.

.
Formally Bug Drivel; now Freedom Lover USA ~ 2003 - 2016 : All Rights Reserved ~

Thursday, November 13, 2008

CA Gays Bully Prop 8 Supporters - Changed This Voter's Mind

Some children throw fits when they don't get what they want. Apparently, so do certain members of our society who live in California when they don't get what they want.
The ballot for Proposition 8 was simply "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The text to be added to the constitution was "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
If you put something on the ballot, you take a chance on not getting your way. If you don't get what you want, you try it again... you don't go out and bully or engulf those who disagree with you with anger.




... CA Press Doesn't Address Implications of Theater Director's Resignation Over Prop 8 Support
The litmus test results are in: If you're against the legalization of same-sex marriage and are discovered, you can't be involved in the performing arts in California, even though the majority of potential patrons in your state agree with you.
Under the pressure of a threatened boycott, the artistic director of a Sacramento theater has stepped down after it was learned that he contributed to Yes side ("yes, same-sex marriage should be prohibited") of the supposedly Golden State's Proposition 8 campaign.

... Theater Director Forced to Resign Because Prop 8 Support-THE BLACKLIST IS BACK
Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre is being forced to resign his post and leaving the organization due to a donation to the movement supporting the amendment. Because of Eckern's support, playwrights and other artists mounted a boycott of the theater and promised not to stop unless Eckern resigned.

... Here are some photos of people supporting Scott Eckern: Exclusive: Photos Of Protest In Support Of Scott Eckern - funny how the media sort of let it fall between the cracks.


Perhaps a list can be generated in order to boycott businesses who did not support Prop 8. I wonder how the media would react to such an action. Would they rush to the scene to report how people were protesting against those who didn't support it? Or would they call the protest a "group of hate mongers"?

It's amazing how it's okay for some people to protest and it's called equal rights... but when it's reversed, suddenly the protesters are racist or hate mongers.

I don't live in California and I'm mildly interested in the issue of gays getting married... but I will not support it if comes here because of one factor and one factor only; the way people act when they don't get their way tells me everything I need to know. My past inclination would be to not vote one way or the other... they changed my mind.

The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winner. Running around rioting when you lose and rioting when you win tells me you don't care about anyone ELSE'S rights... so why should I care about yours?

One other thing... why do they feel compelled to push their sexuality in my face? When was the last time a bunch of heterosexuals had a parade to commemorate their sexuality and the fact they have sex with those of the opposite sex?

Please... please don't tell me that gay right parades are not about sex. I've seen some of the parades and witnessed some of the people locked in cages and wearing outrageous outfits usually not seen in public. They are there to flaunt what they are and what they do... their objective is to SHOCK and MORTIFY as many people as possible; especially anyone who is modest.

There are gays in those parades who are not dressed that way and you just know that some are embarrassed to be seen with the "outrageous" and the "odd". It would be the same if I were in a parade with heterosexuals wearing something they found at a sex shop. It's really not a matter of sexual preference so much as a matter of common sense. Keep that stuff in your own home... I could care less what you do there; that's why we invented walls and locked doors.


Gateway Pundit: Another Victim Falls Prey to Pink Mafia


Wake up America: Utah Mormon Temple Evacuated After Receiving White Powder Substance


Gateway Pundit: Gay Terror-- Activists Send White Powder to Mormon Temples

17 comments:

The Right Guy said...

Thomas Jefferson said that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Going into churches and interrupting services is clearly a violation of right to expression of religion as they are in effect, trying to suppress a natural right of freedom of religious beliefs. The best thing the state could do is get out of the marriage business and give all people a civil union license as it pertains to legal matters and let people be married in the religion of their choice. So as long as the government keeps out of religion, and we keep religion out of government we will be ok. Once they mix, both try to dictate rules to the other.

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave". Guess who said that? Words to live by.

david drake said...

Oooooooh, Bug, I love the word "Mortify"! Oh, Kudos on using it. It's a word I'd all but forgotten until now. Excellent.

The other funny thing about the Cali gays is that exit polling showed 7 out of 10 Blacks voted against gay marriage and Latinos voted almost as much against it. So instead of protesting against the Blacks and Lations (they knew they'd get their asses kicked) the gays protested against religious institutions who, instead of retaliating, will only pray for them.

Hypcrites? You bet'cha. They forced the issue and lost, and now they can't bear the thought of being defeated. BooF---ingHoo.

Bug said...

I believe you're right there David... often people will go after what they assume to be the weakest link in the chain.

Funny that... but they forget that the ones they are not going after have the ability to still step in to defend those being attacked.

Let's see that play out.

And the word mortify just seemed oh so appropriate here. It is exacty what so many of them hope will happen; it's what they live for.

Mikhail Silverwood said...

Are you telling me that if Prop 8 was voted down, and gay marriage was allowed, you would calmly and politely accept defeat?

You wrote: 'One other thing... why do they feel compelled to push their sexuality in my face? When was the last time a bunch of heterosexuals had a parade to commemorate their sexuality and the fact they have sex with those of the opposite sex?'

You cannot compare gay rights marches with straight. Because we live in a heterosexist society; therefore, straights are the majority and the norm, while gays are the minority and the unnorm.

It's like putting the slave and the master on equal terms; you need to judge their position in society in corrospondence with the facts. You cannot 'say gays and straight are equal therefore case closed'.

And is there something wrong with people celebrating sex?
Don't you dare suggest that there isn't an overflowing display of heterosexual sex everywhere in society.

Bug said...

I would not accept defeat (as you put it) because I did not vote for or against Prop 8… I am not living in that state so could not vote. Because it does not matter to me if gay marriage is made legal or not I will probably not vote for it or against it if it ever comes to my state in the future. My issue with the outcome of Prop 8 was the threats and violence that ensued after the results.

I feel that I can compare gay rights with straight rights. If 90% of the population were gay and the remaining were straight then I would say the same thing… there should be no special rights for one group over another just because they are different. There should also be no tricky little ways of keeping a certain group down trodden because they are different. Minorities should have no more or less rights than the majority.

I would not compare being gay or being straight into the same light as master and slave. That is not a reasonable comparison. A slave is someone who has very little ability to rise higher than he is because the master keeps him that way. Someone who is gay has the opportunity to rise above and become more than someone who is straight. It is personal choice. Human is human. If you see me, someone who is straight, as either less than you or more than you… that is your view point. I find that one human is the same as most others in general principles.

Arc said...

WHAT!!!

The Right Guy said...

A couple questions: what is normative in our society? If less than 10% of the population is gay, I guess heterosexual is normative. I would also ask, is it a behavior of choice or a reflection of something that is innate? In other words is someone born gay or do they clearly choose to be gay or straight? Lastly, if a pedophile wants to marry a minor, particularly of the same sex, is that ok too? After all, they are celebrating sex too.

Clearly, we have to establish what homosexuality is and is not, and not from a perspective of being gay or not, but an objective scientific one, if that is possible. Many pedophiles think they are perfectly right, as do sociopaths. Does that make their behavior correct?

Mikhail Silverwood said...

- My master versus slave analogy was very faulty and I withdraw it.

- However, I stand by my statement that comparing two people have inequal positions in society as though they are equal is inefficient.
When you have 2 things that are equal, like the two major political parties, that is because of the institutional recognition of the two standing equally, then hypocricy and consistency are factors; you can compare on to the other.

But when you have 2 peoples, men and women, blacks and white, gays and straights, they do not have institutional equal recognition.

We cannot look only at the outside layer of an issue. We have to look deep into the formatting of society.
If you have a problem with your lawn, ask a gardener, and he'll tell you that it's not the visible plants that are the problem, but the soil.
If we only look at the outside layer of society, then we get into pathetic issues such as political correctness and hypocricy which are go-nowhere issues.

To understand society's structure, how racism and homophobia exist, and how institutional oppression affect some peoples, we need to society the very fundamentals of a the society.

- Paedophilia? You have got to be kidding me. All relationships that involve CONSENTING ADULTS are perfect moral and should be accepted by society. Anything that involves non-consenting adults, or actions that hurt people, or actions that break social contracts, are not acceptable.

- Homosexuality is:
Personal: coming to grips with yourself as a human being, understand who you are.
Personal sexual: coming to understand with your own sexuality by yourself.
Social: having society accept you as a human being.
Sexual: engaging in activities to achieve sexual pleasure

- All social science reports on homosexuality have all come to the same conclusion. Homosexuality is a healthy and normal part of society. Their sexual urges are as normal as heterosexual. So if two men, for example, wish to engage in a sexual activity, they both are enjoying it, they both are consenting, no one gets hurt, then I cannot see a problem with it, let alone a reason to be against it.

- On the question of accepting defeat, I immediatley believed you were an anti-gay rights advocate who was flaunting victory in a 'bad-winner' manner. So I wanted to ensure that a level of consistency was there with the result.

- Do people understand the 'ghetto' format. (For example, racism)
In the past, there was open discrimination, segragation, apartheid, racist laws.
With the civil rights act, those legal discriminations were gone.
The white majority said: 'We're really sorry for the pain we caused you. We regret our wrongs and we've corrected the laws. Please come and join us in mainstream society.'
We should openly encourage blacks to be in mainstream society, along side whites.
But, after hundreds of years of racism, it's likely some institutional racism will still exists, there will be bigots, there will be laws and policies, people will still have backwards attitudes.
So it makes sense to have a saftey valve - a safe place for black people to hide away from mainstream society - incase there is too much racism for them to handle. That's why blacks must have ghettos.
Blacks would be encouraged to enter mainstream society, confident in knowing that if something goes wrong they have a safe place to go.
So to create a ghetto, it makes sense to have some places were blacks-only are the rules. It's not reverse-racism, it just makes sense in order to have a healthy transition from racist to 100% liberal (freedom, not leftwing) society.
If you shove blacks into mainstream society, without giving them anywhere safe to hide if things go bad, then things are going to get really ugly when they have to deal with the insitutional racism.

The Right Guy said...

I have to disagree with your comments below. In as much as slavery was and is a bad thing, having a safe place to hide is a ridiculous statement as I have ever heard. One, white people today are not the white people that enslaved blacks, and not just by a measure of time, but of genealogy. My Dad's family came here in 1905 from Italy, and never had a damn thing to do with slavery. Putting the responsibility on todays' whites is almost as bad as slavery itself. While I disagree with quotas and affirmative action, it has given blacks a leg up on others, for which many still don't take advantage of. The ghetto is about plantation politics. The democrats created a bureaucracy and institutions that have kept blacks enslaved to the government instead of them finding their own solutions. When you look at immigrants that come to this country, many of color, many poorer than any black in this country, they rise fro their station and excel. This is because they have found their own solution and understand what it takes to succeed, and they do it. If you want to look at the "bad soil", start with the welfare programs and the utter government waste that has been thrown down a hidey hole with this issue. If anything can be said of inequality is that more equality comes from economic success, not government meddling with social programs that keep people where they are.


"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for over 50 years. And they are still poor."

Charles Barkley

As far as gays go, I don't care what they do in their own home, but unless you've witnessed their behavior on the friday afternoon LIRR train to sayville for the ferry to Fire Island, may be you would want to reserve comment. Even straight people don't act like that, and I'd rather not have to explain it to my 4 year old why a man has his hands down another man's pants in public and it's moving (and this isn't the worst of it). This is not acceptable behavior of anyone, yet we are supposed be tolerant because they are some special minority. By your own statement you would find this acceptable. BS. It's not about equal rights. It never has been. it's about superior rights.


- Do people understand the 'ghetto' format. (For example, racism)
In the past, there was open discrimination, segragation, apartheid, racist laws.
With the civil rights act, those legal discriminations were gone.
The white majority said: 'We're really sorry for the pain we caused you. We regret our wrongs and we've corrected the laws. Please come and join us in mainstream society.'
We should openly encourage blacks to be in mainstream society, along side whites.
But, after hundreds of years of racism, it's likely some institutional racism will still exists, there will be bigots, there will be laws and policies, people will still have backwards attitudes.
So it makes sense to have a saftey valve - a safe place for black people to hide away from mainstream society - incase there is too much racism for them to handle. That's why blacks must have ghettos.
Blacks would be encouraged to enter mainstream society, confident in knowing that if something goes wrong they have a safe place to go.
So to create a ghetto, it makes sense to have some places were blacks-only are the rules. It's not reverse-racism, it just makes sense in order to have a healthy transition from racist to 100% liberal (freedom, not leftwing) society.
If you shove blacks into mainstream society, without giving them anywhere safe to hide if things go bad, then things are going to get really ugly when they have to deal with the insitutional racism.

Mikhail Silverwood said...

First of all, a number of your criticisms are aimed at the traditional anti-liberal position. I'm not a liberal; I'm a socialist. You can attack liberals from the right and I'll attack liberals from the left.

For starters I'm not advocating reverse-racism or quotas. I'm saying to look at the statistics of who's most commonly in poverty, and seeing if there's institutional reasons for those problems, and then helping them up.

Do you believe that the poverty cycle exists? That when children grow up in a poor family, with unemployed or extremely-exploited parents, inconsistent meals, low subsistence, then they are far more likely to be also poor and unemployed or extremely-exploited.

You are right to say that the answer is not through government social security - but taking it away, as many social-Darwinian radical conservatives call for, will only make things worse. Without a safety net of some moneys, the number of people in poverty would rise.

The answer is very simple: we should support labour rights.
Big corporations should stop worrying about profits and start paying their workers a decent wage; I'm not from the US, but I hear awful stories about people working full time and still unable to feed their children
If workers have more money, this means they can afford to keep their families out of poverty, which means their children have a better chance at a good life.

And because those workers have more money to spend, more money will go through the economy, and likely create new markets so that the unemployed people can find work, and they too can get out of poverty.

Mikhail Silverwood said...

Fair enough. I've never seen those people at that place so I have no right to speak of their worth.

There's a difference between 'celebrating one's sexuality' (which I fully endorse and want all people to do) and 'engaging in sexual activity in public' (which people should do in private).

Of course it's wrong for minors to see sexually activity. It's wrong to show any form of 'extreme content' to any 'vulnerable person'.

I will say this.
Homophobia does exist in our society. Pat Robertson is sitting on television calling gays 'abominations to God'; skinhead gay-bashers attack and kill innocent people in the streets; 'family values' advocates are openly declaring rhetoric about how gays shouldn't be allowed near children or to marry.

A popular socialist term is 'the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class'.
(Most of) the public, the rank and file ordinary people, the innocent masses, are not homophobic; they are accepting and open to all people and have commonsense to understand what is acceptable and what is not in society.
But, when they listen to this anti-gay propaganda, they begin to believe it.

So when I attack society for being homophobic, I'm not attacking you or your best friends or Dave down the street. I'm attacking the homophobes in the media.

The Right Guy said...

Ask Clarence Thomas, and he's just one example. Sounds like you want to be a farm animal.As far as Liberals and Socialists go, you're both scum of the earth, just ask Chuck Coffer. :)

Arc said...

In 1968 when LBJ started his Great society 18% of Americans were poor. In 1982 18% of Americans were poor. So that notion that the safety nets are helping is hard to believe. Unless you want to use the favorite argument of, “well it woulda been worse if we had done nothing…”
The answer is to let people keep what they earn and stop playing class envy games. I don’t know what goes on economically in your country, but when you look at wealth of a nation compared to economic freedom you find a direct correlation. The freer a people are the greater they’re individual wealth. In my country even poor people have cars and TVs and three meals a day.
Further, your argument assumes a static economic picture. If you look at where people are today as an absolute, then there is great disparity between the rich and the poor. When you recognize that the picture is a snapshot of a dynamic condition it looks much more equitable. What I mean by this is; today there are 18% of people who are poor, next year there are also 18% of the people who are poor, they are not however the exact same people.
In 2002 I lost my home, had no job, and filed taxes on an annual income of $6000 for a family of 7. In 2005 my income was $30,000 for the year and I bought a home in 2006. So poverty is not forever. If you let them, people will naturally improve their lives.
In America there is a very simple formula for success; stay in school and get an education, work hard, and make good moral choices. Every time it is tried it ends in success, and it is exactly because we allow people to be the stewards of their own futures. We believe that a system made up of 300,000,000 free individuals who own their lives and labor and are free to trade it as they see fit is the most just way to be.

Chuck said...

Caucasoid people didn't enslave African negroid people. Other African negroid hunters did the enslavement.

White colored people simply bought them. Many more were bought by Southwest Asian mongoloids, though.

The only thing unique about America's involvement in the centuries old slave trade is that we are the ones who ended it.

On the ridiculous and grotesque notion of sodomititic "marriage", one will have to show me the moral distinctions between buggery, bestiality and incest before I treat their pet fetish as anything other than a sick joke.

Mikhail Silverwood said...

What about during the Post War Boom years (1945-1976)? Year after year there was continual growth; unemployement was 1% - anyone who wanted a job was given it immediately; tertiary education was free; there was a strong middle class and the poverty rate was low. Some people argued that capitalism had 'perfected itself'.

I see you're using a very Milton Friedman-esque argument: ''The freer a people are the greater they’re individual wealth.''
And that is true... but only in and of itself.
If you have higher economic freedom, you have less obligation to pay your workers or taxes to pay or other expenses, which means you have higher profits; higher profits either mean big bonuses for the boss, or - more importantly - a higher rate of reinvestment into new technologies; and with reinvestment comes great technologies that create greater wealth.
So that is true: if you try to obtain profits and not for subsistence (making sure that all humans are well fed, clothed and housed) then you will increased .
But here's a question: Is this a fair trade? Is sending millions of families into poverty a worthy trade off for collecting the capital needed to develop incredible technology decades in advance? Surely the more humane thing to do is have human need as number one priority?
And finally, Is there a point where new technologies are not needed, when we've creater such fantastic wealth that reinvestment is no longer needed?

The poverty-cycle is not a law but a rule. People can change classes; millionaires can go bust and poor can become wealthy. There are many examples of this: Rockefeller for example. So yes, there are acceptions to the rule.
But for the great majority, 99%, the poverty-cycle is a reality; especially when the fiscal formatting of the local economy make it far more difficult to break out of poverty.

Formula for success? I don't consider America has ever been success; I don't consider any country to be a success.
That's because I look at the world from the bottom-up. If there are poor people, society has failed; if there are kids going hungry, society has failed.

As I'm typing this, across the world there are millions of working class families who are living in poverty; their parents are both working full time, but they cannot earn enough to live happily in subsistence, their kids won't be able to go to college.
These people will naturally get angry with their situation. They understand that there is a problem in the world. They will ask themselves the question: 'I'm not doing anything wrong. I work hard and I raise my kids right. I'm a good person. So why am I not living a good life? Why must I struggle just to keep a roof over my head? What's wrong with the world?'

Mikhail Silverwood said...

I'm terribly sorry Chuck, but the world doesn't work that way.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that homosexual male sex is in any way inferior to procreation or any other form of sexual activity.

The Right Guy said...

Pet Fetish? You forgot to mention the habitrails...

May we each take the moment necessary out of this day and any day we feel the need to remember those who have gone before us in defense of our freedoms. Without them... we would not be "here"... we would be in chains. ~Bug~