You can just ignore it if the government doesn’t give you what you want!
But first, a bit of background from two short months ago:
Melissa Etheridge has urged her fans to support Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama — after changing the lyrics to one of her songs at a recent concert in honor of the politician.
The singer — who performed at last week’s Democratic National Convention (DNC) — pledged her political preference at a Los Angeles concert on Friday. Etheridge, wearing an Obama pin on her guitar strap, prompted the audience to erupt in applause when she adapted the lyrics of her hit song What Happens Tomorrow to highlight the Illinois senator.
She sang: “I believe a black man can work hard and succeed. And we could be content to believe that he can be in charge of the free. And be the president.”
And here she is at the DNC:
Yay, Melissa! You did it! Now everything’s gonna be great.
You Can Forget My Taxes
by Melissa Etheridge
Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books…
I’m sure she’s being facetious. I hope so, for her sake. But it’s still funny how quickly “Hope and change” turns into “Hope you weren’t expecting any of my change” when things don’t go your way. First the celebrities we depend on for life advice tell us to just suck it up and pay our taxes, and then they say “Never mind” when the voters don’t agree with every single thing they demand. Democracy only counts when you win.
It’s gonna be a fun 4 years.
And hey, just throwing this out there: Maybe celebrities shouldn’t blog? For their own sake? They’ve already got the money and the power and the fame. Maybe they should leave the thinking to us.
P.S. Are we allowed to question her patriotism? Maybe they’ll defrost Biden for comment.
Related posts:
- Present Obama Suffers Another Outlandish Attack from Past Obama During the neverending 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Barack Hussein Obama...
- Past Obama Continues to Vex and Bedevil Present Obama As if Present Obama doesn’t have enough to worry about...
- News Flash! American Politician Lied During Campaign! Courtesy of Lee Stranahan, a New Mexico freelancer who’s always...
- Once Again, Past Obama Attacks Present Obama Hey, remember about six months ago, when President Obama told...
- Once Again, Past Obama at Odds with Present Obama During appearances last week in Arizona and New Mexico, President...
Maybe she can sing protest songs for Obama in prison if she makes good on her threat. She could always just move to Canada, though, since she’s not entirely happy with the election results.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/
Don’t Worry, The Celebrities never paid taxes anyways!
I’m so sick of the 2nd class citizen phrase. For the love of God, if you are going to bitch, please try a little originality.
I kind of agree with her, to be honest. Supporting Mr. Obama and refusing to pay taxes to a governmental body that refuses to allow you the same rights as everyone else because your biology makes you different seem to me to be two different things. The election of Mr. Obama was supposed to prove that America was past the limits of biological differences, but the passages of several of these Propositions seem to throw it all back into the face of change. Not only that, but Mr. Obama is not yet the head of the government, and even when he is, will not be the whole government, just a part.
As we said many years ago–no taxation without equal representation under the law.
And exactly who voted for proposition 8?!?
Sure not African Americans by a better than 3-4 margin…
Sadly, I have to side with Melissa Etheridge on that one. Proposition 8 is clearly an intrusion of the State in the Church domain and shouldn’t be permitted under the U.S. constitution.
As far as the other celebrities goes, let’s see how many will fall in love with another country and move out of the U.S. in the next few years. I bet it will not be a small list.
…..
“First the celebrities we depend on for life advice tell us to just suck it up and pay our taxes, and then they say “Never mind” when the voters don’t agree with every single thing they demand”
Every little thing they demand? Like the expectation that your Constitutional Rights yesterday will remain your Constitutional Rights today? That’s not a demand, that’s a basic assumption of how we live our lives.
Cause that’s what happened here – before November 4th, homosexuals had a legal right to marry and now they don’t. And you’re surprised that Melissa Etheridge is pissed off?
I’m sorry, I understand that you’re trying to expose hypocrisy, but it seems this is just unnecessarily shitting on someone who has just been kicked in the stomach.
Sure, try that one at tax time. I’m sure he’ll lend an ear.
“…a governmental body that refuses to allow you the same rights as everyone else because your biology makes you different …”
False. She enjoys every single right (including the right to marry) that any other American enjoys; her biology has nothing to do with anything. Melissa Ethridge can run out and get married today if she’d like.
“Proposition 8 is clearly an intrusion of the State in the Church domain…”
Really? Into exactly which church is the state intruding? The definition of marriage is pretty universal across every ethnicity, race, and independent of any religion.
Melissa Ethridge doesn’t have the right to redefine marriage for the same reason I don’t have the right to redefine my marriage as a tax-exempt charity organization (which it is> in many ways, but I digress).
I have to agree with Simon here. If things don’t go their way, the celebrities feel compelled to tell us why we are wrong. I just don’t understand why celebrities feel that I need to know what they think. I really don’t care what they think, and sometimes I am really suprised that some celebrities can think.
Here is a novel thought, do what you are paid to do…entertain us. Leave the thinking to those better qualified.
I’m very disapointed Simon.
I’ve been reading this blog for quite a time and lots of time i find it very funny, often very accurate but quoting only a bit of an open letter just to spread dust on a woman who fight for her rights is really shamefull.
Did you forget about Thoreau ?????
Jeez, prop8 is NOTHING related to Obama. it’s just another hate law. one that could have been from the time black wern’t allowed to vote by example…
So like gay can’t marry now, good, who’s next ? Cali should forbid jew to get married, after all they arn’t good WASP after all…
C’mon now, don’t discourage the lady. I agree with you 100% Melissa! You should stop paying taxes immediately! I’ve also heard 2nd class citizens can rob banks, and commit murder with impunity! Oh and they can fly too! Try them all! TODAY!
I wonder if all that Prop 8 stuff is Bush’s fault? Oh wait.
(Tongue-in-cheek) — Can’t she just fly to Massachusetts, get married, and fly back home? What’s the big deal?
I didn’t know Thoreau was gay. Really. In fact, I had to go look it up. And the experts aren’t 100% sure either. But I think it’s nifty that we remember him for his contributions to literature, not for which way his “schwing” pointed.
Or were you referring to some other point about Thoreau?
Even as the Smartest Man in the Universe, I didn’t know there were FAQ’s about Thoreau.
**puts glass of scotch down to finish patent forms on cold fusion machine**
From D-listed:
“Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my STATE taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.”
She is protesting paying the state of California , not the federal government.
You’re welcome!
And?
@Nasty41
Being homosexual isn’t a biological difference from being heterosexual, it’s a psychological difference.
Three things.
1. Please, knock off the damn “no taxation without representation” hyperbole. Representation means being allowed to vote on the issues and candidates, and the last I checked, gays could vote. The American colonies were pissed off because the British were taxing them without letting them vote on anything.
2. Every single time this issue came up to a vote, people voted no. Every time. If there’s gay marriage in a state, it’s because a panel of judges said “up yours, majority.”
On the other hand, every piece of Civil Rights legislation related to women and minorities was passed properly through the democratic process. This makes people happy. Having a bunch of pricks in black robes throw votes in the bin pisses off people who wouldn’t care either way.
3. I know if you’re gay this is the most important issue in the world, but does it occur to you that most people don’t give a crap? Before their amendments, women and minorities were _actual_ second-class citizens. Couldn’t vote. Couldn’t inherit property. Couldn’t go to university. Had segregated classrooms. Had to sit in the back of the bus. _That_ is a second-class citizen, and people could sympathize with them and their struggles. Not so much with gay marriage, especially when millionaires in Hollywood throw hissyfits.
I take issue that people feel they have lost a right here. Melissa can marry anyone she wants but if she wants the state to recognize it she has to marry a male. Is that archaic? I think so, it’s sad that we as a society get caught up in a persons sexuality. Who gives a damn who they marry.
On the other hand the majority of people in a state have decided they don’t like it. It would be wrong at this point to use the court system to overturn a majority decision. If I move into a county that is dry (does not sell aclohol) and I think it’s wrong, I can work on getting a prop on the ballot but after the majority has spoken against it I have the choice to either deal with it or move. Well guess what so can they, to Massachusetts. And for those that say they shouldn’t have to, using the aclohol scenario neither should I but thems the breaks.
oh and Chester, same sex marriages have never been a constitutional right in any state. The California judicial system legislated from the bench and overturned a previous ban.
And exactly what rights would she expect under Sharia Law? Eight years from now she will be wearing a Burka and pandering other women to submit.
Dhimmi = conquered nation under Sharia law.
We will use your rights and freedoms to crush you, and you will allow this because that’s who you are. And we will crush you because that’s who we are.
Frankly, I think a tax evading Melissa would look really hot in Chino orange.
6 years in general pop? Isn’t that a lesbian dream?
Jre summed up all my thoughts in this simple point:
Every single time this issue came up to a vote, people voted no. Every time. If there’s gay marriage in a state, it’s because a panel of judges said “up yours, majority.”
Gather the votes to make it legal Melissa. Until then, shut up and sing.
The one thing that NO ONE will admit is the simple fact that the gay rights lobby did this to themselves. How? By lying to people. Like someone else said a few comments ago, while this is REALLY important to gays, most straight people generally don’t care about it either way. When you start lying about your real goals though, and using the court to circumvent the same political processes that the rest of us have to go through, it causes a huge backlash.
Here’s what I mean. Gays tried to make this a battle about ‘equal rights’, and that worked for a long time. That phrase alone is enough to make most people cringe away with visions of attack dogs and fire hoses trained on peaceful black protesters. Unfortunately, they fell victim to what I call ‘Palestinian Syndrome’. Have you noticed that nearly all the popular support of Palestine we had here in the US during the 90’s is gone? Same thing as the gay rights issue. Israel offered them a deal that gave them pretty much everything they wanted, and they turned it down. It made them look like belligerent children who won’t be happy with anything the other side tries to do to accommodate them.
Gays tried to paint this marriage thing as an equal rights struggle, but when they were offered equal rights in the form of civil unions, they balked at it. Like it or not, that’s where they shot themselves in the foot. Every poll I’ve ever seen shows like 70%-80% of Americans favor civil unions that are on equal legal footing to marriage, just not calling it marriage.
What’s my point? Well, have you ever debated gay rights with your friend or online? The first argument is always, “It’s about equal rights under the law, not ‘marriage!’ Gays can’t cover their partner with their insurance, they can’t inherit property, ect.” That is a damn good argument, and most people agree with it. Here’s the snag though, and this is exactly why California was a disastrous place to pick as a battleground: they already had all those rights under Domestic Partner laws. So now that argument is totally out the window – legally they DO have all the same rights as married couples. So it begs straight people to ask the question: “Okay, so what do they REALLY want? They said they wanted equal legal protection, but they’ve already got that.”
That alone created a gap, but you add the courts, and it was more than enough. The gay rights lobby should really learn something from the civil rights groups they keep trying to compare themselves too. How many court cases established ‘equality’ for blacks? Brown v Board of Education much? That was a long time before the 60’s, so what were they still fighting for? Well, public opinion doesn’t magically change because a court says it does. It wasn’t until the Congress (a true representation of the will of the people) finally passed laws that we saw true changes. People don’t like being told they HAVE to accept something – they need to decide that for themselves. If gays want to change minds, they need to stop trying to strong-arm their beliefs on us (ironically, what they constantly accuse us of doing) using the legal system, and just start trying to win people over one person at a time. Will it take a while? Yeah. But so does anything worth doing.
“We will use your rights and freedoms to crush you, and you will allow this because that’s who you are. And we will crush you because that’s who we are.”
Come and get me. You’re in for a surprise.
Yeah Melissa, you go right ahead and not pay any taxes, after all that is the life blood of the person you supported. After all Wesley Snipes felt the same way you do, that he didn’t have to pay and guess where that got him……convicted and a 4 year prison sentance looming over his head.
Bottom line people, READ the Constitution, it guarantees you, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of Happiness. Nothing else. It does not say the government is suppose to provide you with any of this, you have to achieve it on your own.
Jre took the words out of my mouth. Thank you.
Its alright, president elect Obama gave his gay “brothers and sisters” a shout out during his speech the other night. I have faith that he will pass legislation to recognize same sex unions.
I’m not sure what all the fear is about, but thankfully i live in a country that doesn’t have such problems.
Maybe Melissa and other gay celebs should elect to move to one of the many countries where there rights as gay people are respected.
Reading the responses in these forums tells me that the posters here don’t represent a majority of voters in our nation, as far as general knowledge on political issues goes.
A real shame, if you ask me.
We eagerly await your instruction.
Hey Rob, if we don’t represent the majority of voters in our nation, then how exactly is it that EVERY time it’s ever been put up for a vote (thus showing what the majority believes), they agree with us? Keep patting yourself on the back and telling yourself everyone agrees with you, but the fact is that even in the year we overwhelmingly voted for a black President, the majority still doesn’t support gay marriage. If you don’t like it, try to change it, but to deny that the majority feels this way when it’s been proven time and time again (even, twice, in the most liberal state in the union) is just tilting at windmills.
Simon, you must have misunderstood me. Allow me to reword what I posted.
majority of voters=stupid/uninformed on issues
majority of posters on this forum=smart/informed on issues
I mean really, how many times has someone told you that they just picked at random for the other issues on the ballot, because they had no clue what they were voting for?
Or how many videos of people saying “8 years” like we were under some sort of evil mind control since 2000?
And since when is 94% of a race voting for someone of the same skin color not racial bias, but 50% of the other is?
If you think that I was being critical of the posters on this forum, I was not. I was applauding them. I wish more voters were like them. I apologize for wording it wrong.
I’m not able to watch video on my computer, but in this video is she covering John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance”? You have got to be kidding me. That song was written in the time of Vietnam, a war with much more brutal and unfair situations than Iraq with the draft. Anyone who tries to compare Iraq to Vietnam is trying to sensationalize Iraq or has just not analyzed the differences.
I feel like some people are so desperate and compare our “hard” times to the Great Depression or, in this case, the Civil Rights movement. Melissa Etheridge should listen to Carrie Underwood and just STFU. If the California public is not ready for gay marriage than bitching at them is not the way to get sympathy for your cause.
People like Melissa and Rosie Odonnell truly hurt the gay rights cause by being generally annoying and obnoxious with their public opinions, making it hard to want to support them with anything.
Look how long it took for minorities and women to get equal rights. Not to be mean, but the gay community shouldn’t be exepting big changes all at once. It is a slow process changing laws. You have to work and it and not shoot down the opportunities you’ve been given. You need to take those and build upon them to make them better.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg said:
“Really? Into exactly which church is the state intruding? The definition of marriage is pretty universal across every ethnicity, race, and independent of any religion.”
Any church who want to celebrate same-sex marriages. May I need to remember you that the U.S. constitution was written to protect the right of those who are non-traditional?
So, the whole situation can be resumed like this: The State of California is now meddling with the business of the churches because some fundamentalist lobbies refused that two consenting adults sign a particular legal contract. This is a gross double violation of the separation between church and state. Put it the way you want, it reeks.
“some fundamentalist lobbies”,
uhm are you refering to the majority that voted in favor of prop 8. I think 51% is a little more then some
So many of these comments have been amazing, and so was your commentary, Simon!
Religious leanings aside, gay marriage being recognized by “the State” makes no sense, especially when voters don’t want it. Believe it or not, no government entity is interested in who you love — straight or gay. All the government wants is for two people to procreate so the country has a next generation and can continue. Seeing as gay couples cannot have children, there’s nothing in it for the government. Which is where was Scott F. excellently said comes into play.
Seeing as the federal and state constitutions never promise marriage as a basis for citizenship, Melissa should think about what she’s saying before she spouts things. But what would Hollywood be without hypocrites hoarding their money while telling us we should turn more of it over to help the little guy?
“It’s gonna be a fun 4 years”
Wow, Simon. You really hate Obama, hey.
Hey. Wait, what? Since when did skepticism become hate? Do they still provide dictionaries in schools?
[sarcasm]
Simon, you remember the drill:
Any disagreement or criticism of Barack Obama is only because that person is a “hater” or a “racist”.
C’mon – hasn’t reading the MSM taught you anything?
[/sarcasm]
From: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/07_forms/07_737.pdf
“In general, California affords the same rights – and responsibilities – to RDPs that previously were available only to married individuals. For California tax purposes, the same long-standing rules applicable to married individuals (relating to filing status, community property income, etc.) now apply to RDPs. However, because the federal government does not recognize domestic partners as married individuals for federal tax (IRS) purposes, RDPs will continue to file as unmarried individuals on their federal returns.”
Emphasis mine. From Etheridge: “Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen.”
Whatever your opinion on Prop 8 is, it is clear that Etheridge is full of crap.
something a lot of you all, and most people in general, don’t seem aware of is that domestic partnership laws and civil unions do NOT provide gay couples with the same rights as married couples. Some state setups are better than others, and California has one of the best. But the rights are not the same. These differences lead to problems with health care, child rearing, tax laws – even interstate commerce. Gay couples who have been “civil unionized” can’t ever move out of state, because appellate courts have determined that other states don’t need to recognize a designation that doesn’t exist for them. Civil unions can be more expensive than marriages, because it costs a lot of money to set up power of attorney, etc in states that don’t include it automatically, like Washington. Gay couples are ineligible for any sort of federal marriage benefit. A civil union is only a tiny step forward. There is so far left to go. And here you are, telling teh gayz to shut up and be happy with whatever crumb the rest of America is willing to throw them? Yeah, I bet you would have sided with the Board of Education of Topeka too. How dare those black people say that their clearly inferior schools aren’t as good as ours.
Women only got the vote because men were convinced they would always vote with their husbands. African-Americans are a closer example – and much of their rights were legislated in, NOT put to a vote of the people who hated them.
p.s. actually homosexuality is primarily a biological trait. Old studies of monozygotic (one egg) twins raised apart showed a 75-80% correlation in their professed sexuality. Gay people can’t help it any more than you can help being straight.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but I’m saying you still have to pay your taxes even if the government doesn’t give you what you want. I was not aware that this was a controversial point of view.
I think the deceiver here is you deceiver.com, why did you leave out so much of what she wrote? if you are going to call someone out at least have the balls to reprint the entire blog you quote.
Welcome to the Internet, Pet! Well, see, there’s this thing called Fair Use. And I linked to it. Maybe if you could point out whatever context you think I left out?
@RCDC – no one is telling gay people to shut up and take it. If you want to have something change created a proposition of your own or right a bill that the legislature can vote on. It’s wrong to have the judicial system over turn something that was supported by the majority. Maybe the gay lobby should work on the federal level since your complaining about moving to other state or move to Massachusetts where your union is recognized.
I personally could care less who marrys who, I also don’t care what drugs you take and don’t believe the government should either.
The ‘fruits’ are always going to have complaints and they’re always going to have demands. Give them what they want today and they’ll have new wants tomorrow. So the best thing to do is give them nothing.
God forbid the people speak. All we did was define that marriage is between a man and a woman. That definition has been valid since….the beginning of time. A little FYI for you libs…even if being gay is chic in 2008…it is still morally wrong and you have to answer to God when you die. Tell God he is a bigot.
No, I don’t think gays should lose their job, get beaten up, etc, but I also don’t believe gays have the right to circumvent the will of the people. There never a God given right for homosexuals to marry….ever. Read the history of the US Constitution please. Those amendments were considered God given by the Founders, not the trumped up “rights” of killing unborn babies and gay marriage.
John Adams said the Constitution was designed for a God fearing people. It would not work for others and we see the fruits of that Godless behavior…made up rights. Of COURSE libs don’t want God…then they would have to answer for their actions. Just admit you want a Godless Constitution where we can do anything we want when we feel like it. We’ll act on ANY desire with no consequences. We’ll be able to diddle little boys, stroke off horses and marry our sisters because after all…we don’t want to discriminate against ANYONE.
Marriage is a religious partnership, and our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Wrong. As early as 1810, marriage was strictly a civil institution. People got married in their various churches, but their marriages weren’t legal until recognized by the gov’t.
Marriage is about procreation. Without it, the government doesn’t see value in your marriage.
Aside from the ridiculous prejudice against people who are sterile or barren, marriage has never been about procreation. It was never legal to divorce your spouse because of their inability to reproduce. You COULD divorce them if they were unable to CONSUMATE the marriage, but not if they simply couldn’t have children.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman, because of traditional gender roles. We can’t disrupt those schemas; they have always been the same and always will be.
The traditional gender roles argument was invalidated in the 1980s, during the case of Silvia v Silvia, where Mr. Silvia sued his wife for alimony, since she made more money than he did. That went against the whole stereotype of men being breadwinners and women needing coverture, and thus the concept is basically invalid.
Gay marriage became an issue in Mass. because the marriage law didn’t specify genders. Marriage in the United States in general never specified gender; the founders wanted to emphasize choice and consent, rather than dictating who could marry whom, as their British counterparts did with political marriages and child brides. Dictating gender really never entered into the picture. Dictating race shouldn’t have either, which is why anti-miscegenation laws were so difficult. Hell, Alabama didn’t overturn theirs until 2002.
Personal support of gay marriage really has nothing to do with it. It is MORE “untraditional” to DENY and OUTLAW gay marriage than it is a “traditional” “protection” of marriage. Unfortunately, the average layman doesn’t know that, and is willing to perpetuate unconstitutional ideals, using the defense of laws and documents they’ve never read.
Gay is the new black.
I’m sure Wesley Snipes’s accountant can come up with an effective strategy for Ms. Ethridge.
I wonder, Simon, how much “fun” you would have had under a Republican government?
Okay. Now what?
“Personal support of gay marriage really has nothing to do with it. It is MORE “untraditional” to DENY and OUTLAW gay marriage than it is a “traditional” “protection” of marriage.”
First, I might point out that ‘untraditional’ is not a word. The term you’re looking for is ‘nontraditional’. If you’re gonna run around calling others laymen, you might take the effort to make sure you’re not creating new vocabulary.
Now, on to your point. How exactly is gay marriage under ANY definition ‘traditional’? Name to me a society in history that has recognized the ability of two people of the same gender to enter into a marriage. In fact, it’s probably the only permutation of marriage that we HAVEN’T tried in our long and sordid history. What does it tell you that while marriages between multiple people have been seen all over the world, we’ve never seen a society embrace homosexual unions?
Even in societies where homosexuality was considered commonplace, there was never any state or religion-sponsored status like marriage that they entered into. While the Greeks and Romans tolerated homosexuality and bisexuality, it was generally considered bad taste for a man to indulge in it past adolescence, and women to indulge in it at virtually any time. Even among matriarchal and strictly female societies like you saw in the Aegean Islands or certain parts of Africa, I’m unaware of any precedent for marriage among the women that populated them.
Stop trying to pretend that this has EVER been accepted anywhere before this point in history. There is no historical precedent to back up the idea that this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they sat down and wrote the Constitution. In fact, if you knew as much as you seem to be implying you do about those ‘documents we haven’t read’, you would know that most of them would be applauding the California and Florida decisions. Not necessarily because they agreed with them, but because they clearly laid out a framework for each state to determine it’s own laws in circumstances like these. ANYTHING not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is supposed to be determined by the individual states according to the will of their populations. That includes what they determine to be their requirements for a legal marriage.
Oh, and RCDC of course left us with this gem: “p.s. actually homosexuality is primarily a biological trait. Old studies of monozygotic (one egg) twins raised apart showed a 75-80% correlation in their professed sexuality. Gay people can’t help it any more than you can help being straight.”
Yeah, because that couldn’t just as easily be used to argue the homosexuality is environmental as genetic. Gays make up what? Less than 5% of the population? So two twins raised apart should have a ‘base-line’ percentage of 95% that they both turn out straight. The simple fact that two twins would deviate on sexual orientation as much as 20-25% (apparently a much higher percentage than it appears naturally in the population) could point to the fact genetics has nothing to do with it.
Darwin might also have a question for those who claim homosexuality is genetic. How exactly is this trait being passed down? If anyone who has this trait is homosexual, then by definition they’re not reproducing. Is this some kind of genetic mutation that randomly crops up in a certain amount of the population? Is it lying dormant inside all of us? Is it spontaneously activated in the presence of duvet covers and KD Lang music? These are questions you need to answer before convincing most people that a genetic trait with no conceivable evolutionary advantage has managed to pass itself on down the line all this time despite a distinct lack of the necessary heterosexual reproduction.
Scott F brought up the Aegean Islands. So what about the Lesbos Islands? I definitely want to go there. Or the Amazons? How come no one is talking about Amazons? I WANT AMAZONS!
Think there’s a website?
Marry Me and Scott F.
“As early as 1810, marriage was strictly a civil institution. People got married in their various churches, but their marriages weren’t legal until recognized by the gov’t”
Somewhat misleading. Marriage in its truest sense is invariably recognized by the church that performed the service and based on the tenets of any marriage, that’s all that theoretically should matter. However, many nations throughout history have associated marriage with legal benefits. For example, Augustus Caesar started imposing laws against bachelors while others started granting benefits to married couples. Take note, however, that these were all either theocracies or, at the very least, had state religions, so of course in these situations there was little legal concern in granting privileges to those engaging in a religious institution. That is to say, while granting marriage to same-sex couple may or may not be “traditional,” granting benefits beyond the inherent religious ones should be considered in opposition to the constitution which prohibits such recognitions of religious institutions. That is to say, perhaps marriage benefits should not be granted in any case and from there it should be up to respective churches to grant or deny marriages? It seems to me that there would certainly be less concern over the issue if it weren’t for the quest for perks on one side or to corner the market of said perks by the other.
“Marriage should be between a man and a woman, because of traditional gender roles. We can’t disrupt those schemas; they have always been the same and always will be.
The traditional gender roles argument was invalidated in the 1980s, during the case of Silvia v Silvia, where Mr. Silvia sued his wife for alimony, since she made more money than he did. That went against the whole stereotype of men being breadwinners and women needing coverture, and thus the concept is basically invalid.”
While this is true, I personally have rarely ever heard that the reason marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of “traditional ‘gender’ roles” so much as a historic tradition in general. As a side note, to say ‘gender’ roles is somewhat misleading and gender actually refers to the societal view of a person as male or female as defined by traits commonly associated with the different sexes. I.e. gender = psychological definition and sex = physical definition. Therefor, although I personally have rarely, if ever, heard the argument you mentioned as you presented it, if you ever hear it again, you could at least point out that according to “gender” roles, one would probably be female and the other male even in most same-sex relationships anyway.
“Marriage in the United States in general never specified gender; the founders wanted to emphasize choice and consent, rather than dictating who could marry whom, as their British counterparts did with political marriages and child brides. Dictating gender really never entered into the picture. Dictating race shouldn’t have either, which is why anti-miscegenation laws were so difficult. Hell, Alabama didn’t overturn theirs until 2002.
Personal support of gay marriage really has nothing to do with it. It is MORE “untraditional” to DENY and OUTLAW gay marriage than it is a “traditional” “protection” of marriage”
This argument seems to me to actually be based somewhat on a personal spin created by the omission of a few necessary qualifiers. Perhaps something like “it is more nontraditional to deny or outlaw gay marriage based solely on American traditions such as to maintain vague legal definitions only until they require clarification.” However, when one takes into account that it’s also tradition to more clearly define legal terms and institutions when apparently necessary due to politics or differing personal interpretations, then even the revised argument becomes bunk for the most part.
“While the Greeks and Romans tolerated homosexuality and bisexuality, it was generally considered bad taste for a man to indulge in it past adolescence”
Historically, Greeks (and the unmentioned Japanese as well as others I have less information on) did approve of homosexuality after adolescence. Or to be more precise, as long as at least one of the two was still an adolescent. As for Romans, however, homosexuality was frowned upon in general; at least upon the person who behaved passively during the sexual acts. Often times claims of homosexuality in Roman times were used to denounce public figures and required a significant effort to clear ones name or at least ones reputation.
“Oh, and RCDC of course left us with this gem: “p.s. actually homosexuality is primarily a biological trait. Old studies of monozygotic (one egg) twins raised apart showed a 75-80% correlation in their professed sexuality. Gay people can’t help it any more than you can help being straight.”
Yeah, because that couldn’t just as easily be used to argue the homosexuality is environmental as genetic. Gays make up what? Less than 5% of the population? So two twins raised apart should have a ‘base-line’ percentage of 95% that they both turn out straight. The simple fact that two twins would deviate on sexual orientation as much as 20-25% (apparently a much higher percentage than it appears naturally in the population) could point to the fact genetics has nothing to do with it”
For better or for worse, most controversial research papers will be flatly rejected by those who disagree with the results without even reading the article itself. For example, awhile back there was a big stink about a paper that concluded those of African descent to have lower average IQs or a little further back there was a paper that reported a very significant reduction of complications after surgery in those who had people praying for them. I couldn’t say for certain whether or not the original conclusion or your own interpretation is more valid since I’ve never read the article in question for myself. I do think RCDC would perhaps have done better to provide a link to the article as a whole rather than make a simple quip about it as has also been done with the counterargument against the quip. If the paper couldn’t be reproduced in its entirety, then it’s probably better not to mention it at all rather than to state the results as the true conclusions of the study rather than the researchers who can also be swayed by opinion and conveniently ‘neglect’ certain tests of results and quality guidelines.
“Darwin might also have a question for those who claim homosexuality is genetic. How exactly is this trait being passed down? If anyone who has this trait is homosexual, then by definition they’re not reproducing. Is this some kind of genetic mutation that randomly crops up in a certain amount of the population? Is it lying dormant inside all of us? Is it spontaneously activated in the presence of duvet covers and KD Lang music? These are questions you need to answer before convincing most people that a genetic trait with no conceivable evolutionary advantage has managed to pass itself on down the line all this time despite a distinct lack of the necessary heterosexual reproduction”
The trait could be polygenetic rather than the traditional ‘one-gene-one-trait’ ideal of Mendelian genetics. Unfortunately, these can still sometimes be difficult to find as as such I’ve seen a number of papers reporting direct evidence on areas where we have low information (the genes themselves) which claim no link as well as ones with indirect evidence on areas where we have more information (results of different circumstances which could be affected by other factors due to the indirect nature). Both have shown differing results, but none that are particularly conclusive or ground-breaking, so for now, at least, it seems a political and legal argument and defense are more appropriate than biological arguments and defense.
Any mistakes in grammar and spelling are my own and hopefully won’t be too distracting. Please try not to take what I wrote purely at face value. I hoped only to identify areas that I saw as misconceptions or partial information on two very recent and very large posts. As for my note on the importance of linking articles directly if possible and to avoid mentioning them at all if not, that’s only my own opinion. Any additional pertinent information on any of the subjects would be greatly appreciated.
Melissa Etheridge has more money than I’ll ever see in a lifetime and all of the civil benefits of marriage, which is more than what a single person gets. But she’s a “second class citizen.”
The gay activists (not necessarily individual gays) want to destroy heteronormative society and remove any kind of Judeo-Christian influence from the culture. Why do you think the lavender mob is raging away in the streets, threatening churches, threatening Mormons and Catholics, and hurling racial insults at blacks? The No On 8 campaign was negative, bullying, and insulting. I’m not too surprised this is how they’re taking the loss.
She only said she was refusing to pay state taxes. To not support Obama would be to refuse to pay federal taxes. She is not being hypocritical, and she was only trying to make a point.
She sang a song saying she wanted Obama to win which he did. Obama is AGAINST proposition 8. So she is actually preaching his message. So she said she shouldnt pay taxes for being classed a non full citizen… well why SHOULD she pay taxes if she isn’t a full citizen?! You think shes double standardizing? Er, no, she stands up for what Obama, the person she wanted to win, does!
oh and by the way
IT IS A PHYSIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE. i was born gay not made it, so why don’t those of you who are straight and have no idea about persecution due to who you are think twice before you go mouthing off over issues you could scarcely even grasp…
She can be married to her girlfriend here in Denmark. She can also pay 60% income taxes, 25% sales tax, and 180% tax on the price of each new car ($10,000 car costs $28,000). But she can definitely marry whomever she wants! Welcome, Melissa.
The people who voted for him were FOR it.
So you don’t believe in principles.
@daviemoo – are you compairing your sexual preference to the color of my skin? You do not have to advertise your sexual preference, I have no choice about my skin color. Everyone see’s my skin first, unless you are advertising being gay how the hell would anyone know?
Could someone explain to me why people in America people get so upset over gay marriage? Other than the god thing. Why is it so bad? Who is it hurting? Is it better to keep these things under the rug and pretend they don’t happen? Is America going to revert back and start putting people who don’t fit the majorties ideals into the loonie bin and pump them full of drugs? What is so wrong with civil unions? Do they not have the same rights? We have gay marriage in Canada and it doesn’t seem to hurt anyone here. Why are people getting so involved into what others do? How does a gay couple getting married affect someone who Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic other than offending their religion? Honestly, all of these groups have offended me at some point but I don’t have a problem with them doing what they do a believing what they believe. Shouldn’t it be the same with gay marriage? I really just don’t get it.
People need to understand that social approval is quite a different thing from legal rights.
California already recognizes and legalized Civil Unions and recognizes Partnership or Significant Other for legal purposes.
The homosexual citizens protesting the passage of Prop 8 are not protesting a lack of rights, they are protesting the NAME of the institution they wish to copy.
Copy away. That’s right. COPY. But you don’t get to have it.
EGAD people are sick of the re-definition of words to suit the desired result. (socialism disguised as democratic ideals; racist ravings disguised as theology; islam disguised as the ROP, democrats disguised as Republicans)
In the quest for social acceptance, gays might try limiting their proclivities toward PDAs, something this fairly conservative nation frowns upon. Sorry but that’s just a fact, Jack.
I will never understand the mantra of the homosexual community that laments “our bedroom, our business” and then puts their ‘business’ out on the street or in the public parks or public toilets….
For the reader’s edification, have a look at the link included – BUT ONLY IF YOU DON’T MIND LOOKING AT ‘private bedroom business’ right on the street. Yes, Folsom Street. The Folsom Street Fair.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
If Ms. Etheridge wants to see *real* taxation without representation, she should talk to the ~600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. They might have a real reason to complain these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#Federal_representation_and_taxation
More and more of us are WAKING UP, America. No taxation without equality; simple math.
Now the feds will need to repeal DOMA and DADT, grant us FULL equal rights (including marriage), and begin to start viewing our families – OUR FAMILIES – as the tax-paying contributing members of society we are…..well…..we USED to be!
Because if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, our very BELOVED are not acknowledged and valued as other families are legally, whatever we do outside of that home will never be acknowledged and valued legally, such as adopting children, working without discrimination, or serving openly in the military.
FAMILY FIRST. What is more important than FAMILY?
We owe the IRS absolutely NOTHING until equal. NOTHING. Get it?
This is NOT a test.
This is NOT a debate.
This is NOT a vote.
This is definitely NOT a popularity contest.
This IS justice – GAY TAX PROTEST.
Go for it John! The IRS is the most understanding, benevolent government agency on the face of the Earth! I think you’re gonna be very pleased with the results.
You know what IS? A ballot proposition.