I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:
1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.
2. Gay male sex is icky.
This is exactly what is going through their minds, but if they said that, it would end the preceedings right then since we don't make policy based on what God thinks. Or at least I'd really like to live in a world where policy isn't made based on religious beliefs.
I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:
1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.
2. sex is icky.
FTFY.
Phoenix Rev wrote:I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:
1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.
2. sex is icky.
FTFY.
No you didn't. Give me a break, the anti-SSM folks do not find sex itself icky. They may want to control the who, when, where, why, and how of it, but sex in and of itself isn't distasteful to them.
PR had it right from the get-go, anti-SSM folks base their entire argument either on religious foundations, or on the "ick" factor of two people of the same sex wanting to have sex with one another, and even that they'll ignore when it's two really hot women (likely pretending to be lesbian).
Well, in this one area, I'm afraid I'm a horrible person, because I just don't like to watch guys having sex. Handholding wouldn't bother me a bit, but much more than that and I do get a little grossed out. *shrug* Can't help that part, but I would never ask for a law banning such behavior, or trying to stop gays from getting married.
The way I figure, my reaction is my problem, not yours.
The way I see it, Malor, as long as "eww" doesn't turn into "ewww, make it illegal", feel free to "ewww" all you want.
I'd NEVER try to make it illegal, and I wouldn't be in your face about it, either. It's my problem, not yours. Within another generation, I think even that will mostly go away.
I dunno where I got it from, but I had it programmed into me at a young age, and I guess I haven't spent enough time around gay men to ever unprogram it.
Oh, I bet I know where I got it... school. Even now, the word 'gay' is an epithet among the teen crowd. I'm sure it was much worse when I was growing up. Combine the teen fear of sexuality, the teen desire to form cliques and fit in, and the religious crowd yelling about evil, and the combination is pretty toxic. Even the kids that aren't raised religious (like me) end up conditioned wrong.
The New Yorker has a great background article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger in this week's issue. Very interesting read on the how it got to trial, the stakes, and the entire SSM battle here in California. It also has some good insight into legal fight itself and what has to happen for a victory.
Rubb Ed and I were livid that during the Prop. 8 campaign, the No on 8 group refused to produce and show ads featuring gay people. The horrible consultants they hired kept insisting that showing gay people would cause the public to embrace the initiative. I never understood their reasoning and the description of the conservative types saying the ad about the father and his gay son was very effective undercuts the lack of vision the No on 8 consultants had.
When Prop 8 was just about to be voted on and during the "wtf how?" aftermath among along of gay media afterwards, I saw alot of articles trying to examine just how fully the No on 8 campaign had fell on its face. I can try and find some of the articles tomorrow morning (or in a few hours) when I'm a little more coherent, but the recurring theme was that several of the senior staff were completely plagued by hubris. Questions of "should we be more active with fundraising?", "should we more aggressively campaign on paper?", and "just how visible do we need to make our case?" were all met with the complicated version of "lol no it's California this'll never pass guys, let's go get a beer!"
It does make me wonder if California could have been the state the finally broke the obnoxious rallying cry of "every state that's had a vote on gay marriage has banned it". Would it have been any different if the No on 8 people had been a little more serious in battling the false inferences and fearmongering of their opposite campaign? It's something I wonder about when I read these bits from the trial, though I do have to say it's satisfying to see the arguments against same sex marriage being blown away like so much dust in a way that a political advertising campaign could never allow.
Phoenix Rev wrote:I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:
1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.
2. Gay male sex is icky.
This is exactly what is going through their minds, but if they said that, it would end the preceedings right then since we don't make policy based on what God thinks. Or at least I'd really like to live in a world where policy isn't made based on religious beliefs.
See, they just need to hide it better. There are close to giving away the whole pie like the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design in science books. They need to be more crafty, like AA.
I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:
1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.
2. Gay male sex is icky.
It's funny, you rarely hear people say this, but I think this is where the whole thing pivoted, honestly. By whole thing I mean that there was this wave of legalization going on prior to 2004. It happened here in Portland, Oregon. It happened in San Francisco. And I think if the news had just showed hot, lesbian couples kissing after being declared sealed we might not be here.
Instead, they (predominantly, I feel) showed men and older dowdy (for lack of a better non-offensive term) women. I remember thinking back then "this won't turn out well". I'm just imagining people who barely tolerated Will and Grace, who finally came around to being okay with Ellen and how they'd react to two guys with beards getting married.
It turns out, not in a very dignified manner. Apparently hetero PDA is A-OK, no matter how overweight and homely you are. But if you're gay then they'll try to make laws to infringe on your very rights.
Tam also asserts in his motion that he "does not like having to comply with discovery requests," calling them "invasions of his personal beliefs."
Hahahahaha. That's just gold. "I don't like having to comply with court orders to produce evidence to back up my testimony."
Well, in this one area, I'm afraid I'm a horrible person, because I just don't like to watch guys having sex. Handholding wouldn't bother me a bit, but much more than that and I do get a little grossed out. *shrug* Can't help that part, but I would never ask for a law banning such behavior, or trying to stop gays from getting married.
The way I figure, my reaction is my problem, not yours.
I find myself gawping whenever I see two guys kissing in the real world. Honestly, I think it's because it's such a rare thing to see. It takes at least a couple of seconds for my brain to catch up and say "oh, they're gay, right", then about another second to realise that I've been gawping, at which point I feel like a Bad Person.
I would rather we eliminate PDA with old people. Way grosser seeing some boozed up 50, 60 year old broad slopping all over her Viagra fueled Bo.
Malor wrote:Well, in this one area, I'm afraid I'm a horrible person, because I just don't like to watch guys having sex. Handholding wouldn't bother me a bit, but much more than that and I do get a little grossed out. *shrug* Can't help that part, but I would never ask for a law banning such behavior, or trying to stop gays from getting married.
The way I figure, my reaction is my problem, not yours.
I find myself gawping whenever I see two guys kissing in the real world. Honestly, I think it's because it's such a rare thing to see. It takes at least a couple of seconds for my brain to catch up and say "oh, they're gay, right", then about another second to realise that I've been gawping, at which point I feel like a Bad Person.
The rarity is the real key here. I rather think that being surprised/fascinated/uncomfortable at witnessing things you're not used to is quite natural. To compare, it isn't a character flaw to be a bit embarassed by breastfeeding or public urination or accidentally bank shotting a fart off a church pew.
As character flaws go, it's another thing entirely to lobby for a separate but equal PDA ordinance.
I'd NEVER try to make it illegal, and I wouldn't be in your face about it, either. It's my problem, not yours. Within another generation, I think even that will mostly go away.
I dunno where I got it from, but I had it programmed into me at a young age, and I guess I haven't spent enough time around gay men to ever unprogram it.
Oh, I bet I know where I got it... school. Even now, the word 'gay' is an epithet among the teen crowd. I'm sure it was much worse when I was growing up. Combine the teen fear of sexuality, the teen desire to form cliques and fit in, and the religious crowd yelling about evil, and the combination is pretty toxic. Even the kids that aren't raised religious (like me) end up conditioned wrong.
Acceptance of something and enthusiasm towards it are not the same things, which is something a lot of the anti-SSM/anti-gay crowd seems to either be unable to comprehend or deliberately obfuscate for the purposes of their agenda. Being OK with gay marriage does not mean I intend to hook up with my next door neighbor Bob after a few beers.
It's funny, you rarely hear people say this, but I think this is where the whole thing pivoted, honestly. By whole thing I mean that there was this wave of legalization going on prior to 2004. It happened here in Portland, Oregon. It happened in San Francisco. And I think if the news had just showed hot, lesbian couples kissing after being declared sealed we might not be here.
So in other words, the likelihood of a law being accepted by the social mainstream directly correlates to amount of wanking material it generates on the evening news. With that in mind Obama should have made sure the health care bill emphasized government subsided breast implants. :p
Yeah, pretty much. I think that little of the American people as a whole.
John Ireland, a Los Angeles-based freelance journalist and actor, has announced that he is filming daily reenactments of the Prop. 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and will broadcast them in daily installments on YouTube beginning Tuesday.I wonder if the Prop. 8 people will try to get an injunction to prevent Ireland from uploading them to YouTube.
This sounds familiar. Didn't they re-enact the Michael Jackson case as well?
--google fu says yes.
Attorney asks if Sanders believes that some people can oppose SSM without prejudice and animus. Sanders says people can lack the hatred, but their opinion is still being grounded in prejudice. Attorney states that some people oppose SSM because of their religion. Sanders says that still doesn't mean their opinion isn't based on prejudice.Attorney for Prop. 8 brings up a paper by their star witness, Blankenhorn, that says that the purpose of marriage is to ensure that children would be raised by those who's sexual union brought them into the world. Sanders says that is still based on prejudice and that as a cop he saw plenty of biological parents that were terrible parents. Attorney says some people voted for Prop. 8 for historical reasons. Sanders again says that is still grounded in prejudice.
Seems like the defense didn't help themselves at all there - if anything, I'd say they strengthened the prosecution's case.
I'm not quite sure why they're using economic arguments. It's not to say that they're wrong, I'm just not exactly sure how they apply to a legal case.
It deals with the argument that to *not* do this will be economically harmful, and variants of that. It speaks to the possible effects of the decision on the state's economy.
Cooper then points out that there are approximately 84,000 same-sex couples in California and only 18,000 of them got married and asks doesn't that prove that gays aren't really interested in marriage. Badgett says that is a stretch. (Indeed.)
I'm guessing Cooper doesn't think that all of the unmarried straight couples out there prove that straights aren't really interested in marriage.
Are they not allowing cameras in because it would be revealed that some of these people need to wear helmets at all times?
Phoenix Rev wrote:Cooper then points out that there are approximately 84,000 same-sex couples in California and only 18,000 of them got married and asks doesn't that prove that gays aren't really interested in marriage. Badgett says that is a stretch. (Indeed.)
I'm guessing Cooper doesn't think that all of the unmarried straight couples out there prove that straights aren't really interested in marriage.
Are they not allowing cameras in because it would be revealed that some of these people need to wear helmets at all times?
This idea has merrit, and bears investigation.
It deals with the argument that to *not* do this will be economically harmful, and variants of that. It speaks to the possible effects of the decision on the state's economy.
I understand that, but isn't that a policy issue, as opposed to a legal issue? I wasn't under the impression that doing things that were bad for the economy was illegal or unconstitutional.
Pages