A Few Writings About Gay Rights/Prop 8 November 11, 2008
Posted by Cam in Uncategorized.trackback
The following is adapted from an anonymous person.
Nobody Likes Gays
1) Being gay is not natural.
- And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay
- In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
- People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all;
- Hence why women are still property,blacks still can’t marry whites,and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
- And we can’t let the sanctity of Britney Spears’55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
- So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our population isn’t out of control,our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
- Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
- In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
(Did I miss the lesson where Jesus says He hates gays?)
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
- Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
- Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
I really like this, I really do. If it wasn’t already apparent to you, that was a sarcastic writing.
Second excerpt. Different person, but same idea.
Prop 8 is a crime. It is unconstitutional, it is discriminant, and it is shameful. Shameful that this measure was even put on the ballot. It is shameful that it has a fighting chance to win. It is shameful that the state ignored the rulings of a non-biased supreme court. It is shameful that this country is as ignorant and as regressive as we feared. This was shown back in the 50’s and in the 30’s with the Jim Crow and the Nuremberg Laws. They talk about divorce rates going through the roof, should this measure fail. In Massachusetts, the divorce rate is way lower than anywhere else. They say that the sanctity of marriage will be harmed, when in fact it will be enlightened. We do not try to stop Brittney and her 2 hour wedding, do we? No. They say it will harm the children, because now, it is detrimental society if kids learn equality and freedom.
Ever since we were young, we have been indoctrinated with slogans such as “America the Free” and “It’s a free country” and “God bless America” and “You are lucky to live here because you get freedoms that other countries don’t have”. If this proposition wins, all of this will be proved wrong. We will be proved to be not the tolerant society we hoped we were. … If Prop 8 wins, America is homophobic. that’s the bottom line. You can argue the facts all you want, but when you get down to the core, the only thing stopping people from voting no is either a conscious or subconscious homophobia. No matter what light or angle or religious stuff you try to dump, it is blatant homophobia at the core. do not let this take over. Don’t let the bigots win.
I could not have said it more eloquently.
Here is the final excerpt I have chosen (noon8.com):
Facts v. Fiction
Don’t be misled. Watch our ad to learn the why Californians oppose Prop 8.
Proposition 8 puts discrimination into our Constitution. It would inject government into private lives. It undermines equal protections under our laws.
Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:
Fiction: Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gays.
Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.” The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
I respect you and your opinion if you disagree, but I do not respect bigotry. Please, avoid bigotry in comments, but if you have something meaningful to say about any of the above excerpts, I’d like to hear it.
Wow, that was a long post, lol!
Anyways:
“Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.” The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education.”
Actually, in San Francisco a school already took their children to a lesbian marriage, and they said that there would be more of that if it passed.
“People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.”
Haha, that’s hilarious!!!!!!!! If someone actually married their dog, I would crack up so hard!!!!!!!!! XD But omg, a lamp on the other hand is even more epic geniusness!!! I wanna marry a lamp!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XD XD XD
Oops, I said…
“Actually, in San Francisco a school already took their children to a lesbian marriage, and they said that there would be more of that if it passed.”
…but instead I meant if it /didn’t/ pass.
Typo meepit got to me, lol! Awww, so cute. *pats meepit* *CHOMP* Hey, where’s my head?! XD
Wow.. that meepit thing was random and weird. And I wasn’t aware of the lesbian thing, but I don’t understand why “there being more of that” is bad…
Because right there it says that they won’t teach it in schools, while they took the children to a lesbian marriage as a fieldtrip!!!! You don’t see anything wrong with that? They’re teaching it to kids, brainwashing them, and promoting the behavior. Whatever happened to going to the park as a fieldtrip?
And omg, you of all people not getting that meepit joke is epic lameness…
” Whatever happened to going to the park as a fieldtrip?” I don’t know. And going to a lesbian marriage is quite random, but no more random than going to a straight marriage…
“You don’t see anything wrong with that? They’re teaching it to kids, brainwashing them, and promoting the behavior.” Promoting the behavior? If the kids turn out to be gay, they’ll be gay. But if they’re not, they’re not going to get gay marriage when they’re not gay.. hormones will tell that “I want to fuck that girl/guy”. (sorry for the curse word/abruptness). I don’t see how this is brainwashing at all… and promoting the behavior gives the connotation that the behavior is bad, in that context. Which it most certainly is not: there is nothing wrong with two women, who love each other, to get married. Showing kids this is random, but I see no harm. It’s not teaching them anything, except that gay marriage is accepted and that we’re undiscriminating people. If they ARE gay, then they’ll most likely feel accepted. If they AREN’T gay, then they most likely will just be happy to know that we are in fact egalitarian; or, at the worst, won’t care.
So, in short my rebuttal: No, I don’t see anything wrong with that. There’s no brainwashing involved (see above), and they cannot be promoting the behavior (see “hormones” above). And I don’t know about the park.
Finally, I get the meepit joke!! I was just saying it was random…
Why the hell would you teach a bunch of 1st graders about gays and lesbians? Let alone take them to a marriage? And this is AFTER they said that they wouldn’t teach it in schools. And yes, they are promoting the behavior. By taking the little kids to this, they’re saying it’s okay if you do this, too. To a bunch of little kids!!! Because little kids believe anything, next thing you know little Bobby will be chasing after little Freddy during recess trying to kiss him, just because he thinks it’s cool. Not because he’s gay. Because he’s brainwashed. That fieldtrip is not random. It’s stupid.
“Why the hell would you teach a bunch of 1st graders about gays and lesbians? Let alone take them to a marriage?” I don’t know why.. but I don’t see what’s wrong with it.
“By taking the little kids to this, they’re saying it’s okay if you do this, too.” It is, or it should be.
“Because little kids believe anything, next thing you know little Bobby will be chasing after little Freddy during recess trying to kiss him, just because he thinks it’s cool. Not because he’s gay. Because he’s brainwashed.” Are you saying this problem would be solved by not allowing gay marriage? If they show a straight marriage a similar thing would happen, by your logic [little kids believe anything, etc.]. Kids would be kissing members of the /opposite/ sex during recess. Not because he/she is straight. Because he/she is brainwashed.
And even if kids do try to kiss each other, as you say, there is no harm done. Kids of that age would not have the sex hormones yet to have the sex urge, and therefore they would do absolutely nothing. When they become of age, though, they will either realize: wow, why was I kissing Billy over there.. I should bang that girl!; or I really likes kissing Billy. Huh. Both of these options are perfectly okay. There is no harm with going on a gay marriage field trip, or, at the very least, there is no MORE harm done from going to such an aforementioned field trip than going to a straight marriage.
“Are you saying this problem would be solved by not allowing gay marriage? If they show a straight marriage a similar thing would happen, by your logic [little kids believe anything, etc.]. Kids would be kissing members of the /opposite/ sex during recess. Not because he/she is straight. Because he/she is brainwashed.”
Which is the reason that no school takes kids to ANY marriages for fieldtrips!!!! Did you take a fieldtrip to a straight marriage? I doubt it. Which is why it’s even more stupid to take them to a gay/lesbian marriage. Kids are little and vulnerable. Let them decide for themselves if they want to be gay when they’re older, instead of taking a little 6 year old to watch two middle aged women making out and have that kid think it’s okay and it’s just another option for their lifestyle. How about schools leave this subject alone and let individuals decide on their own time whether or not they’re gay? There’s no need to promote the behavior. Sure, don’t discriminate against it, but don’t fricken promote it, either.
“And even if kids do try to kiss each other, as you say, there is no harm done. Kids of that age would not have the sex hormones yet to have the sex urge, and therefore they would do absolutely nothing. When they become of age, though, they will either realize: wow, why was I kissing Billy over there.. I should bang that girl!; or I really likes kissing Billy. Huh. Both of these options are perfectly okay. There is no harm with going on a gay marriage field trip, or, at the very least, there is no MORE harm done from going to such an aforementioned field trip than going to a straight marriage.”
Are you encouraging 7 year olds to have sex during recess and ‘experiment’ with each other to see what they like? That’s sick.
What do you mean promote it? I’ve told you a few times now that they aren’t promoting the behaviour. [see a few comments above]
“Are you encouraging 7 year olds to have sex during recess and ‘experiment’ with each other to see what they like? That’s sick.”
No, I am not. As I said, 7 YEAR OLDS DO NOT HAVE SEX HORMONES YET. THEREFORE, THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE SE INSTINCT, THEY WON’T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. Plus they’ll think it’s gross. Little kids can never engage in sexual intercourse unless its rape. That is a fact. They may be “kissing” eachother, but it will mean nothing. As I said again, LATER, when they’re OLDER, they will be able to decide.
“Let them decide for themselves if they want to be gay when they’re older, instead of taking a little 6 year old to watch two middle aged women making out and have that kid think it’s okay and it’s just another option for their lifestyle.” They will decide for themselves. Kids, just because they see two women kissing, does not mean they will imitate the act AND ENJOY IT. They’re kids: they have no sex hormones yet. Hormones will decide for them when and who they will have sex with. Taking them to a field trip does not change who they are.
“No, I am not. As I said, 7 YEAR OLDS DO NOT HAVE SEX HORMONES YET. THEREFORE, THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE SE INSTINCT, THEY WON’T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. Plus they’ll think it’s gross. Little kids can never engage in sexual intercourse unless its rape. That is a fact. They may be “kissing” eachother, but it will mean nothing. As I said again, LATER, when they’re OLDER, they will be able to decide.”
So basically then, you’re saying that it’s okay for them to make out during recess? And maybe in middle school when the hormones kick in, are you saying it’s okay for them to have sex then?
“What do you mean promote it? I’ve told you a few times now that they aren’t promoting the behaviour. [see a few comments above]”
By promoting, I mean encouraging it, and saying it’s okay and completely normal.
“They will decide for themselves. Kids, just because they see two women kissing, does not mean they will imitate the act AND ENJOY IT. They’re kids: they have no sex hormones yet. Hormones will decide for them when and who they will have sex with. Taking them to a field trip does not change who they are.”
Actually, it WILL influence them. Kids are easily influenced, and will think whatever you tell them to think, and do whatever you tell them to do. They don’t know any better. And soon, they’ll be brainwashed, thinking that they have to be gay/lesbian because that’s the way life is.
Wait.. are we arguing about gay marriage yes or no, or whether they should’ve taken the kids to see a gay marriage.. if the former, these arguements aren’t right; if the latter, well, i don’t think a trip to any marriage is a good field trip.
So, if it’s the latter I agree with you [except I would certainly not use the word brainwash].
It’s the latter. I’m saying it’s stupid to take kids to a marriage, especially a gay/lesbian one. And eh, I think the word ‘brainwashed’ fits well, only because I can’t really come up with a better term to describe it. So it’ll have to do. And if you have a different opinion, then that’s great… Yay.
Haha, bandgeek texted you during lunch saying I said hi because I did, and you said hi back, lol. ^_^
what’s funny about that… you said hi.. so i said hi back.
Wow, fun sucker… x_X And I never said it was funny. I just said ‘lol’ because it was a ‘lol’ moment. Yeesh.
… because it was an “lol” moment??? .. o.O
Yes, lol. That’s the reason I wrote ‘lol’. Because I always write stuff when it’s the time for it to be written. XD <– Like right there was a smiley face moment, lol. <– Oooh, and I totally just wrote ‘lol’ there.
Get it? Lol!! I’m just saying I don’t get where you thought I said it was hilarious. All I wrote on that one comment was ‘lol’. And I basically write that like, everywhere. *sigh* Nevermind…
..confusing.