Prejudice against gay people

California is the second state after Massachusetts that allows marriages between same-sex people. It’s a step forward towards a free-er society. However, some old stylers want to put this law away with “proposition 8“.

I have one thing to say to these people: prejudice.

You see, sure, there are the religious nutjob asshats who don’t want to allow gay marriage because they believe that God will send fire to burn them all if they allow the law to pass. Fair enough. We can’t mess with God’s will, now, can we? 😛

However, California, which consists of many artists and techies, is NOT as overly religious as the Bible Belt states are. So why are there people in this state that are against gay people? And the reason for that, is prejudice.

The media, 99% of the times, has portrayed gay people negatively. When there is a gay plot in a movie or show, the gay person is usually the “easy” one, living an “unholy” life. People believe that all gay people are sluts. That’s the real crux of the issue. Not God. Not personal opinions on marriage. Not even that gay people “chose” to be gay. Sure, there are a lot of people who still put God, marriage opinions and choice as their reasons for hating gay people, but I truly believe that the main reason behind these excuses is that they think that gay people are slutty people, unworthy of marriage. That’s the information the average Joe has been fed by the media.

They don’t even think for one moment that right next door from that “slutty” gay club around the corner, there is a “straight” slutty club, where their 18 year old daughter goes anal in the restrooms with that 35 year old married man she just met. But they only see other people’s sluttiness and not the one inside their own home. What was that? Your daughter doesn’t do that kind of thing? Well, either you don’t know your daughter well, or your daughter is ugly as hell. Either way, if not all daughters are the same, then all gay people are not the same either.

We have many gay friends here in the Bay Area, but at least two of these gay friends have been together with their partners for years. Honestly people, when you see these two couples being together for 15-20 years each, how can you have the nerve to disallow these people from getting married? They deserve it much more than most of us, straight people.


C Smith wrote on October 2nd, 2008 at 5:22 PM PST:

>how can you have the nerve to disallow these people from getting married? They deserve it

‘Marriage’ is a holy symbol with a clear meaning. Redefining it is ‘above my paygrade’.
This is not to wish ill on anyone, not your friends, not my relatives.
To quote Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
My suggestions to the alternative lifestyles crowd is that a) they ponder the phrase “form follows function”
b) they come up with a different word to describe their arrangements, rather than raise hackles by re-defining existing terms, and
c) let all the private functions remain private–society, in general, needs less fretting about hormones and what we’re getting up to in private, eh?

There are many other men in my life whom I love deeply in every appropriate way, and I hope this has not come off as offensive of homophobic.

This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 PM PST:

>‘Marriage’ is a holy symbol with a clear meaning.

This is your understanding of marriage. There is no law that defines marriage the way you do. It defines the logistics around it, but not what it is. It is what we make it to be. The above is simply your understanding of it, but not necessarily what it means for everyone else. Not to mention that there are some gay people who are religious and do see it as a holy symbol too, it’s just that their choice of partner is of the same sex.

Plus, I don’t see how other people’s marriages causes any trouble to your marriage or you personally.

Your problem is nothing but this: “we do apple pie using brown sugar. Not with white sugar. That’s the tradition.” And when someone uses white sugar, you have a problem. I really don’t see how this affects your life, or your taste. If you don’t like white sugar, don’t eat it. Some people enjoy it best with white sugar, no matter how crazy that sounds to you or me.

Thom Holwerda wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 AM PST:

It’s real simple. Opposing gay marriage = promoting inequality. If you oppose gay marriage, you are denying perfectly normal citizens rights that the other citizens do have.

This is called apartheid, and even though America has a history on that one (which makes it ever the more amazing Obama opposes gay marriage), the Founding Fathers did not have this in mind.

A church can choose to not bind people in holy matrimony all they want, but the state should be secular, and shouldn’t make a distinction between a man wanting to fcukign a man, or a man wanting to fcuk a woman (excuse my directness). If they do, it’s apartheid.

Plain and simple.

Ygg wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 AM PST:

“there is a “straight” slutty club, where their 18 year old daughter goes anal in the restrooms with that 35 year old married man she just met”

man .. i _so_ need to move to the us of a 🙂

memsom wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 AM PST:

We call “gay marriage” is called “civil partnership” in the UK. Everyone gets the same rights, no one gets pissed off and biggots and religious nuts don’t get to moan about “marriage being between man and woman.” Job done. Move on 😉

memsom wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 AM PST:

oops, i was slightly distracted typing that last comment!!!

Richard wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 AM PST:

Now come one, everybody wants to be a little slutty every once in a while, that can’t be a problem, right? 😛

Where I see a another problem is with Intersexuality, how does this fit into their bill?

Phil wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 PM PST:

As memsom has pointed out we have “civil partnership” in the UK so the debate is really over here whether you agree with it or not. To go slightly off-topic I do find it amusing that many people I’ve come across who are pro legal same sex partnerships become surprisingly outraged if you suggest there are equally good reasons to legalise polygamy.

This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 PM PST:

All examples of polygamy we have have a huge emotional and mental toll to the women subjected to it. They are usually victims. Or you being a man can’t understand that? In the same-sex marriage there are no victims, only adults agreeing to this.

Phil wrote on October 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 PM PST:

>Or you being a man can’t understand that?

Why jump to the conclusion that I’m referring to polygyny ? But that’s beside the point, you are making artificial distinctions about what forms an acceptable partnership between grown adults. It is no more your business than a same sex partnership.

This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 4th, 2008 at 12:29 AM PST:

It IS my business when the vast majority of these women are younger than 18, and even if they are not, the majority are FORCED to get married in such households. That’s a crime. I have not heard a single woman saying out of her heart that she likes it being in such a position sharing her husband with other women.

And polyandry is as fucked up as polygyny is. Not because it’s unnatural in biology level, but because humans need intimate relationships, something that polygamies do not offer.

There is no reason to change the subject btw and go off topic. You aren’t gonna change my mind, because the two things have absolutely nothing in common. One is mutual consent via adults, and the other one is fucked up traditions where the women don’t get to choose. I am against polygamy because of the conditions it happens, not because I don’t find natural for humans to have multiple partners.

Phil wrote on October 4th, 2008 at 4:26 AM PST:

It is nonsense to suggest or imply that there can’t be healthy polygamous adult relationships and that they can only exist where coercion is used. So, as with same sex relationships, it really isn’t your business at all.

This all feeds back to your blog entry. You claim there are a lot of prejudiced people about but when presented with a different adult relationship to the ones you find socially acceptable you choose to respond in a way that is little different to the people you dislike so much. Much as you try you can’t have it both ways.

P.S. And if you don’t like my post read your reply to “C Smith” …

Thom Holwerda wrote on October 4th, 2008 at 10:21 AM PST:

Bah there have been numerous cases here of healthy polygamous relationships – in fact, it’s not THAT weird. And we’re not talking children here, we’re talking grown women, over their 30s, well-educated, good, well-paying job, who simply feel that a polygamous relationship is what they want, and they’ve been happy ever since. Of course it’s illegal here (really shouldn’t be), but a registered partnership (a notch below marriage) enables this (you can have multiple registered partnerships).

I don’t want it either, but grown, independent women (or men!) making this choice? It’s their life, not mine, and it’s not my job to interfere or tell them what to do.

This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 4th, 2008 at 1:04 PM PST:

>Bah there have been numerous cases here of healthy polygamous relationships –

I have heard of none. All the ones I know or heard have lots of misery for the women AND the children.

>independent women (or men!) making this choice?

It’s VERY rare that a women will choose a household. Get your facts right. In fact, I have not heard of ANY woman voluntarily going into such a situation herself (except widows).

I am closing this because the last thing I want is to have the same discussion we had 6 months ago. Polygamy, the way it is right now in the world, IT IS NOT acceptable. I am not against polygamy as an institution, I am against the way it works right now.

So stop everyone from being off topic. This is NOT the same. Polygamy has DIRE consequences for the psyche of the women and children involved, gay marriage has NONE.

Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.