Homophobia Is So Chill (NOT!)
Radar dug up some pretty sweet videos, bro. They're all about California's ballot measure for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. And that's fresh. The thing is, though, a lot of people might not feel comfortable voting yes on Proposition 8 because they might think it's not what chill young people do. But it's totally so laid back. And it's important for young people to understand that opposing the right to gay marriage doesn't conflict with your other interests, like cocaine parties, Sufjan Stevens, and dressing like a pile of dirty laundry. That is why some totally rad Prop 8 supporters made these super informative and totally chillaxed videos about what's so great about refusing equal rights to other human beings.
See, dudes. Don't let your annoying boyfriend force you into having logic and reasoning to back up your bigoted opinion. You are entitled to your indefensible position, and it's completely typical of him to throw your friendships with others in your face. What's he trying to do, put a human face on the question? BREAK UP WITH HIM. And it's totally possible to love your gay friends, but that doesn't mean you can't also kind of hate them. Legally. Chiilllllll.
OK, that one is actually my favorite. That guy looks just like you! He used to like Modest Mouse but feels like they're kind of played out, too! He doesn't feel like this is an issue of acceptance, rights, and bigotry. It is, but he doesn't feel like it. Because it's not necessarily inconsistent to have gay friends and vote for Proposition 8. Not necessarily. I mean, it is. But not necessarily. But it is. Unless you hate your friends (see above). Then it is totes consistent.
More videos over at Radar. They are all cramazing. California, you guys.
Posted by Gabe at 4:45 PM in Politics
Tags: California | Election 2008 | Gay Marriage | Homophobia | Prop 8
So their strategy for getting people to visit the website is to give no points to back up their argument?
Score = 10
yeah, that lost me too. not very convincing.
Score = 5
What a frigging lot of bullshit. The argument that a white man dont want a black man marrying his sister is bullshit ! No one is proposing such a law. And these two videos show how much bigoted heterosexuals really are. Why should it bother them. After all most sodomy is practiced by straight men with straight wives. They need to get treatment for their gross and pretentious homophobia. I have invented a new word for such hetties, it is homondrist.
Score = -1
LOL at sufjan stevens
Score = 0
thank you for that post. it made my day.
hahaha.
Score = 0
Please guys, don't bombard me with all of these facts and solid arguments to back up your opinions. Maybe you could flounder and say um a bit more?
Score = 6
ILU
Score = 0
"Ignorance, It's made for hipsters to!"
-California
Score = 2
The message of the first one makes me sick. People who take stupid possitions, and refuse to explain why really piss me off.
But I can kinda relate to the second one. I love all my black friends, but I don't want them marrying my white sister. That's an ok position to take! Right? Right, mister I'm-just-like-you?
Ugh. Why don't you ask your alleged gay friends what they think of you small minded bullshit opinion?
That guy is the worst boyfriend you've ever had.
Score = 9
PS:
"Um, Ill tell you what, I have a website and you can look at it and then we'll talk about it okay?"
"Heh"
"Just look at the website that's all I ask."
......................................
"Alright."
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Score = 7
I don't know what's worse: the Texas version of this, or this.
The Texas version is so squidbilly that you just kinda feel sorry, but these fuckin dudes...
Score = 0
As a lesbian, I've got to say....where are all these gay friends? These guy's gay friends (that they clearly love) and Palin's gay friends and Elisabeth Hasselbeck's gay friends.....because, I do not have a SINGLE friend who is against GLBT rights. Hence the friendship. If someone I knew didn't believe in my equality, I would make sure they knew that we were NOT friends.
So, I wonder if these gay friends know what douchenozzle's their bud's are
Score = 15
Clearly, when they say "friend," they mean "hairdresser," "stylist," "acquaintance shopboy at Bergdorf's," or "Ellen."
I had a wholly unnecessary convo while buying my People and smokes at the convenience store with a lady who Loved Ellen But Hated Rosie because, in her own words she was "kind of a homophobe," but only because she doesn't like it when "gay people shove it in your face." Likes seeing Ellen and Pretty Lady in Pretty Clothes, Dislikes Gays. This lady is the downmarket version of Elizabeth Hasseleck, et. al. To be far more succinct: their gay "friends" hate them. Or themselves.
Score = 8
HOW DID YOU NOT POST THE SURFING ONE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKL5-G8HBdY
SURFING FOR INEQUALITY!!!!
Score = 2
"dude, seriously, I went to this website and it made me think about stuff"
HA!
Score = 1
Holy crap, that's the best.
"I don't really believe all the things that everyone and HOLLYWOOD are saying."
Fucking Hollywood! They're destroying tradition!
TRADITION!!!
Also, those two surfer dudes are totally gay for each other. And fuck all of these people.
Score = 3
Oh man
I wonder how much I'd have to pay to get those same actors to do a porno that starts off exactly like that
"Dude, I just don't think that it's right man"
"Well, maybe I should show you...."
*Cue the cheezy music*
Score = 1
People who have opinions like this and plan to vote for crap like Prop 8, but refuse to explain themselves make me sick. If you don't know why you're voting for something then you shouldn't vote.
I can kinda relate to the second one, though. I love all my black friends, but I don't want them to marry my white sister. That's a totally ok position to take! Right? Right, Mr. I'm-just-like-you?
Ugh. Why doesn't he ask his alleged gay friends what they think of his narrow-minded bullshit opinion?
This guy is the worst boyfriend you've ever had.
Score = 1
I'm really seeing another side of Peter Hamtramck here.
Score = 1
I'm a lesbian, too, but I really saw a new side to this Prop 8 thing with these commercials. As a young gay person, I realized I don't need to support myself because I'm gay. I mean, like, I have gay friends- and I have a gay self!- but that doesn't mean I need to want the same rights and opportunities and social acceptance to love my friends and myself. Tolerance is, like, the same thing.
And also I learned that I'm a threat to family and children and overall decency. Thank you Mister Pubic-Hair-Face-in-a-Cowboy-Shirt for the heads up!
Score = 8
While these ads are hip and chilllll, you know what is not so chilllll? A coherent, prepared argument, apparently. "Why are you making me defend my totally outrageous, bigoted position on this? Go to this website that does all my thinking for me, then we'll talk!" Or is it just that anything they could possibly say to back up their opinion would be so abrasively horrible and inhuman that it would totally ruin the laid back vibe?
Also, that first commercial is pretty much working against them. If you don't support equal rights for homosexuals, you're as retarded as this girl. "There's a lot more to this gay marriage thing than people realize?" "Like what?" "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh..."
Score = 4
not to belabor the point that so many other people have brought up, but these ads don't make any sense and it's frustrating. i wish that ONE ad or debate or spokesperson would really clearly explain why this proposition is NOT bigotry.
how is keeping some people from getting married protecting family values? how is that protecting religious freedom? how can you be friends with people while also wanting them legally barred from the most basic of rights?
i bet all these people are mormons. they look just like us, you know. they seem normal and are all REALLY nice but secretly they're mormon and they wear weird undergarments all the time and hate the gays.
Score = 7
The Mormons' video is especially convincing as they list why same-GENDER (Mormons don't say the s-word) marriage would lead to Armageddon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIBYj_UtKyU&feature=related
God For Inequality!
Score = 1
how is it that every single narrow minded ignoramus has these gay friends? just once, I'd like to meet these gay friends.
Score = 2
This is my favorite PRO ad: http://tinyurl.com/5w9mlk
It's so amazing, my friend and I stopped a conversation the first time I saw it on TV. He's gay but sort of apathetic because marriage isn't in his plan right now, but he said this ad made him care.
Score = 3
That is fantastic.
Score = 1
The last video on Radar is disgusting.
"I'm tired of being persecuted against just because I persecute people!"
Score = 3
i would be so completely outraged if i thought these had any chance of being successful, but they so clearly don't. the people behind these are clearly blinded by their own ideas, and that is saddening, since these commercials only shove that fact into their faces. but oh well. it's good to know that sensible people (you guys) exist.
and i've gotta say, as a homosexual: i have zero friends who oppose my basic rights. because fucking obviously.
Score = 2
I wish this didn't upset me to the point where i can't even be funny about it. Thanks for Gossip Girl and everything America, but fuck you right back. fuck. you.
Score = 0
Love everyones comments here.
Seriously, f*ck logic! Who needs it when you have "cuz" as a reason. ARGH!!!
And the thing is, I feel like 8 is going to pass. This country is filled with more idiots then it is people who think.
I HATE BIGOTS!!!!!!!!
Score = 1
has someone told these people that once gay marriage is legalized they HAVE to marry someone of the same sex? or that married gay couples spend their honeymoon murdering happy "normal" families? seriously, the whole "protect children" thing is the worst form of reasoning i have ever heard. just because gay marriage is legal doesnt mean that future kids are going to be like, "oh no i can't decide whether i like boys or girls" and then their head explodes. its something you are born with. i wish they could understand that the whole homosexual thing didn't just pop out of nowhere 30 years ago in "Hollywood," which they seem to constantly blame. and if my children are taught that they can marry whoever they love, i for one see that as a positive thing.
Score = 0
Ugh, reminds me of my aunt who believes homosexuals are born that way, but still doesn't think their relationships deserve the same status under the law as heterosexual partnerships. Ohhh-kay. Look, if you believe in the Bible literally and you believe it's a chosen sinful behavior, fine, it's a free country, you have the right to believe that. And if Prop 8 is defeated, parents have the right to take their children out of public schools if they wish, or take the time at home to impart their own values to their own children (now there's a novel concept), and I'm sure there will be some kind of legal safeguard so that religious figures licensed to perform weddings won't have to officiate at same-sex ceremonies if they have a moral objection. No one is going to be forced to do anything that really, truly violates his or her conscience because of legal same-sex marriage in California. But if you don't have any moral objection to homosexuality on the basis of a deeply held belief system, you just don't believe people should be equal, even though you believe they were born different and that's okay - well, there are words for that, starting with "hypocrite" and "bigot." And I'd guess that the folks who purport to have gay friends, but aren't sure they should allowed to get married, fall soundly into this most inexcusable of categories.
Personally, I believe in protecting and strengthening the family. How about starting with my own. My mother's been in a great relationship for eight years now, they're so in love it's a little scary. Personally I think it's high time they made honest women of each other. I can just see it - my other mother's daughter and me in our matching maid-of-honor dresses, hers purple and mine blue.
Score = 3
I really think that 30 years from now people are going to look back at stuff like this think: "What an oppressive and ugly time."
Some one should make an ad where that guy pulls over to the side of the road and tells that bitch to get out of the fucking car. caption: DON'T BE TOLERANT OF INTOLERANCE.
Score = 2
The funny thing is that I STILL like Modest Mouse!!!!!! LOLZ!!! Keep up the great work!!!
Score = 5
Is it inconsistent to have friends that sell drugs but still want them to go to jail for it? I am NOT saying that homosexuality should be illegal I am just saying that what he say is true. You can have gay friends and like them very much even love them but believe that their actions are wrong. It's possible, in fact it happens all the time. Most of you reading this would probably disagree with me, but I guarantee if we met you would like me and you would probably even be my friend. Permissiveness is not the same thing as love. And for those people in California who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that gay marriage is wrong they should vote for Proposition 8. That's the whole point of a vote. they should be honest about their beliefs just like you don't hesitate to be hones about yours. The majority will decide and everyone will live with it. Welcome to a representational form of government. BUT we would all be a lot happier if we recognize that we disagree and we are still nice to each other they could have choen to be antagonistic in their videos but they didn't. You could have chosen not to be antagonistic in your criticism but you didn't.
Score = -12
You know, you're right...I mean, my grandpa is a total bigot, but I still love him.
Representational government only works well when people can actually think. Too bad for us. And anyway, our government made it clear a long time ago that the will of the people didn't mean shit when the President has his own ideas about what's best. So much for representational government...and maybe that's not even such a bad thing given the enormous number of ridiculous belief systems that have been held by the majority over the course of human development. Sorry to talk shit on majority rule, but I'm fucking pissed about this.
I'm tired of trying to be understanding and tolerant of people whose opinions are so clearly based on utter nonsense. There comes a point where ignorance and bigotry become more than just excusable differences of opinion. They become literally threatening to human development. Most of the time, I try to be a good liberal guy, attempting to see all sides of the issue and understand where people are coming from, but on matters like this, matters where it is so CLEARLY an issue of bigotry and hatred, I fucking give up. People who are against granting homosexuals the right to marry are bigots. There, I said it. I'm sorry, but I'm fucking fed up.
And yes, it IS inconsistent to have friends who sell drugs but want them to go to jail for it. Ask your drug dealing friends if they'd still want to be friends with you if they knew you were secretly hoping they'd be sent to prison for their actions. If it bothers you that much, get some new friends, man. There's a difference between having an honest difference of opinion with someone you love on one hand and wanting them to actually be incarcerated for their beliefs on the other. I don't have to agree with every decision my friends make, but that doesn't mean I want them jailed. I don't even want YOU jailed for not believing homosexuals should be treated like equal citizens. This is America and you get to hate whoever you want. However, that does not mean you should be allowed to exercise your ridiculous beliefs on people who just want to express their love for each other the same way straight people do. I mean, I don't particularly like the idea of bigots having the right to marry, but I'm also thoughtful and humble enough to not be willing to make a constitutional amendment in order to prevent that. Just as I can disagree with with my friends' actions but hope they don't go to jail for them, I would hope that you might get to a point where you could be comfortable disagreeing with the personal practices of homosexuals but not desire to see them treated as second class citizens because of that. Maybe later you might get to a point where you could bring yourself to actually accept them for who they are. Who knows? And yeah, I probably would be your friend if I met you...I'm a tolerant fucking guy. But has anyone been able to level an argument against gay marriage that's not based on religious beliefs (which we've all at least tacitly agreed (ha ha) should not be allowed to influence public policy) or outright ignorance? The fact is, these bigots have always been on the wrong side of history. It may take our dumb asses a while to wrap our brains around the idea that human beings should be given equal rights regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation, etc. but eventually we get there. So, enjoy your prejudice now...because eventually your grandkids are going to say, "Yeah, my grandpa is a total bigot but I still love him."
Score = 9
"You can have gay friends and like them very much even love them but believe that their actions are wrong."
Actions like what?.......... falling in LOVE, ......... life, LIBERTY & and the pursuit of happiness? As in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? Which led to the BILL OF RIGHTS and THE CONSTITUTION?!!!!!!! The same actions as YOU?! Forget that Prop 8 is a direct violation of all three, if you have any gay friends I want you to say that to exact quote to their faces and realize how much a BIGOT you really are.
Score = 0
I wish I could have had TWO DADS.
Love everyone.
Score = 0
Why would you ever want a person to divorce themselves from their own morality? The political system runs on people's different ideas -- to ask everyone to strip themselves of their own belief of right and wrong is to try and make everyone the same -- and you think of yourself as a champion of diversity. You're not even asking me to just be neutral and not take into consideration my religious beliefs (which are as much a part of who I am as anything else), but you want me to adopt your own... Diversity, really? Our laws have always been founded on morality -- and what is morality if not religious in nature? Religion, in a very broad sense, is the acknowledgment of something more, of something greater, than just me... There are laws against killing and stealing and lying... These come to us from a religious morality--or should I not allow my religious belief that killing is wrong influence public policy? And now don't stereotype me into being in favor of the war, and then ask me about that killing--I don't think that was right either. Could it be that there are all types of Christians and even conservatives? People should vote as they feel on this issue, and it should be decided by the voice of the people--WHICHEVER way that decision goes.
Score = -5
No one is saying you can't have religious beliefs -- but, when determining public policy it's absolutely essential, in a democracy, that you put those religious beliefs into secular terms. In other words, that you provide solid, non-religious reasons for supporting a particular view. Why? Precisely because it's PUBLIC policy. And the Public consists of Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. and, yes, Agnostics and Athiests. The law applies to all of them indiscriminately. We all have the freedom from the requirements of each others religious beliefs -- that's what separation of church and state means.
Prohibitions against murder and theft, for instance, have well-founded societal/secular reasons for existing. Does a prohibition against gay marriage have a similar well-founded secular reason for existing? Not that I can see.
Score = 2
Even the Wikipedia article agrees (though I checked it in my roomie's law textbook as well)... That is not what the separation of church and state means.
Score = -2
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely and unequivocably wrong. Separation of church and state means that government is secular -- therefore, one cannot pass a law that requires the public to partake in a specific religious ritual. ie: "We have the freedom from the requirements of each others religious beliefs." I'd refer you to Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 and/or Lee vs. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
Score = 1
You've got it backwards, my friend. Religion is based on morality, NOT the other way around. Did you really need religion to let you know that killing and stealing were wrong? Do you think that without religion, people would not have figured out that brutally murdering people was terrible? That, without religion, people wouldn't have sat down and said "you know what, let's stop taking each other's shit."
Religion didn't need to tell you that.
I'm all about morality and philosophy. Religion does encompass both of those things, but then also throws in a bunch of fairy tales and afterthoughts.
Score = 2
OK, so I'm going to go off on a tangent here. I don't believe that people can have rights without a God. How? Who gave them those rights? Did they just decide that they have rights? The founding fathers never attempted to give anyone rights, only to create a government that protected God given rights. A lot of you probably think I am an idiot right now, but seriously, where do rights come from? I can't understand a "right" unless i is granted or given by some higher power. I could understand if there were no God but there was a higher universal law that all existence should seek to comply with, but how would we know what it is? Maybe it's much simpler than that, maybe there are not actual "inalienable rights" maybe there are only civil rights. Rights that we as a society decide are important to help us function and live peacefully. But in that case can we really blame different society for not sharing our same idea of civil rights? Say someone flies an airplane into a building and kills a bunch of people. This is terribly sad and it will upset us greatly but really they did nothing "wrong" if hey were acting in accordance with their own societal beliefs. I MEAN REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, can there be a universal right and wrong unless it comes from a higher source. Maybe there is no God, maybe it is just as stupid to believe in a God as some have suggested, but then I submit it is just as stupid to believe in Universal or Inalienable Rights. Or to believe in any RIGHT or WRONG things might disagree with social norms or governmental policies ad laws and in that sense be wrong but personally I can not justify the existence of an overarching morality unless it comes from a higher source than humanity. One man's opinion is just as good as another's. Maybe you will say that when the majority of people's opinions agree (for instance most of us agree that it is wrong to kill for no reason) than that becomes what is right and then we should conform to that. But those opinions will change and those people will die, new people will come with new opinions and what is right and wrong will change. Really how does this work? How can something be right and another thing be wrong? How can we have inalienable rights? I do not believe that we do.
Score = -7
I think that it's impossible to demand that someone's religious beliefs not influence their political beliefs. No one is really arguing that. Everyone is going to make these types of important decisions to the best of their ability, using whatever parameters for arriving at the best conclusion they have at their disposal, including religious teachings.
Nevertheless, I do fundamentally believe that the issue at stake here is the political separation between religious beliefs and the infringement on other people's freedoms. What is so galling about the political agenda behind Proposition 8 to people like me is that gay marriage has no direct bearing on your personal happiness or ability to lead a fruitful, productive, and religious life. But the proposal is to deny other people an equal opportunity to lead what they believe to be fruitful and productive lives. It is not a question of using religion and morality to make decisions as it is an issue of using religion and morality to make decisions for others. And the comparison to allowing someone like a drug dealer or a murderer to engage in the freedom of those activities is cynical, ridiculous, and not even remotely apt. We are discussing the restrictions on two people to love each other and legally enjoy the rights that this country has granted to the loving union of heterosexual couples. Not to mention the fact that as far as the sanctity of that union is concerned, reality TV, consistently high divorce rates, and the legal system behind such monetary constructs as prenuptial agreements has already tarnished that immaculate bond long ago.
People should obviously vote however they feel. It's just that a lot of people feel something that is really shitty and oppressive towards another group of people.
Score = 10
First of all, I think it's awesome that you're calling someone on videogum cynical and ridiculous, especially after that article. LOLZ doood 4 reeeuhh! Anyway, that's beside the point... here's the important sentence, "We are discussing the restrictions on two people to love each other and legally enjoy the rights that this country has granted to the loving union of heterosexual couples." First of all, no one is being restricted from loving anyone--don't know where that came from. Anyway, let's get legal! CA Family Code section 297.5 " Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." All the same rights! The oft-cited rights that domestic partnerships don't have (like riding in the ambulance, etc.) are federal rights, and Prop 8 (CA state legislation) won't affect them at all.
Score = -5
Yes, because some of us have the capacity to understand the difference between making fun of Gossip Girl and talking about actual things that are important in the world, and I am glad to be considered cynical and ridiculous as it relates to baby fart videos, but to recognize actual cynicism and ridiculousness when it applies to the affairs of human beings.
The argument that it does not affect the rights of homosexual couples is preposterous, and the only reason that the civil union rights are left in tact is because of the political mood of the state of California. That being said, good. It's good that those rights are now seen as unimpeachable. But the main thrust of my point remains the same: you have every right in the world granted to you to allow you to pursue the life that you see as best, including the right to marry someone and be considered a married couple by your friends and family (a civil union is also available to you, if you so desire) but this is a proposition designed specifically to block others from having the same benefit. And that is unfair. It's not up to you to decide that people should be "satisfied" with a civil union. It's a simple issue of fairness.
Score = 5
EXACTLY GABE! This is why I love videgeogum!
Score = 0
"JS Guy" you need to put on a cowboy shirt, grow some bum-fluff on your face, and chill.
Score = -1
I just got that. That was funny. It's hard to convey sincerity in type, but I really thought that was funny.
Score = 0
wow this just turned into waytooseriousforablogdebategum.com
Score = 1
Im not sure when people decided that belittling someone's opinion in the form of immature, degrading comments was anything but bigotry. So go on picking and choosing what your cause is because respect for others, respect for people with mental retardation ("that's retarded!"), and a pursuit of civility in spite of differences are certainly not on the agenda of most these commentators. Realize what is happening here, you are fighting with hate.
Score = -3
For the record, it's another false argument to equate LEGISLATION with the casual offense of calling something retarded. Oh, and constitutional amendments aren't "someone's opinion." But otherwise, totes.
Score = 6
being a biggot is the new black...
Score = 0
Wow - there have really been some great, thoughtful comments here (and some not so great ones, but let's not dwell on that). I think very few of us would deny a person's right to have religious convictions or to vote according to those religious convictions, however much we may personally disagree. What bothers a lot of us are those folks who don't have strong religious convictions against homosexuality who still don't think gays are entitled to full equality under the law. I'm sick of hearing about the "sanctity" of marriage, when the fact is that I could legally marry a perfect stranger in a drive-thru chapel in Las Vegas tonight, provided he had a penis, but my mother can't marry the person she's been deeply in love with for nearly a decade because they both happen to be female. Where's the sanctity in that? What Prop. 8 is really about is how comfortable or uncomfortable we are with people who may seem to be a little different, and whether we're can handle the demarginalization of that - stop treating them like the perpetual funny sidekicks in the stories of our lives and let them weave their own stories into the fabrics of our societies. Change isn't always easy, and there may be some ugly pockets of intolerance hidden deep within even those of us who truly believe ourselves to be the most accepting. The prospect of a change like this may make us uncomfortable, and our knee-jerk reaction is to deny the rights of others for our own self-protection, rather than to face down and overcome our own lingering prejudices. If you have a gay friend but aren't sure he should be allowed to marry his partner, are you sure you really accept him as a gay man? What if it were your son someday, telling you he had a crush on another guy? Hmmmm, that's different, or is it? Would it bother you to have a gay son? Would you want him to be able to marry the man of his choice, or would you rather he straighten up and marry a woman because it's easier for you to understand? What if your mother left your father because she fell in love with her best friend? (I'll tell you what: regardless of your own feelings or your own sexual orientation, it would kind of weird you out for a while, even if you were totally supportive.) Think it could never happen? Don't be so sure. But know this: it's easy to play politics with other people's rights, but when it hits home and becomes your rights, or those of someone you love . . . suddenly it's different. Don't be afraid to conquer your own prejudices and fears, and don't be deceived by the slippery slope. Allowing the marriage of two consenting adults regardless of gender won't pave the way for group marriages, interspecies marriage, adult/child marriage, inanimate object marriage, any combination thereof, or any other atrocity "pro-family" advocates can imagine. Human beings are more reasonable than that. Or at the very least, we have the potential to be.
Score = 6
Forgive me, I am not too knowledgeable on Prop 8 (beyond what I just found online), but this discussion is really interesting.
Would this change any rights of gay couples (or limit any by only allowing domestic partnerships) or would it only affect the definition of a married couple as only one man and one woman?
I ask because most of what I've read says that no rights will be affected, but given the huge political agenda, I just want to be sure.
Score = 0
Nope, that's it. The only thing that changes is the definition of the word marriage. I even called a lawyer to check.
Score = -2
The legality point is that our State Supreme Court has deemed same-sex marriage legal under our state constitution. This is a right that we have in Cali RIGHT NOW. If Prop 8 passes, it will amend our state constitution to eliminate that right we currently enjoy.
It's a little more complicated than "just changing the wording". It's about eliminating rights.
Score = 2
OH DOUBLE LOLZZ GABE--I JUST REALIZED THAT YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WROTE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE!!!!! HAHAHAHA -- oh goodness, so GOOD -- yes, "but to recognize actual cynicism and ridiculousness when it applies to the affairs of human beings." That must be why you originally wrote this very serious article about the affairs of human beings--just take your own medicine with some grace DÜDE. As far as fairness goes, let me just explain more of my stance here... Marriage is between a man and a woman. A man can unite himself with a man, but its not marriage. Its something else. California has done everything it can to make sure that whatever else it is (a domestic partnership) is JUST AS GOOD as a marriage, but it's different--by its nature (and by nature), it just is. Marriage existed way before this government, and I just don't think this government should try and change it. Yeah, the government has to be involved in marriage so it can do its part in inheritance/paternity/divorce/adoption laws, but it shouldn't go as far as to try and change what marriage is. I mean, we can pass a law that makes every season officially summer (SUMMER BREAK YEAR YOUND BABY) -- but the natural fact of the matter is that it will still get cold in NYC in December. The state law has already done everything possible to make sure same sex relationships receive every single benefit that a marriage does. This step of changing the definition of marriage is just unnecessary!
Score = -8
Yes, marriage existed before this government came along, but there was a time when marriage was "defined" as the union of two individuals of the same race or social class as well as opposite gender. There was a time - not so long ago - in THIS country when it would have been against the law for me, a white woman, to marry a black man. There was even a word - miscegenation - for the "abominable" practice of "mixing" the blood of two races to create a "half-breed," someone who would never be fully accepted by either race. In some ancient societies, the definition of "marriage" was open to include close relatives, even required it in some cases. The same Bible that calls homosexuality an abomination also makes provision for a rapist to marry his victim (providing her father approves) and a warrior to marry a woman taken in spoils of war (provided he cleans her up and treats her properly afterwards). Depending where you go in the world, the definition of "marriage" may include polygamy (either polygyny, the practice of one man having many wives, or polyandry, the far rarer practice of one woman having many husbands), the union of strangers or acquaintances on the basis of a professional matchmaker's opinion and/or parental negotiations, or the "purchase" of a woman from a poor village (who made the choice to trade her hand in marriage to a stranger for a better way of life for herself and her loved ones) by a wealthy foreigner. The woman's consent may NOT be part of the definition of marriage. And for most of history, "love" had very little to do with the motivations that went into the majority of marriages, in any culture.
There is no "definition of marriage," written in stone, for all societies in all times. We can't decide what marriage means to us on the basis of what it meant in the past. If you believe God's definition of marriage is all that matters, you have a right to that belief. But if you believe that this is a question of civil rights in a secular society, it comes back to what I said in my earlier post: under this cover of "tradition" lies all our repressed prejudices and fears. The Founding Fathers didn't carve the rules of our government in stone. This country was meant to grow, change, and evolve, to become, in their own contradictory phrase, "a more perfect union," to better meet the needs of its citizens. Do you really want to live by all the definitions this country was founded on, when the "definition" of "voter" was limited to white males only? I don't.
By the way, language, including the definition of words, is a fluid thing. Your own posts prove it. "LOLZ!!!!" Twenty years ago no one would have known what that meant. You also remarked on one of Gabe's statements as "awesome." Now, did it fill you with dread, veneration, or wonder, such as that inspired or the sacred or sublime, really? Because that's what awe is, and that's what "awesome" originally meant. On the other hand, the changing of the seaons is a fact of nature, established by the tilt of the earth's axis and the movement of the earth around the sun. A change in terminology or legislation won't change that. But a human societal institution and the laws that govern it is subject to change by human beings, and gay marriage is a change that needs to happen - if only for the sake of treating all human beings and their relationships equally under the law of the land.
Score = 6
Okay, these videos are just plain stupidity, like anyone is actually gonna care about anything you say by just saying "just visit the website and then we'll talk.
I actually have both lesbians, gay, by and straight friends. Gay guys are hilarious and really cool. I believe that they all should have a chance at marriage and have a chance at the 'sanctity' of marriage. Anyone who's married knows it nowhere near holy. I swear this goddamn issue is never gonna go away until people realize THEY ARE HUMAN TOO.
Score = 0
Dane,
You've gone out of your way to rationalize and defend your argument (you even called a lawyer! you even talked to your law school roommate!), and that is commendable. It represents your desire to truly understand a situation before crafting your opinion. As someone who respects nuance and has nothing but high esteem for carefully weighted philosophies, I find that tendency admirable. You've even shed new light on the legalities of Proposition 8 in this thread. So, thank you.
But that's the thing about equal rights. They don't require lengthy rationalizations or justifications. Everyone should be treated equal. The end. The fact that it's taken you numerous comments, phone calls, and discussions with other people to determine that you're justified in your bigoted position is a signal of just how deeply rooted the problem is. Obviously we are both well-intentioned people. I don't think that you're mean spirited or hateful. But I do think that you're deeply misguided. It's an issue of equality. It does not rely upon a fumbling justification of why standing in the way of other people's right to happiness doesn't make me a bad person. Everyone should share equal rights. Done. That's all it is. There is nothing to even talk about.
Score = 6
Gabe,
Are you asking that people who hold marriage as the highest spiritual act vote to support gay marriage in a political sense, while still holding their religious beliefs to the contrary? And do you believe this shows respect for their personal beliefs, given how marriage is so deeply rooted in religion for them?
I don't at all disagree with what you've said in your comments; these are just questions I often struggle with in terms of trying to understand those who do not support gay marriage.
Score = 1
Oh and for those of you who claim that this is merely an issue of semantics, I find that argument to be relentlessly dubious. If you care so much that marriage remains defined as "between a man and a woman" petition the Oxford English Dictionary, not the government. Language changes and evolves all the time. Get over it. I don't hear anyone clamoring for a constitutional amendment to fix the word "gay" as happy opposed to homosexual or the word "catholic" as universal opposed to a jesus-eating religious-sect. Way to cloak your own bigotry. Invent a new word to mean "marriage between a man and a woman" if you're so hung up on it.
Score = 1
To Joe's point, I have not heard of any constitutional amendments proposed to curtail "The Marriage of Rich Chocolate and Indulgent Ice Cream" that "ushered in" last year's Valentine's Day. It is a word that means "intimate or close union."
Also, the definition as it pertains to homosexuals has already been entered into the Merriam Webster Dictionary as definition 1a(2), so if that is the battle you are trying to win, you have already lost.
Score = 3
That website is the worst fucking website in the entire world! The first video is about how they're gonna teach kids that marriage isn't only between a man and a woman, and that heaven forbid, some orphanages are gonna have to give their children to same-sex couples. UHM, SAME-SEX COUPLES ALREADY HAVE KIDS! and how they refer to it as "failing". UGH! THIS MAKES ME SO MAD.
Score = 1
Here is some logic for you: Voting no on prop 8 means that churches would be forced to provide services to gays. Whether or not you believe in gay rights, this LOGIC should tell you that a churches right to provide a wedding service is being taken away.
I don't like laws that are made because they want to force morality, but I don't like the idea that rights of one group are exchanged for another. Prop 8 protects this from happening. Keep in mind that it's a person's right to be a bigot in America. Forcing them to believe as you do is not constitutional.
And as a side note, I think it's interesting how you trash their commercials and probably haven't even gone to their site because you have closed your mind to what you believe. Don't hate on people who have done the same but believe differently then you.
And yeah I agree, those commercials aren't all that great. If you go to the site they will show you the logic behind prop 8. Not just "oh... i dont like to argue"
Score = -4
Aaron, please explain to me (with citations to relevant legal precedents if at all possible) how the defeat of prop 8 would mean that churches would be forced to provide services to gays.
Score = 3
"Keep in mind that it's a person's right to be a bigot in America. Forcing them to believe as you do is not constitutional."
How can you say that when Prop 8 clearly forces one group's beliefs onto the rest of the country? While most of the country is somewhat religious, it does not make it ok to mix legislation and religious beliefs - because let's face it, that's what it boils down to.
Score = 1
This whole discussion is so "girl wearing a skirt as a top"!!!
http://videogum.com/archives/psas/hilary-duffs-thats-so-gay-psa_026671.html
Score = 1
Is this post the record holder for most Videogum comments? Have you guys instituted some Gawker-esque pay tier system for hits? Can we expect 24-7 wedge issue vids to spice up traffic? Enquiring or at least mildly interested minds want to know....
Anyway, the "eeww-teh-gays" people would have much more success convincing me if their arguments weren't so obviously retooled Jim Crow era screeds against "miscegenation". I'm sure they even looked at the court transcript of Loving v. Virginia to get some pointers.
And the videos of kewl dudes just being their kewl homophobic selves are just there to mask videos like this, which are the real get-out-the-vote vehicle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcVI0-xESCQ
Score = 0
hey, modest mouse will never be played out. for real.
Score = 0