Good As You

The people of the state of California have spoken! YES on 8 passed, for a reason! Hello!?? Get over yourself already. All your little pouting tantrums, just show the rest of us that you truly are sore losers & don't need to be married to the same sex.

BRAVO Mr. Eckern !!!! Do not worry.. if your theatre is boycotted... we will still support you!

"Get over yourself already. All your little pouting tantrums, just show the rest of us that you truly are sore losers & don't need to be married to the same sex."

See, Lynn, that's where you're confused. We didn't lose. Your side, like many shortsighted groups before you, have confused majority tyranny with "right." You confused a misstep for a "win." You have confused public opinion with principled rationale. And you have confused "puting tantrums" with reasoned rage.

Are we sore at our loss? To quote Sarah Palin, "you betcha." But by "our loss," we don't mean for just the LGBT community. We mean for everyone who understands true fairness, and who is seeking a more peaceful world. Those who are forced to pause their lives and continue fighting for what is an inevitable: marriage equality. We ALL lost with Prop 8.

Lynn, getting a bill passed through bigotry and lies is nothing to be proud of. Likewise, we have every right to be pissed.

I am so incredibly tired of the phrase 'lifestyle'. It is starting to upset me more and more each time I hear 'gay lifestyle' or 'your lifestyle'. They act as if we're a separate species.

If marriage and civil unions are identical in rights, responsibilities, and worth to the state....then there is no logical reason why they should be seperated by a name.

Having seperate names is arbitrary and unnecessary.

If, however, someone deems that we do need seperate names, that the government cannot recognize these two ideas to be the same and refer to them by the same name, then they are not truly equal.
Seperate but equal is inheirently unequal.

Lynn wrote, "All your little pouting tantrums, just show the rest of us that you truly are sore losers & don't need to be married to the same sex."

Wow! Is that really how you feel? That if a group of people react with protests and marches against a right that was taken away from them, it proves they don't need that right after all? Honestly?

I'm amazed at the people who are watching our reactions to the Prop 8 passage and saying, "next time I'm definitely voting against marriage rights" or "I'm sorry I voted no." I can't quite wrap my head around someone who says he or she used to believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but now doesn't, because a bunch of us picketed an LDS church. I have to interpret that as the mark of someone who was never a true ally in the first place.

And I'll ask again: to all those who "have gay friends" and voted no, have you TOLD your "gay friends" how you voted? If so, what was their reaction?

"Whatsoever you do,

to the least of my people,

that, you do unto me."

Though the government cannot stop us from voting or having our beliefs, make no mistake, we are accountable for those actions not only to our creator, but to the people we hurt with our actions.

This ain't over. Won't be until we get what we were promised in 1776: Freedom.

TJC: Those lines are mostly bunk. I've Googled some of the emails and IP addys who have said things like that and found various reasons to believe the comments are from people who were never with us.

Holy fuck, this idiot's email is stupid. The whole thing is essentially him being in denial about the differences in legal protection between civil unions and marriages and somehow thinking that arguing semantics over who gets to use the word 'marriage' to describe their relationship is what this is about. YOU ARE WRONG. We want legal protection, call it whatever the fuck you want, but this has not, and never has been about naming semantics, you moronic dipshit. CIVIL UNIONS =/= MARRIAGE. In some places yes (like in the UK), but that's the exception to the rule. Marriages on the other hand provide overall the best legal benefits, no contest.

Can't you people learn to use a damn search engine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Jeremy: I would agree with you that people who have said such things were likely never with us; I was taking them at face value, but with a large amount of salt. Thanks.

Any group of living organisms, human or otherwise, involved in a practice that will result in complete extinction within a single generation without additional recruits is a nonstarter in my book and goes against the basic laws of science and nature.

Jim: That's not a nice way to talk about infertile heterosexuals!

Prop 8 did not take away any rights for non heterosexual unions; it solidifies in law the definition of marriage that has been known for ions, being between man and woman.

Elton John said this about Prop 8: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership.

Note to readers: J & Jim are the same person.

Note to Jim: Elton John's "USA Today" statement is wrongheaded and does not represent the vast majority of the LGBT community or their allies.

Jim,
that's also not a nice way to talk about people who choose not to have children, nor is it a nice thing to say about those who choose celibacy.

Enlighten us on these "laws of science and nature" Are these those missing Newtonian Laws I've never heard about?

We should also not allow people to watch Football, because if everyone watched football --- there'd be nobody playing the game!

We should also not let anyone have saturday and sunday off from work, because if everyone was off on saturday and sunday, who would defend the country, take care of the sick and injured, put out fires and sell us gas!? So clearly we can't let anyone have the weekend off from work.

We should also not let anyone ever use any sort of birth control. Because if everyone used birth control, there would never be any babies. We should also not tolerate celibacy, because if everyone was celibate, there'd never be any babies.

But if nobody wore condoms, ever, then we'd all be dying of multiple STDs. Hmm, that doesn't work either.

See, I don't know how things are where Jim comes from, but here on Earth, there are all kinds of people. And wether or not something is good or bad or neutral is based on it's merits, not on whether or not it would be good for everyone to do it. Most everything is bad if you do it to excess. Because there has never been a point in history, at least on Earth, where everyone did the exact same thing. So you're basing the merits or drawbacks of something on a situation that will never happen and never could happen. If everything was put through Jim's test, the world would be a very dull place, as almost nothing would pass this test.

See how ridiculous this line of reasoning is? It may sound good when applied to one single solitary situation (and that's debatable) but it's not a practical or useful way to go through life. It may make sense for a grade schooler, but for grownups, life is far more complicated than that.

I've had seven children, all college grads and all but one married and having kids of their own. That should cover two gay couples with one kid to spare.

So have a couple more kids yourself to account for the gay couple near you or at least stop making rediculous statements like that.

I am sorry you don't understand basic biology. I am also sorry for the persons vocabulary that only extends to fuck and dipshit. The point Jim was making is that without science technology two men or two women cannot create a aby on their own. Therefore extinction.

"I am sorry you don't understand basic biology. I am also sorry for the persons vocabulary that only extends to fuck and dipshit. The point Jim was making is that without science technology two men or two women cannot create a aby on their own. Therefore extinction."

1 - I'm sorry you are such a coward you can't post your name.

2 - I'm sorry you don't understand that science / technology advances in fertility weren't developed to help gay people. They were developed to help infertile straight couples. By your logic those infertile straight couples should not get married, neither should people who are unable to be helped by technology, nor should those who choose to not have children, nor should those who are too old to have children.

When are these people going to learn that all these "conditions" they put on marriage to block it from gays also apply to straight people as well?

Folks, can you blame people for being gunshy and not listing their name with the militant actions evidenced by No on 8 supporters. I've seen the No on 8 folks displaying the very hate they accuse the other side of having. Your actions are like those of a child not getting their way.

Oh, K LA, please. This "no on 8 folks are haters" meme is getting SOOOO tired.

We are not a child who failed to get our way -- we are a viable minority group who have had our court-mandated rights stripped away by majority tyranny. We aren't throwing tantrums -- we are hurt and mad as hell!

As for the desired anonymity of "yes on 8" donors, I would refer you to this post, wherein we address the absolute joy we have in owning our "no" donations, compared to the remorse so many "yes" folks seem to have:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/11/everyone-own-yo.html

And if you REALLY think that we are the bullies, I would refer to this post, wherein you can read how the "yes on 8" crew not only threatened businesses who gave to "no," but also tried to extort an equal donation for their side:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/10/who-companies-w.html