Monday, November 17, 2008

Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history

I keep hearing all of this nonsense about us lgbts attacking people, about us using intimidation and violence to oppress people, about us somehow being ugly aggressors. Newt Gingrich (who wrote the book on deceptive messaging during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives) actually accused us of being "secular fascists." Gingrich's attack on us seem to be the prevailing theme with those on the other side of the Proposition 8 argument.

And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.

 True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing. However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.

Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment. I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.

Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?

Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?

Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?

Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?

Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?

Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?

How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?

How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?

Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.

This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.

We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.

When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died. Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."

 And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone.

Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage." So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.

Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage. And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either. Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.

158 comments :

Zachary said...

Not to mention that each one of those named will say they have no problem with gay people, until we demand the same rights as them. Then there's a problem.

N. de Guerre said...

Hi A.,

I guess you and I think alike since I just started up a new blog to document the anti-gay bigots and used the same Sun Tzu quote that you use on your "lies" page!

I swear, I'm not trying to steal any of your spotlight! :)

Anyway, feel free to check in as it progresses.

In solidarity,

N. de Guerre

BlackTsunami said...

You aren't stealing anything from me ;p.

We need to do as much of this as possible - logical refutations and documentations of their lies. I will add your page as a link

And good job by the way!

Queer john said...

Bravo! and Thank You.

Hazumu Osaragi said...

In grade school and junior high, I was a bully-magnet due to my inherent and ultimately un-hide-able femininity. Until 6th grade, I ran from confrontations, but I was caught and teased-tortured-terrorized-beaten anyway.

One rainy day, I couldn't avoid the bully clique as they walked by me in the crowded hall during recess. As each passed, they would sneak-punch me hard. The clique's low man on the ladder got 'brave', and began wailing on me openly. I lost it and, in a focused rage, turned him from aggressor to aggressed. It took two teachers to pull me off him.

For two years, I did not back down from fights. I avoided them if possible, but if the opponent 'insited', I obliged. I won at least two thirds of the fights. Those I lost, the 'winner' paid for wit some sort of mark. "The pussy gave you a fat lip!" "But I gave him a black eye..." "But the pussy GAVE YOU A FAT LIP!!!! (ha ha ha...)"

I received a spanking from the principal for each fight. It taught me that the principal was a hypocrite. I also learned that I could not trust the other adults to protect me, or even take my side in the altercations. I believe some secretly felt that an effeminate boy 'deserved' the attention, and were secretly hoping it would 'beat the gay out' of me.

After two years, the fights and challenges finally ended. So did the name-calling, and a majority of people actually showed me respect. Those that thought otherwise knew to keep it to themselves.

When we advanced from junior high to high school, I appeared instantly on the radars of the bullies from the other junior high schools, and experienced three weeks of probing from them.

But the probing fell off and disappeared during the fourth week. A friend told me years later the bullies from my school had told the new bullies about my performance in junior high, and the new bullies decided I wasn't worth it.

ThePoliticalCat said...

Great job! Thank you.

Joe & Chelle said...

Please pardon my interjection. I am not gay. I am religious. And I have something to say, both in my own defense and to the religious community that I am often thought to share offensive viewpoints with simply because I am a heterosexual, Christian American.

I am suppose to be one of them; I was raised to be one of them. And, I have thought much about this issue. I am ashamed! I was taught to respect people who are different than I for whatever reason. I was taught that no one ever had the right to impose a religious belief upon another. That a church was meant to guide and teach you, but it could not, under any circumstances, coerce or impose its beliefs upon anyone. Not even my own religion has that right! I was raised to believe that the separation of church and state must never be bridged.

I was taught that the purpose of government was to establish ways for people to live together in peace. To make it possible for a wide variety of people with many different religions, customs, and beliefs to live and work together with respect for each other so that an economy could be established. That the state could never, ever, impose a religious belief unless the security and safety of that society and economy would clearly benefit.

We have here a group of people who have become an established segment of our community. A group of people who have the support of business as well as established religious organizations which support their rights, including the right to marry. Religious institutions which say they support gay marriage and wish to perform such ceremonies. Are we suppose to impose our religious beliefs upon them? If so, I don't want to hear any snivelling when another religion's beliefs are imposed upon yours. The separation of church and state must not be circumvented! Not even by vote, but most certainly not by a vote which is based upon religious beliefs which have no clear benefit to the state! Indeed, the state is harmed by this as all it does is cause misery and harm to a large minority segment of its own citizenry. This is the perversion!

Or, am I just suppose to ignore those people, those companies, those religious institutions? As if they don't count? I will not be a part of this!

My Sunday School teachers taught me about separation of church and state. And they taught me that as a citizen, it was my Christian duty to find ways to work with people who are different than I, independent of my religious beliefs (except that I, myself, must live by them) in a manner which is courteous, respectful, and promoted peace. As a citizen of the United States, I was to conduct myself in a way that best promoted the welfare of my state and federal government with respect toward all the citizens in it. We were to live our Christian beliefs ourselves, but we weren't suppose to shove those beliefs down another's throat, nor to coerce anyone into living them, nor to impose those beliefs on anyone! Shame on you!

They also taught me that God made me, just the way I am. They told me that God loves me just the way I am. They told me that this was true of every single person in this world, even those who were different than I, even those who didn't believe in God at all. They told me that God is compassionate, merciful, and that all love comes from God. That He wanted us to do our best to be like Him. To try and do what He would want. To forgive others the way we want Him to forgive us. To not judge others. To love one another.

I don't see my churches acting the way they told me to. I don't know if homosexuality is a sin. I know what the Bible says. I'm missing something, clearly. But I have friends who are gay. They are good people and I will not condemn them. That's between them and God. I believe in a merciful God and I will trust Him to know what He's doing because He made them, too, just the way they are and I figure that's how He loves them.

I don't know why my religion is becoming one of intolerance and hate. Or being represented so. I don't know why gay people are having to bear this. I just know: I don't want to be a part of it. And I don't want people to think that just because I am a heterosexual Christian American, that I support what is being done to our gay community in any way at all. And I beg everyone, please reconsider what you are doing.

To the gay community: I am very ashamed. I am sorry from the bottom of my heart.

JM said...

Excellent post!

And Joe & Chelle: you have now discovered the difference between a Christian and a Christianist. You are the former; the loudmouthed, hateful bigots are the latter. We know the difference.

Anonymous said...

You know what's funny - that in this debate true "Christianity" or values have been described by those opposing Proposition 8 as those who agree with them. According to the philosophy which I have witnessed coming from that side, you're either in support or you're unethical. There is no middle ground where we just have opposing views. If those of us who oppose gay marriage don't agree with you then we are attacking you. This is the overwhelming feeling that I have concerning this issue.

Why does it have to be this way? Since when did differing philosophies create such a concrete definition between right and wrong? In a democracy shouldn't the majority have the opportunity to preserve their right to protect their own philosophies?

Let me tell you how I see it: Gays and lesbians have all the rights of other individual men and women in this country. Married heterosexual couples have their own right to feel like their contribution to society--children and families--are sacred and vital to their personal existence. You give that right to someone else that can't fulfill that responsibility, and the relationship loses it's meaning.

I don't expect you to read this with any kind of sympathy. In fact, I won't be surprised if this statement is met with comments that have been typical of this debate. I am only exercising my right to believe in a philosophy that is different from yours. I have made no attacks, only expressed beliefs that are different from yours. I see your plight, I am sorry that we don't agree, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to roll over and accept your philosophies either.

Would you expect any less from someone on your side of this issue?

BlackTsunami said...

I respect your beliefs but I totally disagree with what you said. This part bothers me specifically:

"Married heterosexual couples have their own right to feel like their contribution to society--children and families--are sacred and vital to their personal existence. You give that right to someone else that can't fulfill that responsibility, and the relationship loses it's meaning."

Are you saying that the right to marriage and to rear children is something totally belongs to the heterosexual community? That is unfair. Are you saying that gays and lesbians cannot handle the concepts of family and children? I have news for you - we are handling those concepts very well.

Gays and lesbians are having families and some of these families include children. These families tend to be successful and well-adjusted, despite the nonsense they have to face.

Your words give a perfect example of why lgbts do feel like we are being attacked. Who are you to tell us that we cannot handle the concepts of family and children?
Those concepts are not yours to deal out or take away. You have the right to the OPINION that only heterosexuals can successfully have families and children but you DO NOT have the right to legislate that opinion into law.

And that is the crux of the problem. Some people do feel as if they are entitled to dictate the lives of gays and lesbians. And when we buck their untrue ideas of who we are, suddenly we are supposed to be in the wrong.

Hardly.

filkertom said...

Superb. Linked to and excerpted on my LJ. And hugs in solidarity.

Dewey said...

I'll be ridiculed for saying this, but this guy is playing the most childish game in the book: pointing the finger and saying, "But they did it, too!"

Look, I am a supporter of equal rights, but violence and hatred are the absolute wrong actions to be taking in this movement. Do not be so foolish as to give your opponents the very weapons they can use against you.

If our opponents were so clearly bigoted and malicious with the actions they took, then why are so many in this movement attempting to emulate them?

We claim to be for tolerance and mutual respect. We claim to be for freedom. We claim to care about all people.

If we want things to change for the better then we have to start living according to what we claim to believe.

Anonymous said...

I am a 60 yr old, straight, freethinker. I'm sick of all this nonsense. Those who want to believe in invisible gods... feel free. Just keep it in your homes and ritual-places. Leave us enlightened people ALONE! Keep your silly 'guidelines' to yourself. When the battle starts, WE will defend the lgbt's because it is evil NOT to.

Anonymous said...

Let me just say that I'm not gay, nor homophobic. I have a few gay/lesbian friends in fact.

My opinion is that gay and lesbian relationships is unnatural. It has nothing to do with some book some scribe wrote about a man named God. It just goes against the nature of male and female traits.

That said,
I feel that the persecution and bias against gays and lesbians is truly disgusting. Regardless of my own feelings, people are still human beings and deserve the right to live their lives how they see fit.

My gay and lesbian friends understand how I feel about their lifestyle, but we're friends because they're good people. The subject of one's personal life does not come into it.


All of you keep fighting for your rights as humans and don't let the nut-jobs and zealots prevent you from that.

"Enter your hateful slure for me here" said...

Your right you are a child of God. You just arent following the path.
why do all "gays" use the same material?
by calling us names... isnt that sending out the message that you are angry about? kind of a double standard huh?
You can say it all you want, and even riot, but the minute we say or do something like that about you i am a terrorist and am getting sued.. hmmm
way to go "gay movement" we are now seeing what you are like.

Dont get me wrong I love you and God loves you but stop with the double standards if you want to be taken seriously.

BlackTsunami said...

Dewey,

I understand where you are coming from but my point is to look at the history. The Proposition 8 vote was the latest in a bunch of salvos to dehumanize us.

And now they are playing lgbts against the black community.

We need to let people know WHY we are mad. We need to let people know the history of lies perpetrated against us. That was the point of my piece.

BlackTsunami said...

For those who need to be reminded, "Enter your hateful slure for me here" totally ignored what I wrote about the history of lies against the gay community.

You see that's the game. Throw out rhetorical semantics and hope that gets you over.

Also please bear in mind that I said nothing about riots.

Trevor said...

I'd like to address this to the "Anonymous" above me. Beyond what BT responded to regarding "rights to families", there was something else in your statement that was a little frightening.

"In a democracy shouldn't the majority have the opportunity to preserve their right to protect their own philosophies?"

Not here, my friend. That's not what America is supposed to be about. This country has a rich history of the majority using their philosophies to oppress the underclasses, whether that be the poor, racial minorities, or the lgbt community at large. America is supposed to be about freedom and equality for all, and when it's not, we have to make laws protecting the oppressed, because the majority sure as hell won't. In America, just because there's a lot of some people, doesn't mean they have the right to dictate the lives of everyone else. That's fascist authoritarianism. And that's really frightening.

Anonymous said...

bla bla bla bla bla...

BlackTsunami said...

I love being beaten down by "witty repartee," anonymous. (eyes rolling)

DKC said...

Ditto that, Joe and Chelle.
I'm a confirmed Roman Catholic, born and raised, and everything I have learned pointed me towards a no on prop 8. Where is the love for our neighbors (if you didn't know, many of them are lgbt), where is the love for our sons and daughters (many of them are too), our siblings, our friends, our colleagues, our employers, dare I say our pastors? It greatly saddens my heart to see people lose sight of the love and acceptance to be found in Christianity. I'll finish with this: religion is not the problem, and sexual orientation is not the problem, people are the problem. It doesn't have to be us vs them.

Gary said...

Nice post. I work at a store that sells luxury linens. A customer brought up religion and politics while she was buying sheets for her $2000 a night b&b. She thought God was burning down CA because of gay marriage. First I told her that LA was a desert where people weren't really intended to live. Then I told her about growing up gay, Southern baptist, in Texas and the spiritual and emotional damage that I went through. I told her quite a bit but tried to stay calm and matter-of-fact. She did not have the conversation she was expecting but did tell me that I had opened her eyes to a few things. Using us as the "other" has got to stop. It has given so many children lasting problems. No one should grow up feeling God hates them.

Anonymous said...

Disclosure: I am straight, and a non-practicing Christian.

I'm glad to see the gay community rise up after Prop 8 was passed. In an odd way, I care more about this issue than almost any other. I get spun up about this more than I do about any other controversial topic.

For almost a decade, I have challenged anyone who wanted to engage in the debate to provide one single, rational reason why gay couples should not wed. Here's what I always get:

- It will destroy the sanctity of marriage. This one makes me laugh. 50% divorce rate in the US, and domestic violence at an all time high. Heterosexuals are destroying any sanctity marriage had.

- It goes against bible/God/my religion. Fine, that's totally your perogative. This is NOT, however, a reason to ban it. As others pointed out, this is the very definition of "separation of Church & State". If your church wants to refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, fine. If your pastor refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, totally his/her right. But the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT can not, and should not, deny two citizens of legal age, sound mind, and willing participation, the right to enter into a civil contract together.

- It's unnatural. As defined by who?

- What's next, man weds animal? This is usually when I dismiss the person as retarded and end the debate.


Never once has anyone presented a sound reason for this. Attempts like Prop 8 and every other legal initiative like it are nothing more than attempts to retrofit discrimination into the Constitution. We would never dream of saying a black man can not marry a white woman - how can we, with straight faces, deny two men or two women the same opportunities we afford all other citizens of this country? It goes against everything that we stand for.

/rant.

Thanks for rising up to defeat this injustice. My wind is at your back.

Anonymous said...

who are we to redefine what nature, evolution, god, whatever you want to believe in, has defined in every animal species since the dawn of time. If a species is to survive they must create life, 'natural' is using your body as nature intended. Men have parts, women have parts, if nature has taught us anything it's that you cannot force evolution. Name one species that doesn't exist for the soul purpose of producing and providing for their offspring? Religious or not, a gay relationship is in error, it is fundamentally flawed in its inability to create life. Who are we to tell nature what marriage is or what a family is. A family is a father and mother with their children. Many species take vare of the young when the parents are unwilling or unable to provide, however they do not form homosexual bonds and pretend they should be treated just as the male/female famalies. I like to do what works with nature, most people who fight it lose.

Anonymous said...

When certain people say that they can get married but we (the gay community) can not, it implies that we are less than them, and that's insulting.

BlackTsunami said...

Anonymous,

when did you become God? Seriously though the fact of the matter is that what you wrote is merely theory and speculation.

THE FACTS are that some men/women relationships cannot have children or choose not to and some lgbt families are raising children quite well.

The perimeters you have established are your opinion and you have a right to it, but you have no actual proof to back it up (and distorted and discredited studies by the religious right don't count. Lord knows we have had too many of those).

Anonymous said...

Fuck you fags. You will not get to marry while I'm alive. you don't intimidate me and if you want this to turn into a war. Fucking Bring it!!! You fucking homosexuals disgust. Lets end this shit the right way. With weapons.

Emproph said...

Anonymous wrote:

“In a democracy shouldn't the majority have the opportunity to preserve their right to protect their own philosophies?”

Not if the basis of that philosophy is the protection of majority opinion for the mere sake of it. At that point it’s not democratic, it’s tyrannical. It’s the same as the “deeply held beliefs” argument.

It is inherently immoral to suggest that deeply held beliefs, or majority opinion be the guiding criteria used to determine what is best for all. Those majority beliefs may well be in the best interest of all concerned, but they may well not be, and therein lies the problem.

The “majority” opinion that people like you are defending, is that to allow gays the same rights to contribute to society in the same way that you do, is to take your right to do so away. Yet the gay equality movement isn’t attempting to take away any heterosexual right to contribute to society, be it “children and families” or anything else.

So there’s no simple disagreement about it. Allowing rights and taking them away are two different animals. Your claim to the contrary is dishonest, whether you mean it to be so or not.

As the saying goes, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To equate majority opinion with the power of rule is to equate majority rule with corruption.

The right to marriage isn’t about the power of rule, it’s about the right to self determination.

Majority rule is pretty much a euphemism for the power to rule over others.

If you wish to defend that, do so.

Anonymous said...

fucking fags. Die already

BlackTsunami said...

Let me just say that the rude comments of anonymous are SOLELY his own and not necessarily indicatie of those who oppose gay marriage.

See how easy that was NOT to exploit comments and actions, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee, etc., etc.

Anni said...

I'm with you all the way. I can't imagine any God would condemn you over the hideous way the religious right treats this issue and the people in the LBST community.

God speed.

Anonymous said...

I am religous, I appreciate all kinds of people. The true evil in this world are the Islamo-Fascists. If you think being gay under christianity is bad, you aint seen nothing yet.

BlackTsunami said...

Anonymous, that comment was truly ignorant. There is nothing wrong with Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality serves a purpose just like heterosexuality does. If heterosexuals procreated without bounds, our resources would become strained to the point where they would no longer be renewable, leading to the downfall of our very species. Homosexuality is simply another way for nature to control our population. If a man or woman is born sterile, it doesn't mean that they're unnatural, it just means that they are meant to serve a different purpose.

ryusen said...

In response to Anonymous:

"If those of us who oppose gay marriage don't agree with you then we are attacking you....

Since when did differing philosophies create such a concrete definition between right and wrong? In a democracy shouldn't the majority have the opportunity to preserve their right to protect their own philosophies?"

This is where you are dead wrong. Consider that HAVING your philosophy is perfectly fine, once you act on that philosophy to remove the rights of the people who disagree with you, you are wrong (at least within the grounds of our constitution and the principle of this country).

And quite frankly, this country is NOT a pure democracy (ie. rule by majority vote). We have the constitution that defines what is and isn't allowed to be done by government. This is to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected again the "philosophies" of a majority. No vote should have the right to take that away.

"I am only exercising my right to believe in a philosophy that is different from yours. I have made no attacks, only expressed beliefs that are different from yours. I see your plight, I am sorry that we don't agree, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to roll over and accept your philosophies either."

if you voted for Prop 8 (or anything similar), then you HAVE made an attack a political one against the rights of homosexuals in this country. If it is only just your belief and philosophy, but you chose not to contribute to the vote, then good for you. You acted within the grounds of a responsible citizen.

Anonymous said...

well said.

Anonymous said...

blacktsunami,

opinions and theories?? have you taken a biology class? have you studied animal behvior? my comments are not theories, they are facts. As far as most animals are concerned their entire life is to promote their species. I'm not saying my sole purpose in life is to raise as many children as possible, nevertheless why else would evolution/god/nature give men one half and women the other half to sustaining our species if they were not intended to be used for that purpose.

BlackTsunami said...

so in other words, you don't have anything concrete to back up your assertions, anonymous.

but thank you for playing ;p

Anonymous said...

A note to the LGBT community; know who your allies are.

Your allies are the ones that are having the same tactics used against them by the religious right. They are the 5-20% of the US population. The younger you look, the larger the %.

They will fight with you over this nonsense. They will march with you and support your rights because they see their own rights being abused. Who are they? The non-religious, the secular, the agnostics, the atheists, ... .

The religious right have demonized *us* -- the non-religious -- in exactly the same way they have demonized you in the LGBT community. They have said that we are militant and plotting to do away with all religion by force. That we are 'un-American', that we are corrupting society. Pure paranoia and projection.

Meanwhile, the RR have pressed for such nonsense are creationism and gutting sciences that we all benefit from. They have stopped or hindered many new medical and scientific advances causing needless deaths in the process. Look up the 'wedge document' if you are not aware of it. Look at how many people in the USA think that the Earth and the universe is less than 10,000 years old to see how pervasive this nonsense is.

The RR want the dark ages to return. Together our groups match or outrank them in raw numbers.

If you don't believe me, fine, ... but don't buy the hype from those who persecute you.

Look for yourself. Know who your natural allies are.

sarah said...

I have the solution to all our problems, LGBT community! We need to declare homosexuality a RELIGION. Then we can marry ourselves and receive all the protection afforded religious groups by law. We can call ourselves the Homotarians. Or the SNAP!tists. Seriously. Spread the word. If you can be born Jewish, then you can be born gay. I hereby declare Provincetown the holy land.

ryusen said...

"have you taken a biology class? have you studied animal behvior? my comments are not theories, they are facts. As far as most animals are concerned their entire life is to promote their species. I'm not saying my sole purpose in life is to raise as many children as possible, nevertheless why else would evolution/god/nature give men one half and women the other half to sustaining our species if they were not intended to be used for that purpose."

You realize that there have been cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom right? one theory on why people might be genetically disposed toward homosexuality is to allow their siblings a greater chance to procreate. This would also, in theory, mean less of a family's wealth will be divided, thus that family has a greater chance of maintaining it's wealth. Those studies also showed that, especially in males, Homosexuality tended to occur more frequently in younger brothers. Man i wish i saved those links.

Anonymous said...

black,

I guess I am not making my point very well. look down your pants, there is a reason for males and a reason for females. I don't need to cite my sources on this one. you ask anyone in the world and they will tell you that females have the biological parts to perform certain tasks. males gave other parts to perform other tasks. bodies were designed through billions of years to perform in a certain way. I don't see how you can argue that.

mike said...

Mr Anonymous sure has a lot of pent up hatred. I bet he's waging a battle in his own head about "evil feelings".

And this is not about how to produce children. This is about how to love someone that you feel special about. What's more special than that.

BTW, I'm straight. If lgbts want to marry, more power to them. It's no skin off my back.

Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
“Let me just say that I'm not gay, nor homophobic. I have a few gay/lesbian friends in fact.

My opinion is that gay and lesbian relationships is unnatural. It has nothing to do with some book some scribe wrote about a man named God. It just goes against the nature of male and female traits.”


Perfectly understandable. Same-sex attraction/love is indeed “unnatural” for those who are heterosexual, and is an anomaly when it comes to complimentary male/female traits.

And I appreciate your further sentiment: “All of you keep fighting for your rights as humans and don't let the nut-jobs and zealots prevent you from that.”

One point of note though in regard to this:

“My gay and lesbian friends understand how I feel about their lifestyle…”

We have lives, not lifestyles. It’s important to understand that the anti-gay industry uses the term “lifestyle” as a means of characterizing our lives (same-gender attraction) as something we choose, but mostly in the effort to depict us as sexually promiscuous.

In short, “lifestyle” is short for “the sexually promiscuous lifestyle.”

Anonymous said...

I have a suggestion, and I'm sure its not original.

I suggest we remove "marriage" from all legal proceedings. GLTS shouldn't be allowed to marry legally. But "straight" people shouldn't be allowed to marry legally either.

Make the legal terminology "civil union." Then the religious groups can have all the stipulations on their marriages they want; they can preserve the sanctity of their word. Because it won't matter legally. That would be true separation of church and state.

Anonymous said...

So all this debate is because gay men want to give oral and anal sex to each other, and gay women want to give oral and anal sex to each other?

I don't really want to know that.

Anonymous said...

I agree that both sides have their extremes and I oppose both ends. Common guys, we're supposed to be better than the hateful right, we must not stoop down to their level. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school and while I am in no way a religious person, I do follow the moral aspects of religious laws I was taught and those I feel are the most important: Love thy neighbor as you love thyself and God created us all in his own image. For all you hating bigots out there who choose to take what you want and leave what you don't want, the key words are ALL and his IMAGE. Meaning gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, white, brown, black, christian, catholic, jewish, muslim, hindu etc. WE ARE ALL THE SAME. Stop your hate and remember you will face the creator one day. I am as straight as it gets but the fact that this ignorance and bigotry is still as prevalent as it is in our country today just pisses me off. I love my country but truly this land is the land of blessed ignorance. Let this movement for civil rights begin once again, but let us not fall into their evil. We are better than violence, hate and disrespect, isn't that what we are fighting?

Just a Guy said...

All the "fags die" comments are probably made by uptight closet cases who secretly would love nothing more than to marry their best bud, yet are too afraid to explore their feelings and risk being shunned. Cowards, to a one.

Abel Zhu said...

"You realize that there have been cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom right? one theory on why people might be genetically disposed toward homosexuality is to allow their siblings a greater chance to procreate. This would also, in theory, mean less of a family's wealth will be divided, thus that family has a greater chance of maintaining it's wealth. Those studies also showed that, especially in males, Homosexuality tended to occur more frequently in younger brothers. Man i wish i saved those links."

One of the trademarks/facts of evolution is that it takes a long time to happen. That a "gay" gene could have evolved since the dawn of humanity is questionable. That a "gay gene" could have evolved since the social institutions of "wealth and inheritance" started is even more questionable.

Anonymous said...

I am glad to see that most of the people leaving comments on this post are intelligent, well meaning individuals with valid opinions. I wish that more of this type of dialogue occured every day in our society. I am a heterosexual agnostic and I am constantly appalled at what is being passed off as the "majority" in this country. I don't believe for one minute that the majority of Americans are far right anti-gay bigots, as the Religous Right and many other such organizations and pundits would have us believe. I would say that the majority are centrists when it comes to this issue. They may not totally agree with gay marriage, but don't have a fervent wish to see it banned. Why the issue of gay marriage should even enter into the realm of Constitutional politics is beyond me. In fact it makes me sick. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state and it is appalling to see that separation getting smaller in many areas of our society, including gay marriage and the evolution debate. I would also like to say that as an agnostic I believe in the true and very basic teachings of Christianity, exemplified by the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How much simpler could it get? Why has the Christian faith strayed so far from the message that Jesus (prophet or not) preached? Unfortunately for centuries the most powerful faction of the Christian faith has corrupted the message of Jesus Christ and sought to subjugate the non-Christian (and more recently non-Protestant)in society. I yearn for a faith that I can truly believe in, and find Christianity lacking. As I told a gay friend recently, it takes decades or more for people to accept changes in societal norms, such as women and blacks voting, or women earning equal pay, or even the end of child labor. Equality doesn't happen overnight, and I know you have been struggling for a long time. But I truly believe that the pendulum has to swing the other way and that more rational and truly Christian beliefs must prevail. Sorry for the long rant, but after reading some of the comments I had to have my say. Best of luck and peace to all of you.

BlackTsunami said...

"I guess I am not making my point very well. look down your pants, there is a reason for males and a reason for females. I don't need to cite my sources on this one."

Come on anonymous,

that comment was beyond silly. it was just plain ignant. You know what that is don't you? Something so stupid it doesn't deserve three syllables to describe how stupid it is.

dinthebeast said...

Yeah, who are we to go against nature: homosexual behavior is found in many many species. So I guess that means "who are we to bother noticing" instead? Opinions are opinions and we all have them. Also facts are facts and can sometimes be checked before inclusion in opinions. Can we own up to our hate and fear? A little honesty can go a long way, or so it seems to me.
-Doug in Oakland

ryusen said...

"One of the trademarks/facts of evolution is that it takes a long time to happen. That a "gay" gene could have evolved since the dawn of humanity is questionable. That a "gay gene" could have evolved since the social institutions of "wealth and inheritance" started is even more questionable."

As i said, gay animals have been known to exist. the gene could easily exist within all of us, just that somewhere down the line, there was some advantage in it so it became slightly more prevalent in our ancestors than perhaps in other species. and by wealth i don't just mean money. it could be anything that would have been valued in society. in out ancestors it could have been land or mates, but that's just speculation. Think about an animal that the male might typically have to fend off other males to take and keep multiple mates. Wouldn't it be to the advantage of the species if some of the male's brothers lacked the desire to fight for the available mates?

Emproph said...

Black Tsunami said…

“Come on anonymous,

that comment was beyond silly. it was just plain ignant. You know what that is don't you? Something so stupid it doesn't deserve three syllables to describe how stupid it is.”


LOL, I gotta remember that one.

"That was so ignorant, it doesn’t even deserve the three syllables it takes to describe it."

Anonymous said...

So I didn't read all the comics and I don't know whether this had been said in full yet, but someone was touching on the separation of Church and State issue.

And that's exactly where this comes from. This huge divide over marriage is because both state and religion have claimed it as their own, and for as long as they agreed with each other on the conditions this went by largely unnoticed. Then this unexpected turn begins to happen, and gays ask to be married. The state says alright, and the religion says no way, and suddenly we have conflict.
The way I see it, this sharing of marriage between church and state has been exposed and condemned, and everything we see now is merely the long and messy divorce between the two as their attorneys tries to determine who gets what. Both church and state are fighting to see who gets to keep custody of the child, the term 'marriage'.
I am personally of the opinion that marriage should be considered religious terminology, and that some other variant of the term union should describe the state's form of bringing couples together, whereas many others want the term marriage to stay and be applied to all unions allowed by the state.

And it's easy to see why this divorce has become so bitter; even with the increasing divorce rates and how much we as a society seem to disrespect matrimony in general these days, the term 'marriage' comes pre-built with all sorts of wonderful connotations about commitment and loyalty and faith and love and servitude whereas the alternative proposed term 'civil union', that's something two pieces of landmass might experience, which is considerably less oppressive.

So I want to make a proposal now: allow religion to keep the term marriage, let state use the term "wedded". "Wedded" brings to mind weddings and all the connotations that come along with it, matching the connotations of marriage, and then each body can take their own terms and go their own separate ways.

So how about it? We religious types get to keep the term and sanctity of our word "marriage" and the state can give all the tax benefits it wants to the "wedded". And as far as the state's concerned, there's no married couples, just wedded ones.

/Just looking for some middle ground here so mommy and daddy can quite fighting and just move on with their lives.

Anonymous said...

@ryusen
Wouldn't it be to the advantage of the species if some of the male's brothers lacked the desire to fight for the available mates?
yeaaaaahhhhh you kind of lost me there.

So you're suggesting that it would be advantageous to have gays, which would allow a 'gay gene' to evolve...
Because there's an advantage to having members of a species that don't desire to mate...
...
So how exactly is the 'gay gene' passed on when the members with the 'gay gene' have no desire to mate? Is it like, some kid's uncle was gay and because his uncle being gay didn't cause a lot of fighting, that kid got some of his uncle's gay? Because according to your proposition, it's not very likely uncle's going to have any direct descendants to propose this gene for himself.

I'm a fan of the 'product of the environment' theory myself, 'cept I believe that once it's set by the environment it becomes really, really, really hard to reverse said product. The problem with it being a genetic trait is that I kind of suspect such a genetic trait should have been killed off by now if that's all it was.

ryusen said...

"So how exactly is the 'gay gene' passed on when the members with the 'gay gene' have no desire to mate? Is it like, some kid's uncle was gay and because his uncle being gay didn't cause a lot of fighting, that kid got some of his uncle's gay? Because according to your proposition, it's not very likely uncle's going to have any direct descendants to propose this gene for himself."

Not quite. I didn't do the research myself i'm just remembering a few articles i read a couple of years ago. My memory if the details could be faulty. as i understand it, it's not that only homosexuals "have" the gene. All humans have the gene, it's just that the trends showed that it was more likely to become active in younger siblings. Straight parents can still give birth to gay children. either way. not even the article said it was a conclusive theory, just a hypothesis based on statistical studies and what ever research they did.

Anonymous said...

this isn't just about marriage, it's about history

You're right. It is about history.

And the thing is, you're not the first group in the history of this country to be denied your chosen form of marriage rights.

See, if we go back into history, we'll remember that in the mid-1800s to the late 1800s, some of these very same groups practiced a form of marriage in which more than two partners formed a union.

Where was the support then, for their chosen form of marriage? Where is the support now?

I have nothing against GLBT marriage. But I attended a GLBT pro-marriage rally once, in Connecticut a few years ago, and while there asked some of the people in the movement about whether they would also support polygamous marriage.

They would not.

In my mind, this issue is about equal rights for all. For absolutely all. If some people get their marriage rights, and others do not, then that is just as unfair and wrong.

So what I really want to see is not only Mormons working for GLBT marriage rights, but members of the GLBT community working for polygamist marriage rights. The moment I see that, then I will truly believe that this issue isn't about marriage, but about history, as you say.

(By the way, did you know that, as a result of their odd beliefs, when the Mormons lived in Missouri, before ever going to Utah, the governor of Missouri at the time issue an "Extermination Order"? He wrote: "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace...")

Where were you when Mormons were being massacred, and had to flee the United States entirely (Utah at that time was a part of Mexico, not the U.S.) in order to avoid being killed by a government-sanctioned order?

BlackTsunami said...

The lgbt community has more than given good arguments for marriage equality.

If those for polygamy want that, then they need to buck up and do the same. It's not up the lgbt community to lead THAT fight.

And your takeoff on my piece is HIGHLY ironic when one takes into account how the Mormon church pretty much led the charge to pass Proposition 8.

All you are saying is that the Mormon church has no perspective in terms of discrimination.

Shane said...

First of all, yes, you are a child of God. I would not argue that. And Joe & Chelle, you can't call yourself a Christian if you pick and choose what to believe form the Bible. It's not there to make you feel good, it's there to show you how to live. I don't feel homosexuality is right. That doesn't stop me from loving those who are homosexual. I am not intolerant. I am not going to treat you any less human than I would treat my own wife, but I don't have to agree with what you're doing.

But taking religion out completely, the job of our government is to create laws to form a peaceful society. Allowing gay marriage sets up a dangerous precedent. Let me explain that. If we can redefine marriage to allow gay marriage, why not polygamy? We shouldn't discriminate there either. What about brothers and sisters getting married? How about 40 year old men marrying 12 year old girls? Why shouldn't we also allow them to share in marriage? They just love each other and want to have what we have.

For those of you who are saying, "That is stupid and will never happen." Why? Why won't it? Better yet, why shouldn't it? It shouldn't because those things can, and most likely would, hurt our society more than help it. Also, you feel it shouldn't be allowed because your morals are telling you it is wrong. Yes, you have morals too.

Now to bring religion back in: just because your morals are "more tolerant" than mine, doesn't make them right. I am tired of being viewed so negatively because of my morals. We all live by some set of morals, you included. If there is no God, yours aren't more right than mine, so stop trying to pretend they are. If there is a God, He says homosexuality is as bad as murder, which would make my morals correct. Again, I love all individuals even though I don't agree with what they do. But you all need to stop being hypocritical. Thank you.

Kratz said...

Don't you love how all the hateful comments are from people who wish to remain anonymous? Obviously they are too scared to attach their names to their beliefs.

I completely agree with everything you said. Granted, I haven't been following the protests too closely, but I haven't seen these "acts of violence" being perpetrated by the lgbt community. Unless they count holding signs as violence. But, like you said, what would they say about acts of violence by "religious" people against homosexuals? Their silence is deafening.

I am just about to put a link to this post on my blog. Feel free to come check it out! And keep up the good work!

BlackTsunami said...

Shane, that's the problem right there. Who are you to tell Joe & Chelle that they aren't Christians. It's not up to you to make that determination.

Also what's the deal with the slippery slope argument? Arguments like that usually are about fear. They have no basis in fact.

And you can live by whatever morals you want but the problem is about entitlement. Just like you felt you were entitled to tell Joe & Chelle that they aren't Christians, you seem to think that your morals entitle you to establish what is or isn't appropriate in terms of marriage.

You may think that God says homosexuality is a sin and that is your beliefs. But that's not what God told me. And if you want to get technical, God never said a word about homosexuality but those who did also condoned slavery, parents killing their children for speaking out of turn and the inferiority of women.

BlackTsunami said...

Thank you Kratz ;p

Anonymous said...

The lgbt community has more than given good arguments for marriage equality.

The lgbt community has more than given good arguments for lgbt marriage equality. But not for any one else's marriage equality. That's fine -- it's that community's choice to do whatever they want to do. You just need to understand that is what is happening.

If those for polygamy want that, then they need to buck up and do the same. It's not up the lgbt community to lead THAT fight.

Oh my goodness no. Oh, how sad, if that were true! Imagine in the 1800s if, say, male slaves rose up and said, "We don't deserve to be slaves.. we're going to fight for the right to be free. But, we're only going to fight for ourselves. If you women don't want to be slaves, you have to fight for it yourselves. We're not going to help". No, that's not the way things should work. Freedom should be given to everybody, or else it is not true freedom. Same for marriage. The fight for full equality in marriage is everybody's fight. It's not a separate fight.

And your takeoff on my piece is HIGHLY ironic when one takes into account how the Mormon church pretty much led the charge to pass Proposition 8. All you are saying is that the Mormon church has no perspective in terms of discrimination.

Ironic? Yes, it is. But there was point to the irony, and you've just proved that point. The point wasn't that the Mormon church has no perspective. They do not; I agree with you. The point was that the lgbt community *also* does not have any perspective.

By saying that the polygamy fight is a separate fight, you are, in practice, condoning marriage rights for some but not for all. Oh, don't worry; I'm on your side. I support the rights that you seek.

But when you stop short of seeking those rights for others, for those *you* personally might disagree with or find distasteful, the unfairness and wrongness is the same. Understand that.

Evan said...

"Where were you when Mormons were being massacred, and had to flee the United States entirely (Utah at that time was a part of Mexico, not the U.S.) in order to avoid being killed by a government-sanctioned order?"

Hiding in closets, hoping not to get stoned. Quite possibly by Mormons.

"But taking religion out completely, the job of our government is to create laws to form a peaceful society. Allowing gay marriage sets up a dangerous precedent. Let me explain that. If we can redefine marriage to allow gay marriage, why not polygamy? We shouldn't discriminate there either. What about brothers and sisters getting married? How about 40 year old men marrying 12 year old girls? Why shouldn't we also allow them to share in marriage? They just love each other and want to have what we have."

If we permit those fearsome heterosexuals to get married, next thing we know people will be wanting to enter into a group marriages with underage turtles! And those turtles might even be black incestuous turtles!!!!

You're promoting a fallacious argument. If we promote equality so that the state acknowledges the rights of a minority then we're not establishing an argument for every possible variation.

Firstly there is the issue of consent - no animal or child has the ability to give informed consent and so cannot sign a marriage contract ergo the legal acknowledgement of same sex marriage would not set a precedent for under aged nor bestial marriages.

Secondly, poly-marriage, which I agree with btw, is an issue of numbers and has nothing to do with the people involved. Poly-marriage between same-sex partners, opposite-sexed partners and mixed sex and orientation partners are all equally illegal. Same sex marriage sets no more of a precedent for poly-marriage than opposite sexed marriage.

Anonymous said...

Just in case anyone ever makes it to the bottom of this insanely long thread, I thought I would leave my thoughts. I won't pretend to understand some of the things that have happened to these groups of people. I won't pretend that many people claiming to come from a religious point of view have done very unreligious things. And I know this has been said 100 times before, but I thought I would reiterate. Just because someone has beliefs about right and wrong doesn't make them hateful. I have gay friends. But if one of them asked me whether I thought it was wrong or not, I would have to tell them I do. The fact is that truth does not depend on the individual. How then could we define truth? Truth comes from a God who made his intentions in alot of matters very clear. Anyways, I'm afraid this will turn into another "narrow" or "prejudiced" comment, but I really hope it won't. I know that horrible things have happened. I also know that believing in a natural moral code that is written in all of us does not mean that I agree with anything that has happened. So take this how you want, because isn't that what we all end up doing to one degree or another? But try to understand that we are not all hateful.

Anonymous said...

Discrimination is bad, mkay? There is no good reason why equal rights shouldn't be given to the gay community.

I'm straight, by the way. Keep fighting the good fight. You have my support.

Greg said...

I remember when voting for the law to ban gay marriage in Oregon, I voted "no." My mom had voted "yes." When I asked her to read the arguments for the measure, she told me she regretted her decision. All these anti-gay marriages are nothing more than an attempt to make the lgbt community second class citizens and the bigots don't even try to hide it. It's sickening and needs to stop.

I have to say thank you for standing up for yourselves. Like many others here, I have a friend who is gay and he is one of the best friends I have had. I hate to see anything negative happen to any of my friends.

Just to point out, I am also a white, American Christian and I agree that religion is personal. People need to learn that the best way to lead others to God is through showing them what a good Christian is, not through threats and violence.

Mike said...

Amen, brother. Thank you for your perspective. As Lao Tsu noted, dualities are an illusion. Gay/ straight, white/ black, man/ woman; all such constructs are part of outdated survival skills that have no place at our current evolutionary stage. Those who feel threatened are in denial about an undeniable part of themselves that doesn't fit into the neat, preprogrammed yet incomplete roadmap. Too soon they forget that America was settled by those who yearned for the freedom from those who would impose religious beliefs upon them. Finally, let's remember that none of us is free while one of us is oppressed.

Anonymous said...

So, I will say straight off that I am a follower of Christ (the word "Christian" has become such a watered down term...). I hope this doesn't cause me to immediately be counted as ignorant and oppressive. I would just like to point out a few things. Note that I'm not saying any of this with any sort of malicious intent, though some people may feel as though I am.

Biblical love at its core, is willing good unto others. It is not simply an emotion, though it often includes that. When the Bible says that God loves everyone, what it means is that God wills good for everyone. It does not mean that He accepts all the things people do that go against His plan and His creation. In the same way, true Christian love (following the golden rule of loving your neighbor as yourself) is not simply a feeling, but is rather willing good unto others. This is why true Christians can really actually love everyone because it is possible to love people that you don't necessarily like or feel anything toward.

The reason I say any of this at all is because people who are not Christians (or who are not in the sense that they live their lives strictly according to the Bible) might want to try to understand that, since God created man and woman for each other and said it is very good, those who are Christians will take this and will it for others because, by doing so, they are loving them. This, obviously, may sound absolutely ridiculous to people who have a different worldview (as it is hard for someone with one worldview to see things from the perspective of another worldview that is irreconcilable), but, at least for me, when I say that I cannot support glbt marriage, it is because I want what God has deemed as good for all people.

Now, people will disagree with this because having this sort of view causes all sorts of unhappiness for homosexuals who want to be married. Trust me, I understand that. I have a lesbian aunt who has lived with the woman she loves since before I was born. I love both of them very much. But, because I love them, I want what is good for them, as deemed by God, who is the source of all goodness. Even if it causes unhappiness, it can be for their benefit. This is often the case, where what is best for us causes us the most unhappiness. Take children, for example (though note that I am NOT comparing homosexuals to children in any way whatsoever). Parents do things, take away thing, deny things, that cause their children to be unhappy, but really are in the child's best interest. God does this with His followers all the time--the life of a true Christian is one of suffering--but it is for their ultimate good.

I'm not saying that all Christians think this or that they aren't being oppressive and horrid in some of the ways in which they have opposed glbt marriage. I just wanted to present a way for people to possibly understand what seems so wrong to so many (that is, a Christian's support of something like Prop 8). I'm not trying to impose these views on anyone or say that everyone must agree with me. I know just about everyone will disagree and not understand how opposing glbt marriage can be loving someone, but that is where our worldviews are incompatible and cannot come to an understanding. Personally, though, I enjoy hearing what people who disagree with me have to say and trying to understand where they are coming from as much as I can. I thought someone else might like to also.

I'm sorry if this didn't actually address the original post made. It seemed like this had sort of turned into a place for discussion, so I added a little bit.

danny(soon) ko said...

Hello, my purpose is to simply contribute to this DIA-logue.

I would like to offer some additional input as to why the Christian faith cannot embrace gay marriage. This input builds upon the often-cited narrative of the union of Adam and Eve.

In the new testament, the church (the believers - both jew and gentile) is identified as the bride, and Christ as the bridegroom. Here, we can see that the Scriptures clearly characterize the church as feminine. And one must remember that the church is Christ's object of love - the object he loved and loves, quite literally, to death.

For the Christian faith to accept gay marriage is not only to reject God's design and His ways, but to accept the defilement of the holy illustration that the Scriptures use to demonstrate God's love for mankind.

Lee said...

"Married heterosexual couples have their own right to feel like their contribution to society--children and families--are sacred and vital to their personal existence. You give that right to someone else that can't fulfill that responsibility, and the relationship loses it's [sic] meaning."

Anonymous, do you realize that you have just told me -- a straight white female who has chosen not to have children -- that I shouldn't be allowed to marry? Do you realize that you've just said my father shouldn't have been allowed to remarry after my mother died, because his second wife was past childbearing age? Do you think his marriage, or mine, has less meaning than yours? That's what you just said.

Marriage has NEVER been primarily about children. The most cursory look at the history of marriage will tell you that it's primarily about PROPERTY, and about legal rights and protections. As long as my gay friends cannot get the entire suite of 100+ legal rights and protections that I can get by virtue of a simple procedure in the JP's office, there is not equal protection under the law. Give up your claim to special rights; your children don't make you that special.

garrick said...

"Why does it have to be this way? Since when did differing philosophies create such a concrete definition between right and wrong?"

It happened when one side took away the rights of the other side. It happened when one side put their philosophy into law.

"In a democracy shouldn't the majority have the opportunity to preserve their right to protect their own philosophies?"

No. Emphatically, no. 51% of the people don't get to own the other 49%. That is why equal rights are written into the federal and state constitutions.

Anonymous said...

Humans are animals. The only thing different between humans and other species is the brain power that allows us to choose. So why these comments about homosexuality not occurring in nature? We are nature.

The thing that baffles me is the stupidity of our species. Only humans could come up with something as stupid as religion: the source of almost every problem we have ever faced. And its not even religion itself thats the problem, just the fact that we are so possessive over our respective religions.

Emproph said...

“So I want to make a proposal now: allow religion to keep the term marriage, let state use the term "wedded".”

Agreed.

All those religions in favor of calling gay marriage “marriage,” say 'aye.'

Anonymous said...

Look, it's simple.

It doesn't matter that you think gay marriage is wrong, it doesn't matter that you think abortion is wrong. The governments duty is to protect the rights of the people. Of ALL people.

I can't believe how ignorant some people are.

Drew said...

Arguments for Proposition 8:

1. Against my religion
Any specifically-religious reason for opposition must be thrown out. Separation of church and state.

2. "Civil union" instead of "marriage"
The idea of having a different name for the same thing does not fly. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." If the gay community chooses a different name, that's their prerogative; it is not the prerogative of others to force a different name on them.

3. "It diminishes the importance of my marriage"
Slaves were not allowed to be married for the same reason. Whites were not allowed to marry blacks for the same reason. In both cases, that reason was shown to be against the Constitution.

4. Morality
a. Many oppose gay marriage on the bounds that gays are immoral. Those people do not oppose marriage for rapists, murderers, pedophiles... loving another person of the same gender and acting on it is worse than murder?
b. The common definition of immoral behavior is that you are causing harm to another. There is zero objective evidence that the gay community is causing any more harm to others than the rest of society. To those who say "just knowing what they do is harmful", it's true both ways.

5. Gay parents ruin children
Children raised by gay parents "turn out at least as well" as children raised by straight parents. In fact, those children might turn out better; "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children."
- quotes from a study by Judith Stacey, NYU sociology professor. Enough studies agree for there to be a consensus.

6. "It offends me"
You offend me. That does not give me the right to discriminate against you.

---

Discrimination in any form is not tolerated by the Constitution. Discrimination is not tolerated against women, men, whites, blacks, Latinos, asians, criminals who have served their time, the military, the anti-military, environmentalists, vegetarians, the closed-minded, Christians...

It should not be tolerated against the gay community.
It should not be tolerated against non-Christian religious communities.
It should not be tolerated against the non-religious community.
It should not be tolerated against any community, period.

Drew

Cory said...

I am posting my name, and I am going to be a bit hateful. It infuriates me to see these people say that they don't approve of homosexuality but love us anyway (Yes, us, I am a gay man living with my boyfriend) or that homosexuality is unnatural.

For one, homosexuality may very well not be natural. Define natural. Is there anything about our lives that IS natural anymore? We eat foods that were once natural foods, then broken down into parts, those parts were recombined and then packaged and fed to us. Is it natural to work miles away from where you live? Is it natural to keep the same day/night cycle all year round?

Does homosexuality go against evolution? Probably, though there are some theories. Guess what? Evolution isn't intelligent (but that's another issue) it doesn't have a purpose, and it can't stop traits that prevent procreation otherwise there wouldn't be any sterile people, would there?

Does homosexuality go against God? Who cares? I wish you people could stand back and look at your beliefs from outside; you'd realize how ridiculous they are. Religion is an outdated system that has supernatural reasons for why things occur. If you look at history, those superstitious, supernatural explanations have been explained scientifically EVERY SINGLE TIME SO FAR. How many times have we turned around said found out that this phenomenon is caused by something supernatural? ZERO. Religion is an outdated system that is DESIGNED to KEEP YOU TRAPPED. Let me ask you this: How do you know the Bible is true? Tell me you can answer that question without saying "The Bible says so" or "Someone told me so."

That was off topic, but leads me to this, which another commenter even said; you take the whole bible, or you take none of it. You can't pick and choose. It's funny how many people conveniently ignore the things the Bible doesn't want THEM to do, but get up in arms about things the Bible says WE shouldn't do.

I've about exhausted myself, but let me link you to a blog post that is not about GBLT issues, but about Athiest issues, and if you look at it, it applies to us to.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

rawstock said...

There is a solution to the problem: end state marriage. It's unnecessary. A single definition of "Marriage" is as realistic in a free society as a single definition of "God". Give "Marriage" back to the church (to fight amongst themselves, as they will, over what it means), summarize the legal rights and responsibilities, and find something else to call it under the law.

The Reverend (and great American) Will D. Campell (see wikipedia) once told me, "A marriage license is just a contract that allows one to sue the other in the future', and he explained to me that he preferred (he might have said "required") a couple sign the license before the ceremony. "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, render to God that which is God's -- that's what Jesus said."

To the pro-prop8, listen to what Jesus said. This fight, that has commanded so much of the resources and energy of Christians and the Church, is not worthy of the death and the resurrection, is not worthy of blood of Christ, and is not consistent with the good news of the gospel. Casting stones is not loving a neighbor as your self, it is not loving your enemies, and it is not living as a people who believe they've been forgiven. All the time and energy are wasted and lost for what they might have done to give hope to the world - feed the hungry, heal the sick, serve the poor.

That's why I want to fight to end state marriage. I've recently bought the domains, but in the meantime, please look around (ning and google sites to start) for "endstatemarriage". There is a bridge that leads beyond this useless divide.

chrisrtx said...

I'd like to make a comment about gay relationships being "unnatural", I didn't read EVERY comment so not sure if this has been said or not.

While I'm sure some will disagree (and probably take my comment the wrong way, hopefully not) I don't see how one can say that being gay could be unnatural.

This is where my comment could possibly get twisted around, but I'll try to explain what I mean.

Is being born conjoined with your twin natural? Is being born with male and female sexual organs natural? Is being born a dwarf natural? Is being born with anything outside the realm of "normalcy" natural?

So how is it not natural that someone can be born attracted to the same sex and want to spend their lifetime with that person?

The fact is that all of these things can happen to a couple with perfect health and follow all the "rules" and/or even be a follower of someones crazy notion of a god. Which leads me to believe that all these things are natural.

What affect does a same sex couple being married have on anyones life? If you can come up with a reason then that is YOUR problem, not theirs, and they didn't toss this problem on your shoulders.

Some people need to get off their high horse and start letting others live their lives.

Damn control freaks.

(Hopefully that didn't come out wrong, sometimes I don't get express my opinion in type like it is in my head :) )

Skip Reilley said...

Why is so much of this about God, church, state, Christianity, or any other "belief" or political system? Why isn't it about common sense?

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you were raised, this isn't about you. It's about allowing EVERYONE to enjoy the same rights and privileges as every other adult in this country. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not... if YOU get to do it, THEY get to do it, regardless of who "they" are or what they want to do.

Fair is fair, right is right. That's just common sense.

Lee said...

The following statement is my opinion. This is not to be confused in any way with the Church’s position on any of the matters that I discuss. I realise that this is a controversial topic but I make no apologies for what I write as I believe it to be true.
People may mock me and my beliefs so let me tell you a little about the ‘mormons’ to start with. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe in it. I live it. I won’t bore you with my life in the church as it’s not relevant. I challenge anyone to find a more generous, giving people on the earth than the members of our church. These are people that give freely of their time and money in the service of others. Most people that know members of our church respect them. They are recognised as industrious, hard working, and honest people. There are, of course, exceptions to this but that is the fault of individuals, not the church.
Reently there has been a great deal of “news” (note the speech marks) about our church due to the result of Proposition 8. I have read many articles, blogs, and comments on the matter - most of which have been inaccurate and biased in their “reporting”. The things that I don’t understand is why are we being targeted for protecting something that we hold sacred? We are called biggots (among more colourful names) for standing up for something we believe in. Yes we voted against gay marriage and, as a result, there are literally thousands (possibly millions) of people claiming that the separation of religion and state is too narrow. This will surprise a lot of people but I couldn’t agree more.
Is marriage a state issue or a religious issue? If you answered ’state’ you are right - and, through no fault of your own, very, VERY wrong.
How did marriage start? Marriage was not set up by the state, it was not conceived by some government. It began as a religious institution.
Marriage WAS a religious institution but now that government gives married couples certain advantages, such as tax breaks and insurance benefits, the line between church and state no longer exists on this matter. Marriage has been stolen from our religious institutions and given to everyone regardless of their religious leanings. Why? Marriage should not be a legal binding, it should be a religious binding available to only those of a religious pursuasion. The irony of all this is that marriage itself has become a bastard child, not knowing the identity of its true parent.
If you want separation of church and state give marriage back to religion and remove all the legality of marriage. It is not our fault that governments get involved in religious issues (and they do it frequently). It is not our fault that something that we hold sacred has been taken from religion and given to the masses without any consideration.
If marriage was given back to religious organisations then there would be no added benefit to being married. If a church refused to perform a gay ceremony there would be no more public outcry as the religions would dictate the worthiness and acceptability of those getting married and, in most cases, that would exclude gay couples as homosexuality is against most religions in the world.
Some people have even said that not allowing gays the right to marry is against their human rights. In marriage’s current bastardised form, yes that’s true. However marriage was never intended for gay couples, it was intended as a religious convenant between man and woman before God. It has been said that marriage is a ‘right’ much like a right to vote. I can not see how that can be true if marriage is taken in its original context. Not even members of churches have the ‘right’ to be married if they are in opposition to the church’s teachings.
How much more proof do you need of the ‘nationalisation’ of marriage. People can now get married in fancy dress, they can get married by someone that was ‘ordained’ over the internet, they can go to vegas and have a drive-through wedding performed by Elvis because he has authority to marry given to him from the Nevada Gaming Commision. What kind of authority is that to marry people? IT’S A COMPLETE JOKE.
If you want separation of church and state then do it, but don’t pick and choose which bits of religion you want to keep, and don’t blame these good, hard-working, people for voting on something that was theirs until it was stolen by the state.
One of my best friends is gay. I do not persecute him, I do not tell him that he’s wrong. He knows my views on the matter and we look for common ground instead. Is he going to run through a Temple's doors shouting obscentities if I voted against gay marriage? No, because he is a decent human being for whom I have a lot of respect. People that are heaping persecution upon members of the church and intentionally causing them distress for standing up for something they believe in.
I think that some people think that we are purposely doing this to antagonise homosexuals. I can guarantee you that this is not the case. The church has every right to stand up for something it holds sacred and we’ll do it again and again because of this, our religion.
People get confused with why we do what we do. This isn't about hate, this is about what we hold sacred. This isn't a 'gay' issue for us, its a belief issue. You may not see the difference, but what can I say to that? Everyone is entitled to their own point of view.
I don't blame you if you don't include this comment on your blog but, in the interest of showing both sides of a story, I encourage you to do so.

Politically Concerned said...

Thank you, BlackTsunami. And thanks to the other clearthinkers out there (Joe & Chelle thanks too.)

This is a troubling time for the lgbt community, but if the majority of the (non-anonymous) people on these comments are any indication, we are in good hands. My praise and admiration to you!

One of the many Anonymous' has said:
According to the philosophy which I have witnessed coming from that side, you're either in support or you're unethical. There is no middle ground where we just have opposing views. If those of us who oppose gay marriage don't agree with you then we are attacking you. This is the overwhelming feeling that I have concerning this issue.

You are right. There is no middle ground. If you do not support gays getting married, you are unethical, and you are attacking them. By saying "Two loving people cannot legally marry because I do not approve of it", you are taking away their rights. Taking away rights because of personal preference is unethical, and an attack. No matter how you slice it.

I am a straight man, but I stand in firm solidarity with the lgbt community. They deserve EVERY SINGLE RIGHT that I am entitled to. Anything less is an attack on them, and an attack on me.

Anonymous said...

For a number of obvious reasons I am posting anonymously. While I am not gay, I am religious and I do not have the hatred/fear/confusion (anything synonymous with those words) that the religious community is attacking with. I belong to one of these groups and have been quite upset about people pushing an agenda to take the rights of other people.

I strongly feel that this nation was built on the foundation of giving every man and woman (and it is in the Declaration of Independence which not a law is still a guiding document or should be) equal rights.

I do believe that the gay/lesbian community has been done a major disservice. I honestly hope this gets over turned in your favor. The yes on prop8 people really pushed this with misinformation and lies. A completly contrary and anti-christian thing to do. Whether you are religious or not, Jesus preached to all. He preached to those who would listen. He did not force his agenda on them. But the Irony here is that the religious leaders of his day forced their agenda on him. And when he would not play ball with them, he paid for it with his life.

At any rate I hope this injustice gets over turned. I just hope that the extremists can calm down as there has been violence and actions on BOTH sides that are only escalating things. Probably not a good thing if we want to make this work. There need to be moderate elements here that are willing to work to bring some kind of acceptable resolution(altho you cant please everyone for sure)

At any rate I hope this works out for the community of people who are being persecuted.

The best way to play this against Christians is to be more Christian. Meaning just play their game better. Be good people and then call them on their BS (which in large part has been done). But if people resort to tit for tat arguments and actions, it will just escalate. It always does and history shows that it does. Always in the name of religion. :S Sad but true. True religion would not be doing this. Not discriminating in such a manner. Sure the practice can be rejected privately, but to take the right away I think is something that is just wrong. That takes away the choice from people.

Tim said...

FTR I'm a Christian who has no problem with Gay Marriage but also wholeheartedly believes that it is in fact a sin - but who am I to judge non-Christians?

The question I have, and I hope you can answer it for me, is what happens when Gay Marriage is 'legalized' and churches refuse to marry a gay couple? Will they lose their 501(c)(3) status?

That may seem like a silly question, but that could cause a huge problem in the Church.

Rookie said...

It saddens me as a Heterosexual Brit that a country such as the US seems still to be living in the dark ages when it comes to lgbt. But I guess the US and the UK are very different. As the US is so fundamentally Christian in majority, it presses on peoples rights. Land of the free? Only as long as you're a white, heterosexual, Christian. It sickens me.

Excellent blog post. Much support from across the pond.

Paolo said...

I'm a straight guy from South Africa, but I've been watching Prop 8 with interest.

I wish the straight community would just treat the lgbt community with the same respect they show to each other.

Intolerant people make me intolerant of intolerant people.

Lex said...

Thank you Kratz again ;p

Hope said...

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm LDS (that means Mormon, for those who may not know), straight, and married. I have no problem with gay marriage and could not be more embarrassed by the involvement of my church on this issue. Most Mormons have felt the sting of persecution and it shames me to see people who complain so much about the way they are treated by others doling out the same persecution. We should know better.

Unfortunately, I don't see any religious institutions-- Mormon or otherwise-- changing their views on homosexuality any time soon. And I don't see them giving up their definition of marriage, either. Personally, I don't see how two men or two women getting married effects my marriage in any way: only my spouse(who is not Mormon) and I can screw up our marriage. But maybe that's just me.

I do have a question though, and maybe you might be able to answer it. I thought California had enacted laws creating domestic partnerships which give all of the rights and legal benefits of marriage to any couple that wants them. Is that not true? Is there still a difference between the rights afforded to domestic partners and married couples, aside from wording?

If there's no difference, then this isn't an argument about civil rights because gay couples have the rights if they want them. This would be an argument where the GLBT community is trying to argue against the beliefs of the religious right in order to get them to change their minds. I was taught that you can't logically argue against a belief; that it's futile.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think that gay couples should have all the same rights as straight couples, and if the process to get those rights is called marriage I personally have no problem with that. What it's called doesn't matter to me; in fact I'd be happy if it was called marriage because I think it's ridiculous to feel threatened by the idea of two same-gendered people getting married. But it feels like I hold the opinion of a tiny minority of people within the religious community, and the rest of them are not likely to share my opinion in our lifetimes.

So I would say, secure your rights and live your lives as happily as you can; no one has the authority to judge you! As for the rest of them, prejudice can last for a long time, but it can't last forever. Maybe the only thing that can change things effectively is time.

flashpackers said...

So eloquently put. Well done.

To all those who say homosexuality is unnatural; everything in nature is natural, by definition. It is not possible for something to be 'outside' of nature

To be more specific:
Homosexuality clearly serves an evolutionary purpose, or it would have been selected against and lost from our species. That's how evolution works. There may be debate on what the purpose is, but the fact that there is a purpose is undeniable.

Secondly, to add weight to that argument, homosexuality is common through out non-human animals.
(See the references)

Homosexuality is entirely natural.

Some people are gay. Get over it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Jessica said...

Well said =]

"I suggest we remove "marriage" from all legal proceedings. GLTS shouldn't be allowed to marry legally. But "straight" people shouldn't be allowed to marry legally either.

Make the legal terminology "civil union." Then the religious groups can have all the stipulations on their marriages they want; they can preserve the sanctity of their word. Because it won't matter legally. That would be true separation of church and state."

This is what they do in the UK. It works very well and no one is up in arms about it.

Really though, the separation of Church and State, is an interpretation of Thomas Jefferson of the First Amendment, which begins with this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This only applies to laws put in affect by the federal government. Then the Fourteenth Amendment has a clause which says this: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This demands that all states must follow the First Amendment.

Now, to me, and any informed, open-minded individual, Prop 8 is a direct violation of both of those amendments. Supporters need to stop hiding behind their religion. It [should] have no clout in the law.

The problem with this debate is that, like abortion , each side is arguing for something completely different (civil rights vs. personal "morals") so there will never be an agreement.

BlackTsunami said...

Polygamy anonymous,

I never said that I didn't agree with marriage rights for polygamy, I simply refused to fall for that trap. When some folks can't give a good reason to oppose gay marriage, they try to play the slippery slope argument and also try to make the gay community play it.

My concern is marriage rights for the gay community, period.

And that part about me proving your point is silly. It has been the Mormon church who led the charge to discriminate against lgbts in California and not the other way around. LGBTs did not pour millions of dollars into a campaign to take anything from the Mormon church. Now what was that thing about perspective again?

BlackTsunami said...

Danny,

that is not the point. Marriage is not a Christian issue per se. And my column is about the history of the evil done to the lgbt community by those calling themselves Christians.

BlackTsunami said...

Lee,

I respect your opinion but your church jumped into the fight of another state and took rights away from people? You did in fact impose your will on others because you had the money and manpower to do so. Where is the line drawn? Are you going to do the same about adoption and foster care? I hope not.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thank you for writing this. Mega props.

BlackTsunami said...

TIM,

NO CHURCHES will be forced to marry gays or lesbians. This is a fact but the religious right keeps lying about it. This corresponds with all of the things I have said about the religious right in my piece. They like spreading lies and fear stories to suit their agenda. Just as they have done it about gays, they do the same with the incorrect notion that churches would be forced to marry gays.

ryusen said...

"There are, of course, exceptions to this but that is the fault of individuals, not the church.
Reently there has been a great deal of “news” (note the speech marks) about our church due to the result of Proposition 8. I have read many articles, blogs, and comments on the matter - most of which have been inaccurate and biased in their “reporting”. The things that I don’t understand is why are we being targeted for protecting something that we hold sacred? We are called biggots (among more colourful names) for standing up for something we believe in"

Because what you believe is a form of bigotry. While i agree that marriage and legal benefits granted to couple who chose to become life partners should have been kept separate, they have the same name. Just deal with the fact that this one word contains two separate definitions. One societal and one legal. When it comes to laws, we can ONLY deal with the legal definition which has NO right to be marred by religious views and ideology.

"The question I have, and I hope you can answer it for me, is what happens when Gay Marriage is 'legalized' and churches refuse to marry a gay couple? Will they lose their 501(c)(3) status?"

I don't think there is any way for a Church to lose any special status as a church for refusing to marry a certain couple for any reason. On the other hand, i DO think any Church that has used tax exempt or any kind of tax protected money to lobby its dogma into aw should lose its status.

Hope,
Th religious institutions can believe what ever they want, but they should not be allowed to influence government.

As to the legal issues. i believe Cali's domestic partner laws are very progressive, but it still creates a "separate, but equal" type of duality. On the same parable, should we tolerate a separate set of laws for black people that grant similar benefits to whites?

dougmc said...

Well written.

One suggestion -- spell out `lgbts', as the people you're writing this for are likely to not know what it stands for.

Anonymous said...

Think you meant to use the word "unconscible" (sp?)
instead of "unconsciously"

Anonymous said...

Too many of today's so, called conservatives SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND what a conservative really is!
Let's see if I can help:
A true conservative is someone who believes in the smallest amount of government that is practical!

A true conservative would not oppose, for example gay marriage, because the government is not able to show a clear-cut harm to overall society!

A true conservative is someone who believes in freedom of religion, but realizes that includes freedom to be an agnostic, or an atheist, and never allows freedom of religion to become an excuse for hostility toward any one religion( See: Liberals on Christianity, or so-called conservatives on Islam)

The true conservative realizes that some speech is going to offend some people, but realizes that any limitation on freedom of speech is a greater evil than offense to a small percentage of the total population!

A true conservative understands that it is a lesser evil to let a guilty person go free than to jail an innocent person!

A true conservative believes that traditions do exist because of a once-valid reason, and that the reason could still be valid, but that those traditions always need to be re-examined in light of new technology!

A true conservative focuses on the practical, believing that, while change is inevitable, we must have a valid reason for dropping the customs and values on which we are built!

A true conservative understands innately that there are no easy answers, it's all about smart decisions!

A true conservative rejects iconoclasm, realizing that everything that exists, does so because there was already something else there! Progress is always built on what already exists!

For these reasons, I can say I'm proud to be a conservative!

Ash said...

I find it strange that Americans on the "right" pass judgement based on their sense of morality (one based on religious beliefs) while a good majority of people from secular/democratic countries around the world (Western Europe, Parts of Asia) base morality on a humane value system and service it by rationality. America has truly lost ground in setting examples for the world to follow. Or perhaps, the World is leaving America behind!!

Emproph said...

Tim, I realize BT already addressed you on this point, but to clarify a bit further, churches would be no more required to marry gay people than they would be to marry atheists or people who are not of the religion of that church.

It’s really that simple.

Now, which is worse, two people in love, or lying to prevent them from enjoying the benefits of marriage?

Anonymous said...

Correction to the author - the top-ranking homosexuals have been trying vigorously for the last 30 years to change their image. Don't give me this that the violence has
"just arisen due to anger" against us who stand up for traditional marriage. I have studies this issue and looked at it for years. The only difference is that it is a little more large-scale, and that the media has had no choice but to publish at least a little of it this time.

Anonymous said...

Holy bullies and Headless monsters - a very tolerant title, I must say. I voted yes on 8 because I thought I had a right to do so. I feel very accepted now

Troy said...

to Black Tsunami,

damn well said.

full hugs in solidarity.

-Troy

BlackTsunami said...

No, I meant unconsciously. Of course either word will do. Either not aware of what they are doing or aware of what they are doing.

BlackTsunami said...

"the top-ranking homosexuals have been trying vigorously for the last 30 years to change their image. Don't give me this that the violence has
"just arisen due to anger"'

First of all, nothing in what I wrote condones violence. I say that specifically. And that comment about "top ranking homosexuals" further accentuates my point. Who are these folks? What did they do exactly? Are you going to cite the tired "Overhauling of Straight America" example?

My points were specific. Yours were not. You just grouped us in a nameless horde. More of the same nonsense that has gotten us to this point..

BlackTsunami said...

"Holy bullies and Headless monsters - a very tolerant title,"

Read the title and you will understand why this blog is named that way. Silly semantics will not diminish the fact that folks on your side have been lying for years about gays and lesbians.

There should be no tolerance for lies. But I do respect your vote.

Russ said...

As Moderator of PSC Networking http://www.palmspringscompanions. I respectfully ask to post your blog post on PSC Networking a Networking site that is dedicated to the concerns and issues that face the LGBT community

Russ Bertlow
russb.atpsc@gmail.com

captspastic said...

Very nice article, very nicely put. I could not agree more.

ryusen said...

"There should be no tolerance for lies. But I do respect your vote."

While i respect his right to vote, i cannot accept the vote itself.yes on prop is is a clear slap in the face on the constitution and what this country is founded on. Yes on prop8 is saying, 51% of the people can legislate their morality/religion on whom ever they please.

Kate said...

BlackTsunami:You may think that God says homosexuality is a sin and that is your beliefs. But that's not what God told me. And if you want to get technical, God never said a word about homosexuality...

Uh...what???

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

And I'm not anonymous. My name really is Kate!

Anonymous said...

uh huh, "lgbts attacking people" is nonsense....

Church Attack: http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/homosexual-terror-cells-planning-more-attacks-on-churches/

Physical attack on an elderly woman: http://digg.com/politics/Gays_Bash_Elderly_Christian_Woman_In_Hate_Crime_Attack

effie said...

This was amazing - I'll be sending this to everyone.

Larry said...

Being an atheist, I don't have a "religious" problem with gays. Honestly, I have several friends who are gay or lesbian.

What I can't understand is the fight for marriage. 90% of marriages in the US fail. It's a statistical fact. Why fight for something that is just so meaningless? If you truly love someone and want to be with them, then do so. No matter what the situation, there are legal protections for all situations that marriage is supposed to cover that don't need marriage. Living Wills are legal and binding and must be followed. Poor planning is not a reason to crave marriage. To be frank, I think that the easiest way to get beyond this whole mess is to just get rid of the legal marriage. If you want to be married in from of "God" then do so. You don't need anyone's approval, much less the state's, to have that commitment. I support people's right be believe and be religious until it encroaches on my life or the lives of those with a different faith.

Religion is full of Hippocrates. If you truly love someone, be with them. Marriage is a worthless word when it's used and abused in this fight whether it's for or against gay marriage.

As an atheist I don't use "God" to justify stupidity or evil. Evil is a choice. You don't do the right thing because it makes you feel good, you do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

Emproph said...

"Sorry for the long rant, but after reading some of the comments I had to have my say. Best of luck and peace to all of you."

It was a good rant, thanks for sharing. :)

Rob said...

There is no such thing as God, the universe is a orderly pattern (often very difficult to discern but certainly there. Religious people who claim the right to exclude or bully others because of their sexuality or what ever other reason my strike theri facy should realize that the myth of Jesus Christ is an amalgamation of several other earlier gods like Horus from the Egyptian mythos. Their bigotry is based on something else inside them and until they stop claiming some exterior reason for hating gays and look inside themselves there will never be any progress

Joseph said...

I do appreciate the fact that you respect my vote. It isn't very often that someone from your side answers me that respectfully regarding anything that has to do with this issue. I must say, though, that, whether you agree or not, you are in the minority with how you feel and act toward "us". Oh, and if you want specifics, I was one of the most prominent campaigners in Long Beach. I passed out over 4,000 signs, 20,000 fliers, my groups called thousands, and we influenced many people to vote yes - without one lie, by the way. (And though Long Beach has one of the largest gay populations in the country, the vote was 48-52, to the surprise of many, many people. Yes, we can make a difference) Anyways, if you want specifics, I'll give them to you, but I don't think you want them. I know how the majority of the gays and lesbians in my city think and act. And, yes, I did say the MAJORITY. I know. I was on the front lines the whole campaign. If it was a minority, they must have been EVERYWHERE - but I sincerely doubt it.

BlackTsunami said...

Russ, by all means please do use this blog post in any way that you see fit.

BlackTsunami said...

Hi Kate,

don't forget that parts about slavery, women being subservient to men, that lovely thing about shellfish, parents being able to murder their children, virgins being stoned (if I am not incorrect) and all of those other things some Christians like yourself seem to ignore (that's not fair because for all I know, you may be in favor of these things.)

Kate, you are clearly prooftexting the Bible. Look it up.

BlackTsunami said...

Anonymous, that crazy wildcat group is NOT indicative of the lgbt community. They just want publicity. As I understand it, they also acted the fool at the Democratic National Convention.

Now about that elderly woman, I made a blog post about it that appeared yesterday. I suggest you read it. But to make a long story short,Ms. Burgess has made a name for herself going to gay themed events acting extremely outrageous. In this particular case she burst in the middle of a silent ceremony that protested Proposition 8. People were told to ignore her. However, when she saw the camera, she rushed to get on film, even at the point of knocking down a disabled person. That is most likely what got folks upset.

Again I repeat that action against Ms. Burgess was wrong and certainly she had a right to be there, but when you enter a volatile situation the way she did even at the point of knocking people down, you only further incite violence.

I also have a problem with you taking anecdotal situations and trying to claim that the gay community as a whole engaged in wildcat violence. Or as Michelle Malkin inferred, "planned attacks on Christians." The Proposition 8 protests (including one in my state) were on the whole very peaceful.

BlackTsunami said...

Joseph,

some of the same lies told in California were told in Florida. You said IF i want proof, so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Bring me proof.

Anonymous said...

Someone brought up the gay gene idea, and someone countered with "it would have died out a long time ago." Not necessarily.

There was an issue in Time Magazine a while ago on the subject. It had nothing to DNA but something that happens during the pregnancy. Basically the theory is that the mother's immune system sees the male fetus as a extremely foreign and over many male-child pregnancies the mother can develop and immunity with antibodies doing whatever it is they need to do and can affect the fetus.

They explain it way better than I do: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209914,00.html

Combine that with the idea of gay animals helping the species by allowing for less competition for mates among their brothers, yet still providing for the preservation of their family line (hunting, protecting etc...) makes for a plausible theory.

Rezo said...

Regardless of how much debating/hypothesizing/reasoning we present as an entire species, the bottom line is simple:

We cannot know, without doubts, until we experience.

One does not understand how it feels to be burned, until they have been burned. Nor can one understand love, until they have felt love.

We cannot know whether gay marriage, rights, etc work with the world we live in if we refuse to allow it to have the opportunity to exist.

To anyone reading this who is uncontrollably against gay marriage and rights, think very hard; has your knowledge ever been proven wrong? I remember a time when I believed myself to hate shellfish, not only that but to be deadly allergic to them. One day, someone offered me some shrimp at a party. It had been years since I was informed of my allergy and had forgotten. I did not want to offend their offer, so I had a small plate of shrimp. I was astounded! Not only was I safe, no allergic reaction, but I LOVED the shrimp! To this day, it is one of my favorite foods.

My point is, humans by nature are wrong about more things than they are willing to believe. I suppose my story is also a good example of how change is natural, unexpected, and can be for the better.

John said...

Why does something have to be genetic to be inherent?

Here are four examples of how gay people are biologically different from heterosexuals

Patterns of Brain Activation during Visually Evoked Sexual Arousal Differ between Homosexual and Heterosexual Men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18768725?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Neural correlates of sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469913?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18653758?ordinalpos=80&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559854?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

So to everyone who says it's not natural, you might want to find a new (wrong) argument to use.

culturepress said...

Very nicely stated, right on-point. Thank you.

Random Thoughts said...

I don't have anything personally against anyone who is Gay / Lesbian or what ever. I have friends that are gay and lesbian, and worked with a couple of Transgenders (I admit it was a little strange to one day start calling "Bob", "Gloria" (names changed) but I got over it). I think what a lot of the people that I talk to have a problem with, isn't so much the legalization of Marriage for same sex couples but that by doing so it will open up lawsuits to force churches to perform marriages. I know it sounds hateful. But it has happened. They feel that their right to Religious Freedom is being threatened. I grew up as a Methodist and Converted to Mormon. I can honestly say that both churches taught love and Tolerance (despite what many people think Mormon leaders teach love for neighbors not hate) in fact I know a couple of Gay men that have Temple Recommends because they live what the church teaches.
I think that the issue is best decided by having laws in-acted that give the right while still protecting the religious freedoms of others.
I know it sounds like fear mongering however, we all know that in any sizable group will always have some members that want to push an extreme agenda. unless the extremest faction is marginalized there will always be problems.

BlackTsunami said...

Random Thoughts,

NO churches will be forced to marry gays or lesbians.

Forgive me if I am shouting but that is a fallacy that has been shown to be incorrect repeatedly.

ryusen said...

"by doing so it will open up lawsuits to force churches to perform marriages. I know it sounds hateful. But it has happened."

Can you cite where, when, and what the outcome was? sorry, but that idea just sounds preposterous to me.

BlackTsunami said...

Editor's note - There is a certain anonymous person whose comments I have continued not to post. Why? Simply because he or she wants to highjack this thread to talk about a silly issue.

So if you are reading the comments expecting to see your post, you can stop now.

And PLEASE don't give me that silly argument about "showing tolerance." That's your straw man argument and not mine.

Random Thoughts said...

I didn't say there had been, and as far as litigation goes, it is ridiculous for a No on 8 group to sue the Church claiming that the VOLUNTEERS of its Congregations, are the same as if the Church itself paid for people to walk precincts, make calls, etc. so yes I can say that there would be legal challenges, because there already are.
Also the Catholic Church had to shut down it's adoption agency because they wouldn't do adoptions for same sex couples. They were sued, it was upheld, so to preserve their religious RIGHTS, they decided to close down. Same Sex couples didn't need to go to the Catholic Church, they didn't need to sue them, there are several State, and even private agencies that they can go to, however they CHOSE not to, but to SUE and entity that they didn't agree with to Close them down. So yes, there are elements with-in the GLBT community that will push their Agenda. I don't believe you are one of those Elements but I'm sure you know someone that leans that way or is flat out waiting to push their agenda.

BlackTsunami said...

Random Thoughts,

I can almost see where you are coming from but not totally. You see, Massachusetts state law says that all prospective candidates for adoption be judged, not by personal beliefs, but by whether or not they can provide a suitable home for a child. It is a sticky mess but try to look at it this way: what if a church owns property and puts a rental unit there. Should they be allowed to discriminate against potential gay renters? Or better yet, should Muslim rental owners be allowed to discriminate against potential Christian renters?

BlackTsunami said...

One more thing - THAT has nothing to do with what a church decides to do in its house of worship. It becomes sticky when a church ventures into worldy enterprises, such as adoption, renting houses, etc.

Randomthoughts said...

While I understand what your saying about a church discriminating in say rentals, Adoption is a different animal. In Adoption you are looking at the needs and want of the donating parent(s), as well as the needs etc of the Adopting Parent(s). I've given a child up for adoption, it was 17 1/2 years ago. I wanted certain things from the parents that I was giving my child to, by the way I used a State Agency, Because it was to be an "open" adoption, I was given several choices of parents for my child. This is not the case if it was a closed adoption, while I would still be given some information about the couple, a lot of information is left out about the parents. and the state could use different evaluations and decide that there was a better choice.
In my case none of them were same sex, but then again that was almost 18 years ago and I lived in a rural county so it probably wasn't common at that time.
If I had to do it over again I would probably use a Church related agency so that I could add that bit of information, I would want my child to grow up with a religious background, and have a larger group of people that help flesh out his Morays. Because that is important to me, it would be upsetting to me that I wasn't allowed that choice and I might choose to keep the child even in circumstances that would not benefit the child
So yes there are instances where separate but equal do apply. When we are looking at choices such as Adoption, etc.

BlackTsunami said...

I have to disagree with you. You forget about the needs of the child, which should be at the center of adoption. If there is a suitable home for the child, then the child should be placed there.

There is no credible research that says lgbt homes are not suitable for children. But I do agree with you that simple answers will not do in the case of church orchestrated adoptions.

I also have say watch that "separate but equal" terminology. It is very RARE that it should apply. And adoption really isn't one of those cases.

Randomthoughts said...

I never said that GLBT homes are not okay for children to grow up in. I simply stated that the donor Parent(s) may have a wish to have their children raised with many of the same values/communities that they grew up with.
I worked with a couple that adopted all of their children (they are gay, have had a Civil Union for many, many years), I don't think the children are harmed because of it. However I also knew that before settling down that they were pretty promiscuous and I don't think that is right, regardless Gay, Lesbian, Bi, or Straight. I don't think you should be "putting it out there" before developing a mutual loving interest. and sex before hand straight or otherwise takes away from that. I know because I've been on both sides of that coin.
Also because I know the basic strictures held by a Mormon couple and how they may raise it. It is NO GUARANTEE that the child will turn out well, but it does give more indication of some basic understandings when considering general points of view.
I use Separate but Equal, because there are so many other options out there, that to tell a church that they can't help their members find homes for their children that are also members of that church is wrong as well.
The needs of the child are met in both cases with the parents of the children being able to be met as well.

BlackTsunami said...

Random Thoughts, don't take this the wrong way but you are rambling here.

You putting the "separate but equal" terminology out there does imply that lgbt homes are somewhat inferior. And also that inference about the gay couple being promiscuous doesn't help. You did bactrack a little but the mental image is out there.

But I think that there should be some consensus regarding churches and adoption. If the church is in any way using public monies, municipalities, etc. then it should be subject to same rules that others using public funds, municipalities, etc. are.

Slackathor said...

All of the "Where were you" questions lead me to ask:

Where were you when they were knocking a little old lady's cross out of her hand?

Where were you when they were disrupting church services?

BlackTsunami said...

Slackathor,

You really need to read my blog. I talked about both situations. First of all, that little old lady, Phyllis Burgess, jumped in the middle of a Proposition 8 protest in an attempt to get on camera. In her attempts she allegedly knocked down a disabled man. Now I am not for what happened to her, but she was NOT innocent. Her behavior escalated the sitaution.

Now that church situation - Bash Back - area police said that the church exaggerated the incident. No fire alarm was pulled and they were not told by members of the church that the services were disrupted in any way. You really need to look at more than just conservative propaganda sites.

Slackathor said...

First of all, that little old lady, Phyllis Burgess, jumped in the middle of a Proposition 8 protest in an attempt to get on camera. In her attempts she allegedly knocked down a disabled man.

First, since this was the first post on your blog that I read, I researched(googled) the issue. I saw no reliable source mentioning the fact that she knocked down a disabled man.

Second, I saw the video of the bash back church incident. Were I sitting in church that morning, I would have considered that a disruption.

I am not against gay marriage. As the old saying goes, some of my best friends are gay. I do, however, believe that the people of California spoke, were told that what they said did not jive with the California constitution, and they spoke again and voted to change the constitution. Getting married is not a right. Neither are insurance benefits. Now when you get into the issues of hospital visits and wills and other civil matters, I am right there with you. Government should not be involved in these matters. As a conservative, not the bible thumping redneck kind, but the keep the government out of my life as much as possible kind, I would offer gays the advice of working to undo prop 8 through the proper channels. Since the courts are only supposed to apply what the constitution says, that is not the place to go. The legislature of California is the starting point. If someone there sponsors an Amendment nullifying Prop 8, then the people of California are next. It takes a lot of votes to amend the constitution for a reason, so you will have your work cut out for you, but the bad PR from events such as these only hamper your cause.

Slackathor
http:/downwiththedrivebys.blogspot.com

ryusen said...

@Slackathor

The issues is about equal protection under the law. No matter what else you might try and put,even in the State Constitution, other parts of it guaranty equal protection under the law. The Federal Constitution also guarantees it.

"Getting married is not a right. Neither are insurance benefits." IF that is the case, then Government should no grant any special such privileges to straight couples either.

BlackTsunami said...

First let me address the last claim in which you seemed to have veered off on a tangent about Proposition 8.

The point of this blog entry was to call out some people on their hypocrisy when they attack gays and lesbians for being "secular fascists." These individuals refuse to acknowledge the history of lies and distortions that the religious right have employed over the years to denigrate and stigmatize the lgbt community. That was the subject of this post. I also feel that your definition of what the courts should do is incorrect. I was suprised that you didn't pull the old tired "activist judge" line.

Now about the incidents. I don't know what research you did but allow me to help you out.

RE Phyllis Burgess - http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/2008/11/17/the-elderly-woman-with-the-cross/

Now I think you are being extremely subjective when you said something like - "I saw no reliable source mentioning the fact that she knocked down a disabled man."

Are you saying that there was proof that she knocked down the diabled man but you are choosing not to believe it? And also are you trying to narrow her behavior down to that one possible infraction. She did push her way in the middle of silent protest and her behavior did escalate the situation.

Now regarding Back Back - I was unaware of a video showing the incident. But I do have this article - http://michiganmessenger.com/8298/cops-contradict-reports-of-mt-hope-church-protest

In this article, police said, among other things, that no fire alarms were pulled

Again are you being subjective. You said " I saw the video of the bash back church incident. Were I sitting in church that morning, I would have considered that a disruption."

But that is not the point. The religious right claimed -

“Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.”

Did this happen? Now I have seen a video in which someone "claimed" that someone else said certain things happened but I have yet to see the events in question.

BlackTsunami said...

Editor's note - In Slackathor's defense, I have been able to see a video of the Bash Back incident. And there was uncalled for behavior there.

But again, the claims about Bash Back have been exaggerated. I have read everything from it being mildly disruptive to highly violent. This is not to say that Slackathor took part in exaggerating the claims.

But here is the gist of the entire thing that I discovered. A. This incident had NOTHING to do with the Proposition 8 decision. This group has been around for a while trying to attract attention.

B. The gay community in Michigan totally disavowed what happened.

http://pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=32938

To claim that the Bash Back incident is indicative of the lgbt community or our anger over Proposition 8 is highly unfair and speaks to the gist of this blog post.

Slackathor said...

The video I saw showed three women stand up and start shouting it's okay to be gay.(which it is) Then two other women join in go to the front and kiss. At this point there are a couple more and they are throwing pieces of paper everywhere. I did not see any condoms. You say you saw the video. If any of your readers want to see it here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFyPnvz-iI

As for Phyllis Burgess, I read the article you linked to. Seems that the local journalist covering the story did a pretty sloppy job, but I am sure that you know how conservatives feel about the drive-by media. I watched the video that article linked to found here:

http://www.kesq.com/global/story.asp?s=9314557

and then one more like the first time I saw it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

What I said in my previous post was that I didn't see any kind of reliable source. If there is proof that she knocked someone down, post it. Until you do, I will have to assume that Phyllis is innocent.

What she was guilty of was maybe a lack of judgement. I did see in the first video that the assembly started peaceably, but you have to admit the crowd around her was pretty quick to anger.(I would assume, if I may, that, like in any kind of crowd situation, most people there didn't know or couldn't see what was going on.)

The point I am now trying to make is this: (not my original point, I admit I misinterpreted your article) You guys (and ladies) need to deal with people like this, just like we have to deal with bible-thumping, racist hillbillies.

@ryusen:
I'm not 100% on this, but I am not aware of any kind of law that guarantees anyone the right to get married. I certainly don't have a right to insurance. I lived for over 10 years without it. I already said that gays should get all the civil stuff. As for the marriage thing, there are some states that do allow gay marriage. If you want to get married that badly, then vote with your tax dollars and move to a state that allows it. If Californians take the financial hit that would result if there were a mass exodus of gays to the east, they might change their opinions, and their votes.

Whew... enough said for tonight. Thank you all for the stimulating and civil discussion.

Slackathor
http://downwiththedrivebys.blogspot.com/

ryusen said...

the issue is you shouldn't need to pack up your whole life and move to another state just to share in equal rights as guaranteed by the constitution...

BlackTsunami said...

and thanks you slackathor for your well thought out challenge. It was a welcome change to deal with someone who does the research before making accusatory comments.

I think again you miss a point with Burgess. While there is no video proof of what she did via the pushing, the fact remains that is she was not an innocent victim that folks like Mike Huckabee are making her out to be. She inflamed that crowd. You don't get a group of people angry and try to plead victimhood when the consequences of your actions bite you in the ass.

With Bash Back, there was some uncalled for behavior and exaggeration of that behavior. But this wildcat group had nothing to do with the Proposition 8 protests. Unfortunately the religious right is trying to link the two.

My point is demonstrating how the religious right can take incidents like those two and stigmatize the entire lgbt community. As my original blog post said, they have a history of doing this. And while we must "deal" with folks like Burgess, it is difficult when they insist on making nuisances of themselves and then an organization comes to try and paint them as martyrs.

And I refuse to believe that over-exaggerated incidents of isolated violence can be put on the same level as an over 30 year campaign to lie and stigmatize lgbts (getting back to your first post).

However about California, I am behind the residents of the state who favor marriage equality. Why should they have move? They should vote with their dollars (not necessarily their tax dollars). And seen they are doing such.

RussB.PSCNetworking said...

I find it very intresting that AFD talks about Civil Liberties and How California Voters have spoken. I go back to the position that Prop 8 never should have been on the ballot.it should not have been allowed to be an Amendment it should have had to be brought forth through the revsion way process. Heres the thing The religious and conservative right that wants to deny us this Civil Right would at this time been unable to get it in this way so while someone was ssleeping at the swtich they got it through and now they are upset that we want to get it repealed through the courts? This is how it is supose to be done at this point through the courts. We as LGBT have to go to the courts( there are pending cases to do this)and get our rights back. You can view this link http://fora.tv/2008/09/02/How_Gay_Marriage_Changes_Californias_Constitution and it will explain why this should have been done the revision way and then you'll have a better understanding of why they chose not to and in the process Hi-jacked the Californian Constitution

Russ B.

Jack said...

Nice post there. Good to see someone standing up for their rights in a none pansy way.

There's another post where the guy is pretty mad, in a creative way about Prop 8 as well. you should check it out.

http://advancedrambling.blogspot.com/2008/12/proposition-8-religion-and-dinosaurs.html

Anonymous said...

So, I don't think I've seen this brought up before, but using the Christian storyline: Wasn't it two hetero's that screwed things up in the garden? The fall from grace? God had to send down a son and then sacrifice him to somehow magically redeem post-fallen-banished-from-garden blah, blah, blah . . .

The "Christian" storyline is so full of b.s. and re-interpreted, multiple books, written by drunken followers in antiquated languages that scholars argue the interpretations of to this day. Give me a break you fairy-tale, comic book interpreters of values and morals and god's plan. You're all full of shit and continue to throw occult fantasies out as reasons for your confusing, illogical decisions and biases.

Get the hell away from me and take your metaphors for discrimination and hatred to an island far away from actual civilization.

Matt said...

First off, I am not gay. A good friend of mine is bisexual, and another one is gay. I suppose you could call me a conservative liberal, in that I'm a gun owner and a vehement protector of my rights, and I'm not afraid at all to get in anyone's face to say my piece. What the California voters did to the GLBT community was absolutely criminal, and cheers to the judge for overturning it. Who is anybody to tell anyone else they can't get married, or love who they want? Anyone married who says that people can't marry who they wish are absolute hypocrites, because didn't they marry who they wanted? I'm not gay, so I won't marry another man. There, problem solved. That's me not supporting gay marriage; me supporting it is drinking a toast for Prop 8 being overturned.

Contents under pressue said...

I'm from the Philippines. I may not be gay, but I do have several friends who are, and it is because of my solidarity with them that I've been watching the events of Prop 8 closely for the past few months.

We had just concluded our own national elections a few months ago, and while it ended peacefully, one of the political party-lists that attempted to run was a pro-LGBT group called "Ang Ladlad"

Their bid to run as a partylist to represent a marginalized group here was struck down by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), who had the audacity claim that allowing them to run would somehow corrupt our youth.

This was the same Comelec that would eventually allow the son of a powerful political scion to run and win with his partylist group, despite several anomalies in his group's legitimacy.

The bottom line is that you must understand that Prop 8's demise isn't just your victory - it is one the LGBT here shares, because it represents a solid testament to the community's inherent civil rights as human beings, regardless of what the religious institutions or a mob-like majority will say.

Ben Fenton said...

The biological argument against same-sex marriage is nonsense. Let's draft some new legislation based on it:

S.B. 88.

"Defense of Biologically Viable Marriages Act"

No marriage shall be legally recognized without proof of said marriage producing no less than one healthy pregnancy or child within five years. This shall include non-fertile couples, couples who intend not to have children, and marriages of those who are past biological child-bearing age. Should an audit of said marriage after five years fail to produce evidence of the existence of procreation i.e. a viable pregnancy or healthy child of the spouses; then the legality of the marriage and all its benefits therein shall be revoked, and all tax benefits retroactively recollected through imposed fines. Violators of the "Defense of Biologically Viable Marriages Act" shall be liable for a maximum prison sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000.

ParkerPoe said...

Okay, I know this post is old, but I need to point out the GLARING holes in Anonymous's theory of a "natural family:"

he/she states: "Who are we to tell nature what marriage is or what a family is. A family is a father and mother with their children. Many species take vare of the young when the parents are unwilling or unable to provide, however they do not form homosexual bonds and pretend they should be treated just as the male/female famalies. I like to do what works with nature, most people who fight it lose."

If you were to pattern your "family" after the "families" found in nature, you would most likely practice Polygamy, and not even really that since animals do no get married and enter into contracts with each other that result in them enjoying certain tax privileges and rights that other animals are not entitled to. You would most likely abandon your mate immediately after impregnating her and have nothing to do with the actual rearing of the children. In cases where you encounter a female with young from another mate, it is very likely you would kill the young already there to make way for you own offspring. This is why we don't emulate nature down to the last detail. If you honestly want to use that as the definitive template for existence, then get rid of your house, your clothes, your car and your electronics and go sleep in the dirt and scavenge for food. Second of all, when I marry (which I will never do until this option is available to everyone in my country), I will not be reproducing. I won't be adopting. In no way do I want to be responsible for children. So if I'm choosing to refrain from raising children, am I, as a bisexual female, still "unfit" in your eyes to marry, even if I marry a man? Your line of reasoning is full of holes and falls flat on its face. Sure you're entitled to your opinions, and I'll happily tolerate you. But I'll never respect you because of what you've just said.

Arthur the Preachers Kid said...

Tim said...

"The question I have, and I hope you can answer it for me, is what happens when Gay Marriage is 'legalized' and churches refuse to marry a gay couple? Will they lose their 501(c)(3) status?"


Dear Tim,

I know this cause I'm a preachers kid.

This question is already answered in the US Constitution. Government can not force Churches to do anything they don't want to do. It is under separation of church and state. To that extent a churches 501(c)(3) status is safe.

In NY State we even encouraged lawmakers to ammend the Marriage Equality Bill so that no church may be forced to: perform or allow marriages on church property that are against their beliefs.

Since it only restates the rights of the Church as per the Constitution it was not a problem for anyone.

What could get a Church's 501 (c)(3) status yanked is direct electioneering or interfering in politics. Tax exempt money is not allowed in politics. Nor should pastors or lay people announce how they want people to vote on church property. The Mormon Church really pushed the limit here and could loose if charges are pressed.

Anonymous said...

Most church's do not tell their congregations how to vote. That is for each person to decide. I don't know where you get your nonsense from but I can only imagine. Prob a sick and twisted mind.

BlackTsunami said...

That comment had NOTHING to with the post but even so, you obviously haven't been paying attention to the Catholic Church, have you?

Weltha J Wood said...

I happen to be straight, I happen to be a self-described Christian. I happen to be of western European ancestry. That said, I am 100% in favor of full rights and equality for my LGBTQ brothers and sisters (by that, I mean fellow members of the human community.) I love your blog and just found it today. I am deeply appalled by the politicization of religious thought by the non-thinking haters in our day. I am completely - completely - against the behavior of those who have what Peter Gomes called 'doctrinaire prejudice' toward LGBTQ people and who use misunderstood, out of context, Bible references to put a veneer of 'spirituality' on their ignorance. Please keep writing and posting.

Tom Pinion said...

Alvin, I can't thank you enough for your voice against the religious bigots who have gone out of their way to dehumanize gay people.Thank you, thank you, thank you! It takes courage and fortitude to stand up to a majority who would otherwise silence your voice. The damage done by these ignorant bigots in the name of their religion is immeasurable. Enough is enough! The tide is finally turning in our favor because of people like you who refuse to be put down anymore. Equality now!