FCKH8
October 15, 2010 14 Comments
Sorry Old Iron… I have to say what I need to say… even if you might disagree with me on this subject.
It’s too important to me to not share this and spread the word…
Or at least get people talking.
Because in this day and age… its just fucked up to be sooo closed minded and hypocritical about love.
I grew up in a faith and being forced fed a belief system that said anything but was immoral – that ‘God’ wouldn’t love you if you were homosexual…
I had problems with that belief system, even then.
I have two sisters who are Gay… and a few other family members who are still in the closet about their sexuality…
And I think its DISGUSTING to deny them their human rights to love whomever they want, which happens to be of the same gender as they are and live, as equals.
I don’t know which God you worship but I know the one I believe in … loves me for me and not for my sexuality or sexual preference.
He teaches me about tolerance and self-love, to be honest and faithful.
Regardless of who I choose to share my bed and body with.
Luckily I live in Canada, but it doesn’t mean its any easier for my sisters to live their lives.
It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny same sex couples the same rights to marriage and love.
And so… contrary to many of our fellow bloggers belief system…
I support the right to choose, the right to live and the right to love, whoever the fuck you want.
And if this offends you, perhaps you should really look deep at the real reason why it offends you so.
And let the conversation begin.
Because same sex or not…
There is nothing MORAL about denying someone their constitutional right over an antiquated and archiac religious belief system … Rather, it is HIGHLY immoral to deny someone their constitutional rights because of their sexual preference.
So I’ll repeat the message:
GET.THE.FUCK.OVER.IT!!!
FUCK HATE.
About ~KC~
Old Iron
~KC~
Naked Writing 
This is why we can’t debate public policy civilly anymore. Too many people want to support a certain position with wild speculation about the motives of those who oppose it. Hey, how do I continue in a “civil, congenial exchange of ideas” with someone who’s calling me a bigot…other than abruptly changing the subject, or avoiding the whole issue in the first place? I’d like to know.
While we’re mulling that one over, I have another question.
I’m interested in crafting some legislation that would STOP certain people from loving certain other people. Yeah, you read that right; I want to regulate love. How do I go about doing this?
If you concede the obvious point…”Freeberg, you jackass, there’s no way to do that and you know it”…then the whole issue of civil rights disintegrates into the nothingness from which it came.
This isn’t about controlling who loves who. Therefore, it is not, and cannot be, a civil rights issue.
Actually this post leaves me a bit confused when it comes to the basic composition. This shotgun view apparently came from a personal experience and had some kind of foundation, but there is no solid reference or even inference located within. Also from our usual semi-logical standpoint we don’t do the pure emotion thing, but try to found every bit of writing we do in some kind of solidity, some kind of foundation… and there is none here.
In other words this is not your usual style of writing.
KC… everything alright?
I don’t know if God exist, but I want to believe that He does… someone create us and feelings are part of us, we can’t manage our feelings and as long your love is real it doesn’t matter your sexual preferences, is sad that sometimes we force our self to hide something just because we want this society to be ”happy”, I believe in the right to love who ever we want under any circumstances, in any part of the world…
I believe that there is no need to make it a law outside of the individual’s belief system and not at a government level. I mean, why do so? It creates problems when you try to legislate morality, ESPECIALLY love and who you are allowed to share that emotion with. Also what real governmental incentives do you receive from participating in the act of marriage that you can’t get outside of it with a little more effort on your part?
To me it just doesn’t make sense, and yes I do concur with you CaptiveWoman.
But — if I want to think of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I have a right to think of it that way.
And if I’m an official in a church, I should have a right to refuse to conduct a gay wedding ceremony. Without getting sued.
Is there a legal framework in place to protect someone put in such a situation? It looks like we’re perilously close to assembling the legal machinery to do the opposite — litigate against him for discrimination.
Neither the church NOR the state enjoys the authority, or even the brute force, to dictate who is allowed to love who. Nobody is willing to step forward and say the situation even closely resembles that. So why do we continue to behave as if that’s what’s happening, when we know it isn’t?
Of course everybody have the right to think or refuse whatever they want… it is difficult to change people mentality but you can change certain attitudes ( for example respect ) you don’t have to agree..just accept the fact that love is free and respect this. Sometimes we are desperate because choices made by other people and we want to change them so bad, and ”we can’t ” but remember… nothing is impossble and Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Just remember — no matter what reasons you have for deploring a particular thought, and how much sense those reasons might make to you…the minute you set out to wipe it off the face of the earth, you renounce any right or privilege you might have had to claim to respect other viewpoints. Or to value tolerance. Or diversity.
I’m in California. As is the case in many states, mine has a rich, eventful history of passing bogus laws that are supposed to make us better people — but which, in fact, are just seasonal hunting licenses for lawyers. We have already voted that we do not want to recognize gay marriage, and our courts which are run by retired lawyers overruled us. So that lawyers can find more ways to sue more people.
I’m of the opinion that if gay marriage was not more of the same, we’d be looking at a bill providing immunity to clergy who might get sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. Until I see that, as far as I’m concerned it’s just another way to press more lawsuits. But it doesn’t really matter as far as debating what this is; it absolutely is not a civil rights issue. This is an issue of definitions. More accurately, it is an issue of who gets to dictate to us what means what.
And, dragging young people out to the polling places who otherwise would not be able to find the time to go. So we can pass more wretched policies that, if you have a brain and you’re over thirty-five, you know are going to kill jobs.
California huh? how did The Terminator do as governor?
It was like taking out a mosquito with a shotgun.
Oh, no, wait…I have that wrong…
It was like trying to take down the T-Rex from Jurassic Park with a dried pea blown through a straw.
I don’t think God Himself could cure California’s problems from the Governor’s office. That particular position doesn’t wield the authority required to stop or slow our wild galloping toward the brink.
I don’t know if you can blame the Governortron for it…but it’s seven years later, this is still the armpit of the world as far as starting a business or keeping it running. Our unemployment rate is two points higher than the nation’s, which is really saying something. That’s one hard-workin’ dude in every eight who can’t get a job. And our legislature wants to pass a global warming bill.
Overall, I’d say it’s a fail. If Schwarz has some talent for this job, it was wasted here.
I still have no idea why the government even thought that litigating the emotions two people can have between each other and not leaving marriage to the specific religious institutions that it belongs to was a good idea. This would not be an issue if there were NO laws dictating this CHOICE, as the ability to love another and want to spend the rest of one’s life with them is such, and not a RIGHT.
-Or it wasn’t a right until around 1939.
Morgan, I think there are a couple of reasons for Californias’s high unemployment rate, fIrst the state overpopulation and second the state demographic , I was reading that Imperial County is the highest county for unemployment at 27.5% ( 72% of the population are latino), there are 30% of latino people in Santa Barbara and the unemployment rate over there is 8.3%. In general California have 37% of latino population, we also need to look the unemployment rate by city in each State.
Old Iron, unfortunately the government controls all this… Yes it is a choice.
Not sure what the demographic has to do with unemployment; regardless of skin color, everyone has a brain they can use to learn some skills, hands to work it, and stomach that needs to be filled.
Read Atlas Shrugged — this is why California is the way it is. Real close to the end, when the lights of New York City go dark. That’s right about where we are.
If there’s nothing wrong with making money, people will make money. If they elect a government that tells them there is something wrong with making money, they’ll have a tougher time trying to make it. Am I oversimplifying it? After watching it and weighing the evidence…no, I don’t think so. Every single state government that is drowning in red ink, seems to be also drowning in a deluge of liberal politicians lecturing that there is something evil about pulling in a profit.
Okay, then. Like Francisco d’Anconia, people reach the point where they’re tired of being evil, and stop doing it. Then the economy bottoms out. In the final analysis, it really isn’t complicated.
Pingback: House of Eratosthenes
Well..changing topic about gays..I have a question…who deserves more respect: gay people or lunatic fringes? for me definitely gays! š