Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Prop 8’s Message to Youth: Blatant Lies and Transparent Bigotry

Timothy Kincaid

September 9th, 2008

The supporters of Proposition 8 have set up a website geared towards youth at iProtectMarriage.com. And perhaps they think that adults are too well informed because they reserve their really crazy homophobic slurs and lies for the kiddies.

It’s horrible.

And not just their goal, but their message and their methods. It’s sad and pathetic and completely condescending. You have to wonder if the designer of the site has ever met a young adult.

There is a “Decide for Yourself video quiz” that you can take in which your response triggers either a “you’re right” message or a lecture from a pop-up talking head. It’s about as subtle as a freight train.

And it is astonishing the number of obvious and blatant lies that these “people of faith” are willing to spout in the name of their religion, including:

While death, divorce, and other circumstances may prevent it in many cases, the best environment for raising children is traditional marriage. More than ten thousand studies document significant advantages kids experience when raised by committed and loving moms and dads.

  • Two parent families benefit children according to the APA, not just “traditional” marriage. These studies DID NOT compare heterosexual couples to gay couples; they compared heterosexual couples to heterosexual singles.

If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.

  • What if the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced couples or a Jewish Synogogue refuses to marry non-Jews or if a Mormon Church doesn’t recognize a marriage outside of a Temple … oh wait, they already do.

Prop. 8 isn’t against something, it’s for marriage, of one man, one woman, for life.

  • For life? Really? I didn’t see the language that banned divorce. And not “against” something? HA!! I’m surprised that whoever wrote that didn’t immediately burst into flames.

If Prop. 8 does not pass, children as young as kindergarteners must be taught about same-sex marriage.

Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We’re not making it up; public health statistics confirm this.

  • They go on to spout comparison studies between single and married heterosexuals and pretend that they apply to gay couples.

What this means is that fewer of your tax dollars go to pay for social programs caused by unhealthy and unwise living.

  • I thought this “wasn’t against something” and that “civil unions give them the same rights as marriage”. Nah, this is just an example of active homophobia.

Quick, name a major faith tradition that doesn’t support marriage between a man and a woman. Can’t? Neither can we.

Removing the definition of marriage means it’s open to whatever anyone thinks it is, and that includes extreme stuff like polygamy, man-boy love, and multiple partners.

  • No one is “removing the definition of marriage”. Oh, and by the way, if you really aren’t just a great vile puddle of bigotry, why the reference to “man-boy love”? You just couldn’t let that pass, could you?

Same-sex marriage separates marriage from parenthood. In Norway, where it has been accepted for a decade, marriage has nearly disappeared, and 70 percent of children are born out of wedlock.

But by far the most dishonest and cynical thing on their site is this doozie:

Q: Isn’t banning gay marriage just like banning interracial marriage?

A: It’s completely unrelated. Blacks who endured prejudice can’t wake up in the morning and not be black. None of us can be counseled out of our race or ethnicity. But homosexual behavior is a choice, and countless gays and lesbians have left the alternative lifestyle.

Is there really anyone out there that honestly believes that gay people can “wake up in the morning and not be” gay? That isn’t even the message coming from Exodus and other reorientation ministries.

And it isn’t very effective. Today’s youth know full well that no one wakes up a different orientation and they know that this site is lying to them. And the true bias and bigotry displayed here wouldn’t fool a closely-protected, secluded, home-schooled teenager.

But I guess the Prop 8 folks are so cynical that they think that bigotry and bald-faced lies are the way to go. I truly hope that whoever is in charge of the Proposition 8 campaign stays in charge. This sort of lunacy will only help the cause of those who are speaking honestly and in favor of equality.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Boo
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

A: It’s completely unrelated. Blacks who endured prejudice can’t wake up in the morning and not be black. None of us can be counseled out of our race or ethnicity. But homosexual behavior is a choice, and countless gays and lesbians have left the alternative lifestyle.

Actually, there’s a much better argument against this one. If you stop and think about it, this comparison essentially depends on the assumption that black people ought to become white if they could, but since they can’t, we must pity them their poor unfortunate condition.

cinci Mike
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

Is there a Cameronite here? With the fifth video question the claim is that gays live 10 years less. Not as extreme as some of what Cameron has written, but we will never know.

They only try to cite things on two pages. How typical.

cowboy
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

“…Mormon Church doesn’t recognize a marriage outside of a Temple…”

Not true. The Mormons recognize civil marriages…and even weddings performed in Cathedrals and Synagogues. They just happen to believe the “sealing” ceremony in their Temples is better. The ceremony hitches the Husband and Wife with their children for all time and eternity. No “Till-Death-Do-Us-Part” thing in a Mormon wedding.

What Mormons need to recognize is they need to tread lightly on this subject. Since Mormon Temple marriages are NOT open to the public there could be a debate raised as to if a Mormon “sealing” is considered a marriage. In fact, in some parts of the world, the local government requires Mormons to be married in a civil ceremony before they get married in the Temple.

It’s confusing, I know. And note: only good members can get inside a Mormon Temple. A Temple Recommend (now a plastic security card) is issued by the local Bishop after an intensive interview about chastity, tithing, drinking, etc.

But, I laugh at the thought of any gay couple that would demand to be married in a Mormon Temple. They would be too critical of the décor… the drapes where there are no windows, the use of mirrors and way over the top gilding of everything. Tacky tacky tacky.

Jason D
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

I’m not too surprised here.

Remember, these are the same people who think that lying to kids about sex, or not allowing them accurate information on safer sex and STDs will keep them from having sex.

Thus they think lying or withholding information about gays and gay marriage will keep them on their side.

I think this is what Colbert calls “truthiness” where something feels true, rather than truth which is real regardless of feelings.

Emily K
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

I can attest to the objections of Jewish synagogues refusing to marry interfaith couples. This is true. and Yes, they are allowed to do this, and as a Jew, I whole-heartedly support them in their decision. I do the same for synagogues who decide they WILL marry interfaith couples.

In fact, I’ve heard from around the Jewish community that some synagogues are more comfortable marrying a Jewish gay couple than an interfaith straight couple!

nearly 10 years ago, when I started high school, so too did the Gay Straight Alliance start. Immediately it was met with support, even in my fairly conservative town. See, the adults were the conservative ones, while the kids – MY generation – were absolutely open to such an organization existing. And today years later, youth are examining their sexuality and taught not to feel shame for it. Gay and straight couples intermingle in places in Philly’s Gayborhood.

Keep in mind I live in a northeastern city. But I truly believe that the future of gay rights lies with the youth, and with my generation (people in their 20’s and even early 30’s), no matter where they come from. It’s more and more common for people to have gay friends, and gay neighbors they know personally. The more they know us, the more likely they will support us – or at least, leave us alone, which is honestly all I want.

Todd
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

In fact, my Temple marriage included the civil ceremony seperately after the sealing took place. I have been to many temple weddings and have seen the same thing happen either in the temple or later at a reception were rings are exchanged, etc. It is not that the LDS church does not recognize civil marriage, as Cowboy states, they do, they just see it as very much different than a temple sealing.

Timothy Kincaid
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

Cowboy and Todd,

Thanks for the clarification. You’re right that my details are not quite accurate. Perhaps I should have said that the Mormon church won’t even allow the attendence of non-Mormons at a Temple wedding.

But I think the point stands. Churches already restrict what weddings they will perform and no one is going to change that.

L. Junius Brutus
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

They don’t even make an effort to disguise their bigotry, eh? In Oregon, they ran a far more moderate (but deceptive) campaign, which featured, among others, a gay couple (incidentally related to one of the people who was pushing the amendment) saying that could get the rights of marriage through other means, and the ones that pushed the amendment said that they did not oppose civil unions (this of course changed right after it passed).

Could this be a sign that they have given up on actually passing it? That they are using it to push their open hatred one last time? Or are they just completely clueless about what appeals to moderate, sensible people who are not crazy fundamentalists (or are we mistaken)?

tristram
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

Sounds like you’ve found the source of the info on which John McCain based his decision to support Prop. 8.

moonstone
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

It has been my experience with proposition 8 that are several “branch points” that divide supporters and opponents.

The first is a belief in God. If you believe in God, and if you believe that God established the definition of marriage, you will probably find yourself supporting proposition 8.

The second is your beliefs about history. This “branch point” cannot probably really be called such since the historical record can be interpreted in so many different ways. Marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. Opponents to 8 would like California to take the lead in the nation (as we have in so many other instances, e.g. global warming) and establish practices and policies different than the vast majority of the other states in the Union.

I myself am uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used in such a novel experiment. We have no idea where this will lead.

I had my fill of this kind of “experimentation” in the Iraq war. There was no obvious reason to invade. We never should have gone there.

I find myself similarly perplexed with this redefinition of marriage. There is no obvious reason to change the definition. We know what we can reasonably expect by seeing how (traditional) marriage has served society in the past. Can anyone really predict how this will end if we tamper with traditional marriage? I will be voting in support of proposition 8.

Jason D
September 10th, 2008 | LINK

Moonstone, interesting commentary, but there are some problems:

“I myself am uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used in such a novel experiment. We have no idea where this will lead.”

We know exactly where it will lead. Gay folks will get married, argue over how to pay the bills, the best way to discipline the children(IF they have kids, that is). Those gay couples will take care of each other make life decisions for each other. Some will divorce. Some will stay together to the very end. The state will recognize this valid relationship and apply the rule of law appropriately, providing the same benefits and demanding the same responsibility as it does with heterosexual couples. Nothing more, nothing less. If you’re not sure, look around, pick up a magazine, Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for several years now and the sky has yet to fall.
I am uncomfortable with my children and grandchildren being told their family is not real. I am uncomfortable with my children and grandchildren being marginalized by bigotry. You think you’re uncomfortable? Imagine spending the next 30-50 years building a life with someone, taking care of each other, and when they end up in the hospital you are turned away because according to the state your relationship does not exist. You are just some stranger. Despite the house in both your names, the mortgages, the fights about paying the electric bill on time, despite all the laughter and tears, the government says you cannot see your spouse, the love of your life in their final moments because you are not “family”. When you’ve been through that, you can come back and talk to me about being “uncomfortable”.

“I had my fill of this kind of “experimentation” in the Iraq war. There was no obvious reason to invade. We never should have gone there.”

The Iraq war is irrelevent to this situation. Although it is curious that the same administration that is so strongly pro-war is also firmly anti-gay.

“I find myself similarly perplexed with this redefinition of marriage. There is no obvious reason to change the definition.”

Read the court decision, it’s all spelled out plainly in english. Denial of marriage recognition tangibly, measurably, hurts gay couples and their children. This ban has hurt real families, and the government has no reasonable need to sustain it.

“We know what we can reasonably expect by seeing how (traditional) marriage has served society in the past.”

And gay couples will be no different.

“Can anyone really predict how this will end if we tamper with traditional marriage? I will be voting in support of proposition 8.”

The “tampering” as you so delicately put it has already been done. The sky has not fallen, there has been no increase in any sort of crime, murder, rape, or death directly connected to this action.

I also find it interesting that your side deals with this matter as if it has not happened. It has, this is not some waiting period, gay couples are legally, actually, legitimately, and joyfully getting married. This is not theory, this has happened. Even if prop 8 passes it is unclear whether or not these marriages will be affected, or if only future marriages will be affected. Regardless, they are legal, valid marriages.

But since you bring up God:
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Civil Marriage is a government concern, not a religious concern. The Church may do as it pleases, open or close it’s doors to whichever couples meet their criteria. We are not voting on religion, we are voting on state laws.

Hanna
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

“More than ten thousand studies document significant advantages kids experience when raised by committed and loving moms and dads.”

I kinda like this part, me and my siblings, we are 5 children, was raised by two moms and two dads, and they were, still are, both commited and loving parents.

So I fully agree to that part of the text, children needs commited and loving parents, because parenthood is all about quality, not about quantity nor gender.

ps. I challenge evrybody who claims to have better parents than us. ;)

Boo
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

I myself am uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used in such a novel experiment. We have no idea where this will lead.

I find myself a bit confused by this statement. Are you saying that if gay marriage stands, it will end up turning your children and grandchildren gay? I’m guessing that’s not what you’re saying, but it really doesn’t make sense any other way. Gay marriage will in no way affect straight people’s marriages. They’ve had gay marriage in Massachusets for years (so California would not be taking the lead in the nation) and any straight couple in Massachusets can still have themselves as traditional a marriage as they please. Just like they can in Spain. And Canada. And Belgium. And the Netherlands. And South Africa. We have no reports from those countries of the sky falling, the rivers and seas boiling, or cats and dogs living together.

It seems to me that to accept that gay people being allowed to marry will somehow threaten traditional marriage, one must accept one of two premises:

1. That most straight people have the urge to be gay, but are only held back by the idea of not being able to marry the same sex, or

2. That the main incentive for straight people to marry is to feel superior to gay people, and that if straight people see their gay neighbors marrying, it will fill them with such horror that they will abandon the institution of marriage in droves

Obvisouly, both of those are pretty silly, so you must have something else in mind. Could you explain further please?

In the meantime let’s all enjoy this classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

William
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

Jason D and Boo,

Thank you both for your very clear refutations of Moonstone. What a pity that they weren’t around for Uncle Joseph in the Vatican to read before he issued his ill-advised document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, a few years ago.

Jonathan Justice
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

Girls and boys, can you say, “privileged narrative”? All of these assertions about “facts” are window dressing on the claim that the parties making the statements both do and ought to control an hierarchical society designed to benefit them by making other people deliver deliver goods and services to them at rates of compensation they would not personally find acceptable. They make it very clear that we should accept degrading social status markers while we are delivering these goods.

In this context, outrageous violations of ordinary standards of argumentational process become the norm. Actual facts are entirely inadequate to express the powers the folks who think they are in charge believe we ought to be submitting to. This should help us to understand why these folks are so frequently found abusing religious traditions.

Ben in Oakland
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

Dear Moonstone: I’ve read your comments. I think a lot of people here are interested in engaging you in some dialog. Are you interested in returning the favor? Here are a few questions for you to chew on.

You wrote: “I myself am uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used in such a novel experiment.” You brought up children, so I will go with that for a while, though children are just a part of the issue.

You are assuming, of course, that your children and grandchildren are heterosexual. If that turns out not to be true, are you equally comfortable in denying your children and grandchildren the same rights and benefits and privileges–social, legal, financial, emotional, and familial– that marriage grants their hetero brethren. What about your nieces and nephews and their children?

You also assume all children are raised by heterosexuals. What proponents of Prop. 8 are advocating is to keep the children of gay couples in as legally, financially and socially precarious a position as possible. What’s good for the children of heteros is good for the children of homos, so opposing marriage equality is tantamount to punishing the children of homos. What have they ever done to deserve that?

Gay people are already living together, acting married in every way, shape and form, raising children together, participating in the life of their community together. I support my husband while he goes through school. He will support us when I retire. My friends Pam and Shelley raised and supported the six children they had from their previous marriages. 6 kids, and they are all in college now. Guess who is putting the children through college? How much better for Pam and Shelley AND their children if they were married. In other words, the only change in “reality” will be that our relationships will be legally recognized and protected. Maintaining the status quo will ensure that us, our friends, and our families can continue to be attacked for political gain, our lives and relationships legally marginalized. And sadly, it won’t help one hetero family. but it will make the anti-gays happy– the river of money will continue to flow, as will the tide of hate, whether labeled ‘sincere religious belief’, protect marriage’, or admitted for what it is.

This is also not a novel concept. Gay relationships have always been here. Civil partnerships have been available in many European countries since 1989. It is a testimony to the strength of our love that so many gay relationships survive despite all of the social forces arrayed to destroy them. It is equally a testament to the fallacies of the anti-gay marriage arguments that so many hetero relationships fall apart despite all of the social forces arrayed to keep them together.

I have a friend who adopted a child with her partner– an unwanted child who would have been raised in poverty and disease, but has been given a chance at a different life with her. M. is now healthy, bright, charming, well behaved, and a joy to be around, instead of merely another piece of 3rd world refuse heading towards an early death because his heterosexual parents neither wanted him nor were prepared to care for him. How does preventing my friend from marrying another woman, thereby giving M a set of married parents and all of the benefits that the law and society allow, do anything to protect anyone else’s family? As the Supreme Court decision said, there are an estimated 70,000 children in California being raised by gay parents. Do not those families need the protection of marriage as well? Or can you say with a straight face: they are the children of homosexuals. They don’t matter.

I married my boyfriend a week ago. I can assure that our wedding rings and our marriage mean as much to us as yours do to you, and that our marriage benefits us and society in exactly the same way that yours does. And in two months, my marriage may be over. We gay people are called a threat to marriage, a threat to children, a threat to morality, to the country, to G, to western civilization itself. Yet, we are both of us contributing, tax-paying, law-abiding and productive members of the community. We live active and positive lives, and are well thought of by family, friends, and colleagues. We live in peace with our neighbors. If our lives are a threat to all of those things, well then, our country needs more of this threat.

Why are our marriage, our equality before the law– indeed, our very existence– considered so threatening to you that you must pass a constitutional amendment to enforce your beliefs about marriage, family, or God’s will, and ensure that we have neither the rights nor the responsibilities that you take for granted? How will dissolving MY marriage have the slightest effect on YOUR marriage, your family, your children? How would you like it if you had to ask 16 million registered voters for permission to marry your spouse? How would you feel if you came home one day and someone not your spouse informed you your marriage was over?

Religious rhetoric fuels the anti gay movement in every way, as does money power. The bulk of the money and motivation to fund CA’s anti-marriage initiative comes from religious conservatives and churches. Do you want your children and grandchildren to live is a world where the religion with the most money gets to choose how other people live and believe?

But enough about family. Here’s the real issue, and I hope you will consider this and examine yourself and your motivations on it. This is not about gay people at all, or marriage at all– like any other issue around gay people. It is about how much of a threat 3% of the population appears to be to the other 97%, and least in the minds of 1/2 of that 97%. It is about prejudice, and nothing but prejudice.

As a gay man, my goal is very simple: I want an end to the prejudice, an end to the lies, an end to the hypocrisy, and most importantly, an end to being treated differently by law, society, and social policy for no other reasons than 1) I prefer to share my life with another adult human being who happens to be a man, and 2) someone else doesn’t like it for whatever reason, and feels it is his duty to make my life, and the lives of people like me, as miserable and as difficult as possible. 3) They believe it to be of any importance at all because it has something to do with sex.

I have never heard one reason articulated for this difference in treatment or attitude that doesn’t boil down to one of three things: 1) I don’t like queers, I see them as a threat, I think they should be treated differently, and nothing you could ever say, do, or prove will cause me to think otherwise. 2) My religion says its ok if I don’t like queers, because it sees them as a threat, and insists it is speaking for G on this issue, so that means I am. So, queers should be treated differently. 3) Eeeee–eewwwww.

Here’s a final thought for you, something I wrote to a minister. “You would rather spend $30 million dollars to save your marriage from the non-existent threat of my marriage, than spend that $30 million dollars as you were enjoined by your lord and savior for saving the hundreds of thousands of lives of the people lost in Darfur. After all, they are just black, and poor, and far away. And at least they believe in Jesus. Oh wait. They don’t. They are just black, and poor, and far away.”

In other words, it is not about morality, religion, or God’s will. It’s certainly not about marriage. It’s all about prejudice.

Charles
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

What does the current polling data say about the issue, will pass or not?

Timothy Kincaid
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

Charles:

latest poll here

Boo
September 11th, 2008 | LINK

In the meantime, check out what some of the groups fighting gay marriage are really spending their money on.

http://justinmclachlan.com/08/46/california-family-council-money/

Ben in Oakland
September 12th, 2008 | LINK

Why do take the trouble to write these things, and then never hear from them again? Oh well, maybe i’ll write my book some day.

Jason D
September 12th, 2008 | LINK

Ben, you should, you’re a damn genius.

cowboy
September 12th, 2008 | LINK

And by mid-November I will probably have a co-worker ask my opinion about the CA Proposition 8 and the AZ Proposition 102 and whatever in Florida. And you know what, Ben, I will recollect your comment about the thirty million dollars and reply to my co-worker: And for WHAT?! What did spending all that money accomplish?

It’s a pity where a perceived ‘threat’ can be used to accumulate such a vast amount of money. That’s politics. It’s dirty politics when you come right down to it. Are Jews worried about gay marriage? Are the Muslims? Is gay marriage a threat to only Mormons and Catholics? Evangelicals are primarily interested in getting rid of Roe vs. Wade and they’ll latch onto any political device to get people to vote their way.

I’m feel confident in saying that most of that $30,000,000.00 is coming out of Mormon coffers. Sad.

Christine Robinson
September 12th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid, I am enormously grateful to you for exposing the false witness that is perpetrated against us on a daily basis.

Thank you for giving me hope.

Ben in Oakland
September 12th, 2008 | LINK

you know, I have though about Mr. moonstone. I have often wodered why these people show up, state an opinion, and leave. What’s going on here?

One thing that attracted me to his posting– he actually seemed like a reasonable person, one that could perhaps see things from a different viewpoint. In my posting, I wanted to make that different viewpoint very clear. I don’t think I attacked him, though I did ask him to own up to prejudice if that is what was going on for him. I do so much prefer honesty to sanctimony.

So his disappearance makes me wonder– what was he here for to begin with? did he want to convince someone, but didn’t stick around? Did he say ‘these sinners are clearly bound for hell and no sense wasting the good news on them?”

His disappearance means he was closed to debate, or died, or who knows what?

aj
September 12th, 2008 | LINK

Ben, while he may not have been back, I am glad you wrote. You gave me a few points that I can bring up to those around me that try to argue that same-sex marriage is wrong. I especially like the part about the two women raising six kids. I certainly agree that it doesn’t make sense to say that a same-sex couple can’t raise a kid, but to let thousands of kids be stuck in the instability of foster care (though I credit those that try to provide as much stability as possible in a state’s foster system), is better? How can a child being raised in an setting where the child can be displaced at any time (often without any warning) be better than being raised by two parents (women, men or one of each) that love and protect him/her and are the parents for that childs life.

I also wonder how my (gay) marriage could possibly destroy someones (hetero)marriage across town (someone that I don’t even know).

SO THANK YOU for commenting to Moonstone (even if he hasn’t been back). :)

aj

Ben in Oakland
September 13th, 2008 | LINK

you’re welcome. It’s one of the reasons I write.

moonstone
September 29th, 2008 | LINK

“We know exactly where it will lead. ”

JasonD, this is a pretty optimistic expectation.

If you had asked people 100 years ago whether smoking was harmful, I am sure they would have said “no, and certainly my smoking could not possibly hurt you (a non-smoker).” Today, with the benefit of hindsight, the dangers of smoking are clear — to me in particular and to society in general. 

Opponents of 8 often state that same sex marriages will have no impact on my marriage in particular nor on society in general. What proof do they offer? None. Can I predict what impact it will have? No. Not me either. Am I willing to risk the possible (and in my opinion likely) negative impacts that might occur from redefining marriage? No. I am very uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used as guinea pigs in such a novel experiment. We have no idea where this will lead. It will likely be a generation or more before all the consequences are known — just like with second hand smoke.

moonstone
September 29th, 2008 | LINK

“The Iraq war is irrelevent to this situation.”

Ouch. Guilty as charged. Stupid comment on my part. I read it now and wonder “what was I thinking?” I can only offer the lame excuse that I posted this on the eve of Sept. 11 and I must have had the Iraq war “diversion” from Afghanistan on my brain.

moonstone
September 29th, 2008 | LINK

“I find myself a bit confused by this statement. Are you saying that if gay marriage stands, it will end up turning your children and grandchildren gay? I’m guessing that’s not what you’re saying…”

Boo, you guessed right. See my reply to JasonD where I tried to be a little more clear.

moonstone
September 29th, 2008 | LINK

Ben in Oakland, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I am sorry that I have not been back.

You asked several questions. Over time, I may be able to answer some of them.

Regarding my absence, I simply forgot that I had posted here and only found all your replies this last weekend. Certainly you have served up some food for thought.

Regarding the “real issue” and my motivations: in my original posting I said “If you believe in God, *and* if you believe that God established the definition of marriage, you will probably find yourself supporting proposition 8.”

This actually reflects my own motivation, but it hardly ever “works” as a starting point for a discussion between two people of differing religions (or no religion).

I smiled when you thought I might be an open-minded person. I try to be. I am a pompous jerk some of the time, but I do try to see all points of view (sometimes to a fault).

Kim from CB
October 21st, 2008 | LINK

Ben in Oakland

if as a Gay man you really want to live and let live. then why do you care to rewrite History, to rewrite marriage, why do you care to have prop 8 fail if it wont changfe anything?

If you really can argue that nothing will happen from it then why do you want it to pass.

you gain no more marrital rights, and no less if it passes?

why are homosexuals so tirelessly wanting to take a heterosexual word and make it into a hetero/homo word.

why dont you leave the dictionary how it has been for 1000’s of year and make a new term to describe your union.

and you can not argue that it would not affect me and my kids negatively if prop 8 fails.

dr’s are being sued for upholding their religious beliefs. For centuries homosexual behavior have not been acceptable . . .I am not even going to argue the tolerance side. any decent human being thinks human are humans and shoudl be trated civilly. I am not againts homosexuals. I am for prop 8 because I am for religious freedom. which it the basis for the founding of our country.

I am free to my religious beliefs that homosexual behavior is not ok. You are free to disagree. But you are not free to constitutionally define that it is ok.

you are not ok to take a moral, sexual orientation to school, rewrite text books and make my religious beliefs null and void.

You are so willing to call people bigots when they do not condone or accept your behavior. Really who is the bigot. I tolerant, I do not care what you do in your home. But do not force my religious beliefs to change.

Timothy Kincaid
October 21st, 2008 | LINK

Kim,

You have imagined threats that do not exist, accused gay people of motives that they do not possess, and adopted a martyrdom that is not deserved.

No gay person is seeking to impact your life in any way. But you seek to harm gay people specifically because they are gay (or, as you put it, because you do not “condone or accept” their “behavior”).

You are anti-gay.

Admit it.

When you have the opportunity to either leave gay folk alone or to choose to make their lives more difficult, you choose to intrude on gay folks and take away rights. That is, by definition, anti-gay.

And this anti-gay attitude which you so proudly display is based on nothing other that dislike and distrust and a bit of dredged up fear.

You accuse Ben of being a bigot. Which makes me wonder: Do you know what “bigotry” is, Kim? Are you familiar with what the term means?

It’s exactly the attitude and behavior you came here displaying.

Kevin
October 21st, 2008 | LINK

You can instantly spot a homophobe by the language they use.

They call us “homosexuals”, not gay or lesbian, which are the words we (or most of us) choose to be referred to as. If they really respected us, they would call us by what we call ourselves.

Calling us “homosexuals” is akin to calling an African American a “negro” or “nigra”.

They know it is offensive to us because it dehumanizes and debases us to a cold, sterile fact of our sexual orientation; one they believe is a choice despite evidence to the contrary.

FreakyLocz14
April 25th, 2009 | LINK

Get over it. Despite all your lies Prop 8 passed. It does effect schools wanna know how I know? I LIVED THROUGH IT! My family fought schools trying to teach this filth to children. Look at the cases in Mass and see what schools are doing.

It’s funny how you hate when we point the finger and you and call you names but you love to say anyone who supports traditional marriage automatically hates all gay people and is a murderous evil heathen. Real nice.

Emily K
April 25th, 2009 | LINK

Right wing lies = epic FAIL + epic lulz.

In case you haven’t noticed, gay marriage is winning in this country. See you in 10 years when Prop 8 will just be another shamed smudge on U.S. legal history.

Timothy Kincaid
April 26th, 2009 | LINK

Freakylocz14,

Actually, here at box Turtle Bulletin we do not often make accusations of “hate”. Some folks oppose equality for their gay neighbors for reasons that do no include animus or hate.

However, though we don’t make the accusation much, we don’t find it difficult at all to recognize a comment based in ignorace, hatred, and fear when we see one.

Top Stories Today – 09.11.2008 : glaadBLOG.org
December 21st, 2009 | LINK

[…] Box Turtle Bulletain – Prop 8’s Message to Youth: Blatant Lies and Transparent Bigotry […]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.