Comments on: Prop 8 on Trial http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:23:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Need Help Talking About Prop 8? « wakingupnow.com http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial/comment-page-1#comment-4812 Need Help Talking About Prop 8? « wakingupnow.com Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:15:25 +0000 http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial#comment-4812 [...] Do you need background info on the trial?  I found these sources invaluable. [...] [...] Do you need background info on the trial?  I found these sources invaluable. [...]

]]> By: Jamie http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial/comment-page-1#comment-1519 Jamie Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:53:15 +0000 http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial#comment-1519 @Jordan I can see what you're saying and it's a fair point, however I would say that it's far easier for Obama to "advertise" himself as he is only one man, however for gay people as a whole unit to advertise themselves differently would be almost impossible seeing as, just like in any other group of people, everyone has unique behavior and attitude. @Jordan

I can see what you’re saying and it’s a fair point, however I would say that it’s far easier for Obama to “advertise” himself as he is only one man, however for gay people as a whole unit to advertise themselves differently would be almost impossible seeing as, just like in any other group of people, everyone has unique behavior and attitude.

]]> By: Jake Saltzman http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial/comment-page-1#comment-1401 Jake Saltzman Sat, 16 Jan 2010 04:22:52 +0000 http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial#comment-1401 Hey I love the blog-here is something I've gotten out of the anti-equality proponents A) Marriage is good. Good job. There is no intrinsic trade-off between gay and straight marriage. If you are so impressionistic as to allow x marriage to affect yours, it seems like there are an infinite number of marriages in the status quo that do not constitute what you deem marriage, so it should have already been destroyed. If marriage is about child-bearing, then do we not allow infertile couples to marry? If it is about biological children, then should we ban adoption? Seriously-even if the anti's win 100% that kids are best when raised by their "real" parents(yes I know that is statistical manipulation-its about divorce rates), those kids are ALREADY up for adoption-its not like in world A they live with their biolgoical parents and in world b they get stolen by gay parents. Not being with their "true" parents is inevitable and an inherent part of ADOPTION. I guess here is the other thing that makes no sense-any reason why marriage is good which is not true of gay marriage(child bearing, etc.) are still good post-gay marriage. Each individual person makes a decision about what marriage is to them, and they make individual choices-nobody would think, oh, marriage doesn't have any meaning anymore cause gays can marry, let's go crazy. There are bad marriages in the status quo. Guess what-people still want to have children even if gays marry. I know, its so tough to believe. I read on "protectmarriage.org" that gays are more infedelite-even if this is true, and i doubt this greatly, so? How do gays being infedelite affect straight relationships? The spillover necessary would go as follows-gays have multiple lovers so I'll go cheat on my wife. I guess the anti answer to this is that it would be more subtle, i.e. marriage is "devalued". That doesn't make sense because it is being devalued in the status quo for multiple other reasons. The spillover arguments are horrible. Hey I love the blog-here is something I’ve gotten out of the anti-equality proponents
A) Marriage is good. Good job. There is no intrinsic trade-off between gay and straight marriage. If you are so impressionistic as to allow x marriage to affect yours, it seems like there are an infinite number of marriages in the status quo that do not constitute what you deem marriage, so it should have already been destroyed. If marriage is about child-bearing, then do we not allow infertile couples to marry? If it is about biological children, then should we ban adoption? Seriously-even if the anti’s win 100% that kids are best when raised by their “real” parents(yes I know that is statistical manipulation-its about divorce rates), those kids are ALREADY up for adoption-its not like in world A they live with their biolgoical parents and in world b they get stolen by gay parents. Not being with their “true” parents is inevitable and an inherent part of ADOPTION. I guess here is the other thing that makes no sense-any reason why marriage is good which is not true of gay marriage(child bearing, etc.) are still good post-gay marriage. Each individual person makes a decision about what marriage is to them, and they make individual choices-nobody would think, oh, marriage doesn’t have any meaning anymore cause gays can marry, let’s go crazy. There are bad marriages in the status quo. Guess what-people still want to have children even if gays marry. I know, its so tough to believe. I read on “protectmarriage.org” that gays are more infedelite-even if this is true, and i doubt this greatly, so? How do gays being infedelite affect straight relationships? The spillover necessary would go as follows-gays have multiple lovers so I’ll go cheat on my wife. I guess the anti answer to this is that it would be more subtle, i.e. marriage is “devalued”. That doesn’t make sense because it is being devalued in the status quo for multiple other reasons. The spillover arguments are horrible.

]]> By: robtish http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial/comment-page-1#comment-1398 robtish Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:19:21 +0000 http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial#comment-1398 Thanks, Jordan. I do believe we have to advertise ourselves a bit differently than we've been doing -- but I don't mean that in the way that a lot of people do (that gay men have to try harder to be "straight-acting). My misgivings have to do with our side's frequent use of the "H8" and "bigotry" to characterize people opposed to same-sex marriage. I think it's an accurate description of our opposition's leadership, but not necessarily of the average person who doesn't spend much time thinking about the issue. I want to write about this more in the future. Thanks, Jordan. I do believe we have to advertise ourselves a bit differently than we’ve been doing — but I don’t mean that in the way that a lot of people do (that gay men have to try harder to be “straight-acting). My misgivings have to do with our side’s frequent use of the “H8″ and “bigotry” to characterize people opposed to same-sex marriage. I think it’s an accurate description of our opposition’s leadership, but not necessarily of the average person who doesn’t spend much time thinking about the issue. I want to write about this more in the future.

]]> By: Jordan http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial/comment-page-1#comment-1394 Jordan Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:42:14 +0000 http://wakingupnow.com/blog/prop-8-on-trial#comment-1394 Hi, I am a fan of your work and think you are a brilliant man. I wonder what your thoughts are on the following. I don't think anyone should have to change who they are, but essentially do you think that the LGBT community should change their public relations stance in order to maybe benefit the marriage equality debate? That may have been a bit confusing. Ok, President Obama did an amazing job getting the votes of younger americans because of his campaign. It wasn't so much his political stance but more of how he advertised himself. Yes, there will always be those who hate the notion of gay marriage and disagree but do you think if we, in essence, "advertised" ourselves differently then we might get somewhere? Thanks Hi, I am a fan of your work and think you are a brilliant man. I wonder what your thoughts are on the following. I don’t think anyone should have to change who they are, but essentially do you think that the LGBT community should change their public relations stance in order to maybe benefit the marriage equality debate?

That may have been a bit confusing. Ok, President Obama did an amazing job getting the votes of younger americans because of his campaign. It wasn’t so much his political stance but more of how he advertised himself. Yes, there will always be those who hate the notion of gay marriage and disagree but do you think if we, in essence, “advertised” ourselves differently then we might get somewhere?

Thanks

]]>