IN THE COMMENTS: knox said:
I suspect Althouse is contrasting this gentleman's behavior with that of gays protesting Prop 8?Bissage said:
Whatever, it's a nice story. A brave--and generous--thing to do, engaging with a hostile audience like that. He deserves props. No pun intended.
I don’t pretend to be very sophisticated about the merits or politics of same sex marriage and I don’t intend to ever do the work it takes to get sophisticated.
And I don’t feel very strongly about the issue, one way or the other.
That said, I’m sure that if I’m ever standing in a voting booth and I’m thinking of Mr. Brown, I’m going to vote in favor of same sex marriage.
If I’m thinking of some of the more virulent characters who advocate the cause of same sex marriage, some of whom comment here at Althouse, I’ll probably vote no.
I’m sure there are enough people like me out there to make the difference; people disinclined to reward hostility.
I’m sure that makes me an ignorant bigot to some people.
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
I can relate to the extreme fear this would cause, but when it is happening, you are just on it, and you really don't think much of "what if". In 1998, I was in a live TV talk show for a local station in Miami that was simultaneouly transmitted over AM radio. It was a terrifying experience given the topic, and the target audience. The host was however, extremely gracious, and that helped ease the tension. One will find that some if not most of these "talk tough" hosts are nice people once the mics and cameras are off.
It was a terrifying experience given the topic, and the target audience.
OMG Cuba.
Are you telling me you are for dropping the embargo?
I'm going on a limb, I'm coming out to say that I'am.
The embargo hurts the average Cuban more than anybody else.
LOL, no, Lem, chico. It was nothing related to the embargo at all.
I suspect Althouse is contrasting this gentleman's behavior with that of gays protesting Prop 8?
Whatever, it's a nice story. A brave--and generous--thing to do, engaging with a hostile audience like that. He deserves props. No pun intended.
I don’t pretend to be very sophisticated about the merits or politics of same sex marriage and I don’t intend to ever do the work it takes to get sophisticated.
And I don’t feel very strongly about the issue, one way or the other.
That said, I’m sure that if I’m ever standing in a voting booth and I’m thinking of Mr. Brown, I’m going to vote in favor of same sex marriage.
If I’m thinking of some of the more virulent characters who advocate the cause of same sex marriage, some of whom comment here at Althouse, I’ll probably vote no.
I’m sure there are enough people like me out there to make the difference; people disinclined to reward hostility.
I’m sure that makes me an ignorant bigot to some people.
And I don’t feel very strongly about the issue, one way or the other.
Same here, I have a wet finger on this. I could be persuaded either way.
Well said Mr Wonderful Bissage! In the from one ignorant bigot to another kind of way.
Bottom line, best part?
Two brothers loving and respecting each other.
You just have to honor that. Period.
I’m sure that makes me an ignorant bigot to some people.
Yes - Bissage is an ignorant bigot.
I like that Bissage treats the idea of people's rights and liberties like a game of roulette. Hmm, do I feel like screwing over the faggots today or not?
That wacky Bissage! Our favorite commenter! What will he say next?!
Dang, DTL and Palladium both want Bissage to vote against SSM. I thought they were pro-gay.
I'm going to protest prop 8 tomorrow. I'm not going to bash Mormons or Catholics of Blacks or Bissagists. People have their opinions about SSM (or don't) and I respect that. But this is my life. I got married and that means something to me. I'm not about to let 52% of Californians knock it down without a fight. It's a give me liberty or give me death type thing, if you've ever experienced that.
I think it's awesome that this guy went on the radio like that. I wish there had been public debates about Prop 8 before the election. There used to be public debates about these things. I remember seeing Harvey Milk on TV in the 1970s debating the Briggs initiative. I re-watched those debates later as an adult. Quite thrilling.
The ubran gays have grown complacent and comfortable, so very adept at using the legal system. We've lost a certain rhetorical edge. The "leadership" such as it is is pathetic. People could learn something from us, but we've decided to stop teaching. It's a damn shame.
"Dang, DTL and Palladium both want Bissage to vote against SSM. I thought they were pro-gay."
I'm agnostic about State-sanctioned gay marriage because I don't support the State licensing any kind of marriage. I think it's out of their jurisdiction and is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
I have nothing but disgust for the tactics of some anti-Prop-8, pro-gay marriage activists, and I agree that they do a great disservice to their cause. But I also have an equal amount of disgust for those who would be so cavalier about voting for or against another person's rights and liberties that they'd base their vote on how some fringe activist made them feel that day. That one would wield the power of their vote based upon whim rather than reason should be abhorrent to either side of any issue.
"People could learn something from us, but we've decided to stop teaching. It's a damn shame."
Yes, as long as the urban sophisticates have their "hog" and their Pilates classes and their Prada "tankeys", who cares what happens? Of course that attitude extends to a lot of people beyond gays.
Equally reprehensible is the former closet queen who has grown so bitter than they're more interested in belching out nasty invective than actually having a discussion with anyone.
Erm, what is "hog"?
Isn't Bissagehomosexuality one word with no need for a comma?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"Bottom line, best part?"
Poor choice of words there pally.
I’m sure that makes me an ignorant bigot to some people.
I wouldn't go that far, but that sure is a dippy reason to vote for or against something.
"chuck b. said... Erm, what is "hog"?"
A silly term for penis used by an extraordinarily unpleasant and boring commenter here called titus*. The * is a variable, because he frequently adds different words to the titus prefix, such as titusismetallyill.
Really, I thought it was the Boss of Hazard County.
When Titus was talking about searching for Hog I thought he was just trying to get an autograph.
Who knew?
Youse guys have your own language.
Bissage:
So what you are saying is that you will base a vote -- which will undoubtedly affect thousands and thousands of people -- on your interaction with ONE person or another? That's not bigotry, it's negligence.
If people cared about how the protestors are acting, what about the specious lies perpetuated by the 8 campaign? Why didn't people vote NO to stand up against those lies.
Finally, it's easy to be calm and nice when, in the end, YOUR rights aren't affected (assuming the Yes on 8 people are even like that...my encounters have shown otherwise). But when someone is telling YOU that YOU personally don't deserve a certain right, even though granting that right doesn't affect them in ANY way, it's offensive. And it causes justifiable anger.
Pile On Bissage
Bissage,
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for you because of the segue and GOB
I've always hated Bissage. That he is an ignorant bigot changes nothing.
Well, I guess you all can hate me.
I voted yes on 8 for several reasons.
1. The issue had already been overwhelmingly approved by the voters and I am against legistlation from the judicial bench.
2. No one was losing any rights, other than to use the name marriage. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships existed before and still exit. The same rights exist now as existed then.
3. The rights that were denied to same sex couples are Federal not State derived
4. The agressive agenda to indoctrinate elementary school children against the wishes of their parent's would have more leveraged if the proposition hadn't passed.
5. If the proposition hadn't been passed religious institutions might have been subject to lawsuits etc to force them to perform ceremonies against their doctrine. If you think not.....just look at the current (very non productive) backlash against certain religious groups.
I have no issue with same sex unions or even calling it marriage.
What I do have issue with is having a small minority cramming their views through the courts because they don't have the support of the population. If the SSM proponents were wise they would completely distance themselves from these radical activities and violent protests that serve only to turn people against your cause.
Dust Bunny Queen writes:
4. The agressive agenda to indoctrinate elementary school children against the wishes of their parent's would have more leveraged if the proposition hadn't passed.
I see no need to accommodate a parent's bigotry.
California already teaches subjects that irritate religiously minded parents. Evolution and safe sex techniques come to mind.
What is their fear? That hoards of elementary school straight children will come home and tell mommy and daddy that they want to be gay? WOOHOO, new recruits! But guess what, sexuality doesn't work that way.
More likely, children of gays and lesbians will feel better about their families, and the minority of children that will end up identifying as LGBT might not be scared to death about being different. And straight children might be more likely to be tolerant. YIKES!
But if it is such a problem for these parents, take your kids out of public schools or make them listen to James Dobson to get a "critical" education. Lord knows, religions don't indoctrinate.
I see no need to accommodate a parent's bigotry.
And I see no need to accomodate your agenda.
Stalemate.
I'm still trying to figure out when it became cool to put civil rights to a popular vote.
And I see no need to accomodate your agenda.
Marriage or no marriage, gay and lesbian couples have children, and their children will talk about their lives with other children whether or not SSM is legal. Homophobic parents will have to get use to it.
No accommodation needed.
and their children will talk about their lives with other children whether or not SSM is legal. Homophobic parents will have to get use to it.
Children will talk about all kinds of things. No problem. We can't stop that.
The objection is to the official indoctrination within the schools done by the teachers and the teachers union who officially supports same sex marriage and is pushing their agenda on the students.
The teachers union support was actually the death knell of opposing Prop 8.
I was indoctrinated to believe that marriage was only between a man and a woman, and to believe that my future gay relationships were unequal to straight counterparts in my public school education.
We can go in circles about the problem of indoctrination in public school; it is argument is a red herring. The real issue surrounding SSM and prop 8 is equal civil rights under the law, which the YES on 8 crowd is against.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा