Whatever your problem is with gay marriage, get over it. Seriously.
Religious conservatives are inundating the California airwaves with provocative ads in support of one particular ballot initiative in our upcoming election. Proposition 8 would ban gay marriage in California. The sad thing is that Prop. 8 looks like it’s going to pass.
We’re sort of a blue state, but we’re sorta’ not.
Even in California, there’s still this very common, but absurd and narrow-minded “fear of gay people.” I’m especially disappointed in my fellow people of color. Prop. 8 is passing because of the minority vote. You’d think that we’d have a bit more tolerance than that. You’d think that we’ve gone through enough prejudice and oppression as minorities in this country, that we would want tolerance and equality for all. Well, I guess that’s not the case.
Homophobia is merely a more “acceptable” form of intolerance and ignorance than racism and sexism are.
Really now, I’ve said this before, but I must reiterate the point: Two consenting (unrelated) adults should be allowed to do whatever it is they want in their own bedrooms, without threat or harassment. Two consenting adults should also be allowed to form life-long civil unions, as the rest of us are. Can anyone give me a non-religious reason as to why not?
The key words here are consenting adults. Why do you care so much about what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
We live in such a violent world with so much anger, hatred, and oppression, but many of us are fortunate enough to find love and joy in our lives nonetheless. When two people fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their lives together, that’s a beautiful thing, is it not? Why is that so condemned?
Do you really think that homosexuality is just a deviant lifestyle? Do you really think that gay people can “change” who they’re attracted to? Let’s say you’re straight, and you tend to prefer blondes or brunettes, or chubby women with unusually small feet. Who has the right to tell you who to find attractive? If you happen to fall in love with a balding used-car salesman with a rather disturbing mole on the left side of his face, do you really think you can help it? And even if you want to spend the rest of your life with this guy, should there be a law to stop you?
Should the law grant such perks as tax breaks to “traditional” married couples, but deny the same privileges to that other couple down the street, who keeps to themselves and has never hurt anyone, pays their taxes on time every year, but just happens to be gay?
Now, we’re not talking about pedophiles here. We’re not talking about men who want to marry your eight-year old son or daughter. Those men should be shot execution-style, I think we can all agree on that. This whole debate isn’t about “protecting our children.” Remind yourselves that we’re talking about consenting adults. Gays and lesbians are not a threat to your children, as the Religious Right wants you to believe. So whatever your problem is with gay people, grow up and get over it. (–JK)
Copyright © 2008 Jenny Kim, culturepress.
37 Comments
October 15, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Proposition 8 is more than same sex marriage its about protecting our sons and daughters from growing up in a world that teaches that being gay or lesbian is just as normal as being straight. I don’t want my sons and daughters being taught as young as five years old in school that it is okay to marry someone of their same sex. It is about the principle of religion. And protecting what God has set up as the correct way to replenish the earth. It is marriage between a Man and a Woman. God set Adam and Eve on earth to have their posterity fill the whole earth. It goes contrary to the laws set up by God himself. I have nothing against gay or lesbian individuals. I believe they can live their life how they please. I am against the teachings that go against the teachings of God. And we must fight to protect God’s holy ordinance of Marriage between one man and one woman.
Please go to http://www.protectmarriage.com to read more about the benefits of proposition 8.
October 15, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Spencer, I respect your opinion, and thank you very much for your comment. The First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution protects your opinion, your values and your faith. But the First Amendment also protects our right to keep religion out of government. Specifically, it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government can not prohibit your faith, nor can govt. advertise for your faith.
I do commend you, Spencer, for saying that you’re not against gay people themselves, just the idea of gay marriage.
But I’d like anyone out there to give me one non-religious reason why gay marriage should be banned. Furthermore, Prop 8 does not say that kids will be taught about homosexuality in schools. That is a complete fallacy which is being circulated by the Religious Right. It is a scare tactic, and nothing more. Marriage is indeed a religious union, but it is also a civil union. I am not proposing that churches perform gay marriages; I’m saying that gay couples should be allowed to have civil ceremonies. That has nothing to do with you, as a religious person. If it’s not in church, then WHY does it matter to you?
No one’s forcing your kids to be gay. But when you say, “It is about the principle of religion” that Prop 8 should pass, you are forcing me and everyone else in this society to live by your religion, and that is unconstitutional.
October 15, 2008 at 10:19 pm
@Spencer
Thanks to the charter of this great nation of ours (aka The US Constitution; specifically the 1st and 14th Amendments), YOUR “principle of religion” doesn’t get to be made into MY law. And it’s gracious of you to say that you “have nothing against gay or lesbian individuals…they can live their life how they please” but the truth of the matter is, without marriage equality – complete with all the civil benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples – these people are being treated unfairly, which violates the 14th Amendment. Thanks to this charter, your God, and your Bible, and your church are more than welcome to define for yourselves “God’s holy ordinance of Marriage.” But that also means, that my God and my Bible and my church get to, also. Yes on Prop 8 doesn’t protect marriage, it protects bigotry.
October 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm
WaltzInExile, thank you, very well stated, especially: “…without marriage equality – complete with all the civil benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples – these people are being treated unfairly, which violates the 14th Amendment.”
October 15, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I agree with you in that gay and lesbian individuals should have the same civil rights as married couples, but what I do not agree with is if gay marriage is passes then my religious leaders could get sued for not performing same sex weddings because it would be considered discrimination. This is violating their right of personal belief in their religion and the things their religion teaches. Furthermore you say prop 8 will not have an effect on teaching same sex marriage in school. I disagree completely with you on this issues. I would like you to look up the story of the Massachusetts father who was arrested because he would not leave his daughters school until he was informed when their school would be teaching about same sex marriage so he could remove his daughter when they taught this. The school said they did NOT have to inform him of when this would be taught because it was not topic that needed parental release. That is taking away the right of the parent to teach his child what he believes is right and granting that right to the government. I completely disagree with you that prop 8 will have no effect on teaching my children about same sex marriage.
October 15, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Well, that’s MA and this is CA. So–I just want to understand–it wasn’t that the MA law said
“parents can’t take their kids out of school when same-sex marriage is being taught”; there was simply no law which required the school to take the time to call the parents before this subject was to be brought up.
I see your point, at least in that respect. If schools are to bring up “sensitive” topics like evolution, sex education, and same-sex marriage, I can see why you as a parent want to be notified of that in advance by the school, so that you can decide whether you want your kids to be there or not. That’s an issue in itself.
However, we’re not even “promoting” same-sex marriage and homosexuality in schools. But why not bring it up and be taught that gay people exist? Gay people are human beings just like we are–so, why is their lifestyle not “normal?” If they’re not hurting anyone, and again, if they are consenting adults, then why is their behavior
“abnormal?” In a non-biblical sense, please. Again, we’re trying to keep religion out of government.
For a very long time in this country, it was taught in many schools that white people are better than black people. That, of course, turned out to be utter nonsense. We do what we can, collectively as a society, to come to some general consensus about what to teach in schools. Often times, we find later that we were wrong. We’re all just doing the best we can, to raise our children with good values. I understand that you’re speaking from a parent’s perspective, and you are only doing what any good parent would do–protect your child. We all define that in our own ways… does protecting your child include keeping them sheltered and unware? I don’t see why homosexuality is anything so wrong to “protect” your child from, again, in any non-religious sense.
I might have a personal problem with used-car salesmen, for example, but I wouldn’t make it a law to keep used-car salesmen from being discussed in a school or from having basic civil rights. The groups that are backing Prop. 8 are spreading fear and misleading ideas and information. I know that they are using a specific example, from a San Francisco gay wedding, when kids were pulled out of school to be taken on a “gay-marriage field-trip.” As much as I dislike SF mayor Newsom, he says that he was completely unaware that those kids would be pulled out of school for that, and this time, I really believe him, because he had no way of knowing that in advance. That SF school was irresponsible (we can all agree to that) and must issue a public apology for such recklessness. But it is still completely untrue that, if Prop 8 fails, then it’ll be a free-for-all gay event at your local CA school, and that your kids will be so very gay as a result. Prop 8 is still misleading and distorting the truth.
P.S. Spencer, I don’t mean to come across too harsh or blunt, and my apologies if I do. I know that you have been very respectful in your argument, and I do appreciate that. It is just a shame to me that religious organizations are often trying to impose their values onto everyone else in society, when even our nation’s founding fathers (though they may have been far from perfect) intended for this country to be free from religious persecution, as well as religious imposition. You’ve stated a very respectful argument, and this is simply a heated issue by nature. But we’re all just trying to do what’s right according to our respective values, and at least in that sense, we can say that we’re probably more on the same page than we think.
October 16, 2008 at 12:19 am
I agree that this is a proposition of bigotry and fear. I appreciate your efforts to help educate.
October 16, 2008 at 2:14 am
“Two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever it is they want in their own bedrooms, without threat or harassment.”
If a father and son, both of legal age, want to get married, do you believe they have the right to? What about father and daughter? Or mother and daughter? Do you feel they should also have this privilege extended to them?
October 16, 2008 at 5:56 am
It is offensive (and a logical fallacy) to conflate incest with homosexuality, Jesse.
October 16, 2008 at 8:52 am
Religion should be left out of the Proposition 8 debate, but unfortunately it is religious views which fuels the speech against same sex marriage. Yes, people can practise religion should they wish, but go to any history museum and you’ll see religions have come and gone over the many thousands and thousands of years of human civilization. Unfortunately, the dominant ones of our time mostly teach that same-sex relationships are ‘wrong’ and people are trapped in that mindset. Society should be progressive and that means levelling the playing field for everyone, not going back to the dark ages. It really doens’t hurt anyone if the couple down the road, the same sex couple, are married.
October 16, 2008 at 9:37 am
Jesse, who is talking about incest here but you? Of course, I did not mean two “consenting adults” who are father and son, or mother and son, and any such vile combination. Fine, then we shall say, “two consenting unrelated adults.” Fair enough?
I’ll even add the word “unrelated” in the essay, just for you
October 16, 2008 at 9:44 am
narrioch, thank you, you’re right on point. Trying to keep religion out of this debate is like pulling teeth.
waltzinexile, yes I agree that Jesse was being in some sense “logical” but for him to go there with this debate was stretching/playing with my words.
Kevin, thank you as well. It’s just very sad that people out there are using religion and whatever they can in order to justify this obvious form of bigotry, even now stretching to imply that opponents of Prop 8 such as myself are in any way suggesting adult incestual relationships (ahem, Jesse). Oh please~!
October 16, 2008 at 10:32 am
Wow, talk about hypocrisy. Where’s this supposed “equality” of marriage for all that you guys are preaching about? So anyone who is in love and a consenting adult can be allowed to be married, but only if they’re unrelated? How unfair.
Yes, I know that it is not the desire of proponents of same-sex marriage (hopefully) to also allow incestual relationships, or any other relationship that people can think of. But, I guarantee if Prop 8 fails, there are people out there who will start thinking, “Hey, if they can get married, why not us? They’re preaching about ‘equality’ this whole time, and minding their own business, so why can’t they mind their own business and let me and my son get married?”
It is very naïve of proponents of same-sex marriage to assume that there will be no fallout from this monumental decision of the California supreme court. They are altering one of the most basic foundational pieces of society for the very first time in history . . . do you really think you can predict everything that will result because of this? Or that you can base your predictions of the results of the past 6 months?
October 16, 2008 at 10:36 am
culturepress,
Please don’t think I was defending Jesse’s “logic.” I was trying to point out the straw man fallacy of conflating incest with homosexuality.
October 16, 2008 at 11:43 am
Some of the comments which are ‘for proposition 8′ are splitting hairs here. The world is not going to descend into carnage if people of the same sex get married, nor are people going to start marrying their pet goats etc. Marriage and the religious basis of it are not the basic foundational pieces of society. Trace them back genealogically and you’ll see that both of them are constructed insitutions which are being manipulated to suit a group in society who are scared or fearful of the result should people of the same sex get married. Detract ‘marriage’ from ‘religion’ and you should have a binding contract which grants everyone equal rights. Why should people in same sex relationships be treated as second class and not be accorded the same legal rights as other couples?
October 16, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Jesse, how “unfair” and hypocritical? Haha!
You’re creating a whole new issue off the topic that we’re discussing here. We’re talking about the same-sex marriage taboo, not the incest taboo. That’s a different topic altogether, and perhaps, we can discuss that at another time, and I’ll even write an article about it, just for you, Jesse. To take one argument and stretch it into a whole different topic, is like saying, “Oh, since you ‘liberals’ want universal healthcare and more federal funding for public education, why not also ask the government to buy a house for everyone in America, even illegal immigrants and homeless people who’ve never worked a day in their lives?” It’s like WHAT? We’re talking about education and healthcare here–not the govt. buying everyone a house.
It’s unfair and irrational to make such assumptions, to take from one argument and pulling it into another, unrelated topic. You’re doing that here, right now. We’re talking about gay marriage; Incest is a different issue entirely. If you’ve ever studied cultural anthropology, you would know that, instead of lumping the two issues into one category of ‘human obscenities.’ Gay people are certainly not known to have incestual relationships, and gay people find incest just as disgusting as us straight people. If ever I speak of funding public education, don’t go throwing in as part of your argument, “Oh, next she’ll be asking the government to pay for our dry-cleaning, too. What’s that? You’re not asking for federally-funded dry-cleaning? How hypocritical!!”
October 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm
waltzinexile, thank you again–I should have been more clear! I know you were not trying to call it a “logical” argument, but rather, pointing out the absurdity of creating such “logic.”
narrioch, thank you, great points, again. Exactly, too much hair-splitting. Let’s all stick to the point, instead of lumping “gay” with “incestual,” creating erroneous categories that are being used by religious conservatives to justify their intolerance and fear of same-sex relationships.
October 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm
The issue is based on the same principle: “equality” for everyone.
You say it’s unfair and irrational for me to assume things like this are going to happen. What is your assurance that things like this won’t happen? Is it because same-sex marriage has been legal for the past 5 months and it hasn’t happened yet, so that must mean it’s never going to happen?
To advocates of same-sex marriage, the rights of people wanting incestual marriage legalized is a different thing. However, I’m sure that to advocates of incestual marriage, it’s not. I’m not saying that gay people are into incest. What I’m saying is that now that gay people have gotten their “rights,” you would be foolish to think that these other activists are not going to come out and fight for their “rights.”
I’m not creating a whole new issue here. The issue would still be about supposed “equality,” which is the very thing advocates of same-sex marriage are fighting for. I don’t understand how you guys can’t see that very logical connection.
October 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Jesse: “To advocates of same-sex marriage, the rights of people wanting incestual marriage legalized is a different thing. However, I’m sure that to advocates of incestual marriage, it’s not.”
Who/where are these advocates of incestual marriage?
Jesse, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Neither of us is getting anywhere, taking the argument in this direction–truly–and you’re not going to change my mind, and I’m obviously not going to open yours. Have you honestly seen a sizeable movement advocating incestual marriage? If so, are these the same people who are advocating same-sex marriage? Clearly not.
You may think that “heathens” (gay people) are all in the same class of “heathens” (gays, incestuals, pedos, murderers, rapists) and if that was a veritable social category, then perhaps your “logic” would actually be logical. If you’re going to continue on that path of “when will it ever end?” without adding a new but relevent element to the argument, then, with your supposed logic, we should be granting rights to pedophiles and virgin-sacrificing-orgy-loving-cults–and none of us proponents of gay marriage are asking for that.
It would perhaps be “logical” for a person who supports universal healthcare to ask for other universal “perks” like free dry-cleaning, but again, we’re not asking for that. Healthcare is considered a basic human need to most people, whereas dry-cleaning is not. Your problem is that you see “gay” and “incestual” in the same category, when even gays and incestuals themselves KNOW that they’re not in the same category. Your mind is too closed for your “logic” to actually apply to the real world and real people.
Gay people–unrelated, gay, consenting adults are not actually hurting anybody. There are actually proven genetic, biological, and neuropsychological reasons why incest is harmful, not just “moral” reasons, as in the homosexuality taboo.
Back in the day, open interracial couples were seen as “harmful” to American society too. I remember a story about a White man who married a Black woman in the 1950’s South, and there was nothing but outrage about the idea of this White man being so open about his love for a Black woman. White people said that he ought to be ashamed of himself, but really, WHO was he (or his wife) actually hurting? So, he had to sue the state courts to make interracial marriages legal. Did you know that White southerners made a similarly “logical” argument (since they saw Black people as inherently lesser/lower than White folks)? They said, “If we’re marrying heathens now, what next? Make it legal to marry goats and chickens? It’ll never end!” Sound familiar?
We all know now (or, at least, more of us know now) that it was completely absurd to ban interracial marriages (and to think of Non-White people as “lower” than White), because truly, there were no proven genetic, biological, or neuropsychological reasons that showed such relationships as being harmful. And likewise, no scientific research has concluded that it’s “harmful” to be gay, in itself. Don’t tell me about the commonality of HIV transmission, now, because anal sex is getting more common among straight couples, too, which has increased HIV transmission in the straight community as well. AIDS is NOT a “gay disease.” So, there are no real genetic, biological, or neuropsychological reasons why gay relationships intrinsically hurt people. Incest is a whole different story, and even scientific research has shown that.
October 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm
The reason why same sex marriage and incest is being lumped into the same argument by hair-splitters is because of lack of a better argument on their part. People want to spin you into lexical twists and turns, confuse and muddle you to hide the fact that their argument doesn’t stand up.
October 16, 2008 at 10:23 pm
The amount of money being spent on each side of this “debate” is SICK. I personally do not think my civil rights are up for debate.
I KNOW I HAVE A RIGHT TO CIVIL MARRIAGE.
OUR marriages would not cause any families ANY grief beyond challenging THEIR spiritual arrogance. THEIR desire (the “RIGHT” and anti-equality bigots) to deny OUR family civil marriage HAS-IS-and-WILL cause(d) trauma and harm to countless LGBT Tax-Paying Americans.
This is a culture war, and we’re using the right weapon in the wrong way. DON’T SPEND MONEY for civil rights, WITHHOLD MONEY for civil rights. Perhaps we need a different weapon. Perhaps if the anti-equality families experience some of the pain our families experience due to marriage inequality, they’d get it. Perhaps it’s a good thing I do not own a gun [insert smiley face].
And for any gay young-ins out there who can’t wrap their brain around this alleged pain and the need for legal equality, you may not experience it yourself until MUCH later in life, through issues with estate-planning, pensions, hospitalization, property, and death, for starters….creating emotional and financial pains worse than you could ever possibly imagine. Have you not seen the films TYING THE KNOT or FREEHELD?! If not, do so. It’s about us.
But let’s keep marching and chanting, and now paying….for the “chance” of justice and equality. Look, I understand why people are paying for good PR. But can we step back and look at the precedent it sets for the next 30 years?
Let’s hold an EQUALITY FUNDRAISER!
Pathetic.
October 17, 2008 at 10:29 am
Truly pathetic, agreed, for the need to have to “pay” for equality in the first place. In the end, it’s all about who raises the most money fastest and bombards TV and radio with their own ads/PR. The Mormom church is heavily funding the ads supporting Prop 8. It’s too bad the GLBTs don’t have such a cash-generating entity on their side.
October 17, 2008 at 11:17 am
A commenter on my blog referred me here, and I just wanted to stop by to say “great post.” Keep rockin’ it.
http://bamboonation.blogspot.com/2008/10/open-letter-to-you-or-gay-marriage-is.html
October 17, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thank you, Prince Gomolvilas, I really appreciate your support and encouragement. Please keep up your great work too!
October 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm
By taking a quick glance across the animal kingdom, it may be surprising to some to note that several species live in monogamous relationships. This phenomenon is observed in both the greater and lesser species. Surely there must be some benefit to living such a monogamous lifestyle or it would not exist. Such monogamous relationships, or marriages if you will, seem to naturally exist as if some underlying advantage could result. Evolutionary biology provides an answer to the quandary. The goal of every species is survival. The key to survival is passing on your “genes.” In order to accomplish this, a species must maximize its reproduction and maximize their offspring’s survival. Turns out, for some species the best way to accomplish this is by the father sticking around and helping the mother. Each gender of the species provides essentials of survival and thus a marriage is formed. Thus marriage can yield an evolutionary advantage. So, biologically speaking, much prior to governments issuing licenses, marriages existed to bear children and assure that genes proliferated. This type of marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. As languages evolved, English was born. The word marriage was used to define such relationships between one man and one woman. Surely, other relationships exist, many of which are full of love, but these would not be called marriage. Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. Marriage is the gateway of the family. Biologically speaking, there is only one way to create offspring – this requires both a MALE and a FEMALE gamete. The implications of marriage go far beyond love. Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life.
October 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Such an important post. I am glad to see it generated a lot of discussion, albeit getting people off the religion on this topic is indeed like “pulling teeth.” I am glad to see a number of comments that reveal how hypocritical prop 8 is given all the lip service we pay to equal rights. However, I am sad to see that same old ridiculous arguments of the variety “Gay marriage, what next, people will be marrying siblings! Then their dogs! Then their cell phones!” Ah, the stupidity of the closed-minded homophobes…
October 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Paul, I meant to respond to your comment much sooner. I do want to say that your argument is the most intelligent and rational from any opponent of gay marriage that I have seen thus far. I do agree with you in that the definition of marriage itself is at issue, and I agree with you with regard to the undeniable, evolutionary reasons for the necessity of heterosexual unions.
The term “marriage”…
In human languages we’ve created lexical units in the form of words and morphemes in order to describe our world, our lives. I agree that the term “marriage” came about to describe a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. With social and biological evolution, we also have linguistic evolution, which includes a phenomenon called semantic shift. For example, the word “cup” in English is derived from same root as the modern German Kopf (which means “head”). At one point in the English word’s semantic evolution, the term referred to a “helmet,” and eventually we got what we think of as a cup today. But, back to marriage. You’ve stated that: “Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life.”
You are absolutely correct in the definition of marriage having been defined by nature and by heterosexual unions. However, as we’ve seen in the above example (and there are countless others), the meaning of a word can change over time as our societies and cultures change. Therefore, I do not believe that we should be trapped into a term’s original meaning. As much as we may want to protect our language and as much as we all hate to see lexical meanings change (and words “misused”), it is an unstoppable sociolinguistic phenomenon. A semantic shift is exactly what is occurring, as our culture is evolving and gradually, hopefully, learning to accept gay unions.
Biologically, it is true that heterosexual unions are necessary in order to perpetuate the survival of our species. We must mate and procreate!! Now, please forgive me for being blunt here: It sure seems like a waste of semen to have gay sex and to masturbate, doesn’t it? It seems so illogical, that we humans, the biologically/neurologically-advanced organisms that we are, would waste this life-giving serum for processes that simply derive pleasure, and are not for any practical purpose that would do our species any good.
The mammalian class of animals have just about all figured out that male + female = more of males and females. However, for many of the more neurologically-advanced mammals, we’ve seen that they might do things other than eat, sleep, and procreate… just for kicks. Dogs may stick their heads out of a car window for no practical reason other than pleasure. I have actually seen real-live homosexual intercourse between male dogs and male cats. Chimpanzees have been caught masturbating. None of it makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint. Humans paint, write poetry, create music. These activities seem so trivial, so unecessary. But if you ask an artist, a poet, a musician, they will likely tell you that these activities are “necessary,” that an artist can not live without art; if you take an artist’s paint away, it may be the death of them… you may see him/her literally go mad as if art were water or food or something necessary for survival. It makes no sense that people can define themselves and their lives by such activities that have no practical purpose.
But evolved organisms have created purpose beyond biology. It’s not all about what’s best for the species. We have created our own meaning and purpose in our lives, and needs and desires–beyond biology, beyond necessity and logic.
Back to homosexuality. A gene has been discovered that has been called the “gay gene.” I don’t know why, in the evolution of the human species, a gay gene developed. I don’t know why a gene that makes people want to paint or write music developed either. But I can tell you that if you’re gay, you really can’t help it. If you want to create art, you can’t help that either, and it might kill you to have that taken away from you.
Human society has established governments in order to keep people safe, to protect us from harm, theft, or fraud. Beyond that, I don’t believe that government should dictate purpose in our lives.
Gay people aren’t actually hurting anyone–and we’re talking about consenting adults. It may seem “unnatural,” but it is what it is. There are many legal activities that are “unnatural,” like cosmetic surgery (nose jobs, breast implants). Simply being “unnatural” is not necessarily a reason to ban an activity, even if there are plenty of people who think it’s absurd and/or disgusting (like, in my opinion, cosmetic surgery; or, in perhaps your opinion or the opinion of others, gay sex). If a gay couple wants to form a civil union, the fact that it “seems unnatural” to many, is not enough of a reason to declare it an act that should be banned. Gay unions are in no way harmful to society. That has yet to be proven.
October 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Professor What if, I’m playing catch-up–I got really behind in responding to comments on my blog! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I couldn’t agree more with you. This is a civil rights issue, a human rights issue, and trying to get people to understand that is truly like “pulling teeth.” It’s too bad that there’s a good chance Prop 8 will pass…
October 28, 2008 at 8:53 am
Thank you for writing this! I’m a Californian and I couldn’t agree more. Who are we to JUDGE other people? Isn’t that for God to do? It’s difficult enough to find someone to love you in these difficult times we live in. I for one don’t believe the school hype they’re pushing. Use a little common sense on that one. It really gets old when people try to be GOD, JUDGE and JURY!
It’s going to be interesting to see how it comes out next Tuesday.
I agree with the above poster, it’s great that you posted this because people do need to discuss it.
And yes, it’s a civil rights issue.
October 28, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Thank you for checking this out, PVDugas! I do want to spread the word and open up the discussion– I’m willing to hear all sides of the argument, but I have yet to be convinced by the anti-gay side’s arguments here. I’m going to post some of these comments on a separate post, to give anti-gay marriage folks another shot…
It’s just not right to judge folks aren’t even going around hurting people–that’s the key thing. Society has no right to judge those who aren’t even hurting anyone by being gay and forming gay unions.
October 28, 2008 at 1:53 pm
[...] Last Stretch, No on CA Prop. 8 Jump to Comments [Related Post: The Bigotry of California Prop. 8] [...]
October 28, 2008 at 8:12 pm
culturepress-
try to take it easy with the ping code. The Alliance has a 1-per-day rule.
Use the tag “wordpress political blogs” as often as you want, though.
thanks
October 29, 2008 at 11:05 am
ChenZhen, oh, sorry about that, thanks!! (I just didn’t understand the way the pinging process worked, I’m new to this–it won’t happen again…!)
November 1, 2008 at 11:33 am
[...] pro-life, but I believe in a woman’s (other women’s) right to choose. I’m pro-environment (I happen to like polar bears, Governor Palin); pro-gun control (the Second Amendment protects [...]
November 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm
[...] Posts: The Bigotry of California Prop. 8; Last Stretch, No on CA [...]
November 11, 2008 at 10:20 am
[...] However, because our society forces most gay folks to live in constant fear and shame, and because gay folks are not even hurting anyone–since homosexuality isn’t inherently “harmful” to society in any [...]
May 26, 2009 at 2:17 pm
[...] Posts: "The Bigotry of California Prop 8," "Jon Stewart, Mike Huckabee, and Gay [...]