Protests- Proposition 8

i have six cows and my father owns forty acres of land, i can do needlepoint and i have child-birthing hips, who wants me!

 

Pinch me. My search is over.

 

 

And boooo to Matt's employer for referring to you as not even as 'an employee' but just 'employee' (see question from employee). What the hell? Were all the numbers taken?

 

 

Colbert Report - Proprosition 8

 

Almost too much win here.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Beornwarrior

"It's like 'Gay Survivor'. We are going to outlive, outsmart and outlast the bigots."

-Dan Savage

 

Epic.

Hmm...marriage. There's lot's of reasons people want to get married, including love, good sex, convenience, reproduction (not just for pleasure's sake).

 

Personally, i feel that marriage is a representation of love and dedication, something America has lost sight of in the past...well...70 years?

 

Involving marriage in politics is like mixing whiskey with milk - it just plain doesn't mix. So far we as a country have tried to place religion and politics hand in hand, and to little or no avail. A country who's politics are based on acceptance and known as the "melting pot" who then decides that CERTAIN things just don't fit in...well that's textbook hypocrisy.

 

Isolating one particular group out of a set of rights guaranteed to everyone is blatant bigotry and goes completely against the fundamentals of this country.

 

It truly is a sorrowful sight when one can compare the basis of marriage to the actions of our government, a hypocrisy which lies heavy on the heart's of those it effects.

 

History has proven that those who possess this peculiar quality we have labelled homosexuality are, in fact, equal in every respect to those who judge, and often, condemn them. History has proven this in the past with African Americans, along with the Jews. Unfortunately, history has also taught us that for these people, it takes time and, often, much suffering to procure the status of an "equal."

 

Proof of the historical competence and exceptional abilities those who deem themselves homosexuals is evident throughout almost every period in history.

 

A list of such people:

 

Alexander the Great

*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.

Socrates

*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.

Sappho

*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.

Hadrian

*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.

Richard the Lionhearted

*English King, 12th c.

Saladin

*Sultan of Egypt and Syria

Desiderius Erasmus

*Dutch Monk, Philosopher

Francis Bacon

*English statesman, author

Frederick the Great

*King of Prussia

Lord Byron

*English poet, 18th c.

Walt Whitman

*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.

Oscar Wilde

*Irish author, 19th c.

Marcel Proust

*French author, 20th c.

Colette

*French author, 20th c.

Gertrude Stein

*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.

Alice B. Toklas

*U.S. author, 20th c.

Federico Garcia Lorca

*Spanish author, 20th c.

Cole Porter

*U.S. composer, 20th c.

Virginia Woolf

*English author, 20th c.

Leonard Bernstein

*U.S. composer, 20th c.

Pope Julius III

*1550-1555

T.E. Lawrence

*English soldier, author, 20th c.

Jean Cocteau

*French writer, director, 20th c.

Charles Laughton

*English actor, 20th c.

Marguerite Yourcenar

*Belgian author, 20th c.

Tennessee Williams

*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.

James Baldwin

*U.S. author, 20th c.

Andy Warhol

*U.S. artist, 20th c.

Michelangelo

*Italian artist, 15th c.

Leonardo Da Vinci

*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.

Christopher Marlowe

*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.

Herman Melville

*U.S. author, 19th c.

Horatio Alger, Jr.

*U.S. author, 19th c.

Tchaikovsky

*Russian composer, 19th c.

Willa Cather

*U.S. author, 19th c.

Amy Lowell

*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.

E.M. Forster

*English author, 20th c.

John M. Keynes

*English economist, 20th c.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

*Australian mathematician, 20th c.

Bessie Smith

*U.S. singer, 20th c.

Noel Coward

*English playwright, 20th c.

Christopher Isherwood

*English author, 20th c.

Pier Paolo Pasolini

*Italian film director, 20th c.

Yukio Mishima

*Japanese author, 20th c.

Eleanor Roosevelt

*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.

Julius Caesar

*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.

Augustus Caesar

*Roman Emperor

Harvey Milk

*U.S. politician, 20th c.

Bayard Rustin

*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.

James I

*English King, 16th-17th c.

Queen Anne

*English Queen, 18th c.

Marie Antoinette

*French Empress, 18th c.

Melissa Etheridge

*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.

Pope Benedict IX

*1032-1044

May Sarton

*U.S. author, (1912 - 1995)

Edna Ferber

*U.S. author, 20th c.

Elton John

*English Rock Star, 20th c.

Margaret Fuller

*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.

Montezuma II

*Aztec ruler, 16th c.

Peter the Great

*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.

Langston Hughes

*U.S. author, 20th c.

Pope John XII

*955-964

Madame de Stael

*French writer, 17th-18th c.

Martina Navratilova

*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.

Greg Louganis

*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.

Billie Jean King

*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.

Roberta Achtenburg

*U.S. politician, 20th c.

Barney Frank

*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.

Gerry Studds

*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.

Hans Christian Andersen

*Danish author, 19th c.

Tom Dooley

*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.

J. Edgar Hoover

*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.

Frida Kahlo

*Mexican artist, 20th c.

Suleiman the Magnificent

*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.

Rock Hudson

*U.S. actor, 20th c.

Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz

*Mexican author, 16th c.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

*U.S. author, 19th c.

Candace Gingrich

*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.

Margarethe Cammermeyer

*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.

Zoe Dunning

*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.

Tom Waddel

*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.

Kate Millet

*U.S. author, 20th c.

Janis Joplin

*U.S. singer, 20th c.

Rudolf Nuryev

*Russian dancer, 20th c.

Waslaw Nijinsky

*Russian dancer, 20th c.

Ernst Röhm

*German Nazi leader, 20th c.

Dag Hammerskjold

*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.

Aristotle

*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.

Paula Gunn Allen

*Native American author, 20th c.

Angela Davis

*U.S. political activist, 20th c.

June Jordan

*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.

Rainer Maria Rilke

*German poet, 20th c.

James Dean

*U.S. actor, 20th c.

Montgomery Clift

*U.S. actor, 20th c.

Baron VonSteuben

*German General, Valley Forge

Edward II

*English King, 14th c

 

To say these people are subhuman is to say practically every leader in history was inept and mentally unqualified to hold any position of importance. Where would we be without the Caesars, Alexander the Great, or the great thinkers Aristotle, Da Vinci, Plato? Where would our literature be without Emerson, Hughes, Whitman, Tchaikovsky, or Wilde(my personal favorite)?

 

To say these men and women are unequal, a crime against God, or a plague to society, is to say that many of the greatest minds ever on this Earth were nothing. This is, of course, bigotry and hypocrisy at its finest.

 

The ignorance and unfounded hatred that exists within America is an ever festering wound to our culture, and only further tarnishes whatever image we have portrayed to the rest of the world. Perhaps the worst aspect of this issue is the proximity of it to our lives. The flagrancy and connection this topic has to our thoughts is due in part to the fact that the controversy is one that is modern.

 

This isn't an issue that has been decided decades ago; it isn't an issue that our age of reason and logic and acceptance has already come and gone, it exists today and the very people around us have spoken out openly against logic, against reason, against the fundamentals of our country.

 

Will this be an old lesson learned anew, that people who have different tastes, ideals, and thoughts are actually equal to us, despite the imagined savagery and foreign nature of them?

 

I am personally mainly upset with the fact that even today, our supposedly educationally advanced and superior society has decided to ignore history, ignore facts, and live by the same unsubstanciated belief that only certain people can be counted as equals.

 

 

 

Cite your sources.

Cite your sources.

 

On the people i listed? Unofficially, i believe Winston Churchill himself also had at least one homosexual encounter.

 

Who's Who & Who's Gay, http://www.perlring.org/whoislgb.html, collected by Joseph L. Casadonte Jr.

 

Boughner, Terry, Out of All Time: A Gay and Lesbian History, Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc. 1988

 

Cowan, Thomas, Gay Men and Women who Enriched the World, Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc. 1992

 

Duberman, Martin, Martha Vicinus, and George Chauncey, Jr., eds., Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, New York: Meridian, 1990

 

Katz, Jonathan, Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. New York: Meridian, 1992

 

McConnell-Celi, Sue, ed., Twenty-First Century Challenge: Lesbians and Gays in Education, Bridging the Gap, Red Banks, NJ.: Lavender Crystal Press, 1993

 

Beorn, that was probably the best colbert report ive ever seen. Awesome.

 

Anarchos, great post =D

It's funny you can pin Socrates as a homosexual when all we know about him comes from the writings of Plato and Aristophanes (I think); some people even question his existence as a real person.

In several of Plato's writings, including The Phaedrus, he spoke of Socrates' opinion on homosexuality and pederasty. Most evidence of his existance did indeed come from his students, this is true. But historically, we accept him as an individual, albeit an enigmatic one, and one of the founders of Greek philosophy.

 

You're also talking about a period in Greece when homosexuality and bi-sexual relationships were widespread, and accepted. Even "badass" Spartans openly accepted homosexuality.

 

Generally, philosophers as a whole either took part in or accepted and recognized homosexuality as a normality of life.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Anarchos

This thread has been derailed from the original argument that was made at the beginning. There has been only 2 arguments made and only 1 has any merit. I generously call Thurster's statement (which seemed to me a misplaced joke) an argument, only because so many people seemed to have reacted to it as such.

 

I do not take away the "soap box" effect of the speeches that I have read in this thread, but I'd like to focus on the argument put forth by Ezmira and Memphis. I do this because I think it's the only sound argument that has been put forth and the only one that has not been fully answered.

 

I'm going to summarize Ezmira's and Memphis argument in this fashion:

 

1. x is morally right

2. majority voted against x

3. therefore x is legally wrong and should not be protested against.

 

First, I agree that in the democratic government the will of the people chooses some laws though not all. There are some laws that get passed in the legislature that make things legal or illegal without any input from the population (unless you count the Senate and other elected officials "will of the people").

 

In any event, there are some laws that are so socially unconscionable that they demand attention. In fact, your exact arguments have been made before, they were made to Martin Luther King Jr, when he decided to protest the segregation laws. I'd like to know if you believe in "civil disobedience", which loosely is a theory that gives power to people when they believe laws are so morally/socially wrong that they cannot be followed.

 

You look at the struggle that African Americans had to go through just to receive equal treatment, and I don't think the change would have happened but for the various demonstrations and protests. You mention the "will of the people" but is there a line where the will of the people contradicts directly with morality and in the process irrationally and unreasonably denies rights from one class that is enjoyed by another and therefore making the will of the people wrong.

 

If the will of the people could be wrong then laws could be wrong and if laws could be wrong, those laws should not be obeyed, especially when the "wrong" equates to a denial of equal rights to a class of people for no rational reason.

 

Also, the protesters want their argument heard in Court where it will not be swayed by weak and impossible rationalizations. They want both sides to present their arguments and the Court to decide if the law is in the spirit of the rule of law. So far the will of the people has been shown to misunderstand the issue and vote based on wrongly held views that have been given to them by the media or other sources. We need to eliminate that white noise and make sure that people who are the decision makers are using reason, rationality, and the rule of law as their guidepost and not misinformation.

 

Now, you might argue that people should work through the government in order to achieve change. You see, that's exactly what they are doing, much like the decision of Brown vs. Board of Education. Martin Luther King Jr and others, through their many protests gave international attention to injustice that was occurring. People thought separate but equal did not violated the Equal Protection Clause but the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause and therefore unconstitutional. I would draw the same line of reasoning here, the denial of same-sex benefits is a violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and therefore not only morally incorrect but is also against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its government.

 

 

Now, you'd argue about the line. Where do we draw the lines on which law we should protest against? I don't see a limit, if the law unreasonably denies basic rights or fundamental rights (marriage is a fundamental right recognized by the Supreme Court) then it should be protested against.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Vanin

i need to think a little while about igor's wall of text before i say anything substantial

 

for now i leave you with this

 

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/political-pictures-italian-air-force-fabulous.jpg

igor that suspiciously looks like a bar exam essay question setup at least from your description of bar exam essay questions

Who knew that clickers could be such elegant speakers?

 

Good jerb Anarclick!

 

(<3!)

To summarize the entire issue (of government, not just minority rights):

 

A government of/by/for the people that also attempts to maintain a separation of church and state sounds pretty simple except we have a little problem:

 

When you have a majority that is religious (which I believe is the case in the U.S.), it's very difficult to keep church and state separate; People tend to vote emotionally (sorry, I wish everyone would apply the Socratic method to their decisions, but I suspect they rarely do...). If said emotions are subject to a particular belief system ('religion'), you are going to see a conflict between the aforementioned goals.

 

Looking historically at a famous quote, you can see the shift in our collective conscience:

 

All men people are created equal

All people races are created equal

 

...

 

All races sexual orientations are created equal

 

We're not there yet, but if we truly believe in 'Liberty and justice for all' (and I'm not saying everyone does...), I don't see how the last one can be ignored.

 

Or, as Atrus said in another thread, 'This is the civil liberties issue for this generation'

 

Cheers,

Fifi

Edited November 14, 2008 by Feanore