The real h8 from Prop 8
First, a word. Whether homosexuality is biological or environmental has been brought up with me before. To make sure I get that out of the way I'll address it here. If you have a beef with my arguments, fair enough. If that beef includes something I address herein, as if I didn't already address it, expect that I will say offensive things to you. I do not like being preached at without my opinions considered.
My feeling is it is both, or either. In a species that has sex for other than procreation an argument can be made that bisexuality is the true "normal." After all, why differentiate if it's all just to get off?
That said, a great deal of people consider it, well, ooky. To be a bit more serious, a great deal of intelligent, thoughtful people feel engaging in the behavior is destructive. This is what so many "gay rights" advocates refuse to acknowledge or respect about their opponents. Some people believe strongly that sex isn't the same as a hand shake, that it should be treated with a level of reverence and discriminateness. You don't have to like it. You should try to respect their opinion, as it has a few things on its side. Far too many alphabetsexuals have created a public image that is the opposite of that. A great deal of people would prefer the environment not rub off on their kids, and certainly that it not be force fed to them by force of law. That idea may offend some. Life is rough. Get a helmet.
I believe the more "open," some would say destructive, people tend to be, just as with body modding, booze, drugs, and other harmful behaviors, the more one engages in one, the more one is likely to engage in all. This is an oversimplification but gets the point across. I believe many of the people I've seen become bi or gay have done so as a symptom of similar self-destruction, and often due to some abuse or trauma in their past. That being the case, if they are enjoying themselves and not harming anyone, I don't really care. It's when they push for acceptance through force of law that it matters to me.
While I think most bi are the result of environment, which would include those born gay then behaving bi, I think most pure homosexuals are born that way. It just seems logical to me that some people might be born gay.
The question then becomes, "who cares?"
What difference does it make that they are born that way? Why does that accident of birth, and yes, something not the natural norm (procreation is the natural norm) is an accident of birth, warrant special privileges? If someone born with one leg wants to run an Olympic race, everyone's feelings are irrelevant. If someone born sightless insists on being a NASCAR driver, we would advocate against it. As time passes and technology improves we make up for those handicaps, handicaps not judged good or bad but simply something that sets them aside from normal, and society eventually adapts. Prosthetic legs allow people to run. Eventually maybe they will run in the Olympics. Studying the brain might allow simulated sight, one day allowing the blind to drive NASCAR. We shall see.
Actually, the former will probably never happen. Why not? Because a prosthetic leg, no matter how good and how advanced, is different. Olympic rules would have to accept the different weight, movement methods, wind resistance, and possible other factors as the same as having the leg with which one is born. And it isn't. It may be just as good, but it is different.
This brings me to a concept most Liberals react to with pure kneejerk emotion. There is a difference between "separate but equal" and "different is not the same."
Our society would like people to get married, procreate, keep stable households, and pay taxes. Doing those things helps our society move along. Stable two parent households are statistically proven to be a better environment for the success of children. Stable two parent households are what American society has understood as productive for two hundred plus years, and what the majority of Western civilization has seen as optimal. In fact, as far as I know it is what most of the world sees as optimal. Even when this is not the case, such as with a harem or polygamists, in most cases it still revolves around the creation of children in a stable environment.
Whether or not this is actually going to happen in the case of normal couples is unknown, and is also irrelevant. The "sterile couple" argument is insultingly stupid. I consider those making it to be dishonest. It's like trying to say we shouldn't have red lights because someone might need to rush to the hospital at 3AM and would have to run it. The purpose of marriage as sanctioned by the government is to promote an ideal. Homosexual "marriage" promotes the exact opposite of that ideal. Nothing about this concept is difficult.
If you don't believe in marriage sanctioned by the government, fine. Please STFU about gay "marriage." It is inherently dishonest to be arguing about gays marrying if you think government should be out of the business altogether. Stop hiding behind this issue to promote that agenda.
Will gay "marriage" happen? Yes. And it probably should. It should happen when years of civil unions and adopted children pass by so that society can get used to the idea, measure it as having a positive impact, see it as a productive one, and move on.
How it should not happen is through the bullying of the populace, extortion of companies, shredding of constitutions, making a joke of our courts, massive monies are spent, all when civil unions, measures passed by the populace to compromise with "gay marriage" advocates, were already in place.
What the arguments, what the hatred we now see, prove, is that this isn't about "gay marriage" at all. What this is about is forcing an agenda. Gays want to promote homosexuality as normal in a society where it is not, and use the government to force others to accept it. This is the tyranny of the minority. It cannot be accepted by those who want the freedom to rear their children as they deem appropriate. "Gay marriage" is a fight to make sure that the kindergarten teacher can hand out "my two daddies" for the class to read, and if you object you go to jail or counseling. This is a fight about being able to sue a wedding planner who doesn't want to plan gay weddings. This is about men in dresses walking into the ladies room with your little girl, and suing you if you object. This is about men and women in the military telling their superiors to go to hell if they want to screw their bunk mate. This is more than just "the gay issue" but about any self-proclaimed "victimized" minority forcing its will on the American people.
This is fundamentally an assault on anyone with religious convictions. That may seem like a good idea now. Time will prove it wasn't, as some of the ideas that came from religion have a very strong foundation.
Changing a society overnight at the whim of a whining minority, against the will of the people, is not going to have a good ending.
I think that covers it. One last comment for those who might want to tell me I"m wrong.
My method works. Society has been working just fine when we held marriage as an ideal. Therefore I consider the burden of proof to be on you to argue otherwise. It is well past time traditionalists stopped allowing others to set the narrative, or play "socratic" until the traditionalist feels boxed in. If society should change drastically to the whims of a minority, why? Someone needs to give me good arguments FOR change when decades of change for the sake of it don't seem to be helping anyone.
And now to the links for the day.
We must toss politicians who will not protect the majority from violence, vandalism, extortion and more.
Anti-Prop. 8 protest watch
"'Where is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger?' Schubert asked. 'Where is Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Where are the people who represent us, no matter their position on Proposition 8, to stand up for the rights of the millions of Californians who have done the one thing we ask and teach our children, which is to participate in the democratic process?'"
Restaurant bullied by anti-Prop. 8 mob offers up payment
"A mob of gay marriage activists browbeat her into tears and guilt over the contribution. They threatened the restaurant with boycotts and protests."
Theater Director Forced Out for Supporting California's Prop 8
"I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most."
This is Liberal "tolerance." It's well past time non-Liberals recognized it for what it is.
More cowards and fools, the media.
LAT's Rutten: 'Both Sides' in Calif. Marriage Debate 'Need to Cool Down'
"Let's see if I got this straight: Hundreds of supporters of gay marriage, opponents of California Proposition 8, have picketed a Mexican restaurant in L.A. and shouted vulgarities at innocent customers just because one employee - a daughter of the owner - gave a modest $100 donation in support of the measure protecting traditional marriage. Opponents of Proposition 8 have threatened and harassed several other businesses - including a radio station, a theatre, and a chain of health food stores - because employees gave money in support of Prop 8. Opponents of Prop 8 have knocked a cross from the hands of an elderly woman and stomped on it during a demonstration in Palm Springs. Suspicious white powder has been sent in an envelope to a Mormon temple in Westwood. (Mormons were big supporters of Prop 8.)"
Supporters of Prop 8? Cast a vote and expect the courts to follow the constitution.
"So what does the Los Angeles Times' Tim Rutten have to say about all of this? He says in his November 15 column that 'both sides' 'are going too far' and 'need to cool down.'"
The Liberal media setting the narrative again. Everyone needs to calm down. Everyone should compromise. Whenever this is said by Democrats, including the media, what it means is non-Liberals should bend over and shut up.
You don't have to agree with all of this. But it would be nice if you considered it.
Counterfeit Marriage and its Counterfeit Movement
"For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and highly influential "gay" political pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled "queers" have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil' lavender wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice. "
"Like an addict jonesing for a hit, they long for that rush of self-righteous affirmation associated with belonging to something perceived as larger than themselves. Central to the movement's success is the ability to draft adherents who are easily manipulated through superficial slogans, appeals to emotion via anecdotal parades of horribles, and a mindless propensity to conform to nonconformity.
By drawing artificial parallels between the systematic persecution experienced by blacks over centuries past to the inherent aversion most have toward biologically unnatural, traditionally immoral and objectively perverse sexual behaviors, the homosexual lobby trivializes and diminishes the African-American struggle for civil rights. It's dishonest and offensive for people who choose to define their identity based upon aberrant sexual proclivities to compare sexual temptation and volitional sexual conduct to immutable and innocuous biological traits such as skin color."
"Here we have homosexuals both inciting and directly threatening violence against Christians and other supporters of Prop 8. This is not free speech; this is criminal activity. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news."
"But good has, and will, come from it all. The left's venomous reaction to the passage of Prop 8 has showcased these people for who they truly are. It has removed the sublime mask, revealing an ugly and desperate countenance below. It has exposed the self-proclaimed agents of "tolerance" and "diversity" as the most intolerant, hateful and bigoted among us."
Why The Prop 8 H8ters Lost
"No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless, and nearly completely all choose to engage in homosexual behavior. "
"They are running around ginning up the pathetic gatherings of theirs to "override" Prop 8. They don't seem to understand that the court is under the authority of the Constitution in the state of California. They don't seem to understand that if some Kangaroo judge attempts to hijack the resounding will of the people, having now passed in two landslide victories--even when outspent on the matter 6 to 1, they will have anarchy on hand. Given that to shred the explicit language of a state's sovereign constitution is to suspend all law, and all authority found in the law. "
"The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for. There is no discrimination going on against those who choose homosexual sex, they may still practice it, obsess about it, discuss it, believe it, and do it."
The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see 'hate crimes legislation' not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label 'religious bigots.'"
"The Prop 8 H8ters lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person. "
Gay Rights, Gay Rage
"One does not have to share this abhorrence of homosexuality to agree that Moore's concurrence -- copiously studded with court precedents and citations of Blackstone's Commentaries, 16th-century British jurist Sir Christopher Wray and even the Justinian Code -- accurately summarized the legal foundation of the case against gay rights. "
"Taking to the streets in furious indignation, activists created an 'enemies list' of those who had contributed to support the measure, targeting them for boycotts and protests. "
"Seizing on the triumphant narrative of the black civil-rights movement, liberals adopted the habit of framing political debates in terms of minority "rights" versus majority "discrimination." That this tactic involves a species of moral and emotional blackmail should be obvious. To disagree with a liberal, to oppose his latest policy proposal, is to invite comparisons to Bull Connor and Orval Faubus, so long as the liberal can make "rights" the basis of his argument."
"Rights talk" allowed liberals a means of preemptively delegitimizing their opponents and thereby to avoid arguing about policy in terms of necessity, utility and efficacy. If all legal and political conflicts are about "rights," there is no need to argue about the specific consequences of laws and policies. Merely determine which side of the controversy represents "rights" and the debate ends there. "
"Tolerance, safety and freedom are not the same as equality, however, and equality is the freight that liberals seek to smuggle into arguments via 'rights talk.' Gay activists do not construe their 'rights' in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality."
"And what Justice Kennedy called our 'emerging awareness' looks more and more like encroaching darkness."
My feeling is it is both, or either. In a species that has sex for other than procreation an argument can be made that bisexuality is the true "normal." After all, why differentiate if it's all just to get off?
That said, a great deal of people consider it, well, ooky. To be a bit more serious, a great deal of intelligent, thoughtful people feel engaging in the behavior is destructive. This is what so many "gay rights" advocates refuse to acknowledge or respect about their opponents. Some people believe strongly that sex isn't the same as a hand shake, that it should be treated with a level of reverence and discriminateness. You don't have to like it. You should try to respect their opinion, as it has a few things on its side. Far too many alphabetsexuals have created a public image that is the opposite of that. A great deal of people would prefer the environment not rub off on their kids, and certainly that it not be force fed to them by force of law. That idea may offend some. Life is rough. Get a helmet.
I believe the more "open," some would say destructive, people tend to be, just as with body modding, booze, drugs, and other harmful behaviors, the more one engages in one, the more one is likely to engage in all. This is an oversimplification but gets the point across. I believe many of the people I've seen become bi or gay have done so as a symptom of similar self-destruction, and often due to some abuse or trauma in their past. That being the case, if they are enjoying themselves and not harming anyone, I don't really care. It's when they push for acceptance through force of law that it matters to me.
While I think most bi are the result of environment, which would include those born gay then behaving bi, I think most pure homosexuals are born that way. It just seems logical to me that some people might be born gay.
The question then becomes, "who cares?"
What difference does it make that they are born that way? Why does that accident of birth, and yes, something not the natural norm (procreation is the natural norm) is an accident of birth, warrant special privileges? If someone born with one leg wants to run an Olympic race, everyone's feelings are irrelevant. If someone born sightless insists on being a NASCAR driver, we would advocate against it. As time passes and technology improves we make up for those handicaps, handicaps not judged good or bad but simply something that sets them aside from normal, and society eventually adapts. Prosthetic legs allow people to run. Eventually maybe they will run in the Olympics. Studying the brain might allow simulated sight, one day allowing the blind to drive NASCAR. We shall see.
Actually, the former will probably never happen. Why not? Because a prosthetic leg, no matter how good and how advanced, is different. Olympic rules would have to accept the different weight, movement methods, wind resistance, and possible other factors as the same as having the leg with which one is born. And it isn't. It may be just as good, but it is different.
This brings me to a concept most Liberals react to with pure kneejerk emotion. There is a difference between "separate but equal" and "different is not the same."
Our society would like people to get married, procreate, keep stable households, and pay taxes. Doing those things helps our society move along. Stable two parent households are statistically proven to be a better environment for the success of children. Stable two parent households are what American society has understood as productive for two hundred plus years, and what the majority of Western civilization has seen as optimal. In fact, as far as I know it is what most of the world sees as optimal. Even when this is not the case, such as with a harem or polygamists, in most cases it still revolves around the creation of children in a stable environment.
Whether or not this is actually going to happen in the case of normal couples is unknown, and is also irrelevant. The "sterile couple" argument is insultingly stupid. I consider those making it to be dishonest. It's like trying to say we shouldn't have red lights because someone might need to rush to the hospital at 3AM and would have to run it. The purpose of marriage as sanctioned by the government is to promote an ideal. Homosexual "marriage" promotes the exact opposite of that ideal. Nothing about this concept is difficult.
If you don't believe in marriage sanctioned by the government, fine. Please STFU about gay "marriage." It is inherently dishonest to be arguing about gays marrying if you think government should be out of the business altogether. Stop hiding behind this issue to promote that agenda.
Will gay "marriage" happen? Yes. And it probably should. It should happen when years of civil unions and adopted children pass by so that society can get used to the idea, measure it as having a positive impact, see it as a productive one, and move on.
How it should not happen is through the bullying of the populace, extortion of companies, shredding of constitutions, making a joke of our courts, massive monies are spent, all when civil unions, measures passed by the populace to compromise with "gay marriage" advocates, were already in place.
What the arguments, what the hatred we now see, prove, is that this isn't about "gay marriage" at all. What this is about is forcing an agenda. Gays want to promote homosexuality as normal in a society where it is not, and use the government to force others to accept it. This is the tyranny of the minority. It cannot be accepted by those who want the freedom to rear their children as they deem appropriate. "Gay marriage" is a fight to make sure that the kindergarten teacher can hand out "my two daddies" for the class to read, and if you object you go to jail or counseling. This is a fight about being able to sue a wedding planner who doesn't want to plan gay weddings. This is about men in dresses walking into the ladies room with your little girl, and suing you if you object. This is about men and women in the military telling their superiors to go to hell if they want to screw their bunk mate. This is more than just "the gay issue" but about any self-proclaimed "victimized" minority forcing its will on the American people.
This is fundamentally an assault on anyone with religious convictions. That may seem like a good idea now. Time will prove it wasn't, as some of the ideas that came from religion have a very strong foundation.
Changing a society overnight at the whim of a whining minority, against the will of the people, is not going to have a good ending.
I think that covers it. One last comment for those who might want to tell me I"m wrong.
My method works. Society has been working just fine when we held marriage as an ideal. Therefore I consider the burden of proof to be on you to argue otherwise. It is well past time traditionalists stopped allowing others to set the narrative, or play "socratic" until the traditionalist feels boxed in. If society should change drastically to the whims of a minority, why? Someone needs to give me good arguments FOR change when decades of change for the sake of it don't seem to be helping anyone.
And now to the links for the day.
We must toss politicians who will not protect the majority from violence, vandalism, extortion and more.
Anti-Prop. 8 protest watch
"'Where is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger?' Schubert asked. 'Where is Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Where are the people who represent us, no matter their position on Proposition 8, to stand up for the rights of the millions of Californians who have done the one thing we ask and teach our children, which is to participate in the democratic process?'"
Restaurant bullied by anti-Prop. 8 mob offers up payment
"A mob of gay marriage activists browbeat her into tears and guilt over the contribution. They threatened the restaurant with boycotts and protests."
Theater Director Forced Out for Supporting California's Prop 8
"I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most."
This is Liberal "tolerance." It's well past time non-Liberals recognized it for what it is.
More cowards and fools, the media.
LAT's Rutten: 'Both Sides' in Calif. Marriage Debate 'Need to Cool Down'
"Let's see if I got this straight: Hundreds of supporters of gay marriage, opponents of California Proposition 8, have picketed a Mexican restaurant in L.A. and shouted vulgarities at innocent customers just because one employee - a daughter of the owner - gave a modest $100 donation in support of the measure protecting traditional marriage. Opponents of Proposition 8 have threatened and harassed several other businesses - including a radio station, a theatre, and a chain of health food stores - because employees gave money in support of Prop 8. Opponents of Prop 8 have knocked a cross from the hands of an elderly woman and stomped on it during a demonstration in Palm Springs. Suspicious white powder has been sent in an envelope to a Mormon temple in Westwood. (Mormons were big supporters of Prop 8.)"
Supporters of Prop 8? Cast a vote and expect the courts to follow the constitution.
"So what does the Los Angeles Times' Tim Rutten have to say about all of this? He says in his November 15 column that 'both sides' 'are going too far' and 'need to cool down.'"
The Liberal media setting the narrative again. Everyone needs to calm down. Everyone should compromise. Whenever this is said by Democrats, including the media, what it means is non-Liberals should bend over and shut up.
You don't have to agree with all of this. But it would be nice if you considered it.
Counterfeit Marriage and its Counterfeit Movement
"For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and highly influential "gay" political pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled "queers" have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil' lavender wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice. "
"Like an addict jonesing for a hit, they long for that rush of self-righteous affirmation associated with belonging to something perceived as larger than themselves. Central to the movement's success is the ability to draft adherents who are easily manipulated through superficial slogans, appeals to emotion via anecdotal parades of horribles, and a mindless propensity to conform to nonconformity.
By drawing artificial parallels between the systematic persecution experienced by blacks over centuries past to the inherent aversion most have toward biologically unnatural, traditionally immoral and objectively perverse sexual behaviors, the homosexual lobby trivializes and diminishes the African-American struggle for civil rights. It's dishonest and offensive for people who choose to define their identity based upon aberrant sexual proclivities to compare sexual temptation and volitional sexual conduct to immutable and innocuous biological traits such as skin color."
"Here we have homosexuals both inciting and directly threatening violence against Christians and other supporters of Prop 8. This is not free speech; this is criminal activity. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news."
"But good has, and will, come from it all. The left's venomous reaction to the passage of Prop 8 has showcased these people for who they truly are. It has removed the sublime mask, revealing an ugly and desperate countenance below. It has exposed the self-proclaimed agents of "tolerance" and "diversity" as the most intolerant, hateful and bigoted among us."
Why The Prop 8 H8ters Lost
"No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless, and nearly completely all choose to engage in homosexual behavior. "
"They are running around ginning up the pathetic gatherings of theirs to "override" Prop 8. They don't seem to understand that the court is under the authority of the Constitution in the state of California. They don't seem to understand that if some Kangaroo judge attempts to hijack the resounding will of the people, having now passed in two landslide victories--even when outspent on the matter 6 to 1, they will have anarchy on hand. Given that to shred the explicit language of a state's sovereign constitution is to suspend all law, and all authority found in the law. "
"The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for. There is no discrimination going on against those who choose homosexual sex, they may still practice it, obsess about it, discuss it, believe it, and do it."
The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see 'hate crimes legislation' not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label 'religious bigots.'"
"The Prop 8 H8ters lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person. "
Gay Rights, Gay Rage
"One does not have to share this abhorrence of homosexuality to agree that Moore's concurrence -- copiously studded with court precedents and citations of Blackstone's Commentaries, 16th-century British jurist Sir Christopher Wray and even the Justinian Code -- accurately summarized the legal foundation of the case against gay rights. "
"Taking to the streets in furious indignation, activists created an 'enemies list' of those who had contributed to support the measure, targeting them for boycotts and protests. "
"Seizing on the triumphant narrative of the black civil-rights movement, liberals adopted the habit of framing political debates in terms of minority "rights" versus majority "discrimination." That this tactic involves a species of moral and emotional blackmail should be obvious. To disagree with a liberal, to oppose his latest policy proposal, is to invite comparisons to Bull Connor and Orval Faubus, so long as the liberal can make "rights" the basis of his argument."
"Rights talk" allowed liberals a means of preemptively delegitimizing their opponents and thereby to avoid arguing about policy in terms of necessity, utility and efficacy. If all legal and political conflicts are about "rights," there is no need to argue about the specific consequences of laws and policies. Merely determine which side of the controversy represents "rights" and the debate ends there. "
"Tolerance, safety and freedom are not the same as equality, however, and equality is the freight that liberals seek to smuggle into arguments via 'rights talk.' Gay activists do not construe their 'rights' in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality."
"And what Justice Kennedy called our 'emerging awareness' looks more and more like encroaching darkness."