New at zombietime:

Protest Against Prop. 8 Gay Marriage Ruling

If you’d like to comment on this report, you can do so here.

137 Responses to “Protest Against Prop. 8 Gay Marriage Ruling”

  1. 1CattusMagnus on May 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm:

    Picture #7 is pretty damn scary.

    “Whenever a reporter interviewed a Black or Hispanic onlooker, most were unapologetic in their opposition to gay marriage.” I wish the reporter would have asked the Blacks and Hispanics he has interviewed if they saw any parallels between the civil rights movement and the movement to legalize gay marriage. Gay advocates liken the two all the time. But what would a devout Christian like Martin Luther King Jr. think?

      

  2. 2Christina on May 28, 2009 at 3:38 pm:

    I suppose it would be futile to point out that homosexuals of all bents HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE US! They can vote. They can work. They can own property. They can (with the aid of technology) beget and raise children. They can even marry. They just have to marry the way everybody else does — somebody of the opposite sex.

    And why does that lonely old lesbian think we owe it to her somehow to find her another lonely old lesbian to grow older with?

      

  3. 3Auntie Em on May 28, 2009 at 4:23 pm:

    Kudos and thanks for the photos, Zomblog. Wish I could have been there, but you provided the next best thing. Well done. Oh… and a PS to Christina: I can only hope your loving God will save everyone from people like you.

      

  4. 4average_guy on May 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm:

    Zombie:

    Thanks once again for providing a first-person perspective. I’m sure this thread will contain a debate on the issue, which is fine, but before its gets really rolling I just wanted to say thanks. Your sites are treasures on the interwebs!!!

      

  5. 5Christina on May 28, 2009 at 6:53 pm:

    Auntie Em, where did you get the idea to drag religion into your comment? I was speaking of civil rights, and of the absurdity of a self-identified “lonely old lesbian” somehow implying that the reason she didn’t have anybody to muff-dive with was because of Proposition 8.

      

  6. 6Mark 2000 on May 28, 2009 at 7:30 pm:

    I’m really glad that you can be so flippant about the sadness and rage of people who are being marginalized. Go for you, you voted against prop 8. But Prop 8 should not be something we vote one. Talk about the rights of the voters to amend the constitution all you want. The Federal Constitution specifically talks about protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If put to a vote many important civil rights protections would never have passed.

      

  7. 7zombie on May 28, 2009 at 7:51 pm:

    #6 Mark 2000

    The California Supreme Court rules on matters of California law. If, as you posit, the California constitution is now in violation of the Federal constitution, then that will be revealed when the new federal case reaches the Supreme Court in Washington, and Proposition 8 (along with many similar propositions in other states) will be thrown out.

    But until that time, the state law is as the voters have decided.

    Interesting how people in 2009 feel “sadness and rage” about “being marginalized” because one state out of fifty has what amounts to a temporary rule against gay marriage. Were people feeling “sadness and rage” about this issue ten years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? No. It’s a modern issue that suddenly appears and suddenly becomes a fundamental right of immediate pressing urgency when no one really even thought about it for the preceding 5,000 years of civilization.

    Take a step back and take a deep breath. If society is slowly turning toward allowing gay marriage, it will happen across the country when it happens. Just because it isn’t happening this instant is not some horrifying crisis that’s causing the end of the world, as you and a lot of people I know seem to think. California (and many other states) already allow “domestic partnerships” that have essentially the exact same rights as marriage, the only difference being the terminology used for the relationship. Aside from the name “marriage,” gay people can love whom they want and have the relationships they want and live together and even be domestic partners. There are no laws against any of that. And if you really really need to get married right now for some reason, you can always travel to one of the several other states that do allow gay marriage.

    You say that Prop. 8 is not something we should vote on. But the very liberal California Supreme Court just ruled, in a 6-1 decision, that it is indeed something we should vote on. Don’t like it? Then run a better campaign in 2010, and win the election. Is that so hard? Or can’t you hold your breath for 18 months?

      

  8. 8Kun on May 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm:

    “They can even marry. They just have to marry the way everybody else does — somebody of the opposite sex. ”

    In the DPRK (North Korea) there are churches and even a political party centered around a syncretic faith (the Chondoist Chongu Party) but I’m pretty sure you’d argue that the guarantees of religious freedom in the constitution over there are illegitimate, yes? But hey, they can worship so long as they are in accordance with the principles outlined by the Worker’s Party of Korea on the subject of religion, right?

    Gays can get forcefully married with people they’d have no emotional attachment too, but that means nothing.

      

  9. 9Shortylion on May 28, 2009 at 8:31 pm:

    Zombie, I looooove your postings!!! But what about the photos of the protest when they crossed the Bay Bridge and demonstrated on the streets of Oakland?

    Oh wait a minute. Nevermind…

      

  10. 10Anonymous on May 28, 2009 at 9:43 pm:

    Shortylion, there have been plenty of anti prop-8 protests in Oakland. What kind of moronic point, exactly, are you trying to make?

      

  11. 11Shortylion on May 28, 2009 at 9:50 pm:

    My point is NOT moronic, after googling Protests in Oakland Prop 8, there are protests, but they are protesting in front of…the Mormon Temple!!! How brave of the protesters!! When the protesters demonstrate in front of an African-American church, then you can color me impressed. Why aren’t they protesting in front of a traditionally black church? Black (and Latinos) overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8.

      

  12. 12Dave Surls on May 28, 2009 at 10:19 pm:

    Shortylion, you sad little cunt. Like an idiot, you tried to make the point that Prop 8 protesters stayed out of Oakland, which wasn’t very smart considering that WE ARE ON THE FUCKING INTERNET AND THIS IS EASILY DISPROVED.

    But when it was pointed out that there were in fact Prop 8 protests in Oakland, rather than admit that you said something stupid, you insist that you actually made a brilliant point because GOOGLE SEZ MORMON TEMPLE OK. Face it, you’re a moron. Truth!

      

  13. 13Christina on May 29, 2009 at 3:44 am:

    How “marginalized” are people who are fully participating in society, including the political process?

    That’s the trouble with the Left — no sense of proportion. If they don’t get what they want in one facet of their existence, they equate it with being on the plantation and worked to death while their families get sold to Simon Legree.

    A homosexual can set up a household with the partner of his or her choice, and the two (or three or four or five) of them can work, buy a house, rent, go on vacation, visit each other in the hospital, use technology to reproduce and raise children, have pets or not, landscape the yard, etc. All the FREEDOM. So what’s the issue with insisting that the word “marriage” be applied”

    APPROVAL.

    It’s not that homosexuals can’t DO what they want. It’s that they are upset that not everybody approves.

    Well, guess what — grown ups ought to be able to cope with the idea that not everybody is going to like everything they do.

    What is wrong with the Left that they need constant reassurance that people on the Right (who they hate anyway) like them?

      

  14. 14Starless on May 29, 2009 at 5:02 am:

    #7 Zombie

    It’s a modern issue that suddenly appears and suddenly becomes a fundamental right of immediate pressing urgency

    Indeed. While I could care less about who marries whom — IMO, everyone has the right to screw up their lives however they please — I do recall hearing moralizing lectures from “progressives” (gay and straight) for at least a couple of decades about how a marriage license is meaningless, how marriage is a bourgeois trap, how it is de facto state-sanctioned rape of women (or de facto state-sanctioned prostitution, slavery, servitude), and (said in a particularly petulant manner) how they don’t need approval of their love from anyone else. IOW, how marriage represents the worst of the imposed norms of white Christian male dominated Capitalist society. This is what I clearly recall hearing personally and what seems to have been the unified message about marriage from the Left even prior to that.

    Then seemingly overnight, the concept of gay marriage was anointed as the most important civil rights issue and the failure to legalize it was the greatest injustice in human history since Pharaoh made the Israelites build some monuments for him. (Cue Yul Brenner and Edward G. Robinson.) Civil unions made sense and appealed to the American concept of fairness and decency. They were a logical next step which may or may not have led to legalizing gay marriage. Abandoning the push for civil unions in favor of going directly (kicking, screaming, and moralizing all the way) to gay marriage has surprised a lot of people. The speed and shrillness with which it’s become popular really makes me question the overall sincerity of the people who are pushing it so hard. It’s almost as if it’s, I dunno…a fad?

    BTW, are you sure the person in photo #1 is a man?

      

  15. 15John on May 29, 2009 at 5:18 am:

    Zombie: I expect nothing less in San Francisco. Yet SanFran doesn’t represent the majority of any one of us regardless of what group we find ourselves in. They are in a unique category all by themselves. Btw, I should state that while I was very disappointed with the CA Supremes ruling, it does appear to be constitutionally sound and given their duties as Justices was the correct one. Well, based on the CA Constitution that is. I believe Prop 8 violates the US 14th Amendment but that’s an argument for a different arena and not something the CA Supremes had to deal with.

    “But what would a devout Christian like Martin Luther King Jr. think?”

    Difficult to say for certain, but MLK’s late wife Coretta Scott King supported SSM, believing her husband would have as well if he hadn’t of been killed. We know he allied himself with gays like Bayard Rustin during the strugggle for full civil rights, so perhaps she was right. Certainly his wife would be in a better position to know than anybody else. The late Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia fame, agreed completely with the comparison between both struggles. Not the same to be sure, but still comparable.

    “I suppose it would be futile to point out that homosexuals of all bents HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE US! They can vote. They can work. They can own property. They can (with the aid of technology) beget and raise children. They can even marry. They just have to marry the way everybody else does — somebody of the opposite sex.”

    Indeed. Though in some cases of a second-class status. You are glossing over the facts that gays cannot openly serve in the military, in most states can be fired for our sexuality, can be banned from adopting children, in 19 states at least cannot have any kind legal arrangement recognized for our relationships, while in 11 others cannot marry their partners, etc. Your comments ring hollow with the same cluelessness of those who supported segregation and were indignant that blacks still thought they getting a raw deal.

    “Aside from the name “marriage,” gay people can love whom they want and have the relationships they want and live together and even be domestic partners. There are no laws against any of that.”

    This may be true in California, but it isn’t in 19 of the 30 states that have passed amendments. The same groups that put up Prop 8 have been lying through their teeth by claiming to be okay with civil unions/domestic partnerships in states like California while seeking to ban EVERYTHING in most other places. States like Virginia, for example. I personally would be fine with civil unions and leaving the marriage debate for the next generation to debate, but even that is too much for these groups.

      

  16. 16Starless on May 29, 2009 at 5:56 am:

    And, BTW, Old Lonely Lesbian doesn’t surprise me at all. Along with providing her with an appropriate mate, I think we can safely assume that she expects federal and state governments to provide her with a comfortable middle class lifestyle.

      

  17. 17Shortylion on May 29, 2009 at 6:48 am:

    Dave Surls, wow. I am in amazement why your side hasn’t won the gay marriage argument. Calling people cunts and morons is a great way to get people to agree with you! And I didn’t see anything about “yes, we ARE protesting in front of black churches” so I’m going to guess that’s a no. Stick to the Mormons, you won’t have to fear getting your ass kicked back across the bay.

      

  18. 18zombie on May 29, 2009 at 7:52 am:

    #15 John:

    “This may be true in California, but it isn’t in 19 of the 30 states that have passed amendments.

    Well, we’re talking about California here. The protesters are complaining about their status in California, not in Alabama or wherever. Gays have essentially full and equal relationship and behavior rights in California, with one tiny exception: the word “marriage.”

    If other states have crappy laws, protest in those other states. If the federal government has a dumb policy (“don’t ask…”), then protest against the federal government. But don’t protest in California as a generalized gripe about not getting whatever you want everywhere, because the California Supreme Court has absolutely no control over the rest of the country.

    EVEN IF the CA Supreme Court had ruled to overthrow Prop 8, all the restrictive laws in other states which you mention would still exist! And the federal policy about “don’t ask, don’t tell” would also still exist. It’s not like this one ruling would have changed the world. Saying that California protesters have a right to complain about not being treated fairly because other states don’t treat them fairly is a pretty ridiculous argument.

    Imagine this:

    “I protest against my inability to have more than just one child!”

    “But you live in America — you can have as many children as you want. You’re thinking of China, over there across the ocean; that‘s where you’d be forbidden to have more than one child, if you lived there, which you don’t.”

    “But it’s not fair! I demand an end to the one-child policy! I want to have as many children as I want!”

    Sigh.

      

  19. 19zombie on May 29, 2009 at 8:00 am:

    #14 Starless:

    BTW, are you sure the person in photo #1 is a man?

    True, I jumped to conclusions. There was a great deal of “gender dysphoria” going on, and in many cases it truly wasn’t possible to decipher people’s biological (or self-identified) gender, just by looking.

    I do recall hearing moralizing lectures from “progressives” (gay and straight) for at least a couple of decades about how a marriage license is meaningless, how marriage is a bourgeois trap, how it is de facto state-sanctioned rape of women (or de facto state-sanctioned prostitution, slavery, servitude), and (said in a particularly petulant manner) how they don’t need approval of their love from anyone else. IOW, how marriage represents the worst of the imposed norms of white Christian male dominated Capitalist society….Then seemingly overnight, the concept of gay marriage was anointed as the most important civil rights issue and the failure to legalize it was the greatest injustice in human history

    Brilliant point!

      

  20. 20John on May 29, 2009 at 8:24 am:

    “Well, we’re talking about California here.”

    Actually, no we are not talking solely about California here. The legal issues may involve California law in this particular case but you know very well the debate in your state has national repercussions.

    “If other states have crappy laws, protest in those other states.”

    We are. This doesn’t change the fact that California is a big part of this. You are looking at this as 50 separate debates when in fact, while policy may be set at the state level the debate is raging on the national stage with each state being impacted by what the others do. Your state is not an island unto itself.

    “If the federal government has a dumb policy (”don’t ask…”), then protest against the federal government.”

    Didn’t you hear? The One has promised everyone everything so why bother? Oh wait. My more liberal friends are finding out just how full of BS the man is.

    “EVEN IF the CA Supreme Court had ruled to overthrow Prop 8, all the restrictive laws in other states which you mention would still exist!”

    Indeed and California would have a constitutional crisis that on the one hand would be enjoyable to watch, but since I happen to support the constitutional process on the other hand would rather not see happen. Yet again, California isn’t an island unto itself.

    “It’s not like this one ruling would have changed the world.”

    I doubt there are many people (SanFran & Berkeley aside) who believe otherwise.

      

  21. 21zombie on May 29, 2009 at 8:42 am:

    #20 John:

    You are looking at this as 50 separate debates when in fact, while policy may be set at the state level the debate is raging on the national stage with each state being impacted by what the others do.

    The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    What this means is that anything not specifically mentioned as a federal issue is necessarily a state-by-state issue.

    The concept of “marriage” is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Hence, it is a state-level issue, and yes, we necessarily must then look at it as 50 separate debates.

    Now, other legal analysts will point to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says in part “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

    And THAT dispute will be the basis of the argument of each side when this issue hits the Supreme Court. We’ve just landed on the core issue. Which amendment prevails in this dispute: the Tenth Amendment, or the Fourteenth Amendment? In this case, they appear to be in conflict.

    I’m no lawyer, so I can’t predict what the outcome will be. But one way or the other, there will be a US Supreme Court ruling which will decide whether gay marriage is a state-by-state issue, or rather a federal issue, with a single policy which applies to all states (similar to Roe v. Wade).

      

  22. 22Zeb on May 29, 2009 at 8:45 am:

    Zombie, it’s interesting that you set up a strawman to effectively create a racist conflict.

    Yes, the protests are around the idea of civil rights issues but civil rights mean something far more than the right to vote. Instead, you continue down the path of arguing about voting laws (not civil rights) to poke holes in the argument about whether or not gay rights is a civil rights issue.

    If you’re interested in debunking your own racist mythology, look here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

    It is far more often the right, the conversatives, and the racists who look to interpret the support of Prop 8 through a primarily racial lens rather than a generational one, a religious one, or an economic one and simultaneously ignore which churches spoke the loudest, gave the most money, and were the most vocal.

    And for the record, Maya Angelou joined the call today as well: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid87051.asp

      

  23. 23BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 9:03 am:

    Zombie,

    Thanks again for getting into the real story.

    Stay safe.

      

  24. 24John on May 29, 2009 at 9:16 am:

    Zombie, I’m well aware of both the 10th & the 14th Amendments. It is only a state-level issue as long as the former applies and not the latter. Since I do not consider this to fall solely under the former, anymore than I do say anti-miscenegation laws, you shouldn’t be surpised that I reject your argument about how “we necessarily must then look at it as 50 separate debates”. Legal and constitutional issues aside, your argument isn’t realistic as ALL issues that spark any controversy in our politics have implications across the nation as states take positions one way or the other. Are you seriously trying to say that what happens in California doesn’t impact other states? That’s a pretty naive view.

      

  25. 25Pissed Off Voter #32 on May 29, 2009 at 9:20 am:

    The exit polls that said 70% of blacks supported prop 8 have been proven wrong. From this Chronicle article “an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California’s black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BANB154OS1.DTL

      

  26. 26Gmoney on May 29, 2009 at 9:44 am:

    ya know. I never really had a problem with gays but this whole Prop 8 thing coupled with the Miss California things has changed that. I now can’t stand homos. Homophobia is a misnomer. I don’t fear homos, I hate them.

      

  27. 27zombie on May 29, 2009 at 9:48 am:

    #25 Gmoney

    Hate-filled comments are not appreciated here. I’ll leave your comment standing, but simply add that I strongly disagree with the sentiment.

      

  28. 28zombie on May 29, 2009 at 9:59 am:

    #24 Pissed Off Voter #32

    The exit polls that said 70% of blacks supported prop 8 have been proven wrong. From this Chronicle article “an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California’s black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent.”

    That study is bogus in a variety of ways, and the spin on it you cite is also bogus.

    When looking at post-election precinct results, you CAN’T tell what race each voter is. You can guess, but that would be jumping to conclusions. Only in exit-polling can the race of any voter be identified (or at least presumed). If a majority-black voter district was 58% in favor of Prop. 8, you simply don’t know whether or not all the Black voters voted for 8 within that precinct while all the non-black voters voted against 8. It’s a wishful thinking study done by a left-wing advocacy group and has no solid statistical validity.

    Furthermore, it only looks at Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which is where most of the “No on 8″ votes were in the first place. The other third of Black voters don’t live in those counties, and are known to live in counties that voted for Prop 8 in overwhelming majorities, and when you mix in those presumed black votes with the 58% “yes on 8″ votes from the liberal counties, you still likely will get close to the 70% support level, even granting the flawed assumptions in the study.

    But of course, the liberal advocacy group purposely didn’t look at those other black-majority precincts, because it would have undermined their pre-conceived goal. Mathematical sleight-of-hand. And statistically meaningless.

      

  29. 29Tony on May 29, 2009 at 10:01 am:

    a question i have is why the homosexual community has focused so heavily on the christian religion with there anger. Not once have i heard of a islamic mosque being protested in front of, although islam is about as anti-gay as you can get.

      

  30. 30Dprice on May 29, 2009 at 10:06 am:

    I live in Houston Texas and work and used to live near Montrose, I don’t really see what all the fuss is about, you are provided the same rights as any other human being living in America other than the fact the SAME sex cannot be OFFICIALLY married.

    I have nothing against Gays but seriously this whole deal of calling people cunts and being disgusting and vile has got to stop… I don’t agree with Gmoney but it is quite a turn-off to hear that kind of language from an adult.

    Get over it and live your life already.

      

  31. 31Starless on May 29, 2009 at 10:36 am:

    #19 Zombie

    The thing is that most of the straight progressives who decried marriage ended up getting married themselves. Funny how that works. Marriage was all phony and hypocritical until they decided to do it. But, you know, it wasn’t phony and hypocritical because gay people didn’t have the “right” to marry, it was phony and hypocritical because they saw a large portion of their parents getting divorced. [WARNING: Armchair psychology coming up.] That is to say their parents were phony and hypocritical because their divorces proved that they didn’t really love each other.

    #28 Tony

    Because Islam is a protected religion to the Left and Christianity is the root of all Western evil. They are victims of that evil awful Dubya, so they get a pass. That is, until they come out politically against gay marriage.

    I’d put the question more in the context of why the anti-Prop 8ers have gone so vigorously after the Mormons and not blacks and hispanics. I don’t buy the argument that they daren’t go after blacks and hispanics because of their protected race status — the Left has demonstrated repeatedly that they have no qualms about breaking their own rules regarding race and/or gender protection if their targets don’t conform to the correct ideology. No, they went after the Mormons because legalizing gay marriage isn’t really about marriage, it’s about religion. Why essentially dump civil unions, something for which they can make a reasonable case to voters, and go for the much more politically volatile issue of marriage? Because the aim is to attack religion as part of the larger campaign to reshape American culture.

      

  32. 32Mark 2000 on May 29, 2009 at 12:43 pm:

    #7 Zombie. Very interesting how you marginalize the entire issue by saying this wasn’t a big deal 10 years or more ago. I, as a straight person living in Florida, was very upset about gay rights as far as 20 years ago. I’m pretty sure gay people were mad about it too even further back than that. Just because it was impossible to speak about, because, you know, someone might kill you or kick you out of the family, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an issue. This is a really stupid line of argument, as is the whole “don’t you have enough rights already”. You seem a lot smarter than this and I doubt you believe it beyond a desire to antagonize people into reading your blog. Grow up.

    BTW, I may be able to wait 18 months, but there are people who are elderly who may never have their love recognized as legitimate and that’s sad fuck. If this whole gay rights thing is as inevitable as you say (and I’ve never heard of a political issue so “inevitable” that we should all STFU and let it happen – social change don’t work that way) then why doesn’t the far right practice their religions in their own homes and churches and let the rest of us have our freedoms already? Jesus, man, who really needs to just give it up?

      

  33. 33Noah Vaile on May 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm:

    They are a ridiculous demographic segment.

      

  34. 34Ken on May 29, 2009 at 2:20 pm:

    “Shortylion, you sad little cunt”

    That was just totally inappropriate and uncalled for.

    “You’re thinking of China…that’s where you’d be forbidden to have more than one child”

    Isn’t anyone ever actually going to learn anything about China? The OCP is an unenforced relic of the 1980′s. Anyone whose first child is a girl can have a second child, any of China’s national minorities (123,000,000 people) can have as many kids as they want, and, actually, anyone who really wants to have 3 or 4 kids can just do so, but can expect to pay a big fine.

    I think protestors demonstrate outside of churches instead of mosques because the Christians have been much more vocal and active in their opposition to same sex marriage than Muslims, if I am not mistaken.

      

  35. 35zombie on May 29, 2009 at 2:38 pm:

    #31 Mark 2000

    Very interesting how you marginalize the entire issue by saying this wasn’t a big deal 10 years or more ago. I, as a straight person living in Florida, was very upset about gay rights as far as 20 years ago

    I’m not talking about gay rights. I’m talking about gay marriage, the specific issue this protest was about.

    I’ve been aware of and and in fact involved in gay rights issues probably longer than you have, and take it from someone who was there, gay marriage was not even on the radar screen until 1996 at the earliest, and was a minor peripheral issue from 1996 until the mid-2000s. Before 1996, I know of just about no one who even gave a moment’s thought to the idea of same-sex marriage. It truly is one of those issues that arose very recently and suddenly became an overwhelmingly urgent issue around which everything revolved, whereas just a short time ago it was completely unimportant and un-cared-about. As Starless mentioned above, the main marriage-related thesis of the left-dominated gay-rights movement back in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and most of the ’90s was that marriage itself was an evil and oppressive institution which should be abandoned. It would have been considered laughable if anyone suggested that not only is marriage wonderful, but that it’s so wonderful that gays should do it too.

    The very fact that only 18,000 gays got married in California during the period it was legal, out of a population of several million gay people in the state, reveals a lot. It shows that there wasn’t really a big pent-up demand for same-sex marriage after all.

      

  36. 36Anonymous on May 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm:

    May a cat eat them and the devil eat the cat.

      

  37. 37zombie on May 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm:

    #22 Zeb

    You provide two links, neither of which prove anything. The first link “debunking [my] own racist mythology” is just some random writer speculating about voter demographics, with no hard data, and no solid conclusions. He’s just trying to emphasize a certain narrative which serves the “No on 8″ post-mortem-advocates’ purpose (i.e. “Let’s all focus on the age-groups of the voters!”). Why should I care what someone else’s narrative is? You seem to be angry at me because I don’t adopt the narrative of certain people. Why am I required to? Why don’t they adopt my narrative? The page you link to doesn’t debunk anything, nor do I have a “racist mythology.” Not only is there no data whatsoever on that page about Black voting trends on Prop 8, he hardly even addresses the issue at all.

    This is the real world. Stop throwing tantrums because people don’t agree with your spin on things. Deal with it. I have my own perspective, which gets utterly ignored and trampled on by a constant juggernaut of bozos spouting idiotic baseless perspectives in the media and on the Internet — and I have to deal with that and accept it every day.

    As for your second link: Maya Angelou has always been involved in far-left politics. In what way is it surprising that she came out against Prop 8? Hardly newsworthy.

      

  38. 38chocolate larry on May 30, 2009 at 12:14 am:

    I dunno bout you, I’m just waitin’ to marry my sister. And your sister. And yours, yours, his, hers, theirs. All at the same time. Marriage between two people is so confining and who is the state or society to tell me HOW MANY PEOPLE I CAN WED AT ONCE? It’s none of their damn business. I mean if it’s about love, who are they to tell me who I can or can’t marry. Cousin, sister, mom, grandma, granddad – 7 or 8 or nine wives. Why not?

    If marriage is a “right”, by limiting it , for example limiting it to two people, isn’t that right being abridged? Saying marriage is a right but limiting it to just two people is like saying you have freedom of the press but you can only publish one paragraph out of every news article or you have the right to bear arms but you can only have one gun or two bullets. Marriage is either a right or it isn’t, tell me one other inherent right we have that is denominated so specifically?

    Frankly, if you can carry a sign that says “marriage is a human right” and at the same time mock the Mormons who had to give up polygamy in order to fit within American society, I really don’t think you see marriage as a “human right”. The main agenda behind gay marriage is to enshrine the gay movement with an elevated status. Why else would gays want to have the laws changed for them ONLY so they can marry whom they want all the while having no problem in engaging in an angry political vendetta against a distinct religious minority looked down on by everyone else for their past marriage practices?

    The gays are just confused and angry as they always are.

      

  39. 39Starless on May 30, 2009 at 4:35 am:

    #35 Zombie/#31 Mark 2000

    It would have been considered laughable if anyone suggested that not only is marriage wonderful, but that it’s so wonderful that gays should do it too.

    As far as I understand, someone within the gay community did suggest it 20 years ago and it was not only considered laughable, but repugnant. IIRC, it was the NYT that recently published a story on Andrew Sullivan and credited him with being the first to write a serious and widely discussed piece which called for legalizing gay marriage. At the time (unlike now, when he seems to have become some sort of bizzaro gynecology-obsessed pseudo-libertarian) he was a conservative so he already had a strike against him within the gay activist community but more than that, because of the prevailing attitude among gays toward traditional marriage, his piece was roundly criticized and shoved down the memory hole. I can’t recall a single time until Bush 43 when Sullivan’s opining about gay marriage was widely read. So, yeah, technically 20 years ago gay marriage was an issue, but only among a very limited number of people and it wasn’t a particularly popular one at that.

    Mark 2000, I don’t like to use personal experience in arguments like this, but in this case I’ll say that throughout the ’80s and ’90s, it happened so often that I can’t even recall the number of times I heard the phrase, “A marriage license is just a piece of paper”. I can’t think of a single instance when I personally heard a progressive gay or straight person say, “I can’t wait to get married,” or anything else remotely positive about marriage. The prevailing meme was that gay people in committed long-term relationships felt discriminated against because they were denied the same legal rights as straight married people. At the same time (and now that I think about, I wonder why this seems to be a non-issue in this debate) unmarried, usually lefty progressive, straight people in committed long-term relationships had the same complaint. They weren’t complaining that they couldn’t get married — civil unions was what they were all advocating — because they weren’t interested.

    That was the prevailing climate and then seemingly over night, there were people marching, holding signs, and screaming in the streets about how gay people were being persecuted because they couldn’t legally marry. So, taking the history of this issue into account, color me skeptical if I don’t quite buy this notion that marriage has become as important to progressives as they’re claiming and don’t be surprised if I’m not willing to accept the charge that I’m a bigot because I’m not jumping up and down in excitement over this newfound interest in marriage by the Left.

      

  40. 40GWB on May 30, 2009 at 4:38 am:

    #36

    Please, keep the hate out of this

      

  41. 41Tony on May 30, 2009 at 7:38 am:

    I’ve always considered myself a pretty darn secular conservative, (im morman, but not a practicing one). religious arguments hold no weight with me as far as politics goes. The day we start making decisions based solely on religious views is the day that we turn closer to becoming one of those middles eastern countries that stone women to death for showing off a little ankle skin.

    I personally don’t care if homosexuals have relationships or whatever, its not my place to judge them

    however…..

    my issue is with the very vocal minority of the gay community that is always pushing there way of life on everyone else by actively insulting and threatening others that do not agree with there way of life (as displayed on this site in various subjects) and those that subject others to there public displays of sex acts (as shown on this site as well)

    With that being said…honestly..as a conservative i dont see what the big deal is about. We are suposed to believe in free will and the right to decide our own destiny. What does it matter if homosexuals want to get married? how does that effect me as a heterosexual? is there a portion of this argument that im missing that doesn’t have to deal with religious opinions?

      

  42. 42Joe on May 30, 2009 at 8:42 am:

    Gotta wonder why all these rabid gay protesters aren’t incensed that polygamy isn’t legal in this country. After all, aren’t any gays interested in marrying multiple partners? Or bisexuals marrying a partner of each sex? Maybe that’s next. Or maybe they don’t want to have the slightest bit in common with fundamentalist polygamist Mormons hiding away in remote places. But then that’d be an issue of hetero vs. gay polygamy. And also why not gay incestuous marriage since they can’t (yet) produce babies?

    I, for one, am glad that the usually liberal, activist California Supreme Court followed the law and upheld the will of the voters.

      

  43. 43Sam on May 30, 2009 at 9:22 am:

    A lot of the signs being waved around by the portesters claim that they are victims of hatred. Yet the only hatred I see is what’s emanating from them.

      

  44. 44Fenris on May 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm:

    Love the irony presented by the socialist groups. I distinctly remember reading that gay marriage is banned in all the communist states. Not to mention homosexuality itself was illegal in the USSR and under Che’s Cuba.

      

  45. 45Ken on May 30, 2009 at 11:57 pm:

    Fenris says: “Not to mention homosexuality itself was illegal in the USSR”

    “In October 1917, revolutionary Bolsheviks abolished the tsarist anti-homosexual law. The Soviet Criminal Code established in 1922, and amended in 1926, did not include homosexuality as an offense. This reflected the belief that science, not law, should deal with matters of sexual difference.”

    The anti-Gay laws didn’t show up again until the early 30′s, when you-know-who was in charge.

    As for Cuba:

    “In 1979, the Communist regime ruled that private homosexuality between adults over 16 would not be illegal anymore”
    “Cuba’s parliament will present several favorable measures for the LGBT community…ncluding the legalization of same sex unions”

    In regards to the gay marriage issue in Cuba, Carlos Sanchez has observed that:

    “Lesbians and gays do not consider fighting for the right to marriage, because that institution in Cuba does not have the same value that it has in other countries. Unmarried and married people enjoy equal rights”

    In his book “Machos, Maricones, and Gays: Cuba and Homosexuality,” Ian Lumsden wrote: “there is little evidence to support the contention that the persecution of homosexuals remains a matter of state policy”

    As for China:

    30% of the Chinese population supports gay marriages and, while not a majority, that represents that largest pool of support for same sex marriage anywhere in the World, I believe.

    Gay marriage bills have been proposed in the National People’s Congress in 2000, 2004, 2005, and 2007, but failed to pass, although by a slimmer margin each time.

    Gay sex is legal and homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental illness

    North Korea:

    “As a country that has embraced science and rationalism, the DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect. Homosexuals in the DPRK have never been subject to repression, as in many capitalist regimes around the world”

    No mention of marriage, but I think the North Koreans have more pressing matters…

    I don’t know about Vietnam or Laos.

      

  46. 46Anonycon on May 31, 2009 at 1:00 am:

    Thanks again Zombie. The season must be in full swing. Great to see you posting so often and participating in the conversation.

    Interesting insight from Ken.

    I have to agree with a previous poster that polygamy is just as valid a lifestyle choice as homosexuality. If Utah passed legislation to legalize it who is any other state to object. The notion of using the courts to impose federal laws of your persuasion is a dangerous one, to say the least. There is ample evidence to support that assertion, I’d say.

      

  47. 47Starless on May 31, 2009 at 4:45 am:

    #41 Tony

    What does it matter if homosexuals want to get married? how does that effect me as a heterosexual? is there a portion of this argument that im missing that doesn’t have to deal with religious opinions?

    About the only non-religious argument is an economic one: that gay marriage will burden employers with the costs of health insurance for more employees’ partners, thus increasing the costs for everyone. But many employers have gone and offered coverage for domestic partners without any legal requirement to do so, so it’s really a non-issue now.

    So I guess the real answer to your question is: no, there really isn’t a portion of this argument that doesn’t have anything to do with religious (I might broaden that to say “cultural” instead) opinions. From both sides, IMO, this is entirely about religion once you start using the word “marriage”.

      

  48. 48zombie on May 31, 2009 at 8:02 am:

    #41 Tony

    (im morman, but not a practicing one)

    No actual Mormon would so misspell the word Mormon. Also, your pathetic attempt to misspell “those middles eastern countries” in the way that you imagine a knuckle-dragging conservative would spell it, reveals that you are a Moby — a left-wing activist posing as a conservative, in order to convince other conservatives of a certain point of view which you think might be rejected out-of-hand if coming from a political opponent rather than an ally.

    Sorry, you’ve been “outed”!

      

  49. 49zombie on May 31, 2009 at 8:15 am:

    #45 Ken

    “In October 1917, revolutionary Bolsheviks abolished the tsarist anti-homosexual law. The Soviet Criminal Code established in 1922, and amended in 1926, did not include homosexuality as an offense. This reflected the belief that science, not law, should deal with matters of sexual difference.”

    The anti-Gay laws didn’t show up again until the early 30’s, when you-know-who was in charge.

    So, basically, you just confirmed what Fenris said — except for a brief period in the 1920s when the USSR was first established, homosexuality was indeed illegal.

    In 1979, the Communist regime ruled that private homosexuality between adults over 16 would not be illegal anymore”

    Again, you just confirmed what Fenris said — “under Che’s Cuba.” Homosexuality was indeed illegal until 1979. Che was long dead by then.
    As for China:

    30% of the Chinese population supports gay marriages and, while not a majority, that represents that largest pool of support for same sex marriage anywhere in the World, I believe.

    Because China’s population is so large, any minority belief on any topic “represents the largest pool of support” for the topic. Even if only 10% of Chinese wanted gay marriage, it would still be the largest sheer numbers of people in favor of gay marriage. But that would ignore the other 90% (or 70% in your stats). What one needs to look at is percentage, and of course places like the Netherlands, Canada and Scandinavia have a FAR higher approval rate for gay marriage than does China.

      

  50. 50Starless on May 31, 2009 at 10:25 am:

    C’mon, Zombie, don’t you know that in Ken’s world the only parts of Communist history that count are the ones that can be spun to make it look good? All of the other ones are either the actions of splitters and counter-revolutionaries or Western propagandist lies.

    Everybody knows that in notoriously conservative China everyone’s perfectly okey-dokey with homosexuality. Yeesh!

      

  51. 51Kowa B on May 31, 2009 at 11:43 am:

    Zombie, great post. I’m so with you here…I’m pro gay marriage and believe strongly in equal civil rights for all…but the anger in this protest made no sense, and I would be very against the courts overturning prop 8.

    It’s been stated before here, but i still want somebody to explain to me; in california, gay people have all the rights of marraige, they just cant use the name. So why aren’t they protesting in other states, where, for example, gay people are not allowed to adopt children? If the gay rights community spent nearly as much time and energy fighting for rights that actually make a difference in the lives of homosexuals (such as the right to share bank accounts, adopt children, etc) as they do fighting for gay marriage (which in in california, is purely semantics), then we would doubtless be much closer to equal rights for all in every state.

    The fact that people care so much that their relationship (which is already legally recognized in california) is called marraige when there are so many other issues that have substantive importance amazes me.

      

  52. 52Fenris on May 31, 2009 at 12:51 pm:

    #45 Ken:

    Zombie pretty much caught my gist on China and Cuba, which, even though they don’t have any laws against homosexual acts, do not currently recognize same-sex marriage, same-sex unions or similar partnerships. Same goes for Vietnam, Laos, and post-USSR Russia. My main argument there is, while I sincerely hope that changes, no socialist group can reasonably support both gay marriage alongside the policies of the countries from which they derive their ideas.

    On North Korea, here’s a passage you left out from the same source, the DPRK website: “However, North Koreans also place a lot of emphasis on social harmony and morals. Therefore, the DPRK rejects many characteristics of the popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity.”

    Further, North Korea was one of 67 nations that opposed the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, which condemned criminalization based on sexual orientation.

      

  53. 53Whiskey Tango on May 31, 2009 at 2:34 pm:

    John : (#15) Btw, I should state that while I was very disappointed with the CA Supremes ruling, it does appear to be constitutionally sound and given their duties as Justices was the correct one.

    So you would have been happy with the opposite ruling, even though it would appear to be constitutionally unsound, and given their duties as Justices, an incorrect one?

      

  54. 54Ken on May 31, 2009 at 3:17 pm:

    “no socialist group can reasonably support both gay marriage alongside the policies of the countries from which they derive their ideas”

    I would beg to differ, I think. We don’t derive our ideas from those countries, merely look at them for ideological and theoretical inspiration. Rather, the leaders of those countries (supposedly) derive their ideas from the same place we rank-and-file Socialists do: from the experiences of the historical Socialist movement. Just because we’re Marxists doesn’t mean we have to be beholden to the Socialist countries no matter what, though. We support them when they’re right and critcize them when they’re wrong. If they don’t allow same-sex marriages then, yes, I would say they’re wrong and should be criticized for it. But I’m not going to blame American Socialists for protesting Prop 8 in their own country rather than protesting similar laws in, say, Laos. Naturally, most people are more concerned with the issues in their own countries.

    “Everybody knows that in notoriously conservative China everyone’s perfectly okey-dokey with homosexuality.”

    Obviously you don’t, Starless, but that’s ok, I don’t blame you. What with all the ridiculous stereotypes and out-right lies about China passed around by people on this website, I can’t be upset at your lack of knowledge about the country. You can start right here, the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s own newspaper:
    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200412/10/eng20041210_166876.html

      

  55. 55Moonbat Monitor on May 31, 2009 at 5:06 pm:

    The gay marriage movement has to be the most self-defeating movement that I’ve ever seen. Like clockwork, you can count on drag queens, naked people, and nuts in costumes to show up and then claim “they’re just like everyone else,” all while insulting the very people they need to woo to their side.

    Epic. Fail.

      

  56. 56Dave Surls on May 31, 2009 at 8:29 pm:

    Man I love theocracy.

      

  57. 57Starless on Jun 1, 2009 at 4:12 am:

    #54 Ken

    LOL! Okay, Ken, whatever you say.

    The People’s Daily — that’s great. That’s precisely the kind of CCP mouthpiece I’m going to turn to for “facts” regarding China.

    I know you say you’re in China and married to a Chinese woman and those things somehow give you superior knowledge regarding China over every other Westerner in the world. I also know that your proximity to the subject gives you a significant blind spot on the subject.

    Yes, Chinese are notoriously conservative, but no, not necessarily in a Western sense. And also no, it’s not stereotyping to say so. If I start talking about Charlie Chan, Ming the Merciless and coolies as typical representations of Chinese people, then you can feel free to accuse me of stereotyping and lying, otherwise save your hyperbole.

    And you have no clue what the extent of my knowledge is regarding PRC and the Taiwan, so you should probably hold off judgement. Chinese parents are no more excited to have their kids come home and tell them that they are gay than American parents are. You want to say that isn’t so, then fine, but pointing me to The People’s Daily doesn’t help your case.

      

  58. 58Common Reader on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:02 am:

    Ken claims to be in China and posting from there? I find it really hard to believe that zombietime.com is accessible from behind the Great Firewall. You can’t read LJ in China, but Ken is reading zombie?

      

  59. 59Anonycon on Jun 1, 2009 at 9:02 am:

    Here is a fairly comprehensive list of sites banned in China: http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html.

    Here is a utility to test whether a site is banned in China: http://www.websitepulse.com/help/testtools.china-test.html.

    Zombietime.com doesn’t seem to have any issues being accessed from China. Even Ace can be read from China. I believe they’re more concerned with information regarding Tibet, corruption, civil rights infringement, etc.

    I wondered for a bit if Ken wasn’t perhaps a sockpuppet or provocateur of anti-communist discussion but I believe he’s the real deal. He deserves credit for walking the talk, at least he’s not another American sitting in his mom’s basement bitching, waiting for “the revolution”, and threatening to move to Canada.

      

  60. 60Ken on Jun 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm:

    “That’s precisely the kind of CCP mouthpiece I’m going to turn to for ‘facts’ regarding China.”

    France’s Le Monde picked PD to be one of the eight best daily newspapers in the world, alongside Japan’s Asahi Shimbun and the New York Times. Also, the editorial section and letters department of PD are often critical of government policies. If that’s a “mouthpiece” they’re doing a pretty bad job. I seriously doubt you’ve ever even read the periodical in question.

    “I know you say you’re in China and married to a Chinese woman and those things somehow give you superior knowledge regarding China over every other Westerner in the world”

    In the world? No. I couldn’t claim superior knowledge over someone like Howard Goldblatt, Chalmers Johnson, or even Perry Link. But superior knowledge of China over most of the people on this board? Yeah, I’d take that bet. People like Dave Surls just pass around crap they heard or read about China without ever even questioning the facts. I used to believe the same things about this place…then I came here and found out most of it was wrong.

    “You want to say that isn’t so, then fine, but pointing me to The People’s Daily doesn’t help your case.”

    You inferred that the “conservative” Chinese didn’t accept homosexuality, I quoted a source straight from the horse’s mouth that said acceptance of homosexuals in China was rising. What don’t you get? There was even a poll on the Chinese version of Myspace last year that showed young Chinese overwhelmingly supported gay rights.

    “I find it really hard to believe that zombietime.com is accessible from behind the Great Firewall”

    Apparently our IP addresses are visible to Zombie. He/She can confirm that I am indeed posting from China for anyone who doesn’t believe me.

    “Here is a fairly comprehensive list of sites banned in China”

    Time.com isn’t banned, neither is BBC. VOA isn’t banned, either. Neither is AOL. However, I note that most of the webpages on that list were logged in 2002 or 2003. Time, BBC, VOA, and AOL were all banned at some time before, but have since been unblocked. That list should be updated.

    “He deserves credit”

    I did put my money where my mouth was and left the US, I should think that earns me a bit more respect than the next guy. Also, I am very flexible in my beliefs and I pride myself on looking at things from various angles before making up my mind, rather than just following the crowd. My comments on Zombie’s latest post about John Yoo should be proof of that.

      

  61. 61GWB on Jun 1, 2009 at 7:18 pm:

  62. 62EL on Jun 2, 2009 at 12:46 pm:

    I love how just wanting to get married at some point in our lives makes us communists.

    freaken superstitious nutjobs.

      

  63. 63Sandra M. on Jun 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm:

    I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why my “rights” aren’t important. I have the “right” to live in a civilized society which does not elevate deviant sexual behavior and (mutiple) abnormal sexual relationships/acts to normal status. I want my “rights” too.

    Homosexuality will always be part of the world. It’s a defect. It’s not normal. Like every other abnormal human condition, everyone who suffers from the condition should learn to live with their lot in life, and the limitations dictated by the condtion. Homosexuals, being what they are, should expect to conform to the world around them. It is folly childishness to actually think the world needs to conform to homosexuals.

    Unfortunately, along with homosexuality, most (and I say most with certainty) radical homosexuals suffer from narcissism and emotional immaturity. Their “me me me” mentality is very tiring to others. They are easy to mock and dismiss. That’s why the radical homosexuals are the homosexual “rights” movement’s worst enemies.

    Last, I don’t care what any grown person does with his life. Just keep it out of my way and stop trying to insist you don’t have rights that I have, because you do. Every last one of them. Homosexuality does not make anyone special or important in any way, shape, or form. It’s just what you are, and that is abnormal. So, homosexuals need to live their lives with quite dignity, do what they do to each other, and stop trying to hijack normality in order to punish we who don’t suffer from homosexulaity. Leave my rights alone.

      

  64. 64Ken on Jun 2, 2009 at 6:17 pm:

    ^^^^^^^^

    Who chooses what’s “deviant” and “abnormal?”

      

  65. 65Anonymous on Jun 2, 2009 at 6:44 pm:

    When the Mormans were discriminated against in New York they moved to Missouri. When they were hounded and killed in Missouri they moved to Utah. Why don’t you Homosexuals buy and island in Micronesia, we’ll lend you the money and do the honorable thing and move there.

      

  66. 66cricket on Jun 2, 2009 at 9:00 pm:

    “Who chooses what’s “deviant” and “abnormal?””

    Take a look at http://www.dictionary.com. That should give you a little hint as to what constitutes “abnormal” or “deviant.”

      

  67. 67cricket on Jun 2, 2009 at 9:02 pm:

    “When the Mormans were discriminated against in New York they moved to Missouri. When they were hounded and killed in Missouri they moved to Utah.”

    Indeed. That’s kinda the point of having state governments, isn’t it? So that the locals can decide for themselves what they want to allow or disallow, within the confines of the Constitution. But that’s not good enough for certain people; they just can’t accept that one state allows gay marriage, but another doesn’t. Doesn’t occur to them that they can either convince their neighbors to vote with them, or move. Or it does, but they’re too selfish to accept that.

      

  68. 68Ken on Jun 2, 2009 at 10:41 pm:

    “That should give you a little hint as to what constitutes ‘abnormal’ or ‘deviant’ ”

    Way to miss the point…

    But anyway:

    “Deviant: deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior”

    “Abnormal: not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.”

    Neither of those describe homosexuality, a practice that has existed as long as recorded history and been practiced by any number of people throughout the centuries.

    While we’re at it, why not define “normal” itself using your preferred source?

    “a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
    b. free from any mental disorder; sane.”

    Sounds like most gays I know.

    Funny how homosexuality isn’t listed among “deviant sexual behaviors” on Dictionary.com:

    “a psychosexual disorder marked by sexual urges, fantasies, and behavior involving objects, suffering or humiliation, or children or other nonconsenting partners”

    Bottom line: heterosexuals have the right to get married, homosexuals don’t. The Supreme Court has affirmed that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,” but, in this case, one section of society has it but another doesn’t, thus violating homosexuals’ equal protection under the law according the 14th Amendment. And don’t give me this crap about “they should move to another state.” Haven’t you ever heard that “separate but equal is unequal?”

    “everyone who suffers from the condition should learn to live with their lot in life, and the limitations dictated by the condtion”

    HA! So, I suppose you oppose the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well? Why should people born without legs expect us to build ramps for them? They should just learn to live with the limitations dictated by their condition, right?

      

  69. 69Ciprian Pop on Jun 3, 2009 at 12:32 am:

    To Ken:

    Usually “normal” signifies “as the vast majority of the people do/are”, i.e. mean (in a statistical sense). So, as long as 95% of world population is straight (probably gays are even less than 5%, below statistical significance), gay sexuality is abnormal (and it very, very likely it will stay the same in the future) because the mean is very close to straight. Please do not contort language to your likings and maybe your goals.

      

  70. 70bob in sc on Jun 3, 2009 at 2:49 am:

    Zombie, thanks for the postings. We don’t get many protests in SC, much less like that. It’s a real spectacle.

    This should remain a states rights issue. Each state should allow or disallow at it’s own discretion. I personally am with the gays on this one, as I am a Libertarian. However the State can only provide civil unions between homos or heteros. It is my opinion that marriage is a religious institution and hence cannot be regulated by the state. The only thing the state can do is issue a license to enter a contract…a civil union. So by my way of thinking, gays can only get married in a church.

    It would however engender my support to their cause more if the gays would stop with the vulgar displays in public.

      

  71. 71Sandra M. on Jun 3, 2009 at 3:01 am:

    Per Ken “Funny how homosexuality isn’t listed among “deviant sexual behaviors” on Dictionary.com:”

    Dictionary.com goes out of the way to not list homosexuality among “deviant sexual behavior”. It’s part of being PC about it. Think. What would happen to Dictionary.com if they did honestly include homosexuality in a definition of “deviant sexual behavior”. The radical homosex crowd would spend as much time trying to destroy Dictionary.com as they do traditional civilization. It wouldn’t be pretty. So Dictionary.com hires Winston Smith to be editor.

    So what does Dictionary.com do (along with other like sources)? They compromise the integrity of their product. What a world we live in!

    By true definition, homosexual sex is a deviant sexual behavior. That fact can be omitted from print, but that doesn’t change reality.

      

  72. 72Stephanie A. Richer on Jun 3, 2009 at 6:30 am:

    Meanwhile, in Orange County, the outrage was tepid, at best: http://digihairshirt.blogspot.com/2009/05/prop-8-rally.html

      

  73. 73zombie on Jun 3, 2009 at 9:20 am:

    #60 Ken
    “Apparently our IP addresses are visible to Zombie. He/She can confirm that I am indeed posting from China for anyone who doesn’t believe me.”

    Ken posts from two different IP addresses, both of which trace back to Beijing, China — I just checked. So, he does appear to actually be in China — either that, or he’s really good at spoofing IP addresses, which would seem like a pointless thing to do to prove such a small point. So, I grant that he is in China. (Not that I personally ever doubted it — just clearing things up for others.)

      

  74. 74Anonymous on Jun 3, 2009 at 10:06 am:

    If the right to same sex marraige gets struck down in the supreme court will the protesters please move on to Washington?

      

  75. 75buzzsawmonkey on Jun 3, 2009 at 11:20 am:

    #63 Sandra M:

    Homosexuality will always be part of the world. It’s a defect. It’s not normal. Like every other abnormal human condition, everyone who suffers from the condition should learn to live with their lot in life, and the limitations dictated by the condtion. Homosexuals, being what they are, should expect to conform to the world around them. It is folly childishness to actually think the world needs to conform to homosexuals.

    If something is, and has always been, “part of the world,” it is by definition “normal.” If there always has been, and always will be, a certain percentage of people whose sexual interest is primarily or wholly same-sex, then even though they are a minority they are still part of the norm.

    Where things get screwy is in defining “homosexuality” as a distinct phenomenon. This is a fairly modern development, going back only perhaps 150 years. It was only in the latter part of the 19th century that people started defining themselves as “homosexuals,” a “third sex,” or “urnings.” Prior to that, most homosexual activity was simply considered an adjunct to heterosexual activity; people living an exclusively homosexual life were rare. Homosexual orgies were part of some cultic religious rites in ancient times; and, while the ancient Greeks were famously pederastic, the practitioners of this pederasty also had wives and children. Even homosexual poster boy Oscar Wilde had a wife and kids.

    The gay-rights movement, in its immediate post-Stonewall phase, was vocally and unequivocally opposed to the very concept of marriage, and churned out manifesto after manifesto declaring that its mission was, not to gain the “right” to marry, but to destroy heterosexual marriage. One must wonder how much this desire remains in the hearts of gay-rights agitators–and wonder also to what extent the current agitation over marriage owes its existence to the fact that AIDS has lost much of its power as an organizing issue with the advent of maintenance drugs. An agitator without an issue that can keep the folks riled up is an agitator who is looking for work.

      

  76. 76Sandra M. on Jun 3, 2009 at 12:06 pm:

    Buzzsawmonkey:

    “If something is, and has always been, “part of the world,” it is by definition “normal.” If there always has been, and always will be, a certain percentage of people whose sexual interest is primarily or wholly same-sex, then even though they are a minority they are still part of the norm.”

    That’s a nice thought but not applicable to mankind. There has always been mental illness, but we do not consider it normal. There has always been birth defects, but we don’t consider it normal. There are all kinds of things which always has been and always will be that will never be considered normal. There will always be homosexuality, but it isn’t normal.

    Your last paragraph sums up the current condition of the radical homosexual agenda. It exists not to build up, but to destroy. Those types of agendas have always been part of our world, but it isn’t normal.

      

  77. 77Anonymous on Jun 4, 2009 at 12:37 am:

    WHERE THE HELL IS THAT EARTHQUAKE WHEN YOU NEED IT?

      

  78. 78buzzsawmonkey on Jun 4, 2009 at 8:25 am:

    #76 Sandra M: You say:

    That’s a nice thought but not applicable to mankind. There has always been mental illness, but we do not consider it normal. There has always been birth defects, but we don’t consider it normal. There are all kinds of things which always has been and always will be that will never be considered normal. There will always be homosexuality, but it isn’t normal.

    I think you need to better define your terms; you appear to be equating homosexual behavior with mental illness. The American Psychiatry Association voted homosexual behavior, per se, out of its category of “mental illness” over 30 years ago.

    Now, I happen to believe that any discipline which can vote an “illness” into or out of existence has, by the very act of doing so, revealed that the discipline itself is nonsense. But these are the keepers of whatever standard of “mental illness” exists.

    It appears that you believe anything not engaged in by the majority is “not normal,” and that this is somehow bad. Is Protestantism therefore “not normal,” because there are more Catholics than Protestants? Is Judaism an abnormality because there are more Christians than Jews? Since ancient Greek society not merely permitted but encouraged pederasty, were those who did not engage in the practice “not normal”–or were the Greeks themselves “not normal”?

      

  79. 79Common Reader on Jun 4, 2009 at 11:32 am:

    Well I was wrong! And I am glad that Chinese people can see the crazy for their own selves.

      

  80. 80Sandra M. on Jun 4, 2009 at 3:37 pm:

    Buzzsawmonkey: “The American Psychiatry Association voted homosexual behavior, per se, out of its category of “mental illness” over 30 years ago.”

    Not really. They were bullied into removing homosexuality from the “mental illness’ catagory. It still is a mental illness. We’re just not suppose to say it. It’s like we aren’t suppose to call late-term abortion murder, even thought that’s what it is.

    As for responding to any thing else you had to say, it would be redundancy. I made myself quite clear and I doubt anyone is confused except you and others like you for whom being confused about facts aids their agenda.

      

  81. 81buzzsawmonkey on Jun 4, 2009 at 5:02 pm:

    #80 Sandra M.: On what basis–with what proof–under what supposed authority do you lay claim to the ability to decree that homosexual behavior is a “mental illness?” Are you a mental health professional? Are you a scientist of any sort in a relevant field? Or are you merely someone who has battened onto a term and decided, through thick (skull) and thin (evidence), to keep repeating the same thing ad nauseam?

    How could gay-rights activists, who were few and who had little political power over 30 years ago, possibly “bully” a professional association into changing its views?

    I notice that you duck the question of the “normality” of the ancient Greeks, who considered pederasty normal. What about that? Was theirs an “abnormal” society? Or were the few in Greek society who did not engage in the practice “abnormal?”

    You’re starting to sound awfully like those people who wrongly believe that the Bible
    a) condemns “homosexuality” (It doesn’t; the concept didn’t exist back then. It condemns homosexual acts–as it condemns all sex outside of marriage.), and
    b) condemns homosexual acts as “unnatural” (It doesn’t; it forbids them, precisely because they are natural. Morality is the imposition of limitations upon natural behavior).

      

  82. 82Ken on Jun 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm:

    Homosexual behavior also occurs in the animal kingdom, let’s not forget. If that isn’t a testament to it being natural, I don’t know what is.

      

  83. 83Anonymous on Jun 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm:

    No, it is not natural – it’s about as natural as a frog being born with an extra leg.

      

  84. 84Ken on Jun 6, 2009 at 3:25 pm:

    I’d like some proof that it’s not natural. Thus far, I’ve seen none.

      

  85. 85garpy on Jun 6, 2009 at 8:04 pm:

    Starless “Because Islam is a protected religion to the Left and Christianity is the root of all Western evil. They are victims of that evil awful Dubya, so they get a pass. That is, until they come out politically against gay marriage.”

    In that battle, Islam wins hands down.

    Just recently in the UK, Muslims complained about pro-gay literature in schools and it was removed and banned overnight. The leftists there have thrown the gays under the bus and will do so here the moment that they get the opportunity.

    You think Obama has betrayed you? To quote the Messiah of the Left: “You aint seen nothin’ yet!”

      

  86. 86Anonymous on Jun 7, 2009 at 3:03 pm:

    Dear Zombie,
    I really enjoy your work. I wish you would have covered some “tea parties”.
    I would like to know if conservative protest signs are as silly as liberal protest signs.

    Thanks in advance.

      

  87. 87GWB on Jun 8, 2009 at 4:55 am:

    #84 Ken

    Because in nature, sex is supposed to only be used for procreation, and you can not procreate with m/m or f/f relationships.

    Now, I can already hear your rebuttal of “but humans have sex for pleasure all the time.” There are two theories that I have heard for that.

    1) Humans enter monogomous (spelling) relationships, and sex for pleasure is one method of keeping two partners together.

    2) Since humans do not go into heat like other animals, we evolved to have sex for pleasure to ensure that women get pregnant.

      

  88. 88zombie on Jun 8, 2009 at 8:23 am:

    #86 Anonymous

    I really enjoy your work. I wish you would have covered some “tea parties”.
    I would like to know if conservative protest signs are as silly as liberal protest signs.

    I never saw any evidence of the “tea parties” in my area. Did they even have any in or around San Francisco? I certainly never heard of them. And if there were any here (doubtful), they probably would have been small and boring anyway. I don’t think I missed much.

      

  89. 89zombie on Jun 8, 2009 at 8:51 am:

    #84 Ken

    I’d like some proof that it’s not natural. Thus far, I’ve seen none.

    It all comes down to what one’s definition of “natural” is. If one pauses to think about it, about 95% of what we do on a daily basis is “unnatural” in that we wouldn’t do it in nature and that our early ancestors never did it. Wearing clothes is unnatural; sitting in chairs is unnatural; cutting hair and shaving is unnatural; eating cooked food is unnatural; trimming our toenails is unnatural; using contraception is unnatural; all medical advances are unnatural; etc. etc. The list is endless. The problem comes with the unnecessary stigma associated with the word “unnatural,” which is the root of the argument here. You are using it in a neutral way, meaning anything that does not occur in primitive nature; others use the term to mean something which is morally repugnant to them. Hence, the argument is going in circles, because people are arguing about two different meanings of the same word.

    The transsexual author “Joan Roughgarden” wrote an entire book called “Evolution’s Rainbow” detailing all the homosexual activity and behavior that goes on in the animal kingdom, in an effort to prove that homosexuality is “natural.” And while she did collect an admirable assemblage of examples, in the end she ended up undermining her own case, because although she highlighted hundreds of species which occasionally exhibit homosexual-type behavior, that isn’t nearly as impressive as it may sound at first, because there are millions upon millions of species on the earth. And if she can only dig up a few hundred that sometimes exhibit homosexuality, that means that 99.99% of species don’t ever exhibit homosexuality. So she kind of ended up proving the exact opposite of what she wanted to prove. Furthermore, many of the examples are not of actual homosexual sexual penetrations, but rather of behaviors that we in our cultural view consider “gay,” such as male penguins brooding on eggs, male seahorses carrying the egg sacs in their mouths, pairs of male birds doing mating rituals or raising chicks together, etc. None of these species actually engage in homosexual sex, and it’s just a ridiculous bias on our part to think that such behaviors count as “gay.”

    One could easily compile a similar book of examples of animals which eat their young, of which there are probably thousands of examples; or animals which kill their sexual partners after mating; or animals which eat shit. And so on. The animal kingdom has an insane amount of variation in it, and one can always find numerous examples of practically any kind of behavior. And thus, that behavior could be called “natural.” But being “natural” doesn’t mean it is commonplace. If there were categories of humans who liked to kill their own children, or who liked to eat shit, they could also point to the animal kingdom and rightfully claim that their behavior is “natural,” due to all the other species which do the same thing. Conversely, there could be huge encampments of cultural anarchists who refuse to cut their hair, shave, wear clothes, or eat cooked food, and they could rightfully claim that all the “civilized” behavior that the rest of us do is totally “unnatural.”

    Hence, what I’m trying to say is: the “unnatural” debate is completely meaningless. On one hand, most of what we do is technically unnatural (in the original sense of the term). And on the other hand, if there are people who find certain activities morally distasteful, then we have neither the ability nor the right to compel them to think a different way. Freedom of thought is the fundamental right underlying freedom of speech. I personally don’t care in the slightest what people do in their bedrooms, but if other people are repulsed by it, then there’s nothing I can or should do about that either.

      

  90. 90GWB on Jun 8, 2009 at 9:59 am:

    #88 Zombie

    There was one up in Sacramento, but I didn’t expect you to go that far for a story when the Bay Area is crammed full of nutjobs.

      

  91. 91old alabam on Jun 8, 2009 at 11:39 am:

    hey zom, i been chekkin yer site for quite a while now and i am not ever disappointed thank you fer hangin’ in there doin the heavy free-press liftin long may it wave, long may it wave
    yours truly, o.a.

      

  92. 92Throbert McGee on Jun 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm:

    GWB writes:

    Because in nature, sex is supposed to only be used for procreation

    Says who, the Nature Police?

    From this, I deduce that GWB was blessed and/or cursed with a Catholic upbringing, as I was.

    Well, in my case, it was mainly a blessing, because my my dad has always been “agnostic” and left my religious upbringing to my mom, who has always been one of those more liberal Catholics who thinks that masturbation and homosexual shenanigans and marital-sex-on-the-Pill are all okee-doke with God, as long as you don’t kill babies in the womb. But that meant she was at odds with the official Vatican position, which is more or less as follows:

    Given that the male and female genitals serve the important function of makin’ babies, it is logically self-evident that using the genitals for non-procreative entertainment amounts to a frustration of God’s carefully-wrought plan, and is therefore a terrible sin!

    (Of course, being very very sneaky, Catholic theologians do not say it in such plain terms — instead they pad it with 30,000 polysyllabic Latinate words, thus creating an attractive façade to disguise the logical shambles at the core.)

    Zombie, sorry for arriving late to the party.

      

  93. 93Throbert McGee on Jun 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm:

    Buzzsawmonkey:

    The gay-rights movement, in its immediate post-Stonewall phase, was vocally and unequivocally opposed to the very concept of marriage, and churned out manifesto after manifesto declaring that its mission was, not to gain the “right” to marry, but to destroy heterosexual marriage. One must wonder how much this desire remains in the hearts of gay-rights agitators–and wonder also to what extent the current agitation over marriage owes its existence to the fact that AIDS has lost much of its power as an organizing issue with the advent of maintenance drugs. An agitator without an issue that can keep the folks riled up is an agitator who is looking for work.

    The only gay agitator who deserves serious intellectual attention from conservatives, in my opinion, is Mr. Bill Weintraub — precisely because he runs so radically contrary to the “gay mainstream media.”

    In a nutshell, he says that for the sake of their own physical, mental, and emotional health, homosexual men should (a) shun both effeminacy and false machismo and instead strive to inculcate masculinity in themselves; (b) stop thinking of anal intercourse as “normal everyday sex” and instead recognize it as a kinky and medically high-risk practice; (c) reject the idea that promiscuity is “liberating”; and (d) within these boundaries, they should continue to be actively, openly, and exuberantly homosexual.

      

  94. 94Throbert McGee on Jun 8, 2009 at 2:53 pm:

    zombie speaketh:

    The very fact that only 18,000 gays got married in California during the period it was legal, out of a population of several million gay people in the state, reveals a lot. It shows that there wasn’t really a big pent-up demand for same-sex marriage after all.

    Well, some of the more homophobic opponents of same-sex marriage have predicted that if SSM were legalized, there’d be a tidal wave of gays who weren’t at all serious about The Sacred Bond of Matrimony rushing to get hitched just as a benefits-grab, and/or because they were all starry-eyed about having a fabulous Martha Stewart wedding and reception. So maybe the relatively low numbers are indicative of people taking it seriously.

    /ever the optimist

      

  95. 95zombie on Jun 8, 2009 at 5:49 pm:

    #92 Throbert McGee

    Zombie, sorry for arriving late to the party.

    Glad to have you! Please feel free to comment upon any contentious claims posted anywhere in the comments section. I’d be especially interested to hear your take on my comment #89 above — about the meaning of the word “unnatural” and how homosexuality may indeed be “unnatural” but only to the same degree as just about every other behavior modern humans exhibit. The only things we do that are truly “natural” are:

    Sucking on mommy’s tit when we’re babies;
    Drinking water from a stream when we’re thirsty;
    Eating carrion or some berries when we’re hungry;
    Copulating shamelessly as soon as the hormones kick in;
    Giving birth to the next generation;
    …and the cycle begins again.

    Everything beyond that is unnatural. Including and especially sitting in front of a glowing screen typing all day!

    Additionally, to the extent that homosexuality is merely just another “paraphilia,” i.e. fetish for something “not normal,” then one could just as reasonably state that much of heterosexual attitudes and attractions are equally paraphiliac, equally “unnatural.” High-heel shoes, Victoria’s Secret bras, hetero oral sex, cosplay outfits, girls-in-uniforms, silicon boobs, all of it — it’s all totally unnatural. Anything beyond the urge to mate with big-hipped naked adolescent girls is not natural. All of modern culture is one vast paraphilia, and homosexuality is just one of them. And, to me at least, not morally distinct in any way.

      

  96. 96el polacko on Jun 9, 2009 at 12:16 am:

    how ‘funny’ that it’s the same people who go off on rants about incest or polygamy who point to the bible for their definition of one-man/one-woman marriage when that book is rife with examples of marriages between siblings and those between one man and HUNDREDS of women (and, btw, rhapsodizes over the love between such couples as david and jonathan and ruth and naomi.)
    i may never understand why some people go into such a frenzy of anger and nastiness over hearing that tax-paying citizens are displeased by being told that they are less-than-equal when it comes to legally protecting their relationships and families. the very idea that something so basic to human dignity should go to a popular vote is anathema to the very ideals upon which this country was founded. the various churches can decide which unions they choose to ‘bless’.. what we are talking about here is a set of rights and responsibilities being afforded by the government to one class of citizens that it denies to another, which flies directly in the face of the concept of equal protection under the law.

      

  97. 97zombie on Jun 9, 2009 at 1:21 am:

    #96 el polacko

    You’re just repeating the exact same buzzphrase as the No on 8 campaign, which we hear over and over and over, yet without much substance to back it up. Yes, yes, we get it, we understand what “meme” to No on 8 campaign is pushing, that marriage falls under the concept of equal protection, that it’s a “human right,” etc. You don’t need to repeat it like a wind-up doll. Problem is, none of those legal arguments have yet stood up in court. Perhaps they will be eventually when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on this case, but until such time little is achieved by chanting the mantra over and over to random people who have no legal power in the courtroom to change anything.

    Last I looked, there is no mention of marriage in the U.S. Constitution. None whatsoever. The California Supreme Court ruled (correctly, in my view) that the citizens of California do have the right to vote on state propositions, and do have the right to amend the state constitution. The only remaining recourse is to argue in the U.S. Supreme Court that the California constitution is in violation of the United States constitution. What will be the outcome of that case? Obviously, I don’t know. But it’s going to take a lot more logical muscle than the repetition of buzzphrases to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that gay marriage is “basic to human dignity” and that matters of dignity are not allowed to be put to a popular vote.

    Jousting against fundamentalist Christian strawmen isn’t going to win this battle, because none of your dissection of the Bible will in any way dissuade fundamentalists to abandon their faith; and those non-fundamentalists who voted for Prop. 8 are completely unswayed by anti-Christian arguments. The Bible is already known to be overflowing with contradictions and moral ambiguities and mutually incompatible commandments hither and thither. If the people who are biblical literalists can already withstand the known problems with the Bible and maintain their religiosity, then nothing you point out about bizarre marriage practices in the Old Testament will change their point of view. They’re believers, like it or not, understand it or not. You’ll just have to live with that.

    Ranting and raving and crying over spilt milk and protesting past elections is a complete waste of time and a futile exercise. Forget about Prop. 8. It’s over, it’s done, it’s the law. Turn your attention to constructive things, if you want to get back in the game, such as a proposition to re-amend the state constitution in 2010, or 2012.

    I had a grandfather who murmured angrily about Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey well into the 1990s. He was utterly fixated on the politics of the mid-1960s, and he was frozen in time at that moment, unable to move on. There are militia nuts still obsessing over Ruby Ridge and Janet Reno and Vince Foster and all sorts of early Clinton-era stupidity. I could give a hundred similar examples. Do you want to become one of those people? Get with the program, and look forward to the future.

      

  98. 98Karmen on Jun 9, 2009 at 10:57 am:

    According to the marchers: I guess it is okay to condemn others who don’t believe like they do. I guess it is okay to condemn heterosexuals as if they were all evil. I guess it is okay to be disrespectful and publicly engage in sex. I guess it is okay to threaten the lives of heterosexual practictioners as advocated in their posters. It seems that many wish that heterosexuls didn’t exist–is it because it reminds them that they came into the world through a female and male relationship.

    Sperm centers and innovations in the reproductive industries are going to change society as it was designed. If you don’t like the way you are packaged, you can now have a remodeling job. Thank God my neighborhood birds and kitties are still reproducing and are happy with being who they are. Perhaps the world is becoming imbalanced?

    I find it secure to live in an enviornment where we are not threatened if we have different beliefs and that goes for both sides. It is also a warm fuzzy feeling when you can trust your dad, your brothers, and other relatives to respect you and not rape you. I believe the laws that protect human beings from assaults by opposing viewpoints is a necessary means to protect human life. In this protest march, hatred, malice and condemnation is exhibited to the maximum and their behavior certainly is not friendly if you don’t believe as they do. I do believe it is wrong to curse and assault any human being in the name of God–this is totally unscriptural and anyone who practices this behavior is accountable for their own behavior and should not be blamed on “Christianity”. But yet many of these folks are becoming so militant that this way of life is becoming menancing and they are turning into gang bangers.

      

  99. 99Bakunin on Jun 9, 2009 at 12:07 pm:

    Tea Party Protest in San Francisco (note that this is a right-wing site, so they probably didn’t put up the crazy protest signs comparing Obama to Hitler that was in other tea party protests):
    http://www.pipelinenews.org/2009/Size-Of-San-Francisco-Tea-Party-Protest-Shows-Obamas-In.html

      

  100. 100CattusMagnus on Jun 9, 2009 at 9:01 pm:

    #99 Bakunin,

    What specific tea party protests had signs comparing Obama to Hitler? The signs at the tea party I attended in Portland Oregon said nothing of the sort. In fact, I was quite impressed at the maturity of the tea party protesters. There were no burning effigies of President Obama or pictures of him with swastikas plastered on his forehead. There were no masked and individuals shouting obscenities. There was no nudity. There was nothing like anything that we see of the shocking demonstrations chronicled here at Zombietime. The only offensive sign was that of a counter-protester that said “fuck the poor” (which was being delightfully obscured by an American Flag held by a veteran). And the only other questionable sign was being held by another counter-protester advocating that we outsource American jobs (he was also dumbfounded by the name John Galt on so many signs – who is that guy anyway?) The overall atmosphere was very positive and civil and nobody did or said anything to constitute a risk to national security. It seems to me that the tea party protests are a great example of what protests should be: where people come and say their peace and there is no violence or need for the police to break out the riot gear. Now were there really so many crazies likening Obama to Hitler or are you just a bit irked because conservatives have really captured national attention with this?

      

  101. 101GWB on Jun 9, 2009 at 9:27 pm:

    #92 Thorbert McGee

    Actually, I was raised in a pretty agnostic family. I’d go to church about once or twice a year, when I visited my cousins out in the country. I was just trying to inject a bit of science into the discussion, and Zombie does raise a valid point when he brought up that a lot of what humans do could be considered unnatural.

    Although, the argument could be made that a lot of the unnatural things we do (using weapons, typing on a computer) is just an extension of our use of tools.

    As for same sex marriage, I don’t really give a damn. Either way

      

  102. 102Kate on Jun 10, 2009 at 6:10 pm:

    As passionately as I felt about GLBT rights (in full favor), I believe that the opinions of straight people, whether they’re for or against, don’t matter as much as you think. There is only one group that matters in this whole thing: the GLBTs. It’s their future at stake. Believe or not, gay people being allowed to marry would not in any way affect heterosexual people. At least not negatively.

    If a straight couple feels threatened because gay people can get married, I think think it’s time their took a really close look at their own relationship. ‘Cuz something’s wrong in paradise.

      

  103. 103Throbert McGee on Jun 10, 2009 at 7:15 pm:

    GWB: Ah, thanks for clearing that up. The reason I thought you must be Catholic is that Catholic theologians do, in fact, rely in part on scientific-sounding arguments when talking about sexual morality (including the moral status of homosexual acts). But they use flimsy logic that is easily picked apart by anyone who’s paying attention.

    Anyway, here’s a possible argument in favor of same-sex marriage for everyone to chew on:

    “Society should recognize same-sex marriage because homosexuals who form long-lasting pair-bonds will tend to accumulate larger estates that they can one day bequeath to their heterosexual nieces and nephews.”

    The key point to notice about this argument is that it entirely avoids the dispute over whether marriage is some sort of inalienable right, and instead asserts that it can be in the self-interest of the heterosexual majority to extend the “privilege” of marriage to homosexuals.

      

  104. 104Bakunin on Jun 10, 2009 at 7:30 pm:

    100 CattusMagnus

    I don’t know if I can post so many images, so I put it on this test blog here: http://testeers.blogspot.com/2009/06/tea-party-crazies.html

    Like, I’m not saying that this is the same for every tea party. But Tea partiers (tea baggers??) need to know that white supremacists and Ron Paulite extremists are looking to hijack the popular (and justified?) rage of the common conservative. http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/White_Supremacists_July_4_Tea_Parties

      

  105. 105GWB on Jun 11, 2009 at 4:09 am:

    #103 Throbert McGee (hey, that rhymed)

    Heh, just wanted to clear that up.

    Also, I oversimplified when I said I don’t care about it. I do not believe it should be decided at the National level, since marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution (I am a proponent of states rights), but if the states vote in favor of it, I will support gay marriage.

      

  106. 106buzzsawmonkey on Jun 11, 2009 at 8:08 am:

    #102 Kate: “There is only one group that matters in this whole thing: the GLBTs.”

    Oh, yeah. That’ll win friends and influence people.

      

  107. 107CattusMagnus on Jun 11, 2009 at 12:36 pm:

    #104 Bakunin,

    Thanks for the info. The sign that read “US taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens” was the worst. Tea partiers, not tea baggers (don’t go all Anderson Cooper on me), should confront these idiots.

      

  108. 108John on Jun 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm:

    I found it ironic in the video that the gays were yelling “You don’t know what fucking love is. Get the fuck out of here” at the hispanic cyclist. Seething with hatred for him. Hypocrates.

      

  109. 109crimewave on Jun 18, 2009 at 3:34 pm:

    What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open
    their skulls and ate up their brains and imagi-
    nation?
    Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unob
    tainable dollars! Children screaming under the
    stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men
    weeping in the parks!
    Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the
    loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy
    judger of men!
    Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the
    crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of
    sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment!
    Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stun-
    ned governments!
    Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose
    blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers
    are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a canni-
    bal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking
    tomb!
    Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows!
    Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long
    streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose fac-
    tories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose
    smokestacks and antennae crown the cities!
    Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch
    whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch
    whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch
    whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen!
    Moloch whose name is the Mind!
    Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream
    Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in
    Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!
    Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom
    I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch
    who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy!
    Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch!
    Light streaming out of the sky!
    Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs!
    skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic
    industries! spectral nations! invincible mad
    houses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs!
    They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pave-
    ments, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to
    Heaven which exists and is everywhere about
    us!
    Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies!
    gone down the American river!
    Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole
    boatload of sensitive bullshit!
    Breakthroughs! over the river! flips and crucifixions!
    gone down the flood! Highs! Epiphanies! De-
    spairs! Ten years’ animal screams and suicides!
    Minds! New loves! Mad generation! down on
    the rocks of Time!
    Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the
    wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell!
    They jumped off the roof! to solitude! waving!
    carrying flowers! Down to the river! into the
    street!

      

  110. 110Anonymous on Jun 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm:

    I’ve been reading your blog for a while now and I enjoy scrolling down reading your comments and seeing the photos. I may not agree with some of your points, but most I do and I think you do it in a very reasonable fashion.
    Alan

      

  111. 111Mr. Right on Jun 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm:

    Well done Zombie for performing the reporting service that the MSM refuses to do. One question to any same-sex marriage supporter. Explain why the practise of sodomy is not disgusting. Read our website for an explanation for the amazing legal and political progress of the unpopular homosexual case.

      

  112. 112buzzsawmonkey on Jun 22, 2009 at 4:09 pm:

    #111 Mr. Right saith: “Explain why the practise of sodomy is not disgusting.”

    All sex is pretty disgusting, unless you happen to be one of the people engaged in it. Try again.

      

  113. 113Emanuel on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:10 pm:

    The sign about being too gay to pay taxes did not mean they are going to stop paying taxes as a protest. It was meant to demonstrate the hypocrisy of denying gay taxpayers the same tax benefits (of marriage) as straight taxpayers. If you are too gay to be legally allowed to marry, then you must be too gay to be a taxpayer. Get it?

      

  114. 114SentWest on Aug 3, 2009 at 11:02 am:

    #113 Emanuel

    “meant to demonstrate the hypocrisy of denying gay taxpayers the same tax benefits (of marriage) as straight taxpayers”

    I see that argument there, but it falls apart when considering there are a lot of unmarried (or childless) straight people who are also paying taxes from which they see no benefit. I’ve been supporting my local school districts for 10 years now with no tangible benefit. Guess I need to hurry up and spawn…

    Actually, that bring up another point. I am generally under the impression that there is no right to marriage whatsoever, an example being that straight people also do not have any legal recourse to demand benefits afforded to married couples without first conning someone into marrying them. Put that way it sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it?

      

  115. 115Lonnie on Aug 13, 2009 at 9:40 pm:

    Yo this is make sickening. I can’t believe that people actually protest this shit the way they do. I agree, most of this shit only hurts the cause of gays and lesbians. Personally I think it’s disgusting. And as for the shit head that put “1 Man + 1 Woman = 50% Divorce Rate..” Wow, like it would be any better if we let gays start marrying. They would have a 75% divorce rate because they are too sexually perverted and would look outside the marriage for the next best thing…of course, there would be those marriage mates who wouldn’t even care one bit if their partner did that. Sick

      

  116. 116jcreight13 on Aug 23, 2009 at 7:54 pm:

    The intriguing yet distirbing conundrum of the liberal/progressive movement is promoting “diversity” except when it includes diversity of opinion or intellect.

      

  117. 117b1jetmech on Aug 27, 2009 at 10:12 pm:

    Zombie,

    Thanks for the education into the matter. Don’t agree with everything you say but that’s fine…I don’t agree with my mother on everything.

    One of the reasons I’m For Prop 8 is Homosexuals will join forces with the most radical leftists to get what they want. If that means they would vote for Joseph Stalin who would promise them gay marriage by all means they will do so. There are other reasons but will elaborate later.

    I have to chime in with some useless information. As far as Ken posting from China. The Chinese are the number one hackers against the US. What they do is hack into a computer in Canada and go through it to the US. When we trace it it will show Canada as the place of origin. But digging further, it can be traced back to China. So I wouldn’t know where Ken is really…but who cares.

    Ken is self absorbed because he graduated from one of China’s indoctrination centers so has the best of both worlds of supporting Homosexual marriage and Communism so congrats to him.

      

  118. 118advertisingray on Sep 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm:

    If only the cigarette smokers had the PR machinery of the sodomizers. Cigarette smokers would be allowed to smoke and preach from the pulpit simultaneously. They would be able to smoke anywhere and at anytime. They could distribute them to our school children beginning in Kindergarten. Class lessons would be taught on the virtue of lighting up. Our news anchors would extol the virtues of smoking while smoking and dispensing the news. Our Hollywood icons would advocate smoking in order to expand their appeal and box office receipts. Our teen agers would be more tolerant of the smoking lifestyle. Tobacco would be the new black. Smoking would not be deemed deviant behavior by The American Psychological Association. Tolerance toward cigars, snuff and pipes would increase. We would even be debating an additional amendment to the U.S. Constitution to codify the right to smoke. We could pass hate-crime laws to doubly punish the evil tobaccophobes. The Sunday newsmagazines would run pop quizzes in which incorrect answers would label you as a heinous non-smoker. Any Miss America contestant who doesn’t bow at the altar of tobacco would be vilified and removed from competition. The tabloid newspapers could run outing columns in which prominant athletes who smoke are outed. Most importantly, our government would subsidize the tobacco industry so that a single pack of cigarettes will not cost more than lifetime HIV treatments.

      

  119. 119Anonymous on Sep 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm:

    I am from England.

    I have many many close friends who are American.

    Americans are regularly considered in the UK to be arrogant, ill-educated and ill-informed. I hate that.

    Thank you for all you supporters of proposition 8 for confirming to my countrymen that you are in fact all of those things. Thank you for allowing us to consider you a backward nation. I hate that it is even a consideration. I HATE anti-American feeling, then I come across your website and read the comments from retards who haven’t realised the world has progressed a little in the last 50 years.

    There’s a reason you are hated globally. The comments on this website are the reason.

    Grow up.

      

  120. 120stinkybarbie on Oct 12, 2009 at 1:50 am:

    Lots of great posts here. Anon from England, you are a coward and a hypocrit. There is a reason my ancestors left your country, they were tired of you peoples borish horseshit. Stay on your side of the puddle. Guess we’ll be friends when the Huns are kicking your limey arses again…. have some spotted dick for me you tosser.

      

  121. 121Cloe on Nov 19, 2009 at 10:54 pm:

    106 John “I found it ironic in the video that the gays were yelling “You don’t know what fucking love is. Get the fuck out of here” at the Hispanic cyclist. Seething with hatred for him. Hypocrate”
    I agree that it is ironic how a group of people so adamant to gain rights to marry (a vow of love) can be so hateful to those who deny them their hopes and dreams. The signs displayed at the protest were at times distasteful, and the lack of effort to appeal to a wider audience was stunning. However, the gay community as a whole cannot be put under this scrutiny, and even these men and women who are so blatantly accusatory towards others, are not like this in everyday life. Some of these same men and women are part of our workforce, they are part of this country as much as any heterosexual man or woman. For those who do feel hateful, how can you blame them for the expression of their anger? Gay people are human, they are allowed to feel as distasteful of their opponents as you are to feel of them for their anger. We do not expect people who have lived through a war to forgive the invaders who scarred their lives. So why do we expect those who have lived through hate crimes, constant degrading comments, and possibly a hateful upbringing, to ignore comments made that bring the traumas of their lives under scrutiny.
    Zombie you said in #97-
    They’re believers, like it or not, understand it or not. You’ll just have to live with that.

    It is amusing how this side of the argument can be used in the opposite context. Gay people, although not “believers” could replace the term with “gay” and have the same affect on some heterosexuals as this quote had on me. Homosexuals have been around as long as “believers” of all sorts, and people will just have to accept that. Both sides will have to learn how to live with each other.
    Why should one group of people be kept down because they have less power than the other? Because that’s life as and “you’ll just have to live with that.” However this same thought pattern can be applied to why someone can make a hypocritical argument at a symbol of his struggle, because it is life and it is logical that one would be angry and want change, just as it is logical that the majority wins.
    How can we judge so many people, of both sides, on logical actions we make based on experiences and life. Believers and gays, we are all the same, stubborn and righteous. (Get it… pun? Okay I know I’m not a comedian)

      

  122. 122zombie on Nov 20, 2009 at 12:05 am:

    119 Anonymous:

    Oh, so America is a backward nation because not all states allow gay marriage?

    Interesting.

    And exactly how many gay marriages have there been in England?

    Hold on, I’m counting…counting…counting…oh, here’s the total: ZERO.

    How in the world can you stand there in a country that does not allow gay marriages (the UK) and fling accusations of backwardness and evil at a country that allows more gay marriages than your own?

    And no, the “civil partnerships” allowed in the UK are no different that the “domestic partnerships” that already exist in California and most other states. On the issue of gay marriage the UK is far more backward than the US.

    Get back to me when the UK legalizes gay marriage. Until then, you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

      

  123. 123Timothy (TRiG) on Jan 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm:

    Zombie,

    I see you didn’t post my comment that accused you of being transphobic. Maybe it was the language that put you off. I’ll restrain myself this time.

    Or maybe you held back my post because I said I hadn’t read the full comments thread. Well, I have now. And I’m disappointed.

    First: a history lesson. It was social conservatives who made same-sex marriage an issue, by seeking to ban it. Hawaii, I believe. As you say, it wasn’t really on the radar before then. I don’t see the lack of marriage equality as the worse social injustice in the world; or even in the Western world; or even among gay people in the Western world. In the USA, DOMA and ENDA are probably bigger issues, in terms of the effects on people’s lives. But marriage inequality is perhaps the most obvious social wrong, and (theoretically) the easiest to fix. It’s discrimination based on blind bigotry, with absolutely no supporting arguments whatsoever. It’s just so obvious, so straightforward, that it’s frustrating that it’s not being fixed immediately. Also, some people cannot afford to wait.

    Furthermore, you are describing these as Prop-8 protests. There has been a lot of discussion on gay blogs about why there was such an outpouring of protest after Prop-8 (too late). I think it was just an overboiling of frustration. Of course civil rights have come on in great strides since the days of Harvey Milk, but recently things have been bogging down again, and the rhetoric has been ratcheting up. There is real hate out there (some of it on this blog). In other words, whatever the signs may have said, these protests weren’t just about Prop-8, or even mainly about Prop-8. Prop-8 was just the most potent symbol. It shocked many younger gay people out of their political complacency.

    Gay people are, of course, a disparate community. We are analogous to the Deaf, more than to the racial minorities. (And Deaf people too have been persecuted and disenfranchised.) We are brought up, usually, by straight parents, we have straight siblings, straight schoolmates and other friends. We are integrated. And, while kids are coming out earlier now, late teens is still quite common, and some come out considerably later. The idea that we should all move away is, of course, ridiculous.

    Here in Ireland, I’ve been to one rally for marriage equality, and have written to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Justice. (I’ve had replies, too. Polite ones.)

    Unlike you, Zombie, I’m not much of a fan of direct democracy. I think a constitution should have a firm commitment to equality, and should be difficult to change, requiring more than a simple majority. And I think campaign ads based on outright lies and hate-speech should be restricted. The National Organisation for Marriage tell more lies than you’d believe. (Many such lies are documented on Jeremy Hooper’s excellent blog Good as You.) The American Constitution does not claim to grant rights, it enumerates them. The rights already exist, and are inalienable. On that premise, it could be argued (morally, if not legally) that the vote for Prop-8 was invalid.

    I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not an American lawyer. I don’t claim that’s a good argument for court, though it may be. I’m just saying it’s one way to look at it. The people have spoken, and they were wrong, and they did something they had no right to do. That’s how I see it, anyway.

    Perhaps you’ll publish me this time? I’ve held off on the insults, though no one else in the thread has bothered to do so.

    TRiG.

      

  124. 124Frank Rockland on Apr 6, 2010 at 2:38 pm:

    No wonder there are so many people on medication. I would be too if I held the hatred that the people who write these comments do. I love your captions to the pics. The pics are of course the best. I wonder how many of these protestors actually work in the private sector. I wonder how many of these protestors are receiving monies from the State, Federal, or local governments that they so despise. I wonder how many of the protestors are receiving social services from the government that they hate.

      

  125. 125Bob on May 4, 2010 at 8:27 pm:

    Why is it when I try to find good reasons by the right to oppose gay marriage the right keeps throwing me reasons why I should oppose them?

    Sometimes I just want to give up on conservatism.

      

  126. 126شات كتابي on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:11 am:

    Thanks for the info. The sign that read “US taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens” was the worst. Tea partiers, not tea baggers (don’t go all Anderson Cooper on me), should confront these idiots.

      

  127. 127Lola on Mar 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm:

    Faggs shit. Turn or burn!

      

  128. 128naruto cosplay costumes on May 29, 2013 at 6:01 am:

    Good post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon on a daily basis.
    It will always be helpful to read articles from other authors and practice something from their websites.

      

  129. 129Phillip Heally on Oct 26, 2013 at 5:46 pm:

    Extremely very good day, this is the genuinely superb web page, I’ve plummeting in adore studying many on the posts and threads contained after the location, sustain the good get the job done as well as hope to learn a lot more exciting content articles from the time to come.

      

  130. 130Latashia Colangelo on Nov 9, 2013 at 8:00 pm:

    It is easy to investment cheap tiffany jewelry alternatively quite readily, though may perhaps be really great deal fantastic once you invest in cheap tiffany jewelry. tiffany jewelry for cheap is actually not the same as various options from lemon tiffany jewelry and simply lights out from the listeners. Specific an excellent,cheap tiffany and co jewellery, daily life cheap tiffany jewelry. Such an cheap tiffany jewellery happens to be definitely additional, easy methods to to a number exceeding for thousands of years except for some really good reasons why Tiffany exceeds expectation over good night sleep.

      

  131. 131CircumNews Review on Nov 14, 2013 at 4:10 pm:

    Hi there. Very nice website!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally…I’m satisfied to find numerous useful info right here in the post. Thanks for sharing.

      

  132. 132Duncan Bredernitz on Nov 20, 2013 at 10:03 am:

    I’ve been surfing on the internet more than 4 hours today, yet I never found any posts as attractive as yours on BLOGTITLE. It is worth reading. Personally, if all webmasters and bloggers produced first-rate content as you do, the web will be a lot more informative than ever.

      

  133. 133Hawaii Solar Panel on Nov 21, 2013 at 12:34 am:

    read my siteHawaii Solar Panels to help u with ur home

      

  134. 134Merri Trzaska on Nov 25, 2013 at 6:35 pm:

    Great paintings! This is the kind of info that should be shared across the web. Shame on Google for not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and visit my site . Thanks =)

      

  135. 135filmmaker on Nov 27, 2013 at 11:26 pm:

    I absolutely love your site.. Great colors & theme. Did you develop this website yourself? Please reply back as I’m planning to create my own personal site and would like to learn where you got this from or what the theme is called. Thanks!

      

  136. 136look these up on Dec 28, 2013 at 4:38 pm:

    I am just checking both for blog posts that give impartial, balanced commentary on all issues or blog sites that have already a liberal or kept-wing slant. Appreciate it..

      

  137. 137resource on Dec 30, 2013 at 10:35 pm:

    What exactly is the easiest way to try to look for blogs and forums you are interested in?

      

Leave a Reply

Name Email Website URI