Prop 8 – Why our Reaction to Defeat may signal a Longer War

[jdoe4822]

I am totally pro-choice because that is what the law in America must be as such. A woman knows if she should have an abortion or not. People can encourage but no one can force.I could concede letting certain doctors opt-out of later-term abortions if they properly refer the person to a doctor who will.
.
Of your idea against gay people having children: The thesis is that "a man and a woman are ideal for raising a child." There is no proper evidence that this is the case since the evidence pro-thesis is extremely biased. But the evidence anti-thesis is that same-sex couples who raise children generally do extremely well at the job. It's just that the numbers are relatively few, and, ergo, that tired argument that the christians like to use is bogus. There are too many factors in play to make that thesis a valid one.
___
And re: the Article, while the demonstrations might have some cost at the ballot box, I don't question them for one moment. My feeling is that the cost won't outweigh the benefit, although people have gotta be relatively cool for the time being.
[and Jasun's observations are probably rather "epi-center" and valid, being in LA, rather connected, and all.]

I must have misrepresented my position on gays raising children. I do not have a problem with that at all. I believe that children are best raised in a two parent household, but mixed or same gender doesn't matter to me. All I'm defending is the right of a physician, in good conscience, to hold the opposing view and not be forced to act against it.

I'm sure Jasun can speak for the majority of demonstrators out there. I believe that most were peaceful and respectful. However, I think its impossible for him (or anyone else) to speak for all or to be knowledgeable about the actions of all. It only takes a few to spoil things for the rest, which is what I, and I think the author of the article (as well as you, looking at your statement that "demonstrations may have cost at the ballot box" and people have gotta be...cool for the time being", if I'm not mistaken) are saying.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

all she is stating is that the actions of a few are hurting the cause as a whole by feeding that perception.

Except there ARE no actions of a few. That's my point. She made that up. It's not on me to prove there were no "Violent mobs," the burden is on HER to show that there were. And she can't unless she lies again.

Trust me, if there was a riot, it would have been shown 24 hours on Fox News for a month. If there had been any violent protests.. we'd have all seen that video a hundred times by now.

But you go ahead and pretend that your little Christian rag is a reputable source. It's obviously making you feel better.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

and I think the author of the article (as well as you, looking at your statement that "demonstrations may have cost at the ballot box" and people have gotta be...cool for the time being", if I'm not mistaken) are saying.

Except she ISN'T saying that at all. And you don't "think" that's what she's saying either.. you know that She's accusing us of being a "violent mob" and claiming there were churches that were "Vandalized."

She's not trying to say the "actions of a few" spoil it for the majority, she's claiming that we're a violent mob. And that's just not true. (thus proving that she's a fucking liar.)

She's also saying that peaceful demonstrations and a couple boycotts are a "temper tantrum."

Fuck her. Fuck that bitch and her lies and her little pedestal she put herself on. Vote against the rights of my family and you want me to politely sit at home? Sorry, not going to happen.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I must have misrepresented my position on gays raising children. I do not have a problem with that at all. I believe that children are best raised in a two parent household, but mixed or same gender doesn't matter to me. All I'm defending is the right of a physician, in good conscience, to hold the opposing view and not be forced to act against it.

You keep avoiding my question. If the doctor doesn't think that races should mix.. should he be able to refuse to "create" a mixed-race child? If he thinks that short people can't make good parents, should he be able to refuse on moral grounds?

Should he be able to refuse to help Jews since it's against his "faith?"

I mean.. you keep saying that a doctor should be able to be a sort of Moral Judge Dredd... how far are you willing to let him go?

 

[jdoe4822]

You keep avoiding my question. If the doctor doesn't think that races should mix.. should he be able to refuse to "create" a mixed-race child? If he thinks that short people can't make good parents, should he be able to refuse on moral grounds?

Should he be able to refuse to help Jews since it's against his "faith?"

I mean.. you keep saying that a doctor should be able to be a sort of Moral Judge Dredd... how far are you willing to let him go?

I did answer you already see post #83 here:

Ultimately, it should be their right, as long as they can demonstrate it violates their deeply held beliefs (similar to the consciencous objector status in the military). Is it repulsive and disgusting? Absolutely. Will they likely last long in practice? I doubt it. I imagine garnering that sort of media attention would drive them out of business. But I don't believe it's the government's job to legislate against hate or racism.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Ultimately, it should be their right, as long as they can demonstrate it violates their deeply held beliefs (similar to the consciencous objector status in the military). Is it repulsive and disgusting? Absolutely. Will they likely last long in practice? I doubt it. I imagine garnering that sort of media attention would drive them out of business. But I don't believe it's the government's job to legislate against hate or racism.

So wait.. it sounds like you're saying that the public would then.. maybe.. have the right to refuse to do business with them?

Sounds like.. a boycott?

You're not advocating temper tantrums, are you?

(and if you don't think the government should legislate against hate or racism, do you think that the people of the south shouldn't have been forced to allow blacks out of the back of the busses?)

 

[jdoe4822]

Except she ISN'T saying that at all. And you don't "think" that's what she's saying either.. you know that She's accusing us of being a "violent mob" and claiming there were churches that were "Vandalized."

She's not trying to say the "actions of a few" spoil it for the majority, she's claiming that we're a violent mob. And that's just not true. (thus proving that she's a fucking liar.)

She's also saying that peaceful demonstrations and a couple boycotts are a "temper tantrum."

Fuck her. Fuck that bitch and her lies and her little pedestal she put herself on. Vote against the rights of my family and you want me to politely sit at home? Sorry, not going to happen.

I don't believe she's refering to simple boycotts or peaceful protests as temper tantrums. I think she's refering to violent riots and acts of vandalism (which I realize you do not believe took place) as a temper tantrum (and if they did take place, can we agree that such a characterization is correct?)

I don't think she, or anyone else is encouraging you to sit at home. But there is a difference between peaceful protests, boycotts, and the more violent acts mentioned above. I do find that last statement to be insightful though. I question whether you would ever believe that someone who you perceive as "voting against your families rights" could ever have anything substantive to offer this discussion, or whether you'd ever be willing to acknowledge that at least some elements of the gay community may have helped to bring this on themselves by their actions?

Those questions aside, the difference of opinion over whether violent protests, rioting, or acts of vandalism took place seems to be our fundamental disagreement for now. You claim to know the response of all gays and therefore refuse to believe that some may have reacted innapropriately (re violently) to Proposition 8's passage. I believe otherwise. If I'm guilty of wanting to believe one way (which I do if only because it confirms the generally low esteem I hold other people in), I think you are just as susceptible to a desire to believe the opposite (not wanting to admit that some gays may have helped screw things up for the rest).

However, I am willing to do further research (at another more reasonable time when I don't have to get up in less than 4 hours) in the interest of ensuring that I'm correct in that belief. I would encourage and hope you would be willing to do the same.

 

[jdoe4822]

So wait.. it sounds like you're saying that the public would then.. maybe.. have the right to refuse to do business with them?

Sounds like.. a boycott?

You're not advocating temper tantrums, are you?

(and if you don't think the government should legislate against hate or racism, do you think that the people of the south shouldn't have been forced to allow blacks out of the back of the busses?)

I did not say boycotting a business because you disagree with the way they do business is a temper tantrum. Boycotts are a perfectly legitimate means of demonstrating against something you disagree with. It's different when you start demanding that individuals be fired for their political beliefs or use other means of intimidation besides the boycott and peaceful protests/pickets to accomplish that goal.

Public transportation is different from a physician's private practice.

Plus, while I believe the law shouldn't be used against racism, it also shouldn't be used in support of it either. Requiring a black person, by law, to give up a seat and move to the back of the bus (as was the case in Montgomery) is absolutely wrong.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I don't believe she's refering to simple boycotts or peaceful protests as temper tantrums. I think she's refering to violent riots and acts of vandalism (which I realize you do not believe took place) as a temper tantrum (and if they did take place, can we agree that such a characterization is correct?)

Fine, and when you do your research and find out that there were no violent mobs rioting in the streets, you'll agree with me that she's a lying fucking bitch who's making it all up. Because that is what she is.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Plus, while I believe the law shouldn't be used against racism, it also shouldn't be used in support of it either. Requiring a black person, by law, to give up a seat and move to the back of the bus (as was the case in Montgomery) is absolutely wrong.

But denying my husband access to my pension or deporting him from the country because he doesn't have a vagina is just fine with you?

 

[jdoe4822]

Fine, and when you do your research and find out that there were no violent mobs rioting in the streets, you'll agree with me that she's a lying fucking bitch who's making it all up. Because that is what she is.

you never answered my question as to whether or not you would agree that such behavior, if it did take place, could accurately be described as a "tempter tantrum"

 

[jdoe4822]

But denying my husband access to my pension or deporting him from the country because he doesn't have a vagina is just fine with you?

IMNHO, calling someone your husband by and refering to that person as he means he/she can't by definition have a vagina since a husband is by default a male spouse. either way, as I stated in other posts, I fully support civil unions which would should have at least handled the pension part ( I don't know the full story on the basis for the deportation but assuming his lacking a legal partner was the only thing stopping it than yes a civil union is suitable here as well). Just curious (asking because I don't honestly know), California's domestic partnerships don't help in any of these areas?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

you never answered my question as to whether or not you would agree that such behavior, if it did take place, could accurately be described as a "tempter tantrum"

No, I wouldn't. I'd call it "Mad as hell and not going to take it any more."

Calling it a "Temper Tantrum" is an obnoxious, passive aggressive way to talk down to the gay community. Kind of like saying "oh, let the baby have his way."

Shows what an immature twat she is.

 

[jdoe4822]

No, I wouldn't. I'd call it "Mad as hell and not going to take it any more."

so are you saying that violent rioting and vandalism, if they took place, would be justified?

Calling it a "Temper Tantrum" is an obnoxious, passive aggressive way to talk down to the gay community. Kind of like saying "oh, let the baby have his way."

Shows what an immature twat she is.

Funny, seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation to me. A temper tantrum is exactly what I'd call, to use an admittedly extreme example, the Rodney King riots (I realize that nothing on that scale happened).

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

And I call her a typical lying christian bitch, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[opinterph]

No churches were vandalized

I found some claims to the contrary …

Vandals spray-painted the words "No on Prop 8" at [a Mormon church in Orangevale]'s property on Hazel Avenue … yard signs supporting the proposition at a Roman Catholic church in Riverside were rearranged into a swastika. [The Sacramento Bee]

… the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. [Christian Broadcasting Network]

The words, “Nobody’s born a bigot” followed by a heart and smiley face were found spray-painted on a cement wall outside [a Mormon temple]. [Stop The Mormons]

When the signal was given the protesters inside [an Assembly of God church] rose from their seats and began loudly to disrupt the service. The fire alarm was pulled inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”

The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. According to Right Michigan the protestors in their demonstration also used condoms, glitter, confetti, and pink fabric. [LifeSiteNews]

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

The first two don't sound the vandalism to me. A cement wall outside a church ? Was it even the church's wall? That just graffitti.

Was there any indication that the bb gun was a gay person or that I was anything but a few kids?

And as far as number three goes, I'll need some other sources that sound a bit more believeable.

Let's not forget the B girl who was "attacked by an Obama supporter and had a B carved into her face." except it was all made up.

Show me the police report( although that still doesn't sound like a violent mob to me. Just people disrupting church. If that even really happened.

 

[construct]

Assuming this photographer was self-employed and working as a private contractor, than it should be their right to refuse to participate in a ceremony that violates their firmly held religious or moral beliefs. If the photographer were an atheist and they were being asked to shoot a Church baptism, it should be their right to refuse.

I do side work as a private tutor. If a parent wanted me to help their child in a Bible class at The First Academy here at First Baptist Church: Orlando or at Bishop Moore Catholic High School, I should have the right to turn down that client (I wouldn't only because of the $).

If they are employed by an agency and are sent there by their employer that's a different story, but even then its between them and the employer, not the client.

Assuming this photographer was self-employed, he would fall under the small-business exemption that is in many anti-discrimination laws. The small-business exemption is in our law here in Fort Worth. Small businesses are defined as those employing fewer than fifteen individuals.

 

[construct]

The first two don't sound the vandalism to me. A cement wall outside a church ? Was it even the church's wall? That just graffitti.

Was there any indication that the bb gun was a gay person or that I was anything but a few kids?

And as far as number three goes, I'll need some other sources that sound a bit more believeable.

Let's not forget the B girl who was "attacked by an Obama supporter and had a B carved into her face." except it was all made up.

Show me the police report( although that still doesn't sound like a violent mob to me. Just people disrupting church. If that even really happened.

The first one is certainly vandalism. I think it would be hard to prove the identity or motive for the second. The third is not vandalism; criminal trespass maybe, but there is no property damage. I would be more comfortable with protests on the sidewalk outside the church, similar to those the Xians stage at abortion clinics.

 

[opinterph]

The first two don't sound the vandalism to me. A cement wall outside a church ? Was it even the church's wall? That just graffitti.

Graffiti is the most common type of vandalism according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

There are four motivating factors for graffiti vandalism: fame, rebellion, self-expression, and power.

[National Crime Prevention Council]

Was there any indication that the bb gun was a gay person or that I was anything but a few kids?

Interestingly, that link has been disabled [today!]. There is still evidence of the original article on the web site, but you are correct to doubt the connection – I only saved a snippet, but the story included “Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.”

The third is not vandalism; criminal trespass maybe, but there is no property damage. I would be more comfortable with protests on the sidewalk outside the church, similar to those the Xians stage at abortion clinics.

I think you are referring to the fourth one. According to at least one source reporting the incident, the perpetrators allegedly scattered buckets of glitter in the sanctuary, along with condoms and pieces of pink fabric.

Show me the police report( although that still doesn't sound like a violent mob to me. Just people disrupting church. If that even really happened.

The gay [extremist] group “Bash Back!” has claimed credit for that intrusion. Though there were no arrests at the time of the incident (a number of the perpetrators reportedly fled the scene when police were summoned), the group is facing a civil lawsuit coordinated by the Alliance Defense Fund.

Let's not forget the B girl who was "attacked by an Obama supporter and had a B carved into her face." except it was all made up.

You are correct to question the veracity of the reports. (I too recalled the girl with the “B” allegedly carved in her face by an assailant.) Nonetheless, it appears obvious to me that some churches were vandalized. Even so, other than the open assault by “Bash Back!” in Michigan, I haven’t found any incidents of vandalism that can be directly attributed to Prop 8 supporters. Other than its timing, the incident in Michigan may not be directly related to Prop 8 either.

(Note: There are additional incidents reported online.)