
SMS,
Right on Sister!
Why is it so tough to recognize a need for everyone to have equal rights? This shouldn't be a religious argument, it should be civil. If you substitute the word gay for any ethnic group, it isn’t even debatable. The very same arguments were raised early on in the civil rights movement. While I am not remotely gay and SMS will vouch for that one, I am a total civil rights activist. So don’t go there with me.
It’s not even about liking things necessarily, it’s about what’s truly right. You want a secular society then you have to make it so. You want your rights protected then it’s incumbent on all of us to at least make the attempt to protect others rights as well. If you want to live in a religious based society then you better be ready to be ruled by someone else’s religious beliefs. Just as in the current political battles, there are always winners and losers, and they are never always the same side that wins. It’s all about living with the swinging pendulum. That is exactly what freedom means, the freedom to choose how to be happy and not by your or my standards. We all know someone who has a spouse we wouldn’t even think of living with, but we certainly wouldn’t even think of making it illegal for them to marry, much less procreate.
What kind of world do you want? One that denies civil rights for someone who disagrees with your sexual ideas of normalcy? That’s not the world I wish to live in. I don’t care what particular family arangements you make or who you choose to live your life with, as long as both parties are of legally consenting age and they both agree with it freely, let them live as they wish. Let them have equal protection under the law. If you think the society we live in is a strong one, then it can and will learn to deal with it, so should you.
Liberty is about giving those rights you want to others, it’s about mutual respect. Not necessarily agreeing, but respecting others rights. It’s about time we learn that lesson as a society or we will all lose those rights we cherish. Like it or not that’s the truth.
Who do you give to if you are for Prop 8?
How about "fair and balanced" here?
By the way, I don't care either way; homosexuality is an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
Civil Unions amount to separate but equal.
I have gay friends and co-workers. What they do to each other for sexual relief is their business. It becomes MY business when they demand that I accept their arrangements as the same as MY marriage.
Marriage is about giving oneself to each other to create life. Gay relationships are about finding someone of the same sex who is willing to do unnatural things to each other for self-gratification.
The first is a sacrament established to create life. The other is a narcissistic arrangement of mutual masterbation.
If gays think that anal sex, mutual masterbation, and fisting is the same as the sacrament of marriage and the gift of life, its doubtful that any argument will make sense to them. But then, it's always about THEM. The more they try to equate the two, the more they will alienate themselves from mainstream humanity.
My friends, family, and I will all vote YES on Prop 8.
'By the way, I don't care either way; homosexuality is an evolutionary cul-de-sac.'
OK, now that was witty. Wattsamatta? You have a problem with cul de sacs? ;)
As to the other comments since my last, you guys are confused at best, disgusting at worst. Way to graphically depict violent gay sex, because really, I guess there's no love in gay relationships, right?
You are allowed to define marriage any way you like, but as I said before, we gays and lesbians didn't even conceive of sharing your sacrament here in California until you told us our unions weren't as good as yours. It's not ABOUT marriage, it's about legal unions and equality for all. Get over it.
Separate and equal, huh? Have you even ever heard of Brown v. Board of Ed? Some of you will continue to argue the point, and you will continue to be wrong. For instance, I'll remind you how wrong you are the next time my partner is in the hospital and they don't let me see her because I'm not 'immediate family.'
You closed-minded idiots with your 'you can't make me acccept it' bullshit. What does my visiting my partner on her death bed have to do with you 'accepting' my relationship?
Oh, and I can't have any more children. So if I wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex, then what? I'd have to fight to get your approval for that too?
Lucky for me, I wasn't asking for it. This is a matter between me and my government.
Oh, and I bet you're plenty OK with divorce. You should take your Bible and wipe your ass with well-chosen pages. At least that way, your disdain for only the parts of your own God's 'natural order' with which you disagree will be obvious and the next time you run your yapper, we can consider the source.
Please. Tell us how it's OK to believe that God is infallible when according to your own beliefs he put gays and lesbians on 'His' supposedly perfect Earth.
And don't start with that 'it's the behavior that's wrong' shit either. I'm not a Christian, so that's your morality, not mine. So who's trying to force behavior on whom here?
Plus, behavior versus genetic predisposition is an argument whose ship has sailed years ago. You like red, I like purple. Should we discriminate against each other because I like girls and so do you?
Yeah, didn't think so.
SMS
YES on 8 !!!!
Newsom is a total sleeze-ball.
However, NO ON 8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU 8:09...... COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER...
YES, YES, YES, YES
VOTE YES ON 8
3:51
"homosexuality is an evolutionary cul-de-sac"
Unfortunately, you just revealed your own lack of education and understanding of evolutionary biology with that comment. Any behavior or trait that persists in a group of organisms for a considerable period of time and through various evolutionary developments is almost never a "cul-de-sac." That homosexual behavior has appeared in such a diverse number of animals and has persisted with so many branches of evolution indicates that it proffers some form of advantage to the organisms displaying it.
You make the grade school mistake of assuming that an animal that does not itself reproduce does not pass on its genes. However, there are numerous examples of creatures which, by their actions, increase their siblings/colony mates/family members opportunities to mate. If you had made even a cursory study of biology, you would understand the basics of trait inheritance. I was under the impression most high schoolers received the basics of this in school, but I could be mistaken.
But, to assist your study, start with this:
By your flawed logic, the very advantageous trait of "altruism" would also be a "cul-de-sac," when it is in fact a very advantageous trait for many species (including humans.) The altruistic individual in question often perishes for their sacrifice, but by doing so increases collective reproductive opportunities. Once you've completed your basic studies of biology and trait selection, and the more advanced concept of a specific trait like "altruism," I can reconvene class to move on to more advanced studies such as natural selection of homosexuality.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home