Dracil’s BlogJournal

May 7, 2009

10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong

Filed under: christianity, Controversy, Politics, religion — Tags: , , — dracil @ 8:50 pm

Oh, I have seen the light now.  Yes, yes I have.

1) Being gay is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in the world.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Advertisements

April 9, 2009

NOM NOM NOM

Filed under: christianity, Politics, religion — Tags: , , , , , — dracil @ 12:24 am

Awful, just awful.  Can you spot the lies and misrepresentation?  If not, try here or here.  Yes, there’s a reason why I’m making fun of their acronym.  It has to do with eating, and sometimes related to zombies.  Also, “rainbow coalition”?  Seriously?

Aside from the awful lines and the awful special effects, you can even watch the awful auditions.

December 16, 2008

Evangelicals force leader to step down

Top evangelical resigns after backing gay unions

Well, looks like there’s still some hope for the evangelicals after all.

December 12, 2008

Mike Huckabee vs. Jon Stewart on Gay Marriage

Video

Full transcript

If Huckabee ever decides to run for president again, this could come back and bite him.

Also, in case you missed it, even though it’s old now, Keith Olbermann’s special comment on Prop 8 (the Youtube video I linked in the past is probably removed by now).

December 4, 2008

Frustration

Filed under: Controversy, Politics — Tags: , , , — dracil @ 6:16 pm

Taking someone’s rights away over something as trivial as a definition is like breaking into a home and murdering the entire family while they’re sleeping just so you can steal a stereo.

Sorry, but I just can’t accept that.  Not on an ethical level.  Not on what it means to be human.

Prop 8 The Musical

Prop 8 The Musical.  It’s about 3 min long.  Contains quite a few big names in the cast.

While we’re at it, let’s ban divorce.

November 16, 2008

Nationwide Protest against Proposition 8 in San Francisco

img_79131img_7923
img_7961img_7976
img_7999img_8034

So… I went to the protest today.

Well, first I went to Calumet to try out a photography vest.  Decided not to get it ’cause they only had black (which can get really hot).  I mainly want one so I don’t have to keep bringing bags.

There were several protesters on the bus I took to city hall.  I arrived half an hour early but there was already a really large crowd.

There were a bunch of political and religious figures that gave speeches like Mark Leno or Amos Brown or the girl sent by Barbara Lee.  There were also LGBT people including a hermaphrodite.  For the most part, they tried to tell people to stop scapegoating other communities.  I think it helped the message that some of the people up there were African-American preachers and gay mormons.

I went to get lunch when it was over at 12:45 (15 minutes overtime) and saw the protesters march past while I was eating.  Went to get some books over at Japantown, then went back to downtown to go home and we hit the protesters who were basically marching on the streets and blocking traffic.

As I was heading to the Bart I saw a big crowd of people watching a performance by The Loyd Family Players.  They took a 5 minute break but the police came and made them go away during their break.

August 25, 2008

Rep. Jackie Speier and homosexual marriages

I don’t know what to make of this.  Yes, I used one of the Protect Marriage forms, but I changed the words around so that it was actually the opposite of what the original form letter said.  Basically I was making a mockery of it.

Which leads me to the following thoughts on Rep. Jackie Speier.

1) Yay for not supporting it

2) Boo for not reading

This is what I sent:

I am very DELIGHTED that the Democratic Party has endorsed homosexual marriage. I urge you NOT to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008, which would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.  This is like banning marriage between people of different races.

Obviously, the capitalized words are the changes and I also added the last sentence.

Here’s the response.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for House Joint Resolution 89 (H.J. Res 89), the Marriage Protection Amendment. H.J. Res. 89 was introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) and seeks to amend the Constitution of the United States by inserting language declaring that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” This legislation was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 22, 2008 and is awaiting further action in committee.

While I understand and respect any person’s religious or moral beliefs about the institution of marriage, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 89 and any measure designed to prevent Americans with a different sexual orientation from marrying. In 221 years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times. Notable amendments include the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery, the fourteenth amendment which provided for equal protection under the law, and the nineteenth amendment which gave women the right to vote. The Constitution has never been amended to deny a group of citizens the rights enjoyed by others.

For many years it was illegal for persons of different races to marry. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this prohibition and opened the door to adults of all races to freely marry. Societal beliefs about interracial marriage changed significantly over the intervening years, but today most Americans agree that skin color and ethnicity should not hinder the right of an adult to marry whomever they choose.

Many marriages begin with a religious ceremony, while others begin at the county courthouse. Both have the same status in our law: They are contracts. We do not place limits on the ability of adults to contract for a home based upon their sexual orientation, and I don’t believe that we should treat marriage any differently.

Not everyone has to agree with every marriage. I frankly don’t like marriages entered into in haste, such as those that happen when a couple who barely knows each other flies to Las Vegas on the spur of the moment and gets married, and we all regret marriages that start with abusive relationships. However, in my judgment, the law must treat all adult Americans equally and, so long as both adults are competent to freely enter into a contract, I believe that all adults should be able to freely marry

June 30, 2008

San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade ’08





I knew it was going to be crowded when I looked at the real-time Muni schedule this morning and saw that if I missed the next Muni, I would need to wait almost an hour for the next one.

Anyway, I got there early so I looked at the booths being set up. BTW, drinks are pretty much a rip-off. :P You’re basically forced in to a $5 donation to get a sticker for $1 off drinks, which is still about $1 more than they should be.

After that, went to line up and get a good spot. Luckily, they said tripods were allowed so I was able to use my tripod for the first time. :D While I tried to pick a position that would minimize the possibility of people hitting it, people still managed to find all sorts of ways to bump into the tripod legs (mainly kids). UGH. Also, it was just my luck to be stuck with a group of chainsmokers who were upwind from me. I think I inhaled the equivalent of 20 second-hand cigarettes. Actually, I was more concerned about the ash and particulates getting onto the sensitive parts of equipment since it was fairly windy. Thank goodness for lens hoods. That said, I did develop a bit of a rapport with one of the women, since we were both yelling at the event security people to get out of the way of our cameras. :P

The parade itself was LONG. It went over by about 2 hours. Lots of newly married people, many with signs stating how many decades they’ve been together. Also quite a bit of celebrities like Margaret Cho and Gavin Newsom.

After the parade was over, I made the stupid mistake of actually thinking I could go look at the exhibitions. Very bad idea. I managed to escape and left immediately. The food wasn’t exactly appetizing anymore since it was the exact same stands that I’ve seen to every other event in recent memory (e.g. Carnaval, Precious Cheese North Beach Festival, Alice’s Summerthing). Instead I got food from a place called Broaster Cafe, which actually wasn’t too bad. The drink was way overpriced though (when I’m paying over $1 for a “fountain drink” I expect at least a large cup, not “go pick a can from the fridge”

I never did meet up with Tili (my new housemate) who was supposed to be there as well because they were at Montgomery and I didn’t stick around long after the parade because of the huge crowds.

May 15, 2008

Protect Marriage?

As you’ve probably heard by now, the California Supreme Court ruled today that gay marriage is legal.

Naturally, there are groups whining about it and attempting to put an amendment on the November ballots.

Of course, we all know they’re hypocrites.  Even assuming gay marriage really is some great evil that hurts “traditional marriage”, let’s be realistic.  The LGBT community is just slightly more than 1% of the Californian population.  It’s insignificant.

If these people truly cared about protecting the institution of marriage, they should be going after adultery and divorce.  The percentage of Californians who are married is 48.5%.  About 1/3 to 1/2 of those marriages will end in divorce.  From various figures I’ve seen, the adultery rate is about 50%.  There are some lower bounds on adultery rates based on paternity tests done, but they also vary, hence the 5-30% figure that I mentioned in my review of Wedding Crashers.  The book I got it from mentioned a specific study showed a 10% non-paternity rate in the 1940s.  There’s another study mentioned at the Canadian Children’s Rights Council from the 70s, where 30% of the students in a class discovered their dad was not their biological father, so 50% is probably a fair number to use for adultery rates (as not all adultery leads to children)

Since adultery also often leads to divorce, some of these numbers will overlap, but I think it’s a good estimate that at least 25% of the population will be in adulterous and/or divorced marriages.  That’s over 20 times greater than any possible “threat” that could be caused by allowing the LGBT community to marry each other.

Shouldn’t these “protect marriage” people be going after all these heterosexual people instead?  Much more bang for their buck after all.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.