Gay Rights 2.0

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: tcblue @ 12/11/2008 7:55:52 PM

    That's exactly what it means, jlm2k61.

    If everyone has the right to marry, then we all enjoy EQUAL rights.

    It's simply wrong to deny an entire group of citizens the same ability to marry just because some people are entirely too obsessed with the gender of the ones they want to join their lives with.

  • Posted By: tcblue @ 12/11/2008 7:31:38 PM

    Okay, this is ridiculous. The subject here shouldn't be 'gay' marriage. It should just be marriage.
    Yes, marriage is considered by many to be a religious instiution. However, the fact tis that it is also a civil joining. Marriages performed in a city or town hall are not referred to as civil unions. They are called marriages.

    The Declaration of Independence states that 'ALL men are created equal... with certain unalienable rights'. The Constitution clearly puts forth the tenets upon which the US was founded. Separation of church and state. Thus, let the churches refuse to perform or even acknowledge same sex marriages. But from a civil standpoint...

    If all men are equal, then all men (people) should have the same rights. We all pay taxes and therefore have every expectation that we enjoy the same rights.

    If I can get married but my neighbor can't, just because he or she happens to be gay, then I'M the one with the 'special rights' because I have the choice of entering into a marriage as I see fit.

    Gay people aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the same exact rights that the rest of us have.

  • Posted By: Noodlebrain @ 12/10/2008 7:33:33 PM

    cont'd:

    Why are gays/lesbians discrimated against? Because it is naturally scientifically and biology not normal. Yes, there may be a few cases of true homosexuality where "wires" are wired wrong but I feel that this is very rare. It astounds me the amount of people in this world that claim they are "wired" wrong. There are entirely too many people who claim to be homosexual for it to acceptable. How can this many people be "wired" wrong biologically?

    As far as children and the youth being affected wrong being taught that this is normal and growing up in this kind of family is correct. It doesn't matter how great the parents are. Teaching tolerance is one thing. Teaching this life style is normal is wrong. I have a high school daughter who tells me non-stop about how many classmates are gay or bi. How can middle/high schoolers know this when they are confused enough by normal puberity issues? It's too much to dump on these kids! They don't know which way they're coming or going. Not to mention, the spread of diseases by these kids experimenting and trying to figure out puberity, gay, lesbian issues.

    As far as marriage rights and all that that entials regarding insurance and privacy issues.......there are these things
    nowadays called wills, living wills, power of attorney for medical, financial, etc. Get a job for your own insurance or buy it privatly and as far as the other issues, get your legal paperwork done. I have legal paperwork done naming this person or that as this or that and I am not a lesbian.

    If gay/lesbian is the life style you choose, fine. It doesn't need to be the issue they are making it. Do your thing and for God's sake, you don't need to run around (males) skipping around advertising it with camel toe fronts and rear ends, talking and acting like silly girls. Why do those gays have to act like that? It's disgusting! I do understand that all don't do that but for the ones that do.....that's why you get beat up.

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/11/2008 7:11:45 PM

      Gee I guess you think that if a woman walks around dressed any anything that doesn't cover her from head to toe and then she's raped she was asking for it too?

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/11/2008 7:11:33 PM

      Gee I guess you think that if a woman walks around dressed any anything that doesn't cover her from head to toe and then she's raped she was asking for it too?

  • Posted By: jimcalifornia @ 12/11/2008 5:03:54 PM

    I hope you're right about the courts overturning Prop 8. Both houses of the California Legislature have passed gay marriage twice. Both time the Governor vetoed the bills. Both times he said it was up to the courts to decide the issue. Well, the courts have decided, and our Governor has sided with the courts. Now, let's hope the Supreme Court is consistent and confirms its earlier decision.

  • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 8:04:13 PM

    The point is this: homosexuality is not only natural; it is conserved across many species. It is therefore not "unnatural" or "detrimental".

    No number of snarky comments will change that.

    Incidentally, we kill all the time. Ever eat a burger? We killed that cow for food. Ever saluted the flag? Our soldiers wear that on their sleeve as they kill others.

    Sure, primates commit murder. But their communities also punish the murderer; so that is just like us, isn't it?

    • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 7:53:13 AM

      Just because someting occures in nature doesnot make it natural. Nature doesnot allways get it right. Beyond evryones perssonal openions, No system is perfect. sex serves one purpose in nature, reproduction. Any tything else is a waste of time. Reproductively speeking...

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 8:57:40 AM

        Actually sex serves more than just reproductive purposes in nature. But you are showing the same ignorance than many people do. You are assuming that sex is the primary focus of a homsexual relatinship. As with heterosexual relationships it is only one part of the whole. You may be a rutting cow in your heterosexual relationship, but in my heterosexual relationship with my girlfriend, sex (althoug it is great) is not the main focus. Loving and caring is. Just being there for each other is. Just hearing her voice is. I feel sorry for those of you for whom sex and procreation is the only thing that you have in your relationships.

        • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 1:15:16 PM

          Actualy no it does not. Some animals form family groups and in other cases mate for life yes, However this is done for the distinct purpose of reproduction. Emontional ties, Romance, All serve the same end goal. To further our species. your openions and religious beliefs has nothing to do whith it.You can argue this point to the end of time but when all is said and done. you cannot argue whith basic bioligy.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:47:31 PM

            Question: Is it your position that there are not enough people in the world?

            • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 1:57:34 PM

              What in the world does this have to do whit the price of thea in china? Sex serves one purpose, Reproduction. plain simple and to the point. Anything else added to this is added by man to suite his own selfish ends. Whatever they may be...

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:02:01 PM

                "Sex serves one purpose, Reproduction. "

                It's also a lot of fun. Remember fun? It's that thing you had before you became a joyless religious fanatic.

                • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 4:19:08 PM

                  Yes It' Fun! so you will do it more, so you will reproduce more, Try as you might you can't ague whith bioligy.

                  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 4:28:15 PM

                    Not necessarily, mate. Some of us, in civilized countries, use this new invention called "birth control". Now, I know you also consider this unnatural, but - and this applies to the gay marriage argument as well, - I don't care.

                    As I said, I will truly enjoy the howls of "judicial activism", etc, ad nauseum, when the CA supreme court overturns prop 8 (again).

                    • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 4:45:31 PM

                      What? we are discussing reproduction. I think most adults in the world know how to prevent pregnecy. you make no point at all.

                  • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 4:26:52 PM

                    Religious? Iam Religious? When did this happen? why wasant i notified? And by the way what makes you think i am straight? just because i don't agree whith you? Small minded much!!!!

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 11:21:53 AM

        "Just because someting occures in nature doesnot make it natural."

        Actually, yes it does. That is in fact the definition of "natural".

        • Posted By: blackd @ 12/11/2008 12:27:33 PM

          Obviously you did not read my post. Alot of thing occure in nature that are not the original intent of it's design. Animals are born whith two heads, Or the same set of sex organs. This is not natural it is a result of nature not quite getting it's orginal purpose righjt.

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 3:52:39 PM

            Since it hapeens across species, and happens to a fairly consistent percetange of the population, that would argue for it being the way nature intended it to be and for the postive.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:03:16 PM

            Nature only has one purpose: "Whatever works".

  • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/10/2008 2:05:25 PM

    I recently read that gays want a " stay home from work day " to show just how important they are in America.

    Perverted People acting perverted in our weak economy ----- Great !

    What next ? Pedophile Day.

    Gay stuff is wrong, its that simple; however, there seems to be a lot of gay activity in the animal kingdom .

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:09:02 PM

      "What next ? Pedophile Day."

      So you're saying that gays are the same as pedophiles? What is it with some of you Yanks, that you cannot get the concept of "consenting adults" through your skulls? Is there lead in your drinking water?

      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/10/2008 2:45:44 PM

        Please don't let tired (probably needs a nap) and old (probably needs to find a hobby, like bingo) represent your idea of us Yanks. Obviously he can't distinguish the difference between intimacy between consenting adults and preditory activities between an adult, who is usually male, and a child, who is usually female.

        Those of his ilk lack the ability to recognize that sexuality is not completely about sexual activity. If a heterosexual were to examine their own marriage, they might realize that very little of their marriage revolves around sexual acts. Marriage is about commitment and responsibility between two adults. A married person will do a million acts for their mate that has nothing to do with sex. Homosexual mates do these same acts for their life partners.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 3:05:50 PM

          "Please don't let tired (probably needs a nap) and old (probably needs to find a hobby, like bingo) represent your idea of us Yanks. "

          I don't. I, like most of my countrymen, genuinely like most Americans. You've been a great friend to us for more than a hundred years, and have on one occasion kept us from starving to death (WWII). This is why it is so distressing to see your great nation being seized by religious fanatics little different from the Taliban.

          • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/11/2008 3:46:36 PM

            Wouldn't it be wonderful if the U.S.A got over our arrogance? If we paused to look at how gay marriage has affected society in Canada and the U.K., we might learn a thing of two. But we don't. We ignorantly permit religious ideals dictate civic issues. The pride that Americans so fondly boast is reserved for the WASPs and the Conservatives. All others have to wait for our society to evolve.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 4:30:49 PM

              "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the U.S.A got over our arrogance?"

              We wouldn't know how to act, if you did that. :)

              Seriously, we like you, warts and all...at least those of you who remember that America was once an example to the world, of continous improvement of civil liberties and standard of living. The "Americans" who want a Taliban-esque theocracy we can live without.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 3:01:59 PM

          "Please don't let tired (probably needs a nap) and old (probably needs to find a hobby, like bingo) represent your idea of us Yanks. "

          I don't. I, like most of my countrymen, genuinely like most Americans. You've been a great friend to us for more than a hundred years, and have on one occasion kept us from starving to death (WWII). This is why it is so distressing to see your great nation being seized by religious fanatics little different from the Taliban.

  • Posted By: jj on the west coast @ 12/11/2008 1:37:26 PM

    typical of the intollerant left, Start calling people names, stick with the issue. you lost!

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 4:02:16 PM

      Well actually the right is usually more intolerant...the left is usually liberal and embraces more social freedoms for all...that's neither here nor there but just thought I should clarify that.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:45:44 PM

      "typical of the intollerant left, Start calling people names, stick with the issue."

      Problem is, you mouthbreathing bigots ARE the issue.

      "you lost!"

      Only until the court cases come up.

  • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/11/2008 8:49:37 AM

    So roger, if I feel anything is natural I have the right to do it according to your logic. So since pot is a naturally occuring drug I can smoke it and go drive and there should be no penalties? I only ask because this is what you are saying if it is natural than as Americans we have the right to do so.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 9:12:02 AM

      The main difference is that being homosexual doesn't hurt anyone else. If you go get stoned and then drive your car and run over some kid or crash into my car, you're hurting other people. Not to mention drugs are harmful to your health and destroy your brain--homosexuality does neither. But hey, I'm actually one who doesn't care what drugs people do. If people are stupid enough to do them and will keep them behind closed doors and not go running around high in cars, go for it. Natural selection at its best!

      • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/11/2008 9:42:51 AM

        If I don't get in a wreck or anything then I'm ok right?

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 9:58:47 AM

          No, it doesn't work that way because there is the potential to do harm to another innocent person. So if you want to get stoned and walk around or ride your bike, go for it. Same goes for drinking and driving. Getting drunk and going home in a cab is not illegal. It's when you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car that it becomes a crime.

          • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/11/2008 10:58:03 AM

            So based on potential, why would we allow homosexuality because there is the potential for it to destroy the family traditions.

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 11:48:32 AM

              Except that it in no way harms family tradition.

              Remember "traditions" are artificial. And "traditions" are not protected, they, like religions and god are purely human constructs. They are only in the minds of the viewer. A hrel human being can be harmed by a drunk or stoned driver. They are not equal issues.

              • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 12:18:37 PM

                Exactly. Arranged marriages used to be tradition. Women not working outside the home was a tradition. Traditions change.

                • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:10:00 PM

                  Not if these zealots have their way. After they're done crapping all over the Gays, you can be sure they'll be after putting women back into a second class citizen role as well. Bank on it.

                  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 3:54:19 PM

                    And then they will cook the Jews and enslave the blacks. Those traditions are not that far behind us. Wonderful group of miscreants they are.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:20:31 PM

              Your traditions are of no consequence, when compared to an individual's civil liberties.

            • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 11:46:25 AM

              Ok well by your argument then we need to ban single parents, in-vitro fertilization by single mothers, divorces, etc. Do they not also affect the family tradition?

  • Posted By: jj on the west coast @ 12/11/2008 1:58:48 PM

    So unfortuantly for you there are alot more of us than there are of you. How in the state of ca. could this lose? It also lost in az, and in another state.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 3:47:28 PM

      It doe snot matter what the majority wants. They do not get to define rights. That is why the US Supreme Court has the final say. They do not have to rely on the bigotry of the people to define law.

      Also more and more people are changing thier views on this issue, realizing that there is no valid reason to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. As an avowed heterosexual I have always understood that there is no valid reason. Finally more and more of my fellow straights are comig to their senses.

    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 12/11/2008 3:16:20 PM

      not for long my friend, not for long. once this goes to the supreme court, all the funding and campaigning protesting from the religious right will mean squat. IN THE GREAT COUNTRY OF THE U.S.A. EVERYONE IS EQUAL AND IS PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW...and its only a matter of time before homosexuals are equally protected under federal law. so, they lost 1 battle, the war is far from over and you WILL lose. our constitution will make sure of that.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:06:38 PM

      "So unfortuantly for you there are alot more of us than there are of you. "

      You live in a democratic republic, Yank. The whims of the mob do not equal the rights of the individual.

      Why do you hate your constitution? Well, no matter. The courts will sort this out...and I'd be lying if I said I'm not looking forward to hearing you fundies moaning about "judicial activism" and even "judicial terrorism" once the court overturns propositions 8 and 102, as was done in Connetticut.

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:04:15 PM

    The only people wanting "special rights" are the fundies who want the right to inflict their religious beliefs - and no others, hence the "special" part - on those around them.

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:23:36 PM

    I used to think Fred Phelps was an isolated whackjob. Not anymore.

  • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 9:59:17 AM

    I honestly do not get the argument in this at all. When you bring ANY religion into an argument about laws, you lose. Religion should not be considered when making laws that govern a nation of many faiths, and sometimes no faith at all. It's ridiculous. To those that saw homosexuality is unnatural--look to other species. Look to history. It's been going on since the beginning of time. To those that say homosexuals offend their spirituality--so? Maybe being Christian offends atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. Does that give them any right to not allow you to worship? Of course not. The Bible has been evoked to support things from not eating seafood to supporting or decrying slavery and trying to shoot down women's rights. The Bible should have NO bearing on laws that affect every American. Besides that, I get sick of hearing the holier than thou comments. Ok, hope you've never had sex before marriage. Hope you've never gotten a divorce. Hope you've never lied or been jealous of someone. You're a sinner! You're going to hell!

    • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/11/2008 10:56:13 AM

      Wow, Summer have some anger issues? Not one person here on earth is even close to perfect, if someone states they are a Christian and perfect they are lying. We do have a right to stand up for what we believe to be right or wrong. We chose to fight this issue because we don't feel it is right. Why can't we do that? All of us are Americans and have a right to voice our opinion. Those that have religion will continue to fight for what they think is right and those that chose not to practice religion don't have to. Don't think for a minute though that those that are religious are just going to allow the no-religious to dictate what is right or wrong without a strong voice when the issue is important. Thats all this is, us voicing our opposition.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:17:50 PM

        " Thats all this is, us voicing our opposition."

        No, this is a concerted, organized attempt to ruin the lives of 10% of your population, so that you can feel self-righteous.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 11:49:05 AM

        The problem is that you are illegally using your view of your relgion as the basis for US law. THAT is a clear violation of the establishment clause and you have no right to try to violate that.

        You are welcome to believe in your version or interpretation of your religion but you do not have a right to force others to accept laws based on that interpretation.

        BTW, the overwhelming majority of people who fight for same-sex marriage, both gay and straight, also "have religion". They just view their differently than you do. And, that is the crux of the problem. Even you relgious types don't all agree on this issue.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 11:44:38 AM

        I know you might find this concept surprising, but there are many religious people who back equal rights for gays, myself included. I'm not perfect so I leave the judging to God. I know many wonderful gay people that have done so much for their communities and other people that I truly can't see how God would condemn them to hell for something over which they have no control. You may think I have anger issues, and maybe I do. I can't stand when the morals of others are pressed on to people that are just trying to live their lives honestly.

    • Posted By: docpatmac @ 12/11/2008 11:50:17 AM

      Right On Summer! I got your point entirely. Being gay is not a choice, as Jon Stewart said to Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show the other night. Your RELIGION is a choice. You choose to be a Jew or a Catholic or a Baptist or a Humanist or not. Your sexuality is not an issue when it come to your rights as a human. If you are denied the same rights as another, then you are no different then any oppressed minority. The Bible should not enter into it at ALL! Thats what the separation of church and state protection clause in the US Constitution is FOR! To protect those who are singled out and discriminated against, have their rights denied and or stripped.
      You said it beautifully, if a bit forcefully. Ager can be a force for change too.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 12:19:09 PM

        You know, I cannot believe I have never considered religion as a choice in my counterarguments. Of course it is, but for some reason it never dawned on me to use that as an argument against the whole "being gay is a choice" absurdity. As for the anger, lol, I'm generally a very calm person but get irritated when I think of the wonderful people I know that are homosexual and afraid to completely be themselves when I see so many people eschewing traditions left and right.

  • Posted By: docpatmac @ 12/11/2008 11:36:30 AM

    As one of Larry Kramer's peers formerly from the LA community, I can agree wholeheartedly with him that sitting at a computer and sending e-mails won't be enough. Larry started ACT-UP, Signorile came at least a decade later. To refer to Mike Signorile as a "veteran activist" is absurd. He's just a hack journalist who was in the right place at the right time. He did nothing more important than the thousands of grounds troops did into the nineties, then gave up when anti-viral made the disease leave the public eye. Never mind that thousands were still dying. Larry never forgot that, and left ACT-UP in disgust, as did I and many others.
    The future is with JoinTheImpact.com, LoveMakesAFamily, and other grassroots and netroots organizations that are not bogged down by their own internal politics, like the HRC is now. It's unfortunate, because there are so many truly good people at HRC, like Joe Solomonese. If they would just dispense with the notion that they "shouldn't do" any one thing, and just get their hands dirty, maybe things would happen.

    I was there when AIDS wasn't even called that. It was called GRID for Gay Related Immune Disease, and LA was so freaked about it the bodies were stacked up in the morgue because the funeral homes refused to handle them. Some ambulance drivers wouldn't pick up a gay man. I worked at USC Medical E/R in the 70's and 80's, and was one of only a few docs who would treat a gay person. And no one knew I was gay. But they sure as hell do now. And have for the last 38 years. And the last 147 funerals. AIDS is still killing people, its just taking a bit longer to do it now. Don't forget it.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:16:21 PM

      "I worked at USC Medical E/R in the 70's and 80's, and was one of only a few docs who would treat a gay person. And no one knew I was gay. But they sure as hell do now. And have for the last 38 years. And the last 147 funerals. AIDS is still killing people, its just taking a bit longer to do it now. Don't forget it."

      Doc, what you have to remember is that, to the worst of the fundies, that is a good thing. To them, you aren't even human.

  • Posted By: I have a dream @ 12/11/2008 12:55:39 PM

    Yeah fine, ban gay marriage. But along with it, please also ban marriage for anyone:
    1) Who is infertile or beyond reproductive age.
    2) Who is not Christian (because they don't believe in the Bible), including Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc.
    3) Who has married before, and is divorced.

    Lovely.

    And archmsu, I am a straight woman and me and my boyfriend dance to ABBA in broad daylight all the time. And many a time on a hot summer day I venture out in my hot pants and bra. You got a problem with that?

  • Posted By: jimmytheP @ 12/10/2008 11:32:40 AM

    "Get the facts correct. The Morman church provided Zero dollars. The Legal case will show that. Its members as private citizens donated on their own terms not through the church."

    • Posted By: Mike Maloney @ 12/10/2008 11:59:50 AM

      The LDS Church may not have cut a check but:

      The LDS church ran a phone bank pushing Prop 8, I know because I received one of their phone calls.

      The Ayatollah of the LDS Church (okay, they call him President of Prophets, but it's the same thing) issued a fatwa calling for all good Mormons to support Prop 8. Mormons also get periodic holiness check-ups from their local Elders, if you are a good Mormon you get a Temple Pass. I wonder how those interviews are going? Kinda like: "Gee, and what did you do to support prop 8?"

      So tell me: Why should let the LDS Church off the hook?

      • Posted By: truth 555 @ 12/10/2008 2:06:40 PM

        people should be able to say no if they don't want something. This is America and if I don't agree with something I should be able to vote. You walk around crying about people not wanting to agree to your lifestyle. Well this is America and we vote for what we beleive in and what we don't want. If you don't like it leave and stop trying to make us think the way you think. We don't want it and thats it. STOP CRYING.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 11:29:18 AM

          "This is America and if I don't agree with something I should be able to vote."

          So, if people don't agree with what you say, they should be able to vote on whether or not you have the right to say it?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 11:38:39 AM

      So they employed a legal dodge. That keeps them out of trouble with the tax man, but they aren't fooling anyone as to their largely being a collection of bigots. They are a prime example of why your founders included the establishment clause in your constitution.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 11:37:42 AM

      As I was raised, it is the people who make up the body that are the church, not the building (or the checks with the building's address on it). Your argument is semantic, and pointless. It was the Mormon brethren (and therefore "the Mormon church") who supported discrimination.

  • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 3:36:45 PM

    One thing that I'm sure we can all agree on: Newsweek has the worst comment software on the web!

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 11:25:08 AM

      No joke. This is terrible.

  • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 6:15:33 PM

    CanIPayYourBills said:
    "You didn't both to mention how the protestors have urinated on church buildings and people"


    I'm not even sure to whom you are responding, but assuming that you mean "Prop 8 protestors" (and therefore "gays and gay supporters") let me respond by saying: the American Founding Fathers and the Black Panthers.

    Once a group of people get tired of being persecuted, they usually start behaving badly.

    Be glad they are urinating, and neither disrupting commerce nor creating armed militias, and get the message before they do!

    • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 12/10/2008 6:23:07 PM

      Armed militias? That would be hilarious; a bunch of fruits running around with guns. The lesbians would be scary, though.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 11:23:33 AM

        Go to Oldtown in Chicago. Some of the gays there would have no trouble kicking your pasty ***.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 12/11/2008 8:45:03 AM

    The article said "And as the reality sunk in that four anti-gay state measures had passed on election day"
    Apparently reality has not sunk in, Gays now try to equate being gay with racial discrimination. It is not; homosexuality is dysfunctional behavior much more similar to other frowned upon dysfunctional behavior such as kleptomania or pedophilia.

    It is an embarrassment for America this issue is even being discussed in the public eye as something America would consider socially acceptable behavior.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 8:52:39 AM

      Homosexuality is natural behavior. There was a time when interracial marriage was not socially acceptable behavior. There was time when segratation was socially acceptable behavior. There was time when Anti-Semitism and Anti-Catholic views were socially acceptable behavior. There was a time when children being forced to work 14 hours a day was socially acceptable behavior. There was a time when many forms of mindless bigotry were socially aceptable behavior. Luckily in time we learn. More and more people are becoming intelligent enough to realize that homosexuality and lesbiainism are jsut as normal as heterosexuality.

      • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/11/2008 9:19:38 AM

        So how is it that your "natural" behavior is going to allow you to reproduce?

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 10:22:36 AM

          So are you saying infertile women or sterile men shouldn't have sex? After all, they can't produce children so by your definition their sexual activity would be unnatural...

          • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/11/2008 10:40:47 AM

            I'm responding directly to the homosexuality is natural comment. If homosexuality is so natural than how are they going to reproduce? Thats what I'm directly stating I don't agree with. It isn't and I was just asking what the plan is to keep the race going because if we truly think this is acceptable and natural than we are going to see a major wing to this behavior. Just because you may not be able to bear children as a heterosexual couple has no bearing because you aren't practicing homosexuality.

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 10:59:08 AM

              "I'm responding directly to the homosexuality is natural comment. If homosexuality is so natural than how are they going to reproduce?"

              Since homosexuals are born from mostly heterosexual unions, THAT is how they reproduce. A set percetnage of all births are to homosexual human beings.

              "What the plan is to keep the race going because if we truly think this is acceptable and natural than we are going to see a major wing to this behavior. Just because you may not be able to bear children as a heterosexual couple has no bearing because you aren't practicing homosexuality."

              As I already pointed out, since only about 10% of births yeild homosexual indivduals, even if they could not reproduce (which they can and even sex with a opposite sex partner does not change one's natural sexual orientatioon, it is just low level biolgy) the human species would continue to survive and there would still always be homosexual/lesbians in the mix.

              The idea that homosexuality is primariy about sex is the idea of idiots. Huamns (and some other mammals) bond to thier partners not only for reproduction or sex but for companionship and love. Or are all your relationships simply rutting sessions like a donkey?

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 9:52:10 AM

        Well since I am heterosexual I could reproduce any way I chose.
        In fact, given that reproduction is only one part of sexual behavior, and given that heterosexual couple produce homosexual offspring, that is not really an issue. You are making the same idiotuic and completely falacious question that many make. Only 10% of the planet's populatin is gay or lesbian, and being gay or lesbian does not automiaically mean that if you did use artificial means that your offispring would be gay or lesbian. Therfore one can reproduce any way they choose. but reproduciton is NOT the main reason for same-sex relationships (in fact is not the only reason for opposite relationships among higher mammmals either)

  • Posted By: Brickhammer @ 12/10/2008 6:59:13 AM

    I believe that people have the right to do as they please as long as they are not hurting anyone else. I don't think there is anything wrong with gays being allowed to have some sort of civil union.

    Lately gays try to align themselves with the civil rights movement to further their agenda of gay marriage. That's not right. There is a huge difference between the African-American civil rights movement and gay marriage. The level of persecution and discrimination was much greater for African-Americans than what gays have had to endure. African-Americans could not hide in the closet to avoid discrimination and persecution. I think trying to align themselves with the civil rights movement causes people to oppose gay marriage.

    There is another issue that I think influences people to oppose gay marriage. Life on this planet was built through the evolution of species as they adapted to their environment. Evolution requires procreation. In that vein gay marriage is a genetic dead end. I realize that nowadays we have IVF, adoption, and many other ways a gay couple can have children. I think that both concisely and sub concisely people are influenced against gay marriage by the fact that gay couples cannot naturally reproduce.

    One of the arguments you hear is that it is not fair that so and so gay couple has been together 30 years and one partner is denied the others benefits such as social security or medical insurance. I agree that if two people have been together that long they should be able to ???collect???. However, that makes it look like gay marriage is all about the money. That???s not going to get the gays a lot of sympathy.

    This whole argument show just how spoiled we are in this country. When I open up MSNBC.com and see how the children of Zimbabwe can???t get access to clean drinking water I think we have much more important issues to deal with than gay marriage.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 9:21:30 AM

      "The level of persecution and discrimination was much greater for African-Americans than what gays have had to endure."

      So tell me, Brickhammer...what levels of persecution and discrimination are acceptable in the "land of the free"?

      • Posted By: Brickhammer @ 12/10/2008 7:14:27 PM

        I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there never was a "Land of the free". There nver will be. The levels that are acceptable will be determined by the silent majority.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 10:18:56 AM

          The levels that are legal will be determined by the courts as it should be. The majority cannot be trusted to protect civil rights.

  • Posted By: hiservant @ 12/10/2008 8:55:30 AM

    Gay is most definitely NOT the "new black". The last time I checked, it was not an abomination in the eyes of God to be black.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 9:20:10 AM

      Your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant.

      • Posted By: hiservant @ 12/10/2008 9:43:32 AM

        Maybe to you and I but certainly no to God.

        • Posted By: qnetter @ 12/10/2008 10:05:36 AM

          First, they're irrelevant to the American political process.

          Second, why do so many of you understasnd the workd of God as being what your pastor feeds you? Have you ever read the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and translated it with the aid of a historical dictionary? It's amazing how you live your life based on selective memory and mistranslations, and somehow confuse that with the word of God.

          • Posted By: hiservant @ 12/10/2008 10:13:58 AM

            You know, it really doesn't matter what I think. I'll let you take the issue up with God Himself on Judgement Day. I know how God's Word speaks to me about homosexuality and there's no gray area regarding it.

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 10:17:41 AM

              Since there is no god there is no judgement day. That threat is a joke.

              But we are talking US law and god and the bible (especialyl since there is no ONE iterpretation of what god is and what the bible means) are of no consequence. To use them is a clear violation of the Establishment clause.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 11:28:58 AM

              "I'll let you take the issue up with God Himself on Judgement Day."

              And in the meantime, you will ensure continued hate and discrimination.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 11:28:19 AM

          As a matter of law, your religious beliefs hold no value.

    • Posted By: draco_nite @ 12/10/2008 11:40:10 AM

      check again

    • Posted By: ducdebrabant @ 12/10/2008 10:51:11 AM

      Until very recently, being black -- according to Mormon doctrine -- WAS an abomination in the eyes of God. So for the people who provided the largest hunk of funding for Prop 8, gay literally is the new black. Until some prophet at LDS gets a revelation that gay men and lesbians are human beings, they'll treat us just as they treated blacks until I was middle-aged.

    • Posted By: hrhcapdef @ 12/10/2008 9:55:22 AM

      Perhaps, you have forgotten how the Bible was used to deny Blacks freedom? Perhaps, youhave forgotten how the Bible was used to condemn miscegenation? At any rate, I refuse to believe that G-d has or will turn his face from me because I love. The argument against homosexuality always denigrates into sexual politics; but, can we talk about love? Where is the love? Is the argument it is an abomination to love? Is the argument G-d does not condone love? Is the argument the people have spoken against love? How about this, what if I promise not to have sex with my partner, am I okay now? Willl your G-d accept me then? If I promise to only love her but not have sex with her? Will you accept me then? Is that what it boils down to....sex? Or are you seriously joyous that love was legislated against in proposition 8? Or is it your fundametal belief that gays lesbians do not love...only have sex? Many questions, few answers; but, I know this: G-d made me. G-d loves me. Jesus died for me. What exists between G-d and me is OUR covenant...you (plural) have no business and NO say in what is between me and Him. I pray you find your own peace, your own joy, and your own blessings...and leave mine alone.

    • Posted By: hrhcapdef @ 12/10/2008 9:52:47 AM

      Perhaps, you have forgotten how the Bible was used to deny Blacks freedom? Perhaps, youhave forgotten how the Bible was used to condemn miscegenation? At any rate, I refuse to believe that G-d has or will turn his face from me because I love. The argument against homosexuality always denigrates into sexual politics; but, can we talk about love? Where is the love? Is the argument it is an abomination to love? Is the argument G-d does not condone love? Is the argument the people have spoken against love? How about this, what if I promise not to have sex with my partner, am I okay now? Willl your G-d accept me then? If I promise to only love her but not have sex with her? Will you accept me then? Is that what it boils down to....sex? Or are you seriously joyous that love was legislated against in proposition 8? Or is it your fundametal belief that gays lesbians do not love...only have sex? Many questions, few answers; but, I know this: G-d made me. G-d loves me. Jesus died for me. What exists between G-d and me is OUR covenant...you (plural) have no business and NO say in what is between me and Him. I pray you find your own peace, your own joy, and your own blessings...and leave mine alone.

    • Posted By: ajmorton @ 12/10/2008 9:47:01 AM

      It used to be considered a mark of the "cursed" race of Cain, and used to teach blacks that they were inferior to whites, that they must accept their station in life as slaves, and that they are spiritually deficient because of their skin color. Christians taught and believed this 150 years ago, and that has changed. I suspect that views against gays will evolve in the same way. You were aware that Blacks and Whites couldn't legally marry just 50 years ago, right? That was an "abomination" and a "sin" against God's true order. It was Biblically condemned using the "unequally yolked with unbelievers" clause. And now they are equals. Did the world turn into a pillar of salt? Did God expunge the human race? Nope, we're all still here having the same idiotic fights about who is morally pure and clean, and who is going to hell.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse