New Study: 52.1% Of Californians Homophobic.

[gaia.plateau]

I'll believe that BS the day I see a black man choose to, and turn white, or an American Indian turn Asian. Those are true minorities, and truly have been shafted through history. Yet we see homosexuals suddenly decide to be straight. Hmmm.

And then suck cock in airport bathrooms. Sexuality is a spectrum, no one is 100% gay or 100% straight, and if someone is, it's extremely rare. And we can't change who we are chemically attracted to- gay people that convince themselves and others that they have "decided to be straight" are just living lies and inevitably destined for a rest stop on some lonely highway for a midnight cockmeat sandwich.

You sound like another gay apologist looking for an excuse.

There's nothing to apologize for or excuse, there's just homophobic, latently gay, self-loathing and intolerant people to fruitlessly banter with.

If it were a result of genetics, one would expect to find the same ratio of gays to straight people native to San Franfreako as they would find in, say Salt Lake City, Boise, or Tehran. That is just not the case.

Black skin is a result of genetics, yet in New York City there is a higher ratio of people with black skin in Harlem than there is in Soho.

San Francisco is a mecca for open-mindedness and tolerance, is it really surprising that a large number of homosexuals have migrated there?

If it's not nature, but nurture, then they are not a minority in any way more than anyone else with a jacked-up childhood.

I agree with you 100%, gays should not be treated as a minority, they should be treated as equals. Like they are in Canada, Europe, and most of Polynesia. Equals who can be with the person they love while they are on their deathbed. Can you give any explanation but pure hatred for wanting to deny that right to another human being?

[Bulldog_916]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081116/ap_on_...vaS8x5ZFmhh24cA

Wow. I couldnt read this without feeling somewhat disgusted with the parts of our nation that act this way. Looks like you cant put a happy face on ugly insides. I kind of hope that any and all talk of an assassination of the President-elect, in any form, by any age or race should be punished to the maximum that the law allows. If the man is killed, there will be severe repercussions around the world.

I feel justified in posting this here because while one civil rights fight is raging (gay marriage), another one is revealing itself again (black rights). Edited November 16, 2008 by Bulldog_916

[melanko]

A Yes vote on Prop 8 was pretty much the same thing as saying, "I hate gay people." You cannot convince me otherwise because that is what it boils down to.

And I'm proud that I'm comfortable in my own sexuality that I would want to allow everyone to be happy, straight or gay or anywhere in between.

[Stuie]

A Yes vote on Prop 8 was pretty much the same thing as saying, "I hate gay people."

That was a line from one of the political TV ads. Sounds just like it would be.

Vote No on Prop ___, or you kids will be kidnapped by immigrant pedophiles.

This ad was brought yo you by the PAC that believes that there is only one possible reason for voting against us, even though logic, common sense and a millions of people giving credible reasons for voting for it, says there are more reasons for voting for it but they are wrong. We are the only ones that are right, so vote NO!

[engineonmute]

It's not discrimination... after all, according to the law, homosexuals can't marry the same sex... and neither can hetrosexuals.


The funny part is that this "anti discrimination" law was shot down be the black voters. Look at the numbers, it wasn't the hispanics, but the blacks that voted against homosexual marriage by the greatest margin. Maybe it'st just that a group that has been the victim of discrimination, and knows what it is, realizes homosexuality is not a minority, race, religion, but is a choice. Choices are not entitled to anti discrimination law protection. What's next? anti discrimination laws for bank robbers?

Passing laws protecting gay actions as a minority is an insult to all minorities that have suffered atrocities throughout history. THe gay-activists are trying to pervert the definition of defamation to fit their needs.

Makes me glad to be a long way away from the land of fruits & nuts.

woa seriously man.... i dunno where to start.
are you even black? stop making up crap, particularly the part about it being a "choice." you don't know jack

[gaia.plateau]

A Yes vote on Prop 8 was pretty much the same thing as saying, "I hate gay people."

Not true. It could also boil down to "I fear gay people", "I fear the gay traits in myself", "I am a religious fundamentalist psychopath", or, probably most commonly, "My hatred/fear/resentment of gay people is greater than my desire to see my country's constitution upheld."

[joytron]

A Yes vote on Prop 8 was pretty much the same thing as saying, "I hate gay people."

Not true. It could also boil down to "I fear gay people", "I fear the gay traits in myself", "I am a religious fundamentalist psychopath", or, probably most commonly, "My hatred/fear/resentment of gay people is greater than my desire to see my country's constitution upheld."

Well Said!

[An1m]

A Yes vote on Prop 8 was pretty much the same thing as saying, "I hate gay people."

Not true. It could also boil down to "I fear gay people", "I fear the gay traits in myself", "I am a religious fundamentalist psychopath", or, probably most commonly, "My hatred/fear/resentment of gay people is greater than my desire to see my country's constitution upheld."

Well Said!

gaia.plateau I was going to reply to all of those points that you did, but you beat me to it and said it perfectly. To think that because there may be more gay people in certain places that makes it somehow an "unnatural" "choice" is absurd. First of all the two concepts have absolutely nothing to do with each other and EVEN IF they did the connection would only be corollary at best.


I am an African American, my people have been enslaved, and relentlessly discriminated against in this country for well over 400 years. It is shameful that black people voted 7-3 against Prop 8 and they are disappointments to me.

The arguments that have been made against same-sex marriage are the same arguments that were used to keep people from marrying interracially. To the person that says disallowing same-sex couples isn't discrimination because heterosexuals can't marry people of the same sex: Was disallowing interracial marriage not discriminatory because white people couldn't marry black people as well as the vice versa? 

That is one of the most imbecilic things I have ever had the displeasure of coming across.

These religions/churches that crusade against other people's rights are ridiculous, especially mormonism, which said that black people were evil until after the civil rights movement and that polygamy was A-Okay! until it was stricken down. 

Equal protection under the law. Seperate institutions for certain people is inherently unequal. As long as government is in the bisiness of marrying people then they need to give everyone the right to marry equally.

[dw914er]

what's funny is I had a mormon friend (well, from high school, so now a facebook friend) who said that gay marriage is bad, and would lead to polygamy, and beastiality.


I thought it was ironic for a hard core, BYU attending, mormon talking against polygamy, but whatever,

[gaia.plateau]

Paging Scotsman.

[crashrebootrepeat]

It is a shame that many christians only pay attention to half of what the bible says. I consider myself a Christian but my best friend is a lesbian. True the bible does say thous salt not lay with a man as one lays with a women but it also says love thy neighbor as theyself and Jesus was hanging out with prostitutes, theives, and probably homosexuals to. We are supposed to not like the act that you perform and pray that you will change your ways... but to treat them as outcasts is unacceptable and its a shame how many Chirstians ignore what the bible truely says.

[Evildave]

Well, i'm from Canada (which probably makes me some kind of liberal devil or some shit, but whatever). A ladyfriend of mine is gonna get married next summer to her girlfriend, and i am extremely proud and happy that i live someplace that allows for this kind of thing to happen.

I'm a big believe in not fucking with people's happyness. And preventing gays/lesbians from getting together just because they are different, well it's just a shitty thing to do. Those are my thought on it.

[Doubon]

Top Court in California Will Review Proposition 8

[mustang_steve]

I never understood why people are so concerned about the personal lives of others...

What does Tim and Stan or Betty and Debbie shacking up do to anyone's daily lives? What would them being married change about that? Nothing.

I do understand the question of how children would be influenced being raised in such a household....how would the percieve gender roles, etc...perhaps as a straight male, it's hard for me to see that, but since there is no evidence either way that it's good or bad, let them do that as well.

We as a nation keep dewlling on "what if"s way too much...there's bigger issues than this, and it really disheartens me to see people dedicate so much effort into screwing with people's homelives as opposed to working towards something that can better all of our lives.

[blckngld760]

someone should make a hookah forum poll on homosexual marriage

[gaia.plateau]

someone should make a hookah forum poll on homosexual marriage

What's stopping you?

[blckngld760]

lol ok ill do it

[TheScotsman]

Paging Scotsman.

I'm alive. Was out for my yearly trip to blast the crap out of bambi with a very large caliber bullet

Bambi and some of her friends didn't make out too well in the deal.

[mustang_steve]

Nice, Venison is goooooooood!

[gaia.plateau]

I'm alive. Was out for my yearly trip to blast the crap out of bambi with a very large caliber bullet

Bambi and some of her friends didn't make out too well in the deal.

A real man hunts with nunchaku.

[Evildave]

A real man hunts with nunchaku.

Range could be an issue. Anyhow, back to main topic, which I believe is : boys who like boys and girls who like girls, and boys and girls who like both, and the people that just plain hate them and wish to fuck with their happyness.

[TheScotsman]

A real man hunts with nunchaku.

Range could be an issue. Anyhow, back to main topic, which I believe is : boys who like boys and girls who like girls, and boys and girls who like both, and the people that just plain hate them and wish to fuck with their happyness.

Really, what it comes down to is simple...

With the general condition of the world as a whole, this is about the last thing I would ever worry about. In areas where the stae has recognized domestic partnerships, and granted them the same rights as a "church wedding" we still see a fight over a word. If states were to universally grant the validation gays seem to want, and churches were to suddenly change the name of a church wedding to, whatever, pick something... let's say "supreme cosmic union of retardation", would gays be happy with the state validation of them as merely marriage, or would we suddenly see a bunch of "oh-so-tolerant gays beating up old ladys with crosses over the right to be recognized as members of the supreme union of said retardation? I bet we would, history has supported that course of events.

To that end it's about as stupid of argument as you can find.

Lets face it, who really cares where they want to put their wanker, as long as it's not a threat to society, that's their problem, and they are welcome to it. They deserve the same privileges and rights as any other couple. But to fight over what to call it shows a lack of sense on both sides of the issue.

I would think, by that same collection of rights, a parent would have the right to say they didn't want a gay male P.E. instructor for their 12 year old boys, or a lesbian watching the girls shower. It just fits into those same obligations and rights afforded their sexuality.

It's neither cute, no acceptable to expect an all-male camping group (i.e boyscouts) to be forced into accepting a scoutmaster who professes a desire to bugger dudes. After all, they would never be forced into allowing a 20-something woman into a solo with 12 boys, so why, then, are they expected to accept a male who claims to have female desires? It's stupid. The whole thing needs a serious rethinking... an maybe a touch of sense.

The only problem I see is that once you pick a road, for the love of it all, you have to stick to it. No more of the a' la carte rights, rules and obligations, and rights. Society thrives best on stability, and what we are doing now is anything but, it has to change but I don't see either side making any attempt to find an acceptable middle ground.

Marriage is, for the most part, a church-originated word, and custom. Let the damn door knockers have it. Keep the state out of the church business, and vice versa... we will be the better off for it. So the gays aren't happy with civil unions, and the thumpers think they all need to be burned at the stake. Do you really think anyone is going to change either of their minds?

Truth be known, the biggest single voting bloc in cali against gay marriage was the Blacks, it's ironic that the push to get so many registered and voting had the result of defeating the gay marriage right. However, if you call it a constitutional republic, and the constitution says NO, it's no. That's not hate, it's reality, crappy or not, unfair or not, it's what we have.

Now we have all this "tolerance" in Cali, yet we see gays beating 19 year old missionary girls who are passing out tracts on a corner in the castro. I guess, like most liberal tolerance, it's only a tolerance if they want it, not need to show it. Beating up old lady with crosses because they are in front of a Mormon temple... not only are they intolerant gays, but dumb too... Mormons don't exhibit any crosses, (ya, I dated one of those loons LONG ago, very frightening bunch on so many levels) but all is fine, they got to beat up an old lady just because they were frustrated with the system. I bet she single handed defeated gay rights, and had it coming!

Just another stupid argument intended to divide people along some imaginary line, no doubt to keep us from any form of united look at the real problems in the world.

[gaia.plateau]

A real man hunts with nunchaku.

Range could be an issue.

One must be sneaky.

With the general condition of the world as a whole, this is about the last thing I would ever worry about.

...

Lets face it, who really cares where they want to put their wanker, as long as it's not a threat to society, that's their problem, and they are welcome to it. They deserve the same privileges and rights as any other couple. But to fight over what to call it shows a lack of sense on both sides of the issue.

...

Just another stupid argument intended to divide people along some imaginary line, no doubt to keep us from any form of united look at the real problems in the world.

Then why are you so supportive of the time and money gone into getting proposition 8 passed, appealed, and inevitably repealed?

The only problem I see is that once you pick a road, for the love of it all, you have to stick to it. No more of the a' la carte rights, rules and obligations, and rights. Society thrives best on stability, and what we are doing now is anything but, it has to change but I don't see either side making any attempt to find an acceptable middle ground.

In 2004 this was the probably the singularly stupidest political attitude in the world, and George Bush utilized it to relate to the ignorant masses and crush Kerry. The notion that a population or ruling party that tends to lean towards greater security, or greater equality, or whatever, must necessarily make every single decision in that vein is ridiculous.

"If you're for stem cell research you have to be for gay marriage", "if you're anti-gun control you have to be anti-UN", "if you support fucking your own chickens, you have to watch Fox News", etc. Complete nonsense. There's no reason to pick one "road" of thought and stick with it, other than sheer, suicidal stupidity.

There's no such thing as true universality, to understand or address anything effectively we have to use a synthesis of various ideas for any given situation. Society does not thrive on stability whatsoever, unless you're intentionally referring to agrarian society. In the age of modernity and post-modernity, the reality is that our societies thrive on constant change and socioeconomic modification.

Marriage is, for the most part, a church-originated word, and custom. Let the damn door knockers have it. Keep the state out of the church business, and vice versa... we will be the better off for it. So the gays aren't happy with civil unions, and the thumpers think they all need to be burned at the stake. Do you really think anyone is going to change either of their minds?

At no point in time have Californian churches been forced to marry homosexual couples. What prop 8 did was disallow churches from choosing to do so.

Truth be known, the biggest single voting bloc in cali against gay marriage was the Blacks, it's ironic that the push to get so many registered and voting had the result of defeating the gay marriage right. However, if you call it a constitutional republic, and the constitution says NO, it's no. That's not hate, it's reality, crappy or not, unfair or not, it's what we have.

I actually would have put money down (like 10 cents) that you understood what a voting bloc was...

Far more whites voted yes on Prop 8 than blacks, and therefore were a bigger voting bloc. A higher proportion of blacks voted yes than white, to the tune of 70% according to exit polls.

It's neither cute, no acceptable to expect an all-male camping group (i.e boyscouts) to be forced into accepting a scoutmaster who professes a desire to bugger dudes. After all, they would never be forced into allowing a 20-something woman into a solo with 12 boys, so why, then, are they expected to accept a male who claims to have female desires? It's stupid. The whole thing needs a serious rethinking... an maybe a touch of sense.

Maybe this is frowned upon in Alabama, but in the parts of the world where you need a shirt to get served at a restaurant, officially disallowing a homosexual from leading a boyscout troupe would be illegal discrimination. So would disallowing a 20-something woman to do it.

Intriguingly, you evidently seem to find nothing wrong with thousands of all-male altar and choir groups being forced into accepting fleshy communion from thousands of homosexual priests and preachers throughout the Western world Edited November 26, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

The only problem I see is that once you pick a road, for the love of it all, you have to stick to it. No more of the a' la carte rights, rules and obligations, and rights. Society thrives best on stability, and what we are doing now is anything but, it has to change but I don't see either side making any attempt to find an acceptable middle ground.

In 2004 this was the probably the singularly stupidest political attitude in the world, and George Bush utilized it to relate to the ignorant masses and crush Kerry. The notion that a population or ruling party that tends to lean towards greater security, or greater equality, or whatever, must necessarily make every single decision in that vein is ridiculous.

"If you're for stem cell research you have to be for gay marriage", "if you're anti-gun control you have to be anti-UN", "if you support fucking your own chickens, you have to watch Fox News", etc. Complete nonsense. There's no reason to pick one "road" of thought and stick with it, other than sheer, suicidal stupidity.

There's no such thing as true universality, to understand or address anything effectively we have to use a synthesis of various ideas for any given situation. Society does not thrive on stability whatsoever, unless you're intentionally referring to agrarian society. In the age of modernity and post-modernity, the reality is that our societies thrive on constant change and socioeconomic modification.

Marriage is, for the most part, a church-originated word, and custom. Let the damn door knockers have it. Keep the state out of the church business, and vice versa... we will be the better off for it. So the gays aren't happy with civil unions, and the thumpers think they all need to be burned at the stake. Do you really think anyone is going to change either of their minds?

At no point in time have Californian churches been forced to marry homosexual couples. What prop 8 did was disallow churches from choosing to do so.

Truth be known, the biggest single voting bloc in cali against gay marriage was the Blacks, it's ironic that the push to get so many registered and voting had the result of defeating the gay marriage right. However, if you call it a constitutional republic, and the constitution says NO, it's no. That's not hate, it's reality, crappy or not, unfair or not, it's what we have.

I actually would have put money down (like 10 cents) that you understood what a voting bloc was...

Far more whites voted yes on Prop 8 than blacks, and therefore were a bigger voting bloc. A higher proportion of blacks voted yes than white, to the tune of 70% according to exit polls.

It's neither cute, no acceptable to expect an all-male camping group (i.e boyscouts) to be forced into accepting a scoutmaster who professes a desire to bugger dudes. After all, they would never be forced into allowing a 20-something woman into a solo with 12 boys, so why, then, are they expected to accept a male who claims to have female desires? It's stupid. The whole thing needs a serious rethinking... an maybe a touch of sense.

Maybe this is frowned upon in Alabama, but in the parts of the world where you need a shirt to get served at a restaurant, officially disallowing a homosexual from leading a boyscout troupe would be illegal discrimination. So would disallowing a 20-something woman to do it.

Intriguingly, you evidently seem to find nothing wrong with thousands of all-male altar and choir groups being forced into accepting fleshy communion from thousands of homosexual priests and preachers throughout the Western world

You miss my point, I don't mean subscribe to a single line of thought. I mean once you pick a path on a single subject, you are stuck with it. Society needs the stability of continuity on issues, not a willy-nilly new policy every 4 years. Once you want the church label of "marriage" on a civil union, then you are stuck with it. Once you declare yourself gay, then you are on that course, You can't be gay for the sake of some political statement in one endeavor, and then decide to present yourself as straight to be the cubmaster. You can't supports marriage, and not pay the tax penalty, or complain when you get nailed with some common-law marriage suit. In the case of an approved gay marriage, and a legal acceptance of homosexuality as a gender, then the door is open for sexual harassment suits against gays displaying what any person may deem harassing or offensive behavior. Are you ready for that floodgate to open? You can't have a recognition as an equal gender-group, without having the rules of society applied equally. It would be a license for every homophobe to start legal actions. A new void for lawyers to fill!

Arguing numbers is bloody retarded, it's like arguing with a 3 year old over bedtime. In the end of Calis blacks voted against gay marriage, as opposed to of the whites supporting it.

Listing every case where there are potential victims is equally stupid. The Catholic church is EXACTLY the proof of the problem.

A closed club should have every right to deny entry to a person not meeting the criteria for membership. Come join the VFW, or Legion if you think otherwise. Oh, wait, they bar membership since you don't meet those criteria. No parent with a living brain cell would send their kids on a overnighter with a gay priest, so why should they be expected to with a gay cubmaster? So the organization dies (like it seems to be doing) as a result of gays forcing their way into it. That is the way to win the acceptance of the straight people! great idea.

10 cents Canadian isn't worth a thing. Even the vending machines in the truck stop pisser would reject that washer-with-a-birth-defect

[gaia.plateau]

Society needs the stability of continuity on issues, not a willy-nilly new policy every 4 years.

So a policy already in place that allows all people to have equal legal benefits from existing in a state of union, and to be beside the person they love as they lay on their death bed is "willy-nilly", but a proposition to unconstitutionally deny it to them is sound and valid?

Once you declare yourself gay, then you are on that course, You can't be gay for the sake of some political statement in one endeavor, and then decide to present yourself as straight to be the cubmaster.

But Mormons can declare and undeclare themselves from polygamy once a month? No one is saying that homosexuals should pretend to be something that they're not, but you.

In the case of an approved gay marriage, and a legal acceptance of homosexuality as a gender, then the door is open for sexual harassment suits against gays displaying what any person may deem harassing or offensive behavior. Are you ready for that floodgate to open? You can't have a recognition as an equal gender-group, without having the rules of society applied equally. It would be a license for every homophobe to start legal actions. A new void for lawyers to fill!

This is exactly what they want, equality under law as laid out by your constitution, and indeed under any Western democratic constitution in the world.

This whole "slippery slope" mentality that is the domain of flat-earth economists and neoconservative evangelical nut-jobs isn't even remotely within the realm of being worth my retinal energy to read, let alone respond to.

Arguing numbers is bloody retarded, it's like arguing with a 3 year old over bedtime. In the end of Calis blacks voted against gay marriage, as opposed to of the whites supporting it.

Arguing numbers is arguing facts, and the only people that consider arguing facts to be "retarded", are those that aren't aware of any.

For your consideration.

No parent with a living brain cell would send their kids on a overnighter with a gay priest, so why should they be expected to with a gay cubmaster?

You seem to have this inexplicable mentality that homosexuals are sex-crazed maniacs who're only out to destroy your family and molest everyone and everything they come into contact with. And that was fine, for 8 years its been a defining attitude of your nation-state. But that time is over now even in your own territory, so if your mind is that brutally closed, you have two options my friend. 1: move to Iran or North Korea, where hateful, discriminatory and oppressive attitudes are still popular, or 2: refrain from expressing hateful, discriminatory and oppressive opinions. Unless you're really short on tomatoes.

One assumes you're heterosexual, so I guess an appropriate question would be this: should no one allow young girls near you, because you'll rape them every chance you get? (Please disregard this as a superfluous question if you happen to be an actual registered sex offender).

10 cents Canadian isn't worth a thing. Even the vending machines in the truck stop pisser would reject that washer-with-a-birth-defect

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, you were able to pick up on that. But not the sarcasm part . I guess if I only would have bet 10 of my Canadian common cents, I didn't have much confidence in your Redneck common sense, eh? Edited November 26, 2008 by gaia.plateau