This Really Bothers Me
June 22, 2010 at 5:27 pm couragecampaign 338 comments
by Andy Kelley
New Media Organizer, Courage Campaign
I was on Facebook the other day and noticed something that really got under my skin.
The National Organization for Marriage, the right-wing extremist group that spent millions to pass Prop 8, had more fans on Facebook than Testimony: Equality On Trial, the Courage Campaign’s project to empower all Americans to participate in the historic trial against Prop 8.
I know, I know. It seems like something small and unimportant. But it isn’t.
What happens in this case will have far reaching impacts that will last for generations. That’s why we launched Testimony: Equality on Trial, to show the real-life impact this case has on Americans. By preventing the court from televising the trial, opponents of equality want to keep our stories hidden from the public. But we won’t let them silence us. And we won’t let them win.
NOM has led the fight against marriage equality. You might remember their “Gathering Storm” video from the Prop 8 battle, when they helped mobilize right-wing Californians to vote to take away our rights. NOM was also responsible for taking away our rights in Maine last fall, spearheading the passage of Question 1.
From banning cameras in the courtroom and striking testimony from the record to seeking to shut down the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and disabling comments on their Facebook wall (maybe the pro-equality comments were too much for them?), NOM will stop at nothing to silence our voices and to keep the truth from being heard. Because they know that when we share our stories we win.
So we asked our members to take a stand against NOM and “like” the Testimony fanpage and suggest the page to their friends. And their response has been overwhelming. We blew past NOM in a matter of hours, and are now hoping to double their presence on Facebook.
We need to tell the story of this trial to as many people as possible. And with so many people now on Facebook, it’s very important that we use it to shed light on the trial.
Will you join us on Facebook?
Click here to “like” the Testimony: Equality on Trial fanpage and show your support for marriage equality.
Already a fan? Then visit our page and click on “Suggest to Friends” to help us show NOM how much support their is for marriage equality.
http://www.facebook.com/EqualityOnTrial
Thank you for helping us tell the story of this trial.
Entry filed under: Community/Meta, Uncategorized.
338 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to Ronnie Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
1.
Bolt | June 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Not to invalidate your annoyance with NOM, but facebook is like a childish popularity contest.
It seems like everything we do now is followed by a bunch of blow hard bigots. They believe that they’re our opposites, and they’re not. They don’t fight for anything, but they ban everything. They can’t exist without us, but we can exist without them.
Living equally protected under the law will be our greatest revenge.
2.
eDee | June 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Done! – Liked
The thing is, hate is a strong bond. There are those who hate and they are bonded together and enjoy that bond.
There are those who want Equality because they can personally take advantage of it (same gender couples) AKA the minority.
Lastly there are those who support same gender couples, but since it doesn’t really effect the rest of us there is no real bond for those of us who are not effected directly.
What we need is to get people like me – straight, white, Republican, Christian, married, stay at home, mother of 2, somehow bonded in the community. You need to find a passion and show us that we want to join in in that passion.
I was brainwashed by “Good Christians” to believe everyone in America is equal, it took years for me to realize those good Christians really didn’t want that! My passion is breaking away from the bond of hate.
Find away to bond those who aren’t directly effected with a passion and you’ll get your wedding.
(sorry, I can never figure out if it‘s effect or affect)
3.
Kathleen | June 22, 2010 at 8:28 pm
eDee Great to see you here. Thank you for your support!
btw, I still have trouble w/ affect and effect, too. — it’s my secret shame. :)
4.
Straight Ally #3008 | June 22, 2010 at 8:56 pm
HATER MOMENT + HATER SYNTHESIS = COMPLETE DISASTER
(with apologies to Aaron McGruder of The Boondocks)
5.
Jorge | June 22, 2010 at 7:08 pm
I’m confused. It looks like we have 18,000 some and they have 8,000? :-/
6.
couragecampaign | June 22, 2010 at 7:09 pm
We started the day at 6k. It’s been an amazing response! We just doubled them, which was our new goal as Andy noted in the post.
-Julia
7.
DebbieC | June 22, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Courage Campaign needs to start promoting this here and on Facebook – get enough votes and there’s a chance of the organization receiving a donation from Chase – http://apps.facebook.com/chasecommunitygiving/charities/270343297-courage-campaign-institute-501c3?src=charity-details-wall-post-self&ref=mf
8.
eDee | June 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I think that is called “Ask and you shall receive!”
9.
truthspew | June 22, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Been a fan of the page for quite some time now. But some of us also fan NOM because it’s good to see what the bastards are up to at any given time.
For awhile there even Slaggie Gillamonster (Aka Maggie “The Loathsome” Gallagher) friended me. Until of course she actually read my page and realized I was one of those godless heathens.
10.
Alan E. | June 23, 2010 at 8:21 am
I was a friend of George Rekers for about 5 minutes.
11.
Alan E. | June 23, 2010 at 8:21 am
Dangit that was also supposed to be my subscription post.
12.
truthspew | June 23, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Oh you poor thing. Rekers puts me in mind of a porno freak from the 1970’s for some reason.
13.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 5:51 pm
@truthspew: Rekers puts me in mind of a porno freak from the 1970′s for some reason.
It’s the ‘stache :)
14.
Ronnie | June 22, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I joined when it was started…thank you for creating that page and that campaign…..<3…Ronnie
15.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 22, 2010 at 7:42 pm
I have joined Testimony: Equality on Trial on Facebook and have suggested it to my friends. I will continue to suggest it to friends as my circle grows. Everyone needs to know about this. And as Testimony moves into that phase, all of us need to share our stories and get them out where everyone can see them.
16.
Erin | June 22, 2010 at 11:07 pm
I went to the page and clicked “like.” I also sent a bunch of invites to friends.
17.
Fluffyskunk | June 22, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Relevant. You know how much this is going to affect the future of equal marriage rights in America? That’s right, about as much as my choice of laundry detergent. Asking for our votes on a silly online popularity contest website as if it mattered is not only disappointingly childish but demeaning to those of us who take this issue very seriously. Putting aside my opinions on the amateur reenactments and exactly how much they’re going to help our case, I have a feeling that the next post on this blog we’ll be asked to sign a petition to Congress to repeal DOMA on petitiononline.com. :-(
18.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 12:15 am
This is no more about equal rights than an epileptic being disqualified from being a fighter-jet pilot… and that’s if homosexuality truly is a born condition/disposition (which I don’t believe it is).
This is about preserving an institution already under attack by many other issues. It’s about nuclear families. It’s about a relationship that fosters solid examples of heterosexual examples that foster child creation and rearing. Stop trying to break it just because you’re unhappy with the dead-end road that your love has taken you on.
I know it hurts to be excluded. Some people want to be a doctor, but can’t qualify. It hurts for them too. If we broadened the definition of what it means to be a doctor to let them in, it wouldn’t make them any better as a doctor, and it would largely destroy what it means to be a doctor.
Look up words in the dictionary like husbandry, marriage, consummation, and sexual intercourse. These are all part of a system that has existed since the dawn of time. Don’t try to wreck it during yours by redefining a simple and beautiful principle like marriage. Don’t get so caught up in property dowries, special social consideration, tax breaks, recognition, and other marriage promoting and protecting practices to see what marriage has always been about. Marriage isn’t about love – it’s about what that love produces and fosters that makes it a marriage.
Support and respect Prop 8 for what it does to protect our society from misunderstanding and detrimental consequences.
19.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 12:41 am
ummmmmm……NO!…..and physically force me too….other then that…..the anti-gays can shut the f@#k up and shove their Nazi-esgue “moral superiority” up their insignificant antiquated, detrimental ASSume I won’t fight back…..HAPPY LGBT PRIDE MONTH!!!!!!!….<3…Ronnie
20.
Shun | June 23, 2010 at 1:24 am
since the dawn of time?
I never realized animals like dinosaurs …err I mean…jesus horses…got married too!
I learn something new everyday.
21.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Don’t be silly, Shun. Just ask any good little homeschooled LDS child and they will tell you: dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to fool you.
Love,
Fiona
22.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 4:09 pm
@ fiona
I’ve never been home-schooled either. Your attempt at saying the homosexual agenda owns the public school system is laughable unless you live in Portland, OR.
23.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Joey wrote: Your attempt at saying the homosexual agenda owns the public school system is laughable unless you live in Portland, OR.
Um, what?
I did not say any such thing. I said that you must have been homeschooled because you have some obvious gaps in your education. Not one word about the alleged “homosexual agenda.”
I am amused by that phrase, BTW. Why is it that the homophobes all seem to know about this agenda, but none of my gay friends have a copy of it?
24.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Actullay dingbat crybaby Joey Death Gestapo….
There is no “homosexual agenda” its a nazi-esque tactic created by your murderer enabling anti-Ameircan get rid if the gay cults (a.k.a groups) practicing the well developed art of the Nazi Propaganda Machine to scare people into voting to oppress the lives of people who do not conform to how you want them to live.
however LGBT tax payers DO OWN just as much of the schools as you do…FAIL….LOSER….<3…Ronnie
25.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Actually, Ronnie, since I doubt that Mr. Man there is paying any property taxes … I suspect that I own more of the school system than he does (ohnoes!). In fact, I am paying into a system from which no one in my immediate family derives any benefit.
The more I think about it, the more I pity Joey (to say nothing of Missus Joey … whom I pity solely for reasons not related to this forum). He has never been exposed to people different from himself and thinks that the whole world should conform to his little white bread, “Leave it to Beaver” concepts of what life is to look like. Perhaps I have given him entirely too much information all at once — it must suck to have so many people pointing out the erroneous ways of one’s worldview. Especially when those people have facts and figures and scary science stuff to back them up. ;->
Perhaps when Joey gets home from his Big Important Job (TM), his wife will make him a nice martini and a sammich. She’ll have a pretty ribbon in her hair and have the children nice and tidy, just like the old 1950s home ec texts tell her to, and they won’t have to worry about anything unusual happening on the streets of Pleasantville because there aren’t any new ideas to disrupt the routine.
Just for Joey: “Pleasantville” is a movie with a rather profound message. Don’t be afraid.
26.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:47 pm
23. fiona64
Simple. Ask your gay friends if sex involves coitus and is intended to bring children into the world or if sex is primarily about pleasure and can involve anything being used to pleasure sex organs. If they believe the former, they aren’t aware of the gay agenda. If they side with the latter, they have embraced the gay agenda.
27.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Not all heterosexuals can reproduce…..period….I guess you only frack your ditzy wife so you can bring into world more ugly evil demon spawns that you will teach that it ok to control other peoples lives……
There is no “gay agenda” its a nazi-esque tactic created by your murderer enabling anti-Ameircan “get rid of the gay” cults (a.k.a groups) practicing the well developed art of the Nazi Propaganda Machine to scare people into voting to oppress the lives of people who do not conform to how you want them to live.
I feel sorry for your ditzy wife because she is nothing but incubator to you and you obviously do NOT love her…you use her….there is not gay agenda….and you can’t prove it…..
Everybody has a life agenda..mine is to find a man, get married, have a huge wedding, a family, i.e. surrogate & adopt 2kids that you anti-gay faux humans obviously don’t want or they would all have homes, start my own Fashion House & hopefully be world known..
the anti-gays agenda?..Stop me from achieving all of my dreams because 1)they don’t “like it” 2)The Bible says so..there is no law that says I have to live my life according to the Bible & they have no right to force me too. 3) see 1 & 2. They’re agenda is to make Homosexuality illegal, stigmatize us, control our lives, force all who do not follow the Bible & their version of Religion to conform or be denied whatever they feel like denying us though their Hitleresque “moral superiority” and eventually reaching conform or die (History has proven that last point to be true…you don’t believe me? LOOK IT THE F#$K UP!)…..<3…Ronnie
28.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:15 am
Joey DelliGatti wote: Simple. Ask your gay friends if sex involves coitus and is intended to bring children into the world or if sex is primarily about pleasure and can involve anything being used to pleasure sex organs. If they believe the former, they aren’t aware of the gay agenda. If they side with the latter, they have embraced the gay agenda.
Wow, Joey. I *definitely* pity your wife if sex is not about pleasure in your house. I guess my husband and I must have embraced the “gay agenda” after all.
ROFLMAO.
29.
Billy | June 25, 2010 at 8:44 am
Dear Joey,
Thank you for clarifying what sex was for! Who would have thought such strange and foreign concepts, like… an “orgasm” were implemented into our physiology millions of years ago as part of the gay agenda. Either those crafty gays are careful planners, or they’ve mastered time travel! Cluth your bible tight… they can smell fear.
But you know, you are so right. Sex is meant only for procreation. I’m glad to see you’re a living example of this, having only had sex in the missionary position, woman on top (and just long enough for you to get off, I might add… silly pleasure). Since sex is only for procreation, I’m glad to see the american porn industry is failing so miserably, since there’s no need for it… being part of the gay agenda ‘n all.
TL;DR – Go suck an egg, Joey.
30.
fiona64 | June 25, 2010 at 9:10 am
Dear Billy:
“Missionary position” is male-dominant (which I suspect is the only position Joey wants legalized under his manifesto, the which I conveniently swiped from his blog and posted below).
Heck, foreplay at his house probably involves shutting down the lights and saying “Brace yourself, Molly.”
Go read the “manifesto”; you’ll understand why. Joey wants any other sexual act besides penis->vagina to be criminalized.
I guess he doesn’t know that straight folks and gay folks all do the same things. I guess he also wants to be part of the voyeuristic sex police force that would be required to enforce his BS.
Love,
Sharon
31.
nightshayde | June 25, 2010 at 10:04 am
Wow — I lived “the gay agenda” all throughout college without ever having sex with another woman.
Who knew?
Gotta say, JoeyDG’s version of “the gay agenda” was a whole helluva lot of fun.
*reminisces*
*grins … a lot*
32.
Felyx | June 25, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The so called ‘Gay Agenda’ sounds like the good ol’ fashioned American Agenda…grow up harassment free, party (parade), get married, have kids and die a happy death.
It is the Radical Theocratic Agenda that is tearing this nation apart!!!
Restrict Rights, Take Rights away, Silence Minorities and inhibit Freedom of Expression!!!
The Religious Theocrats live in a state of fear that they are losing a way of life….well we all are losing a way of life since live evolves and changes on a second by second basis! Through fear these Theocrats desire to control us all. Fear is an ungodly state and a state that the United States will not tolerate! Heed the words of Winston Churchill!!!
Have no fear!
Felyx
33.
Billy | June 25, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Dear Fiona,
Thanks for clarifying. My sex education consisted of playboy™ magazine and the internet. Therefore, I had no idea what missionary really meant. 2girls1cup yeah I unfortunately know what that is, but missionary… no idea. lol
<3,
Billy
34.
the lone ranger | June 23, 2010 at 2:09 am
If same-sex marriage should be subject to disqualification, akin to epileptics not being able to pilot a plane or idiots wanting to become doctors, then an interesting question would logically be: what characteristics don’t disqualify a man & woman from getting married? Let’s see… you can be infertile, you can be on your death bed, you can be in prison (even for such “anti-family” offenses such as child molestation and spousal abuse… in fact, you can even be on death row with no hope of ever even being with your spouse), you can be once or even multiply-divorced, or you could have just met your fiancée for the first time only moments earlier (perhaps arranged as a business deal by your parents, or perhaps during a half-drunken road trip to Las Vegas). In some states you can be as young as 15 or 16, and in some countries overseas you can be even younger. In parts of the world (& even under-the-radar in parts of UT and AZ) you can be married to multiple people at the same time. While some couples might genuinely marry for love, there’s certainly no shortage of those who marry for money, for power, for residency, or as an obligation (“shotgun” weddings). Granted, in jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage, none of these seeming “disqualifications” stop either gay or straight couples from marrying. But in other jurisdictions, one would be hard-pressed to justify that a loving same-sex couple should be any less qualified to marry than a man & woman falling into one of these other categories.
And don’t get me started on the “nuclear family”… that hasn’t existed for 50 years, and even then it was more of a TV fantasy than a reflection of a healthy and happy reality.
35.
Fulton | June 23, 2010 at 5:17 am
Welcome, JoeyDG!
Nice try, but I am not convinced. Your arguments do not make sense to me.
They assume that procreation is important to me (it is not…we have enough children in the world).
I do not know what you mean by ‘unhappy with the dead-end road.’ I am not on a road. There is more to life than walking a straight line. Step off the road and get lost. That is scary, I know, but I promise, you will find more life beyond the dusty curb. You may even find yourself. Be brave! You may even find those feelings you have, deep inside–the ones you are ashamed of–are good and natural and, above all, real. Come out, JoeyDG, into the light…into life…into love.
Marriage is all about love.
And, while were at it, look up ‘marriage’ in the dictionary. You will now find that it includes marriage equality.
36.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 6:27 am
When you get off your bigoted high horse and come to realize that we are human beings who deserve the same rights to protect OUR families that you already have to pro0tect yours, then you will become MORE American, and more in line with preserving marriage. There is no way on this earth that extending the legal benefits of marriage to all those who are adults will weaken your marriage, unless your marriage is already on the rocks. If you are actually doing the work it takes to preserve your marriage and your relationship, you have nothing to worry about when we gain full marriage equality. But then, it has long been my experience that those who complain the loudest and air the biggest gripes as an excuse to oppress us and keep us from attaining full equality are usually those who have the most to hide in their own lives. What are you hiding?
37.
TPAKyle | June 23, 2010 at 6:35 am
Here’s another word to look up, Dictionary boy:
Main Entry: sanc·ti·mo·nious
Pronunciation: \ˌsaŋ(k)-tə-ˈmō-nē-əs, -nyəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 1603
1 : hypocritically pious or devout
2 obsolete : possessing sanctity : holy
— sanc·ti·mo·nious·ly adverb
— sanc·ti·mo·nious·ness noun
38.
Elliot | June 23, 2010 at 7:07 am
There’s a reason an epileptic shouldn’t be allowed to be a doctor. Doctors serve a specific purpose, and an epileptic would have a terrible time trying to serve the purpose of a doctor.
Marriage also serves a certain purpose as well, a purpose that your side desperately wants to ignore, and that’s to unite a family structure for the purpose of uniting two people who love each other and/or provide a support structure for raising children under their charge regardless of the child’s origins.
Same sex couples have absolutely no problem fulfilling this purpose, which puts it far out of sync with your epileptic analogy. A better analogy would be barring women or black people from becoming doctors, and insisting that doctors have all only ever been white men, and that allowing women and black people would change the definition and destroy what it means to be a doctor.
Long story short: You’re an idiot.
39.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 9:50 am
Elliot, epileptics are not forbidden to be doctors. Epileptics do very well as doctors, due to the medications. However, some of those medications do not function well at high altitudes for extended periods of time, which is why epileptics are not permitted to be fighter-jet pilots.
40.
truthspew | June 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm
An epileptic could be a doctor, just not a surgeon or an ER doc.
41.
Elsie | June 23, 2010 at 8:09 am
JoeyDG, I just had to delurk to add my 2 cents. I’m a married middle age woman who has been married for over 25 years and have no children. Marriage IS about love. That love is productive in many ways, not just REproductive. What are you afraid of?
Prior to getting legally married, my future husband and I lived together for the nearly a decade. It I def. better being officially married. Marriage is wonderful, the more people who want to join the club the better!
42.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 8:47 am
Thank you Elsie! You sound so much like my own Aunt Elsie back in West Virginia. She was a very strong woman, and she had many friends who were of the Rainbow Tribe. When Holy Unions began, she went to see her friends have one, and said she was just so happy to be able to see that. If she were still alive, she would be following this site very closely, and she would be very vociferous in her support for us.
Going back to someone who compared marriage to wine, my mother used to make wine at home, and she said that the greater the variety of grapes and grape juices she started with, the better her wine turned out. So I guess that is similar to what you are saying. Of course, it will take some time to get some people to the point that they can search for the similarities and celebrate the small differences, but that day will come.
Again, thank you for delurking.
43.
Alan E. | June 23, 2010 at 8:23 am
I think you are forgetting all of the same-sex marriages that were going on in BC and during the Middle Ages. Happy Pride to you too.
44.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 8:27 am
Dear JoeyDG:
Quick question for you: I’m a straight, married woman. I am also childfree. When will you be campaigning to take away *my* marriage, since according to you marriage is for “child creation and rearing”? And no, there will be no “well, you might have a child.” I’m 46 years old and, believe you me — if my tubal ligation fails, there will be an abortion so fast that your head will spin.
As for this: that’s if homosexuality truly is a born condition/disposition (which I don’t believe it is).
Well, believe whatever stupidity you want, because science is against you. Just one link out of the hundreds available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11534970
I know, it’s a study by scary science people, but try to overcome your terror.
Love,
Fiona (who always laughs at homophobes who believe that their own heterosexuality is not a choice, but that homosexuality *is.* If it’s a choice, surely the homophobes can just choose to be gay …)
45.
Alan E. | June 23, 2010 at 8:29 am
<3 Straight Married Women who support marriage for all!
46.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 8:42 am
fiona, would you be so kind as to email me the links you have? I would like to put them in my personal blog for others to check out, and that will probably be a lot easier than posting them here and having your comments get stuck in moderation due to having more than one link.
47.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 9:44 am
Richard, I have a boatload of links at home. I’ll send them to you from there. :-)
Love,
Fiona
48.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 9:46 am
Thank you. I am not in such a rush that they have to be sent immediately.
49.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 10:49 am
This is going to be in moderation for a while, but someone kindly compiled this list at another site:
Click to access differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/science/sci-gaybrain17
http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/bbc_birthorder.htm
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers=gay.html
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6209976
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Love,
Fiona
50.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 9:37 am
@JoeyDG:
There are legitimate reasons that epileptics cannot be fighter-jet pilots, primarily because the change in pressure could trigger seizures.
As to your comment about what that love fosters that you are trying to limit only to heterosexuals, let me give you some examples from my own life as to what love fosters and you tell me how that is so damned different from you.
1) my love for my husband fosters in me a sense of responsibility to protect him in the event of my death, and a mere will does not go far enough because that can be challenged by any misguided idiot such as yourself, or the state should they choose to recategorize our marriage as something other than a marriage
2) my love for my husband means that I want to cook for him, to keep our house clean and in good repair so that we both have a roof overhead and are able to have our friends over without making excuses for its appearance
3) my love for my husband means that his children are OUR children, and I will fight to the death to protect them and our granchildren
4) my love for my husband means that I will do whatever is necessary to keep him on the diet his doctor has prescribed for his diabetes so that he is alive longer to enjoy time with our children and grandchildren
5) my love for my husband means that I will defend him tooth and nail against those of you who are so controlling and oppressive in your outlook on life that you are too busy trying to run my life to worry about your own life.
6) my love for my husband means that I will work two jobs if I have to just to make sure that both of us have health insurance, food, clothing, and all the other necessities of life
7) my love for my husband means that I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that we have the same equal rights in our relationship that you enjoy in yours, that because they are limited to one group of adults and only one group of adults can currently be considered special rights, but need to be available to all adults and all adult marriages of two people who love each other so that they can truly be considered equal rights and will finally fall under the constitutional provisions for equality under the law and under the due process clause. And before you go spouting off about what a relationship is all about, before you go spouting off about human rights issues you need to first look at your own self and find out what there is inside of you that you are trying to hide. What is there that you are so afraid of about yourself that you cannot bear to see it brought into the light? Could it be that you are the lady who doth protest too much?
51.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 9:58 am
::standing ovation::
Love,
Fiona
52.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Joey wrote: Support and respect Prop 8 for what it does to protect our society from misunderstanding and detrimental consequences.
Let’s look at what Prop 8 does, shall we?
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%29
Quote: Proposition 8 – Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
That’s it, folks. Joey here wants us to support and respect the removal of an existing right, taken from law-abiding same-sex couples. He’s okay with straight felons on death row getting married, but law abiding gay folks? No dice.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
What Joey fails to understand is this: the real detrimental consequences are that any unpopular group’s rights can now be put on the ballot.
When did I get to vote on whether or not YOU could get married, Joey? I didn’t? Then what gives you the hubris to vote on the marriages of my friends?
53.
Jorge | June 23, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Joey DG I’m always surprised when people who get here actually berate those who follow this page and share in a belief of the idea, yet can’t take the time to see that the prop 8 supporter page does not allow for disagreement or airing your opinion. Your inflexibility is what harms the most. Marriage has evolved -it’s not set to be arranged here -it happens. I hope one day you’ll find happiness with yourself so that you don’t try to take it from someone else.
54.
truthspew | June 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I have no respect for a proposition that removes rights from a class of people if only because of religious animus. That has been amply demonstrated in the recent case.
And it might interest you to know that the Merriam Webster dictionary defines marriage as either between man-woman, or man-man, woman-woman. That must really get your underpants in a bunch.
55.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Oxford Dictionary says:
marriage
• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.
— PHRASES marriage of convenience a marriage concluded primarily to achieve a practical purpose.
— ORIGIN Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry’.
56.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 7:06 pm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
57.
Mouse | June 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm
If someone who has a history of seizures is behind the wheel when the next seizure happens, it is likely that someone will be hurt or killed. Maybe it will just be the guy who couldn’t accept his limitations. Maybe it will be the guy who just happened to be in his way.
There are real consequences. It’s irresponsible and reckless. That’s why the law says no – to protect that random guy on the street who doesn’t deserve to die because you want to drive.
If someone wants to be a doctor but doesn’t have what it takes, it’s totally fair to tell him “Do something else” because faking it could cause actual harm or even kill someone.
If two consenting adults of the same sex get married, no one is going to die. No one is even going to get hurt. No law needs to protect everybody else because there is absolutely no danger. To believe that any couple getting married has any danger for others is delusional.
Your analogies make no sense.
58.
Straight Grandmother | June 24, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Ha ha ha JoeyDC- I guess you never realized that there are many gay couples who use fertility treatments (LIKE MANY hetrosexual couples) to produce children. So gay families ARE procreating, and quite nicely thank you. My twin grandchildren, are the smartest children at daycare, and oh yeah, they go to daycare at NASA. Not only do gays and lesbians procreate but they do so very well, so, ha-ha to your stupid lame argument that marriage is ONLY for procreation BY hetrosexuals. Gays can do it too you dumb ass. My living breathing adorable twin grandchildren suck all the air out of your hateful balloon. I just started reading this trhead so I am sure I will be back at you after reading more of your stupid false comments.
59.
Monty | June 24, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Something’s not quite right here…
60.
Straight Grandmother | June 25, 2010 at 1:11 am
Monty, what is not quite right here? Are you referencing my comments?
61.
Kathleen | June 23, 2010 at 12:21 am
“Look up words in the dictionary like husbandry…”
Wow, now they don’t want us participating in cultivating crops or raising livestock? Who knew?
62.
Fulton | June 23, 2010 at 4:43 am
Kathleen…it is even more insidious than that. I too found it interesting that our tourist chose ‘husbandry.’ I looked it up. The word originally meant…master of the household or steward (as in a ship’s husband). For our tourist, marriage is not about love, it s about control.
63.
Ed | June 23, 2010 at 1:20 am
@JoeyDG- Are you saying you don’t want me to plant a garden with my husband because of Prop 8? The intellectual depth of your comment just matched that of the defense attorneys during the Prop 8 trial. The paradox is that families become remarkably beautiful when there is true diversity in them; marriage becomes more beautiful as more diversity occurs within its folds as an institution. It was not easy for people to adjust to marriage across races; it was not easy for the public to get used to the idea of an integrated military; each institution became more beautiful and more American as those changes occurred. Marriage will become more beautiful as well despite your reactionary posture.
64.
Rebecca | June 23, 2010 at 7:59 am
I’m joining the FB group!
I think, though, that the reason NOM had more fans to begin with is simply a matter of time and exposure. NOM’s Facebook page has probably been up for years now, whereas the Equality on Trial page only had a few months to gather fans.
But I’m super excited that we’ve passed them! It really proves that we have the strongest support on this issue!
65.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 8:22 am
A number of people have cut down on the pages they join (or removed themselves from membership lists) due to FB making “everyone can see this” the default position on page listing, even when everything else on the profile is set to friends only. I had to go down through seven levels of privacy issues to find the place where I could change that setting.
In the mean while, I also removed a great many pages from my list in order to cut down the length of my feed. I tend to agree that the number of “likes” is a peculiar matter on which to base the value of one’s campaign. Quantity =/= quality.
Love,
Fiona
66.
Alan E. | June 23, 2010 at 8:26 am
I spent about 2 hours one afternoon cleaning house and strengthening my security controls. I hate that the default is the least secure. I certainly find myself “Liking” next to nothing. I also post a lot less than I use to, especially photos. Your photos can be used by facebook whenever they want now, even if you delete them or die.
67.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 10:59 am
My purpose for posting here, which appeared to be an open-community forum rather than a private haven or secret gathering place, was to share perspective. If I’m not welcome to post here, just delete it from your site. I’ll post somewhere else where people are open minds.
Just like prop 8 hurts your feelings, breaking prop 8 hurts my feelings and further erodes what society considers my relationship to be. In other words, your happiness is not worth stealing from mine. Your piece of mind is not more important than my piece of mind, and is not more important than the societal recognition/understanding and lawful protection for my wife and our children.
I use the epilepsy example because I have epilepsy. It keeps me not just from from doing a lot of jobs and activities that I’d really like to do, but also is restricted by law. Things like driving a car can be a legal battle for me, constant paperwork, and expensive doctor visits every six months to obtain driving approval. Some epileptics can’t drive at all.
Are they less equal than everyone allowed to drive? The idea behind that restriction is that it protects and otherwise accommodates other people on the road. I can’t change who I am or magically cure my epilepsy. All I can do is to try maximize my potential in the areas where I have ability, and try to ignore or cope with my shortcomings. Luckily, epilepsy didn’t stop me from completing my Bachelor degree in Corporate Finance at one of the most competitive and well-known business schools in the nation nor was it able to keep me from finding a good career. I have had to accept both success and failure in various aspects of my life.
My dad is also by no means an idiot. For one reason or another, he couldn’t get through school to become a doctor. Instead, he served as a field Corpsman (field doctor/doctor assistant) in the Navy patching up Marines for over 20 years. It’s an admirable avenue to happiness when he couldn’t qualify to be a doctor. My parents were also successful in maintaining a traditional nuclear-family containing seven children solely on my father’s enlisted income (even during rough economical times of California). I know a few doctors who don’t have that kind of talent.
Homosexuals aren’t the only people who suffer in life or who have to change course to find happiness. They have no unique claim on sadness or pain. But just like everyone else who can’t physically or mentally qualify for certain avenues of happiness, homosexuals just need to accept the limitations associated with their condition and move on to other things that can make them happy.
Again, it’s not about providing some sense of demographical equality (which in all reality would be providing special exceptions and rights to people who can’t or who refuse to qualify). And yes the nuclear family does exist because my wife and I have put forth the painstaking effort to create one. We want to be as efficient as we can in our marriage to maximize our contribution to society and to our children.
It’s tough seeing others unfairly taking advantage of the title of marriage, and seeing no effective government method for truly policing it. And you think, “If those abusers can do it, and they’re less loving and caring than me, then I should get to participate too.” The answer is not to move towards greater abuse and inclusiveness, but to move closer to the ideal and exclusiveness – that’s where the focus should be right now. If marriage seems unfair due to so many other people in violation of marriage’s intentions, let’s not pile more people onto a sinking boat, let’s do what we can to save it. Why not revoke marriage licenses for people who have no intention to honor the institution of marriage rather than passively let them diminish what marriage means to society – especially if it means that other violators/unqualified people should be allowed in to abuse the system based on similar grounds?
Overpopulation isn’t an issue either – that’s a fallacy. Our nations birth rate is currently below two children per couple. That is not only an unsustainable rate all by itself, but if you include premature mortality rates, population is shrinking without the aid of homosexuality. If every couple of my generation alone only had one child, the population would shrink in half within 75 years – and that’s if every other generation before and after continued to have two children per couple.
In short, there is no legitimate legal reason to change the definition of marriage (which in it’s most basic scientific term, is the bonding of two or more DIFFERING elements to create a new one) to be an all inclusive, undefined term. We voted to keep marriage recognized and authorized by the state as a relationship between a man and a woman – the only possible combination for natural child creation and rearing.
68.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 11:11 am
So you would deny all the peer-reviewed scientific evidence that proves this is an inborn trait and NOT a “condition” as you so inaccurately and hatefully call it, in order to justify your loathing of your fellow human beings. I pity any of your children who happen to be born gay. Will you throw them to the wolves also? Will you listen to those who claim that this is a “choice” when it is not? Will you send your child through the “reparative” therapy that has only led to an increase in the suicide rate? Or will you then join the human race? NO, this site is not necessarily a safe haven, but one of the basic requirements is that before you cast stones and aspersions upon other human beings you should be able to realize that your words and your actions will have consequences. And if you are not permitted to drive a car, that indicates to me that you are not taking full advantage of the medical advances in the treatment of epilepsy. I happen to know quite a few epileptics who drive cars and do all the things you say your epilepsy prevents you from doing. Try telling that fairy tale to someone else. Yes, it would be detrimental for you to be a fighter pilot, primarily because even the best of the epilepsy medications have problems that high up in the air for that long a period of time. But do not try to compare epilepsy to being born gay. One is a medically treated condition, the other is an immutable trait on the same level as being left-handed. And how many people are prevented from getting married because they are left-handed? Next time, try coming up with a valid argument that actually has some basis in fact, rather than being based in stereotypes and other hogwash.
69.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 11:13 am
The difference is, Nazi, is that legalizing marriage will still allow you to live your ugly hate filled life how ever you choose….but denying it from us tells us how we have to live our lives according to your overbearing control freak “moral superiority” violating my 1st & 14th amendment rights.
You’re whole anti-American inhuman argument depends on “what if’s”
There are nearly 7 billion people in the world…..the human race will never die out based on procreation you illogical irrational piece of trash.
No marriage license means no social security benefits, no tax benefits, if you marry someone from another county you can’t live together in this country, no shared health insurance, the economy would completely fall apart because the majority of people who get married do not do it for religious reasons.
What you Nazis want is to force us to conform to your “ideal” or f@#k off….what we want is for you to leave us the f@#k alone get out of our lives and mind your own f@#king business……<3…Ronnie
70.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Joey, dear, one of the first thing I learned when I took up forensic science as a major was a little game we like to call “follow the money.”
We all know that President Monson and the Quorum sent out “callings” designating how much money each stake and ward were supposed to come up with “voluntarily,” how many people were expected to go knocking on doors, and even about the instructions given so that people wouldn’t “look too Mormon.”
In case anyone is *not* aware of that information, please go to this site. The links are all there. http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=249
Sweetie, you can pretend all day that people don’t know about your Church’s involvement. It just doesn’t work with the more educated, critically thinking crowd.
I know about your church, because I have nice Mormon parents and I know how to read.
I also know how to play “follow the money.”
71.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan | June 25, 2010 at 1:31 pm
@fiona:
It would cost apporximately $1 million to get Joey to a deprogrammer, because he is so thoroughly programmed that they would havbe to work on him for at least a decade to undo all the damage, if it could be undone even then.
72.
the lone ranger | June 23, 2010 at 11:50 am
Here’s where Joey’s Mormonism shines through. He says, “…the definition of marriage (which in it’s most basic scientific term, is the bonding of two or more DIFFERING elements to create a new one)”. He emphasizes the word “differing”, but the more telling phrase in his ad-hoc non-scientific definition is the “or more”. Same-sex marriage bothers him, but it seems polygamy doesn’t. I wonder if he’s a Hilsdale/Colorado City resident?
73.
Owen | June 23, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I’m going to go with Bountiful.
74.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 12:54 pm
He is definitely in the SLC area if he is going to BYU. Click on the blue link in his handle here and you will also see a very derogatory slogan at the top of the home page. So he not only wants to insult the LGBTQQIA community, he is also anti-Hispanic.
75.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Provo, Utah. I went to his website.
Love,
Fiona
76.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Right. You try to classify us all into one small religious group. Sorry, but a vote that big isn’t coming from Utah. lol
77.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:12 pm
PS — Joey here is a wedding videographer. He supports Prop 8 because he has a business that he offers to the public. That means that, under the Unruh Act, he cannot legally say “Ewww, no,” if a gay couple asks him to videotape their legal wedding and he does not already have a conflicting booking. Prop 8 gives him the right to say “Eww, no” and discriminate to his heart’s content in the event that someone in CA wanted to use a Utah kid with a video camera to capture their nuptials on tape.
It is amazing how people try to disguise their bigotry, isn’t it? And yet it takes so very little to suss them out.
Love,
Fiona
78.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Right. cry baby Joey….You try to classify us all into one small group. Sorry, but our community includes Gay, Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Male, Female, Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, All Ages, All Races, Colors & Nationalities, Creeds, Sizes, & Non-Religious……we aren’t the ones being elitists & Fascists…..that’s Ya’ll….so sad……<3…Ronnie
79.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm
@JoeyDG
And actually, yes it did. By orders of “The Prophet” and his minions who set out to call everyone in the wards across California and use lies, stereotypes, outdated information that has since been proven to be false and other prurient tactics to falsely influence a vote that would not have affected any of you if your own marriages are sound. Do not try to lie about what your church has done. Especially since it joined in with the Roman Catholics to do it. Get thee behind me, Satan!
80.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I’m just using the definition from the dictionary. Consider that you can’t marry water to water. You can marry multiple sauces though to create a new sauce.
@ fiona
I donated to the Prop 8 campaign, made phone calls, and actively participated in online discussions while attending school. Later, the LDS church leadership came out and urged members to volunteer and participate. You should also know that ultimately, the LDS church has a total world-wide membership of 13 M. 13,743,177 voted on Prop 8 in California as registered California voters. Sorry, but what you’re advocating is impossible. Additionally, Hollywood and friends provided more campaign money and support against prop 8 than all of the combined funds for Prop 8 (more than $3M).
If you want to discuss dirty money, Apple Inc. donated a large chunk of corporate money without share-holder approval or discussion. Some other gay advocates did the same. This was far more than the few thousand dollars worth of non-monetary support provided by the LDS church,
81.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Apple is not a church, taking tax-free funds and functioning as a PAC.
Here’s another great article about Joey’s church and how it functioned as a PAC: http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=255&cpage=1#comment-8792
BTW, Joey, Prop 8 only passed by 2 percent of the vote — and that because of lies and fear-mongering on the part of your church.
The balance is swinging against you, Joey. One day, the history books will look upon people like you with the same kind of horror that we currently reserve for the Ku Klux Klan, and be astonished that any group’s rights were put on the ballot for removal.
Which of your rights is it okay to put up for a vote, Joey?
“The first one now shall later be last, for the times they are a-changin’ …”
82.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Oh, and Joey? ProtectMarriage.com, that little front group that the Mormon church put together (and yes, we all know about it)? Sent out a blackmail letter to the corporations that donated money in favor of marriage equality, attempting to shake down similar donations for themselves. The signatories on the document? Prominent LDS administrators.
Love,
Fiona
83.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I haven’t updated my site in about two years, but thanks for the hits. lol
I have since graduated, sold my business, and am now living in Washington for work. I’m actually a native Californian. Now that I have introduced myself, lets learn more about you guys.
@ Fiona
I’m responding to about four or five people at once. We just met and I apologize for confusing your sexuality with the other gay anti-heterosexuals. If it’s any consolation, I can still easily justify your sexual deviancy based on your advocative actions and moral ideals rather than strictly based on your own sexual relationship.
84.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 4:08 pm
You see uneducated crybaby Joey….Businesses are allowed too as long as they report it…..NOM did not….second tax exempt churches are not allowed to…3rd religion has no place in the government of a SECULAR society….America is NOT a Theocracy …you dingbat don’t get that….there is NO LAW that says I have to live my life according to your religious beliefs……
Lastly it is funny that you should mention the Dictionary……
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : THE SATE OF BEING UNITED TO A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX IN A RELATIONSHIP LIKE THAT OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
The definition has already changed you want to change it back to fit your own selfish, greedy, elitist, Fascist, spoiled, brat, mine, mine, mine, mine, it belongs to me don’t touch, go away childish agenda….FAIL….<3…Ronnie
85.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Joey wrote: We just met and I apologize for confusing your sexuality with the other gay anti-heterosexuals. If it’s any consolation, I can still easily justify your sexual deviancy based on your advocative actions and moral ideals rather than strictly based on your own sexual relationship.
Whatever, Joey. Frankly, I think you’re just jealous that there are people who have more life experience than you do. You can’t justify crap about me, sweetie. Worry about what’s broken in your own backyard before you try looking in at my windows.
That said, if you do look in at my windows to check out the alleged deviancy in my marriage (you know, the thing you call a sexual relationship, since I’m not breeding)? Take notes. I guarantee your wife will thank you for it.
86.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 4:17 pm
P.S. Joey Death Gestapo
We are not anti-heterosexual…as you can see we have heterosexuals who support us…on this site….and we support them…you are not a heterosexual…..you are a homophobic anti-Ameircan haterosexual…you don’t even full under the title heterosexual….that word is too good for you…Heterosexuals are human with a soul, a heart, empathy, compassion…you have none of those…you’re empty vessel of flesh…that makes for a very unhealthy meal for some very hungry insects six feet under….I hope not in the near future but eventually thats where you will end up as will all of us…..but you sanctimonious pieces of insect food then you are some how more important then us…sorry bust your “Kingdom of heaven” bubble…but your not…<3…Ronnie
87.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:50 pm
72. fiona64
Right… cast the beam… Well, if there’s a beam in your eye, then it doesn’t matter if the messenger has a beam in their eye, you should still value the critique when someone’s willing to offer it up. As far as never having lived, I don’t need to experience homosexual relations in order to claim that I have life experience. My life experience has come in a much different way and involves caring for my wife and three children.
88.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Ah but your life experience is not ours and not everybody else’s but you dingbats think you have the right to force us to live our lives according to your ideal of what life is you don’t have the right….get over it loser…..<3…Ronnie
89.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:19 am
Joey DelliGatti wrote: Right… cast the beam… Well, if there’s a beam in your eye, then it doesn’t matter if the messenger has a beam in their eye, you should still value the critique when someone’s willing to offer it up. As far as never having lived, I don’t need to experience homosexual relations in order to claim that I have life experience. My life experience has come in a much different way and involves caring for my wife and three children.
You know what, Joey? I’ ve never experienced “homosexual relations” either. I have, however, been out in the world and discovered that ::gasp:: there are people who are different from me and ::even bigger gasp:: they have the same rights I do.
I know, it’s scary.
You aren’t offering a “critique,” little you. You’re offering hate speech.
Tell me: are you able to talk without President Monson’s hand jammed through the hole in your back?
90.
fiona64 | June 25, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Hatespeech Joey wrote: If it’s any consolation, I can still easily justify your sexual deviancy based on your advocative actions and moral ideals rather than strictly based on your own sexual relationship.
Yep, folks, I went around specifically looking for this, because I wanted to make sure I correctly quoted what Joey said to and about me.
Joey DelliGatti says that straight allies of GLBT equality are “sexually deviant” because we think our friends should have the same rights we do.
My “moral ideals,” Joey, consist in all people having equal treatment under the law — not just people who look like me, or who attend the same church as me, or who are the same ethnicity. ALL PEOPLE.
If that’s your idea of immorality, Joey-boy? I’ll take it.
(I wonder how much it would cost us to get Joey to a deprogammer?)
91.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Dear JoeyDG:
I notice that you did not respond to my question, so I guess perhaps you did not understand it. Let me phrase it another way.
Please show me the legal requirement that a) one must procreate in order to be married and, b) that one must be married in order to procreate.
Then, please show me how your “nuclear family” is in any way, shape or form impacted by the marriage of some couple you don’t even know — gay or straight.
I’ll wait.
Love,
Fiona
92.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm
You say “love”, but I’m not honestly sensing sincerity from you.
What does it take to be legally homosexual? In fact, just look up the requirements for “sexual intercourse” in any pre-1970s dictionary. To see the effects of changing the definition of a word, look what happened with the phrase “sexual intercourse” over the last 50 years due to the “sexual revolution’s” desire to simply add to the meaning. It has led us to where we are now. When marriage can be an all-inclusive relationship, who else does that open the door for in 10-50 more years? You mock and express disapproval towards polygamy and pedophilia, and at the same time want greater inclusion for your own sexual deviancy.
To learn the legal requirements of marriage, review the history of marriage. In ancient times (as far back as about 4,000 years), after a marriage was proposed and accepted, a betrothal/espousal period took place for a given time until it was finalized through consummation in the husband’s tent/house. A marriage wasn’t recognized until proof was presented to community officials that the marriage was consummated. Marriages that didn’t produce children were disputed and rejected (look at Napoleon’s marriage to Joséphine de Beauharnais and other famous marriages that didn’t produce offspring).
Land and property dowries were granted by parents in similitude of the marriage (and still often are today). When two people joined together, they brought property with them. The resulting child (a product of two families) would inherit the combined properties and would combine the resulting property with another person. When both members of the couple died, the child would inherit both lands… and so on. If no child resulted, when the couple died, the property went back to the providing family or was won back through war. Although people focused on the similitude (or symbol) provided by high society, it still all hinged on a reproductive relationship.
Nowdays, we don’t send a priest or a judge out to the honeymoon hotel to check the sheets nor do we check back in a year to ensure a baby resulted to inherit a birth right. It’s based on good faith and assumptions that a marriage will take place. Governments have become somewhat lenient in their propriety – which is likely why the definition of marriage is even in question and given a trial in California.
If a heterosexual couple doesn’t produce, society is often willing to accept the heterosexual relationship as marriage because it can provide the same reproductive relationship and example to adopted children or may eventually still result in a true marriage. One of my married friends were told that they couldn’t ever have children of their own and that they would have to adopt. After seven years of marriage, they now have a baby daughter. So, when the possibilities aren’t 100 percent certain, the marriage isn’t policed or given a time restraint. This kind of relationship is still much more appropriate to revere as a marriage than a homosexual relationship.
People who marry with the intention of aborting any resulting children are leeching off of a system of which they should not be permitted to take part. If you have no intention of ever creating children through your exclusive sexual relationship, why do you think you require a marriage? Plenty of people have exclusive sexual relationships not bound by legal paperwork.
Love isn’t marriage. Love is not a contract that needs legal consideration. Love is a feeling – often described as a sense of devotion or warm fuzzies. I get warm loving tingles when my children tell me they love me, when my best buddy hugs me or when I watch a really motivating political speech – that doesn’t mean that I should literally marry any of them. I only marry the person with whom I plan on literally procreating, and to whom I plan on dedicating my life to helping rear our children.
I have an idea: let’s change the definition of “legal”. lol
93.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Joey said to me: You mock and express disapproval towards polygamy and pedophilia, and at the same time want greater inclusion for your own sexual deviancy.
Wow, folks. It appears that Joey here cannot read for comprehension.
How am I sexually deviant, Joey? I’m a straight, married woman. Am I “sexually deviant” because I don’t want kids? Because I have GLBT friends?
Do tell, Joey. How am I sexually deviant? Are you looking in at windows to see what my husband and I do? If so, I hope you’re taking notes.
Love,
Fiona
94.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Joey wrote: People who marry with the intention of aborting any resulting children are leeching off of a system of which they should not be permitted to take part. If you have no intention of ever creating children through your exclusive sexual relationship, why do you think you require a marriage? Plenty of people have exclusive sexual relationships not bound by legal paperwork.
My tubes were tied long before I met my husband. Why should I be forced to have unwanted children in order to satisfy your religious mores? My husband and I chose to get married because we love each other and wanted to create a family together. And guess what? Families do not require children in order to exist. We married for companionship, love, working together, and so on. Yes, there are benefits that come with that.
Just because our marriage doesn’t look like one to you, who obviously thinks women are broodmares, doesn’t mean it isn’t. We have the little piece of paper to prove you wrong.
95.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 3:28 pm
har har…”let’s change the definition of “legal””…..jack ass
There you go Nazi trash comparing us to pedophiles…its funny how you ignorant piece of maggot food flesh bags don’t see how insulting an offensive that is…would you like to be compared to that you f@$king waste of human life?
IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO BE HOMOSEXUAL IN THIS COUNTRY…those other things are…specifically pedophilia and why you might ask?…..because quite often there is a involuntary un-concentual victim involved…you really are an uneducated price of trash….
If you don’t get married because of Love then you shouldn’t get married at all…you are nothing but garbage..YOU CAN DO WHATEVER THE F@#K YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR UGLY MEANINGLESS MARRIAGE….
But you have no constitutional right to tell me what to do with my marriage and my personal life…YOU ARE A NAZI….I pay just as much taxes as you do therefore I am entitled to EVERY single right, privilege, & benefit issued to you be the federal government and you have no say so on how they are issued to me….Get over it…move on with your miserable insignificant empty waste of human life….You do not have the right to control ANYBODY based on your religious Doctrine…it is a violation of my 1st & 14th amendment rights…you are an unconstitutional, unlawful, immoral, unethical, anti-American parasite destroying American Freedom.
People like you crybaby Joey are the bottom of bottom of scum that infects society destroying everything that is good about Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…..so sad that your insignificance is less relevant then toxic waste…..<3…Ronnie
96.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Ronnie, it’s obvious that Joey’s wife is nothing more than a broodmare. After all, marriage isn’t about love — it’s about breeding.
When it comes to dogs and horses, maybe — but the higher animals? Not so much.
Love,
Fiona
97.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Joey made the mistake of wanting to address the history of marriage. Oh, little man, I am so glad to help.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
Marriage was about cementing property rights, with the woman being part of the property settlement. It was NOT a matter of religion. Children were assumed as a matter of course, because contraception was not reliable — but it did exist.
Marriage throughout history has not been what you insist it is — one man and one woman, with breeding mandated. That’s a relatively new religious concept, frankly. If you visit the website (I know, more scary science-y anthropology people) I just linked, you might just learn something. More to follow.
98.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Now, let’s talk about how the Catholic church had a specific ceremony for uniting two men in marriage: the Adelphopoiia rite:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html
Yep — gay marriage, way back in the day.
More to come.
99.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Now, let’s look at how marriage works in matrifocal societies. Joey, that’s a fancy anthropology word for “the men aren’t in charge.” Don’t faint, okay?
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120128836/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
I share these few links (among many) to let you know that , despite your protestations, marriage has NOT always been the same way throughout time.
As much as it must hurt your heart, Napoleon and Josephine had a love match. Her barren state did not cause her to be “rejected.” (Did your bishop feed you that nonsense? ‘Cause you sure didn’t find it in any history books.)
Every stupid argument that you’ve brought up here? Was used as a “reason” that people of color and Caucasians should not be allowed to marry. Every single one. You’ve brought nothing new to the table whatsoever.
100.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:47 pm
PS to Joey:
I recommend a quick visit to crackafrigginbook.com. You sneered at the fact that I would terminate a pregnancy if my tubal ligation feels.
Look up ectopic pregnancy. I know. Scary science stuff *again.* That’s what happens when someone’s tubal fails, and it’s either “abort or die.”
I’m not willing to die to gestate a doomed and unwanted pregnancy just because some sanctimonious, religious twerp-boy thinks I should. You are male and will never have to deal with it.
Keep your ignorant nose out of my uterus, and out of the bedrooms and marriages of my friends.
101.
Rebecca | June 24, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Joey, by your own explanation of the history of marriage, it is constantly changing. We used to require proof of cosommation. Now we don’t. There used to be no minumum age for getting marriage, resulting in 12 year old girls being married to 60 year old men. Now we don’t allow that either.
Marriage, like any other word, is constantly changing in definition and based on its context.
Yet another case where people with anti-gay prejudice end up helping our side and contradicting themselves when they argue.
102.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 1:19 pm
@Joey Delli Gatti: “My purpose for posting here, which appeared to be an open-community forum rather than a private haven or secret gathering place, was to share perspective. If I’m not welcome to post here, just delete it from your site. I’ll post somewhere else where people are open minds.”
You *are* free to post here, unlike NOM and the various other pro-h8 sites out there. However, that does not mean people will not call you out on your bullshit. If you really do have an open mind, you are going to have to accept that people here will disagree with you. Particularly as this site is opposed to prop-h8. You did realize that right?
Of course you did, so stop whining.
“In other words, your happiness is not worth stealing from mine.”
WTF does that even mean? How would me marrying some guy ‘steal your happiness’? Is your marriage diminished by me marrying some guy? Really? Your marriage must be a very fragile thing then.
I know, given your mormon upbringing that gay people are ‘icky’ to you, but my relationships have nothing to do with you or your religious beliefs. I have never understood why haters like you seem to insist otherwise. I don’t care who you marry and how how many children you pump out. I really don’t. That’s entirely your affair. Grant me the same courtesy. Why is it so hard for you haters to do that?
“We voted to keep marriage recognized and authorized by the state as a relationship between a man and a woman – the only possible combination for natural child creation and rearing.”
And… SCENE! Back to the old ‘marriage is for procreation’ again. Sorry, it is not. Maybe your religion dictates this for you, it does not for me. You will just have to accept that fact.
103.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Take a gander at Mr. DelliGatti’s blog, where he tries the old canard that homosexuality and pedophilia are related.
Once again, we have that scary science stuff to prove him wrong:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link
Quote:
Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don’t identify as homosexual-the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. In contrast, child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults, but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence and controlling their humiliated victims. Indeed, research supports that a child molester isn’t any more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.
In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children. In these situations, an adult male is trusted by those around him, including children and their families. Males are often given access to boys to mentor, teach, coach and advise. Therefore, a male pedophile may have easier access to a male child. In trying to make sense of an adult male’s sexually abusing a male child, many of us mislabel it as an act of homosexuality, which it isn’t.
Seriously, Joey, I wish your ignorance were as painful for you as the lies that you tell about my GLBT friends are for them and their allies.
Love,
Fiona
104.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Hopefully, you aren’t ignorant enough to believe that your relationship only affects you and one other person. Please refer to my doctor example in another post.
Well, a few thousands of years of marriage being pretty much exclusively considered a procreative relationship certainly doesn’t need to determine your happiness. Call “red” “blue” if you want, just don’t try to force the rest of the country to accept it as such.
The reason “procreation” is stated so much is because it somehow slips your minds repeatedly when you just decide it’s an inconvenient truth that you don’t want to deal with.
105.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 5:47 pm
@ 83. fiona64
You can make the association if you want. I recognize that pedophiles can be both homosexual and heterosexual. You take my statement out of context. It’s specifically in reference to pedophiles involved in the all-men BSA program.
You just can’t say that no pedophiles are homosexual. You can’t disassociate gender and sexuality and still maintain that “homosexual” is even a word. Up until a few years ago, NAMBLA was affiliated with the ILGA. NAMBLA wasn’t banned from the group based on moral issues, but was banned on grounds that the ILGA couldn’t get funding from the UN as long as they continued to promote pedophilia. Before homosexuality was deemed a sexual orientation rather than an illness, it shared the same organization and fate as pedophilia. When pedophilia didn’t get the same approval, the LGBT movement ditched them and continued on without them.
A rather interesting moral dilemma. I only associate the two though in the fact that many pedophiles engage in homosexual sex and that they are both sexually deviant behaviors.
106.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 5:52 pm
An inconvenient truth that you don’t want to deal with crybaby Joey Death Gestapo…..is that you have no right to tell me how to live my life or control my life based on your nazi-esque moral superiority….you religious psychos don’t own the country or our lives…you are NOT entitled to tell how to live our lives…you are not or boss and we are not your property….you don’t own the word marriage…get over it…move on you insignificant piece of insect food…..<3….Ronnie
107.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Homosexuality is not deviant….and you have no proof that is….because it says it in the Bible doesn’t count ……the Bible is not America Law…and you need to accept that and shut the F@#K up…
Once again you insulted & offended at least one person in this community…but I should respect you and not call you names?……who the F@#K made you God?…….go to your version of hell trash bag….My 1st amendment rights say that I don’t have to follow your Bible or your religious beliefs…so your Bible related definitions don’t apply to me….go shove your Bible up your ASSume you think you have any relevance to the world you ugly loser…..<3…Ronnie
108.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:22 am
Joey, let me put this in as small of words as possible, okay?
The VAST majority of pedophiles self-identify as straight. Pedophiles do not care about the gender of the child — at the age they prefer, gender dimorphism (oops, big science word — it means that the “parts” are different) is almost non-existent. They don’t care about gender, they care about availability.
That you would equate this to two consenting adults entering into a loving relationship tells me just what kind of a disgusting pervert YOU are.
109.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:32 pm
JoeyDelliGatti wrote: Overpopulation isn’t an issue either – that’s a fallacy.
Um, no. It is an absolute reality.
http://www.overpopulation.org/USAFactsZPG.html
I know, more scary facts by science people …
You’re welcome.
Love,
Fiona
110.
Tigger | June 23, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Good lord dude. How does two people you don’t even know, living 3000miles away, in wedded bliss make you and you family unhappy? And you think the “homosexules” need to change their course to be happy.
You’re probably a good man and a kind father but you need to cool it with the “i know whats better for you than you” BS. Honestly.
111.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm
@Ronnie: To say nothing of the fact that Merriam-Webster is not a legal dictionary. (Joey did specify that we should be looking in pre-1970 dictionaries for our definitions, BTW).
Let’s look at the actual legal definition, shall we? Unfortunately, Black’s Law Dictionary is not on-line. However, NOLO’s is.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/marriage-term.html
The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment.
I don’t see one peep in there about the genders of the two people involved …
Love,
Fiona (who is really embarrassed for Joey and feels sorry for his wife)
112.
Fulton | June 25, 2010 at 5:55 pm
finoa64…thank you for taking the time to walk with our tourist. I’ve learned a great deal from you and I consider myself well read. Thank you for your support!
113.
Felyx | June 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm
If an epileptic (or any other person with a similar serious condition) loses control of the vehicle they are using (be it plane or car) they can KILL people.
No one has died or ever will die just because two lesbians paid a few bucks for a marriage license! (However evidence suggests there will be fewer gay related hate murders and gay related suicides.)
Join reality….it will be a lot easier on your psyche. =\ Felyx
114.
Mouse | June 23, 2010 at 5:46 pm
“Again, it’s not about providing some sense of demographical equality (which in all reality would be providing special exceptions and rights to people who can’t or who refuse to qualify).”
That’s equality thing is actually ALL that it is about.
We’re talking about protecting our relationships so that if our partner of 50 years passes away, we are legally recognizes as next-of-kin – so that his “family” he hasn’t spoken to during most of that time can’t back a U-haul up to the front door end empty our house and leave us with nothing.
We’re talking about protecting our relationships so that if one of us has to go into long-term care, the other is recognized as more than a roommate. Look up Clay Greene and Harold Scull of Sonoma County.
We’re talking about protecting our relationships so that if one of us is in the hospital, the rights to make decisions about our spouses don’t default to the parents who threw them out when they were children.
This lists more of what the inequality translates to in the real world. http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=5518
115.
Goerge | June 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Hi JoeyDG –
Welcome to the opposing viewpoint club (right now it’s me, you and a couple of others who haven’t postsed recently).
I can’t add anything to your eloquent remarks; you don’t strike me as a bigot ( a popular term here for anyone who disagrees), and you seem genuinely interested in preserving marriage. Bravo.
As one of six from a nuclear family who has his own nuclear family and who has lots of friends who have nuclear families, I think the poster who said that the nuclear family is a fantasy just didn’t have a good one. I think a lot of folks here have suffered that same sad upbringing, and I believe that in large part, that’s why they resent nuclear families so much that they want to destroy them.
I agree with you that we should be working to change our laws to enourage stable nuclear families: remove incentives for fathers to bolt, encourage marriage for those who intend to have children so that children are less likely to be orphaned. Over 40% of children born in the US are born out of wedlock and likely to be orphaned by their dads.
I also think that other relationships not involving kids are not part of the intent of marriage laws: marriage is an institution to encourage moms and dads to stay together and be responsible for their kids. Just because others are messing it up (divorcees, abusive dads/moms, unwed parenting, single moms) does not mean we should just abandon this most important institution for the rearing of children and allow any two knuckleheads get “married.” Legalizing gay marriage just degrades the institution – it has no effect on my marriage – at a societial level. It discourages life-long relationships between men and women by saying that biological moms and dads do not matter.
Welcome JoeyDG!
116.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 12:05 pm
ANTI-AMERICAN NAZI
117.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Well, I sse that contrary to what he promised us before, that George has lied once again and returned. You promised us that we would not have to hear from you again until the verdict is announced. Guess that means you are a member of MagPie GagonHer’s little group of lying sheeple who think you are so morally superior just because you believe that oppression of the masses through mind control is the way to go. Get lost, and take Joey DG with you.
118.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Take care.
119.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Oh, good god. It’s the LDS contingent, here to tell us why we should all be forced to live our lives according to JoeyDG’s “church’s” rules.
I honestly am sick and tired of the Mormon church. During my recent visit home, my father asked if I would be baptized LDS and sealed to him and my mother in the temple. As I have done every single time, I said “I respectfully decline.”
Then he argued with me. I again said, “I respectfully decline.”
Then he said that he would just have me baptized posthumously if that’s what it took.
I told him I would haunt him until the end of time, because I wanted no part of a church that says that womens’ sole purpose is to bear children “for her husband’s glory,” did not grant full membership to people of color until they ran afoul with the IRS and the prophet had a politically expedient “revelation,” and are now using the weight of the pulpit to take away rights from law-abiding citizens.
Joey, your church is a big ol’ pile of hypocrisy. You still seal men to multiple women via proxy baptism while decrying polygamy in the public circle. You insist that all marriages should be procreative, and that those who don’t want to, or cannot, procreate should remain celibate.
How about if you and your church stop peeping in at peoples’ windows and worry more about your own backyard? You and your church are infringing on MY religious rights, to say nothing of civil law, when you try to take your insane doctrine outside of the building where it belongs.
Go back to temple and pray for forgiveness for the hatred and pain you are inflicting on the public, you absurd little boy. You are about as far from being Christ-like as I can possibly imagine.
120.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Dear George:
Please let us know how your “nuclear family” is impacted by anyone else’s family — gay or straight.
I’ll wait.
Love,
Fiona
121.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Laws aren’t merely forced restrictive guidelines. Laws testify and teach what society finds as acceptable. They present methods for keeping the most freedom for the most people. Even in places where laws don’t need to be actively enforced, if people love the law and adhere to it, it should typically maximize their role to society and their happiness within it. The key is finding a way to love the law more than a divergent lifestyle.
My family is affected by the way society treats it and understands it. Society should foster that environment and provide it with the respect and reverence that it needs to ensure its greatest potential for success.
122.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Joey, do you actually have an answer for the question?
No?
Didn’t think so.
Your family is not treated one bit differently because same-sex couples are allowed to marry.
Imbecile.
123.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm
You don’t deserve shite crybaby Joey….not one single thing…..
The Bible is not American Law…Your religion is not the national religion….I don’t have to follow I don’t have to believe it…..and you have know right to force me to live my life by it though legislation…If you don’t like it…to bad..this is not Joey’s country….this is not Mormon’s country……This is America…We the People…..not we the heterosexuals….not we the Christians…Not we the Mormons….We the people……LGBT people are the people also and you will respect our rights whether you like it or not…IF YOU DEMAND THAT WE RESPECT YOURS YOU WILL RESPECT OURS….
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE….you will have no peace in this country if you continue to oppress us with your sanctimonious, self righteous holier-then-thou bull shite…..move on comrade…you are no better then slave owner, no better then those hanged people in Salem, no better the those who raped and nearly brought the Native American to extinction…..You are on the wrong side of history and when this gets written into the books your name will be written as the villain the religious reich always has and always will be the evil villain…so sad….thats what you choose to be….<3…Ronnie
124.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:24 pm
How many proxy wives do you have (so far), Joey?
125.
the lone ranger | June 23, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Goerge says:
“As one of six from a nuclear family who has his own nuclear family and who has lots of friends who have nuclear families, I think the poster who said that the nuclear family is a fantasy just didn’t have a good one. I think a lot of folks here have suffered that same sad upbringing, and I believe that in large part, that’s why they resent nuclear families so much that they want to destroy them.”
That’s an awful lot of nuclear families you’re describing, comprised of a lot of diverse individuals. Do you really know everyone’s secrets? Who has private problems with alcohol or drugs? Who’s had an affair or been seriously tempted? Who presents an image of perpetual happiness at public functions, but covers up moments of resentment, anger, disappointment or dissatisfaction at home? Who fights about money? Ultimately… who’ll be divorced within 5 years? Get back to us when you know the real answers to questions like these.
Sure, I’m being a bit melodramatic, but you’re being way naïve if you believe these families you know (including your own) don’t have a myriad of flaws below the façade. But these flaws don’t necessarily matter. I didn’t come from a nuclear family, but I had a pretty good upbringing. Was it perfect? Of course not. But now years later, I’m successful, I’m reasonably happy (there’s always room for more happiness), and life is pretty good. It was hardly a “sad” upbringing, despite not conforming to your narrow view.
Incidentally, advocating for diverse non-nuclear families is not an attempt to destroy the “idealized” nuclear family. The true nuclear family is like a huge flawless emerald. It might be wonderful to have (for some people, it would seem), but it’s effectively non-existent. Even for those that insist on striving for that huge flawless emerald, it certainly wouldn’t justify banning all regular emerald sales because one person’s opinion of “perfection” can virtually never be achieved in real life. And caveat emptor… that huge flawless emerald invariably turns out to be fake… that how one distinguishes it from the real thing!
126.
Goerge | June 23, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Hey Fiona –
I know several people who chose to identify as homosexuals. They dated and slept with women for years, but ultimately chose to sleep with men exclusively.
I would imagine that other people have done the opposite and chose to identify as solely heterosexual because they wanted to get married, settle down and have kids of their own. We don’t hear from this people because of the stigma that homosexuality has in our society, but we certainly have seen some of them in our public officials.
127.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm
NO YOU DON’T……..ANTI-AMERICAN NAZI
Homosexuality is not a choice and you can’t prove it….and even if it was which it is not you have NO right to tell me how to live my life and control how I live my life….go procreate with your ugly wife…get out of our lives….mind your own f@#king business you insignificant sanctimonious piece of plant food…..<3…Ronnie
128.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 12:26 pm
The fact that some homosexual couples have children from their previous heterosexual marriages/relationships is evidence enough to say that homosexual DNA at least isn’t the case for all homosexuals.
129.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Stay in Salt Lake City.
130.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Joey, is the education at BYU really that shabby?
Surely you know that people have lived closeted lives, right? That they got married and forced themselves to be intimate with people to whom they were not attracted in an effort to “fit in” or, even more sad, keep from being beaten or killed?
Folks, don’t homeschool your kids … this is what happens when you do.
Love,
Fiona
131.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm
No wrong again you uneducated ignorant little imbecile..Same gender couples also have adopted children, foster children, children through surrogacy (who are biologically & legally theirs)…..We seek to protect all children you dingbats seek to degrade and demean our children under the guise of “Protect children” what it really is…is “protect” heterosexual children only as well as the children of heterosexuals only while degrading out children….you elitist disgusting pigs and not even worthy of having or raising children…..<3…Ronnie
132.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 1:50 pm
@ Fiona
That’s cute. I wonder if you’d be willing to disclose the same information about yourself. Where is your url link?
@ Richard
Sorry, I’m not in Salt Lake. Orange County, CA is my hometown but I’m in Washington currently. Stay in SF.
————
Honestly, I didn’t come here to battle it out with you guys or to be abused by your rhetoric and personal attacks. I merely saw an opportunity to present some of the reasoning for the other side in order to bring more understanding to the open-minded. It was an act of intended care and consideration.
There are some abusive personalities here. Should I have expected that from homosexuals? Does the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth really accompany what it means to be homosexual?
133.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Dear Joey:
Are you really assuming that everyone here is gay?
My husband will be amused to learn that about me.
You chose to share your information; I chose to look at it. You don’t like what you exposed about yourself? Change what you share.
You aren’t sharing any “reasoning” whatsoever — just more stupid Mormon talking points that have been seen here over and over and over again.
134.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Joey wrote: It was an act of intended care and consideration.
You know what this statement about your coming here reminds me of, Joey? The minister who told me that my abusive former fiance wouldn’t “have to” hit me if I would just go home and be a better woman.
“I hit you because I care about you” is crap, and so is this excuse for your coming in here and spreading lies and hatred about my GLBT friends, disparaging my marriage because I chose not to have kids, and stomping over the religious rights of the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, Wiccans, Reformed Jewish Congregations and a whole lot of other folks who were happy to publicly honor the marriage covenants of same sex couples.
Save it, okay? None of us are impressed.
135.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Oh poor baby…the gays & straights are yelling at me…aweeeeeeeee….poor baby….
Get off your high horse you immature piece of trash
Does the heartless, emotionless, soulless inhuman mentality accompany what it means to be a Nazi Homophobe?…..umm yeah it does
We know why you came here….You merely saw an opportunity to flaunt your ugly sanctimonious moral superiority, holier-then -thou self righteous anti-American attitude to diminish & oppress your own self loathing of your own homosexual tendencies while throwing us under the buss and hopefully convert at least one us of us to be just as ashamed of ourselves as you as you are of yourself….
either that or like I said You’re anti-American Nazi control freak…so sad….<3…Ronnie
136.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Oh, so those of us who are fed up with being fired from jobs, dismissed from honorable military service, refused housing or limited to substandard housing, beaten, stabbed, shot, set on fire, and raped by those who are trying to “turn you straight” are not allowed to vent that anger? You have not been abusive? Your very comments and your refusal to even consider any viewpoint except that which “the prophet” has spoon-fed you all of your sheltered, insulated life has been abusive. And I truly pity your marriage if it is so damnably weak and fragile that my marriage being legally recognized as such would weaken it. I agree with Fiona–if your marriage is that fragile, you either need to seek marriage counseling from a legitimate professional, and not one of the prophet’s recommendations, or you need to end it and let the woman find someone who can be a real husband to her while you go and explore yourself in full honesty to find out what you are so afraid of within yourself. What demons are you fighting inside? That is where you need to look. You do not need to be looking for ways to legalize someone beating me or stabbing me or shooting me or raping me simply because of who I am.
137.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:16 pm
113. fiona64
You know what this statement about your coming here reminds me of, Joey?
Why else would I continue talking here. We won and you lost. I don’t need to hang around to rub it into your proud faces. I figured a handshake and some words that might be helpful to anyone with an open mind who was trying to understand better.
The minister who told me that my abusive former fiance wouldn’t “have to” hit me if I would just go home and be a better woman.
“‘I hit you because I care about you’ is crap”
At least we both agree on that issue. Spousal abuse is never OK.
138.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:38 pm
but you clearly believe religious abuse & oppression of people who abide by the law but don’t follow your ugly religion lock in step is ok….so sad swatzy…..<3…Ronnie
139.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:25 am
Hatespeech Joey wrote: Why else would I continue talking here. We won and you lost. I don’t need to hang around to rub it into your proud faces. I figured a handshake and some words that might be helpful to anyone with an open mind who was trying to understand better.
Two percentage points, little man — and the pendulum is swinging against you. You didn’t come here to offer a “handshake” — you came here to pretend some kind of moral superiority. Do you know what Rabbi Yeshua thought of people like you, Joey?
Hint: Not much.
Remember the old adage about pride goeth before the fall, Joey.
“The first ones now shall later be last, for the times they are a changin’ …”
140.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 12:19 pm
You don’t know anybody of the sort, George, because nobody except a self-loathing, fearful bigot would be friends with you. I am quite sure that there are many people in your circle however, who have you in their circel due to the old maxim about keeping your friends close, but your enemies even closer. You are such a disgusting, sick, pathetic waste of life.
141.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm
No, George, you don’t. You know people who lived a closeted life and then came out.
If it’s such an easy choice, George, surely you can choose to be gay right this minute?
Love,
Fiona
142.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm
There’s a name for men who dated and slept with women for many years before ultimately choosing to sleep with men exclusively. They are called “bisexual.” They are still “bisexual” even if they choose to channel their affections toward only men. They would still be “bisexual” if they were to suddenly decide to channel their affections toward only women. They should have the right to sleep with or marry whatever consenting adult partner they choose.
Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn’t take ANYTHING away from the “institution of marriage,” and doesn’t do anything to affect the healthy happy marriage of existing heterosexual married couples.
Marriage is about love — the love that makes two people want to spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not about the partners’ chromosomes or the shape of their genitalia. It’s not about reproducing, though many couples reproduce (whether willingly or not). Many heterosexual (or bisexual choosing monogamy with an opposite sex partner) couples actively choose never to have children. Other couples may simply be unable to have children even if they want to. Their marriages are just as valid as those of heterosexual couples who do decide to (and are able to ) reproduce.
When a loving couple decides to raise children (either the product of their shared genetic material or the product of other peoples’ shared genetic material), the best environment for the children is a love-filled home free of strife and abuse. For many children, that ideal environment is found with their biological mother and father. For many other children, that ideal environment is found with one biological parent and another partner (either opposite sex or same sex). For many other children, that ideal environment is found with a parent or parents who are genetically unrelated. Unfortunately, for too many children, that ideal environment is never found.
Protecting marriage by allowing all loving (consenting adult) couples to marry will help to give more children that ideal environment — thus helping families.
As for JoeyDG — you said the following:
“Just like prop 8 hurts your feelings, breaking prop 8 hurts my feelings and further erodes what society considers my relationship to be. In other words, your happiness is not worth stealing from mine. Your piece of mind is not more important than my piece of mind, and is not more important than the societal recognition/understanding and lawful protection for my wife and our children. ”
Breaking prop 8 does not erode what society considers your marriage to be. Perhaps it erodes what you think your marriage to be — but that’s a personal failing on your part. How could the marriage of a same sex couple possibly “steal” your happiness (unless your marriage is not stable to begin with)? Granting others the right to marry doesn’t take anything away from you. Giving other people rights equal to yours does not take any of your rights away. Your peace of mind is neither more nor less important than the peace of mind of any other couple just as your relationship is neither more nor less important than anyone else’s relationship.
Equality hurts nobody. Discrimination hurts everyone.
143.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Before I get flamed…
When I said this: “There’s a name for men who dated and slept with women for many years before ultimately choosing to sleep with men exclusively. They are called “bisexual.” They are still “bisexual” even if they choose to channel their affections toward only men. They would still be “bisexual” if they were to suddenly decide to channel their affections toward only women….,” I wasn’t even taking into account that people enter into relationships (sexual and otherwise) with opposite sex partners just because they feel that they should. I was assuming that they were sleeping with opposite sex partners because they were attracted to them — not because they felt like they had to.
I’m sorry for not thinking that through more clearly. Since I don’t think I’ve ever selected a partner based on what I thought society wanted of me, that thought was not automatically bouncing around in my head.
If they were equally “into” the relationships with opposite sex partners and same sex partners, they’d fall into the “bisexual” category. If they were just in relationships with women because they felt they had to be, then yes — they certainly are gay. In that case, however, they did not choose to “be” gay. They chose to stop lying to themselves and everyone else — they chose to be themselves rather than pretending any longer to be straight.
I stick by the “They should have the right to sleep with or marry whatever consenting adult partner they choose” part, though.
144.
Felyx | June 23, 2010 at 6:37 pm
When you said, “Since I don’t think I’ve ever selected a partner based on what I thought society wanted of me, that thought was not automatically bouncing around in my head.” I got a very warm feeling.
It is nice to know that society has changed so much that there are people out there who can say what you wrote here. I look forward to the day when no one feels like they have to conform to appease the abusive ideals of others.
Thank you for your comment regardless of your original intentions…it made my day!
Felyx
145.
Rebecca | June 23, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I dated men for many years in the process of trying to convince myself that I could be happy straight. It’s just not possible, but appearing straight certainly is.
Doing something heterosexual is not the same thing as being heterosexual. Those people you speak of who were married, have children and then go on to have homosexual relationships did not “choose” to be homosexual. They were all along.
The choice they made was to stop lying to themselves and finally allow themselves to be happy.
146.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Well said Rebecca. In college I dated girls in the hopes that I might find myself being straight (just needed to find the ‘right one’. Just never happened. After having to break up with a girl, with no other excuse than ‘I’m just not in love with you’, I decided I’d never do that to anyone again.
In short, for you haters: I stopped lying to myself. Try it sometime.
147.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:34 pm
A guy I dated in high school had known for three years before we met that he was gay, and he felt immense peer pressure to have a girlfriend in order to “fit in.” We dated for two years before he came out to me.
He was gay the entire time we were dating. That didn’t change just because he had a girlfriend.
The ignorance of some people ::coughcoughjoeygeorgecoughcouth:: astonishes me.
Love,
Fiona
148.
PamC | June 25, 2010 at 5:49 am
Rebecca–me too; I dated guys in attempt to force my attention away from my deep love for my best friend (a girl). Then I married a man b/c that’s what I was “supposed” to do in 1983. Thankfully, we had no children.
Joey says that love is a “warm fuzzy feeling.” Not so.
Love is a verb; it’s something you do, a way of treating others (and yourself). When Rabbi Yeshua said, “love thy neighbor as thyself,” I don’t think he meant have warm fuzzy feelings. He meant take compassionate action.
That’s what my wife & I mean when we say we love each other: we empathize with each other, we act in a deeply committed, respectful manner towards each other. If our relationship was just about sex, perhaps we wouldn’t have gotten married (in CT).
As a psychologist, I work with children and I do so consciously as a loving person. I do not have warm fuzzy feelings towards all these kids, but I care deeply and help others make informed decisions about their well-being. Feelings come and go; acting in love can be an enduring choice.
149.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Joey DelliGatti, wedding videographer extraordinaire, wrote: There are some abusive personalities here. Should I have expected that from homosexuals? Does the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth really accompany what it means to be homosexual?
Let me tell you something, Joey. You and yours are the abusive personalities. I try very hard to remain civil, but with you I am pretty much at the end of my rope. I am straight, and I am sick and goddamned tired of watching people like you tell my GLBT friends that their relationships have no value — relationships that, in many cases, started long before you were even born.
I am sick and goddamned tired of people like you telling me that my “traditional” marriage is somehow harmed because another couple gets married. Guess what? There’s enough marriage to go around. If your marriage is so weak that it’s affected at all, get counseling. I am not even joking.
I am sick and goddamned tired of people like you who came to my house and threatened me with bodily harm when I refused to take the “No on 8” sign from my lawn — yes, a nice Mormon boy did that. That’s why I keep a loaded gun next to my bedside table nowadays. That is no threat, little man; it’s a simple fact. When the “good religious people” threaten to beat me senseless for standing up against them, who is it that has the abusive personality again?
I am sick and goddamned tired of the SANCTIMONY displayed when you say crap like “I’m just coming from a place of care and concern” while you spew more hate speech. It’s the equivalent of “I’m not racist, but …” and you know it.
I am sick and goddamned tired of watching the Religious Reich take over this country and try to turn it into the Republic of Gilead (something I am sure that YOU would see no problem with whatsoever, being a white male and all).
And finally, I am sick and goddamned tired of being told that I’m intolerant for pointing out your intolerance. You and your hate speech make me sick, and you’re damned right — I refuse to tolerate hate speech, racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.
Get bent.
150.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:25 pm
OK. You are jumping to conclusions and adding more words to my statements.
I never said that caring relationships of any kind had no value. The long-term and lasting damaging aspects of those relationships need to be contrast with the benefit that they provide. You call me a hater… a hater of what? A hater that these people can never experience the benefits of natural born children springing up from their loving relationship? That’s sorrow and pitty – not hate.
Their relationships should not be called or revered as a marriage based on affection alone. It’s a shallow relationship that can never experience the same depth as a heterosexual marriage. And it’s disheartening to see so much confusion and bitterness over the situation. Move on with your lives and fix whatever you can along the way to maximize your happiness.
It is possible to grow and change to adapt to experience greater happiness. I hope some find it and that the ones who don’t want to or don’t think they can grow and change that way can maximize their happiness in what they can have and experience. Not everyone can be a doctor, but everyone has the potential to make the best of what they’re dealt.
151.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Not all heterosexuals can reproduce…period…accept it move on shut the F up you evil ignorant bible humper
You have no right to define marriage for everybody and demand that we follow it how you want us too…get that though you idiotic little jello brain
your doctor analogy still is bull shite….everybody can get married…..its just that you Fascist ugly evil control freaks think you have the right to tell us who and how….YOU DON’T…get over it….<3….Ronnie
152.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 7:08 pm
@Joey: “It is possible to grow and change to adapt to experience greater happiness.”
Aw, gee. Thanks Daddy!
I hope you actually understand your own words. I do not think you really do :)
153.
Ray in MA | June 23, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Fiona, your words are too kind for this disgraceful human being.
As Ghandi said, I like your Jesus, I do not like your Christians. Joe Blow has no concept that he is an anti-Christ.
One blog post cannot begin to penetrate this level of ignorance. But ‘God Bless You’ for trying!
154.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 8:50 pm
lol I came here to share insights and reasoning, and I slapped with people calling me disgraceful and saying that someone should slit my throat, that I’m stupid, that I’m a freak, etc. I’ve never called any of you such horrible things – just expressed insight as to why I disagree with the notion that marriage is somehow a viable expression for homosexual relationships.
I appreciate your hospitality during my visit though. All of your colors shine through.
155.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 9:01 pm
@Joey: “…saying that someone should slit my throat…”
Way to paint everyone with Kevin’s brush.
“All of your colors shine through.”
As did yours sweetie :)
156.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 9:09 pm
And they make a Rainbow……all more human, and American then you……
lol you came here to shove your ugly anti-Ameircan immoral superiority un-insightful and unreasonable bull shite, and you got slapped with people calling you exactly what you are disgraceful……the slitting your throat part was a bit out line…..but you’re so f-ing blind by your rose colored glasses that you pointed your idiotic little self righteous finger at somebody who didn’t say it….therefore you are stupid, you are a freak, etc.
“I’ve never called any of you such horrible things”
but comparing us to pedophiles and calling as deviants and what not is ok – get of your high horse trash bag….you wouldn’t like somebody calling you those things so why don’t shut the F sanctimonious cry baby
You just expressed your un-insightful Hate as to why you think you have the right to control our lives with the notion that marriage is somehow only owned by you and only Fascists like you deserve to get married and ALL people deserve to get married if they do it how you want them too….
Marriage is a viable expression for homosexual relationships…whether you like it or not….get over it, accept it, and mind your f-ing business you inhuman deviant freak of nature….<3…Ronnie
157.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 4:17 am
@JoeyDG #137:
Before you go claiming that you did not call anyone on here names, you would want to go back and read your own posts. Also, when you come to “share insights and reasoning” you need to learn to come down off of your moralistic, sanctimonious high horse and stop pretending that you are HaShem when you are only a creature of HaShem. You would also want to go back and read that bible you supposedly follow and learn where your reverence and worship truly belong. You are so hung up on being the controlling male figure and exerting your domination that you are totally forgetting that HaShem said you are only to worship HaSem, not an institution. Yet you claim to “revere” marriage, which indicates that you are an idolater because you are placing a man-made institution above your worship of the one you call G-d. And as for showing kindness, you have not done that, either. You have done nothing during your time here except parrot what “the Prophet” has drummed into you since birth, and you are not even man enough to look elsewhere with an objective viewpoint and even consider that “the Prophet” may be wrong. And you really do need to go see “8: The Mormon Proposition” and have your eyes opened to the deceptions that have been pulled on you by “the Prophet” and his minions. Doing so just may save your eternal soul from the fires of that hell you believe in.
This message delivered to you from the rebbitizen of Congregation Beth David in Hope Mills, North Carolina.
Shalom and Be Well.
158.
Alto | June 24, 2010 at 4:50 am
Go Richard !! JoeyDG would do well to learn that to parrot religion is not independent thought. A little independent thought could go a long way.
Quote:
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
— Galileo Galilei
159.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:27 am
Joey wrote: The long-term and lasting damaging aspects of those relationships need to be contrast with the benefit that they provide.
Name one “long-term and lasting damaging aspect” of a same-sex relationship between two people you don’t even know, you sanctimonious POS.
Just one.
I goddamned dare you.
160.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:31 am
Joey wrote: I came here to share insights and reasoning, and I slapped with people calling me disgraceful and saying that someone should slit my throat, that I’m stupid, that I’m a freak, etc. I’ve never called any of you such horrible things
Are you for real? You think that you haven’t said anything offensive when you call me sexually and morally deviant for supporting marriage equality, tell my gay and lesbian friends that their relationships have no value because they are shallow since they (according to you) can’t have kids — which must be a real surprise to those couples with kids, that a consenting adult relationship is the same as criminal pedophilia …
Do you really believe that none of that is offensive?
Get help. You’re the sick one here. You imagine that because you pretend to yourself that your horrific comments are “reasonable” that people can’t see right through you.
Guess what? We can.
161.
matthew | June 23, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@JoeyDG
I pity you because of the tiny box you’ve limited yourself to living in. You think that rights are like poker chips. You think that if someone else earns equal status as a human being then it makes you less of one? You think that if someone else gets married that it devalues yours? You think that if your neighbor builds a happy life then it takes away from your happiness? Or do you only think these things if your neighbor is gay? You keep saying our feelings and happiness aren’t more important than yours, and guess what, we all agree with that. What part about equal rights is so hard to understand. Equal does not mean special. But by supporting prop 8 what you are really saying that your relationship is more valuable than mine. Your family deserves more rights than mine. Your marriage(which for some reason doesn’t involve love) does more for society. Well you are wrong on so many levels. ALL families matter. I pay taxes just like you and I deserve the same rights. Being gay is not like being epileptic because I don’t have ‘gay seizures’ that put my or others life at risk.
Legitimate legal reason? Marriage is a CIVIL contract, and the constitution gives all citizens the right to establish contracts. Most especially in California where it is established legal president that marriage is a BASIC HUMAN right. So tell me, if gays ever get to become humans will that make you less of one?
I don’t much care for the insults that some of our more passionate posters will fling, however your original post was very inflammatory and ‘troll-ish’. However we don’t delete posts just because we dont like someones opinion. That is the schtick of NOM and all those other right wing forums that can’t stand to have their indefensible positions challenged.
Nobody should be talking about population in relation to the marriage debate. The US can’t and won’t institute population control laws because that would make us communist.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “Why not revoke marriage licenses for people who have no intention to honor the institution” but it sounds like you are saying it is ok to forcibly divorce people if you don’t agree with the way they live their lives. Its interesting that you voice such strong defense of an institution that you want to be so weak that it can be dissolved just like that.
The notion that the ability to accidentally become pregnant as the end all be all purpose of marriage and why gays should be excluded is so obscenely dumb. Same sex couples CAN have children. Lots of them do have children. To deny them the same rights as other families is tantamount to child abuse. ‘You dont deserve legal protections because both of your parents have penises.” Or better yet “We won’t allow you to attend this school because both your parents have vaginas.” That is the reality of todays culture where we still permit illogical and hurtful discrimination.
162.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:34 pm
My friend Lucy put it very eloquently:
“They behave as though the Porsche in their driveway is somehow blighted if the chap down the road gets a Porsche as well.”
Love,
Fiona
163.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 12:21 pm
@ Richard
My father takes care of my grandfather in much the same way – that doesn’t mean that my father is married to his father. It’s not those actions and caring attitudes that determine a marriage – it’s the purpose that those actions serve that makes a marriage. Without that greater purpose or possibility, it’s not a marriage.
Additionally, I’m not hatefully calling anybody anything. I do find some fairly blatant holes in the arguments presented by homosexuals though. If homosexuality is a private relationship that affects nobody else, why does it need to be flaunted and recognized in public? If it’s a born condition, why did the LGBT world rejoice when it was termed as a sexual preference rather than a born illness?
My personal view is that we’re all born with varying levels of reproductive drive (the urges to be pleased in that way), and nurture and circumstances determine the way that we seek to satisfy those urges. If people can derive satisfaction from high heels, fancy outfits, and other hormone-less inanimate objects, then it follows that orientation is based on a preference rather than a inborn nature-alone issue. So, you may not feel that you chose your orientation, but it wasn’t in your DNA either.
@ Richard 42
I love my children, and would continue to love them if they decided one day that they were gay. I wouldn’t support their efforts to “marry” someone of the same sex. But as much as I could hold to my moral convictions and be there for them, I would. You’re making assumptions about me that aren’t accurate.
As far as my epilepsy goes, again, you’re responding ignorantly. There are many types of epilepsy – and not all have been mastered by science or curable with a pill. Like homosexuality, epilepsy affects different people in different ways and is a result of various causes. It doesn’t make me less of a human being or a second-class citizen – it just bars me from certain things that could have brought me a lot of happiness in life, and limits my potential in some other areas.
@ Ronnie
I’m not telling you that you aren’t free to live your life in whatever constructive or destructive way that you choose. You just have no special exception to call it a marriage. I’m certainly not a Nazi and only ask at least the same amount of consideration and respect as I give you.
164.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I find many blatantly obvious holes in the arguments presented by homophobes though. If heterosexuality is a private relationship that affects nobody else, why does it need to be flaunted and recognized in public? Being born Gay is a born condition and your just gonna have to get over it. The LGBT world rejoiced when it was termed as a sexual preference rather than a mental illness you uneducated troglodyte, because it was demeaning & degrading.
I know & feel that I did NOT chose my orientation, and it is in my DNA since 5 generation of my family have homosexuals in it on both my mother’s & fathers side. Thats all the evidence I need.
And yes you are telling me that I am not free to live my life in whatever way I want to. There is nothing destructive about 2 men or women getting married and there’s evidence of now 9 countries to prove it. I can call marriage whatever the F@#K i want to call it that is my freedom speech & expression. You are a Nazi you trash bags tell us what to do, who to love, who to marry you are nothing but disgusting Anti-American garbage who can’t mind your own business and stay out of our personal lives.
IF WE CAN’T BE IN PUBLIC TOGETHER…..THEN NEITHER YOU….you don’t own the country…you have no right to tell us how to live our lives and force us to live them according to you Religious beliefs or Bible
The Bible is not American Law…..<3…Ronnie
165.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I pity Joey. His education is obviously lacking, and he is just proving my point that good little Mormon boys and girls lockstep without using any critical thinking whatsoever.
Hell, he even says in the face of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that being gay is a choice. Why? Because that’s what the prophet tells him to believe.
I doubt he sneezes without checking Doctrine & Covenants first …
Love,
Fiona
166.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I don’t say that heterosexual relationships are private. Heterosexual relationships affect everybody. You are the result of a heterosexual relationship and so is everybody else. Don’t you think that the relationship responsible for bringing you into the world deserves some protection, recognition, and reverence?
167.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Joey, my parents’ marriage is not in any danger because some other couple, gay or straight, gets married. Neither is my marriage to my husband.
Now, if *your* marriage is so weak and shaky that the mere *idea* of some couple you don’t even know getting married threatens it? I suggest counseling. Seriously.
168.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:09 pm
PS — Heterosexual relationships *are* private. What a ridiculous assertion to make: “Heterosexual relationships affect everyone.”
Good grief.
How does my relationship affect yours? Or that of some couple in, oh, Aix-en-Provence? Or even that of some couple right down the street whom I have never met? Seriously. I want to know.
169.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 1:12 pm
UMMMMMMM No!!!!…not everybody is the result of heterosexual relationship…some are they result of rape….some are the result of a test tube & petri dish…..Yes I ma the result of a heterosexual relationship however that relationship wasn’t though marriage and half it was through the DNA of wife & child beater….my very brave & courageous mother got me away from that and saved me. I respect heterosexuals unions but you don’t have the right to force me to have one just so that I can get married & have children when I can do that with out being married to a woman…..My sister and sevral friends said they would more then honored to carry mine and husbands child in the future…granted I need to find a boyfriend first…but my options are there…you want to deny those options to me and that is controlling how I live my personal life….Marriage is a personal choice…the community & society has no say so in the matter….Its my life not everybody else’s…
Ya’ll need to get that through your dense little brainwashed heads…..<3…Ronnie
170.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 1:20 pm
JoeyDG — being the product of an egg and a sperm does NOT equal being the product of a heterosexual relationship.
Why would you assume the two are equal?
171.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm
@nightshayde:
On Planet Joey DelliGatti, sex and procreation are identical. (He has also apparently never heard of parthenogenesis or in vitro fertilization.) Unfortunately, his education seems to be lacking in things like basic biology.
Let me help, Joey. Really, I promise it won’t be too scary. Sex is what happens when two cells become one; procreation is what happens when that one cell starts to divide. And guess what? You don’t procreate every time you have sex! Even as a straight couple! And guess what else? If you procreate, you don’t automatically get a child, because things can go awry before the woman even knows she’s pregnant! She can have a miscarriage and the products of conception just go away with her period.
Amazing, isn’t it?
I’m so glad I could help.
172.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 5:37 pm
OK. I didn’t consider rape and petrie dishes. Let’s just say “heterosexual product”.
Heterosexual relationships require more than egg and sperm, but those are required elements. Relationships present examples to children, naturally nurture children, and teach without hypocrisy.
173.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 5:44 pm
says the anti-American hypocrite who still thinks he has the right to control peoples lives based on his nazi-esque moral superiority….again go eff yourself and stop trying to force us to live our lives how you want us too…insect food…..<3….Ronnie
174.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:35 am
Joey wrote Relationships present examples to children, naturally nurture children, and teach without hypocrisy.
Obviously, Joey’s children are doomed …
“Jesus loves everyone … except those people over there. Those people are icky.”
Ugh.
175.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:47 pm
JoeydaMormon wrote: ask at least the same amount of consideration and respect as I give you.
Sweetie-pie, you are getting *exactly* the same amount of consideration and respect that you have given.
Love,
Fiona
176.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Then I guess you don’t want ANY consideration and respect, because that is what you are giving us. This coming from someone whose church leadership violated campaign election laws and violated the terms of their IRS tax-exempt status by not only joining in with a PAC, but by actually FUNCTIONING as a PAC in order to deprive us of rights that were given to us fairly and squarely. Get back under your rock and sell those over-priced pieces of real estate that you peddle upon the unsuspecting in your area.
177.
Owen | June 23, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“My father takes care of my grandfather in much the same way – that doesn’t mean that my father is married to his father.”
EW, your father had sex with your grandfather?
*bleaches cortex*
178.
Lily | June 23, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“Additionally, I’m not hatefully calling anybody anything. I do find some fairly blatant holes in the arguments presented by homosexuals though.”
You’re attempting to keep people from getting rights that are pretty much a necessity in this day and age. You’re idea will keep people impoverished and burdened with circumstances based entirely on who they love. It is hateful, regardless of how you want to present it.
“If homosexuality is a private relationship that affects nobody else, why does it need to be flaunted and recognized in public?”
Why does a heterosexual relationship need to be recognized in public? Because you want to keep it as a standard, you want to make people think that male/female/kids is the way to go with a family.
An idea behind same-sex marriage — and I find it funny your rhetoric ignores bisexuals and pansexuals — is that other familial combinations are worth celebrating. As far as studies go, this is true. There has been a few particular studies that say lesbian couples make the best parents.
“If it’s a born condition, why did the LGBT world rejoice when it was termed as a sexual preference rather than a born illness?”
An illness implies there is something wrong. I certainly don’t see my love for my girlfriend as something wrong. It’s different than the norm, sure, but so is the fact that I have blonde hair. It’s simply natural variation.
” . . . So, you may not feel that you chose your orientation, but it wasn’t in your DNA either. ”
Interesting that you bring this up. This is actually why you hear of some people not discovering their orientation until later in their life. Rather, that a lesbian might have a marriage and sex with a man for a decade and then come out as a lesbian.
Because society tries to hammer us with images that being straight is the norm, that you’re supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex, that you’re not supposed to be attracted to the same sex, and that all meaningful relationships are heterosexual ones, we see homosexual people who don’t discover their orientation until late in life. We also see bisexual people who don’t discover their orientation. (Which I imagine happens a bit more often, but that’s just a guess.)
Really, the reason we know that orientation isn’t psychologically learned is because there are plainly physical differences, like pheromone processing and brain symmetry, that firmly point that it isn’t inherently psychological. It would also explain the massive failures of people who try to change their orientation and why it doesn’t work.
“I’m not telling you that you aren’t free to live your life in whatever constructive or destructive way that you choose.”
You are, in fact. You’re directly hindering how we live our lives.
179.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 1:17 pm
@JoeyDG:
I am taught that the only reverence due is to HaShem, not to the creature and to the things that the creature has devised. While marriage is blessed by HaShem, it was devised by man, who was created by HaShem. And in all honesty, we are attempting to honor marriage by standing up for our human and civil right to it. If you would diligently search through the history of religions, especially those religions which claim to follow Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth, you will find that for many centuries, they did not allow a religious ceremony to recognize a marriage. Even under Judaism, a marriage is considered a civil, legally binding contract, and the party who does not hold to the very letter and spirit of that contract can be taken to court and the marriage dissolved. However, it is not as easy to get a divorce under ketubah as it is under the civil laws adhered to by most of those who claim to follow Yoshua ben Yosef. And it is those people, primarily straight, who have degraded the institution of marriage, not those of us who wish to have a legal recognition of our lifelong commitment and the same responsibilities and rights that you currently enjoy. Also, you keep talking about “flaunting” our relationships. Those of you who would deny us the rights and responsibilities of marriage flaunt your relationships and throw them in our faces all the time. There is no difference. And if you were a real man, and if you were secure in your own sexuality and your own marriage, you would not need to attack us for wanting to be fully recognized as American citizens and to have our marriages legally recognized. Do you not see that by blindly following “The Prophet” and fighting this, that you are also keeping the glare of the police spotlights and the glare of the prophet’s gaze firmly entrenched upon your own bedroom?
180.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Joey wrote: If people can derive satisfaction from high heels, fancy outfits, and other hormone-less inanimate objects, then it follows that orientation is based on a preference rather than a inborn nature-alone issue. So, you may not feel that you chose your orientation, but it wasn’t in your DNA either.
How on *earth* did I miss this particular non sequitur?
Are you seriously trying to connect some sort of fetishism with being gay? Really?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
::deep breath::
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
181.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 2:49 pm
*hands fiona a vuvuzela*
Save your vocal chords, dear. Just let me put in my earplugs first.
182.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm
It’s whatever excites you, right? You may be oriented towards plastic suits, and some people have no sexuality at all. It’s pretty straight forward when you look at it that way. Only one kind of sexual relationship, when explored in its most deep and intimate possible ways can climax in the creation of a new life. Maximize your sexual relationship and see if you can produce the same results. Oh… you can’t.
OK. I’m starting to run out of kindness today and have too much else to do today. Take care.
183.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Oh ummm yeah no and so can’t a lot of heterosexuals…..so they can’t married either…geezey f-ing Gaga you are ignorant immature troglodyte….go sit on your Bible because you clearly absorb more though you @$$ then you do though your dense brainless skull….<3…Ronnie
184.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@JoeyDG #151. How can you run out of something that you did not have in the first place? You have not shown any kindness, and with regard to your chirch’s involvement in the passage of Prop H8, you really should open your mind and go see the movie “8: The Mormon Proposition.” There you will see just how deep in the mire of Anti-American discrimination and hatred your church hierarchy is, and you will see the money trail of all the money all of you were duped and swindled out of. But then, you will just dismiss this as garbage, the way you have all other scientific proof and anything else that doesn’t jibe with your belief that women are only good to be broodmares and slaves to their husbands.
185.
Felyx | June 23, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Thank God he is running out of ‘kindness’! Lord knows we could benefit from the peace!
Felyx
186.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:38 am
Joey wrote: Only one kind of sexual relationship, when explored in its most deep and intimate possible ways can climax in the creation of a new life. Maximize your sexual relationship and see if you can produce the same results. Oh… you can’t.
It must really get up your nose, Joey, that people are out there having sex without what you view as “consequences.” What an awful way to think of children.
Me? I thought long and hard before deciding not to have kids. It’s a pity that more people don’t give it as much thought before doing so …
Frankly, I think your little comment stinks of jealousy. Being stuck with three little diaper-clad anchors must be horrible for such a young guy. Of course, you’ve already told us that marriage is not about love, so we know what you think of your wife …
187.
Alto | June 24, 2010 at 9:37 am
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully
as when they do it from religious conviction.”
— Blaise Paascal
188.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 10:07 am
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. — Steven Weinberg
189.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 10:08 am
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it. — Terry Pratchett
190.
Kevin | June 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm
FULL OF SHIT. There are over 1,000 rights associated with marriage. At the end of the day, you just don’t want gay couples to be able to protect their relationships under the law, and that is despicable. You deserve to have your throat slit.
191.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm
You are welcome to feel that way; however, if I hear about any planning to slit my throat, I will take action, Kevin.
192.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Welcome to our world cry baby….at least you’re getting it through a computer screen…I was told that right to my face in a public place (i.e. in my high school gymnasium) in front of 180 people…..but the words were much more colorful….and I quote…
“I’m gonna slit your throat you fu**king fa**ot”
Don’t play the victim card crybaby Joey…it doesn’t suit you & it doesn’t work on this crowd…..The LGBT community and our heterosexual supporters have been persecuted & oppressed a million times more then you religious reich freaks…..<3…Ronnie
193.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Honey, you aren’t worth the effort it would take to ignore.
Don’t you have a planet to populate or something?
194.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Hmm. I don’t see any threats, now that I re-read.
Of course, you probably don’t have any issues with what happened to Matthew Shepard or Gwen Araujo, now do you?
If you aren’t sure who those people are, I suggest you take a trip down Google Lane. What happened to them took place because laws like Prop 8 give people like you an excuse to pretend your bigotry is somehow righteous. Every single time a piece of legislation like this is passed, hate crimes against GLBT people increase exponentially.
Honestly, it is my not even remotely humble opinion that the actions of your church make Rabbi Yeshua weep tears of abject misery, since it is so antithetical to what he taught.
195.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 4:33 pm
@ Ronnie
Again, you aren’t unique. I’ve been shot at while the person yelled, “Come back here so I can kill you, *** whitey!” I understand that they were upset that I was a ride-along with a marshall serving them court-ordered eviction papers. I’ve been called fa**ot without being gay as well.
Have you ever had rocks thrown at you, been spit and urinated on, been jumped by a crowd of people, been threatened by militant muslims, been shot at, and been banned from neighborhoods and countries due to your beliefs? I have.
Yet, somehow, it doesn’t even enter my mind to call you derogatory names or tell you that you deserve to die a horrible death. If I decide I can’t love you or show you respect anymore, I withdraw myself and leave you alone.
It’s the kind of person you are that determines what you say to people. I say that to provide you with healthy perspective. I had nothing to do with someone threatening you. I also don’t care to be initiated into your name-calling world. I’m quite happy where I’m at – generally in the company of many considerate and like-minded people.
I think my charity has about run out. It may be time to go. I know California’s continued decision to uphold prop 8 upsets people here – I still hope God blesses your worthy actions and provides you with happiness in life.
196.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Joey wrote: It may be time to go.
Promise?
No need to send postcards or anything.
As my favorite playwright Oscar Fingal Wilde wrote: “Some people bring joy wherever they go, others whenever they go.”
Draw your own conclusions.
197.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Joey wrote: It’s the kind of person you are that determines what you say to people.
Please keep that in mind when you are telling people that they are sexually deviant, that their relationships are not worthy of recognition, that they are not “truly married” without children, and that your religious beliefs trump civil law.
Buh-bye.
198.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 4:57 pm
aweeeeeeeeeeee…poor crybaby Joey Death Gestapo…..I’m crying a f@#king river for you….like I said don’t play the i’m a “heterosexual religious nutcase” victim card…it doesn’t work with this group….where there are countries where we can legally by executed for being Gay….
I’ve glass bottles thrown at my head by religious nut cases like you….twice someone tried to bash me both of them wound up in the hospital because they underestimated the Fa**ot….& I already told you about another student threatening to slash my “fa**ot throat in front of 180 people…how easily you ignorant trash ignored that
You’re not unique either…but at least the federal that I pay for treats you better it does me…..
I never said you deserved to die a horrible death…nice job putting words in my mouth…
You have not shown me one ounce of respect the second you said that I don’t deserve marriage because I don’t do it how you want me too…that’s disrespect….
“liked minied people”….aka anti-American Nazis who think they have the right to control people lives based on your moral superiority and incapable abiding by the law of the constitution that ALL Americans are created Equal and ALL are entitled to life, liberty. & the pursuit of happiness and ALL are entitle to Equal protections under the LAW….but you crybaby Joey believe that I am only entitled to all of them if I live MY life how you want me too….GO EFF YOURSELF NAZI!
I don’t need your “blessings” what you need to do is keep your ugly religion out of my life…..and do not tell me I cannot get married unless I do it how you want me to…..You don’t own me..you don’t own my life…YOU RELIGIOUS PSYCHOS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS FOR US….if you don’t like it….you can leave,…..there’s the door…I’m sure Uganda or Iran will welcome you with open arms……<3…Ronnie
199.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 5:18 pm
@Joey: “Have you ever had rocks thrown at you”
Yep. A variety of other things too (cans, bottles, cups of watter, etc). Fortunately by drunk/stupid people who don’t know how to throw from moving vehicles very well.
Since I started working out some, and feeling better about myself, and society in general has ‘grown up’, this kind of thing hasn’t happened in many years.
“been spit and urinated on”
Spit on, yes. Urinated on? Not sure how that would work unless I was unconscious or something.
“been jumped by a crowd of people ”
Two attempts – both from cars. In one, the guys (2 of them) jumped out with bats. I ran my ass off. Got away both times (they got tired after a couple blocks).
Funny, how they always gotta have at least 2 – haters rarely face you alone. It’s part of their cowardice.
“been threatened by militant muslims”
Hmm. Interesting religious qualifier there. Threatened – yes. Their religion never really seemed to matter. I’d guess, mostly xtians. Though given your views, I guess I would not be surprised if mormons did that kind of thing too.
“been shot at”
Not that I’m aware of. If so, they were really bad shots (and were using silencers).
“and been banned from neighborhoods and countries due to your beliefs?”
No, I’ve never tried to impose my beliefs on others, so that’s not been a problem for me.
“I still hope God blesses your worthy actions and provides you with happiness in life.”
Well, if there is a god, I hope so too. If not, then those words, like much of everything else you’ve said here today, is meaningless.
But, thanks for playing anyway! :)
XXXOOO
200.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 5:30 pm
@fiona: “Joey wrote: It’s the kind of person you are that determines what you say to people.
Please keep that in mind when you are telling people that they are sexually deviant, that their relationships are not worthy of recognition, that they are not “truly married” without children, and that your religious beliefs trump civil law.”
Could not have expressed it better myself! :)
201.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:59 pm
161. Ronnie
Waaah back to you. You can be executed for being Christian in certain countries too. I believe it was you who said that I deserved to have my throat slit. I guess you meant to have my throat slit and still live though, right?
You are not unique to struggle or strife. That’s my point. We all suffer in one way or another. I can likely match any kind of drama you can throw my way. Believe it or not, I have lived and experienced my fair share of abuse. What is your point?
202.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Oh crybaby Joey Murderer Enabler….why you crying waahhhh waahhhh….(you’re words not mine)
“You can be executed for being Christian in certain countries too.”
ummm…yeah whatever idiot…but its not the law dumb ass….its an actual LAW to be executed for being Gay you idiot….
“I believe it was you who said that I deserved to have my throat slit.”
ummm yeah NO!…if you look up….it was Kevin who said that you blind bat…..
what I said was that I was:
“I was told that right to my face in a public place (i.e. in my high school gymnasium) in front of 180 people…..but the words were much more colorful….and I quote…“I’m gonna slit your throat you fu**king fa**ot”
those words were said to me and I posted them in reference to my experience…..you f@#king blind trash bag
You’re point is that you deserve EVERYTHING… and that I only deserve what you want me to have and how you want me to have it…
My point is that MY life is MY life and you have not right to tell me how to live it…I WILL MARRY WHO I WANT…WHEN I WANT TOO..WHERE I WANT TOO AND YOU HVAE NO SAY SO IN THE MATTER….
you think you don’t but you don’t….you said you were leaving go eff your ditzy wife…get a life trash that doesn’t involve controlling how other people lives theirs….<3…Ronnie
203.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 9:18 am
JonT, I wish I could remember who it was on here that talked about being bashed by a gang of Mormon boys; they were all wearing ski masks or something, but at least one of them was wearing a BYU ring that he recognized.
“And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love …”
204.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 9:19 am
Joey wrote: You can be executed for being Christian in certain countries too.
Name *one.*
205.
the lone ranger | June 23, 2010 at 12:33 pm
And Joey, you can’t say the nuclear family exists simply because you and your wife strive for that outdated goal. How long have you been married? 3 years?… 5 years maybe? You have no idea what will happen to your “idealized happy nuclear family” going into the future… 5, 10, 20 years from now.
Your wife might discover she’s not satisfied just staying home in your UT bedroom community, barefoot, in front of the stove, and pumping out your children like a chicken in the henhouse. Boredom and dissatisfaction breed resentment, especially in this modern world where you can experience far off lands and diverse viewpoints with just the click of a mouse. Maybe she’ll self-medicate with a prescription from the family doctor… maybe she’ll have an affair, or even divorce you? Alternatively, maybe you’ll be the one who finally discovers the world is a richer place than your current narrow thinking allows, and it will actually be your actions that will erode your fantasy nuclear family life. It’s possible your children will experiment with drugs in school, or reject your faith, or become punk rock musicians. It’s even possible one of your children will discover he or she is gay (since its an inborn trait one has no choice over, just like left-handedness).
The Cleavers never had to worry about these things because they were a make-believe TV family, but some such “diversions” from the nuclear family ideal undoubtedly happen even in UT, and even to good & pious Mormons… otherwise UT would be a marriage utopia where everyone was always happy and satisfied, and I don’t believe you can find any statistics to support that. Joey, your 1950s view on families is quaint, but not very realistic. And even if it were possible, I’m not sure it would be very enjoyable.
206.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Right… because I’m heterosexual, my marriage is somehow oppressive… . My wife wouldn’t let me stay home with the kids while she worked no matter how hard I beg. She has mastered her role as the primary nurturer and likes it. I provide money, support, and protection to my wife and children. We’ve got a good thing here – and a relationship that works great.
If I left, she’d have to fill both our roles. If she left, I would have to fill both roles. We need each other equally in order to provide our children. In economical terms, we call that strength specialization and trade.
207.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Of course she did, Joey.
Why is it that the Mormon men always insist that their wives are blissfully happy as broodmares, but we never hear from the wives?
Are you going to campaign to take away children of widows/widowers, and divorcees — seeing as you think that there have to be two parents in the house?
208.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I’m glad your family structure works for you. My family structure (heterosexual married couple raising a daughter) works for me.
The thing is — we have the complete freedom to enjoy this family structure and all the social and legal protections it provides.
There is NO rational reason why other families who choose to structure their families differently (and whose family structure works perfectly well for them) should not enjoy the same freedoms and protections.
I’m comfortable enough in my beliefs to let others live by their own beliefs. If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, don’t marry someone whose naughty bits match yours. Very simple – very easy. There’s no rational reason, however, to tell people who don’t share your beliefs that they don’t deserve the same rights and protections to which you’re entitled.
Why are you not comfortable enough in your beliefs to let others live by beliefs that are different?
209.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Nightshayde, think about it:
Nice little Mormon boys go on “missions” to tell people that they aren’t living their lives correctly — that they don’t have all of the right “information,” and need to convert.
Joey is constitutionally incapable of letting other people live as they choose. It’s part of his upbringing.
I had a very nice ex-Mormon boyfriend in my mid-20s. Bill came back from his mission feeling very disillusioned about the whole thing. He revealed this during his interview with the bishop — that he had doubts that the church was doing the right thing with this whole mission business, and that he had become very uncomfortable by the end of his mission.
He was excommunicating for daring to question the church.
Love,
Fiona
210.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm
JoeyDG said:
“She has mastered her role as the primary nurturer and likes it. I provide money, support, and protection to my wife and children. We’ve got a good thing here – and a relationship that works great.
If I left, she’d have to fill both our roles. If she left, I would have to fill both roles. We need each other equally in order to provide our children. In economical terms, we call that strength specialization and trade.”
Once the children you’re raising have already been brought into the world, why does the shape of either parent’s genitalia matter? If one father/mother masters the role of primary nurturer and likes it, and the other father/mother provides money, support, and protection to his husband/her wife and their children, how is that any different?
Oh. Wait. I answered my own question. There IS no difference.
211.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Nightshayde, I know I’ve put up this link before, but bear with me.
Homophobia is rooted in misogyny. Homophobes are all bent out of shape because they cannot conceive of a life that doesn’t have traditional gender roles.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/30/homophobia-misogyny.htm
Quote:
I’ve seen this hyper-phobia and misogynist attitude displayed by homophobic men. They despise Gay men out of the fear of themselves becoming “the woman” or “the feminine” in a sexual relationship or social setting, and they long for their women to be submissive so they can reaffirm their traditional masculinity and manhood. If they become “the woman” or “the feminine” in a relationship or social setting, they are no longer a man and they loose their “power.”
Traditional masculinity is valued as powerful and dominant, while traditional femininity is associated with weakness and submission. Traditional femininity solely exists to reaffirm the traditional masculinity’s power and dominance. Homophobic men who treasure traditional masculinity (and even hyper-masculinity) view the relationship between Gay men to be unnatural because there is no woman or feminine being to reaffirm the masculinity and manhood–the so called “power” aspect is missing.
—-
Sad that this guy feels so threatened about relationships in which he plays no part …
Love,
Fiona
212.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Fiona — you and I should really hang out for a few hours if we’re ever in the same city at the same time. I am positive that we’d get along swimmingly.
Our husbands could hang out somewhere else and laugh (admiringly) at how their wives are bonding via feminist/political rant.
213.
Dpeck | June 23, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Joey said: “Right… because I’m heterosexual, my marriage is somehow oppressive… .”
WRONG. It’s not your marriage that is oppressive, and it’s not because you are heterosexual.
It is your ACTIONS of using your personal beliefs to HURT OTHER PEOPLE’S FAMILIES by working to deny them equal legal rights and equal protection under the law that is oppresive. In fact, these actions define you as a bigot.
Stop defining yourself by your beliefs and your feelings. The only things that truly define you are your ACTIONS. You need to stop hurting other people.
214.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm
@Dpeck: “It is your ACTIONS of using your personal beliefs to HURT OTHER PEOPLE’S
FAMILIES by working to deny them equal legal rights and equal protection under the law that is oppresive. In fact, these actions define you as a bigot.”
Well said!
Your marriage is irrelevant. Your actions are not (unfortunately).
215.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Nightshayde, you’re on. :-)
Love,
Fiona
216.
matthew | June 23, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@george
Who someone sleeps with is none of your or my business. And also, it doesn’t matter a whole heck if a lot.
We aren’t gay because of who we have sex with. We’re gay because of who we LOVE. The fact that I slept with women when I was younger doesn’t change the fact that I was always and will always be gay. Even if I never had sex with another man for the rest of my life I would still be gay.
But your bigotry and hate always show through like a stab wound through a white shirt.
We don’t resent ‘nuclear families’ . We resent people who act as if their families are better than ours. You clearly think that penis+vagina babies are more deserving of rights and legal protection than a child born to an infertile couple that had medical assistance. Bottom line is you think you are better than us.
You think it would be better for society if all gay men to pretend to be straight on the surface. Get married to a woman, have children. Keep their true selves on the down low and have male lovers on the side like our republican politicians. You completely ignore the damage and devastation this causes. The lies and secrets. The hurt feelings, the years of guilt and torture and resentment. The embarrassed and bitter wives and children that don’t understand and end up damaged by the toxic atmosphere. Or maybe that is what your marriage is actually like? Is that why you fight against others being able to build a happy life for themselves? Because you are unable to do what the rest of us have? Be honest with ourselves and the world?
How many children from your nuclear family and the one that raised you are gay?
217.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Joey wrote: If homosexuality is a private relationship that affects nobody else, why does it need to be flaunted and recognized in public? If it’s a born condition, why did the LGBT world rejoice when it was termed as a sexual preference rather than a born illness?
It isn’t termed a sexual preference, dearie. It’s a sexual orientation. And why was there rejoicing? Because that change put paid to the crap that NARTH, Evergreen and other discredited quack organizations were putting out there saying that gay people could be “cured.” All NARTH and Evergreen have ever done is shame people back into the closet and promote suicidal ideations to boot.
As for your “why flaunt it” comment, let me ask you this. Do you hold hands with your wife in public? Do you kiss her in public? Why is that acceptable, but for a gay man or lesbian to do the same thing with their partner it’s “flaunting it”?
Did you have a big, snazzy wedding with a building full of friends? A nice reception? In other words, was your marriage recognized in public? Then why should a same-sex couple be expected to hide?
No one is asking for “special rights” but you and people like you, Joey. You want marriage to be a special little club that only people of whom you approve (breeding couples) should be allowed to enter. That may be what your church teaches, Joey, but guess what? As much as President Monson would like it not to be so, your church’s doctrine does not constitute civil law. We live in a pluralistic society.
There are many denominations that perform same-sex marriages — and your church’s intrusion into politics has now made it unlawful for them to do so.
You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for trampling on other peoples’ First Amendment rights, Joey.
Love,
Fiona
218.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm
::STANDING OVATION::
219.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Bravo….BRAVO!!!!…..ENCORE!!!!!…..I heart you dopty-mom….like my dopty-dad said….STANDING OVATION!!!….xoxo…<3…Ronnie
220.
Fulton | June 25, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Bravo!
221.
Rebecca | June 23, 2010 at 1:13 pm
There’s been a lot of discussion about the public or private nature of relationships in these comments. Homo- and hetero-sexual relationships are both public and private!
Heterosexual couples go to the movies, hold hands in the park and even make out awkwardly next to you on the train. And every time a nuclear family is shown on tv or in a movie, that makes it public too.
We just want the same courtesy given to our relationships. I want to be able to take a walk with my girlfriend, holding hands in public, without some ass telling us to keep our relationship private, or worse, ask us to call him if we ever need a third.
And now, I’m going to go prep for Chicago Pride this weekend where I can be as gay as I want, and in public, all weekend long! Thank God for Boystown!
222.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 1:32 pm
With your logic, why don’t we allow everyone to be called doctors? It doesn’t make a good doctor any less of a good doctor if anyone can possess the title.
“Doctor” would certainly lose some value as a term. Mass confusion would reign, and we’d have to rename qualified doctors to something else in order to preserve our universal understanding of their value and qualifications.
In the end, you would have “Medicalists” or something, and suddenly all of these not-truly-qualified doctors would want to take on the new name to re-associate and leech off of the reputation of the qualified again.
We need the distinction, and we need the recognition – just like we need the same for marriage.
223.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Are you really this stupid, Joey?
Seriously, how is your marriage increased or decreased if someone else marries? Is there some finite amount of marriage out there, like a pile of poker chips?
“Oh, no. If Bob is allowed to ante up, I’ll lose some of my stack!”
Get real.
I know gay couples who have been together for longer than your little butt has been on this planet. How is their relationship less valuable than yours, or mine, or anyone else’s?
224.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm
“We need the distinction, and we need the recognition – just like we need the same for marriage.”
The doctor part holds water but the marriage analogy is still completely illogical& irrational and this is why….
Canada Doesn’t, Belgium Doesn’t, Sweden Doesn’t, Iceland Doesn’t, Portugal Doesn’t, The Netherlands Doesn’t, Norway Doesn’t, South Africa Doesn’t, Spain Doesn’t, D.C. Doesn’t, Massachusetts Doesn’t, Vermont Doesn’t. Connecticut, Iowa Doesn’t, Mexico City Doesn’t, The Coquille Nation Doesn’t……<3…Ronnie
225.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 1:40 pm
oh and New Hampshire Doesn’t……HAPPY GAY PRIDE MONTH!!!!….wowowoowowowowowow…..<3…Ronnie
226.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Perhaps Joey would like to move to Uganda, Iraq or Iran … they support his viewpoints …
Love,
Fiona
227.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 1:49 pm
If you didn’t know…this is a list of Countries, States, & Cities where Same Gender Marriage is legal….”God’s” wrath did not rain down on them…..nothing has happened to marriage…..heterosexuals are still getting married…..I know its amazing….I Guess when America fully legalizes it God will the destroy the world and the Kingdom of Heaven will be upon us……I’m waiting in anticipation…hangs head….checks IPhone for time…tapping perfectly manicured (yeah I’m a man I get manis) toes in Dolce sandals…<3…Ronnie
228.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Perhaps we can trade Maggie, George, and Joey for three GLBT Ugandans?
229.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I’d be willing to give that a try …
If we throw in Kay and Melissa, can we get a couple more?
Love,
Fiona
230.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Since they think they are morally superior, maybe we can “bargain” and get two or three GLBT Ugandans for each of them.
231.
Rebecca | June 24, 2010 at 12:05 pm
OMG how many LGBT Africans would we get for Sarah Palin?!?!
232.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Let me put it another way:
I REJECT your church and its bigotry against my GLBT friends.
I am a straight, married church-going woman who has seen more real Christianity displayed from the primarily gay congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church where I participate than any LDS ward could ever HOPE to display.
I reject your hatred and bias against my friends’ relationships that you are too goddamned shallow to even BEGIN to understand. You have *no idea* what real commitment looks like; you are a good little Mormon boy who probably “courted” for all of about three months before getting engaged to an appropriate little Mormon girl (that’s about the standard length of time, folks, with the wedding happening about six months after the first date).
The first same-sex couple to get married here in San Francisco had been together for more than 50 YEARS. Can you read that, if I type it big enough? More than 50 YEARS. They were married for about 6 weeks when one of them passed away.
That’s the kind of commitment that you can only dream about, and have no way of understanding.
You are a selfish, small-minded little man who is too ignorant to recognize that the world is not, and will not be, ordered just to suit him.
So put that in your (forbidden) pipe and smoke it.
Gah.
233.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Don’t mince words fiona. Tell us what you *really* think. :)
And a big ‘thumbs up’ from me!
234.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Man, you and a lot of people here are so presumptuous, offensive and just outright lying. Attack my character, I don’t care – it’s pretty solid. It’s not without fault altogether; however, upright and straight. And what I’m saying is truth regardless of what dirt you think you have on me. It’s the old ‘kill the messenger when you don’t like or can’t fight the message’ mentality.
I have known my wife since high school. We dated seriously for about two years; she waited two more years for me while I lived overseas; and then, we married after another month and a half.
235.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Man, crybaby Joey Death Gestapo, you and a lot of people out there are so presumptuous, offensive and just outright lying. Attack anyone who doesn’t live their lives how you want them too, I don’t care – You’re Character is inhuman and ugly. It’s not without fault 100%; it is not upright or straight you’re an evil piece of trash. And what I’m saying is the truth regardless of what dirt you think you have on me. It’s the old ‘kill the messenger when you don’t like or can’t fight the message’ mentality.
Big whoopty frakin do….you’ve known your “wife” since high school. and you dated seriously for about two years; you want a cookie?…..aweeee…she waited two more years for you while you lived overseas……I guess you want a gold swastika sticker for that?….. and then, you married after another month and a half…….aweeeee…..so cutes…..I guess we must ALL strive to and be forced to have a heterosexual relation just like yours…..aweeeeeeeeee..
Yeah and Harry Potter can fly in realty…..again….all those things you just mentioned that you are are entitled too….as a tax paying American citizen and basically as a human…I am entitled to all of them as well….but now how you want me to have them….HOW I WANT TO HAVE THEM….and that is the truth that you are just going to have to accept it, deal with it , and get over it…..I know its a very hard job for one to live and let live…but I’m sure someone as sanctimonious as you can muster up some ability to MIND YOUR OWN F@#KING BUSINESS….<3…Ronnie
236.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm
When are you going to stop deluding yourself into believing that apples and oranges are the same thing? Comparing being a doctor to being married is a logical fallacy. But then I guess you don’t learn about logical fallacies in the true meaning of the term at Bring em Young University.
237.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm
My dear adopted brother Richard:
Understanding logical fallacies would imply that Joey has been exposed to the concept of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is anathema to the Church of LDS. :-( Just look what happens to those who apply it (how many people here were excommunicated for standing up against Prop 22 or Prop 8, or threatened with some other sort of ecclesiastical punishment?).
Love,
Fiona
238.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Thank you for reminding me of that Fiona. I had totally forgotten.
239.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:06 pm
@ 181. fiona64
lol If you don’t agree with the church on a fundamental doctrine like that, why would you remain a member? It’s like being a Democrat that supports gun ownership, straight marriage, and being pro-life. And what is ecclesiastical punishment to a non-believer: a gut punch to their pride and arrogance?
I would propose that you all are allegiant to the LGBT movement and have no real thoughts of your own. In fact, I would challenge you to prove me wrong. Do you disagree with anything the mainstream LGBT organizational heads say? Sounds like you’ve got your own religion put together.
240.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:16 pm
thats the pot calling the kettle black…..look in the mirror trash bag….you’re talking about yourself you brainwashed anti-American Nazi traitor….you are nothing but arrogant…but again only heterosexuals who following your cult lock in step are entitled to full protection under the law….a Nazi is all you people are….and if you keep it….you’re going face the same fate that eventually caught of to them……go procreate with your ugly wife…..the world needs more demon spawns like you to destroy the world….<3…Ronnie
241.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 6:59 pm
@JoeyDG: “It’s like being a Democrat that supports gun ownership, straight marriage, and being pro-life.”
Hah! Things are not that black and white in the real world Joey (as opposed to the religious world). I call myself a ‘Democrat’, and yet I own guns, and support the right for others to do the same.
Many Democrats in fact *do not* support gay rights at all. I support ‘pro-choice’, other Democrats do not.
“And what is ecclesiastical punishment to a non-believer: a gut punch to their pride and arrogance?”
Uhm. Actually I’d call it totally irrelevant and meaningless?
“I would propose that you all are allegiant to the LGBT movement and have no real thoughts of your own. In fact, I would challenge you to prove me wrong.”
Well, no Joey dear, I’m gay. I think, (and love), therefore I am. You. Well, you are a tool of your religion. A ‘holy’ warrior, who’s existence seems to be all about conversion and breeding, and the arrogant belief that you alone understand the ‘true’ nature of the universe.
The beauty is, I don’t have to prove anything to you, any more than you have to (or even can :) prove anything to me. This is the benefit of a free society. Welcome to the 21st century :)
242.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:43 am
Joey wrote: lol If you don’t agree with the church on a fundamental doctrine like that, why would you remain a member? It’s like being a Democrat that supports gun ownership, straight marriage, and being pro-life. And what is ecclesiastical punishment to a non-believer: a gut punch to their pride and arrogance?
I don’t belong to your hate-filled church, and never hafe. My parents joined when I was an adult.
By the way, I guess I must be a real nightmare for you: I’m a feminist, pro-choice, equality supporting, gun-toting registered Democrat with a dead-eye aim.
You are the only one displaying pride and arrogance.
Get over yourself,
243.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:47 am
Joey wrote: I would propose that you all are allegiant to the LGBT movement and have no real thoughts of your own. In fact, I would challenge you to prove me wrong. Do you disagree with anything the mainstream LGBT organizational heads say? Sounds like you’ve got your own religion put together.
If you could read for comprehension (which I am beginning to doubt), you would know that there are many here who have huge disagreements with HRC, just to name one.
Unlike you, Joey, I don’t need a church to tell me what to think. I had that once. I used to be an ignorant little bible-thumping know-it-all, too. Then, as I mentioned, I got out into the world and discovered that things weren’t as black-and-white as I thought.
I didn’t marry the first and only person I dated. I saw some of the world WITHOUT trying to force my religion on other people (a key difference between you and me) and learned an awful lot from the people with whom I spoke. And do you know what I discovered? They had hopes and dreams and aspirations — just like me.
I have no right to tell people what their hopes and aspirations should be just because they aren’t the same as mine, Joey. That’s all my GLBT friends ask of you — the same respect.
Let me name one example: I think the whole Quiverfull movement is disgusting. The idea that women are broodmares makes me sick. Yet, you don’t see me out campaigning to take away a woman’s right to have as many children as she sees fit — that’s part of being pro-choice, see, deciding how many kids to have.
You, on the other hand, are out campaigning to destroy families that are different from yours — whether it’s because it’s a straight couple who doesn’t want to have kids, a gay couple who has kids, a gay couple who doesn’t have kids … whatever. If it doesn’t look like what your small-minded worldview dictates, you want it to be eradicated.
There’s a home truth for you, Joey.
244.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm
When a post-graduate degree and a big honkin’ exam are required in order for people to get a marriage license, ask that question again.
I happen to think that education and a big honkin’ exam should be required before anyone gay, straight, or anywhere inbetween is allowed to raise children.
Why do “we” need the distinction and/or recognition for marriage? I’m a (mostly) straight woman who has been happily married to a man for over 10 1/2 years now. I was born to and brought up by a loving heterosexual couple — and was rare in my circle of friends because my parents weren’t divorced. Our daughter is being raised by both of her biological parents in a loving home. So yes — we have the nuclear family thing down pat… yet I fail to see why so many people want to deny this happiness and this opportunity to others.
Why do we need the distinction? Why should my GLBT friends not have the same rights that I do? I can’t think of a single logical reason (and no – a book written a couple thousand years ago by men who wanted to exert control over their society — or any other religion’s mythology, for that matter doesn’t count).
245.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Oh, but Nightshayde? Don’t you know? If you’re a straight, married couple you are automatically good parents. As long as your gonads work, that’s all it takes. Because procreation and childrearing are identical.
/sarcasm
Love,
Fiona (who is way done playing nice today …)
246.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 2:46 pm
*smacks head*
Silly me! =)
247.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I am noticing that Joey does not respond to those of us who present him with facts and references, or to those of us who ask him the hard questions …
He doesn’t know how to think outside the little list of talking points given him by President Monson.
Sad.
248.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Oh, I’ve done a pretty good job of responding to the three hundred + comments I’ve gotten. I really do have other things that I need to get done today. I also have a family to tend to.
As far as President Monson goes, I challenge you to find what he has come out and told us. My opinions are based on study of many sources, personal observations, and through experience. I include church leader input as well.
I have drawn the same conclusion in my own fact gathering and conclusions that my church has though. To me, this just reenforces that it’s truth.
249.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 6:09 pm
as in family you mean demon spawns form your version of hell?
The truth is you’re a traitor to this country if you refuse to abide by the laws of the constitution that ALL Americans not just Heterosexual “Mormons” must follow….You are also a traitor to humanity and a complete waste of human life….get over yourself insect food…..<3…Ronnie
250.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 8:55 am
I have twice tried to post the full text of the Special Comment to California from the General Conference of October 2008, from which our little friend has obtained the majority of his talking points. If anyone would like a copy of the Word document that I have on file, please let me know and I will get it to you.
Love,
Fiona
251.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 9:00 am
Do lets talk about what President Monson said, shall we?
http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.ban.2.835943.html
Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson’s letter has been read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the forthcoming initiative have credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp an edge in donations and volunteers.
If you read this article, my friends, you will find some quotes from the Special Comment to California document.
Oh, and Joey? CBS5? That’s not a gay website. That’s a place where people out in the big scary world get information — main stream media.
252.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 10:12 am
I would, Fiona. If you need my email address, I will text it to you.
253.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 10:16 am
Richard, I’m pretty sure I have it at home. I will send the document tonight.
Love,
Fiona
254.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 10:17 am
Actually, it only reinforces the truth that you are unable to be enough of a REAL man to come up with any concrete, logical, critical thinking of your own. It simply reinforces that you are totally caught in the mind trap that President Monson has you in. I pity you and your entire family.
255.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 10:25 am
Thanks. Looking forward to it.
256.
Kathleen | June 24, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Fiona, perhaps you could upload the word doc to Scribd and provide a link? I don’t know if there is a copyright issue.
257.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Good question. It’s the cached document from Kolobcafe; the LDS took down the original links after Prop 8 passed, as though those of us with some Google-fu don’t know how to use it, LOL.
I’ll get back to you with a link.
258.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Great idea from Kathleen:
Prop 8
259.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 2:53 pm
If the viewer doesn’t work here, the link reading “Prop 8” will take you to the document that shows the full text of what CA Mormons were “called” to do for Prop 8.
260.
JonT | June 24, 2010 at 5:25 pm
An interesting read…
261.
David Kimble | June 23, 2010 at 1:49 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1615320420100617
In case anyone hasn’t seen this story – I have included a link to it! <3 David
262.
Mark M. | June 23, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Are you serious! What the F does it matter who has the most Face Book followers???
UGH!!!!!
I am rather sick of everyone feeling the need to validate themselves by how many friends they have on FB or MySpace.
I for one have far more important things to do…….
I have the Georges and the JoeyDGs to worry about.
We are fighting for our lives and our futures in the courts now…I wonder how long before we have to fight for our very lives once these types feel the need to take their hatred one step further.
263.
Mark M. | June 23, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Most of you have no doubt seen this but for those that haven’t here is the link:
Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Sex and Imprison Anyone Who Issues a Marriage License to a Gay Couple
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/06/texas-gop-platform-criminalize-gay-sex-and-imprison-anyone-who-issues-a-marriage-license-to-a-gay-co.html
264.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Oh, I saw it. I have no doubt that our little friend Joey is jumping up and down with delight.
Love,
Fiona (who used to think that “The Handmaid’s Tale” was dystopian fiction but now sees it as prophecy …)
PS for Joey: “The Handmaid’s Tale” is a book. Don’t be afraid.
265.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm
There it is, the Religious Reich’s plan for Nazi-esque oppression & tyranny at its finest…..conform or be incarcerated…..next step….Genocide….. >( …..Ronnie
266.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I’m just sitting here shaking my head.
We are still in 2010, right? We didn’t slip through some weird disruption in the space/time continuum while I went to grab lunch?
267.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm
The GOP: Advancing America to the 18th Century, one tea party at a time …
Love,
Fiona
268.
Mark M. | June 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm
First the Texans try to rewrite history by adopting textbooks with distorted views of history…now they wish to turn back time.
I think we as a nation should let them form their own little country and be done with them.
Hateful backwards A-holes!!!!!
269.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I was kind of hoping that this information was all a hoax, but no — I read the whole freakin’ platform from the Texas GOP website. I just sent the links to Rachel Maddow (on the off chance she hasn’t already addressed the issue).
I love their way of getting around those pesky SCOTUS rulings (like the one that struck down Texas’ sodomy laws) — change laws so that there is no appealing morality issues to the courts. I also love how they complain that those advocating for gay rights are intolerant bigots. o.o? Somewhere else in the document (after they talk about how no homosexual parent should be given custody of a child — and should only be allowed limited supervised visitation if ABSOLUTELY necessary), they talk about how they deplore discrimination in all its forms… but want the Hate Crimes Act repealed unless sexual orientation is taken off the list.
I say let’s trade the progressives and any other Texan who has two brain cells to rub together to … somewhere less backwards — then cut Texas loose (since they really don’t sound interested in being with anyone who doesn’t think like them anyway).
270.
JoeyDG | June 23, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Before you jump up and down excitedly about the Lawrence V Texas victory, remember that sodomy laws also included clauses about pedophilia, sex outside of marriage, and bestiality among other things… all gone now.
271.
Ronnie | June 23, 2010 at 7:22 pm
and your point is you want it to be illegal to be gay…thank you crybaby Hitler…I mean Joey…go f your ditzy wife since thats all shes good for….<3…Ronnie
272.
Kathleen | June 23, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Before you jump up and down excitedly about the Lawrence V Texas victory, remember that sodomy laws also included clauses about pedophilia, sex outside of marriage, and bestiality among other things… all gone now.
Now you’re just showing you’re ignorance in yet another area of expertise. Lawrence v Texas did not strike down laws against bestiality or pedophilia. To the extent that sex outside of marriage is consensual and involves two people of legal age of consent–yes, if are were any laws on the books which criminalized such activity, Lawrence would stand for the proposition that these laws are unconstitutional.
273.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 9:00 am
Joey, to put it bluntly, you are full of shit.
274.
Mouse | June 23, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I don’t understand why people think my marriage will have any impact on their marriages.
I’m not marrying you.
I’m not marrying your spouse.
Outside of those two cases, my marriage does not and cannot impinge upon yours in any logical way. To believe otherwise is crazy.
In fact, I have been married to my husband for almost two years now. This has not had any impact on your marriage.
I am fighting for my right to keep my marriage and all the rights that come with it. I am fighting to win the rest of the rights that should come with it – rights that you already enjoy in your own marriage. If I get what I want, this has no impact on you or any aspect of your life. None.
You are fighting for your right to feel good about the usage of a word. You are fighting about semantics. If you win, I am hugely impacted. I lose all the rights that I have today and society learns the lesson that it is acceptable to treat me as less than you. I lose the right to feel safe.
So while I understand that it is hurtful to you when I label you as a bigot, that is as it should be. If it stings to have your hatred branded upon you, that means that there is hope for you, that you aren’t as morally bankrupt as your hateful actions suggest.
People get upset and downright mean when you try to express your “opposing viewpoint” and that is unfortunate but with even a modicum of thought completely understandable.
If I told you, “Your wife is not your wife. Your very relationship is invalid and despicable,” it would not be surprising to me if that incensed you. It should not be surprising, because that would be an awful thing to say. Yet you say these things to me and react with haughtiness when they upset me.
I hope that those of you who come here with your “opposing viewpoints” learn something. I don’t know if you are coming here because you enjoy internet griefing and we are once again singled out by things like prop 8 as acceptable victims, or if you are coming here because you have lingering issues with your sense of self.
I’m here because this case is about me. And it is bigger than that, because this case is also about the right of mobs with pitchforks and torches to trample upon any who are weaker – something the court is obligated to protect all of us from.
Why are you here?
275.
fiona64 | June 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm
You’ll get nothing but applause from this ally!
What these “opposing viewpoint” people don’t get is that they are setting the precedent to one day see their own rights put on the ballot.
(Of course, since most of the “opposing viewpoints” have come from straight white males desperate to hold on to their perceived hegemony, they can’t conceive of any kind of “-ism” going against them. They’ve never experienced it, so it doesn’t exist.)
Love,
Fiona
276.
Mouse | June 23, 2010 at 5:20 pm
What saddens me most is the realization that these trolls and other like-minded voters cannot ever have known what it is to love and be loved.
I say they cannot, for if they had, they would know how wonderful and precious love is.
They would know that love should be cherished and celebrated wherever it is found.
If they had ever, even for a moment, know what it is to truly love or be loved, they would never think of denying that from anyone.
And that is profoundly sad. Everyone should know love.
277.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 6:00 pm
@Mouse: “If they had ever, even for a moment, know what it is to truly love or be loved, they would never think of denying that from anyone.
See – I’m not sure I buy into that in Joey’s case. From his statements regarding a ‘warm fuzzy feeling’ when hugging his buddy, or his children – the implication is that he does not know what love is. He’s never felt it. That for him, marriage actually *is* all about breeding.
I have difficulty believing that. I think if his wife died in a car accident tomorrow, he would be *hurt*. In pain. He would not just shrug his shoulders and go: “Oh well, I’ll just pick up a new breeding vessel at the temple tomorrow after work”.
I think he lies when he says this, for to acknowledge love would be to destroy his argument.
278.
Alto | June 23, 2010 at 7:10 pm
@ Mouse : Very well said.
279.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 9:01 am
I’m not so sure about that, JonT. I would hope that to be true, but I have my doubts. He has made it very plain that women have no value except for their uterus — remember, I’m “morally deviant” because I chose not to have children, and therefore my marriage is “sexually deviant.”
His words, not mine.
280.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Bravo, Mouse!
281.
eDee | June 23, 2010 at 5:33 pm
“They” don’t want you to be happy than “they” are.
If you are allowed to get married to someone of the same gender and become happier than the rest of us we will get jealous and that will disrupt our marriage.
How dare you want to be happy and destroy our marriage?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again …. when they invent the Lesbian Pill I’ll be the first in line!
282.
eDee | June 23, 2010 at 5:34 pm
“They” don’t want you to be happy than “they” are.
If you are allowed to get married to someone of the same gender and become happier than the rest of us we will get jealous and that will disrupt our marriage.
How dare you want to be happy and destroy our marriage?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again …. when they invent the Lesbian Pill I’ll be the first in line!
283.
Shun | June 23, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I don’t know why we are feeding trolls like Joey…
284.
JonT | June 23, 2010 at 5:48 pm
I’m not sure we are feeding trolls Shun. The haters drop in here from time-to-time and tell us how deviant we are, etc.
I think it is entirely appropriate to expose their fallacies and lies and misconceptions for what they are.
I agree that name calling is probably not appropriate, but I can certainly understand the anger these haters provoke.
I guess in that sense, they are trolls – attempting to show the ‘radical homosexualists’ for the ‘foaming at the mouther’ lunatics they are repeatedly told that we are.
Unlike our opponents, this ‘forum’ actually does allow people to express their views (and get jumped on when they are stupid and/or provably false), so it is not that surprising to me when they occasionally show up here. Where else can they go? NOMblog? Ha!
:)
285.
nightshayde | June 23, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I agree that the name-calling is unnecessary (especially calling them Nazis). It just brings us down to their level, and lessens the impact of what are often very valid posts. I know I can’t take any post seriously if it’s full of cursing and hate-speech.
Trying to ask rational questions and providing rational arguments does not, in my mind, constitute “feeding the trolls.” Though we almost assuredly won’t change the attitudes or opinions of the actual trolls, we might persuade some lurkers who are a bit more on-the-fence — people who are honestly reading comments to see what each side thinks so that they can make up their own minds.
Before the Prop8 days (thus well before the advent of this site), I was part of the brainwashed masses who thought Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships were just as good as marriage & were a reasonable solution — that was until I read a post on a message board (one I still frequent) from the mother of a lesbian daughter. She explained why CUs/DPs were NOT acceptable alternatives to full marriage equality, and put a human face on what at that time was usually just a theoretical discussion.
Reading her post made the whole issue “click” for me. I’m really hoping that reading reasonable explanations here will make the issue “click” for other people.
THAT is why I respond to the trolls.
286.
Shun | June 23, 2010 at 6:41 pm
That’s true (on the explaining part). I guess I read some post up there that said someone should slit the guy’s throat or something and just thought it was unnecessary.
287.
Sheryl Carver | June 23, 2010 at 10:27 pm
While I agree that it’s important to respond to the falsehoods & illogic of the likes of JoeyDG & Goerge (formerly George?), it seems that their main purpose is to hurt & provoke. Any response other than simply & unemotionally refuting their version of “TRUTH” only serves to encourage them. Thus, “feeding the trolls”.
When I’m rested & centered, I feel sorry for them. It’s got to be tough to belong to a religion in which the human leader(s) can punish you by affecting the fate of your soul for all eternity. Or rather, that’s what you’ve been taught to believe. What a risk to take, to even entertain the possibility of disagreeing with said leadership! Not everyone has that kind of courage.
On the other hand, when I’m tired & cranky & have read too many troll posts, all I want to do is give them “wall to wall counseling”. That’s where you grab someone by the front of their shirt & slam them from one wall to the other until they realize the error of their ways.
I try to spend more time in the centered place. I really, really do. But apparently it’s one of those things that’s going to take a few more lifetimes to achieve.
<3, Sheryl
288.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 4:32 am
@Sheryl Carver:
Then I take it you are also familiar with “Cast Iron Skillet” counseling? I have wanted to conduct that therapy on some of our more recalcitrant trolls in the hopes of adjusting their attitudes.
289.
Sheryl Carver | June 24, 2010 at 6:52 am
Yes, Richard, I have heard of this therapy. I believe it has a greater potential for damaging the patient, but sometimes seems to be called for when other attempts are unsuccessful. :-)
290.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 6:59 am
@Sheryl Carver; #246:
You are right, it does have the potential for greater damage to the patient, that is why it is normally held in reserve as a last resort therapy. Often, all you have to do is keep the cast iron skillet where it can be seen, and that is normally enough.
291.
Sheryl Carver | June 24, 2010 at 7:44 am
@Richard –
I like it!
Sort of like shaking the spray bottle of water when the cat is clearly thinking of jumping up on the counter to snack on the human’s lunch.
292.
Fulton | June 25, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I am grateful for those who respond to the trolls, not because the trolls might change (and anything is possible) but because I have learned so much from what they say to the trolls. The words of people like fiona64 and Kathleen and Walter have enriched me. I hope and trust they will continue.
293.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 25, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Trust me, Fulton, I will continue to speak up. I spent too many years hiding to shut up now. thank you for your kind words. Like others I have met here on P8TT, I truly hope we get the opportunity to meet face-to-face.
I speak up not only for those who regularly post here, but also for those who are lurkers, in the hopes that maybe they will read something here that clicks, and they have their “AHA!” moment and see that we are also human beings, and that we are fully deserving of our civil and legal rights. Or for those who are lurking and afraid to come out of the closet, I hope that they will see something here that gives them hope.
I will continue to fight for our full equality as long as is necessary, because I want the next generation of LGBTQQI’s to know something i never knew growing up–that they too can get married to the one they love and raise a family. I want the next generation to grow up without fear that today could be the day they get chained to a street sign for hours, or get beaten to a pulp, or get tied to a railroad crossing, or get stabbed and slashed and left hemorrhaging, or have acid thrown at them, or get doused with gasoline and a match thrown on them.
I speak out, and I fight, because I want our next generation to know love, acceptance, and the full meaning of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I want the next generation to be able to serve in the military without having to hide who they are and who they love.
So yes, Fulton, I will continue to speak out. And I have every reason to believe that fiona64 and Kathleen will also continue to speak out against all forms of injustice and tyranny.
And I thank you for your kind words which obviously come from your heart.
294.
Kathleen | June 23, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Could we just declare Utah a theocracy, let it secede, and offer to pay the moving costs for anyone who wants to seek asylum outside its borders? I’d contribute to the fund (though Redford can afford his own). All the Mormons could go there, pass any regressive religiously motivated laws they want, and leave the rest of us alone. There is some beautiful country there, but I’d gladly give it up in exchange for all the normal people not having to deal with these fundies any more.
295.
eDee | June 23, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Not sure why that posted twice or why it didn’t post under “Mouse”
“Mouse” was who I was responding too.
296.
Misken | June 24, 2010 at 9:21 am
the thing is, equality on trial is a specific organization pertaining to this trial itself, while NOM is an organization that is basically synonymous to anti-gay marriage. Therefore, it is logical that NOM would have more facebook fans than Equality on Trial.
However, if you compare a pro-gay marriage page on facebook to NOM, I can almost assure you there will be more on the pro-gay marriage page.
297.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 9:29 am
Joey’s agenda, from his blog (emphasis added):
1. Restrict practices like abortion and abortion rights for children.
2. Get liberal judges who “legislate from the bench” out of office and restrict the Judicial Branch’s ability to trump and change law by themselves.
3. Remove sex education from elementary and jr.-high schools, and restrict sex-ed in high schools to abstinence-only education – let them know that sex for children and adolescents is against the law!
4. Ensure that schools and children aren’t left with the parental responsibility that you should possess.
5. Put an amendment in our constitutions that declares marriage as a heterosexual relationship.
6. Re-institute and re-enforce the importance of sodomy laws that restrict sex to the insertion of a penis into a vagina (and re-establish the definition of sexual intercourse)
7. Restrict the propagation of pornography (especially on the Internet) and restrict other media that promotes societally damaging sexual relationships.
8. Ban participation of professed homosexuals, pedophiles, and zoophiles from your respected organizations like the BSA. Reject the notion that blind tolerance is good tolerance.
9. Reassert that we are “one nation under God” by promoting sexual morality, de-vilifying Christianity and the Bible, and by respecting the principles upon which our freedom, prosperity, and safety rests.
10. Shut out the politically “Socialist/Liberal” voice in our country that became so vocal in the late 1960s and 1970s (see this YouTube video).
Isn’t it amazing? Our little Joey here wants to declare that only penis->vagina is legal sex (I suspect that man-on-top will be the only legal position) and shut down freedom of speech.
We have a word for people like Joey. Since he is our little dictionary boy, I thought I would go to his favorite source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
Draw your own conclusions
298.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 10:11 am
Item #9: Joey wants to do away with the First Amendment.
And lest we forget item #2, Joey also wants to do away with the checks and balances of government.
Joey, in other words, wants us all to live in a Fascist state where the government suits his religious beliefs.
Didn’t I say earlier that I was pretty sure he wanted us to live in the Republic of Gilead? Well, he’s laid it all out right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Gilead
299.
JonT | June 24, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Wow, that’s all pretty spooky. It’s people like that who will destroy this country if we let them.
Kinda glad I didn’t waste any time on his blog.
Republic of Gilead. Oh yeah, that’s their utopia.
300.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I am heading to my library’s website to request a copy of The Handmaid’s Tale so I can read this.
301.
fiona64 | June 24, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Richard, it’s an amazing book — but please know that it may well be triggering for you. It was for me, in ways that I did not expect.
Love,
Fiona
302.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 24, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Thank you for the warning, Fiona. At least now, at this point in my life, I know that I do NOT have to face those things alone. In the past when things triggered me, it was even worse to know I had to face it alone without any support, than the actual triggering was.
303.
Michelle Evans | June 24, 2010 at 3:28 pm
It is also a movie that was made 20 years ago starring Natasha Richardson and Faye Dunaway.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099731/
Something to get on Netflix.
304.
fiona64 | June 25, 2010 at 9:20 am
http://joey.mimweddings.com/Bloggy/?p=124
Just providing the source for JoeyDG’s manifesto, in case anyone doubts the veracity of what I posted.
Frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t include the criminalization of contraception, and forceably removing women from any jobs they hold outside the home … but that may be part of the “other actions” he refers to in the blog.
305.
PamC | June 25, 2010 at 11:59 am
He makes the obvious error of confusing sexual identity with sexual behavior. Sexual behavior can be moral or immoral, if you believe (as I do) that acting hurtfully or violently towards another is immoral. Sexual orientation, like left-handedness, is neither ethical or moral. How you treat others is what matters.
But I particularly love this selection: “…this is a mature-adult topic. As such, more advanced principles of ethics and sexuality will be discussed. In other words, this is an ugly subject but is of dire importance – so, no children allowed.”
Oh, so ethics shouldn’t be discussed with children? And how do you respond to children’s questions about sexuality? Because they ask; most of us did, at least. There are age-appropriate responses describing loving relationships and sexuality.
I wish I had the link to the youtube video of that adorable little boy who figured out why two men would want to get married: “Because you LOVE each other!”
(and LOVE is a verb, not just a warm fuzzy feeling)
306.
PamC | June 25, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Oh, and both ethics and sexuality are “ugly subjects”???? I see what you mean, fiona. I feel sorry for “the wife”!
307.
Mark M. (Seattle) | June 25, 2010 at 3:24 pm
WOW!!
That was very hard to read….my blood pressure is sky high right now I have no doubt.
What a complete and total pile of horse pucky (as my dear Grandmother would have said)
Nothing more than paragraph after paragraph of ‘beliefs’/ mistruths/and out and out lies.
Utterly amazing….and very very sad
308.
PamC | June 25, 2010 at 12:06 pm
“zoophiles”????
I (used to) love zoos. But I have to agree, zoophilia is morally wrong: animals should remain in their natural habitat.
STOP ZOO LOVE!! SET THE ANIMALS FREE!!
309.
fiona64 | June 25, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I think Joey is trying to use a fancy term for bestiality.
Someone take away his thesaurus …
Love,
Fiona
310.
PamC | June 25, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I know, but it’s such a funny word!
311.
fiona64 | June 25, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Everyone’s heard the hyperbolic story of the “big bad gay men beating up the cross-carrying granny in Palm Springs,” right?
Well, it turns out that this lady is pretty well known down there for her radical brand of Christianity, which includes walloping people with her large cross (the which was taken away from her during Palm Springs Pride).
Well, she wrote a commentary for the Desert Sun newspaper (I really must look it up again) where she talked about how President Obama wasn’t really American, but was of Zoo Loo (her spelling) descent.
My husband and I now call the restrooms at the local wildlife park the “zoo loos.”
Love,
Fiona
312.
Felyx | June 25, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I really gotta wonder why there is so much emphasis on the so called ‘Gay Agenda’. Gays just want to be happy, parade, marry, have children (regardless of what is said about any impossibilites!) and finally die in each others arms.
Why are we not counter-yelling about the Anti-American Theocratic Agenda?!!!
They seek to violate the sanctity of Privacy!
Restrict the right to free speech and expression!
Create numerous victimless crimes for which the state will be forced to pay enormous sums to house more non-criminals!
Force the US to maintain a second class of citizens!
It is about time we bring this fight to the opposition. We need to use their phrasing to bring home the point that there is a serious radical disconnect between gays taking care of themselves and religious Theocratic radicals who would harm others. They want to play victims and cry foul…why in god’s name are we letting them bring this cultural war rhetoric on our turf? Let us return it to where it started!! We just want to be free! When they back down and leave us alone it will all go away. Until then, they are the ones that need to be on the defensive!! Not us! There is no gay agenda that was not FIRST an American agenda!! But there is a radical Theocratic agenda that seeks to undermine American values! Let us speak up and shine the light of truth on this heinous deceptive unethical behaviour!!!
Felyx
313.
Rebecca | June 24, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I’ve really been enjoying reading the lively conversations in here, especially the back and forth between Joey DG and Fiona. Much as I disagree with JoeyDG’s viewpoints, I have to appreciate that he is at least defending his position with real reasons (misguided and prejudiced though they may be).
@Ronnie
I appreciate that you’re fighting for the same thing I am. I desperately want to marry my girlfriend and wish that was possible where we are in IL.
But your comments are pointless, difficult to read and rely on calling names at the right-wingers. Calling them Nazi’s is not going to change their views; you’ll just put them on the defensive. I’m sure you have valuable things to say. Just please say them without referring to Nazi’s, calling Joey a crybaby, calling his wife “ditzy” (you’ve never met the poor woman) etc.
314.
Ronnie | June 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I know my words are harsh, but they are the truth….he has never met me and yet lumps every single LGBT person in the same pile..me referring to him as a Nazi is in reference to his actions and his desire to control our lives….which are in fact no way possible moral or ethical or even acceptable in secular society…..
and mark my words….stating that we have no right to get married… or call it marriage even where it is legal because his Bible says so when the Bible is NOT American law and there is no law that says we must live our lives according to it…is attempting to control out lives and forcing us to live according to his “moral superiority” and “ideal”….it is degrading, demeaning, insulting * offensive….
He comes in here, compares & calls people offensive things, falsely accusing people of saying something they did not say….he deserved it…he dehumanizes us so I will not treat him with any respect as human because he dose not deserve kindness…..
I will, however, apologize to my fellow Rainbow family members of all faiths, genders, orientations, & races….I would lay my life on the line for ALL of you….I would lay down my life for Equality & American Freedom….something I am sure the religious reich would not do unless you conform to their “ideal”….I am NOBODY’S doormat….and I will NOT be walked all over my these sanctimonious holier-then-thou Bible humpers who think they are the only ones entitled to everything life has to offer….not now, not ever <3…Ronnie
315.
Rebecca | June 24, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Amen to that, I’m sick of Bible-thumpers trying to control the “morality” of the country and therefore the political agenda too.
I apologize if I sounded harsh to you, Ronnie. We’re on the same team and I am proud to have someone with so much passion for LGBT rights by my side.
Let’s hope that the children of these ignorant people grow up to be more understanding and loving. If they really want to follow Jesus, they should follow his #1 rule and love their neighbors, even the gay ones.
316.
Straight Grandmother | June 25, 2010 at 2:00 pm
And Ronnie took the time and made the effort to participate in the National Equality March in DC he doesn’t just sit at home on thr inernet, he walks the walk! Go Ronnie!!!!!
317.
Jeremy | June 24, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Okay. I don’t think I’ve written here before. If I have, it’s been so long ago and just a simple “I agree” or “thank you” or what not. So this is a de-lurking of sorts. This may be long (depending on how I edit), so bare with me.
Joey, you said you wanted to know about us… well I can’t speak for anyone else here, but this is me and my story. Maybe it’ll help, maybe it won’t; either way though, you won’t be able to say that we (or I) am hiding from you.
My name is Jeremy. I’m 38 years old. I’m the youngest of 2 in a nuclear family. Each of my parents were also from nuclear families. My dad is youngest of 3 (Methodist), and my mom eldest of 5 (Catholic). My father was the bread-winner and my mother was a (until I was in high-school) full-time, stay at home caregiver & housewife. We all lived together, in a nice 3 bedroom tract-home in suburban Orange, CA (also in the COUNTY of Orange).
I was a, for the most part, quiet child. Well behaved, considerate, conscientious. I went to school, did my lessons and my chores. Didn’t run around with a wild crowd, or break curfew. Had a job to support myself, and went to college and got a degree. Got a job after that. Bought my own car, lived on my own. Dated, fell in love, and set up a stable home for me and my family.
Sounds pretty much like you, yeah? Just a normal, middle class, white boy. No complaints or anything, right? Looks can be decieving.
I can tell you in all honesty, that your concept of an idyllic nuclear family failed miserably in my life.
My parents never divorced, much to my pain. Life would have been better, for everyone involved, if my father had stood up to my mother and left her. Then my mother would have been able (forced?) to get the help she so desperately needs. We wouldn’t have been left alone with a functional alcoholic who suffered from moderate chronic depression (and let’s just say those two don’t go well together). A woman who in her fits was abusive not only to my sister any myself, but also to her husband, mother, in-laws, friends & neighbors. Physical, emotional, verbal abuse; just so you know.
We went without food when she was angry. She and my sister had physical fights, which ended up with my sister being locked in her room (and by lock I mean behind a key). While I, honestly, hid in my room and tried to stay out of the line of fire. When my mother’s temper had been cooled some by the wine, I went out to try and placate things and bring a semblance of normalcy to my home.
I was also the one who had to try and defend my sister from her classmates who thought it was fun and acceptable to make fun of her hearing loss. Rubella at work, the vaccine hadn’t been around long enough to protect her. Picture a 2nd grader standing up to and telling sixth graders to leave his sister alone.
Me, I got the rest; the chronic depression (thankfully milder than my mother’s). And it took a very long time to realize that. It wasn’t until I was out on my own, experiecing life and the world at large, that I found out I had adolescent onset depression, but more on that later. Also was diagnosed with Coats’ disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coats'_disease). So I very much understand what you mean about expensive doctors and fighting for the privilege of driving. If I lost that, I’d lose my job.
If I lost my job, I’d lose my house (unless you count my car as a residence), I’d lose my insurance (can’t possibly afford medical care without insurance), and to be frank, I’d lose my life as I now require daily medication to keep myself alive, medication that costs roughly $1000/mo (without the insurance). And while I have no idea what epileptic medications do, as far as side effects… mine are pretty crummy. Nothing debilitating, but well beyond the point of minor annoyance. Fatigue, arthritis, irritable bowel (for polite wording). I have to keep an extra close eye on my blood sugar, liver, and cholesterol to boot.
So yes, I’m gay… in case that slipped past you. And I have been all my life. I knew, even if I wasn’t cognisant of how, I was different. I knew this as early as kindergarten. And as early as 7th grade, it’s cost me friends. You may want to believe it’s a choice. I can’t stop you from your right to believe that. I can only tell you, for me, it wasn’t. I tell people who ask me why I chose to be gay this. “Think about what it means to be gay. To be a minority. To always be an outsider. The stigma. Think about what it’s like for you to meet someone, your own ‘the one.’ Now make it 10x harder, because I only have 1/10 the population that you have. If it was a choice, really, why would I have chosen it? Don’t you think I’d choose to be what you call ‘normal’?”
But the fact is, again, I’ll only speak for myself, being gay IS normal. I have never had a romantic or sexual interest in women. I tried. I did what ‘good boys’ do and steal their dad’s playboy magazines. It just wasn’t there. Nothing could compare with Kevin the star football player. Or Alan on the wrestling team. I tried so hard, and failed so miserably, so many times; I tried to kill myself. Seems I failed at that as well; but I’m okay with that. Some people might say that I should’ve kept trying. Correction, some people DID say that. You might even think it, but if you do, as is your right, don’t feel obliged to reply.
Have I had things thrown at me, yes. Piss/spit, check. Had my property stolen/defaced, yup. Beaten up and/or threatened, can’t even count how many times. Shot at, none, but not for lack of trying. Only reason was I stood up for myself. One on one with a ‘gentleman’ in the parking lot. If his friends had shown up earlier… well those who wish me dead might be happier now. But I was hit with a car, if that counts. I’d ask you, but again… I won’t read nor reply to your response, so you needn’t bother… take it as rhetorical perhaps. How many times have you been kicked out of your home? Your family? Your church? How many friends have you lost? How long have you lived in fear? How many times a day do you find yourself lying and hiding? This is what I, as a gay man, have to live with and through, on a daily basis from good religious (mostly christian) people. My parents kicked me out, twice (but that’s a long story). My friends have abandoned me. The church tells me I’m wrong and bad. Why? For being what god made me. You disagree, I know, but as I said above… I know what I know. When you walk in my skin, you can tell me I’m wrong. I work, yes, but I work in public health. It’s not what you’d call an open and loving profession. Basically it boils down to lowest common denominator. I have to be what offends the least number of people. I have to watch out and make sure that my union will still protect and represent me. I have to be careful and not let anything show that would put my boss on the witch-hunt. All because of something that doesn’t matter to any of these people. Who I love. Not who I choose to love, simply who I love.
Ideals are great. I applaud that you have them. However, ideal at any cost… it really becomes the ends justify the means. And that is not something that I think you really support.
So, now you have a name, and a mental picture of at least one of us. If you can still, honestly and openly, attack me; I do mean ME personally, not just a nameless, faceless “pro-gay, deviant, homosexual adgenda-ist” then by all means… have at it. But if anything, any single word of what I said touched any single part of you in any way… then perhaps take a moment to reconsider what the words you’ve said in this general and open forum have felt like to me.
The teachings say that the holy resides in all of us, we simply forget to listen; we are too wrapped up in that which is transitory. May the light remind you to hear the spirit.
318.
Kathleen | June 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Jeremy, thank you for sharing your story. It has truly touched my heart and reaffirms (not that I needed reminding) why I continue to fight for full equality.
Love,
Kathleen
319.
JonT | June 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Jeremy… Wow. Made me cry.
You are not alone.
I don’t think people like Joey can understand something like that, but thanks for trying anyway.
:)
320.
Bob | June 24, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Jeremy, thanks for sharing your personal story, it inspires me, you honor us all by sharing yourself in this way THANKS
321.
Bob | June 24, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Have to add to my gratitude to Jeremy’s story, reading it has made my day, in so many ways, I just got to say, Jeremy is a true Rainbow Warrior, having survifved a life of torment and anguish, often in Solitiude, feeling alone, and to finally be able to tell your story with such strength and conviction, may the telling, lift the dark thunder clouds for you, and for all of us who have personally made similar journeys, grow spiritually to know love and truth, In his words “May the light remind you to hear the spirit” spoken by a true survivor,
And may all Rainbow people remember this story and add our own every time we see the brilliance of a Rainbow in the skiy.
322.
fiona64 | June 25, 2010 at 9:12 am
Thank you for sharing so eloquently, Jeremy. I hope Joey (and many others like him) get the picture.
Love,
Fiona
323.
Mark M. (Seattle) | June 25, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Jeremy you are a hero! Thank you for opening your heart and your wounds to all of us here.
You took us by the hand and allowed us to feel your pain and your growth through your story……thank you.
I must admit it took me some time to read, as I had to stop often to wipe the tears and fight back the shudders…you see your story was very much my own story.
I too am glad you failed at suicide (I failed three times)
Seems funny now in a way…but back than it was so totally awful to feel bad enough to want to die but be so pathetic as to not even be able to do THAT right.
Always know that you are loved and surrounded by ‘FAMILY’
Furry Hugs
Mark
324.
Fulton | June 25, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Thank you. Your words may not touch ‘joey’ (but I hope they do.) They have touched me. Thank you!
325.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 25, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Thank you, Jeremy. I had to read your story several times so that I could get through the whole thing without flashbacks. And yet, while those flashbacks were painful, they also helped me identify even more closely with your strength. As others have said, you are not alone. This group has become my family over the past several months, and we will earnestly and sincerely welcome you into the family as well. thank you for never completely giving up. the world needs more people like you so that it may continue to improve. You have valuable lessons to teach all of us, and you may never know which of our lurkers who may be on the verge of giving up you have just shone a new ray of hope upon.
326.
Billy | June 25, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Nice, Jeremy. I believe I spilled my guts out on this forum roughly 4-6 months ago as well. It takes a lot of courage to remove the anonymity from yourself and expose yourself. It’s almost like coming out all over again (except this time with a much more positive response… and no one suggesting shock therapy to zap the gay away…) Sorry, had a flashback.
Just know you’re not alone. We’ve all dealt with some major $h!t in our lives here, and we can relate on so many levels.
Therefore, I will give you… an internet brofist.
Have a nice day :D
327.
Alto | June 24, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Jeremy, what a moving story. Thank you for sharing it. Personally, I’ve not had to deal with anywhere near the crap that you have, but somehow I can relate on a certain level. Certainly with the jeers and name-calling, being bullied to a minor degree (stuffed in a trash can at school once my Freshman year). Take care. I wish you a good life, someday free from bigotry.
328.
Brian | June 24, 2010 at 4:36 pm
OK, first an apology for a long post.
JoeyDG, I have read through your multiple responses/lines of reasoning in this thread and am trying to address them from a strictly factual/legal basis. Which is the kind of discussion you claim you wanted.
Because my response is long, I’ll put my conclusions (which are just opinions) up front.
You consistantly use logicless, emotional, religious propaganda to back up your opinions. I hope you recognize it for what it is.
I realize that I am not going to convince you that you are wrong; I do not think you want to be convinced. Just as you will not convince most people on this forum that they are wrong, as they do not want to be convinced.
You should also not act surprised that when you refer to people of their lifestyles as ‘deviant’ or as an ‘illness’ that it will provoke angry responses.
That said, I am sure there are readers who are more ‘on the fence’, and listen to the arguements on both sides. And for them, I break down your arguements to the best of my ability.
Enjoy,
-Brian
———
JoeyDG: Compares home not getting married to epileptic not being a fighter pilot.
Response: This is an invalid analogy. This breaks down because there is no ‘proof’ of a risk to self or others if homo-sexuals get married. The best that the proponents in the prop 8 trial came up with is ‘deinstitutionalization’ of marriage, which they conceded is already ongoing and they ‘don’t know’ if it will actually do anything at all.
——-
JoeyDG: Marriage already under ‘attack’, and homosexuals are trying to break it.
Response: Without any specific examples, this is empty propaganda that is being regurgitated. (probably from the LDS church judging from what we know of you) What is ‘attacking’ marriage? What about marriage will ‘break’ if homosexual couples are included? You provide nothing here. Marriage is not legally defined a given way just because you, or the LDS church, want it to be defined that way. Provide some evidence, examples, or even a theory please as to how homosexual marriages ‘break’ marriage as an institution.
——-
JoeyDG: Comparing “qualifying to be married” to “qualifying to be a doctor”, or “getting a driver’s license”.
Response: Again, i’m going to try to look at this from a legal perspective. The specific mechanic you use here is ‘let them in’. Doctor’s are ‘let in’ by the appropriate board or institution testing and bestowing the title. Drivers licenses are given out by the state to people who are of appropriate age, and pass the states driving exame. People are ‘let in’ to a marriage by the state. To my knowledge, the only requirements for being given that marriage is that the participant is of legal age, legally able to consent, and is not currently married. Homosexuals participating in being ‘married’ would not change that and they are not asking for a change.
——-
JoeyDG: Provides a dictionary definition of marriage, and tries to use part societal definitions of marriage as rational that marriages should only be heterosexual
Response: What a dictionary or what past generations / nations / societies defined marriage as is not relevant to today’s legal definition of marriage in the United States. What is notable here however, is that societal definitions of marriage have changed and are not constant throughout time.
——-
Marriage rights
You concede that being ‘married’ conveys many legal rights/privleges that are not directly related to child rearing. And yet, you dismiss those rights as if they were not as important as complying to your defintion of marriage. Legal rights are all important, and none are a ‘distraction’ that one gets caught up in. Courts at least, treat them this way.
——-
JoeyDG: Sex is exclusively about bringing children into the world.
Response: No, its not. But again, legally speaking, sex is not even required for 2 people to be considered married in the United States. There are court cases related to people in prison getting married to people outside of prison and though they never consumate, they are still married. That you may want it to be is completely irrelevant.
——-
JoeyDG: Claim that SSM erodes your relationship
Response: Without claiming how, except insofar that it makes you unhappy. So, by this logic, should we disallow interacial marriage if that ‘erodes’ your definition of marriage (ie. makes you unhappy?) Legally, one has to demonstrate how you would be harmed other than ‘it makes you sad’, for you to have any standing to take away someone’s civil rights. You make an inference that SSM would somehow erode ‘lawful protections for your wife and children’, again without actually stating how or in what way. This is empty propaganda.
——-
JoeyDG: You fall back to a general propaganda statement that says ‘Other people have pain/sadness, therefore it is ok to deny SSM’.
Resposne: This is again, empty, logicless, propaganda. You could apply it to any arbitrary ‘pain’ or ‘suffering’ you choose to try to justify.
——-
JoeyDG: You claim people who can’t/won’t/don’t try to have kids are ‘abusing’ marriage.
Response: However, legally they are not ‘abusing’ marriage. According to your personal definition of who should be married, that may be true. But (thankfully) you are not the arbitor of who should be allowed to get married. There are no legal definitions of the ‘intention’ of marriage, other than to create and define a specific legal relationship between two people and to convey to them a set of specific legal rights and responsibilities. Different religions and cultures may convey other meanings to marriage, but they are wholly seperate from how the state considers it.
——-
JoeyDG: Talk about Overpopulation –
Repsonse: I’m unclear on this ‘argument’. SSM should have absolutly no bearing or effect on overpopulation either way. If anything, SSM’s may slightly increase the birthrate as more SS couples would feel comfortable having a child. But your statement seems to be that overpopulation isn’t really happening or if it is, it is a non-issue. So.. I don’t see how this applies at all. Feels like random ranting. Perhaps you were responding to someone else.
——-
JoeyDG: You say there is no legal reason to change the definition of marriage
Response: Entirely incorrect. The legal reason is that being ‘married’ conveys a set of legal rights & responsibilities & benefits to citizens who are married. And denial of those rights for no legitimate state purpose is a grounds for challenging that definition. A large portion of the plaintiff’s case in the Prop 8 trial was spent on covering the grounds that people who were denied a marriage license has to bring their case. Saying they had no legal reason to challenge Prop 8 is just plain ignorance.
——-
JoeyDG: You use a marrying of ‘you can’t marry water to water’ analogy for SSM
Response: Using an comparison of the marriage of two different people is more akin to your multiple sauces than two different waters. This is, again, an emotional piece of empty logicless propaganda used to make false analogy.
——-
JoeyDG: You try to claim your propaganda and religious viewpoint is a critique
Response: I guess, in so far as you are being critical of other people, it is a critique. However, it is actually just espousing a religious viewpoint. Which is fine, you can believe whatever you like. However, when actions you take based on your religious beliefs start to infringe on other people’s rights, that’s where you are ‘wrong’. Your ‘critique’ of the justification of supporting Prop 8 could be used by the KKK to justify their actions to prevent interracial marriages. I would say that your technique of using the ballot box is far better than burning crosses.
——-
JoeyDG: You offer up ‘my life involves caring for my wife and children’ as a defense for your viewpoint
Response: Another great example of propaganda. You imply that your experience of ‘caring your wife and children’ is an experience that homosexuals cannot experience. In fact, many homosexuals are fathers and mothers and are in loving relationships that people that are ‘wives’ or ‘husbands’, or are legally trying their hardest to legally establish as such. Heterosexuals do not have a ‘unique’ experinece of family love.
——-
JoeyDG: You state ‘polygamy’ and ‘pedophilia’ as the direction the nation is going to legitimize if we legitimize SSM.
Response: Homosexuality is not illegal. To the contrary, SCOTUS in fact just a few years ago struck down all sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Pedophilia is illegal. Polygamy is also illegal. There is no established ‘trend’ that leads from homosexuality to either of those other two. This is all logicless religious propaganda.
——
JoeyDG: You claim there is a legal definition of marriage that ties it to procreation
Response: You’re wrong. There isn’t. There is no need to redefine marriage in that respect to accomodate SSM. In fact, notably, you had to legally redefine marriage to exclude SSM.
——
JoeyDG: You state that homosexuality is a sexually deviant behavior
Response: You do realize that this statement is opinion, contested, and not legally relevant, yes? Not to mention rude given the people you are talking to.
——
JoeyDG: You attempt to tie homosexuality and pedophilia as being somehow related.
Repsonse: They aren’t, which many scientific papers, cited by others previously, can attest to.
——
JoeyDG: You imply that same sex marriages would result in your marriage (and other heterosexual marriages) would be treated with less respect and reverence?
Reponse: But, as usual, give no evidence to that effect. Were marriages treated with less reverence and respect after interracial marriages were allowed than before? No, they were not. Again, you are just regurgatating propaganda. You do realize this, yes?
——
JoeyDG: You state that a homosexual relationship is a ‘shallow relationship that can never experience the same depth as a hetero sexual marriage’
Response: Again, without evidence or even any sort of way of providing a judgement as to the ‘shallowness’ of any relationship, hetero or not. This is just logicless, emotional propaganda.
——
JoeyDG: You state you are only being kind and that you are not resorting to name calling like others on this forum.
Repsonse: But, in fact, you refer to them frequently as deviant, infer they are an ‘illness’, and call their relationships ‘shallow’
——
JoeyDG: You say that the SCOTUS ruling against outlawing sodomy also made pedophilia and bestiality legal. (Lawrence v. Texas)
Response: This is factually incorrect.It did not strike down the parts of the law dealing with pedophilia and bestiality. Those are still illegal. Generally this line of reasoning is used as false propaganda to try to imply that a ‘homosexual agenda’ is trying to legalize pedophilia and/or bestiality. Which, of course, is completely false
329.
JonT | June 24, 2010 at 6:14 pm
‘A’ for effort Brian… But logic has never been a strong point of the Joey’s of the world. It smacks too much of that “science’y” stuff :)
330.
Brian | June 24, 2010 at 6:48 pm
That’s ok.
Like I said, he’s not the one that I’m trying to (or needs to be) convinced.
Its all the others out there trying to think about this logically, and with true empathy.
I’m a firm believer that most people want to do the right thing. And sometimes, for some people, the right thing is not always obvious.
331.
Sheryl Carver | June 24, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Thanks, Brian.
There are times when I am rendered speechless by JoeyDG-like rhetoric. It’s as though someone came into the room, soaking wet, while rain is hitting the windows & thunder sounds overhead, & the person says, “what a lovely sunny day!” I just don’t know how to respond to such irrational & illogical statements. (Can’t really call it “thinking”.)
Your concise point-by-point rebuttal is marvelous, & gives me something to say instead of just standing there with my jaw hanging down.
Others on this site have also posted responses to this & other threads that I’ve found helpful. Thanks to all for helping me and any others who may not be as articulate as you are when confronted by such astounding ignorance &/or religious dogma masquerading as logic.
332.
PamC | June 25, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Excellent post! You very neatly point out his irrational and emotion-loaded verbiage. What I can never understand is why these folks whine that they “were just trying to have a discussion” when the topic is only ideology to them–but it’s our lives!
333.
Mark M. (Seattle) | June 25, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Brian thank you SO much for your point by point ‘lesson’ to JoeyDG (and all the others lurking here)
You are wonderful!
334.
Billy | June 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Wow, I missed some epic flame wars. :(
335.
JonT | June 25, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I am not certain, but I think this thread was one of the epic-est on this site :)
336.
Fulton | June 25, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Wow…and I read every word! Wasn’t planning to…just couldn’t put it down (so to speak).
Thank you, everyone, for the epic thread! Lots to think about before bed.
337.
mattr13 | July 5, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Thank you fiona64 for expressing my thoughts on this topic in ways I am unable to do so for myself.
338.
Kathlene | July 8, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Protect Marriage has 257k fans on facebook, Testimony: Equality On Trial only has 36k. :/