Prop. 8 = Hate

Yes it's all about hate - hate for people with traditional family values and morals and religion. How about being thankful you live in a country that even tolerates homosexuality and stop trying to redefine our words and culture?

Even Obama believes marriage is between a man and a woman, so what's up with "I have been a loud and proud supporter of his from the beginning." ?

Check out the straight-guy-videographer-journalist treatment of local news about NO-on-8 events:

http://www.independent.com/blogs/santa-b...

"How about being thankful you live in a country that even tolerates homosexuality and stop trying to redefine our words and culture?"

Great example of tolerance, AShaw. So thankful for people like you.

Not being physically aggressive toward others does not make you tolerant. Think about Penny and Barack; I will go way out on a limb and say that they support each other, even as their life choices differ.

-great column.

It's not all about hate. Some of it is just pure thougtlessness, that is, lack of education (or a willingness to get educated). I'm sure there were big hearted people back in the days of miscegenation laws that thought that interracial marriage was just plain unnatural, just like there are uneducated (and I don't mean schooling) people today who think homosexuality is just plain unnatural and shouldn't be encouraged, hence gay marriage is out of the question for them. Personally, I fully support the right for gay people to marry and for gay couples to enjoy whatever benefits couples have. But I would encourage educating people as opposed to labeling them as haters (although some of them definitely are). We can start with AShaw, and his definition of "morality" which he apparently uses to claim that homosexuality is "wrong". How exactly is it wrong? Because homosexuals engage in the same sexual acts that many (if not most) heterosexuals engage in? I honestly can't think of anything else. Maybe AShaw should get a few gay friends and have some frank discussions with them about sex or whatever it is that is making them "wrong" in his view. As far as tradition, homosexuals have been around for a long, long time. So I think they are quite traditional. And I dare say that the family values espoused by homosexual couples are equal (if not more admirable) than their heterosexual counterparts. I'm at a loss....

greenbanana, what did AShaw say that was intolerant?

There is a difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance."

Please don't bait AShaw for additional comment on these threads. Previous comments throughout these boards show his/her blaming gays for a myriad of societal ills. Apparently he/she did know a gay couple who "knew their place" and "how to act". AShaw and so many others are guided by the "paint by numbers" ideas and mores that they can easily learn. Not from their own education, enlightenment and individual expression.
There is no reasoning with individuals that base their opinions on myth to deny logic, nature, science, and basic individual freedoms.
We've all heard his ideas and we, logically, reject them.

I love little subtle "twists" like this:

"As far as tradition, homosexuals have been around for a long, long time. So I think they are quite traditional." - tegrat

AShaw did not infer that GAYS are not traditional. AShaw inferred that gay MARRIAGE is not traditional. AShaw also did not make any judgements on the wrongness of gayness. AShaw in this context is not judging gayness or debating the fact that homos have been around for a long time, nor is AShaw saying that gay people should not have equal rights.

Marriage is not a right, it is an institution, a privilege and a proclamation and commitment between a man and a woman, before God, ideally for the purpose of raising a family in a secure protective and nurturing environment with diverse support from the perspective of two genders. The subject of prop 8 is redefining the word "marriage" and it's effect on those who would like to keep it the way it is, it is not about taking away rights. How can you take away something that you never had (discounting the last several months under which a handful of judges decided their personal beliefs should override those of the majority of the populace)?

When you want to stop your attempts at twisting my words or extending what I say and putting words in my mouth, tegrat, perhaps we could have a rational debate.

Who is "we" StandUpGuy?

"How about being thankful you live in a country that even tolerates homosexuality and stop trying to redefine our words and culture?"
Take this sentence and replace one word, "homosexuality", with anyone of these words, and tell me it is not intolerance.
women, single mothers, blacks, Jews, Christians, Arabs, blonds, etc...
No American should be thankful to be tolerated. It is our basic constitutional right to be equal under the law.

I would say EVERY American should be thankful to be tolerated.

StandUpGuy how about not replacing ANY of my words or twisting them and tell me where I said that I am intolerant of gays.

When did California become a theocracy??

Funny you should ask Pritchett, when you conveniently use "clergy" to support your cause in your above referenced link. Use clergy and religion when they agree with you, diss them when they don't right?

The art of semantics does not disguise the real feelings and intentions of the words here. Nor the basic issue of trying to legislate away human rights for all to please the religious views of some. I can't imagine a more convincing argument that mankind was definitely not created in any divine image. Twist away sad zealots. Humans are still evolving. Undoubtedly some have not evolved as far as others.

I'm sorry, but the State Fish and Game Code prohibits feeding of the trolls.

But we do thank you for confirming the accuracy of the headline for this "Gay Girl/Straight World" column at the Indy website.

AShaw hasn't said anything hateful or intolerant. In fact, the only intolerance I see here is an intolerance for dissenting viewpoints.

AShaw is clearly intolerant, I can't see any other interpretation, I will reserve judgment regarding his hatred, but the use of the pejorative "homos" is strongly indicative of this possibility.
Certainly, gay marriage has not been "traditional" (and neither was interracial marriage, at least not in this country), but I was not twisting your words, you used the phrase "traditional family values and morals and religion". I was merely pointing out that being homosexual is quite traditional. ASHaw, get some gay friends, you'll see there is really nothing to be afraid of.

And a further note on the "traditional" argument: my mate and I are separated by twenty-one years. There is every possibility that we will be married. Certainly such and age difference is not part of a "traditional" marriage, and there are many who would cast a disapproving eye on such an arrangement. Should this too be outlawed? Are those in favor of outlawing such a a marriage exercising tolerance? I don't think so. And frankly I don't see the difference when it comes to gay couples being married. It's all about your fear of what lies outside your comfort zone.

AShaw:

"Marriage is not a right, it is an institution, a privilege and a proclamation and commitment between a man and a woman, before God, ideally for the purpose of raising a family in a secure protective and nurturing environment with diverse support from the perspective of two genders."

You are intentionally confusing religious and civil marriage. Prop 8 and this discussion has nothing to do with religious marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with God or children. It is, as the California Family Code states, "a personal relation" and nothing more. Until you make this distinction, your arguments are irrelevant.

Afraid of? Don't worry tegrat, homos don't scare me (homophobe is a misnomer - nobody is afraid of homos), their behaviour disgusts me, but I "tolerate" them every day, every time I turn on the TV. Tolerating it is quite a different thing than liking the behaviour and accepting it and agreeing that it is a normal and healthy lifestyle interchangeable with traditional hetero lifestyles (and that children should be taught to believe that).

I use the term "homo" because it is an abbreviation for homosexual. Why does that bother you so much and how does that make me intolerant to use an abbreviation? I have heard the term "hetero" applied to me, what is the big deal? Are those who call me that being intolerant also?

as an aside, why are you marrying someone you have been separated from for 21 years? Just because you can and to make a point? This is why most gay marriages won't last and why children should not be brought in to such a relationship. Most of the marriages are just an "in your face" action.

typo - good you fell into the trap. Why then is a civil union not good enough if civil marriage has nothing to do with God or children? What is the purpose of it?

Dear Readers,
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

These are just the legal differences. Shall I list the moral ones?

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

"Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married."

great - let's allow gays to marry so they can more easily divorce. ( Assuming there are children involved this is a greeat benefit to society)

Immigration:

"A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege."

Just what we need - more immigrants, more benefits to be paid by taxpayers is this supposed to be a plus?

Taxes:

"couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks"

Less taxes for you, more for us.

Benefits:

"These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks"

And who takes up the slack to pay for this?

I don't think you're helping your case but thanks for the info and proving this is all based on the selfishness of a minority at additional cost to society.

AShaw:

You claim in your post that heterosexual couples deserve tax cuts and federal benefits, but that homosexual couples should not be entitled to those very same things. Why the double standard?

Next:

"Why then is a civil union not good enough if civil marriage has nothing to do with God or children? What is the purpose of it?"

I've argued this point so many times that I'm going to quote myself here. Even if civil unions were exactly the same as civil marriages, there would still exist inequality:

"The mere fact that the terms for legally recognized relationships are different for heterosexual and homosexual couples, with the former capable of entering into a marriage—an ancient tradition that invokes the purest ideals of love and commitment—and the latter only allowed a civil union, is inherently unequal."

"great - let's allow gays to marry so they can more easily divorce. ( Assuming there are children involved this is a great benefit to society)"

Great then, let's outlaw all marriage on the statistical basis that it will not succeed.

"Just what we need - more immigrants, more benefits to be paid by taxpayers is this supposed to be a plus?"

Immigrants working legally in this country pay far more in taxes, than they take up in services. (I would have thought that you, AShaw, would have been exposed to the facts on the surface of discussions on immigration and temporary worker programs.)

"Taxes: Less taxes for you, more for us."
I have no plans to marry. I pay the highest possible tax burden, and draw the smallest ration of public services. I have no problem with that. It is not about me.

"Benefits: And who takes up the slack to pay for this?"
I have already paid for it, will continue to. Besides, these things we are calling benefits are really rights and should be protected.

Talk about selfishness. All you ask is "Who will pay for this?" All I ask is "Who will stand for this?"

Oh, on what is really moral. I believe that our morality cannot be defined by our laws, our Constitution or any given religion. It is best left to individuals to judge our morality not by any set of rules, but by how we express ourselves. For contrast, I invite you to view two distinct expressions:
http://www.independent.com/users/AShaw/
http://www.independent.com/users/StandUp...

StandUpGuy, I find your arguments convincing, but I must point out that AShaw's bio you linked to is his "humor." Although a bit too heavy for my tastes on the sarcasm, it is not without a touch of wit. I could be half right on this, however.

May I beg you to exemplify your professed tolerance on this?

I come from a conservative family. AShaw sounds a lot like, and may actually be, my brother. Whom I love, enjoy, respect and cherish, well ... like a brother. He is not an "abomination" simply because I find some of his opinions abominable. He has a great sense of humor. And I know when he is just kidding.

"great - let's allow gays to marry so they can more easily divorce. ( Assuming there are children involved this is a greeat benefit to society)"

Because straight people NEVER get divorced. Oh wait... what's the divorce rate in this nation, >60%??

I hold no personal malice toward AShaw. He does not disgust me. I do not judge him nor try to restrict any of his rights. I'm sure he is a Stand up Guy in his own right.
He might make a good tennis partner. Or perhaps we could go bird watching together, and enjoy a lively debate over a nice meal of freshly cleaned game bird.

If it walks like a duck.

In New York and Puerto Rico, many Hispanics use a particular slur for gay people that literally translated means “duck”. I bring this up, of course, because of the roaring discourse over Proposition 8.

While arguing in favor of a NO vote on issues of personal freedoms and protected rights, my debater keeps saying things like “YOU gays want this” and “YOU homos expect that” (his word not mine). My point being that nowhere in the conversation have I identified myself by who I sleep with. He quickly assumed that if I was on the side of Gay Marriage, I must be gay. If it walks like a duck, it is not necessarily a duck.

The bigger point is that on November 5th, regardless of the vote on this proposition, gay people will get up and go to work and to school. They will contribute more than their fair share to our productivity, our economy. and to our heritage. Most will kiss their partners goodnight and many will tuck in their children. They will continue to be present and significant. And, they will continue to ask, over and over again, to be recognized and respected. When a duck really is a duck, there just isn’t anything you can do about it.

Final note: Despite being the most hunted animal on the continent, the Mallard duck is also the most plentiful and continues to thrive. And yes, Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds. In some cases, as many as 19% of pairs in a Mallard population are male-male homosexual.

Between Proposition 2 and Proposition 8 it sounds like the ducks have a lot at stake in this election.

hey Penny>> people should decide for themselves if they want to support businesses that financed prop 8..

heres the "dishonor roll" of those individuals and businesses. It is public record> fromthe secretary of sate's website
please note the local sb and surrounding support.. Lassens health food in Ventura is on the first page..
i, personally wont be going back
http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/d...