-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/princeton-proposition-8-to-protect.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Greg Mitchell smacksdown log-cabin Halperin for his wingnut analysis.
http://www.eandppub.com/2008/11/more-sour-grape...
======================================================
It's the old false equivalency problem. In his "disgusting" remarks at the forum, Halperin cited as the most obvious flaw the NYT's late profiles of Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. Why, the McCain profile was more negative! But, come of think of it, Michelle did not have an affair with Barack while he was married to another, did not steal money from her own charity and barely avoid jail, did not become a drug addict, did not lie about the the circumstances of adopting a baby abroad, and so on.
Good for them!
Nooooooooooooo!
We need a DOSA.
prop 8 seems to have shocked and galvanized str8 allies more than past outrages. the assault on our rights has been going on to different degrees for as along as i can remember. something may be different this time.
Make them wear beanies!
Let's hear it for "Traditional Sidewalk Values" and the "Sanctity of Sidewalks!"
It's what the Invisible-Sky-Thingy-in-Charge would want, you know.
unfortunately for the fundies, lots of people out there actually have well-functioning brains and good hearts...
The continued bailout of Citigroup calls for a capital injnection of $20 billion and there is enough left in the $350 billion 1st phase of the bailout monies approrpriated by Congress.
However, the new Citigroup bailout also includes the government guaranteeing $306 billion of bad Citi loans. This exposure far exceeds what is left in 1st the bailout traounch. Therefore, does Paulson need to go before Congress and get approval for the next $350 billion before the $306 billion Citi guarantee can occur? If so, that only leaves $44 billion from the second traunch. This looks like $700 billion for only a very select few.
Excellent !!
Ban Left Marriages!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GEI7HKE_D4
All I can say retroactively is , "Yippie".
I applaud them! Vote "No" on Princeton Prop. 8! Sidewalk equality for all!
I'm really proud of the kids, they are really fighting hard for this. If you're in the area, stop by and give them some support. I made a point to stop by on Friday and there was about 10 kids out holding signs and a lot of kids walking by and/or asking questions.
Think of the children. Vote Yes on Prop 8.
More seriously, your assertion that all Mormons live in Utah is a bit uninformed to say the least. I am not Mormon, but I have friends who are (sic.) They do not live in Utah. I also have friends who are Jewish. They do not live in Jerusalem. I have friends who are Catholic. They do not live in Vatican City.
I think only the Mormons living and registered to vote in California got to vote on Prop8. If money flowed from the LDS HQ in Utah into California, do you really believe it changed people's view on this topic? Or do you think it just motivated people to go vote? Is motivating people to vote bad for the local community?
Maybe LDS and GLBT alike would be happy with a Prop that allows gay marriage and polygamy.
Yes -- people do have the right to try to influence their community to follow their values --- but within certain parameters --- one of those parameters being that the rights of a minority may not be taken away by the decision of the majority.
The moment your convictions tell you to strip a group of people of rights that others continue to enjoy --- you've crossed that line.
Now I have to figure out what to tell my daughter, and I am not at all happy about that. This could have been easily prevented if there were proper laws in place to affirm the correct definition of sidewalk. How am I going to deal with this? My daughter has been seriously damaged, I'm afraid, but I hope it's not too late to do something. I tried to call Dr. Laura about it, but didn't get on the show before it ended. FOR THE LOVE OF G*D, WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
First of all, some people think this doesn't matter, that we should just "live and let live." But at what cost?
Here's the thing. Sidewalks are the FOUNDATION on which a lot of our society is built! They tie us together in many ways; they are really a bedrock of what makes our society and our culture great. Think of places without sidewalks, and the quality of life there: Gabon, Darfur, East Timor, Kabul, Somalia, Houston. Do we want to be like them? NO! We need to protect this core part of our lives! Do you really think, if G*d hadn't wanted sidewalks to be a foundation of our society, he would have made them out of cement? There is a reason sidewalks are made of cement!
The other thing is about freshmen. I don't hate freshmen, really. I even have friends who are freshmen. But they have to understand, if they can just redefine sidewalks by walking on them, eventually the sidewalk will be degraded for everyone else! Besides, they could have chosen not to be freshmen, but even if that's their lifestyle decision, I still don't hate them.
This is not about hate!!!
Finally, sidewalks are already under assault in this country. The energy crisis has meant more people walking, which creates microscopic wear and tear on the gypsum microlattice of the underlying material. Not to mention budgets are being cut, and migrating birds do their unfortunate part. We need to defend our sidewalks! Adding the additional burden of freshmen, with their spunky and jaunty walking style that adds additional wear and tear, would be devastating to this fundamental foundation of our society.
Allowing them to walk where sophomores, juniors and seniors walk will only mainstream their horrible ambulatory perversion.
Of course, the right wingers will now think that tongue in cheek refers to an unnatural sex act.
(I am really disappointed that students at Princeton would use a non-violent method to resist CA prop 8.)
Rock on Princeton!
There. Corrected that for you, Mr Bigot.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
So why is Princeton Prop 8 needed? Because Freshman have already been given too many rights. We must PROTECT the few we have left! One of our sacred rights is under attack--namely, the privilege and right to walk on our hallowed sidewalks in freedom, without having to share with THEM.
Prop 8 shows we are better than disgusting so-called freshmen, and we disapprove of their deviant street-walking, grass-walking lifestyle.
Our government is ok with a guy finding a "Russian bride" on the internet and marrying her after a few emails, an 18 year old girl who wants to marry an 85 year old man to get his money, drunk people getting married in Vegas, and game show contestants getting married to people they've never met- all because they don't have the same genitalia. Does the government put ANY restrictions on those kinds of marriages? No. When they do, feel free to talk about a "sophomoric understanding" of the institution of marriage.
You also imply that marriage is about committment and love. Sure on a personal level, it can be. But to think it is only that is very myopic. Because as a social institution, supported by society-at-large for the betterment of society, it is about much more than that. It is about creating the best environment for families (the basic building block of society) to produce moral, polite, physically healthy and stable individuals, who make better community members and citizens and thereby make the society strong. Does it work perfectly. No. But it works.
And in case your next argument is that couples with the same genitalia want that same right, the data doesn't show that that is true. http://www.christianexaminer.com/Images/PDFs/So...
What they want is for their lifestyle to be accepted by everyone as normal. And they are trying to convince everyone that their civil rights are being infringed as the path to normalizing gay marriage. And people are eating it up like wedding cake because they think marriage is only about "Love" and "Committment".
What "they" want is to be granted equal rights as our US constitution guarantees every American citizen. No one has told you who you may or may not marry. It does infringe on a person's civil rights to tell them that. Has it occurred to you that gay people have children and want to raise them to be healthy and happy and stable individuals? There is no indication, despite many studies, that children raised by gay parents are any less well adjusted than kids raised by heterosexual couples. And guess what? They rarely turn out to be gay. They are a heck of a lot better off than kids being raised by heterosexual drug addicts, child abusers, child pornographers and on and on. No, marriage isn't perfect, but since everyone else gets their try at it, EVERYONE should have this chance.
If you are a gay man, you can marry a woman. If you are a straight man, you can marry a woman.
Sounds like equal rights to me.
This is where the sidewalk analogy fails - the freshman are walking on the sidewalk just like everyone else, they aren't trying to reinvent the definition of walking. If a disproportionate number of the freshman rode their bikes on the sidewalk and there was a ban on bikes - that wouldn't be an implicit ban on freshman, it would be an explicit ban on bikes.
A ban on same-gender marriage is simply a ban on a man marrying a man. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, seeing as how a ban on same-gender marriage would also deny straight men from marrying one another.
If the same-sex marriage supporters weren't so shallow-minded as to equate sexuality with love and marriage, then we could get somewhere. By the way, I support same-sex marriage. I just hate this ridiculous talk of equal rights.
And as far as your little quip about what makes a society strong, according to George W. Bush (the guy you probably voted for), it's going to the mall and spending money. Face it, my man...America is no longer built on strong families and people of character - it's built on the dynamics of capitalism (and Nascar, apparently). So if you really want to help your country, give more rights to the dual-income gays out there...they might be more apt to put their dough into our society with higher frequency.
"Second, we ought to take pleasure in the joy expressed by African Americans over Obama’s election. They have fought hard for civil rights, and now one of their own is President. I was moved to tears myself election night watching Jesse Jackson standing in the crowd, alone, tears flowing down his face. This can be a good thing for the United States of America.
We should also be pleased at the jubilation around the world at the election of America’s first black president, which has smashed the stereotype of America as an oppressive white superpower throwing its weight around. This could build unprecedented good will for us among many other nations—nations with whom we must cooperate on many important issues."
What an opportunist! "Hey, even though I am radically opposed to Obama's politics, we could use the implications of this election to politically exploit a bunch of countries that hate us!"
Hmm...thought provoking!
As for it having the purpose of being there to create the best environment for families -- and to produce moral, polite, physically healthy, and stable individuals who make better community members and citizens --- there is no way on Earth that allowing same-sex marriage would interfere with these goals. As a matter of fact, it would *promote* these goals.
What is morally corruptive is giving credence to the words of bigots who insist up-and-down that being gay is a choice no matter how much *overwhelming* scientific evidence says *otherwise*. I mean, you may disagree with me, but I think cooking the books of science just because it's findings contradict your prejudice about gays and lesbians is *very* immoral.
Congratulations on such a prefect representation, WELL DONE!
Even if those freshman hadn't cracked my sidewalk, it wouldn't be special anymore. I mean, how can my sidewalk be special and superior if I know that freshmen at Princeton are walking on one too?
If these freshman would only pray and repent, then God would forgive them for their evil ways. They chose to be freshman and they could just as easily chose not to be, so they are bringing this on themselves, those shameless fish!
Expecting to walk on the sidewalks just like other students is just wrong. Why do they insist on such special treatment? They flaunt themselves in front of the whole school in order to further their agenda. I think they are trying to turn my kids into freshmen, too, and I won't stand for it.
Let's get all freshmen everywhere off of our sidewalks, then we can move on to the next point of business: Getting women out of our colleges. After all, it's "freshMEN, not freshWOMEN." Let's get back to good old traditional values! Wasn't life simpler back when women didn't vote?
I say that we start by taking back our sidewalks, then we move on to reclaim all our traditional values. If we win this battle then I'll be seeing you all at next year's slave auction!
I think you're a closeted freshman ----- because you're vehement freshophobia is obviously meant to cover up for something.
I recommend that you try to just accept yourself -- and embrace your freshman-ness. Just look into the mirror and say: "I am a freshman. I'm a human being like everyone else - and I'm entitled to the same pedestrian facilities everyone else."
Freshmen were quick to point to early statistics that Sophomores voted overwhelmingly to pass the proposition, some polls saying that the numbers could be as high as 70%.
The early euphoria of having elected a Sophomore into the position of President of the Student Body, for the first time in Princeton history, quickly faded into anger.
"I was so disappointed to see that the Sophomore class, who so recently have been, and still continue to be, targets of upperclassmen discrimination, could vote to take the rights away from Freshmen," Freshmen Joan Lin despaired.
Sophomores were quick to counter.
"It's a completely different issue, when we were Freshmen, you had a hazing hysteria in the Princeton campus, some cafeterias creating separate spaces in the back for Freshman to eat, and required Gen eds, forcing us to be Freshman. These days, with high school classes like AP ikebana, you can take enough classes to completely skip the Freshman year. They chose to be Freshman. Frankly, I find the comparison despicable," said Sophomore Jasmyn Conner.
Early casualties of Freshman bitterness have included Hoagie Haven, targeted for boycotts when it was revealed that "Madge" the unassuming mustard filler, contributed $10 to the yes campaign.
"After how much Freshman come to this place, it's a slap in the face that she could harbor such secret resentment against us. I refuse to have my money go to any establishment that would seek to fund taking away my rights," Freshman James Silver was quoted as saying.
others are calling the boycott preposterous, claiming that Madge was only exercising her right to her opinions"
Freshman vow to continue the fight for equal rights to sidewalk use, and are planning boycotts of Yale University who pumped hundreds of thousands into the "Yes on PP8" campaign, some even calling for a boycott on the state of Connecticut.
Bravo!!!
But I think this guy has the better satire because being left-handed is a common genetic variation just like being gay.
Ban Left Marriages!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GEI7HKE_D4