Shayna I think I love you. Those first two signs are priceless.
Thanks, Rick!
[Channeling Obama] I love you back! [/CO] 
Agreeing with Rick, excellent work Shayna. If we win on prop 8, I’ll invite you to my wedding. 
That assumes that all Yes on 8 voters are bigoted, which is not necessarily true. Sure, the core, the people who aren’t going to change their votes, are bigoted. But all we need is 50% + 1. It’s not at all beyond the pale of reason that some voters have been taken in by the Yes on 8 campaign’s lies, and are not, in fact, bigoted. We need as many of those folks to vote “No” as we can get.
I have no idea how many people are in same-sex relationships who identify as something other than “gay”, but I’m guessing it’s substantial. If you don’t think there are any bisexuals in opposite-sex marriages, check out the mw4mw section of your local craigslist sometime.
The point, anyway, is that same-sex marriage does not require both partners to be 100% gay, just like opposite-sex marriage does not require both partners to be 100% straight.
No. Assuming that everyone is either 100% straight or 100% gay is also a form of bigotry; it’s known as biphobia.
There’s also an issue of definition of gender here. Only straight men are attracted to passable male-to-female transsexuals, but if you define those people as male, then you open the door to a substantial minority of same-sex couples with one straight partner.
The more rational solution is to abandon gender requirements on marriage altogether, in the interest of fairness, rather than trying to fit each couple into one of two pigeon holes.
That’s the idea. We’re really not asking people to “accept” same-sex marriage in their hearts and minds (although that would be nice); we’re just asking people to refrain from stripping us of our hard-earned rights.
What about visitation rights?
I haven’t, but assuming you’re talking about a No on 8 ad, the two positions are not equally valid. While the Yes on 8 campaign is using lies and hatred to justify its bigoted position, the No on 8 campaign is attempting to convey how it feels to us to have a massive contingency working hard to deny us our rights.
It’s not a tactic at all. I’m just trying to raise the level of technical accuracy. Why must you assume that I have some kind of devious agenda? That’s pretty insulting. Usually, when I make that correction here on the SDMB, the first response is, “What do you mean? Why is that an important distinction?”, not, “What’s your agenda here, you sneaky fag?”
Thanks, “buddy”. Nice to know that biphobia is as rampant in the SDMB LGBT community as elsewhere. Oops, I mean LGT community.
The first portion of this statement is not true.
I don’t think that at all.
Biphobia, heh…
Agreed.
:eek: Your defensiveness is getting the better of you there. I never suggested it was a “devious” tactic and even said I was not opposed to it.
Settle down, breathe. Not all of us hetero people are trying to stand in your way. Let your freak flag fly, but try not to beat innocent non-GLBTO supporters to death with it.
ETA: I probably shouldn’t say freak flag, being hetero it could be taken the wrong way…
More importantly, despite this:
Which I found incredibly ridiculous given my comments in this thread, I agree that same sex marriage is the more appropriate term and will use it in the future.
I still think that marriage should be limited loving relationships regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
What of this?
Yes, the bigotry I face every day in both the straight and gay communities is worth a brief chuckle. Thanks.
That’s a bit of an understatement. If you’ve got a label for me, take it to the Pit. Do you see why you’re not doing very well at this calming-people-down thing?
Thank you for your concession.
It already is, and I wish you would stop implying that I have some contrary agenda. Again, if you’d like to impugn my character, I welcome you to do so in the Pit.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The tactic I was referring to was the concept that two straight guys might get married just for a ‘business arrangement’. That’s why I pointed out that similar things happen with opposite sex couples all the time. My comments had nothing to do with bi people.
The quote I had included had some issues in it that I was not responding to, but it was the response to what I had originally said which is why I used it.
askeptic was saying that the use of the term “same-sex marriage” as opposed to “gay marriage” is a political tactic, and you sounded like you agreed with him.
I can see where it could come across that way. But that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Sorry about the confusion.
No harm, no foul.
Same here.
I really hope Obama wins, and if he does, i’ll be happy and relieved, but i’ll do my best not to throw it in McCain supporters’ faces. If he loses, i’ll be dejected and disappointed.
But if Prop 8 passes, i’ll be furious beyond belief at the level of idiocy and bigotry in this state. And if it fails, i’ll be sorely tempted to get in the face of every single Prop 8 supporter and rub their noses in it.
Yeah; echoing mhendo et al, it’s interesting (though also quite rational) that I feel a much greater duty to vote on Prop 8 than I do to vote on the Presidential election. If it was just about the latter, then I could see myself resigning to not bothering to go if circumstances made it inconvenient (yes, I know, I’m a bad person), but because of the former, my personal bar to dissuasion has been raised considerably (see? I’m a good person after all).
I deeply wish I was still registered in CA so I could vote. But I did the next best thing–I sent some money I couldn’t really afford to the No on 8 campaign.
The LDS Church takes great pains when it comes to PR. They want broad acceptance as a mainstream religion. I very much hope that this whole fight sets the entire church back about…80 years. That way, nobody is murdering anybody for being a Mormon (no sense in reliving that unpleasantness), but they’re also punished for their bigotry.
I know some Mormons are resisting this, but the vast majority of the funds and the manpower for the Yes on 8 fight is coming from Utah. Nothing could please me more than if this caused some serious damage to the standing of the church.
This whole thing has finally given me the prompting I need to have my name officially removed from the church rolls.
Having actually looked at the OP’s work now: wow, that’s a great guide. I only fear it may be too late to be put to much use at this point. Still, very nicely done.
Please, California- don’t make me feel ashamed again like Prop 22 did. Make me proud to have lived there for nine years. Vote no on 8.
I heard a really nasty pro-8 ad this morning, based around the notion that if it fails students would get taught that gasp gay people can get married. I hate fundie bigots. There is a pro-8 house down the street. I feel that tearing signs down is wrong, but I am so letting my dog pee on their lawn.
Just speaking for myself, here, but as a bisexual, I don’t feel the term “gay marriage” to be remotely exclusionary. I frequently refer to myself as gay, using the word as an umbrella term for anyone whose sexuality includes same-sex attraction as a major component.
That ads been playing for ages; thankfully, there’s been a counter-ad airing for a while where the California Superintendent of Schools denounces it as completely unfounded and shameful.