Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, December 27, 2008
2008 "Please Don't Divorce Us"
Posted by David Schmader on Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:34 PM
A heartwarming anti-Prop-8 photostream compiled by the Courage Campaign.
See all 422 entries here. (For those craving but a wee sample, here's one of my faves.)
2
Of course, as someone who is pro-being anti-Prop-8, why couldn't the masses have organized themselves BEFORE THE GOD DAMNED ELECTION?!?!?!?!
3
Uh, oh. You guys and gals keep throwing out this red meat for the trolls, gay apologists, and skias (straight know-it-alls) to jump on. Here comes all the "calm down," "grow up," and blah, blah, blah, bullshit comments.
5
This is heartbreaking.
They should take it up with the irresponsible California judges who created this farce.
They should take it up with the irresponsible California judges who created this farce.
7
@2,
I think part of the reason people didn't organize before the vote was that nobody seriously thought it would pass.
As for the pictures, it doesn't matter. The religious don't care about gays and certainly don't care if gays are happy or not. This won't convince them.
I think part of the reason people didn't organize before the vote was that nobody seriously thought it would pass.
As for the pictures, it doesn't matter. The religious don't care about gays and certainly don't care if gays are happy or not. This won't convince them.
9
@7,
I know, that's exactly the problem. Lazy candidates (and campaigns) pay the price. Elections have consequences (see: Iraq War, Roberts/Alito, Guantanamo, etc.).
I know, that's exactly the problem. Lazy candidates (and campaigns) pay the price. Elections have consequences (see: Iraq War, Roberts/Alito, Guantanamo, etc.).
10
@2,
I'm sick of hearing that. If you're so angry, what the hell were YOU doing before Proposition 8? How were YOU mobilizing folks?
I'm sick of hearing that. If you're so angry, what the hell were YOU doing before Proposition 8? How were YOU mobilizing folks?
11
@10,
I'm not vehemently angry, but am I disappointed? Very much so. I could have donated money, I could have called, but I didn't. But I'm not trying to be holier than thou when it comes to this. My point is that there is not a lot of room for sore losers in the world of elections (see: Dino Rossi, etc.).
Where were all the celebrities making their Prop-8 Musicals before the election? Where were the nation-wide protests?
I mean if you wanted to defeat prop-8, the time and place to do it was before the election. Not in the courts, or in the streets or in emotional flickr slideshows afterward.
Politics (my occupational field) has the simplest math formula at its core: get more votes on election day than the other guy. When you do, you win. When you don't, you lose.
I'm not vehemently angry, but am I disappointed? Very much so. I could have donated money, I could have called, but I didn't. But I'm not trying to be holier than thou when it comes to this. My point is that there is not a lot of room for sore losers in the world of elections (see: Dino Rossi, etc.).
Where were all the celebrities making their Prop-8 Musicals before the election? Where were the nation-wide protests?
I mean if you wanted to defeat prop-8, the time and place to do it was before the election. Not in the courts, or in the streets or in emotional flickr slideshows afterward.
Politics (my occupational field) has the simplest math formula at its core: get more votes on election day than the other guy. When you do, you win. When you don't, you lose.
12
Politics (my occupational field) has the simplest math formula at its core: get more votes on election day than the other guy. When you do, you win. When you don't, you lose.
thats all well and good, but also ignores some important factors:
a) like that an Obama win would help downticket,
and b) that there was(from the time of the cal supreme court ruling) some questionable if not outright illegal tactics taken on the part of the pro 8 people...
were the anti-h8 people slow to respond?, sure but they also had to deal with outright lies and misinformation. the screwed aspect about that is your message gets lost.
it comes down to a point,that since the state made the marriages legal, everything is good, as it should be....
the fact is those that were told by their church they were "threatened" voted in larger numbers.
so in a sense, you are right. but ultimately, ohhh, so wrong.
thats all well and good, but also ignores some important factors:
a) like that an Obama win would help downticket,
and b) that there was(from the time of the cal supreme court ruling) some questionable if not outright illegal tactics taken on the part of the pro 8 people...
were the anti-h8 people slow to respond?, sure but they also had to deal with outright lies and misinformation. the screwed aspect about that is your message gets lost.
it comes down to a point,that since the state made the marriages legal, everything is good, as it should be....
the fact is those that were told by their church they were "threatened" voted in larger numbers.
so in a sense, you are right. but ultimately, ohhh, so wrong.
13
@12
WHAAA
WHAAAAAAAA!!!
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
Clueless in California.
California had already passed a ban on gay marriage.
Had anybody noticed?
And California was the 30th state to do so.
Had anybody noticed?
Some states threw in bans on civil union to boot,
and specified that gay unions from other states would not be recognized,
and passed those measures by as much as 80%.
Had anybody noticed?
Thirty defeats for gay marriage and ZERO wins.
Whine about "questionable if not outright illegal tactics" and "outright lies and misinformation" (mommy! make the bad people stop!) if it makes you feel better.
It isn't the real world, however
The strategy of using sympathetic leftwing judges to over turn the voters has limited usefulness.
Whining, not so effective either.
WHAAA
WHAAAAAAAA!!!
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
Clueless in California.
California had already passed a ban on gay marriage.
Had anybody noticed?
And California was the 30th state to do so.
Had anybody noticed?
Some states threw in bans on civil union to boot,
and specified that gay unions from other states would not be recognized,
and passed those measures by as much as 80%.
Had anybody noticed?
Thirty defeats for gay marriage and ZERO wins.
Whine about "questionable if not outright illegal tactics" and "outright lies and misinformation" (mommy! make the bad people stop!) if it makes you feel better.
It isn't the real world, however
The strategy of using sympathetic leftwing judges to over turn the voters has limited usefulness.
Whining, not so effective either.
14
@4 The sad thing is that this isn't using children in political stunts. The kids in these marriages really are going to be hurt if their parents have their marriages dissolved. Look at what's happening to children in Arkansas because of Prop 1-- children taken away from loving, capable parents, sent back into the state's care and foster care, away from people willing to adopt and raise and love them. In California, if these divorces go through, the effects on these children will be very real, socially, psychologically, legally. It's not the parents who are sticking these kids in stunts, really.
15
I looked at all the pictures.
So is it actually a rule that lesbians have to be beefy and buttugly?
So is it actually a rule that lesbians have to be beefy and buttugly?
17
Chad @ 12:
bullshit, your entire premise is crap.
the legality of those bans are in question, and as a constitutional issue it is up to the courts, not referendum to decide. you are on the wrong side of human rights and history.
and as to this issue of "whining", call it what you will, but the highest pitch I hear is coming from the right, and how their traditions and beliefs are being threatened, they and you need to dial it down a few notches.
bullshit, your entire premise is crap.
the legality of those bans are in question, and as a constitutional issue it is up to the courts, not referendum to decide. you are on the wrong side of human rights and history.
and as to this issue of "whining", call it what you will, but the highest pitch I hear is coming from the right, and how their traditions and beliefs are being threatened, they and you need to dial it down a few notches.
18
It's a nice collection, and the ones that are especially heartbreaking are the ones where our straight friends, families and co-workers are going to bat for us.
I know I blubbered like a baby when my partner died and my office donated thousands of $$$ to Broadway Cares. There are good people out there.
I know I blubbered like a baby when my partner died and my office donated thousands of $$$ to Broadway Cares. There are good people out there.
20
@17
Don't hear any whining from the right;
just busy bees getting gay unions outlawed all across the nation;
oh yeah,
and giving the invocation for our pal Barak.
How much did you donate to Obama08?
Was that a good investment??
Don't hear any whining from the right;
just busy bees getting gay unions outlawed all across the nation;
oh yeah,
and giving the invocation for our pal Barak.
How much did you donate to Obama08?
Was that a good investment??
21
@17
My 'premise' is that gays have been buttwhacked all across America and the only response is WHINING.
Actually it is not a premise, it is a fact.
You can call is BS and crap if it makes you feel better but it remains true.
My 'premise' is that gays have been buttwhacked all across America and the only response is WHINING.
Actually it is not a premise, it is a fact.
You can call is BS and crap if it makes you feel better but it remains true.
22
@14
I suspect few, if any, of these 'families' were created in the window of a couple of weeks between the Supreme Court ruling throwing out the existing ban on gay marriage and the certification of the Prop 8 referendum.
Those created before where done so when gay marriage was not legal and nothing is being taken away.
Those created after knew that the court ruling could be over turned and were taking a risk.
If these kids are being jerked around it is by the adult caregivers and posing them for this exibition is the least of it.
I suspect few, if any, of these 'families' were created in the window of a couple of weeks between the Supreme Court ruling throwing out the existing ban on gay marriage and the certification of the Prop 8 referendum.
Those created before where done so when gay marriage was not legal and nothing is being taken away.
Those created after knew that the court ruling could be over turned and were taking a risk.
If these kids are being jerked around it is by the adult caregivers and posing them for this exibition is the least of it.
23
chad @21:
My 'premise' is that gays have been buttwhacked all across America and the only response is WHINING.
Actually it is not a premise, it is a fact.
You can call is BS and crap if it makes you feel better but it remains true.
and you can use all the framing devices in your arsenal. but lets remember that laws have to be Constitutional. Your wishes for the kind bigotry that imposes it hurtful will on others will not stand.
do you really want to be on the side that denies rights? or condones that do?
My 'premise' is that gays have been buttwhacked all across America and the only response is WHINING.
Actually it is not a premise, it is a fact.
You can call is BS and crap if it makes you feel better but it remains true.
and you can use all the framing devices in your arsenal. but lets remember that laws have to be Constitutional. Your wishes for the kind bigotry that imposes it hurtful will on others will not stand.
do you really want to be on the side that denies rights? or condones that do?
26
These pictures are really sweet and make me want to cry. You fucking "Christians" really make me disgusted. In fact, you make me hope there is a hell, because you'll be there. Jesus would be on side fuckers.
27
@18 (me):
I should have said "my office mates (or co-workers) donated thousands..." because the money didn't come from the company, but the individuals in it, 20-50 bucks at a time. There are, like, 100 of us in my office and even people I didn't know at the time pitched in. It was very moving for me and made me realize how much I'm liked and respected throughout the company, which I didn't know prior.
Like I said, there are good people out there....there really are. Even the DEVOUTLY, insanely Christian grandmother that works down the hall took up a collection and had a "cookie bouquet" sent to us before he died. She is what a Christian should be.
I should have said "my office mates (or co-workers) donated thousands..." because the money didn't come from the company, but the individuals in it, 20-50 bucks at a time. There are, like, 100 of us in my office and even people I didn't know at the time pitched in. It was very moving for me and made me realize how much I'm liked and respected throughout the company, which I didn't know prior.
Like I said, there are good people out there....there really are. Even the DEVOUTLY, insanely Christian grandmother that works down the hall took up a collection and had a "cookie bouquet" sent to us before he died. She is what a Christian should be.
28
@27
Your story is touching.
It is not unusual, however.
Most people who oppose gay marriage, whether for religious reasons or for social policy reasons (as I do) bear no ill will toward homosexuals.
And in fact have gay friends, coworkers and relatives whom they love and respect.
There are some haters like the folks from the Kansas church but they are rare.
Homosexual activist (like a lot of the folks on slog) (who often run in very liberal urban circles and don't encounter much of 'middle' America) want to demonize every one who opposes any policy they see as pro-gay as bigots beyond the pale and unworthy of civil interaction.
They are wrong.
Their tactics harm the cause they claim to favor.
Their tactics are undemocratic, in a democracy the people discuss issues and reach a consensus.
You don't boycott those who disagree with you to economic ruin.
You don't get those who disagree with you fired.
You don't smash and destroy those who disagree with you.
Those tactics are the urban 'sophisticates' version of KKK thugery.
Dan is fond of mocking the notion of 'I have gay friends but I believe...' but he is being incredibly narrow minded and immature.
The current tactics drive people of goodwill away.
I doubt the tantrums over Warren have given Obama the warm and fuzzies for gay issues.
I did not vote for him (and in fact have never voted for a Democrat for President in 10 elections and am about as conservative as they come) but my heart and prayers go out to him and his family; our nation faces the greatest challenges since FDR. At this time of crisis our nation needs to pull together and support the Pres-elect and in that context I find no room for seeking partisan advantage over issues like Blagojevich.
Also in that context I find the actions of folks like Savage and Frank regarding Warren a despicable distraction for Obama from the scores of critical issues he must deal with at this time.
Savage and his dittoheads believe their moral superiority justifies any tactics but in fact corrupt means will corrupt the end and they are no more than the left's version of Aryan Nation skinheads.
More...
Your story is touching.
It is not unusual, however.
Most people who oppose gay marriage, whether for religious reasons or for social policy reasons (as I do) bear no ill will toward homosexuals.
And in fact have gay friends, coworkers and relatives whom they love and respect.
There are some haters like the folks from the Kansas church but they are rare.
Homosexual activist (like a lot of the folks on slog) (who often run in very liberal urban circles and don't encounter much of 'middle' America) want to demonize every one who opposes any policy they see as pro-gay as bigots beyond the pale and unworthy of civil interaction.
They are wrong.
Their tactics harm the cause they claim to favor.
Their tactics are undemocratic, in a democracy the people discuss issues and reach a consensus.
You don't boycott those who disagree with you to economic ruin.
You don't get those who disagree with you fired.
You don't smash and destroy those who disagree with you.
Those tactics are the urban 'sophisticates' version of KKK thugery.
Dan is fond of mocking the notion of 'I have gay friends but I believe...' but he is being incredibly narrow minded and immature.
The current tactics drive people of goodwill away.
I doubt the tantrums over Warren have given Obama the warm and fuzzies for gay issues.
I did not vote for him (and in fact have never voted for a Democrat for President in 10 elections and am about as conservative as they come) but my heart and prayers go out to him and his family; our nation faces the greatest challenges since FDR. At this time of crisis our nation needs to pull together and support the Pres-elect and in that context I find no room for seeking partisan advantage over issues like Blagojevich.
Also in that context I find the actions of folks like Savage and Frank regarding Warren a despicable distraction for Obama from the scores of critical issues he must deal with at this time.
Savage and his dittoheads believe their moral superiority justifies any tactics but in fact corrupt means will corrupt the end and they are no more than the left's version of Aryan Nation skinheads.
29
re: your fave
That was also my 'fave'!
A pair of grinning jackass queer yuppies fondling a gun.
Priceless.
They probably think it's a dildo.
But hey, we get the message-
"repeal Prop 8 OR ELSE !!
don't make us use this thing !
(as soon as we figure out which end the bullets go in,
that is-- alas a common queer confusion)
Priceless.
But frankly,
if the culture wars take a turn in this direction
I like our sides chances.
That was also my 'fave'!
A pair of grinning jackass queer yuppies fondling a gun.
Priceless.
They probably think it's a dildo.
But hey, we get the message-
"repeal Prop 8 OR ELSE !!
don't make us use this thing !
(as soon as we figure out which end the bullets go in,
that is-- alas a common queer confusion)
Priceless.
But frankly,
if the culture wars take a turn in this direction
I like our sides chances.
30
@28:
"Most people who oppose gay marriage, whether for religious reasons or for social policy reasons (as I do) bear no ill will toward homosexuals."
Could you expand on that and explain? I'm not sure I understand what 'social policy' reasons exist to stop stable relationships. I'm not being a smartass, I really don't understand. We were together almost 20 years, and I just don't see how our commitment/marriage would have 'hurt' society.
And yeah, Sharon' (at workm the cookie Christian) is a pretty special person. I have a HUGE amount of respect for her.
"Most people who oppose gay marriage, whether for religious reasons or for social policy reasons (as I do) bear no ill will toward homosexuals."
Could you expand on that and explain? I'm not sure I understand what 'social policy' reasons exist to stop stable relationships. I'm not being a smartass, I really don't understand. We were together almost 20 years, and I just don't see how our commitment/marriage would have 'hurt' society.
And yeah, Sharon' (at workm the cookie Christian) is a pretty special person. I have a HUGE amount of respect for her.
31
@30
The 'family' (man-woman, their kids) is the essential building block of a stable society. Where the 'family' is strong and functional a society will have much fewer social ills and much less need for government social services, most of which exist to take the place of missing or dysfunctional family responsibilities.
A man and woman caring for their children, sacrificing to provide a stable and nurturing environment, is the best way for our species to PRODUCE and RAISE TO MATURITY functional adults.
Not every family will be the ideal but the greater percentage of functional traditional families in a society the better off the society will be. The more a society respects, promotes and fosters the ideal family and it's corollaries; (postpone sexual activity until marriage, sexual fidelity to spouse, take care of and provide for your family, etc etc) the greater percentage of its population will choose that lifestyle. It is by resisting and rising above the 'animal' instincts and urges that society and individuals prosper.
'Family values' go against human nature, however, and requires societal support (and coercion) to help them along. Men by nature are not terribly monogamous and sticking around with the same woman and kids for thirty years can be a drag.
'Family benefits' were extended to breadwinner spouses to compensate for the increased expense and decreased income in a home were children were produced and raised and one parent stayed home to raise them. Not every 'traditional' family has kids but most do and the system worked great as long as the 'family' was fairly healthy.
Premarital sex and out of wedlock births, extramarital sex, divorce, prostitution, pornography, drug and alcohol abuse and a host of other social ills tear the family down and apart. As our society has become more accepting of them social ills have climbed.
Along come homosexuals clamoring that their chosen behaviors should be accepted as normal and just as valid as heterosexual behavior; and that it should be granted the hallowed status of 'marriage'. From a reproductive biological standpoint that is absurd. And society has a vital (literally) interest in fostering the 'traditional' family. Fostering means giving special status and benefits to. If you grant that status and those benefits to anyone then they are no longer special and no longer benefits and you are no longer helping along the child producing and rearing 'traditional family'.
Homosexual behavior has no benefit to society (as opposed to heterosexual conduct WITHIN A STABLE RELATIONSHIP- aka 'marriage')
Homosexual couples have little (and no unique) benefit to society. Homosexuals are poor role models to teach normal heterosexual gender role model behavior to children (what we 'do' screams much louder than what we say). As a means to providing homes for children orphanages would be much more cost effective and resources would be better directed to strengthening the 'traditional' family to reduce the supply of children without homes at its source.
Please note that 'love' has nothing to do with it. Society really doesn't care if heterosexual married couples love each other; as long as they produce enough kids to keep the species around another generation and raise them well. Homosexual squealing to be allowed to marry whomever they 'love' is fatuous and beside the point. Love certainly plays a vital role in human relationships but it is not within the power of public policy to promise that we can marry whom we love.
With the pressing problems that literally imperil the survival of our society gay marriage (and Warren) are trivial distractions.
More...
The 'family' (man-woman, their kids) is the essential building block of a stable society. Where the 'family' is strong and functional a society will have much fewer social ills and much less need for government social services, most of which exist to take the place of missing or dysfunctional family responsibilities.
A man and woman caring for their children, sacrificing to provide a stable and nurturing environment, is the best way for our species to PRODUCE and RAISE TO MATURITY functional adults.
Not every family will be the ideal but the greater percentage of functional traditional families in a society the better off the society will be. The more a society respects, promotes and fosters the ideal family and it's corollaries; (postpone sexual activity until marriage, sexual fidelity to spouse, take care of and provide for your family, etc etc) the greater percentage of its population will choose that lifestyle. It is by resisting and rising above the 'animal' instincts and urges that society and individuals prosper.
'Family values' go against human nature, however, and requires societal support (and coercion) to help them along. Men by nature are not terribly monogamous and sticking around with the same woman and kids for thirty years can be a drag.
'Family benefits' were extended to breadwinner spouses to compensate for the increased expense and decreased income in a home were children were produced and raised and one parent stayed home to raise them. Not every 'traditional' family has kids but most do and the system worked great as long as the 'family' was fairly healthy.
Premarital sex and out of wedlock births, extramarital sex, divorce, prostitution, pornography, drug and alcohol abuse and a host of other social ills tear the family down and apart. As our society has become more accepting of them social ills have climbed.
Along come homosexuals clamoring that their chosen behaviors should be accepted as normal and just as valid as heterosexual behavior; and that it should be granted the hallowed status of 'marriage'. From a reproductive biological standpoint that is absurd. And society has a vital (literally) interest in fostering the 'traditional' family. Fostering means giving special status and benefits to. If you grant that status and those benefits to anyone then they are no longer special and no longer benefits and you are no longer helping along the child producing and rearing 'traditional family'.
Homosexual behavior has no benefit to society (as opposed to heterosexual conduct WITHIN A STABLE RELATIONSHIP- aka 'marriage')
Homosexual couples have little (and no unique) benefit to society. Homosexuals are poor role models to teach normal heterosexual gender role model behavior to children (what we 'do' screams much louder than what we say). As a means to providing homes for children orphanages would be much more cost effective and resources would be better directed to strengthening the 'traditional' family to reduce the supply of children without homes at its source.
Please note that 'love' has nothing to do with it. Society really doesn't care if heterosexual married couples love each other; as long as they produce enough kids to keep the species around another generation and raise them well. Homosexual squealing to be allowed to marry whomever they 'love' is fatuous and beside the point. Love certainly plays a vital role in human relationships but it is not within the power of public policy to promise that we can marry whom we love.
With the pressing problems that literally imperil the survival of our society gay marriage (and Warren) are trivial distractions.
32
Chucky @31:
wow, it's kinda hard to decide which is worse,
1) that you took the time to write all that crap down
or 2) you actually may believe any or all of it, and really are as clueless about the world as you'd have to be to spew forth that sort of tired propagnda.
stop pretending you care about society, you don't. you fear it; so your only recourse is falling back on authoritarian dogma.
wow, it's kinda hard to decide which is worse,
1) that you took the time to write all that crap down
or 2) you actually may believe any or all of it, and really are as clueless about the world as you'd have to be to spew forth that sort of tired propagnda.
stop pretending you care about society, you don't. you fear it; so your only recourse is falling back on authoritarian dogma.
33
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are good models of stable family units. Heterosexual marriage is sacrosanct, and married couples are expected to produce many children. Women have few rights within the marriage, which means that there is one strong family leader, the husband and father. There is no confusion over gender roles, and married men hold the highest place of honor in society. These countries are extremely successful and we should strive to emulate them.
34
@33, also, those marriages are by-and-large arranged by families along social and economic lines. Love is not a factor, nor should it be in a stable marriage. A marriage should exist only to produce children. The husband and father should be the unquestioned family leader, center of the family unit, and provider. The wife and mother should care for her husband, raise the children, and care for the home. Whether or not the husband and wife love one another is completely irrelevant, so long as they provide a stable environment with clear gender roles for their children. Women should not have a choice in their mate; their family knows better and should make that decision for them. People who are homosexualist or who refuse to be married or have children should understand that they threaten and break down the family unit, and that they should not be guaranteed any special rights.
35
you girls are hysterical.
really.
if American marriage as currently practiced is about love somebody needs to ask for their money back because there is a lot of divorce and unhappiness and precious little 'happily ever after'.
really.
if American marriage as currently practiced is about love somebody needs to ask for their money back because there is a lot of divorce and unhappiness and precious little 'happily ever after'.
36
32
sorry the truth disturbs you.
come back when you have a point (the two in your name and the one on top of your head don't count...)
sorry the truth disturbs you.
come back when you have a point (the two in your name and the one on top of your head don't count...)
37
The interesting thing about these authoritarian types is it's always about "stregthening the family for the good of society" and the ever popular "gotta protect the children". And how in the name of those things they always start by denying basic rights, but thats not enough, they won't stop there. There's other things they'd be willing to do to keep their illusions and twisted desires for conformity intact. One of the best lessons of history, is to be very wary of those that cloak themselves in the "sanctity of family and tradition".
38
@37
When in the history of humanity have homosexuals had the 'basic right' to marriage? Can't really deny you what you never had...
When in the history of humanity have homosexuals had the 'basic right' to marriage? Can't really deny you what you never had...
39
When in the history of humanity have homosexuals had the 'basic right' to marriage? Can't really deny you what you never had...
wow, o.k then. with an argument as water-tight as that...
jeesh, there really are no words for your clueless ass
egads. I'm done.
wow, o.k then. with an argument as water-tight as that...
jeesh, there really are no words for your clueless ass
egads. I'm done.
41
"Homosexual behavior has no benefit to society (as opposed to heterosexual conduct WITHIN A STABLE RELATIONSHIP- aka 'marriage')
Homosexual couples have little (and no unique) benefit to society."
Charles, hon, you still haven't addressed my question. How does my gay marriage threaten society? Just a "straight" answer will do, without all the twisty logic that goes nowhere.
We're waiting. We're confused by your non-reply, but we're waiting.
Homosexual couples have little (and no unique) benefit to society."
Charles, hon, you still haven't addressed my question. How does my gay marriage threaten society? Just a "straight" answer will do, without all the twisty logic that goes nowhere.
We're waiting. We're confused by your non-reply, but we're waiting.
47
Obama is a Zionist tool. All you laughably naive Seattle liberals better get ready for the big war Obama is going to fight on behalf of Israel.
49
Not Christophobic. The people who supported prop 8 aren't really very Christlike.
Pseudo-Christians supported prop 8, so I guess it's more a phobia of Pseudo-Christians, who want to force everyone to live by their narrow version of Christianity.
Nobody is forcing anyone to enter into a gay marriage. So if you are against it, don't do it, but don't tell me I have to live by your religion's rules. My gay marriage isn't forcing anything on you any more than Jewish folks who keep kosher. Are Jews who eat kosher forcing their lifestyle on you?
Pseudo-Christians supported prop 8, so I guess it's more a phobia of Pseudo-Christians, who want to force everyone to live by their narrow version of Christianity.
Nobody is forcing anyone to enter into a gay marriage. So if you are against it, don't do it, but don't tell me I have to live by your religion's rules. My gay marriage isn't forcing anything on you any more than Jewish folks who keep kosher. Are Jews who eat kosher forcing their lifestyle on you?
50
49
If opponents of homosexual marriage don't have to recognize or acknowledge those marriages then you've got a deal. Otherwise you are forcing your religious view of marriage on the rest of the nation.
If opponents of homosexual marriage don't have to recognize or acknowledge those marriages then you've got a deal. Otherwise you are forcing your religious view of marriage on the rest of the nation.
52
49
7 million Californians voted for Prop 8.
How many of them do you know personally, Rob?
How many of them even claim to be Christian?
On what do you base you're assessment of their lack of sufficient Christian piety?
Inquiring minds want to know...
7 million Californians voted for Prop 8.
How many of them do you know personally, Rob?
How many of them even claim to be Christian?
On what do you base you're assessment of their lack of sufficient Christian piety?
Inquiring minds want to know...
53
@ 50, You won't have to enter into a gay marriage, you won't have to attend a gay wedding, and you don't have to approve of them. Just as you don't have eat kosher, you don't have to attend a kosher luncheon, nor do you have to approve of kosher eating. That way, people of different beliefs than yours can live their lives, and you can live yours. Problem solved.
@51 Yeah, was Jesus was really about excluding, ostracizing people? If so, what a wonderful person to choose to worship.
@52, a simple reading of the polls taken show that people who consider themselves "Christian" where responsible for Prop 8 passing. Too bad they don't really understand the religion of which they claim to be a part.
@51 Yeah, was Jesus was really about excluding, ostracizing people? If so, what a wonderful person to choose to worship.
@52, a simple reading of the polls taken show that people who consider themselves "Christian" where responsible for Prop 8 passing. Too bad they don't really understand the religion of which they claim to be a part.
54
I'm not christphobic in the least. It's the ones that call themselves christians and advocate hate that I don't like as much. It might actually shock you that I have Christian friends who are for gay marriage. If they can manage to "see the light", why so hard for everyone else?
55
@50 53
Will my tax dollars go to provide benefits for homosexual 'married' individuals as currently go to heterosexuals?
Get your hand out of my wallet.
Will my tax dollars go to provide benefits for homosexual 'married' individuals as currently go to heterosexuals?
Get your hand out of my wallet.
56
@54
Maybe your enlightened Christian friends and Pat Boone's gay friends could get together; in a phone booth, maybe...
Maybe your enlightened Christian friends and Pat Boone's gay friends could get together; in a phone booth, maybe...
57
53 54
It is a little known fact that all of Christendom looks to gay boys to set them right on what it means to be a Christian.
It is a little known fact that all of Christendom looks to gay boys to set them right on what it means to be a Christian.
58
@55, Gay people pay taxes too. You don't seem to mind putting your hand in the wallets of gay people to pay their tax dollars toward heterosexual marriages. At the same time you want to deny them the benefits for which they are already paying.
@57, Need I remind you of Catholic priests?
@57, Need I remind you of Catholic priests?
60
@59, So you're just admitting that you are against gay marriage because you just don't like gay people? Homosexuals pay taxes just like you, so their own taxes will go toward their own benefits. It doesn't affect you one bit.
62
@61, I guess when you realize that you don't have any valid arguments, you turn to trolling? It's always a personal victory for me when people do that.
63
62
personal victories are nice consolation since homosexuals have had so few (dare we say- none?) on the national stage...
personal victories are nice consolation since homosexuals have had so few (dare we say- none?) on the national stage...
66
Don't you just looooove these people who are oh so willing to sacrifice the rights of others for the good of society.
"Can stand any amount of pain, even for years,
If it's someone else's."
"Can stand any amount of pain, even for years,
If it's someone else's."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (66) RSS