damned if you do, damned if you don't... (about prop 8)

[_squawkeye]

To those who brush all in the arts with the same tar soaked brush, sit on it. You are like Utah Senator Robert Bennett who said "I have nothing against gays, I am a great fan of the arts".
Bure BS. Not everyone in the arts is gay. I know some but the majority are everyday normal heterosexual folk with families, normal lives, artistic ability and the drive to create.
I know homosexual artists as well. Even in San Francisco most I knew in the arts were heterosexual.

Could it be that creativity threatens cretins and those not smart or ambitious enough to try an artistic pursuit?

On the other hand, if being artistic meant I had to be like Orrin Hatch I might look at homosexuality in self defense.

[_asbestosman]

Could it be that creativity threatens cretins and those not smart or ambitious enough to try an artistic pursuit?

Uh, yeah. That's gotta be it.[/sarcasm]

What?

By the way, creativity increases to certain extent with some mental disorders--for example, frontotemporal dementia. (See Scientific American Mind Vol. 16, Num 1 p. 16-23).

And no, that doesn't mean gays or demented, nor necessarily creative nor lacking in creativity, nor that creative people are demented. It means that creativity only means your creative. Correlating it to ambition or intelligence is, in my opinion, silly.

[_Sethbag]

Jason, is anyone being hounded publicly who didn't give over a thousand dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign?

What about the ordinary members of the Church who are cursed and heckled by protesters, whose tires are slashed in church parking lots, and who receive anonymous phone hate mail if they happen to be known as Mormons? This is happening on a regular basis here in California.

I don't agree with that.

As for those who donated, we have to look at what they did as a statement. It basically went like this:

"There are 18,000 married couples in California whose marriages I think should be voided, and more such weddings that will undoubtedly occur unless I can help prevent them. I agree with using the democratic process to void these marriages, and prevent the future ones. I believe this so strongly that I am willing to donate thousands of dollars to help it along."

Well, there are a lot of gay people in California who view this statement with a great deal of hostility. They believe that it is their right to use another time-worn democratic process to oppose such people, and vote with their feet from these folks' businesses.

It's likely that most people participating in boycotts against the donors to Yes on 8 will be gay people. Do you honestly blame the gay people for retaliating against those who publicly stated opposition to their rights, and were willing to pay thousands of dollars to take these rights away?

[_Sethbag]

Jason, is anyone being hounded publicly who didn't give over a thousand dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign?

I don't know. Who cares? is $1000 the magic make it ok number?

A thousand dollars is a good round number, that is obviously more than chump change. Jason, these Mormons didn't just dump some coins from their pocket into a bucket on a table outside the grocery store on their way out. They donated thousands of dollars specifically to take rights away from a vulnerable minority. That means something - that kind of number carries some weight.

Now this vulnerable minority mightily pissed off about that. Can you honestly blame them?

[_Sethbag]

,
Who attempted to take away whom's civil rights? It ain't The Gays doin' that to the Mormons. It's the other way around.

Aren't gays attempting to now intimidate a segment for expressing their own freedom of speech and their own right to vote?

Don't gays have the same freedom of opinion and speech as the Mormons do? Mormons (and others) had the freedom to donate thousands of dollars to take away the gays' rights. Don't the gays have the right to vote with their feet and not do business with those who took the revocation of their rights seriously enough to donate thousands of dollars?

[_antishock8]

Ok. For all you pious types. Substitue "black" for "gay", and then tell me how your $1000 donation would look? C'mon. The only thing you're doing is justifying some really terrible, and hurtful bigotry.

Listen. I'm not gay. I love the ladies. Man. Let me tell you. I have loved some ladies. And I'm sooooooo in love with my woman now. I'm retarded for her.

And you know what? It KILLS me that there are some really wonderful guys and gals out there that are immediately crap on simply because they are what they are. I couldn't change who and what I am even if I tried. I'd be straight no matter what. If society were Gay, then I'd be Het. Period. It is completely vile what we do to these people. They're murdered in Iran, beaten in Wyoming, and discriminated against in California. And the very people who are told to "love thy neighbor" are the ones who are saying "I'll love ya, but be disgusted by ya at the same time.". How screwed up is that? People. These are people. Our brothers. Our sisters. And we subordinate them for what? What? How in the WORLD is them being in a committed relationship that is recognized by the state, in the same exact way Hets are, hurting... YOU?????

“F”, man. Jesus. C'mon! This is crazy. It's craziness!!

[_asbestosman]

Well, there are a lot of gay people in California who view this statement with a great deal of hostility. They believe that it is their right to use another time-worn democratic process to oppose such people, and vote with their feet from these folks' businesses.

But is there any point at which a boycott goes too far? What would you say if (and this is a stretch) caucasians organized a boycott of black buisnesses because they didn't like affirmative action? What if red states and blue states boycott each other because they feel that their rights are being trampled? I'm not saying that gays have gone too far with boycotts (although I think the proposed boycott of Utah is ill-considered), but don't you think there's a line somewhere?

[_asbestosman]

Ok. For all you pious types. Substitue "black" for "gay", and then tell me how your $1000 donation would look?

How about I ask the black community. The majority are insulted by the comparison.

I condemn violence against any group (including child molesters, rapists, and murderers when they aren't threatening anyone and the justice system has them).

And the very people who are told to "love they neighbor" are the ones who are saying "I'll love ya, but be disgusted by ya at the same time.".

That's how people view me and I'm fine with it. Romney is unelectable because of that sentiment. Somehow though, I don't think that will be a satisfactory answer to the question of gay marriage. Things will change so that gays will be satisfied. The only question is when.

[_antishock8]

Ok. For all you pious types. Substitue "black" for "gay", and then tell me how your $1000 donation would look?

How about I ask the black community. The majority are insulted by the comparison.

I condemn violence against any group (including child molesters, rapists, and murderers when they aren't threatening anyone and the justice system has them).

And the very people who are told to "love they neighbor" are the ones who are saying "I'll love ya, but be disgusted by ya at the same time.".

That's how people view me and I'm fine with it. Romney is unelectable because of that sentiment. Somehow though, I don't think that will be a satisfactory answer to the question of gay marriage. Things will change so that gays will be satisfied. The only question is when.

The difference between you and I is that I view homosexuality as something inherent to the human condition. It's evident throughout the animal world. However, you choose to self-identify with a hateful ideology that condemns all other churches and actively seeks to deny a significant portion of the American citizenry their equal status. I use "black" as an example because they're 1) a minority population in this country, and 2) they're born with an abundance of pigmentation in their skin in comparison with whites.

Regardless, whether you agree with their sexual status or choice, it shouldn't matter. It's their life. They aren't hurting you. They're NOT HURTING YOU. YOU. YOUR CHURCH. YOU, seek to place them in a subordinate status. Not the other way around. That is vile, and yeah, you should be pointed out as someone who isn't friendly to homosexuals. They ought to know what kind of person you are, and where you stand with them. They need to know and be given the choice if you're someone who wants to oppress them or not. That's only fair... in my opinion.

[_asbestosman]

The difference between you and I is that I view homosexuality as something inherent to the human condition. It's evident throughout the animal world.

We don't differ in that regard.

However, you choose to self-identify with a hateful ideology that condemns all other churches and actively seeks to deny a significant portion of the American citizenry their equal status.

And yet you choose to self-identify with Republicans--the political party of anti-homosexuality. Oh, you mean you don't agree with everything they say? Hmmm. By the way, religion and sexual orientation are protected or suspect classes in California. Political affilitaion is not last I checked. Maybe, just maybe, things are a bit more complicated then your broad brushing would cause one to believe. Maybe.

YOU, seek to place them in a subordinate status.

So, you're saying that bachelors are second class citizens in our society? Sorry, but I disagree. If it's that they can't marry who they choose, then I wonder what you have to say about infertile sibling marriages. Nothing? Ok then, at least you are consistent. I still don't think incestuous couples are subordinate even if we don't let them marry.

That is vile, and yeah, you should be pointed out as someone who isn't friendly to homosexuals. They ought to know what kind of person you are, and where you stand with them. They need to know and be given the choice if you're someone who wants to oppress them or not.

Yeah, that's totally what I am. No wait, that's more of a caricature of me. Let's try this again: I think the only satisfactory answer is civil unions for all (and fair would include roommates, siblings, and other odd arrangements, but I don't think it's politically expediant).

I do not think anyone should be forced to respect my life choices any more than I should be forced to respect theirs. Period. I prefer to ignore others life choices and I prefer to have them ignore mine. I also prefer to let the market do its own thing rather than have lawsuit threats against eHarmony for not having an option for gays. Isn't the money incentive enough? It's not like gays are being denied employment or housing (except in the military which should change). Let them play on level ground, but don't let them turn around with crazy lawsuits against eHarmony, etc.