prop 8 revisited

[applegoddess]

So thinking back, I think there's this huge disconnect between people who support equal rights for gay people and people who don't, purely because the latter don't fully understand the situation. I'm sure there are some people in the latter group who do understand everything fully, I think it's then safe to call those specific people bigots

Comments

[applegoddess]

Well, I was focusing specifically on California and the issues with having a domestic partnership in California strictly. Yes, it is completely unequal if you consider how each state deals with another state's partnership. However, I don't really want to deal with anything on the federal level *right now*, given how downright hostile the anti-rights people are.

[nc_seventeen]

actually the DMA is the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying it is, and it DID pass.

[applegoddess]

Exactly. Some people didn't get the two points I mentioned first (above). Others weren't sure if a yes vote meant yes on gay marriage or yes on banning gay marriage. The whole thing was so fucked up.

[applegoddess]

Yes, but afaik that wasn't the original wording. Also, not sure what the translations would have been like.

Plus, how many people do you know actually read that stuff? heh.

[nc_seventeen]

"What is the big deal over educating kids about equality? Sex ed doesn't generally involve describing in explicit detail how to have sex. A vagina is a vagina, a penis is a penis, here's how to use a condom or dental dam, go have fun, or don't go have fun that's up to you. Nobody is saying anything about a dildo up a vagina or two penises. Nobody is forcing kids to believe that they need to change genders. It's simple education to not introduce or reinforce the idea that people of the same gender in a relationship are immoral and it's common sense to be fair."

That would actually be incredibly progressive. In 36 states sex ed is more like, "Here's a penis, here's a vagina, if you ever, EVER choose to use them before marriage, (To the opposite sex!) God will hate you and you will die of AIDS. BTW, here is a whole bunch of anti-safer-sex propaganda that is completely untrue and misleading. Also, condoms only work 40% of the time. KTHNXBYE.

Seriously.

[applegoddess]

Hmm, but is it the case in california? I really doubt it, unless certain schools in LAUSD were exceptions. The other states shouldn't matter if it's *california* law we are changing right now.

There's a whole different discussion to be had about the quality of sex ed nationwide and even worldwide though.

[nc_seventeen]

No. California forgoes tens of millions of dollars from the Federal Government so that we have the right to teach sex ed rather than abstinence only. Btw, Bush gave an extra 200 million to those programs during his first year.

Now, MY sex-ed experience was awful. We had these idiot abstinence only folks come in. Luckily I just happened to have the CDC's most recent report on my desk that day. I was actually pulled from class for interrupting the speakers every 13 minutes.

[applegoddess]

well i'll be glad to see bush out of office fairly soon. personally i had a really amazing sex ed class the last time talking about *everything*, all the times before that were fairly mediocre.

[nc_seventeen]

as for non-political, that is unfeasible. Pastors, Rabbi's, the head guy in certain Islamic sects (forget the sect name and the position title) are going to do that. It's their right. Laws have morality tied to them. Morality is well within the realm of religion. They can preach politics from the pulpit.

However, donating actual funds like the Catholic Church did, (LDS didn't actually use donation plate money, btw), however, should result in the loss of Non-Profit status. Which, in the case of Catholic Churches would equal hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course, this will never, ever happen. Why? Because whichever party pushes for this loses the Catholic vote. You know who the single largest body of religious folks is in the US? That's right, Catholics. You you know who the second largest is? Lapsed Catholics.

[applegoddess]

haha, lapsed catholics.

The thing is, the IRS already restricts political activities by ALL nonprofits. I just want the existing defined restrictions to be even more restrictive, i.e. not just a complete ban on campaigning for a politician, but for legislation as well.

[nc_seventeen]

I disagree. It doesn't follow logically.

[applegoddess]

How does it not follow logically?

- nonprofits are restricted on what they can do re: political activities
- they cannot support a specific candidate under any circumstances
- they can support anything else with a cap on how much effort/money/time they spend in relation to the rest of their activities for (i believe) that year, anything over that will mean they may lose their nonprofit status and be taxed

why is it that they can't support a candidate but they can support legislation?