Punknews.org

|
Sign In | create an account

Tegan & Sara response to anti-gay marriage amendment

Posted by aubin on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM (EST)

In their latest blog for Spinner, Tegan And Sara have responded to the passage of the recent anti-gay marriage amendment in California. Though the bill was opposed by many prominent Californians, the bill passed thanks to a strong campaign organized and funded through the Mormon church.

More than just the bill itself, the blog draws attention to the continuing problems with homophobia within the punk and independent music communities:

Although I am grateful for the legislation that has made me "equal" in the eyes of the law, you cannot legislate away people's disgust or ignorance. You can't remove the stinging intolerance and slurs of homophobic audience members' words in my ears.

I am fueled by the idea that my life as a message dismantles the public's image of gay people as sexual deviants, as less than, as being abnormal.

Check out the blog here.

Warner Music Group (273 comments)

Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?

Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.

Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Seriously.

chickswithdicks (November 12, 2008)

You can't remove the stinging intolerance and slurs of homophobic audience members' words in my ears.

so people actually pay whatever the ticket price is just to yell at these ladies? i just don't see that happening.

2+ Replies

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

maybe no recently, maybe like back when they'd open up for other people.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Probably at festivals. Or the people are fans, they just also happen to be morons. Or they were just brought there by their (let's face it) girlfriend, and this is their way of getting back when she;s in the bathroom.

Dante3000 (rich) (November 12, 2008)

Guess you'll just have to start liking dudes.
-Dante

sXenester (November 12, 2008)

would

4+ Replies

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

but can't

returnofdebs (November 12, 2008)

my cousing did.

returnofdebs (November 12, 2008)

*cousin

retard.

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

what about their little known third sister, jorma vik from the bronx?

http://www.meinlcymbals.com/artists/artist/ARTIST/jorma _vik.html?cHash=a7c7bd826f

Dante3000 (rich) (November 12, 2008)

I'd also like to take this moment to chime in on the horrific campaigning that occured around Prop 8 here in California.
1) False advertising that said the schools would teach gay marriage in class. We never taught straight marriage, why would we teach gay Marriage?
2) Pro 8 activists spreading false information with in the Mexican community (who traditionally get over looked and are already heavily aligned with Christianity)
3) Pro 8 rallies being held at polling locations, that were closer than regulations permit.

It was really sad to see it pass, even more so because it was a campaign of hate and misinformation.
-Dante

14+ Replies

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

basically the whole idea that it was left to a popular vote is horrific, this is an issue for the courts and people with knowledge of constitutional law not joe sixpack.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

Howeer, Joe the plumber can probably offer some insight.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

*However, my "V" key just decided to take a day off I guess.

JoelSweetheart (November 12, 2008)

a vote for prop 8 is a vote for socialism and the death of israel

chickswithdicks (November 12, 2008)

and a six pack!

JHrecords (November 12, 2008)

That's bullshit, it should be left to a popular vote.

The government and the courts are supposed to be for the people.

Yeah the ruling sucks, but as americans it should be OUR voice that makes changes, not some court, or the govt, passing legislation without the people having their say.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

If it was The People having their say back in the day, how long would it have taken to have integrated schools or repeal Jim Crow laws?

Dante3000 (rich) (November 12, 2008)

You realize the founders of this nation (and thus the constitution and the bill of rights) had so little faith in the American public that we weren't even allowed to elect our leaders? That's where the electoral college came from.
Deciding laws and constitutional amendments is something that I feel should be left in the hands of someone more knowledgeable than my neighbor.
-Dante

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

unfortunately you or anyone else doesn't have a say on who I get to marry. It shouldn't be up to a vote because constitutionally speaking it isn't legal to prohibit gay marriage.

JHrecords (November 12, 2008)

unfortunately?

What? Do you wish we did have a say?

You are saying it's unfortunate that we don't?

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

I disagree. If the people make laws that a discriminatory, it is the courts job to throw them out. It is a civil rights issues so the courts are going to have a say.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Incorrect.

People should not have the right to vote on the opportunity to take rights away from a segment of the population.

miniblindbandit (November 12, 2008)

pssh. they're too busy telling whales to "suck it."

Roberts: "Oh, I'm sorry whales. Is the sonar hurting your ears? Well let me just TURN IT THE FUCK UP!"

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

Its not often that they hold a majority vote on a minority issue. That was the first problem.

NotPatriotic (November 12, 2008)

This

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I disagree that something like this should be left up to the courts. Really it shouldn't be something that is voted on at all by anyone.

jacknife737 (November 12, 2008)

Agreed. I trust the Supreme Court (keep in mind i'm Canadian) a hell of a lot more then i do my fellow voters.

The court system in American is way too politicized.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

This.

Somewhere on here I noted that we wouldn't have just elected the first black president had the civil rights legislation of the 1960s been decided by public referendum.

chickswithdicks (November 12, 2008)

now i want mexican food

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

My brother and my nephew have already had gay marriage taught to them in school. It was just their teachers going off on tangents, but it's gonna happen again and again. Just not officially. The districts and school board members have deniability, but really, are they gonna monitor every teacher all day? I once had a freshman teacher tell me that if I wanted to be happy I should try LSD, but if I wanted to be successful I should go to college.

But who cares what they teach in school? Don't these parents talk to their kids after school?

BMXpunk (November 12, 2008)

That's BS. They were not taught gay marriage... they had a teacher maybe voicing an opinion, but there was no teaching going on. If the teacher is making a rant that has nothing to do with the subject they should be teaching a complaint can be taken to the principal.
Also, the parents have the right to remove their child from any lesson that they feel goes against their beliefs or religion.

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

True and true, but what I'm saying is this, kids will digest whatever their teachers tell them, because that's what teachers do, they teach. So whether its an opinion or not, it was still taught, and weighs heavily.

That being said, I think that the fear that ones kids will be taught something contrary to their beliefs should be replied to with a discussion at home to help the kid understand. Parents shouldn't rely on public schools to teach their kids everything. They shouldn't stop teaching their kids once they hit kindergarten.

So my point? The fear the gay marriage will be taught in school is warranted, but totally irrelevant because of alternatives.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

So you'll admit that your definition of "teaching" has nothing to do with Prop 8.

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

No I'm saying that gay marriage probably will be taught by some headstrong teachers, and so will capital punishment, abortion, commentary on religion, and other non-sequitors that's not part of any curriculum, and there's not much you can do to prevent that, so be involved in your kids life and talk to them if that scares you.

I am saying that it doesn't warrant a yes vote, but i seriously doubt that thousands of teachers through out the state aren't going to say anything about it ever.

Autosuggestion (November 13, 2008)

Now hold on a second. What you describe as happening don't seem to be direct consequences of Prop 8 passing or failing. That fact that some teachers will talk about whatever "current events" or social issue they are interested in is isolated from the outcome of a particular ballot initiative, because that initiative isn't directly affecting the California or national curriculum.

HeyBarmold (November 14, 2008)

Hence, I said that it doesn't warrant a yes on 8 vote, but the fear is rational.

Autosuggestion (November 17, 2008)

The fear isn't rational because there is nothing to rationalize it when it comes to Prop 8 or same-sex marriage.

You can worry all you want about whatever non-curriculum shit public school teachers are going to say based on their individual personalities, but it has nothing to do with the school system or politics. There's nothing on the books that puts Beverly Hills Chihuahua in the classroom, but a teacher might bring it up on Monday and tell her students that she went and saw it over the weekend. That doesn't mean it's being "taught in the classroom."

baseball (November 12, 2008)

Agreed. Voicing an opinion does not equal teaching. To say that gay marriage is being taught would infer that it's somehow part of a cirriculum. At least that's how I'd interpret it.

PoliticsOfStarving (November 12, 2008)

I was watching the news when they announced the results. I remember thinking, so much for the US moving forwards, being progressive, etc.

Then again, we don't have gay marriage here... but I think it's kind of different to have something and take it away than to have never had it at all.

Were the Prop8 activists Christian? Isn't it a sin to lie (and, therefore, spread false information)? Oh, the hypocrisy of religion.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

You should also add Pro 8 ads featuring Obama saying he opposes gay marriage, which is true but fails to acknowledge that he was opposed to Prop 8 for rescinding established rights and is opposed to the idea of amendments defining marriage as existing between a man and a woman.

JoelSweetheart (November 12, 2008)

yep, prop 8 is shitty...

but really, I don't waht Tegan and Sara have to say about....anything.

The prop 8 echo chamber needs to stop.

2+ Replies

bigmondo (November 12, 2008)

they're both lesbians...

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

I take it you're not joining us at the protest this weekend?

Dante3000 (rich) (November 12, 2008)

I wonder what Jah Rule thinks about this.
-Dante

1+ Reply

shrapnel (November 12, 2008)

I was wondering the same thing

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

I'll probably be at the protest this weekend, but they're right, you can't erase hatred.

9+ Replies

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

you can with a .45

ooooooooooo I'm so badass on the internet.

Dante3000 (rich) (November 12, 2008)

Yes you can. You just need Oxiclean and a sham-wow.
-Dante

chickswithdicks (November 12, 2008)

that shamwow guy is annoying. oxiclean guy on the other hand... have you seen that one for the sticky puddy stuff that he says can pull a truck?

McFlynnTHM (john) (November 12, 2008)

That dude is intense.

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

http://www .encyclopediadramatica.com/Billy_Mays

royalt (November 17, 2008)

Mighty Putttyyyyyyyyyyyyy

royalt (November 17, 2008)

He looks like a grown-up version of the kid from Mrs. Doubtfire.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Oh man, what if they were in the same room together?

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

it would just be too much loud.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1711/clashofthetitanslargeaa5 .gif

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

But does support of a ban on gay marriage really equal hatred of gays?

NotPatriotic (November 12, 2008)

If you support marriage and don't support gay marriage you support discrimination.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Why do I need a state to certify my "love" for someone???

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

This is about legal recognition and the pertaining rights.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Thats the crux, it's all about legal recognition so they can receive their "spouses" benefits. Im cool with that and them getting benefits, but I don't need a chruch or state to ratify my love of another.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

But you'll need a fucking marriage license if you want to file joint taxes or have your partner inherit your money.

kidgotham (November 12, 2008)

If that's the case, are you then against marriage in general?

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I'm not against marriage, but I don't see a need for it either. As I stated earlier, my love for another is neither affected or predicated on a state or church sanctioning it.

I can live just as comfortably with my significant other and no ring as I can with it.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

You'd see a need for it if you were interested in any of the nearly 1,200 federal rights that are extended through marriage. It's those rights that allow people to live comfortably with their significant other.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

I could not have said it better.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Yes.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

But you don't have to legally enforce it.

dev (November 12, 2008)

I think I'm finally leaving my girlfriend after nearly 10 years together (and two kids). I'm "Pissed off in the Peg" from this: http://badsandwichchronicles.blogspot.com/2008/08/waas-sappening. html

10+ Replies

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

oh man, that sucks, you live in Winnipeg!

no seriously that is harsh and Brendan's advice, as usual, is pretty correct.

dev (November 12, 2008)

Solid advice, no doubt about that. I tried sticking it out, which was my intention in the first place after it happened. But it still bothers the living fuck out of me and now she's done the ol' stay-out-til-the-next-morning a couple times without calling, so I've told her I'm done. If I'm not worth a phone call then she's not worth my time.

DarrenMcLeod (November 12, 2008)

Sorry to hear that, dude. I hope the separation goes well (or at least, not terrible), and that you and the lady can get some sort of arrangement going so that you can maintain a good relationship with your kids. I'm sure after giving it some space, everything will work out for you.

In true 'org fashion, though... after you leave her, you have to go make yourself a sandwich.

dev (November 12, 2008)

Haha, nice! I never thought of that (the sandwich). Will do.

I'm sure we're both going to have decent relationships with the kids. We're both smart enough to know none of this is their fault and it's never been taken out on them. After she went and done got fucked, we (I) tried to rebuild our relationship as best as we (I) could, but it's all still just falling apart. I've just gotten sick of trying anymore and know I'd be happier with that off my plate for good.

chickswithdicks (November 12, 2008)

how old are your kids?

if she's such a cunt maybe you could get custody? non-slutty chicks probably dig single dads.

dev (November 12, 2008)

6-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter. I've thought about going for full custody. That would be a tough one though, I think. We'll definitely have shared custody. It would be nice to do all this without lawyers so shared is the way to go for now, I'm thinking.

chickswithdicks (November 12, 2008)

shared is better than none. if you really want full custody though it's probably worth looking into, just make sure you'd have a case before going to court with it. my parents were always going to court over it when i was a kid (they split when i was a few weeks old) but it was always thrown out.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

If she's whoring it up around town, she'll probably not contest it too hard.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

I'm really sorry, man. Ten years is rough. You can always vent on the org if you need to.

dev (November 12, 2008)

Thanks, man. Yeah, you go that long with one person, build a relationship entirely on trust (trust that what she did would never happen - with either of us), then wham. I've even tried to just shake it off as a stupid, drunk mistake but that doesn't help. I'm almost positive that her nights out without calling since then aren't, um, "producing" the same end result (I can't be totally sure though) but it's still hard to get over knowing I'm (or I WAS, until yesterday) sticking it out, but I'm not worth a phone call. But I'm also positive it will be easier to get over now that we're through. When I was trying to keep the relationship going, it would always bother me. Would she do it again? Why the fuck did she do it in the first place? What about us has to change to make sure it doesn't happen again? If given the perfect opportunity - would I retaliate and

show rest of comment

DarrenMcLeod (November 12, 2008)

oh, also a tip on sorting out legal issues - if you can't mutually agree to stuff and need to get lawyers involved, try talking to family lawyers who specialize in mediation or collaborative family law. this is done with lawyers creating a separation agreement contract with both of you together, and is much less adversarial than bringing the whole thing to litigation. also significantly cheaper than litigating.

for more information:
http://www.collaborativepracticemanitoba.ca/index.h tml
http://www.collaborative-law.ca/ (ontario site, but some good info)
http://www.fmm.winnipeg.mb.ca/dom.php

show rest of comment http://www.collaborativepracticemanitoba.ca/index.h tml
http://www.collaborative-law.ca/ (ontario site, but some good info)
http://www.fmm.winnipeg.mb.ca/dom.php
http://www.aikins.c om/practice/family.asp

dev (November 12, 2008)

Thanks, man!

Banal242 (November 12, 2008)

There hasn't been homophobia in the punk scene since "Gay Rude Boys Unite."

1+ Reply

epoch (November 12, 2008)

look at how dumb you are

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

there's a protest tonight in NYC, also in every state on saturday

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon

do something usefull. go.

it should also be noted that the governator wants to overturn this, which is a huge step towards getting it done.

13+ Replies

ChokingVictim (November 12, 2008)

but i just wanna bitch about it on the internet!

baseball (November 12, 2008)

I'll be at the Baltimore one Saturday.

JoelSweetheart (November 12, 2008)

whoa, even the governator?

that is a big step for "republicans"

Nameless (November 12, 2008)

I know. That totally surprised me too.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

many Californian republicans are libertarian leaning, which involves a lot of live and let live beliefs. Not surprizing at all.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

I'm in Canada or else I'd totally go. This is a very important issue for me.

miniblindbandit (November 12, 2008)

so bloomington and maybe indianapolis are the only places with organized protests in Indiana.
big surprise there, he said with eyes rolled.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

All up in Baltimore.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Yeah because we really need our elected officials overruling the will of the people.

I am in full support of gay marriage, but the precedent some of you are advocating is a very slippery slope.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

What precedent? This is a civil rights issue. The fact that gay marriage is illegal is frankly unconstitutional. You wouldn't put the rest of the Constitution up for a popular vote, would you?

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Gays aren't a race and unless you have scientific data to imply that gays are in fact born gay with no chance of changing their sexual preference it's not a civil rights issue.

BMXpunk (November 12, 2008)

you are fucking kidding right? people who are gay don't wake up one morning and DECIDE to be gay.
So what you are saying is that until science proves them to be gay we should be allowed to discriminate against a group of people? Discrimination doesn't only come in the form of race.

Did you pop over here from conservativepunk.com or what?

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

So what about bisexuals?

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

woah. logic train. wait up.

so civil rights have nothing to do with choice? if you choose to be poor, is it ok for a law to say that you can't get married to another poor person? if you're born christian, but choose to be muslim, is it ok for a law to say you can't marry another person?

jacknife737 (November 12, 2008)

Im not trying to start some argument or anything, but i'd suggest the next time you decide to post something like that. You stop (take some time to think), read what you wrote out loud and then decide if you want to post.

ChokingVictim (November 12, 2008)

ooooof.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Hahaha what?

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

that thought has been in the back of my mind for a while, but it keeps coming back to the idea that the proposition is unconstitutional.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

The people can't just decide whatever the fuck they want. You can't allow people to have the opportunity to take away rights from a segment of the population.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

Sometimes i think i should go to these protests just because i'll get to be a smug ahole and tell my grandkids 'i was there at those rallies' when i'm old. But that's the wrong reason to do it.

I do live in my city' gayborhood, so it would be easy to find the protests.

LinoleumMagazine (November 12, 2008)

Has anyone done those online surveys that you get paid for? I'm tempted to sign up, but am very skepitcal as to wether I'll actually get paid.

If anyone has tried this, please let me know how it worked. Thanks.

2+ Replies

baseball (November 12, 2008)

I've heard that you do get paid, but for the amount it's completely not worth the time you'd put into it.

You'd probably have better luck finding some kind of odds and ends job on craigslist. Like someone paying $20 to help them move some furniture or something. Or weird fetish work, always lots of that available!

Nameless (November 12, 2008)

My mom does those, since she can't really get a job.

You will get paid (in most cases, it's a PayPal account) but it's like... 10 cents to a dollar (if you're lucky) per survey or some sort of drawing. It'll take awhile for it to pay itself off--especially if you sign up with a site that will only let you get your cash after you get a certain amount.

You'd be better off doing odd jobs here and there. Good luck!

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

The blame is on the black community (at 70 to 30 vote percentage). They've become "the man" so fast it's insane!

13+ Replies

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

blacks and gays are brawling in the streets of California.

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

Rosie O'Donnel VS. Queen Latifa

ROUND 1.....

FIGHT!!

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

What would be their Fatalities?

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

Rosie would make you watch taped episodes of her show from when she wanted Tom Cruise to come on for eternity.

Queen Latifah would do the same but with Bringin Down The House.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

didn't some old black lady say the gay rights movement wasn't civil rights? what a shameful display this has really been.

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

Just to clarify, I'm not a racist, and I was half-joking anyway (also the black vote in California isn't overtly numerically significant)

BUT!

For those thousands and thousands that voted for it, what the motherfuck was going through their heads? Of course it's civil rights, and when they finally DO get the right to marry, this whole mess will be in history books the same way black civil rights were.

So it's really just best to not look like an bigoted idiot for the future's sake and get behind gay marriage.

70% of black California can suck my dick.

and like it.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

I'm far from racist either, I realize it is social factors that impact the black vote on thsi issue it isn't simply because their skin is black.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

It's because the gays are recruiting.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

In kindergarten no less.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

"THEY'RE ALL SEX HUNGRY PEDOPHILES!

Yes on 8"

Was that it was like? I don't live in California.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Instead of a racial or even religious issue, I think it's more of an age issue.

Regardless of the racial demographics of the Prop 8 polls, it was overwhelmingly voted for by old people. And, you know what? They're dying?

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

SO then we are saying that gay people have no choice in their sexual preference and it's definitely, 100% a chemical or brain thing? I've yet to see conclusive proof stating as such, last I check black people couldn't choose thier skin color.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

so if someone wants to have sex with people of the same gender and loves someone of the same gender and wants to marry them they should just deny that and keep it quiet?

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Sounds like an argument many members of NAMBLA make.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

hey they can froth at the mouth over little boys all they want, the issue with them is over age of consent not over the gender of the individuals they are attracted to.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

the state has a compelling interest to protect children from sexual abuse. that's why it's illegal. sex between 2 consenting adults is legal.

jacknife737 (November 12, 2008)

Did you just compare gays to pedophiles?

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

That's really dumb.

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

Youre insane.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

I definitely didn't choose to be straight, that's just how i am. that same explanation from a gay person is enough for me since i use it.

I had an arguement with my mom (mom is asian, dad white) saying that 50 years ago she and my dad wouldn't be allowed to get married in CA because it was immoral and against the law. Now people are using the same arguement again.
she didn't buy it and voted yes on 8.

jacknife737 (November 12, 2008)

I really hate that line of argument. When people try and start a pissing contest with peoples suffering. Gays and Lesbians may not have endured slavery, or segregation, but for a solid amount of time it was illegal for them to be with someone they loved. Gays and Lesbians have faced their own share of discrimination (and still do).

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Hitler did round them up, make them wear pink triangles, shipped them to concentration camps, and killed them by the thousands.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

The Yes on 8 campaign had a few ads using an elderly black woman who had been a civil rights activist in the 1960s saying that gay marriage was not a civil rights issue.

It's on youtube in all its intellectually dishonest and sadly self-delusional glory.

JHrecords (November 12, 2008)

Because they don't agree with you?

To liken this to the struggles of the black civil rights movement, is a slap in the face to blacks.
no one is saying gays can't eat in certain resturaunts, or drink from a particular water fountain.

Again, the ruling sucks, but a lot of people are being way too stupid over this shit.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

no one said the struggle was the same, but is it damn fucking important? is it a civil rights issue? fuck yes to both.

JHrecords (November 12, 2008)

yes a ton of people are saying the struggle is the same and are comparing it to the civil rights movement.

Didn't you actually compare it to the civil rights movement?

It's not the same.

Again you have to put these issues in perspective, no matter what your opinion is.

Anger distorts the thinking processes, such as blaming blacks etc, and the recent gay rights rally in which the n-- word was being shouted etc,

Stuff like that does nothing to help the cause.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

It is the same, when you're preventing a segment of the population from exercising the same rights that you previously prevented other minorities from exercising.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

The phrase "seperate but equal" comes to mind.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Matt that doesn't make any sense and you know it. No one is say gays have to eat in different restaurants or use seperate drinking fountains etc..

I fully support gay marriage , but lets keep things in perspective.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Have you ever been to the South?

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I live in the south Matt

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

This explains a lot.

And stop saying my name so much. It makes you sound creepy.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

haha, the worst thing is when you're at a party and some fat chick keeps saying your name and trying to talk to you cuz she's into you and you're just like uhm ok.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Nice setup Matt, if I say I don't live in the south you "school" me on the ways of southerners. If I say I do live in the south you imply that I am some kind of redneck.

wearethestar (November 13, 2008)

Syd - you're confusing yourself. You've taken "civil rights movement" to mean "the black civil rights movement", just like people take "holocaust" to mean the jewish holocaust of ww2, or even coca cola to mean any cola drink. You're taking one instance of a certain term and making it the example by which all others are judged by. Will anybody ever be banned from restaurants and water fountains in the United States again? I would be willing to wager all of my worldly possessions against that possibility. Does that mean, then, that nothing else can be considered a civil rights movement? Of course not. The circumstances and details are not the same, but the core issue is; the more powerful part of society is preventing the less powerful part of society from enjoying the basic rights that they themselves enjoy. Syd. Sydysidsidsid. Matt was right, continuing to say his name was creepy.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

That comes to mind only when people try to argue for civil unions instead of gay marriage. And, of course, I'm assuming you're of the position that the myth of "separate but equal" is absurd and inherently unequal.

That said, it's important to note that civil unions are separate AND unequal, as they fail to confer the nearly 1,200 rights conferred by marriage.

jacknife737 (November 12, 2008)

Stop trying to start a pissing contest between peoples suffering.

It was literally illegal to be gay at one point. I'd say gays and lesbians have endured (and continue to) their fair share of suffering.

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

numbers wise that's very misleading as the black vote was still a small percentage of the overall vote.

ethics wise its very true. ethnic minorities see this as a religious issue, not a civil rights issue, as do many whites. until that changes, their votes wont either.

LookingForCorpses (November 12, 2008)

Yes. And what ultimately did this bill in is that the Mexican and Black communities are heavily religious and voted yes.

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

yes. kind of. i am all for blaming each individual voter rather than the institution, but numbers wise i'm pretty sure that like 48% of whites was more voters than the 70% of blacks.

LookingForCorpses (November 12, 2008)

OK, sooooo what's your point exactly? The sinking factor was the giant percentage of minority voters, who gay rights activists expected to oppose this, actually supported.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

48% of whites would translate to the prop failing.

That said, I don't think it is helpful to blame individuals for how they vote, but instead examining the people and institutions involved in the campaign, activism, etc. Who was making the arguments and what were they appealing to to persuade voters and why did that happen?

I think that No on 8ers should refocus their ire from individual minority / religious voters and instead look at the Democratic leadership that failed them, the members of their base who allowed Democratic leaders to fail them, the No on 8 campaign for failing to draw a strong connection to interracial marriage laws and civil rights and US history, as well as dispelling some of the Yes on 8 myths (and use of Obama in their campaign), as well as the institutions that supported Prop 8. As well as the judicial system that allowed Prop 8 t

show rest of comment

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Compare race to age. It's the old people more than anything else.

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

I was thinking the other day why the bill passed, and i think it always will as long as the public image of the homosexual community is pretty much limited to pride week and the folsom street fair.

How you gonna get the guy living in the sticks of Eureka to support gay marraige when pride is all he sees?

2+ Replies

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

Ftw

miniblindbandit (November 12, 2008)

Connecticut 1, California 0

It's East Coast vs. West Coast all over again.

4+ Replies

Nameless (November 12, 2008)

This.

Go Connecticut.

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

except connecticut is just doing what california already did months and months ago. there are 18,000 legally married gay couples in california.

this proposition was to take away from those rights, a step backwards, not just to keep things the way they already were.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

that's a pointless comparison. if an hypothetical state the size of Connecticut was placed over the bay area, gay marriage would have been legal in that state years ago. California has millions of people living in rural areas that vote conservative.

miniblindbandit (November 12, 2008)

im aware of all the aspects of prop 8. this was an obvious joke. i could have done a biggie/tupac joke and acheived the same effect.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I don't know if you can equate a vote against gay marriage in the state of California to hatred and intolerence of homosexuals in general.

7+ Replies

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

similar votes were cast in Florida and another state during the election.

Nameless (November 12, 2008)

Not to mention that one in Arkansas that forbids gay couples to adopt.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Not similar votes.

Florida and Arizona voted to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

California voted to rescind already existing and established rights of a segment of the population.

Guy_Incognito (November 12, 2008)

Yeah, that probably is a bit of a hasty generalization. It's not uncommon for people to characterize those that disagree with themselves as possessing undesireable traits like "Evil, Hateful, Racist, or Bigoted".

I'm sure that was part of it for some people, but I agree with you that you can't make that blanket statement accurately just firing from the hip.

I know plenty of people that would have voted against gay marriage but don't really spend alot of time or energy thinking about it. It's more so that they are choosing the "indifferent default".

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Agreed Guy, people vote against drug reform laws all the time and i'm sure those people don't "hate" marijuana users.

baseball (November 12, 2008)

At least 8 of 9 drug reform initiatives (including every marijuana related one) passed on the ballots this year though! Unfortunately, the most important (prop 5 in California) didn't pass. Still, 8 of 9 is pretty damn good and bodes well for the future.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

But Baseball, according to org postsers if a vocal minority is pissed enough about the results, we should change them.

I wish the people here would get this pissed about the millions of wrecked lives from the war on drugs.

baseball (November 12, 2008)

Well I think the argument people are making here has more to do with the fact that Prop 8 is a proposal to change the constitution. They believe it's unconstitutional, which if interpreted that way, does have a right to be challenged by the courts. It's a different situation than say a referendum or an initiative.

Yeah, I wish that too, but it makes sense. Same sex marriage is an issue taken up by predominantly middle class white people. The War on Drugs disproportionately affects minority and poor communities whose voices are more marginalized. e.g. A lot more of your 'average Americans' know a person as opposed to a convicted drug offender. People voice what they can relate to.

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

Both sides of the issue publicly proclaimed that this ballot wasn't even about gay marriage or homosexuals.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Voting to take away already established and existing rights from a segment of the population seems to be just that.

If you are against the enfranchisement of a group of people, you are against those people.

Guy_Incognito (November 12, 2008)

You can spread blame wherever you'd like but at the end of the day the responsibility lies with the people who voted this thing in. The problem is the multitude of weak minded people who can be swayed by propaganda and bumper stickers rather than a logical internal rationalization of why something is right or wrong.

You'd better have a good argument if you are going to try and convince me to change my mind on something I believe.

Oh well, Prop 8 won't stick forever. It's definitely on the losing side of history even though it won this time around. There is no compelling state interest in preventing a gay couple from getting married and forming a legal partnership.

4+ Replies

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Some peoples rationalization is their religion. There's not much you can say to a person to trump their fear of eternal damnation for opposing their God's views.

Guy_Incognito (November 12, 2008)

Sure, and for those people I understand where they are coming from. That just boils down to core beliefs. There's alot of other people that don't care either way but get easily swayed by what they see on TV or on a bumper sticker.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Those people should move to more fundamentalist, god-fearing countries and stay the FUCK out of my Constitution.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Your constitution was actually written by fundamentalist, god fearing men.

FTR, I despise bible thumpers

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Wrong. By and large they were mostly Deists, which as close to being a public atheist as you could be in the 1700's without being tarred and feathered or killed for being a witch.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

"As to Jesus Christ, I have my doubts about his divinity." Benjamin Franklin

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Well, there is a difference between believing that gay marriage is right in terms of your religion. It is another to believe that it is your right to impose your own religion's views on another group of people as it affects their rights in a republic.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

The people voted and thats what the result was. Many marijuana ordinances pass throughout the country and i'm sure a bunch of people would like those votes shot down too. We can't pick and choose what votes we want to keep and which ones we don't.

I hate to tell people this,but homosexuals are still a minority in this country and the majority of people won't pass laws giving them marriage rights. It's not just bible thumpers voting for marriage bans.

This is coming from a person who voted against Florida's proposed marriage ban.

5+ Replies

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

marijuana isn't a constitutional issue as far as I know.

Guy_Incognito (November 12, 2008)

Ok, honest question because I really don't know much about the issue. Can you give me a quick brief on the constitutional argument for gay marriage? I obviously get the gist, but I haven't heard the meat and potatoes of it.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

It's a two part issue:

1. Benefits, gay couples are afraid without marriage they will be fucked when it comes time for beenfits for their significant others.

2. Full Faith and Credit, whic is the national law recognizing a marriage in one state, in all 50 states. So far the SCOTUS has struck downgay marriage as it relates to the FFC law. A gay marriage in Coneticut won't be recognized in Floridda etc.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Basically the 14th amendment prohibits private discrimination as far as the government is concerned.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

some of it has to do with the precedent set by the abolishment of laws preventing interracial marriage which laws were based merely in traditional sentiment rather any actual legal founding and was deemed unconstitutional.

Also a strong case can be argued that not allowing two people to be married based on gender is gender discrimination for which there is already legal safeguards against.

There is more I wish I had a pamphlet or something.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I am making the point that many amendments/props are passed that the losing side would like to see repealed, but the consequences of heading down that road will lead to disaster.

The best they can do is put it up for vote in the next election or take it to the courts and have it ruled on.

However, the SCOTUS has already ruled I beleieved that Full Faith and Credit does not apply to gay marriage , although that could be overturned in the future.

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

ok. one last time. this law wasn't about giving them rights. it was about taking them away.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

This is not picking and choosing which ones we want to keep and which ones we don't.

We wouldn't have just elected the first black president if the civil rights legislation of the 1960s had been decided by public referendum.

The fact that a majority of voters in CA voted for Prop 8 doesn't matter in terms of the legal and constitutional argument.

sfbarker (November 12, 2008)

This blog just makes me realize that even lesbians calling for "punx" cred still can't write coherent sentences. The last sentence above is poorly written. Maybe we should let her get married to her girlfriend so we won't poison our children's minds with poor sentence structure?

It's also sad Prop. 8 is getting all the media attention with Initiative 1 in Arkansas is MUCH MUCH more disturbing. Not allowing gay couples to adopt or be foster parents when the child welfare system is in shambles is heartbreaking. But, we love California, that's where all the rich folks live.

3+ Replies

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

I like how they fucked over unmarried straight people wanting to adopt just so they could mess with Teh Gayz.

the_other_scott (November 12, 2008)

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that a high percentage of gays leave arkansas for places like california. i know that doesn't justify it, but i think its a big deal because its much higher percentage of gay people in california, which is also generally the most progressive state in the country.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

There are three times as many kids in need of adoption in Arkansas than people wanting to adopt and now it will be even harder for kids to get a good home.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

biologically speaking, homosexuality is wrong. Unless nature fucked up and didn't give us all the right parts we need.

The only real reason for a penis and a vagina is to pro-create, everything else is just a construct of our minds.

20+ Replies

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

If we're going that way, it's a form of population control, which is necessary for everyone to survive.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Okay, so now you are saying some people are intentionally biologically created to like members of the same sex as population control? Why not just have people born with no genitals whatsoever? What you are saying doesn't make much sense.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

I don't think biology has any intentions. I think it just works the way it works.

miniblindbandit (November 12, 2008)

A lot of species of ants actually have the built in. when the colony gets too large, the percentage of homosexuals increases. The base percentage of homosexuals in a population for most animal species is around 10%.

another fun fact: about half the population of gay male ducks practice necrophilia.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

New cocktail party conversation!

acris (November 12, 2008)

Also, homosexuals can serve the purpose of "babysitters", like when non mating members of a pack of wolves take care of the mating pair's offspring

baldsteve (November 12, 2008)

Fuck babies. If you like vaginas and have a vagina or like dicks and have a dick, who gives a shit.

Procreation fucking sucks.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

In addition to my argument, this is also right.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Steve, guess you missed the part about construct of the mind, the only reason that nature or God if you wanna go that route gave us genitals was for pro-creation, not so you could get enjoyment from a blowjob.

Tudor (November 12, 2008)

Than why does it feel so good?

dev (November 12, 2008)

How's it going back there in 1880 B.C.?

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Maybe not YOUR god.

I worship Dionysus.

LilacWine (November 13, 2008)

haha win

kevgren (November 12, 2008)

First off, I love your username.

Second, there is so much wrong with what you said it's not funny. Fish, dogs, monkeys, and other animals have gay sex. So do human. But it's not nature? Also, the clitoris is an organ completely unrelated to reproduction and very related to pleasure. Coincidence? Nope. The nerve endings in the bunghole which are easily and pleasurably stimulated? Also not an accident. It's not all about procreation!

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Yes i'm sure the asshole was created so someone could have an 8" dildo inserted into it.

kevgren (November 12, 2008)

Hey, it wouldn't have all those nerve endings if stuff only went out of it!

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

No, he was created to post on websites and be ignorant about the rights of consenting adults.

kevgren (November 12, 2008)

Haha I think he was referring to the actual, physical hole in the ass. Not me or some other asshole. Still!

Guy_Incognito (November 12, 2008)

I'm getting technical here but the clitoris does actually have a sexual function. The female orgasm facilitates certain movements inside the vajay that help promote sperm "upstream". The clitoris as many of us have found out after many repeat instances of unsatisfied partners, is instrumental in provoking a female orgasm.

I can't speak from personal experience being a dude, but I suspect it is also instrumental in the "incentive" portion of getting a female to mate.

I can't explain away the bunghole thing though. That is definitely one of nature's wonders.

kevgren (November 12, 2008)

Good point. And yet, it still seems more for pleasure than anything else.

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

I've never had unsatisfied partners.

Guy_Incognito (November 12, 2008)

You hound dog!

DrGunn (November 12, 2008)

very relevant point. the human race is dangerously close to dying out due to underpopulation.

also recent studies have heavily suggested that there is a strong biological/genetic component to homosexuality.

el_matt (November 12, 2008)

So i guess oral sex is biologically wrong too, maybe we should put a law against it too.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Wow selective reading of my posts, oral sex, anal sex, titty fucking, footjobs, handjobs, are all creations of the human pleasure system, i.e. the construct of the mind.

FTR, I have never and will never advocate any laws that hinder what someone choose to do sexually. I didn't know prop. 8 banned gay sex?

el_matt (November 12, 2008)

Well, you are the one that said it was biologically wrong to be homosexual.

Biologically speaking then, we don't need to get married to procreate either.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

god is a construct of the mind yet people make important decisions based on hod all the time.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I personally won't be hedging my bets when it comes to something like that.

no one knows for certain until the day they hit the pine box.

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

This is utter bullshit. As an atheist, I hate the "you don't know for sure" argument. Absolving yourself of all belief in god breaks the question down to "Sure, I COULD believe theres a pink elephant floating over my head at all times, but WHY would I?"

God is nonsense and NOTHING should be made law around that empty void of self delusion.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

There could be a pink elephant or a flying spaghetti monster, you have proof to the contrary?

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

No, of course not, but the odds are astronomically stacked against such notions.

Evolution is only a "theory" too since it hasn't been observed since the inception of modern science across several millennium. Wanna dispute that too?

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

the burden of proof does not rest on me or anyone to disprove you, the burden of proof rests on you because you are the one asserting such claims without fact.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

im not asseting anything, just saying in the realm of post physical life, anything COULD be possible, it's naive to say one thing does or doesn't exist when no one knows for sure until we die.

crackpotdemagogue (November 12, 2008)

you are an idiot on so many levels. you don't even deserve my time. you really need to start thinking beyond the status quo. go to the library and read some material on gender and sexuality studies - do it and do us all a favor.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

show me the evidence that it stats that homosexuals are born that way with no chance of choosing their preference and I will shut up. Thats all I have been asking for from everyone.

jacknife737 (November 12, 2008)

Ok, now your're just fucking trolling.

I'll give you a 12/10 though, you really had me going throughout this thread.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Inflammatory issues such as these are easy to get hot headed about. I like to play all sides of a debate even though I have stated multiple times I voted against amendment 2 in Florida.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Are you mentally handicapped? Biologically speaking?

Yes, everything is a social construct. Ha.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

So all the gay marriage supporters will support my prop next time to be able to marry my sister/cousin/etc.. correct?

But thats disgusting right?

5+ Replies

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

That makes NO sense.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

It does unless you can prove to me, scientifically, that being gay is a biological function that leaves the person with it zero chance of choosing a sexual preference.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

Why would you CHOOSE a life of being a social outcast? Explain THAT to me.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

So John, you are saying that being gay is something that you are born into and have no chance of changing.

We have the scientific data to back this up correct?

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

Excuse me, I don't have a whole fucking file of scientific data in front of me. I'm just going off the fact that I wouldn't CHOOSE to be ridiculed, harassed and threatened my whole life so that I can put my dick in some other dude's butt, or be a lesbian. You're right, they must choose that.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

who teh fuck cares if it is a choice, it is an important one. Whether you are choosing to spend your life with Martha or Mary or Martha and Matthew it is still a choice that is yours to make you should have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

scientistrock (November 12, 2008)

I mean, that's ultimately the important part here, but fuck that guy.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

But what if I choose to fuck my sister, will you defend that right to?

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

the intentional increased risk of birth defects points me to a no, because of the undo burden it would place on the health care system.

not going to have any babies with her? perhaps?

these aren't the same issues and you know that, you are just trying to set up a slippery slope argument.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

slippery slope arguement is a fallacy. Each issue should be looked at individually before you can imply that the slippery slope works.

ConsumedByMusic (November 12, 2008)

i think that is statistically impossible. why isn't the word of gay people 'i didn't choose to be this way' not enough?

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

you are hilarious.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

So all gay people are born gay and we have evidence to back it up? If that is the case I will shutup and rescind my previous statement. Thats all I want to know.

We are saying people are born gay and cannot at any point choose thei sexual preference?

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

humans, dolphins and bonobos are unique animals in that they have sex intentionally separate from the purpose of fertilization, in other words have sex for pleasure.

SloaneDaley (November 12, 2008)

just because you have a desire to procreate does not mean you are "straight" either. I don't believe in such terms anyhow nor do I believe there is a need for such terms.

Guy_Incognito (November 13, 2008)

Hehe, Syd you are a shit disturber. Good stuff though, everyone needs a devil's advocate in order to hone their argument.

kevgren (November 12, 2008)

SB, I get arguing your points on here. But, as someone who voted against a gay marriage ban, why are you posting all these separate threads arguing against homosexuality as a biological function, gay rights as a movement, etc? What axe do you have to grind?

2+ Replies

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I have no axe, I like to explore all sides of an issue and that inclues, for me, playing devils advocate.

I see a lot of people here worked up in a tussle and very pissed off over this issue. There seems to be a lack of rational, pargmatic thought going on from both sides

My biggest problem though, is that people want to start rescinding votes made by people just because they disagree with it. Let the courts deciide if the prop. is constitutional. I cringe at the thought that vocal groups of people can get lawmakers to repeal laws; that pandora's box need not be opened.

I undertsand people will now use the civil rights banner etc. but I also believe those issues are apple and oranges.

No need for everyone to get uppity or pissed, just my thoughts, for bettr or worse.

JayTee (November 12, 2008)

Uppity and pissed is what people SHOULD be over the rights of adults being denied.

Civil rights, by definition is "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

It's not apples and oranges, it's, ironically, two apples of varying colors.

Guy_Incognito (November 13, 2008)

I'm all for gay marriage simply on the basis that I don't see a state interest in denying it. Since one of my core beliefs is on expanding freedoms, I see this as a perfect opportunity to push into new territory. So I'm all for it.

I'm not sure I buy the civil rights argument though. I think that is a bit thin. Marriage is a legal partnership between two people that by my understanding is maintained by secular societies to encourage procreation and supportive family units to raise offspring. I don't think anyone, including STRAIGHT people, have an inalienable right to form a legal partnership. This is moreso a construct of our government that we created out of practical concerns and falls outside of things which could be considered "inalienable rights".

I'm 100% for gay marriage, please let me be clear on that. I just don't think this is one o

show rest of comment

kevgren (November 14, 2008)

There have been plenty of laws forbidding gay sex. Only recently have most of them been overturned.

kevgren (November 12, 2008)

http://jointheimpact.com/

baseball (November 12, 2008)

All biological, constitutional, etc. arguments aside. Let's just sit back and remember what preventing same sex marriage means to gay people in this country. If you are not elgible for a civil marriage license, you are prevented every single one of the things below (among many others):

The right to visit a spouse in the hospital
The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse
The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse
Access to family courts for dissolution of relationships
Death benefits for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers
Mutual responsibility for debts
Joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs
Ability to sponsor a spouse from another country for a green card
Community property ownership protections

show rest of comment

3+ Replies

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

Everyone seems to forget that it's regarding ADULTS of the age of CONSENT.

CONSENTING ADULTS.

Don't give me any of this "slippery slope" nonsense about it'll lead to people marrying dogs and legally fucking children. Let's remember that phrase everyone.

CONSENTING ADULTS.

Also SydBarret needs to get laid for pleasure. Sheesh. The last thing this place needs is some South Park internet libertarian superhero playing devil's advocate.

(this was not directed at you dude, just all the dumb arguments above.)

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

I get laid plenty my friend.

dev (November 12, 2008)

Then you must have "plenty" of kids, right?

baldsteve (November 12, 2008)

Right on, love you dude.

madmen (November 12, 2008)

"the bill passed thanks to a strong campaign organized and funded through the Mormon church. "

Population of California: 36,000,000
Mormons in California: 750,000
Active Mormons in California: Roughly 350,000

It's a good thing that Prop 8 protesters have singled out the Mormon church as the reason for Prop 8 passing. If there are roughly 350,000 active Mormons in California, that means that probably about half of those were able to vote or actually did vote. So, why not protest against the other 5,594,939 people who voted for it?

I guess Mormons should take it as a compliment that they have been given so much attention?

8+ Replies

MattRamone (November 12, 2008)

It's not just the Mormon voters. The Mormon Church basically strong armed congregations from all over the country to give money to the Yes on 8 campaign, money that was used largely to fund television commercials full of distortions and, frankly, bullshit.

madmen (November 12, 2008)

It's interesting how basically no one cares what Mormons have to say on any issue, but the opposition to Proposition 8 believes that the main reason Proposition 8 passed was because of members of the Mormon church donating money.

For all of you who opposed Proposition 8, let me tell you why it passed: the majority of Californians (and the majority of Americans) at this time believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That may be a hard concept for you to swallow at this point, but that's the way it is. Undoubtedly, this will change someday, but don't go around singling out a relatively small religion (who other "Christian" religions don't even like) for Proposition 8 passing.

LookingForCorpses (November 12, 2008)

You are entirely correct.

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

I'm positive that even if momons gave zero dollars, protectmarriage would have found money from someone else and ran the exact same ads with the same lies and the proposition still would have passed. People always need a scapegoat though.

LookingForCorpses (November 12, 2008)

How the fuck did they "strong arm" other churchs?? Really? How??

HeyBarmold (November 12, 2008)

Can you imagine if they tried to protest black people, or catholics? Mormons are an easy target cause no one cares about their church.

It used to be legal to murder a mormon in MO until the 1970s.

LookingForCorpses (November 12, 2008)

It's also much easier and safer to blame the mormons, than it is to blame the Catholic Latino community and the protestant and muslim black communities, who were the main reason this passed.

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

Exactly, contrary to the beliefs of everyone on the org, the majority of people believe that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, end of story.

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Mormon money and manpower was pumped in from out of state for the Yes on 8 campaign.

1 out of every 4 dollars spent on this campaign came from Mormon churches.

punknewscommenter (November 12, 2008)

I always KNEW they were a couple!

skankbook (November 12, 2008)

Two well written blogs. There's nothing I can say that the rest of you haven't already, so I'll just say that the voters in CA let America down.

1+ Reply

Autosuggestion (November 12, 2008)

Maybe so, but first time voters in CA voted 62% against Prop 8.

Plus, while Prop 8 passed with 52%, a similar prop in 2000 passed in CA with 61%.

So, things are shifting for equal rights, even if this is a slight step backwards (I don't mean to skimp over the importance of Prop 8, but it's not the last word on same sex marriage in CA or the US).

SydBarrett420 (November 12, 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450884,00.html

Stuff like this isn't helping

2+ Replies

Guy_Incognito (November 13, 2008)

It boggles my mind how people who are fighting for their own rights still have no problem trampling the rights of others. There are some days that I just have no faith in humans. I disagree with the lady on the issue, but I hope she presses charges and puts those assholes in jail.

NEWSFLASH: The First Amendment does not just apply to people who you already agree with!

SydBarrett420 (November 13, 2008)

Yeah the guy in the video inside that link is nuts.

Features

Exclusive Streams

see more streams

Newest Reviews

see more reviews

Punknews.org Team

Other Places to Go

Punknews.org Flickr Pool

View All Photos