Yes on prop 8 tactics

[billvon 2,435]

Things are getting pretty bad around here.

Publicly, the yes on 8 folks have been getting pretty sleazy. They've been playing on people's fears from the beginning, of course. (i.e. "if Prop 8 fails, your children will be forcibly indoctrinated into homosexuality!")

Recently they aired an ad showing children at their teacher's wedding. The parents of those children asked them to take down the ad, since they had not given their permission for those children to be used in any ads, and did not support prop 8 at all. They refused.

The latest is that they are using Obama's image in a mailer to claim that he supports prop 8. He doesn't, but prop 8 supporters are hoping that it's too close to the election to get the correction out.

Recently I put up no on 8 signs in our neighborhood in the usual places that political signs end up - intersections and medians. I put up about twelve signs total, one per intersection. (I don't go for the "ten identical signs on every side" angle that some people seem to prefer.) All were stolen. In several cases they had been replaced by yes on 8 signs. In a few cases they even used the same frame and just covered it with a yes on 8 sign. I've been tempted to pull them all down, but I figure that that just lowers me to their level.

The odd thing is that almost everyone I've talked to personally seems to support it. Karen saw my no-on-8 shirt the other day and said "Where did you get that? I have got to get one!" Fortunately I had a few extra. Of the people on the DZ, I only talked to one who seemed opposed to it. At a bar the other night I had five people come up to me and say they liked the shirt. One woman came up to me and said "I'm bisexual, and I am so glad people are against this proposition! I've been feeling like I'm the only one." (Which made me think I should have done this years ago . . .)

[quade 3]

Might wanna check local laws on where you can post the signs. In my city the medians are out, but I still see signs there.

To the main point though . . . yeah I really don't understand the Yes on 8 folks at all. I really don't understand how they think it effects any of their rights at all, but it certainly does effect the rights of others. That's just wrong.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grimmie 177]

Religious zealots worried about their freedoms...

[lawrocket 3]

Perhaps I am somewhat unique in yhat I rarely find any side more sleazy than the other. I'm a "No on 8" supporter. Still, I understand why many want to vote "Yes on 8.". I just disagree.

HOWEVER - I always despised the "for the children" attitude. Hey, folks - you won't be doing shit for MY kids. Take care of your own. Don't have kids? Adopt some and raise them. I objected to the "for the children" bullshit when it was done full bore in the 90's in support of social healthcare. I object to it now.

No on 8 people have vandalized signs and a couple of churches here. Yes on 8 folks have tried to interrupt gay weddings, etc.

Which is worse?


Final thought - when a person is religious and focused on that dogma do you reallu think you'll change that person's mind? You've got the same chance as the religious person changing you mind, because it us contrary to yours.

And both sides are more focused on hating each other while claiming they love than minding their own business. "Yes on 8" is the religious not minding their business. And the seeking to eliminate any and all appreciation or mere mention of religion in the public arena is similarly intrusive.


"No prayer in schools.". And why? "For the children..."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[robinheid 0]

Yes, religious zealots such as the FLDS polygamists who were raped by the Texas social services department because they choose to love each other a little differently than one-man-one-woman marriage rules so dictate.

Funny, though, how all the no-on-8ers flap their jaws incessantly about the rights of homosexuals to marry but never say word one in defense of polygamy, or even utter a peep in protest over the horrific treatment accorded not only to the FLDS adults but to their children as well.

Any of you yappers care to shed a little light on that - ahem - oversight for me?

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[n23x 0]

so...

Homosexuality and polygamy should be lumped in the same set as sexual child abuse?

Certainly you can see the difference between what adults choose to do with other adults, and what an adult chooses to do to a child.

FLDS actions resulted in the "marriage" (and resulting underage pregnancy) of teenage girls to significantly older males. That is NOT 2 or more consenting adults.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 2,435]

>when a person is religious and focused on that dogma do you reallu think
>you'll change that person's mind?

Nope! Fortunately they make up a small percentage of the population. The majority, I believe, _is_ amenable to deciding political issues based on something other than what their religious leaders say. That's why the Utah Mormons are spending so much money on this race - they are trying to sway the middle ground (as is the no-on-8 push, although that's mostly local.)

>And both sides are more focused on hating each other . . .

I'd have to disagree there. Most of the people on either side are not focused on "hating each other." There are exceptions, of course.

> And the seeking to eliminate any and all appreciation or mere
>mention of religion in the public arena is similarly intrusive.

I would agree, but I haven't seen much of that. (Of course, I live in an area where federally-funded crosses sit atop mountains, so I may be the exception.)

[quade 3]

Quote

Funny, though, how all the no-on-8ers flap their jaws incessantly about the rights of homosexuals to marry but never say word one in defense of polygamy, or even utter a peep in protest over the horrific treatment accorded not only to the FLDS adults but to their children as well.

I think you can search my record on that issue and you'll find you're off, at least when it comes to me.

Unless there actually IS abuse going on (and in that case it was just a cruel hoax perpetrated by an idiot), it's none of my business how they choose to lead their lives.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,435]

>Any of you yappers care to shed a little light on that - ahem -
>oversight for me?

?? What oversight? I think people should be able to marry whoever they choose, and that the government should stay out of it.

[robinheid 0]

then why didn't you speak up when they were raped by the texas dept of social services?

why are you yapping about homosexual marriage but not polygamy?

Same same, right?

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

if you have explicitly stated your support for polygamy as well as homosexual marriage, then I apologize for lumping you in there with the rest of the yappers who defend one but not the other.

But does your record actually show such an explicit statement of support for polygamy that is equal to your stated support for homosexual marriage?

And have you made any explicit denunciations of the FLDS rape by Texas social services equal to your explicit denunciations of those who oppose homosexual marriage?

Just wondering...

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

So we have a polygaphobe, and an uniformed one at that.

As my good friend Mr. Quade pointed out, the whole FLDS thing was a nasty hoax perpetrated by a sick individual in Colorado and covered up by Texas with desperate lies such as the one to which you fell victim. (Bottom line: All of the "underage" brides turned out to be adults.)

None of this matters to polygaphobes, however, who like homophobes immediately use the "children at risk" argument to defend their bigotry.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[billvon 2,435]

>then why didn't you speak up when they were raped by the texas dept of
>social services?

I guess the same reason you didn't speak up when Patrick Billock raped an 8 year old girl here in San Diego.

>why are you yapping about homosexual marriage but not polygamy?

Read a California voter's information guide and you may see why people are discussing same-sex marriage and not polygamy.

[ltdiver 3]

Help me out here. How does Prop 8 change what's already in place here in California?

Specifically look at a couple of laws -already- inacted.

AB 205: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/LGBT_Caucus/laws/2003/ab0205/fulltextchapteredbill.htm

"SECTION 1. (a) This act is intended to help California move closer
to fulfilling the promises of inalienable rights, liberty, and
equality contained in Sections 1 and 7 of Article 1 of the California
Constitution by providing all caring and committed couples,
regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, the opportunity to
obtain essential rights, protections, and benefits and to assume
corresponding responsibilities, obligations, and duties and to
further the state's interests in promoting stable and lasting family
relationships, and protecting Californians from the economic and
social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of loved
ones, and other life crises. . . ."

and

Family Code Section 297-297.5: http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fam/297-297.5.html

"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. . . ."

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[BikerBabe 0]

Our mailbox shares a post with 3 of our neighbors'.

Imagine my utter delight walking out to get the mail yesterday and there's a big "Yes on Prop 8" sign right smack in front of the mailboxes.

I took it down.

I feel justified, since no one asked my permission to put it there, and it's my mailbox/front yard area too.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[robinheid 0]

first point: ahhh, the "children at risk" argument yet again. besides that, I never heard of the case you reference, an excuse i doubt you can make about the FLDS case.

second point: this is not just a CA issue now, is it? I have long noticed how all you homosexual marriage yappers never open your yap in support of _other_ types of non-traditional marriage that are prohibited. Could it be your own bigotry against polygamists, who other than their plural marriages are generally conservative politically and religiously?

I'm not just picking on leftys only here, either... I remain concerned and astonished at the deafening silence from not only you and the ACLU but every other homosexual marriage advocate and First Amendment defender and separation-of-church-and-state yapper about the horror show that happened in texas. There were multiple outrageous violations of the Constitution and none of the alleged watchdogs of liberty rose any alarm whatsoever.

so i'm not picking on you guys so much as just tagging along on your Prop 8 discussion to make a point. And now i'm outta here; the Broncos game is on.

Really, though, you oughta be a little more consistent and a little less polemical every time someone exposes a hole in your hipness.

it would be politically smarter, for one thing.

love and kisses,

rh

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[BikerBabe 0]

not sure who you are or what your justification for the denigration of the people posting here, but i'll humor you.

The bottom line for me is i abhor anything that takes away rights from law-abiding citizens. I honestly do NOT know enough of the details about your precious texas case to make a judgment.

Prop 8 is about eliminating rights. plain and simple.

So tell me, if you are so incensed about what happened in texas, then you being in favor of taking away gay marriage rights seems a bit incongruous, don't you think? So is polygamy OK but gay marriage not OK? is that what you're saying? If it's not, then why bother arguing...we're all saying the same thing.

If it is, then who is the hypocrite?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[quade 3]

Quote

. . . not sure who you are . . .

This might be the funniest thing I've read all day. You're a long time Perris regular, he's a long time Perris regular; years and years in both cases. That's just hilarious. Has nothing to do with the thread at all, but dayum . . .

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

. . . not sure who you are . . .

This might be the funniest thing I've read all day. You're a long time Perris regular, he's a long time Perris regular . . . that's just hilarious. Has nothing to do with the thread at all, but dayum . . .

I laughed at that as well. However, when was the last time you saw Robin at Perris? I specifically mean the DZ, not the ghetto. (remember, Andi's not a BASE jumper either....)

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[robinheid 0]

sigh...

please point out to me where exactly I say I am "in favor of taking away (homosexual) marriage rights."

you seem to be afflicted with the same hallucinatory interpretations of certain statements as your sister Jeanne, who insisted that I was anti-abortion even when i repeatedly affirmed my support therefore - just not in the way she was accustomed to hearing.

And "we" are not "all saying the same thing." Pro-homosexual marriage people yap constantly abour their "rights" and the discrimination that should be abolished, but never yet have i heard any of them say anything in support of _other_ forms of non-traditional marriage except when their feet are held to the rhetorical fire as i did earlier in this thread.

so have at it, girlfriend. Now show me where I say what you claim I say... or apologize for mistating my words so you could climb on your soapbox.

and now i really _am_ outta here for the game.

nice chatting with all of you...

-rh

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[guppie01 0]

It's crazy here in So. Ventura County... protestors on just about every corner. Very few NO, tons of YES. Yesterday (I wish I had my camera), there was this crazy dude dressed up in some wierd costume running off the corner into the intersection in support of Prop 8 UMMMM, yeah, FREAKS!!!!

g

"Let's do something romantic this Saturday... how bout we bust out the restraints?"
Raddest Ho this side of Jersey #1 - MISS YOU
OMG, is she okay?

[BikerBabe 0]

ha! sorry for reading into that, i apologize. Perhaps it is the *manner* of your delivery that leads one to make incorrect conclusions.

You are downright rude and condescending to anyone who posts on this topic...thus I tend to assume that you disagree with the subject matter. Perhaps it is a result of too much time being lambasted on a personal level in this forum that leads me to make these assumptions. So many people here treat those they disagree with like rubbish, so i say, once bitten twice shy, for lack of a better expression.

My apologies for assuming you were anti-gay marriage. I do not, however, apologize for calling you out on your rude and condescending tone.

Catch more flies with honey, my friend.

And no, i don't hang out in the ghetto nor do I BASE jump (yet). Honestly, i'm terrible with names, but my memory operates on a visual level. If i saw a picture, i'm quite sure i'd know you

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[robinheid 0]

Thanks, Andi, I appreciate your comments.

And I can see where you might think me rude or condescending, though I prefer to consider it just stating the facts unvarnished... :)

Google "FLDS raid in Texas" for details but basically some sick chick in colorado made a crank call saying young girls were being married and sexually abused blah blah so Texas cops raided the place in armored personnel carriers with body armor and automatic weapons and seized scores of kids, most of whoom were less then ten years old (of both sexes), and then lied about the number of underage mothers and brides - 99 percent of whom turned out to be over 18.

They split the families and traumatized the children and if even one child of a homosexual couple had been seized by social services like this it would have created a national outcry.

But this unbelieveable assault on not only the first amendment but the 4th and 5th (unlawful search/due process) went by with not one of the liberty watchdogs anywhere on the political spectrum saying even one word about it - and then billvon whines about yard signs...

that is why i am abrupt and impatient about it; willful blindness of people to the real threats to liberty in favor of whining about peripheral bad manners.

Same same with the "war on drugs," which basically lies at the root of all this stuff; as soon as you legally dictate what people can and cannot put in their bodies, then you set a precedent for legally dictating to them what they can do with their own bodies, what they can have in their pockets, cars and homes, what they can (fill in the blank)...

But that's another thread. Suffice it to say that my personal view on almost every"rights-based" political issue was summed up nicely more than 200 years ago by Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

RH

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[lawrocket 3]

"other than what religious leaders have to say."

On that topic, what about "other than what secular leaders have to say?" I've found that religious people are no more "sheep" than non-religious people. There are certainly a number of sheep out there, but most of them exercise independent thought. For example, I don't think Obama shares his viewpoints with Jeremiah Wright.

Most off the opposition to Proposition 8 IS from the religious. But they have their deep-seated beliefs that may or may reflect those of their leaders. There are churches that have schisms because of differences of opinion. A church pastor comes out in support of gay rights? Plenty of parishioners and bishops would diagree with the pastor. And plenty of the parishioners would agree.

Regarding hate: I see plenty of it on these forums. Check out the most posts, and there are the God lovin' and the God hatin'. Frankly - I never thought my atheist self would see more hatred directed at the religious from the secular side, but in my impression, it's what I see. The religious did the hatin for quite a long time and the secular was on the defensive. Now it's the other way round.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Prop 8 is about eliminating rights. plain and simple.

NO NO NO!!! How is it a "right" if you have to get a marriage license.

Let us quit kidding ourselves. It is something that seeks to give same sex couples the same privilege to marry as opposite sex couples.

Search the California Constitution for the right to marry. It ain't there.

Search the US Constitution. The right to marry ain't there.

Let us get rid of this "rights" bullshit and call it what it is. Marriage provides a bunch of secular benefits. Privileges, even. And without "marriage" many of these benefits and privileges and immunities are not available. "Yes on 8" would be to possibly DENY these secular benefits.

The other side sees "marriage" as a religious thing. To allow a secular entity to redefine what they consider to be a religious rite is an abomination. THAT is their issue.

SO let us get this all straight. Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege bestowed by religious and secular law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.