The tennants bathroom over on prospect is being reconstructed as I
wrote. At some point we will actually have tenants in that appartment
again.
Paul's Journal
My Podcast Link
11/08/2008 00:52 #46598
Tore up from the floor upThe tennants bathroom over on prospect is being reconstructed as I
wrote. At some point we will actually have tenants in that appartment
again.
11/07/2008 22:08 #46597
Basra in the leavesWe let him stay outside today. I couldn't decide if it was nice or
mean as he was finally getting acclimated to being indoors.
He tried to hide in the leaves do we wouldn't find him and bring him
on. When I went to get him at night he was covered.
11/07/2008 14:55 #46588
Proposition Period FountainCategory: religion
In regards to (e:zobar,46545) and my (e:paul,46546) and the comments there. I get that not all chistians are awful people. I at least know 10 good ones. I do, however, find that a lot of them are quite stupid and will follow anything their leaders tell them - and a lot of them have questionable leaders that tell them bullshit having nothing to do with Christ's messages. I got that Drew is not like that - he seems to to follow what I think is the real message (e:drew,46580)
I can't believe that anything is based on the laws of leviticus. What I find most irritating is how people pick and choose which ones to follow. I know jesus didn't say these things and some of the christians believe in what jesus says is most important but its all in the same book. Why not edit the book and just have a whole new book? Its not like Jesus commanded the whole book be read in its entirety. He didn't write any of it. I would support a religion that cut the nasty jew law part out and just left in the messages of Jesus. Keeping that baggage in the book to me, nullifies the books messages as a whole.
This whole leviticus book is so utterly ridiculous:
Leviticus 20.13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22
Why are they not passing laws to prevent men from lying with women "having their sickness" lol. He seems to be pretty much against that too.
Leviticus 20.18: And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Or from eating unclean beasts. We have a whole proposition against gay marriage but nothing against unclean beats on the state constitutions.
Levitius 20.25: Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
I want to see prop Eat Clean and proposition Period.
I can't believe that anything is based on the laws of leviticus. What I find most irritating is how people pick and choose which ones to follow. I know jesus didn't say these things and some of the christians believe in what jesus says is most important but its all in the same book. Why not edit the book and just have a whole new book? Its not like Jesus commanded the whole book be read in its entirety. He didn't write any of it. I would support a religion that cut the nasty jew law part out and just left in the messages of Jesus. Keeping that baggage in the book to me, nullifies the books messages as a whole.
This whole leviticus book is so utterly ridiculous:
Leviticus 20.13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22
Why are they not passing laws to prevent men from lying with women "having their sickness" lol. He seems to be pretty much against that too.
Leviticus 20.18: And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Or from eating unclean beasts. We have a whole proposition against gay marriage but nothing against unclean beats on the state constitutions.
Levitius 20.25: Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
I want to see prop Eat Clean and proposition Period.
heidi - 11/09/08 20:45
About Bible picking & choosing... what about the extra books the Catholics have that the Protestants don't? How do folks reconcile that with the below-quoted Revelations?
About Bible picking & choosing... what about the extra books the Catholics have that the Protestants don't? How do folks reconcile that with the below-quoted Revelations?
drew - 11/08/08 15:54
One more thought. Most of the "crazy" rules actually come out compassionate or reasonable when you learn the context/thinking behind them. 1,000 years ago, when human science will have made all sorts of advances and we operate with all kinds of different assumptions, many of our laws will seem crazy, too.
One more thought. Most of the "crazy" rules actually come out compassionate or reasonable when you learn the context/thinking behind them. 1,000 years ago, when human science will have made all sorts of advances and we operate with all kinds of different assumptions, many of our laws will seem crazy, too.
drew - 11/08/08 15:52
@jim the canon of the New Testament was formed over time, and finalized after the council of Nicea, even though there was a pretty good consensus way before. :::link:::
The cannon was not decided so much as it was recognized. Only a few books were really considered and rejected, like the Didache (which was found to be orthodox enough, but not directly connected to one of the apostles). The councils less "sliced and diced" the cannon, and more codified the consensus that already existed.
@JohnAllen When Rev 22:18 was written, the author was most likely referring only to that book, not the whole of scripture. In fact, he had no idea that his writings would be combined with others into a volume that would become scripture.
@paul You left out the part where Mystic inserts a virus into your machine that empties your bank account.
@jim the canon of the New Testament was formed over time, and finalized after the council of Nicea, even though there was a pretty good consensus way before. :::link:::
The cannon was not decided so much as it was recognized. Only a few books were really considered and rejected, like the Didache (which was found to be orthodox enough, but not directly connected to one of the apostles). The councils less "sliced and diced" the cannon, and more codified the consensus that already existed.
@JohnAllen When Rev 22:18 was written, the author was most likely referring only to that book, not the whole of scripture. In fact, he had no idea that his writings would be combined with others into a volume that would become scripture.
@paul You left out the part where Mystic inserts a virus into your machine that empties your bank account.
paul - 11/08/08 11:53
Seeing as PHP is open source, I have been work steadily on a new branch of it called Mystic as I feel like my life is missing the randomness of mysticism.
Some parts of it are obvious like the old PHP but then then there are the mystical parts where you put variables into a function and sometimes they come out as you would expect, othertimes they are influenced by $divine_intervention which arbitrarily manages data integrity from a distant network that does not have a static IP address.
If you read the underlying source code in C, it gives you a feel for what might happen and some guidelines to program by, but even that won't give you the whole truth because that breaks down into machine code. If you don't read the machine code created by your high level language, you can't really even be a programmer. At least not with Mystic, lol.
Seeing as PHP is open source, I have been work steadily on a new branch of it called Mystic as I feel like my life is missing the randomness of mysticism.
Some parts of it are obvious like the old PHP but then then there are the mystical parts where you put variables into a function and sometimes they come out as you would expect, othertimes they are influenced by $divine_intervention which arbitrarily manages data integrity from a distant network that does not have a static IP address.
If you read the underlying source code in C, it gives you a feel for what might happen and some guidelines to program by, but even that won't give you the whole truth because that breaks down into machine code. If you don't read the machine code created by your high level language, you can't really even be a programmer. At least not with Mystic, lol.
jim - 11/08/08 11:47
I do the same with Zen Buddhism, which is 'my religion' if you squint hard enough and look sideways. I chop out what I don't like, and add it back in if I realize I was wrong. People that I've never met don't get to make that decision for me, and I don't get to make it for anyone else.
I do the same with Zen Buddhism, which is 'my religion' if you squint hard enough and look sideways. I chop out what I don't like, and add it back in if I realize I was wrong. People that I've never met don't get to make that decision for me, and I don't get to make it for anyone else.
jim - 11/08/08 11:44
No, I know. I'm talking about myself, not anyone else. I like lots of stuff in the Bible, and that's how I pick and choose.
I don't expect to convince you of anything :)
No, I know. I'm talking about myself, not anyone else. I like lots of stuff in the Bible, and that's how I pick and choose.
I don't expect to convince you of anything :)
janelle - 11/08/08 11:41
"Take out the mysticism, leave in the human, and I'm sold."
I'm sorry (e:Jim), but that totally made me laugh. It's like if I told you, put the mysticism into your belief system and then I'd be sold on it. Lol.
I don't think the Christians are going to take the mysticism out anytime soon and I wouldn't suggest secularists put mysticism into their belief system. Lol.
"Take out the mysticism, leave in the human, and I'm sold."
I'm sorry (e:Jim), but that totally made me laugh. It's like if I told you, put the mysticism into your belief system and then I'd be sold on it. Lol.
I don't think the Christians are going to take the mysticism out anytime soon and I wouldn't suggest secularists put mysticism into their belief system. Lol.
jim - 11/08/08 11:17
The Council of Nicea sliced and diced the New Testament, thanks to Constantine, and they didn't get the plague. That was 300 years after the fact. Revelations is kind of a rambling mess, anyways. If they can judge what's in or out, so can I. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea. Take out the mysticism, leave in the human, and I'm sold.
The Council of Nicea sliced and diced the New Testament, thanks to Constantine, and they didn't get the plague. That was 300 years after the fact. Revelations is kind of a rambling mess, anyways. If they can judge what's in or out, so can I. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea. Take out the mysticism, leave in the human, and I'm sold.
james - 11/08/08 11:08
Johnallen, you should have told that to the Council of Nicea.
Johnallen, you should have told that to the Council of Nicea.
johnallen - 11/08/08 10:45
Paul, I am not one to quote scripture but the reason why the Bible can not be cut and pasted is found in the book of Revelation Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city descrided in this book." It is just about teh last verse of the Bible.
To pick and chose from the Bible can be very dangerous, look at the hatfull groups that have, the Mormon church has its edited verson, the Jahovia Witnesses, the Church of Christian Science (not too much of a problem)
The biggest difference between denominations are those that take the Bible literally, and those that use it as a study guide/example,
The Bible can be extremely confusing, I mean how can you "put them to death." in the Old Testiment and then have Jesus telling you to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Seems to be off target.
And not to sound like a dork, but you shouldn't let these groups of people discourage you Paul. You are a great person and the only thing you need to worry about is your family, not the Church of Later Day Retards.
Paul, I am not one to quote scripture but the reason why the Bible can not be cut and pasted is found in the book of Revelation Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city descrided in this book." It is just about teh last verse of the Bible.
To pick and chose from the Bible can be very dangerous, look at the hatfull groups that have, the Mormon church has its edited verson, the Jahovia Witnesses, the Church of Christian Science (not too much of a problem)
The biggest difference between denominations are those that take the Bible literally, and those that use it as a study guide/example,
The Bible can be extremely confusing, I mean how can you "put them to death." in the Old Testiment and then have Jesus telling you to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Seems to be off target.
And not to sound like a dork, but you shouldn't let these groups of people discourage you Paul. You are a great person and the only thing you need to worry about is your family, not the Church of Later Day Retards.
metalpeter - 11/07/08 19:07
Seriously though I think (e:Paul) you make a good point. I think a lot of people look at the bible and pick and chose parts of it to follow. But I also think that some people understand that certain things about food and things from the olden times don't apply to now. The other thing to remember that I think everyone should remember is that the Bible is really a set of books. There are texts from the time that where not included for what ever reason. I admit I'm not sure what those texts are and I'm sure different people have different ideas of why they weren't part of the bible. I think some of the book is a reflection of the times and people should remember that. I have my own theory about the man laying with a man thing, and that is that gay sex was common in greece (hence the term great style) and so that was a way to distance them selves from that.
Seriously though I think (e:Paul) you make a good point. I think a lot of people look at the bible and pick and chose parts of it to follow. But I also think that some people understand that certain things about food and things from the olden times don't apply to now. The other thing to remember that I think everyone should remember is that the Bible is really a set of books. There are texts from the time that where not included for what ever reason. I admit I'm not sure what those texts are and I'm sure different people have different ideas of why they weren't part of the bible. I think some of the book is a reflection of the times and people should remember that. I have my own theory about the man laying with a man thing, and that is that gay sex was common in greece (hence the term great style) and so that was a way to distance them selves from that.
metalpeter - 11/07/08 19:02
(e:tinypliny) that is a great idea but if I study that who will I study it with and do I start at Position one or at 69, HA.
(e:tinypliny) that is a great idea but if I study that who will I study it with and do I start at Position one or at 69, HA.
paul - 11/07/08 17:23
That one is great but I think they should expand it to any woman who seizes a man by his private parts - not just a wife - and even extend it to kicking if they doesn't already count in seizing, lol.
That one is great but I think they should expand it to any woman who seizes a man by his private parts - not just a wife - and even extend it to kicking if they doesn't already count in seizing, lol.
janelle - 11/07/08 16:01
This is one of my favorites from OT law. It's in Deutoronomy.
"11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
This is one of my favorites from OT law. It's in Deutoronomy.
"11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
hodown - 11/07/08 15:50
I'm with you on Prop Period. It's a mess.
However I'd totally vote against Prop Eat Clena. Have you ever had pork belly?!
I'm with you on Prop Period. It's a mess.
However I'd totally vote against Prop Eat Clena. Have you ever had pork belly?!
janelle - 11/07/08 15:27
"Why not edit the book and just have a whole new book? Its not like Jesus commanded the whole book be read in its entirety. He didn't write any of it. I would support a religion that cut the nasty jew law part out and just left in the messages of Jesus. Keeping that baggage in the book to me, nullifies the books messages as a whole."
My short answer is that the we use the whole bible including Leviticus as a context for a better understanding of the teachings of Jesus and his apostle Paul. Will elaborate in another post.
"Why not edit the book and just have a whole new book? Its not like Jesus commanded the whole book be read in its entirety. He didn't write any of it. I would support a religion that cut the nasty jew law part out and just left in the messages of Jesus. Keeping that baggage in the book to me, nullifies the books messages as a whole."
My short answer is that the we use the whole bible including Leviticus as a context for a better understanding of the teachings of Jesus and his apostle Paul. Will elaborate in another post.
11/07/2008 10:36 #46585
Broken iPhone - obamas fault(E:matthew) got so excited at the democratic headquarters when he found
out Obama won, that his iPhone flew out of his hand. The glass screen
shattered. I think getting a new one costs the same as fixing it ;(.
He's kind of freaking without it which is funny considering how he
would always tease me about using my smartphones till he got one.
fing - 11/07/08 15:12
See if you would have voted for McCain you would be all set. Under his plan everyone that makes under $250 K gets a free iPhone.
See if you would have voted for McCain you would be all set. Under his plan everyone that makes under $250 K gets a free iPhone.
hodown - 11/07/08 11:20
So so so sad :(
So so so sad :(
mrmike - 11/07/08 11:00
Got to admit, they are intriguing. I'm fighting off the temptation to take Sprint's version on to see how I like it. Same types of features, etc.
Got to admit, they are intriguing. I'm fighting off the temptation to take Sprint's version on to see how I like it. Same types of features, etc.
11/05/2008 09:57 #46546
Nasty Christian Hate MongersCategory: hate
I woke up happy about the vote and then I saw this: (e:zobar,46545)
Its so confusing, because first I saw and then this
I know its not all the christians, especially when most christians consider mormons to not be christian, but its hard to overlook their effect in the yes on prop 8 in California.
I also think the wording was confusing. I mean people probably understand, but the "vote yes on prop8 to protect marriage" would be confusing if you thought you were protecting gay marriage.
California voting yes on prop 8 pretty much makes me lose faith in just about everything related to gay rights and kind of a little bit in America. It actually makes me nervous about one day having to flee the country before I end up in some type of camp.
Why do the christians care if gay people are married in the state. No one is asking for religious recognition of their marriages, just the state rights of a married couple.
I guess we will see how the country changes with the new president but frankly - I am totally over America and really don't believe the democrats will bring anything new to the table on gay rights. I almost would have rather had a McCain president and no on prop 8.
In the mean time I hope all the people that voted yes on prop 8 die of a nasty plague. If I was not an athiest I would pray to satan about this. It really reinforces my hatred of the mormons. I think they are the scaries cult on earth and wish that the days when it was legal to shoot them woud come back.
Its so confusing, because first I saw
and then this I know its not all the christians, especially when most christians consider mormons to not be christian, but its hard to overlook their effect in the yes on prop 8 in California.
I also think the wording was confusing. I mean people probably understand, but the "vote yes on prop8 to protect marriage" would be confusing if you thought you were protecting gay marriage.
California voting yes on prop 8 pretty much makes me lose faith in just about everything related to gay rights and kind of a little bit in America. It actually makes me nervous about one day having to flee the country before I end up in some type of camp.
Why do the christians care if gay people are married in the state. No one is asking for religious recognition of their marriages, just the state rights of a married couple.
I guess we will see how the country changes with the new president but frankly - I am totally over America and really don't believe the democrats will bring anything new to the table on gay rights. I almost would have rather had a McCain president and no on prop 8.
In the mean time I hope all the people that voted yes on prop 8 die of a nasty plague. If I was not an athiest I would pray to satan about this. It really reinforces my hatred of the mormons. I think they are the scaries cult on earth and wish that the days when it was legal to shoot them woud come back.
johnallen - 11/05/08 23:35
The whole thing sucks Paul, and please be paitent. There are many churches that welcome the GBLT community, and many of us are finding that because we have opened our doors to all of God's creations, we are growing.(Like Ascension) I don't ever remember Jesus excluding this or that brand of people and it annoys the shit out of me. When the Mormons, the mega-churches and the like use the Word to spead division, hate, and flat out evil. If these churches would use their size and "pull" to defeat some of the world's worst peoblems, ie, poverty, disease, etc, perhaps then there would be some peace.
The whole thing sucks Paul, and please be paitent. There are many churches that welcome the GBLT community, and many of us are finding that because we have opened our doors to all of God's creations, we are growing.(Like Ascension) I don't ever remember Jesus excluding this or that brand of people and it annoys the shit out of me. When the Mormons, the mega-churches and the like use the Word to spead division, hate, and flat out evil. If these churches would use their size and "pull" to defeat some of the world's worst peoblems, ie, poverty, disease, etc, perhaps then there would be some peace.
paul - 11/05/08 22:42
I still think if you eliminated all the christian, anti-gay voters, there would not be enough anti-gay support to have passed it. I mean it was not a landslide.
I still think if you eliminated all the christian, anti-gay voters, there would not be enough anti-gay support to have passed it. I mean it was not a landslide.
tinypliny - 11/05/08 19:44
Just like we had a church-state dissection quite a while back, we need a church-education dissection. We need equal educational standards for all ethnicities.
Just like we had a church-state dissection quite a while back, we need a church-education dissection. We need equal educational standards for all ethnicities.
joshua - 11/05/08 19:22
Ugh, to supplement the entry I just wrote, which disappeared and hopefully (e:paul) will fix -
After the bad news, some good news. I think in the end justice will prevail. I absolutely hate saying "be patient" but gay marriage will be supported in our country in our lifetimes. Our generation is multi-racial, multi-cultural and doesn't give a damn about sexual preference. Our generation is more sensitive to each other's problems and are generally unwilling to watch one group of people be cast aside. I promise you, your day will come and I'll be there to support you, and so will so many of the people our age. Please mark my words - it. will. happen! Our generation is different from that of our fathers. In the meantime, I think within a very short time we'll see people on this very site finally enjoy the right to marry in NYS. That is a huge deal and a blow to bigoted people all over the nation, not just in NYS.
Ugh, to supplement the entry I just wrote, which disappeared and hopefully (e:paul) will fix -
After the bad news, some good news. I think in the end justice will prevail. I absolutely hate saying "be patient" but gay marriage will be supported in our country in our lifetimes. Our generation is multi-racial, multi-cultural and doesn't give a damn about sexual preference. Our generation is more sensitive to each other's problems and are generally unwilling to watch one group of people be cast aside. I promise you, your day will come and I'll be there to support you, and so will so many of the people our age. Please mark my words - it. will. happen! Our generation is different from that of our fathers. In the meantime, I think within a very short time we'll see people on this very site finally enjoy the right to marry in NYS. That is a huge deal and a blow to bigoted people all over the nation, not just in NYS.
joshua - 11/05/08 19:03
A majority of Americans, and indeed a majority of Californians, do not support gay marriage and this was known prior to Prop 8. 70% of black people voted for Prop 8, which I am shocked that people are shocked about. Generally speaking, African-Americans have never been big fans of the gay agenda, and encouraging African-Americans to get out and vote was only going to increase the number of people voting against Prop 8. Over half of California latinos voted for Prop 8 as well. White people were split more than the minority groups. Certainly there is religious motivation for a lot of people (2/3 of blacks in favor of Prop 8 self-identify as Christians) but blaming it all on religion would be inaccurate. There is much more at play culturally. Scores of people who are not religious also do not support gay marriage.
:::link:::
It wasn't just rural voters that affected the outcome of the vote. 52% of Californian voters voted down the measure... c'mon. Actually, if you take a look at the interactive map the story is more interesting. Southern Cali generally supported Prop 8, and the further down I-5 you drive the more unpopular gay marriage is. Among areas with more than 25% Latino population representation, only two counties voted no on Prop 8. Same for those areas that are more than 75% white. The most stark contrast was among educational lines - the area with the highest concentration of bachelor degrees in Cali is the Bay Area, and thus it was those areas with a higher number of degreed citizens that voted against the measure.
(e:james) - since you brought up the GOP in the NYS Senate. About a week and a half ago the New York Blade had an article about this issue. According to Pride Agenda's own count, 6 of the 30 Democratic Senators oppose marriage equality. :::link::: Penny for your thoughts?
A majority of Americans, and indeed a majority of Californians, do not support gay marriage and this was known prior to Prop 8. 70% of black people voted for Prop 8, which I am shocked that people are shocked about. Generally speaking, African-Americans have never been big fans of the gay agenda, and encouraging African-Americans to get out and vote was only going to increase the number of people voting against Prop 8. Over half of California latinos voted for Prop 8 as well. White people were split more than the minority groups. Certainly there is religious motivation for a lot of people (2/3 of blacks in favor of Prop 8 self-identify as Christians) but blaming it all on religion would be inaccurate. There is much more at play culturally. Scores of people who are not religious also do not support gay marriage.
:::link:::
It wasn't just rural voters that affected the outcome of the vote. 52% of Californian voters voted down the measure... c'mon. Actually, if you take a look at the interactive map the story is more interesting. Southern Cali generally supported Prop 8, and the further down I-5 you drive the more unpopular gay marriage is. Among areas with more than 25% Latino population representation, only two counties voted no on Prop 8. Same for those areas that are more than 75% white. The most stark contrast was among educational lines - the area with the highest concentration of bachelor degrees in Cali is the Bay Area, and thus it was those areas with a higher number of degreed citizens that voted against the measure.
(e:james) - since you brought up the GOP in the NYS Senate. About a week and a half ago the New York Blade had an article about this issue. According to Pride Agenda's own count, 6 of the 30 Democratic Senators oppose marriage equality. :::link::: Penny for your thoughts?
metalpeter - 11/05/08 17:32
I do agree with you that the wording was not the best and or bad. I also think that it is important to not blame the Christians yes some of them did vote for the ban but some didn't and I'm sure they are not the only ones who voted for the ban. In terms of why they don't want gays to be married is because it is wrong in there eyes. In there eyes Homosexuality is unnatural, and a sin and wrong, and on top of that they don't want to hear about it. On top of that if the state says it is ok then the state is saying it is ok to sin. They also think that marriage is between a man and women. I don't agree with them but I do see why they don't agree with gay marriage.
I do agree with you that the wording was not the best and or bad. I also think that it is important to not blame the Christians yes some of them did vote for the ban but some didn't and I'm sure they are not the only ones who voted for the ban. In terms of why they don't want gays to be married is because it is wrong in there eyes. In there eyes Homosexuality is unnatural, and a sin and wrong, and on top of that they don't want to hear about it. On top of that if the state says it is ok then the state is saying it is ok to sin. They also think that marriage is between a man and women. I don't agree with them but I do see why they don't agree with gay marriage.
libertad - 11/05/08 13:38
Paul this really does take away from Obama's victory but don't lose heart. These ballot initiatives are ridiculous. I'll say it again, we should not allow these issues to be decided by the people. We are supposed to be a democracy by representation. If we allow a vote for this issue why not other issues? Why don't we put it to vote whether whites and blacks should marry? *hypothetical* This is really not acceptable and neither is anti-gay marriage referendums. By the way, Florida just like I predicted, voted for their own constitutional ban on gay marriages. It is very disheartening but think about how much more devastating this blow would be if there were a McCain/Palin victory. I know Obama hasn't stood up for us yet but it is my hope that he was holding himself back because the issue is so decisive. His victory is an indication that there is still hope for us. It is an indication that extreme right religious values will not always determine the policies and politics of this country. The election of a black man also shows that this country is capable of growing and that social change takes time.
Paul this really does take away from Obama's victory but don't lose heart. These ballot initiatives are ridiculous. I'll say it again, we should not allow these issues to be decided by the people. We are supposed to be a democracy by representation. If we allow a vote for this issue why not other issues? Why don't we put it to vote whether whites and blacks should marry? *hypothetical* This is really not acceptable and neither is anti-gay marriage referendums. By the way, Florida just like I predicted, voted for their own constitutional ban on gay marriages. It is very disheartening but think about how much more devastating this blow would be if there were a McCain/Palin victory. I know Obama hasn't stood up for us yet but it is my hope that he was holding himself back because the issue is so decisive. His victory is an indication that there is still hope for us. It is an indication that extreme right religious values will not always determine the policies and politics of this country. The election of a black man also shows that this country is capable of growing and that social change takes time.
iriesara - 11/05/08 11:37
I voted against Prop 8. That's the only defense I have for California, myself. It is interesting though the by-county map that you linked to, you can see that it's mostly the agricultural interior that supported. Hicks are hicks no matter where they are, Alabama, Olean or even the county right next to San Francisco.
I voted against Prop 8. That's the only defense I have for California, myself. It is interesting though the by-county map that you linked to, you can see that it's mostly the agricultural interior that supported. Hicks are hicks no matter where they are, Alabama, Olean or even the county right next to San Francisco.
jason - 11/05/08 11:24
James, if I were gay and knew Biden's votes I certainly wouldn't consider him a friend to the cause, or assume his long standing beliefs will go away, although certainly he is friendlier to the cause than Palin ever would be, as the Democratic ticket said the right things over and over that when it comes to basic rights and legal protections.
And, I actually never accused NYS of having the same approach as California. I doubt we will ever get the chance to vote on it. Their court system has done the right thing, ours has not. They have it up to a public vote, we have it up to elected officials. Our law seems to be more vague than theirs. If they recognize out of state gay marriages but won't allow them to be performed in California, then yeah I think you have a moral and legal dilemma too.
Obama has been consistent in that he is against an outright ban, although he doesn't seem to support marriage himself (said as much during the debates). He has insinuated before he is a defer to the state rights kind of guy, although this contradicts his recent statements. I think he was smart in not going one way or the other with it during the election. He is absolutely right that legal protections and benefits shouldn't be subject to discrimination.
This being said, I don't think he is someone that won't come around, although words are cheap. The cynical part of me thinks it is the desire to get elected that made him not outright support marriage, but he will come around once in office. His most recent statement sort of leads in that direction. We'll see.
James, if I were gay and knew Biden's votes I certainly wouldn't consider him a friend to the cause, or assume his long standing beliefs will go away, although certainly he is friendlier to the cause than Palin ever would be, as the Democratic ticket said the right things over and over that when it comes to basic rights and legal protections.
And, I actually never accused NYS of having the same approach as California. I doubt we will ever get the chance to vote on it. Their court system has done the right thing, ours has not. They have it up to a public vote, we have it up to elected officials. Our law seems to be more vague than theirs. If they recognize out of state gay marriages but won't allow them to be performed in California, then yeah I think you have a moral and legal dilemma too.
Obama has been consistent in that he is against an outright ban, although he doesn't seem to support marriage himself (said as much during the debates). He has insinuated before he is a defer to the state rights kind of guy, although this contradicts his recent statements. I think he was smart in not going one way or the other with it during the election. He is absolutely right that legal protections and benefits shouldn't be subject to discrimination.
This being said, I don't think he is someone that won't come around, although words are cheap. The cynical part of me thinks it is the desire to get elected that made him not outright support marriage, but he will come around once in office. His most recent statement sort of leads in that direction. We'll see.
drew - 11/05/08 11:16
my parents are against gay rights. While I disagree with them, and do not want them to get a plague, nor get shot at.
I think Mormons are absolutely wacky, but hurting them does not help anything. If we applied your actions towards anti-gay marriage folks towards other people who were wrong about important issues, the world would be full of violence.
I know (hope?) that you were using hyperbole, but this kind of exaggeration just isn't helpful.
my parents are against gay rights. While I disagree with them, and do not want them to get a plague, nor get shot at.
I think Mormons are absolutely wacky, but hurting them does not help anything. If we applied your actions towards anti-gay marriage folks towards other people who were wrong about important issues, the world would be full of violence.
I know (hope?) that you were using hyperbole, but this kind of exaggeration just isn't helpful.
james - 11/05/08 10:46
Paul, if you watched Obama's victory speech he specifically mentioned gay people. As in, and I am paraphrasing, 'this victory has to do with people, Democrat and Republican, Black and White, Male and Female, Gay and Straight". That is pretty fucking sweet. Right out of the gate he is making us apart of rhetoric in a positive way. Contrast that with Bush who spoke of us in a maligned way. Croaking on about protecting marriage and families and shit.
We are apart of his agenda and I hope the climate in the senate will allow for a major step forward for gay rights.
Jason, do you really think people had a problem voting for Biden for a vote he made in the mid 90's? Cause, damn, McCain/Palin has given us plenty of shit to hate in just the last weeks, not just last decade.
And I am not sure how you can accuse NYS for having this lame approach. Gay marriage legislation passes the assembly, the governor wants to sign it, but it is the GOP controlled senate that ruins it every time.
Paul, if you watched Obama's victory speech he specifically mentioned gay people. As in, and I am paraphrasing, 'this victory has to do with people, Democrat and Republican, Black and White, Male and Female, Gay and Straight". That is pretty fucking sweet. Right out of the gate he is making us apart of rhetoric in a positive way. Contrast that with Bush who spoke of us in a maligned way. Croaking on about protecting marriage and families and shit.
We are apart of his agenda and I hope the climate in the senate will allow for a major step forward for gay rights.
Jason, do you really think people had a problem voting for Biden for a vote he made in the mid 90's? Cause, damn, McCain/Palin has given us plenty of shit to hate in just the last weeks, not just last decade.
And I am not sure how you can accuse NYS for having this lame approach. Gay marriage legislation passes the assembly, the governor wants to sign it, but it is the GOP controlled senate that ruins it every time.
dragonlady7 - 11/05/08 10:38
Did you know, however, that the Yes on 8 people sent out a mailer featuring Obama's photo targeted to undecided African-American voters, and Obama personally responded by coming out strongly and in no uncertain terms against 8? Four days before the election?
It was the first time his campaign had taken a stand either way on gay rights.
So at least, at least, at least there's that.
Let me find the link, and I'll post it.
Did you know, however, that the Yes on 8 people sent out a mailer featuring Obama's photo targeted to undecided African-American voters, and Obama personally responded by coming out strongly and in no uncertain terms against 8? Four days before the election?
It was the first time his campaign had taken a stand either way on gay rights.
So at least, at least, at least there's that.
Let me find the link, and I'll post it.
jason - 11/05/08 10:16
Oh, cmon, I thought you felt Scientologists were the biggest scariest cult. By the way, California wasn't the only state to do this in this election cycle.
I wonder how bitter it tastes for a gay person to vote for a ticket where the VP choice voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. I mean I guess you have to choose someone.
From what I've seen the donors to the wrong side of the issue come from not just the LDS. You have Catholics and evangelicals to blame as well.
It wasn't that long ago that Cali passed Prop 22 so it shouldn't be so shocking as it is that if left up to a democratic choice Californians were going to do the wrong thing. One interesting poll I heard on TV last night was that when it comes to values, McCain was favored over Obama.
Change of course doesn't come instantly, and an Obama victory doesn't mean that the country is going to have a kumbaya moment. He'll never be able to wiggle his fingers and fix deep social divides. After all, hate goes two ways.
What bothers me also is that NYS takes this mealy mouthed approach where we will accept a gay marriage from out of state, but disallow them from being performed here. That to me is a moral and legal dilemma.
Oh, cmon, I thought you felt Scientologists were the biggest scariest cult. By the way, California wasn't the only state to do this in this election cycle.
I wonder how bitter it tastes for a gay person to vote for a ticket where the VP choice voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. I mean I guess you have to choose someone.
From what I've seen the donors to the wrong side of the issue come from not just the LDS. You have Catholics and evangelicals to blame as well.
It wasn't that long ago that Cali passed Prop 22 so it shouldn't be so shocking as it is that if left up to a democratic choice Californians were going to do the wrong thing. One interesting poll I heard on TV last night was that when it comes to values, McCain was favored over Obama.
Change of course doesn't come instantly, and an Obama victory doesn't mean that the country is going to have a kumbaya moment. He'll never be able to wiggle his fingers and fix deep social divides. After all, hate goes two ways.
What bothers me also is that NYS takes this mealy mouthed approach where we will accept a gay marriage from out of state, but disallow them from being performed here. That to me is a moral and legal dilemma.
He is so cute!