Mad Mikey's Blog

|| « Political Leanings || Main || Down the Crapper » ||

May 16, 2005

Gagging, not Homphobia

Gay Marriage Backlash.gif

Most readers will know that I don't place a metric ton of faith into pollings, but this does give a bit of impact on the wooden stake being pounded into the chest of the 'right-wing homophobia' monster.

While the numbers can be a bit sketchy and possibly the way the questions were asked might be iffy, the overall result is still the same IMO - having 'gay marriage' brought to the fore-front of political discussion results in what I talked about before: throwing this crap in our faces constantly will result in people getting fed up with it.

Gay Marriage!! Gay Marriage!! Gay Marriage!! Gay Marriage!! Gay Marriage!!

Uhhhh.....Hell no!!

This graphic does shed a little light on the topic and the resulting thunder-clap is resounding: many Americans aren't too keen on having gay marriage brought into the American lexicon. You will not that this isn't an indication of gay concentration camps nor is it an indication (unless you're part of the Barking Moonbat Brigade) of directed hate/discontent at homosexuals - it is an indication IMO of a BIG chunk of people just getting tired of having gay-gay-gay-gay-gay-gay-gay-gay-gay-gay jammed down their throats and when they gag being called 'homophobes'.

Action - REaction. So simple that even a first-year physics student can get it.

|| , 09:27 AM || Permalink || Comments (21) || Add your comment

Comments on Gagging, not Homphobia

So, Mike, just out of curiosity, why, exactly, does it matter if two men get married, or two women, for that matter? Would this really cause the end of civilization as we know it? How much time do you really think we'd all have to spend discussing the issue with our children for fear that these others' gayness might somehow rub off on them? Would it adversely impact your ability to make a living? Would the Earth stop rotating on its axis? I mean, I'm just asking, and I think it's a fair question given your emphatic stance against same-sex marriage. The way I see it, all of the in-your-face crap would most likely stop if we just granted this segment of society the same civil rights and benefits that you and I enjoy.

|| Posted by Mark, May 16, 2005 10:20 AM ||

I don't really give a fig as to whether or not two homosexuals marry or not - it affects me none.

What I'm railing about is having this stuff jammed down my throat - here at UCSD, in the news, and in society in general.

I don't really care one way or the other if someone is gay. What I do care about is having it jammed in my face at any opportunity and if I utter anything than complete agreement, I'm labeled a 'homophobe' and I get people like you getting in my face about my opinion.

Diversity of everything in life - including acceptance of homosexuality - must also include a diversity of opinions. That means that dispite the continuous attempts at guilting me out of my belief(s), people like you will have to accept that not everyone is going to shut up.

So, you'll just have to accept that *I* have an opinion that makes you grind you teeth at night....

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, May 16, 2005 10:43 AM ||

I don't really give a fig as to whether or not two homosexuals marry or not - it affects me none.

So here's where I get confused. If you don't care if two queers marry, why be against it? Why be reactionary?

One way to stop all the gay gay gay is to give them equal rights under the law, no?

|| Posted by scroff, May 16, 2005 01:39 PM ||

Actually, Mikey, it sounds like you're the one grinding his teeth. Who exactly, is labeling you a homophobe? You can disagree with different religions, but the fact is, in this country, all religions are protected equally. You can disagree with a political party, but they're all protected. You an disgree with any of my statements, but my speech is protected. You can personally not like the color of anyone's skin, and that is your prerogative. And you can disagree with interracial relations and marriage, but the right of a white to marry a black is (finally) protected. So why is it that you disagree so vehemnetly with gay marriage, all the while professing not to, that you would actively work towards seeing that segment of the population denied civil rights? Don't forget to insert your mouthguard before replying.

|| Posted by Mark, May 16, 2005 02:05 PM ||

Scroff:

One way to stop all the gay gay gay is to give them equal rights under the law, no?

Cause in my opinion it is just like giving in to a screaming child throwing a tantrum. I don't take that crap from my kid and I'm sure not gonna take it from several million kids.

Mark:

So why is it that you disagree so vehemnetly with gay marriage, all the while professing not to, that you would actively work towards seeing that segment of the population denied civil rights? Don't forget to insert your mouthguard before replying.

(Heh - I like that mouthguard crack...;) )

Like I said before I do NOT care one way or the other.

What I *am* 'grinding my teeth' over is that if I voice another opinion - one that isn't in lock-step with PC thinking - people instantly will say I'm a homophobe or whatever the latest rant label is.

I also just plain get annoyed with the attitude that I should rollover and allow whatever to happen - even if I don't care about it.

But this is diverging from my original post; the post was about how this growing annoyance (my phrase) IMO isn't part of a careful campaign of a few right-wingers to completely smash any sort of gay-marriage mechanism, but rather a lot of people like me just re-acting to a constant bombardment of gay agenda. Like a bug buzzing around in a room, eventually most people get annoyed with it.

Once again for clarification: I don't care one way or the other. Honestly, it won't make an impact on my life.

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, May 16, 2005 02:42 PM ||

Mark: Didn't realize (or look too closely) that you're part of the Munivian universe. Briefly checked out your site and I loved this:

Centrist Democrat with unmistakable Zionist bent.

Heh!

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, May 16, 2005 03:07 PM ||

Glad you like that. I also guest blog at Calblog, albeit less frequently of late. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this issue, I just don't get why people need to get so worked up about this, rather than make it the non-issue it really is by legalizing same-sex unions.

|| Posted by Mark, May 16, 2005 08:54 PM ||

So here's where I get confused. If you don't care if two queers marry, why be against it? Why be reactionary?

Honestly? To send a resounding Yuk Foo to all the bastards that throw their sexuality in my face. "We're Queer We're HERE" crowd pisses me off. Not because they are queer. It's the annoying self definition that must be screamed through the streets that I cannot stand. And if you want to be "IN YOUR FACE" about it, I will go out of my way to screw your week up. So a big vote for no, because you whine like a twit. That, and the suit against a catholic church up in connecticut for failure to perform services pissed me off. A lot.

One way to stop all the gay gay gay is to give them equal rights under the law, no?

I say repeal the laws that define what marriage is, instead of adding new ones. Do NOT have a federal definition of what a "Married couple" should be.

Mikey sez: Slightly tweaked those HTML tags Yogimus - no editing here unless someone becomes an asshat....

|| Posted by Yogimus, May 17, 2005 04:26 PM ||

I just don't get why people need to get so worked up about this, rather than make it the non-issue it really is by legalizing same-sex unions.

Exactly. Same-sex unions. Call 'em what they are. Unions. Not marriage.

;)

|| Posted by Chet, May 17, 2005 07:34 PM ||

Or, realizing that its a total non issue you could just give them marriage status and move on.

That would be the best example of "not caring"

|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 17, 2005 07:48 PM ||

It is not UP to anyone to GIVE. But since the movement WENT down that route, this is the result. So sad, too bad.

|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 04:44 AM ||

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."

I'd have thought that by now we'd have gotten this one down and wouldn't even be discussing things like this...

|| Posted by scroff, May 18, 2005 09:30 AM ||

Of which federally recognized MARRIAGES are not one. In FACT, the word MARRIAGE does not appear in ANY of our founding documents.

Now let me see here... could the issue be that the state has no authority over this?

|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 12:19 PM ||

You mean GIVE them a right that they are being DEPRIVED of, with absolutely no valid reason justifying it, save "THE BIBLE" and "THE CHILDREN"?

(i can use caps too!)

|| Posted by Blackglasses, May 18, 2005 05:17 PM ||

Very good! Here is your cookie. I used shift because I am cool like that.

The main issue I have here is that government should have NO authority to recognize or deny these unions.

The way the activism is leading is to empower the government to include recognizing the union, instead of forbidding the government from interfering.

|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 06:25 PM ||

Of which federally recognized MARRIAGES are not one. In FACT, the word MARRIAGE does not appear in ANY of our founding documents.

Absolutely true, but "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
might be construed to include marrying the person you love. Also to be considered is the fact that the Declaration says "among these", implying that there are other unalienable rights. Some of those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, one of which includes freedom of religion, meaning that people are free to worship and believe what they choose according to the dictates of their conscience. If Christians believe god hates fags, they don't have to marry one. Christian beliefs along these lines effect and restrict the rights of others. So called christian politicians and barking heads proclaim a "homosexual agenda". If there is one it is to be treated and respected as a human being.

I wonder what the response would be if states tried to pass laws outlawing marriage altogether, based on divorce rates and the popularity of shows like Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor and the rest of the gag-reflex crap? If, as you pointed out, marrying the person you love is not a right, (I believe it is) it must then be a privilege. If it is a privilege, it can be lost.

Now let me see here... could the issue be that the state has no authority over this?

I would have to agree that the state should stay the hell out of it altogether, yet we have laws "protecting" marriage, a Defense of Marriage Act, which, for some stupid triangulating reason Clinton signed, and several states passing laws saying who can and who can't get married, for, as BG has so correctly pointed out, some dusty old book that half the people who voted for these laws don't read or understand. The states involved in it. So called activist judges aren't legislating from the bench, they're striking down laws that deny human beings their unalienable rights, basically saying the same thing you are, Yogs, that the state should pass no legislation about which two human beings marry.

Keep your bible off my laws...

|| Posted by scroff, May 18, 2005 08:38 PM ||

How could I have stopped there! ;)

I have some lesbian friends that are married. There is no law that forbids them from marrying. They were married in a Unitarian church by a female minister.

The laws enter into how much weight that marriage carries when it comes to things like insurance benefits, estates, hospitalization and the like. Right now, in order to have many of these benefits, you have to be a husband or wife. While my lesbian friends certainly do consider each other a wife, the state does not, thus neither do the insurance company, the hospital, the probate court, etc. This is what they are fighting for. As far as I'm concerned, god is wondering what the fuck we're all going on about.

|| Posted by scroff, May 18, 2005 08:48 PM ||

Which is why this must be approached from the opposite angle. I don't CARE who does WHAT, or when they do it. The state should have zero say in the matter.

The activism should be targeted at eroding the authority of the state over these matters instead of the batshit-crazy crap that is happening today.

As for the "homosexual agenda", there is indeed an agenda for pushing sexual education, including homosexual education, without imput from the parents. It is completely uncalled for, because MORALS are family developed.

Tolerance does NOT mean we have to like it. I also do not understand why sexuality is such a defining factor. It is a very small part of what makes a person. A normal non-self absorbed, non-shallow person.

There is no such thing as normal or abnormal sexuality. There is merely the way people are. Having "pride" of it is like me having pride about walking upright. No big deal.

|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 09:03 PM ||

"""The laws enter into how much weight that marriage carries when it comes to things like insurance benefits, estates, hospitalization and the like. Right now, in order to have many of these benefits, you have to be a husband or wife"""

Which I have a huge problem with. Husbands and wives should not be recognized as a legal entity AT ALL. (Didn't think I would go THAT way did ya?)Only "partners".

"""As far as I'm concerned, god is wondering what the fuck we're all going on about."""

I heard that...

|| Posted by Yogimus, May 18, 2005 09:08 PM ||

I heard Dump Taster wants to marry his mom. Why not?

|| Posted by Gordon the Magnificent, May 18, 2005 10:00 PM ||

I heard Dump Taster wants to marry his mom. Why not?

Who left the cage open?

|| Posted by scroff, May 19, 2005 09:35 AM ||

Groups and Such

MuNuviana

Licensing

Powered By

May 16, 2005

Gagging, not Homphobia

Comments on Gagging, not Homphobia

Administrative Stuff

Search This Site

About Me

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Web Links

Counters and stuff

Archives