I don't usually post about political issues, but there's something about this latest legal campaign against homosexuals which really rankles me. Although I don't agree with people who are opposed to gay marriage, I can understand why they feel the way they do. But this latest proposal to actually BREAK UP people (18,000 couples!) who are already in committed monogamous relationships and invalidate their marriages is so disgusting that it makes me want to stand up and do something for a change. Please head on over to their site and sign the petition.
22 comments:
Thank you for posting this, Hedyot.
I have to disagree; if the argument is that a judge wrongfully allowed something that the voters have shown they do not want, it makes sense to "undo" that allowance.
From Wikipedia:
"All six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California jointly issued a statement opposing Proposition 8 on September 10, 2008.[86] Southern California's largest collection of rabbis, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, voted to oppose Proposition 8.[87] Other Jewish groups who opposed Proposition 8 include Jewish Mosaic,[88] the American Jewish Committee, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Council of Jewish Women, and the Anti-Defamation League.[61][89] Los Angeles Jews were more opposed to Prop 8 than any other religious group or ethnic group in the city. Jewish Angelinos voted 78% against the ban while only 8% supported the ban; the remainder declined to respond.[90] The legislative ministry of the Unitarian Universalists opposed Proposition 8, and organized phone banks toward defeating the measure.[91]"
This is not marriage, it's an abomination.
Anonymous, Episcopalians, Unitarians, and secular Jews opposed Prop 8. Catholics and Mormons supported it, and so did Orthodox Jews.
One of the reasons I left OJ is because of my interactions with Orthodox Rabbis who so obviously, so clearly, so cruelly opposed homosexual unions.
When it comes to gay rights, we'd be far, far better off without religion.
uhm... that cute little girl who had a sign placed in her hand that was actually written by adults, is clearly NOT biologically related to at least one of her "dads," (and possibly not to either one of them). When she was conceived, and implanted to the belly of a surrogate, and when she was torn away from that womb that had sheltered her, did any of her "dad"s give her a sign to hold up saying, "Please don't take me from my mom"?
Gay parenthood, not necessarily gay sex, is the abomination here.
> ...when she was torn away from that womb that had sheltered her, did any of her "dad"s give her a sign to hold up saying, "Please don't take me from my mom"?
That is possibly the dumbest argument against gay marriage I have ever heard in my whole life.
Besides the fact that one of the fathers could well be the sperm donor, and that just because a woman is a surrogate does not in the least bit make them a mother, why don't you ever consider that they saved the girl from having to live in a foster home? Do you even know of a single case that fits what you just described?
> Gay parenthood, not necessarily gay sex, is the abomination here.
Right. Because god obviously hates it when a child has two people who love and care for her. Just disgusting.
> uhm... that cute little girl who had a sign placed in her hand that was actually written by adults...
Actually, it was clearly printed from a computer.
Why does this matter? I have no idea. But you seemed to think it was worth pointing out....
"and that just because a woman is a surrogate does not in the least bit make them a mother"
she's certainly as much of a mother than at least one of those "DAD"s. She went through pregnancy, birth, lactation (though there was no one to feed it to) and post partum depression (that's right, you lost a child but lets blame it on them hormones... read the research.) As does the egg donor. Both of whom this child may wonder about for the rest of her life.
"why don't you ever consider that they saved the girl from having to live in a foster home?"
It's possible, but not likely. A girl of 4 years in the foster care system would unlikely as yet be placed for adoption.
"Do you even know of a single case that fits what you just described?"
Yes, I know one gay couple who had a baby (actually only one member of the couple "had" the baby)in exactly this manner. I know another gay couple that are looking to adopt- but only a baby, not a foster care child. I also know a couple of lesbians who had babies from a sperm bank. (some straight women do the same thing). Last but not least, I know some lesbians and gays who inseminate and get pregnant, and have co-parenting arrangements, by far a healthier situation.
"Because god obviously hates it when a child has two people who love and care for her." Who's to say they would love her any more than her mom?
The Torah itself (ok, so even if it was written by humans) prescribes sensitivity even on separating ANIMAL mothers and babies.
and lastly, love aint enough. I know sperm donor kids who feel lost and confused their whole lives not knowing who there father is. And the blogosphere is full of adopted children who feel the same way.
> uhm... that cute little girl who had a sign placed in her hand that was actually written by adults..
to show that it's not actually a child protesting about anything cruel being done to her. (invalidating there marriages doesn't require them to abandon her). Rather it's about adults projecting there own wishes onto a child, using the child for a nice heart rending photo op for their own political purposes.
Yeah, straight parents do the same thing. I know.
> ...to show that it's not actually a child protesting about anything cruel being done to her...
You just keep on fabricating these absurd scenarios out of whole cloth.
Do you actually think that because she didn't write the sign she wouldn't care if she was taken away from the people who love and care for her?
UH nobody is trying to take her away from anyone. (at least not for a second time. and the first time nobody protested.)
They're just saying the don't recognize her dad and his partner as legally married. I'm sure she couldn't give a damn if she even understood.
All I'm trying to say that it is certainly NOT child's rights who are at stake here but adults'. And projecting that onto children is exploitive and deceptive.
The UN Statement on the Universal Rights of the Child declares pretty clearly that the child's right is to be reared amongst its own kin whenever possible.
The fact that this child was denied this right, whether by intent or by unavoidable circumstances, is a tragedy, not a
rallying cry for adults to pursue their own interests.
I might have some questions re Judaism, but I'll never sign anything promoting homosexuality in any way.
This whole campaign is deceptive- without exactly saying so, it gives the impression that the bill is about forcibly separating the couples, which it is not- even Sara Palin wouldn't agree to that. It is only about the legal status of those relationships.
Hedyot you fell for it.
in the US there is a separation between church and state. why marriage doesn't count in this separation is beyond me.
divorcing these couples is horrible. all couples (gay or straight) should file with the state for civil unions which would just allow whatever legalities need to be covered--hospital visits, benefits, property ownership, et cetera. from there, a couple could marry in whatever religious or non-religious institution will have them. the state really shouldn't have any part of the actual "marriage." it seems to be unconstitutional for EVERYBODY.
Nice video. It's harder to be a bigot when your victim has a face.
I think this piece says it best. http://brightlightsearch.blogspot.com/2009/02/shame-penn-milks-oscars-for-extant.html
It's really not about gay rights at all - the debate is only a matter of semantics. The gays inferiority complex demands not equal rights (which they already have) rather they demand we change the dictionary to squeeze themselves into other peoples views of whats right and wrong. They simply want to share the word "marriage" with those who want to distance themselves from them.
kisarita,
What planet did you drop from? You ignorance is showing. Any adopted child or adoptive parent will tell you that a child's "real" parent is the one who raises her. You are in no way a "parent" because you birthed a child. All that makes you is the birth mother. And if a birth mother choses to have her child adopted by another, if a mother had her parental rights stripped of her due to an inability to raise her child or if a woman chose to function as a womb for another in order to provide another with a baby, she is not their "real mother."
For the millions of adopted children out there, I am outraged that anyone in 2009 can doubt that a parent that raises a child as an adoptive parent is less of a "real parent" than any birth parent or that birthing a child gives a person any right to call themselves a child's "real parent."
Sorry, I think you're wrong on this one. The whole gay marriage business was rammed down people's throats (if you'll pardon the metaphor) by an activist Court. It conflicted with the will of the voters, who have now chosen to remedy it. The majority does still rule, here, and, as far as the gay rights activists go, they can consider this one of the infelicities attendant upon pushing a social agenda through the courts, instead of the legislature.
leaving the world "real" out of things, there are great numbers of adopted persons, donor offspring, as well as birth parents who would disagree with you as to the signficance of the biological connection.
Even adoptive parents and people who use donated gametes are deluding themselves if they say otherwise, as the majority of adoptors turn to adoption as a LAST resort, only AFTER all efforts to have their own biological child have failed.
Donated-gamete users are also deluding themselves if they fail to recognize the significance of the biological connection- if it wasn't important, why didn't they just adopt, instead of cooking up a baby?
the attempt to divorce kin and biology has made inroads in society before the gay marriage movement, but the gay marriage movement has really taken it to extreme conclusion.
The other absurd part of this clip is the one of lesbian "wedding"s with the "groom" dressed up in a tux. tell me that's not a pathetic attempt in aping straight people.
(just a small sign of what the whole movement is about.)
Post a Comment