In previous posts, I expressed my disappointment that a very small majority of Californians voted Yes on Proposition 8 last month. But imagine the disappointment you would feel if you were young and gay or bisexual and to see first-hand that people in your state and within in your community regard you as a second-class citizen and not worthy of the same rights as everyone else.
Jennie “Jay” Drummond plans to wear black and not to spend any money, her way of joining the national boycott, Day Without a Gay. She heads the chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Ramon Valley High School in Danville. Her GSA chapter participated in two anti-Proposition 8 rallies (one on October 28 at Danville’s Park and Ride is pictured here).
As it happens, there are chapters of the Gay-Straight Alliance at 22 high school campuses throughout the East Bay suburbs, and even one at Stanley Middle School in Lafayette. The faculty advisor at the chapter at Acalanes High in Lafayette, from which I graduated, told me that the GSA is one of the most popular clubs on campus. It is made up of kids who are, as the name implies, straight, gay and bisexual. Not all the kids who are gay or bisexual are “out” about their sexual orientation, this advisor said, while the straight students join because they tend to have progressive political views and care about human rights.
Jennie, who identifies as bisexual, said she was very happy to participate in this email Q&A with me. She says: “Part of the reason I was so excited to be GSA president this year is because I don’t want any other kids to go through what I did. I want them to know there’s someone to help them, and maybe an article would help them with that.”
How big is the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Ramon Valley High?
Our club has over 160 students signed up. However, when we sold our shirts last year, over 300 were sold. We’re a very popular club on campus.
Our club has over 160 students signed up. However, when we sold our shirts last year, over 300 were sold. We’re a very popular club on campus.
How many students participated in the No on 8. demonstrations you held?
The demonstration was actually not done solely by my GSA. We collaborated with Monte Vista’s, and it was organized by my ex-teacher (and good friend, from middle school. We had two demonstrations: There was one was on October 28, and we had a second on November 3. We had over 100 at the first, and probably around 125-150 at the second, which was impressive, considering the fact it was pouring [rain] the entire time. About half of those people were students from my GSA.
The demonstration was actually not done solely by my GSA. We collaborated with Monte Vista’s, and it was organized by my ex-teacher (and good friend, from middle school. We had two demonstrations: There was one was on October 28, and we had a second on November 3. We had over 100 at the first, and probably around 125-150 at the second, which was impressive, considering the fact it was pouring [rain] the entire time. About half of those people were students from my GSA.
Does your GSA plan to continue to fight in the No. on 8 battle?
We will continue to fight until everyone is considered equality is restored in California. This means attending demonstrations and participating in national days of protest, such as the upcoming Day Without A Gay, a nationwide boycott on December 10 [today], and Light Up The Night, [a December 20 candlelight vigil at commercial centers in cities across the country in remembrance of the rights that once were for 18,000 marriages], and, of course, the Day of Silence [April 17, 2009, which brings attention to bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students in schools].
How did you feel when 8 passed?
Personally, I was devastated. I identify as bisexual, and the thought that I may one day never be married was a crushing blow. I was honestly ashamed to be a Californian. Quite a few of my friends and I put pieces of fabric that said “Second-Class Citizen” on our backpacks, and most of the GSA wore all black on November 5.
Personally, I was devastated. I identify as bisexual, and the thought that I may one day never be married was a crushing blow. I was honestly ashamed to be a Californian. Quite a few of my friends and I put pieces of fabric that said “Second-Class Citizen” on our backpacks, and most of the GSA wore all black on November 5.
Also, I mentioned [my former middle school teacher]. I didn’t do him justice. He is also an out gay man, now married to his life partner. We’ve kept in touch because I plan on pursuing art as a career, or becoming an art teacher myself. He’s one of the few true activists in Danville. He helped me in middle school, when I was struggling with accepting who I am. He was the first person I came out to, my freshman year. He helped me come out my sophomore year at school, and my junior year to my family. He’s always been there to put a smile on my face, and been my shoulder to cry on. He’s my hero. And when your hero calls you, telling you that everything’s going to be okay, we just have to fight a little bit longer, and to be strong, even though you can hear the tears in his voice, it breaks your heart. If it wasn’t enough to feel like my rights had been taken away … that’s what caused me to break down.
What did it mean to you personally to see Proposition 8 defeated?
If it had been defeated, I would have been overjoyed. I may not be considered socially equal, but legally I would be. California is known for being ahead of the game, and many other states follow our lead. And when it is finally struck down, I’ll be able to feel all that.
If it had been defeated, I would have been overjoyed. I may not be considered socially equal, but legally I would be. California is known for being ahead of the game, and many other states follow our lead. And when it is finally struck down, I’ll be able to feel all that.
Crazy in Suburbia 
Max:<>I didn’t bother to read your attacks against me and everyone else who doesn’t think like you…<> You didn’t bother reading what I said, but you’ll still attack me for it. Now, that statement’s worth more than a smile. (Not that I believe you or anything).<>As what? Proof of your hypocrisy. I realized something. I was approaching this the wrong way. I had my go at counterattacking you, but hey, why bother…<> And now on to your next counterattack:<>But I realized that what makes you a hypocrite isn’t that you call everyone else one, it’s that you claim that no one is open to your views while not being open to theirs.<> a) That’s just too funny coming from someone who claimed not to read my argument. b) I’m certainly open to people’s views, as evidenced by me addressing their claims. Of course ‘open’ doesn’t equate to ‘automatically agree with’. For instance, when you make a claim without any factual basis or manage to contradict yourself in the same paragraph, I point that out and reject the lunacy.<>This wasn’t supposed to be an argument about gays or what or why they are what they are. It was supposed to be a civil discussion of a brave teenage girl whose conviction and courage is something to be aspired to. <> Prop 8 appears in the title (twice) and in the three of the four questions she was asked. Guess what, that makes it a discussion of Prop 8 and by extension homosexuality (Of course just because there are larger issues at stake, doesn’t mean people can’t cheer on their friend).<>Smile for me.<> Would smiling ‘at you’ be acceptable? Keep praying and reading what folks wiser than you have to say though, couldn’t hurt.Brian:<>I personally do not see where people come off saying that being gay is a choice, because if it was I doubt there would be any gay people.<> People do far worse things than practicing homosexual sex (murder, robbery, rape, etc. take your pick). Yet all of those things are choices (even if there is a genetic predisposition for violence, greed, etc.), and have very negative consequences for the people involved.Jennie:<>I am not being exploited. Soccer Mom offered me to use a pseudonym, or not even mention a name at all. I put myself out there because people need an actual face, an actual name, to put to an issue in order to make it stick.<> To repeat it for the 15th time: Just because you chose to gave the interview doesn’t mean you weren’t exploited (in fact the easiest way to exploit someone is to convince them that it’s what they really want). Now tell me another 10 times how you weren’t exploited and then it might come true.<>Since the government has taken over marriage, it’s no longer carries a solely religious meaning.<> Right, it has a social purpose as well.<>And if marriage is only allowed if the couple plans to procreate, what about the families who are infertile and have to adopt? Or the elderly couples who get married when the woman is past childbearing age? Should they not be married either?<> They managed to utilize marriage for their own purposes (sort of like using a car as a collector’s item). But, unlike gays, they’re not demanding that the institution be fundamentally redefined nor opening the door for further alterations. So there’s no harm in it either.<>Incest, zoophiles, etc…none of them are genetic.<> No more evidence for that, than for your claim that homosexuality is genetic.<>You aren’t only attracted to animals, nor are you only attracted to your sister.<> a) You (like most gays) aren’t only attracted to people of the same sex either. b) There are obviously sickos who are in fact only attracted to their sister, or to animals, etc. (Or at the very least they feel like they can’t go on without having sex with the above). c) Why does it matter? If tomorrow we found proof that there are genetic predispositions for what they do, would that mean they’re not perverts and should be given marital privileges?<>And with polygamy, you are not born to marry multiple wives.<> Gays aren’t born with their partners either (no one is, your argument is silly), but there’s certainly a much stronger biological argument for spreading the genes via polygamy than there is for not spreading them via homosexuality.<>All of those are either choices or temptations. Homosexuality is neither.<> You’re contradicting your own (an multiple other) testimonies that people were tempted to sleep with partners of the same sex (In fact you’re all claiming that it’s a temptation, which is impossible to resist). And, of course, acting on a temptation is a choice.<>So stop comparing me, my friends, hero, and hundreds of thousands of other people to them. Thank you.<> “If the shoe fits, wear it”. You’re still yet to come up with an argument as why they’re different other than ‘because I said so’.<>Technically, there’s no such thing as an activist judge.<> Of course there is, ‘activist judge’=a judge who rules based on his personal agenda (usually motivated by ideology), rather than what is stated in the Constitution.<>The way the judiciary system works means that the courts cannot go out and find issues to argue about; the issue must be brought to them in a lawsuit. Therefore the term “activist judge” makes no sense. The court made a ruling on a case that was brought before them. They did not seek this ruling out.<> That’s a very naive view of how the system works. The fact is that a) The appellate courts decide which cases to pick and which to ignore. Considering how many various cases come before the court, they very much get to pick what they deal with. b) Activists ‘shop’ for courts to find the judges most sympathetic to their views (care to guess why this issue keeps being brought up in California rather than Texas). But we’re getting off track.<>Gay marriage wasn’t unconstitutional either. It was just assumed that gays couldn’t marry. It wasn’t defined anywhere that marriage is only between a man and a woman.<> Not to be too much of a 'asshole', but if you're going to insist on debating the judicial system & the constitution you really need to brush up on how they work. -The fact is yes, the constitution doesn't define marriage it leaves it up to the states. The California State Constitution doesn't define it either, leaving it up to the legislators. And they CERTAINLY defined who the licenses should be issued to: consenting heterosexual couples. Nothing was 'assumed', homosexual couples couldn't legally get the licenses.<>The court overrode an amendment to grant equal rights to everyone, instead of just a majority.<> Again, the amendment didn’t change who the licenses were granted to (homosexuals couldn’t get them in 1999 and they couldn’t get them in 2001). The court didn’t just rule on whether the particular amendment was constitutional, the used the case to declare that homosexual marriages must be allowed without constitutional basis (and that them activists).<>I am serious. But I cannot simply choose to be something I’m not.<> I keep pointing out how you can: stick to men.<>I’m happy with how I’m made.<> You sure don’t sound very happy. Heck you blame every problem in your life on this.<>There is no such thing as a “nature’s default.” Just because a majority of people are that way does not mean that’s how nature intended them to be. That means everyone who’s a different race in America other than white chose to be that way. And redheads totally chose their hair color as well, since brunette’s the default.<> Nature’s default is about what’s most favorable for procreation rather than the simple majority (although the former usually leads to the later). That doesn’t apply to hair color and race. Never mind that they are genetic traits while sleeping with someone is obviously a choice.<>You continue to time and time again say that sexuality is only determined by who you have sex with.<> Provided the person actually has sex, yes. More precisely, it’s determined by who you CHOOSE to have sex with.<>So if I die without ever having sex with a woman, then, by your logic, I’m straight.<> Indeed. Just like if I die without killing anyone then I’m not a murderer, regardless of what urges I might have.<> When I’m obviously not.<> Obviously, since you DO have sex with women.<>Once again, I did not choose this.<> And once again, you chose to act on those feelings.<>No one ever would. The only reason I came out as a teenager, rather than waiting, is because I liked a girl enough to not care what other people said. I also decided to stop lying to my friends.<> Deciding not to come out, deciding to come out, deciding to tell your friends. Sure sound like choices to me.<>I have no reason to act out, other than the fact that my rights, and rights of those I care about, are being taken away.<> Except, of course, none of your rights were taken away.<>I’m not playing martyr. I’m not complaining about what’s happened to me…<> Wow, there’s denial and then there’s DE-FLIPPING-NILE. This whole thread is a giant complaint about what happened to you (and people like you).<>I’m just explaining to you why it’s ridiculous that you think anyone would choose to live this way.<> Your explanation doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to be the martyr or act out.<>I, in no way, shape, or form consider myself a hero…<> And yet you agreed to a piece which labels you a “Local Hero” (and post #46 is the first time I see you renouncing that label). <>…I don’t ask for praise, nor do I expect it.<> At least half a dozen ‘thankyou’s’ and “I love you’s” above tell a different story.<>And I’ll protest as loudly as I possibly can, thank you very much.<> So you do choose to live this way after all. Which isn’t to say you don’t have the right to it, simply that it’s ridiculous to blame the consequences of your activism on sexuality. History is full of people who got criticized, threatened, persecuted, etc. for what they said or did, most of them had the sense not to blame it on who they sleep with.<>Also, if you don’t mind me asking, where do you get your morals? I mentioned this before, but I see no foundation for any of your arguments. And without foundation, you lose credibility. Not only for yourself, but for your entire side of this debate.<> First off it's preposterous (and shows inability to grasp basic logic) to claim that my arguments or how I approach the issue reflect on anyone besides me. For the record, I get my morals based on knowledge of human nature, understanding of history (particularly pertaining to how societies work), reason and common sense. But that is besides the point; unless you're in therapy or in a confessional personal motivation isn't that relevant, and arguments stand (or fall) based on the facts & logic presented. My claims are valid in their own right, and you're yet to refute any of them. Shall we go over them again in yet another circle? Tell me again how it's not a choice who you sleep with!
LikeLike
Hey Jennie this is Byron(I’m Straight) I’d like to say your an amazing person I love ya! I’m proud of you for standing up for what you believe in.To the anonymous guy with the strong opinion against this article:I’d like to say you’re entitled to you opinion although I completely disagree with you. But it leads me to wonder as to how you would find yourself on this blog? if it angers you so much why bother posting? Is it merely to voice your opinion or do you have some kind of sick sense of humor? Have you nothing better to do with your time other than post angry comments on a blog? I can understand wanting to voice your own opinion, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you must do so while respecting the opinion of others.
LikeLike
Byron: I glance through a number of blogs (both local & national, left & right) to keep up with the issues and for sheer entertainment purposes. Since this issue is of interest to me, I figured it would be fun to give my take on it. My sense of humor non-withstanding, I enjoy debating with people and am willing to take the time to do it.Also I respect other people's right to their opinion, but don't see why they shouldn't be (severely) criticized when they're wrong.
LikeLike
Nope. I didn’t read what you said. I get tired of reading the same thing over and over again. I do like how you’ve narrowed your attacks down to me, Jennie and a few other people. What’s the matter? Too outnumbered to attack everyone?
LikeLike
<>Byron, Brian, Anonymous<>Thank you 🙂 It means a lot.<>Max<>Contrary to what Anonymous 2 seems to think, I actually feel you’re being mature about all this. I personally enjoyed your quotes. And I doubt you understand how much your support has meant to me these past few years.<>Anonymous 2<>She did no convincing. I had actually been looking for an opportunity like this to reach out to kids who may be in the same position I am, was, or will be. For fellowship. Not hate from people like you.Technically, gays are only attracted to people of the same sex. I’m bisexual. Therefore, I’m attracted to both.And who cares if two people are happy together and want to marry? Will it honestly affect you? Will someone try to gay-marry you? Will it make your marriage, whether you’re in one now or will be in the future, any less meaningful? No. It won’t. The world hasn’t gone to the dogs since gays began marrying on June 17th this year. Nothing’s really changed at all. I personally do not know a necrophiliac, nor do I know someone into beastiality. Therefore, I will admit I don’t feel comfortable passing judgment on them socially. It is just against my morals as a Christian to believe they’re behaving correctly. And, like Sally said so many posts ago, it’s not possible for an animal to sign a marriage contract, or speak the same language, therefore it’s impossible to know if they consent or not. The same goes for corpses. It’s not like they can marry.That was not my argument at all. My argument was that it’s perfectly possible to be attracted to other people while you’re married to one person. That does not mean that you have to go and marry them. Therefore, my argument is not, as you so eloquently put, “silly.”I am not saying I’m sleeping with anyone. Where did you come to that conclusion.The only reason I said that is because I assumed you might be capable of having a civil conversation, without name-calling.So according to your definition, our Chief Justice, along with our President, and quite a few, if not most, judges around the country, are also activist judges, since they pass rulings based on their religious morals rather than their Constitutional ones. And, in my opinion, the California judges ruled to protect “liberty and justice for <><>all<><>That was my point. The case was appealed to a court. The lower courts do pick which cases go through and which don’t, but it was still brought before a court. The court did not go looking for this case.Whether or not I only date men throughout the entirety of my life does not make me straight. Same as if I only dated women, I would not be lesbian. I’m attracted to both sexes. I’ll never be straight.And I’m actually quite happy. At the risk of sounding horribly like a teenager, you don’t know me. You just know what my interview and responses tell you. Since I was trying to stay on topic, of course all the problems I’ve brought up have to do with this. I have others that are completely unrelated. Not to mention all the great friends and opportunities I’ve been given as well.You’re making no sense. I’m seventeen, that doesn’t mean I’ve had sex. In fact, I haven’t. ONCE AGAIN, since you didn’t seem to see it the last ten times…<>sexuality does not equate to sex.<>Coming out is a choice, yes. My sexuality is not. So yes, I could have continued to lie to everyone. But I decided it wasn’t worth it.I have no reason to act out, other than the fact that my rights, and rights of those I care about, are being taken away.Except, of course, none of your rights were taken away.I’m not playing martyr. I’m not complaining about what’s happened to me…Wow, there’s denial and then there’s DE-FLIPPING-NILE. This whole thread is a giant complaint about what happened to you (and people like you).My right to marry someone I love was taken away.Actually, there haven’t been many LGBT people in this thread. Most of the posters are straight supporters. I’m not complaining. I’m not even trying to convince you to change your view. I’m trying to make you understand mine.Yes, there <>are<> plenty of reasons why someone would want to be a martyr or act out. That’s not what I meant. I meant people being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.Yes, I agreed to do a piece that labels me as a local hero. That doesn’t mean I am one. A GSA president is a local hero…not necessarily the person in that post. So every other local GSA president is a local hero, too.And I thanked people because it’s the polite thing to do. That doesn’t mean I was expecting praise.I choose to protest, yes. I choose to put myself in the line of fire, yes. I have, in no way, blamed it on who I am attracted to.The reason I ask is because ideas have to be founded in something decent for them to be legitimate at all. Whether it be religion, how you were raised, stories, or a political view…they’re all foundations. I couldn’t figure out where you were getting any of your points, and was disregarding them because of this. Therefore, it is not beside the point. You may feel your claims are valid. That doesn’t mean everyone else does.I will continue to refute your points until you run out of them. I am not seeking to change your mind. Originally I respected your views, but then you became disrespectful and rude, not only to me, but to everyone who has commented on this blog, even those who have agreed with you. I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish by trolling. Unless that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.So I’ll leave you with this:“And now these three are left: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these three is Love.” 1 Corinthians 13:13
LikeLike
(copy/paste mistake…11th section down in my response to Anonymous 2, the last two sentences aren’t meant to be there. They’re from A2’s responses.)
LikeLike
Jennie (Jay), I just wanted to say I’m so proud of you and everything you’ve accomplished and for standing up for what you believe in. You were my first friend in hs and I’ve admired your strength and courage. I’m so proud to be your friend and thanks for standing up for a cause that some people are too scared to. I love you. 🙂~Nicki
LikeLike
Thanks Jennie. Keep fighting the good fight.
LikeLike
Max:<>Nope. I didn’t read what you said. I get tired of reading the same thing over and over again. I do like how you’ve narrowed your attacks down to me, Jennie and a few other people.<> You did not read what I write but you’re still commenting on it – truly priceless.<>What’s the matter? Too outnumbered to attack everyone?<> Let’s see, so far I’ve personally addressed SoccerMom, Sally, LightCrusader, Jenny, Nicole, you, Ash, Anon, Nat, Gretchen, Brandon, Golf Club Dude, Brian and Byron. Since you’re having a hard time paying attention, let me point out that the number of posters on the thread has decreased. The only people who didn’t get addressed are the ones who said the same thing as Jennie or in most cases didn’t say anything relevant to the Prop8 debate. For example, telling their life story, socializing with friends, having a cheer-leading rally for Jenny personally or ‘progressivism’ in general. Not that I’m objecting, just don’t particularly care to discuss that. But keep moaning about supposed attacks (while claiming not to have read them), though.Jennie:<>She did no convincing. I had actually been looking for an opportunity like this to reach out to kids who may be in the same position I am, was, or will be.<> OK, exploitation is even more effective when people come looking for it (just don’t ask why).<>Technically, gays are only attracted to people of the same sex.<> No, homosexuals are people who strictly engage in relations with the same sex. Just like heterosexuals strictly have relations with the opposite sex. (Bisexuals do both). The term gays has always been used to refer to anyone who would practice relations with persons of the same sex (exclusively or not). As in, when you use the terms like ‘Gay Marriage’, ‘Gay Rights’, etc. you aren’t talking only about strict homosexuals.<>And who cares if two people are happy together and want to marry? Will it honestly affect you? Will someone try to gay-marry you?<> No, but I do want to live in a functional society and don’t wish to see one of it’s fundamental institutions destroyed because a bunch of pervs convinced themselves that marriage is a right they should have.<>I personally do not know a necrophiliac, nor do I know someone into bestiality. Therefore, I will admit I don’t feel comfortable passing judgment on them socially. It is just against my morals as a Christian to believe they’re behaving correctly.<> Well, do you think they’re perverts and should they be denied the privilege of marriage or not.<>And, like Sally said so many posts ago, it’s not possible for an animal to sign a marriage contract, or speak the same language, therefore it’s impossible to know if they consent or not…<> And like I told her, you know whether the animal consents to sex based on the signs it would exhibit, so using that to distinguish zoophilia from homosexuality is factually wrong. Of course animals can't sign the marriage documents, but the point was that zoophilia & homosexuality are not that different as far as disorders go. And if one bunch of pervs wants a license than what's to stop the next group (we won't ask the animals if they want to get married any more than we ask them whether they want to be neutered, skinned, eaten, etc.). Besides, do you really want to argue that the only thing wrong with bestiality is that it isn't nice to the animals.<>…The same goes for corpses. It’s not like they can marry.<> And I pointed out that it’s a BS argument since consent can be given before death.<>That was not my argument at all. My argument was that it’s perfectly possible to be attracted to other people while you’re married to one person. That does not mean that you have to go and marry them. Therefore, my argument is not, as you so eloquently put, “silly.”<> OK, then it’s totally irrelevant to the discussion.<>So according to your definition, our Chief Justice, along with our President, and quite a few, if not most, judges around the country, are also activist judges, since they pass rulings based on their religious morals rather than their Constitutional ones.<> The President is not a judge, nor does he ‘pass rulings’. He’s neither required nor allowed to rule on the Constitution. – He’s in a different branch of government and can be as ‘activist’ as he wishes (provided he’s acting within his Constitutional mandates). If the judges pass rulings based on their views rather than the Constitution(s) then they are overstepping their authority and are of course activists. But you don’t have any evidence that Justice Roberts or ‘most’ judges are this way (although, admittedly it’s a problem).<>And, in my opinion, the California judges ruled to protect “liberty and justice for all<> Right, in your opinion, which you can’t substantiate.<>That was my point. The case was appealed to a court. The lower courts do pick which cases go through and which don’t, but it was still brought before a court. The court did not go looking for this case.<> The point is nonsensical. All courts get to decide which cases they take and which they throw out, plus the higher the court the higher the percentage of cases they don’t rule on (just due to sheer number that comes before them). Thus they CHOSE to deal with the issue.<>Whether or not I only date men throughout the entirety of my life does not make me straight.<> By definition, it does (dated=sleep with in this context).<>Same as if I only dated women, I would not be lesbian.<> Of course you would be.<>And I’m actually quite happy. At the risk of sounding horribly like a teenager, you don’t know me. You just know what my interview and responses tell you.<> They display how unhappy you are (which isn’t to say you can’t have friends, education, life, etc. while having these issues).<>You’re making no sense. I’m seventeen, that doesn’t mean I’ve had sex. In fact, I haven’t.<> If you really haven’t then you’re not gay either (although you may have homosexual tendencies, you’re not there yet). And not the fact that you believe yourself to be gay (or Wonder Woman) doesn’t make it so.<>ONCE AGAIN, since you didn’t seem to see it the last ten times…sexuality does not equate to sex.<> ONCE AGAIN, whom you have sex with defines your sexuality.<>Coming out is a choice, yes. My sexuality is not.<> AND ONCE AGAIN, you can choose not to have sex so you can choose not to be gay.<>My right to marry someone I love was taken away.<> Except you can’t love someone of the same sex nor is/was there a ‘right’ to marriage.<>Actually, there haven’t been many LGBT people in this thread. Most of the posters are straight supporters. I’m not complaining. I’m not even trying to convince you to change your view. I’m trying to make you understand mine.<> I get your view: sex doesn’t define sexuality, urges do (sort of like if you want to shoot someone, you’re a murderer), one form of perversion is different from the other, 2+2=5, etc.<>Yes, there are plenty of reasons why someone would want to be a martyr or act out. That’s not what I meant. I meant people being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.<><>I choose to protest, yes. I choose to put myself in the line of fire, yes. I have, in no way, blamed it on who I am attracted to.<> You’re blaming things which happened as a result of your acting out/playing the martyr on sexuality. As in ‘why would anyone choose to be gay, when such horrible things happen to them’, so cut the BS.<>Yes, I agreed to do a piece that labels me as a local hero. That doesn’t mean I am one.<> Yes, but it means you think you’re one (provided you’re being honest).<>A GSA president is a local hero…not necessarily the person in that post. So every other local GSA president is a local hero, too.<> So you are claiming to be a hero after all (along with other GSA presidents of course).<>And I thanked people because it’s the polite thing to do. That doesn’t mean I was expecting praise.<> You go way out of your way and way over the top when thanking people (well beyond politeness). This is a ways asking (if not begging) for more.<>The reason I ask is because ideas have to be founded in something decent for them to be legitimate at all.<> You’re missing a point of basic logic: ideas are either true or they aren’t regardless of where one get’s them.<>I couldn’t figure out where you were getting any of your points,…<> And I pointed out: knowledge of human nature, history, reason, etc.<>…and was disregarding them because of this. Therefore, it is not beside the point.<> We both know that’s not why you were disregarding them (I told you where they come from and you’re still disregarding them). So, of course it’s beside the point.<>You may feel your claims are valid. That doesn’t mean everyone else does.<> That's true. But again, the claims should be evaluated based on the facts & logic behind them, rather than the personal motivation of the messenger.<>Originally I respected your views…<> Umm your original comment was along the lines of ‘these comments demonstrate the hate we’re fitting against’. It that’s respect, I’d hate to see what you say when you’re being disrespectful.<>…but then you became disrespectful and rude, not only to me, but to everyone who has commented on this blog, even those who have agreed with you.<> Highly critical of the views doesn’t equate to rude to the person even they feel angry about them (and no I can’t say gays aren’t pervs, because they are). The only people I was disrespectful and rude towards are the ones who called me a Nazi or otherwise made personal attacks. In addition, the only person even remotely close (although nowhere near) my views on here was Ash. What’s rude about the two sentences I wrote to him. <>I will continue to refute your points until you run out of them.<> Discussion of how the judicial system works aside, they’re the same points they were five posts ago and you’re yet to refute any of them.
LikeLike
Three words: Cry Some More.
LikeLike
Max, Why would I cry, when I’m so happy to see you take the mature approach to the discussion.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
hahaha. Mature? This coming from the one who just won’t let anything go.Here are the ways I can spot your comments:1) That I’m the first one you address, and Jennie’s the second.2) The length.3) When I move my eyes over it, the format its in kinda gives you away.4) The words I see in it.Yep. They’re about that as shocking as the sun rising. After your first three posts one can see how your logic begins to repeat itself and become tirelessly predictable. Here’s the skeleton:(Part one)Attack Max:Be sure to complain a lot about how everyone is “approaching the issue illogically” and how Max is an insane ranter while rambling on and on yourself about how everyone ‘s “just attacking you,” while at the same time personally attacking them. I would be honored that I get my own little place in your insanity, but honestly, at this point its just sad that you feel the need to make one at all.(Part two)Attack everyone else, focusing especially hard on putting down Jennie. Heavy on the “argument” easy on the logic. Be sure to claim that everyone else isn’t open to your views over and over again, while saying they’re illogical and you’re always right, just like an elementary school know it all. Then seal the deal by calling your way mature. Complaints about logic and maturity become twofold here. And voila. Instant “intellectual.”
LikeLike
To Max:<>hahaha. Mature? This coming from the one who just won’t let anything go.<> You’re complaining about me not letting things go. Too funny indeed.<>Here are the ways I can spot your comments:1) That I’m the first one you address, and Jennie’s the second.<> There’s only one post that’s actually like that. Hmm… is this is a counting problem or a comprehension problem.<>2) The length.3) When I move my eyes over it, the format its in kinda gives you away.4) The words I see in it.<> So you are reading the words, just having a hard time grasping the meaning. As always, fun to see you contradict yourself.<>After your first three posts one can see how your logic begins to repeat itself and become tirelessly predictable.<> Haha, yet another (incredibly whiny and angry) admission that you’ve read them.<>Be sure to complain a lot about how everyone is “approaching the issue illogically” and how Max is an insane ranter while rambling on and on yourself about how everyone ‘s “just attacking you,” while at the same time personally attacking them.<> You’re still confused about this whole notion of calling others on their actions and criticizing their arguments. No surprise there.<>I would be honored that I get my own little place in your insanity,…<> You feeling honored for being singled out as having the loopiest posts is less than surprising as well.<>…but honestly, at this point its just sad that you feel the need to make one at all.<> While it may be sad, but since you keep begging for attention I’m willing to oblige.<>Attack everyone else, focusing especially hard on putting down Jennie.<> Still having a hard time grasping the fact that I’m focusing on whoever makes the arguments.<>Heavy on the “argument” easy on the logic.<> Again, just because you have a hard time grasping it doesn’t mean it’s not there.<>Be sure to claim that everyone else isn’t open to your views over and over again…<> Why everyone? Just a few people on the board, including an occasional loon<>…just like an elementary school know it all.<> Yeah, I’m the one attacking people here.<>Then seal the deal by calling your way mature.<> Will do.<> Complaints about logic and maturity become twofold here.<> But enough about your tirades, whine about mine some more.
LikeLike
To begin, not everyone holds the Christian belief, and the right to freedom of religion is one of the things that allow our country to operate effectively. It is unconstitutional to allow religion to control the government, and is therefore an irrelevant argument against the legalization of gay marriage. Christians would argue that the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth and should be the sole determiner in human morality. However, the government does not operate by these standards and should not be expected to operate by these standards with the issue of gay marriage. As the years have progressed, it has become increasingly clear that traditional relationships are the thing of the past. After the Civil Rights Movement, interracial couples gradually moved into the forefront of nontraditional relationships and became the brunt of much social commentary and hostility. Eventually, interracial couples were accepted among the majority of Americans and are now an established part of society. However, despite our apparent social progress as a nation, society has pointed an accusing finger at another nontraditional relationship: couples of like-gender.Homophobia has swept the country and earned itself comparisons to the Red Scare of 1918-1921 (at this time, much of society feared the infiltration of Communism just as there is a fear today of homosexuality). We have, since the Red Scare, learned that mass hysteria brings no reward or benefit, yet we continue as a country to allow it to overtake us. What could this possibly be saying about a supposed superpower?Common arguments against same-sex marriages are tradition, procreation, and alleged Biblical opposition. Tradition is irrelevant. If the United States had used tradition as an excuse to oppose change, cars, electricity, planes, paved roads, interracial marriages, civil rights, the belief in heliocentricity, and countless other things could have never come about. We could still be under Britain’s rule. People could be persecuted for differing religious beliefs. Any scientific theory that went against the beliefs of the “traditional” Catholic Church would be disregarded, and the beliefs’ perpetuator would be put to death. Perhaps it has not occurred to some that many traditional marriages produce no children, whether because they are not physically able to procreate or because they simply do not want to do so. Also, many same-sex relationships raise children. They use surrogate mothers, sperm banks, a close confidant to donate sperm, and/or adoption so that they, too, can have the opportunity to experience the joy of raising children. Generally, society agrees that every couple deserves the opportunity to raise children and watch them grow into adults, so why does society believe it to be wrong that the same couple that raised a child together for eighteen years should not be wed under the grace and acceptance of their legal system?
LikeLike
To begin, not everyone holds the Christian belief, and the right to freedom of religion is one of the things that allow our country to operate effectively. It is unconstitutional to allow religion to control the government, and is therefore an irrelevant argument against the legalization of gay marriage. Christians would argue that the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth and should be the sole determiner in human morality. However, the government does not operate by these standards and should not be expected to operate by these standards with the issue of gay marriage. As the years have progressed, it has become increasingly clear that traditional relationships are the thing of the past. After the Civil Rights Movement, interracial couples gradually moved into the forefront of nontraditional relationships and became the brunt of much social commentary and hostility. Eventually, interracial couples were accepted among the majority of Americans and are now an established part of society. However, despite our apparent social progress as a nation, society has pointed an accusing finger at another nontraditional relationship: couples of like-gender.Homophobia has swept the country and earned itself comparisons to the Red Scare of 1918-1921 (at this time, much of society feared the infiltration of Communism just as there is a fear today of homosexuality). We have, since the Red Scare, learned that mass hysteria brings no reward or benefit, yet we continue as a country to allow it to overtake us. What could this possibly be saying about a supposed superpower?Common arguments against same-sex marriages are tradition, procreation, and alleged Biblical opposition. Tradition is irrelevant. If the United States had used tradition as an excuse to oppose change, cars, electricity, planes, paved roads, interracial marriages, civil rights, the belief in heliocentricity, and countless other things could have never come about. We could still be under Britain’s rule. People could be persecuted for differing religious beliefs. Any scientific theory that went against the beliefs of the “traditional” Catholic Church would be disregarded, and the beliefs’ perpetuator would be put to death. Perhaps it has not occurred to some that many traditional marriages produce no children, whether because they are not physically able to procreate or because they simply do not want to do so. Also, many same-sex relationships raise children. They use surrogate mothers, sperm banks, a close confidant to donate sperm, and/or adoption so that they, too, can have the opportunity to experience the joy of raising children. Generally, society agrees that every couple deserves the opportunity to raise children and watch them grow into adults, so why does society believe it to be wrong that the same couple that raised a child together for eighteen years should not be wed under the grace and acceptance of their legal system?
LikeLike
To begin, not everyone holds the Christian belief, and the right to freedom of religion is one of the things that allow our country to operate effectively. It is unconstitutional to allow religion to control the government, and is therefore an irrelevant argument against the legalization of gay marriage. Christians would argue that the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth and should be the sole determiner in human morality. However, the government does not operate by these standards and should not be expected to operate by these standards with the issue of gay marriage. As the years have progressed, it has become increasingly clear that traditional relationships are the thing of the past. After the Civil Rights Movement, interracial couples gradually moved into the forefront of nontraditional relationships and became the brunt of much social commentary and hostility. Eventually, interracial couples were accepted among the majority of Americans and are now an established part of society. However, despite our apparent social progress as a nation, society has pointed an accusing finger at another nontraditional relationship: couples of like-gender.Homophobia has swept the country and earned itself comparisons to the Red Scare of 1918-1921 (at this time, much of society feared the infiltration of Communism just as there is a fear today of homosexuality). We have, since the Red Scare, learned that mass hysteria brings no reward or benefit, yet we continue as a country to allow it to overtake us. What could this possibly be saying about a supposed superpower?Common arguments against same-sex marriages are tradition, procreation, and alleged Biblical opposition. Tradition is irrelevant. If the United States had used tradition as an excuse to oppose change, cars, electricity, planes, paved roads, interracial marriages, civil rights, the belief in heliocentricity, and countless other things could have never come about. We could still be under Britain’s rule. People could be persecuted for differing religious beliefs. Any scientific theory that went against the beliefs of the “traditional” Catholic Church would be disregarded, and the beliefs’ perpetuator would be put to death. Perhaps it has not occurred to some that many traditional marriages produce no children, whether because they are not physically able to procreate or because they simply do not want to do so. Also, many same-sex relationships raise children. They use surrogate mothers, sperm banks, a close confidant to donate sperm, and/or adoption so that they, too, can have the opportunity to experience the joy of raising children. Generally, society agrees that every couple deserves the opportunity to raise children and watch them grow into adults, so why does society believe it to be wrong that the same couple that raised a child together for eighteen years should not be wed under the grace and acceptance of their legal system?
LikeLike
sorry for posting it some many times but my computer frozen
LikeLike
Hey, so my dog wagged his tail at me about 5 times today, does that mean he wants me to sleep with him? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Oh and just because someone writes in their will that when they die they want someone to have sex with them doesn’t make legal. What if i wrote in my will that I wanted someone to use my body to kill the president? Yeah, that would still be illegal. Guess what. I’m a lesbian. I believe i was born a lesbian, am a lesbian, and will always be a lesbian no matter how much you think it’d be better to just put it aside and attempt to live what you conside a “normal heterosexual” life.Well imaggine this:About 90% of the world is made up of homosexuals and you my friend are the minority group of about 10%of heterosexuals in the world. Even since the dawn of time it’s been okay for gays to marry but not straights. Then one day you come up and say, “Hey, I just found the man/woman (whatever is the opposite of your gender) of my dreams and I would love to marry him/her.” Then I come up to you and say, “Yeah well I don’t think so because straight people are gross and I find the straight lifestyle to be disgusting so too bad.” You say that gays are asking for more rights when really we are not! You say that we are because everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now go back to that world I created for you, what would you say if I came up to you and told you, “Yeah I know that you’re straight and all but why don’t you just preform in homosexual acts and after a while you’ll get used to it. I know it’ll be hard at first and you’ll feel like killing yourself but you’ll get over it.”?Can you honsetly tell me that you’d pretend to be gay in this world even though you knew you were straught? Yeah, I don’t think so!When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation “eliminates the right” and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, “Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today” and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say “I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me”? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the estimated 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.Since prop 8 passed (by my complete suprise), gay citizenry of this state are picking themselves up and dusting themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.
LikeLike
This blog was supposed to be about supporting an extremely brave and well-spoken young woman. Instead it has turned into everyone being harassed by an Anonymous 2. Anonymous 2, please do us all a favor and become more tactful and respectful or keep your comments to yourself. As some people, including Jennie have admitted, though your opinions so blantanly differ from ours, we would have been able to hear out your argument and would have not minded at all comparing and contrasting our views with yours. But throughout the duration of these posts you have just mocked most of the people who have disagreed with you and personally broken down all of the people’s comments line-by-line saying whats wrong with their statements or demeaning them with snarky, sarcastic remarks. Not to mention the fact that you have found it a great sport to actively attack Max and argue with Jennie on the same things over and over. And despite that what you may say, that you have been victimized and no one will listen to your opinions, that everyone on this board is a hypocrite except yourself, my opinion of you wrongly treating these people with disdain is not going to change. I personally know some fine people who aren’t open minded about homosexual marriage, but they manage to get their points across in a respectful manner and don’t think that just beacause some one has a differnt sexuality than them makes them a lesser or less sane human being. It simply makes them different. So honestly Anonymous 2, do everyone a favor and either aquire some manners or realize that no one is going to care or be swayed by your posts because the one thing that people should not have to tolerate is not being given respect. And I’m sure you’ll say that no one on this board has shown you any respect. Well that’s because from your first post you have been so rude and offensive that you didn’t deserve that respect from anyone. So from here on I propose that we all try and rise above the type of behavior Anonymous 2 has exhibited.Jennie your story is truly inspiring and the fact that you did this interview is extremely courageous. You’ve inspired and helped a lot of people, and many people would be leading much darker lives if it wasn’t for you.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
That’s nice A2. Except that I don’t care.“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” I agree with Pandora’s Hope completely. Why respect someone who doesn’t deserve it? We should all celebrate Jennie and her courage and dedication. Not partake in some childish wordfight.Thank you everyone who supports my good friend Jennie. Special thanks to Pandora’s hope for the personal and logical response. I really appreciate it.
LikeLike
To Anonymous:<>To begin, not everyone holds the Christian belief, and the right to freedom of religion is one of the things that allow our country to operate effectively.<> The isn't constitutional for government to force religion on individuals, but people can certainly use religious views as a basis when deciding which laws would benefit society. The Founding Fathers did it, plenty of support for antipoverty or environmental legislation comes from religion, even something as basic as outlawing theft & murder is rooted in religious views for a lot of people.<>It is unconstitutional to allow religion to control the government, and is therefore an irrelevant argument against the legalization of gay marriage.<> That’s an argument for keeping for keeping government out of the marriage business period, rather than saying whom they should issue licenses to.<>Perhaps it has not occurred to some that many traditional marriages produce no children, whether because they are not physically able to procreate or because they simply do not want to do so.<> Sure, but the main purpose of marriage is to provide for reproduction (along with the subsequent upbringing of your children). It’s true that some people managed to utilize it for other purposes, but since they aren’t trying to alter the institution itself, no one really objects.<>Generally, society agrees that every couple deserves the opportunity to raise children and watch them grow into adults…<> Not really.To Nicole W:<>Hey, so my dog wagged his tail at me about 5 times today, does that mean he wants me to sleep with him? Yeah, I didn’t think so.<> Obviously that’s not the sign (if a gay person smiles at me it doesn’t mean they want me to sleep with them either). Are you denying that there are actual signs in nature that an animal is interested/is injoying a sexual act.<>Oh and just because someone writes in their will that when they die they want someone to have sex with them doesn’t make legal.<> Circular argument (gay marriage isn’t legal either), the question was what should be legal. A couple of people tried to differentiate between necrophilia and homosexuality claiming there’s consent in one case and none in the other, and I pointed out that consent could be given in either case.<>When did it become okay to legislate morality?<> When the people said that it’s illegal to kill, steal, pollute, etc.<>Well imaggine this:About 90% of the world is made up of homosexuals and you my friend are the minority group of about 10%of heterosexuals in the world…Can you honsetly tell me that you’d pretend to be gay in this world even though you knew you were straught?<> No, but I wouldn’t pretend I didn’t make the choice to be hetero or that marriage is a right (although I’d still want the privilege for procreation purposes, etc.).<>I try to envision someone reading that legislation “eliminates the right” and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind?<> Personally, I recognize that the attorney general made an (extremely) biased description of the legislation when calling gay marriage a ‘right’.To Max:<>That’s nice A2. Except that I don’t care.<> For someone who doesn’t care you sure spend a lot of time dwelling on my posts.<>I agree with Pandora’s Hope completely. Why respect someone who doesn’t deserve it?<> Leaving aside that your (loopy) behavior reflects on you, not me; there shouldn’t be any more complaints about how I’m being disrespectful to you after that comment. Although knowing you, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was one in the next post.To Pandora’s Hope:<>I personally know some fine people who aren’t open minded about homosexual marriage, but they manage to get their points across in a respectful manner and don’t think that just beacause some one has a differnt sexuality than them makes them a lesser or less sane human being.<> Right, you’ll tolerate some points of view, just not mine (that homosexuality is a mental disorder).<>So honestly Anonymous 2, do everyone a favor and either aquire some manners or realize that no one is going to care or be swayed by your posts because the one thing that people should not have to tolerate is not being given respect. And I’m sure you’ll say that no one on this board has shown you any respect. Well that’s because from your first post you have been so rude and offensive that you didn’t deserve that respect from anyone.<> Ahh… people being disrespectful shouldn't be given respect, except when they don't like hearing the truth about gays, in which case they can be disrespectful and still demand respect. Gotcha! For the record, not everyone has been disrespectful to me, although a couple of people obviously were (particularly the one's who find my views of human sexuality offensive in it's own right, rather than anything I have to say). And isolating what someone has to say & pointing out why it's wrong isn't 'demeaning', 'harassing', 'attacking' or 'disrespecting' them; it's called having a debate no the issues. If you don't care to do that, then simply don't and proceed with the cheer-leading.
LikeLike
It’s not just what you say but how you say it. Despite what you may say I am quite aware what a debate is and quite aware of how to have one, though I’m sure you’ll find a way to say that I don’t. It’s one thing to point out how you may feel someones views are wong but you can do it in a way that isn’t rude. In the real world you have to watch how you say things at school, in the workplace, and in public I’m general. And it’s honestly just sad that you have to break down Everyones response and rebut it line by line. You could find something you think is wrong or un true in anything someone says. If I said “I like candycanes” you could analyze that statement half to death and try and convince everyone that I’m insane or stupid or doomed to becoming a cerial killed.And cheerleading? Really? Insulting me because I choose to support Jennie, who this blog is primarily about? What are you discriminatory against optimistic supportive people now? If you are as sarcastic towards people who try to support you in life then Youre sure going to make yourself unpopular. But of course Im sure it’s ok if people are supporting you. That’s fine. But if someones supporting Jennie then they’re automatically ridiculous and deserve a snarky demeaning comment. So anywho everyone else, what do you think the probability of a prop that reverses prop 8 cropping up next year?
LikeLike
To Pandora’s Hope:<>Despite what you may say I am quite aware what a debate is and quite aware of how to have one,…<> Your writings indicate that you don’t and in fact claim not to be interested in having one (except you insist on doing it anyways).<>…though I’m sure you’ll find a way to say that I don’t.<> You spent two posts whining about how I respond to people point by point. So yeah, good call!<>It’s one thing to point out how you may feel someones views are wrong but you can do it in a way that isn’t rude.<> Sure, except you ended up admitting that you find my views inherently offensive.<>Really? Insulting me because I choose to support Jennie, who this blog is primarily about?…<> Well as long as you declared it so, it must be true (must be those debate skills you’re referring to). Now tell Jennies how great she is yet again and claim you’re not cheerleading.
LikeLike
To Anonymous 2:Hahahahaha. The fact that you don’t think I can debate is the biggest joke in the world. Like seriously. ROTFLMAS status.And thanks to Soccer Mom for shedding light on these issues and reaching out to Jennie to let her talk about the issues. And go Jennie! You’re awesome! Rah Rah Rah!And no, i do not claim to be cheerleading =)Oh and Anonymous 2, thanks for admitting that since declare something it must be true. Glad you see things the right way for once! 😀
LikeLike
To Anonymous 2:Hahahahaha. The fact that you don’t think I can debate is the biggest joke in the world. Like seriously. ROTFLMAO status.And thanks to Soccer Mom for shedding light on these issues and reaching out to Jennie to let her talk about the issues. And go Jennie! You’re awesome! Rah Rah Rah!And no, i do not claim to be cheerleading =)Oh and Anonymous 2, thanks for admitting that since I declare something it must be true. Glad you see things the right way for once! 😀
LikeLike
Pandora’s Hope, The state of your denial (and ability to debate) aside, I’m happy as long as you’re happy 🙂
LikeLike
Either way, it’s not a heterosexual privilege. Since the government has taken over marriage, it’s no longer carries a solely religious meaning. And if marriage is only allowed if the couple plans to procreate, what about the families who are infertile and have to adopt? Or the elderly couples who get married when the woman is past childbearing age? Should they not be married either? Incest, zoophiles, etc…none of them are genetic.<>How do you know this? You’re claiming that one type of sexual preference has a genetic component and that others don’t. but where is the science? Either way does it really matter if its “genetic” or not? does it make it any better to have cancer because you carry a gene that predisposes you to develop a tumor? <>You aren’t only attracted to animals, nor are you only attracted to your sister.<> It could be…ever heard of a sexual fetish? There are guys who only get off on women’s feet. Or need to wear a diaper and be humiliated. <> And with polygamy, you are not born to marry multiple wives.<> Actually polygamy was a very poor example because polygamy as a reproductive strategy is clearly “by design”, and all of our sophistications that factor into sexual attraction promote polygamy, not monogamy. In fact there are very few monogamous mammals. <> All of those are either choices or temptations. Homosexuality is neither.<> Saying so doesn’t make it so. I’d say its both. It might also be a third thing, instinct, simultaneously. The truth is, you don’t know. You have an opinion. You don’t have an answer. <>Technically, there’s no such thing as an activist judge. The way the judiciary system works means that the courts cannot go out and find issues to argue about; the issue must be brought to them in a lawsuit. Therefore the term “activist judge” makes no sense. The court made a ruling on a case that was brought before them. They did not seek this ruling out.<> The court does not HAVE to take every case put before it. In that aspect, it is certainly an activist court, because they felt compelled to review the case. They are indeed legislating from the bench, as they have done often in the past. <>It wasn’t defined anywhere that marriage is only between a man and a woman.<> The definition of marriage is a union of a man and a woman (or a husband and wife). Just like the color green is actually blue and yellow, or a pair is two of the same thing while a trio is three. The “man and a woman” part *is* fundamental to the definition itself. See the problem? If you can just change the meaning of any word to suit your agenda, society will slide into chaos. What if you decide that you don’t like the definition of speeding? Do we all have to tolerate the leadfoots racing through our communities? <>There is no such thing as a “nature’s default.”<> There most certainly is. Cell meiosis for example, is nature’s default for sexual reproduction.<> Just because a majority of people are that way does not mean that’s how nature intended them to be. That means everyone who’s a different race in America other than white chose to be that way.<> No, that is a faulty conclusion. This is the kind of fallacious reasoning people undertake to avoid via education and its one argument for not stopping at grade 12. <> Once again, I did not choose this. No one ever would. The only reason I came out as a teenager, rather than waiting, is because I liked a girl enough to not care what other people said. I also decided to stop lying to my friends. My sexuality isn’t my identity, it’s simply a part of who I am. I’m an average teenage girl in suburbia. I have no reason to act out, other than the fact that my rights, and rights of those I care about, are being taken away.<> Just because society at large doesn’t agree with your sexual ideologies and your politics, and doesn’t want to see longstanding institutions subverted for political gains by a minority group, does not mean you are being disenfranchised. As “anonymous” (not me, this is my first post in this thread), has pointed out, you have the same rights as any straight person. You can marry a person of the opposite sex provided you are not otherwise legally prohibited from marrying them. Which we could discuss in the context of your argument: what about age of consent laws? Discriminatory! How about the “no cousins” rule? Discriminatory! What about polygamy? Discrimination! <> I’m not playing martyr. I’m not complaining about what’s happened to me, I’m just explaining to you why it’s ridiculous that you think anyone would choose to live this way. I, in no way, shape, or form consider myself a hero. I don’t ask for praise, nor do I expect it. I’m just trying to help other people who may be in my situation, or may be wondering about it.<> You’re a stand up kid, I’ll hand it to you. You’re pretty empathic, which is admirable. You’ve got a good spirit and you don’t back down, and you’re to be commended for your fortitude, BUT, you’ve also made some posts that display some quite faulty argumentation, and this is a politically charged issue for most people with strong opinons, and emotionally charged for others. Whether you like it or not, you’re a polarizing force in your community so various people are going to laud you as a hero, others will decry you as a misguided youth, and some would say you are beset by psychological issues that warrant treatment. You’re going to get a full spectrum of labels.<>Also, if you don’t mind me asking, where do you get your morals? I mentioned this before, but I see no foundation for any of your arguments. And without foundation, you lose credibility. Not only for yourself, but for your entire side of this debate.<> This was not directed to me, but that is the million dollar question. “Morals” are pretty hard to pin down. They are not universal, and this is why majority rule evolved….debate, and the ensuing “rule of law”, is far simpler than warfare as a way for prevailing opinion to prevail. <>
LikeLike
To Anonymous 2:No denial here! just the fact that you’re a sad excuse for a human being! 😀au revoir!
LikeLike
To Anonymous 2:No denial here! just the fact that you’re a sad excuse for a human being! 😀au revoir!
LikeLike
To Pandora’s Hope: I see you’ve decided to exit on a mature note (with a denial of denial, nonetheless). Very well then…
LikeLike
Thanks everyone, once again, for supporting me. It means one heck of a lot.<>Anonymous 2<>I’m going to do something that I should have done a long time ago, and ask you to please stop posting on this thread. I don’t know how often you’re on the internet, but what you’re doing is considered “trolling.” That means you’re purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards/blogs where the blog and the readers are biased against you and you just wish to bother them. It’s bad internet etiquette, and I’m asking you to stop. I’m not silencing your free speech; I’m asking you to be respectful.This blog was meant as a way for me to reach out to people, and lend them support and a face for this issue. It was not meant to have someone like you attack gay marriage. You’ve been coarse, rude, and untactful in your attacks against me, my friends, Soccer Mom, and the other anonymous people who’ve lent me their support. You have not accomplished anything other than infuriating people who you may or may not know. You’ve been uncivil in your arguments. You’ve used immature language and attacks against me and the LGBT community, including comparing us to things we are not. I’m only seventeen, I’m young, naïve, and now a bit jaded. I’m not opposed to people passing judgments on me, or even telling me their opinion. But I want them to be respectful to me and those who stand with me. Like you said, the readers of this blog are biased against prop 8, and for gay marriage. You’re changing no one’s mind. You’re just making yourself look like an idiot, and a prick. So stop.<>To the other Anonymous who posted above<>You, too, were a bit out of line, and honestly a bit offensive. But thank you for only responding to me, and not other people on this thread. I’ve heard pretty much all of your arguments from an acquaintance of mine. I consider them pretty much null and void, no offense meant to yourself. They’re just immature, such as comparing being gay to speeding. And I do not want the same rights as a <>straight<> person, I want the same rights humanity on a whole is granted. Rights I once had, and rights that have now been taken away.However, I thank you for…well, I’m not sure whether or not to call it “concern” or not. But yes, I’m aware that, as an outspoken person in a polarizing debate, I’ll be subject to labels. My point to Anonymous 2 was that he/she was saying that I was, somehow, calling myself a hero, and choosing to be a martyr. Both of which are false.
LikeLike
To Jennie: First off, as someone who has either personally used or cheered on people who used just about every slur in the book for you to complain about someone else behavior is definitely a ‘pot calling the kettle black’ situation. And since you spent half a dozen (rather lengthy) posts debating with me, claiming that I’m now ‘trolling’ because you don’t like my arguments is also beyond ridiculous. Second, as was already pointed out, anything I say about gay marriage or homosexuality would antagonize some people, as they disagree and consider certain statements of facts (like idea that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and gays are pervs) to be offensive in themselves. So, of course, your name-calling is an attempt at silencing speech, as you are in fact saying ‘I’m open to some different views, just not this one, so shut up troll’. Third, of course you’re calling yourself a hero (you admitted as much by saying all GSA presidents are heroes) and are ‘choosing to be a martyr’ in the sense that you’re acting out in a way that would invite scorn and contempt (ironically it’s something you’re now accusing me of doing).
LikeLike
In a democracy, we pay respect to minority rights, but ultimately the majority rules. The majority ruled on Prop. 8. Time to move on..
LikeLike
Dear Anonymous 2,Thanks very much for participating in this thread and sharing your views on the Proposition 8 debate and on homosexuality. You seem to have a lot of energy and passion for this issue, and I’d suggest that you even start a blog of your own. But from now on, I will be deleting your comments. I’m sure you’ll cry foul and say that I am infringing on your rights to free speech. Fair enough. As I said, go start a blog of your own, and even let me know about it. Maybe I’ll even post something on it.The thing is, I, as well as many others who have been posting on this thread, have heard you state your position plenty of times. The argument is going in circles, and I’m getting bored with it. In the meantime, I continue to welcome comments and stories from Jennie and her friends, on this thread or on any other articles I post on the Proposition 8 debate. Sorry Anonymous 2, but I’m much more interested in hearing from them than from you. You’ve had your say. Thanks very much and good luck with expressing yourself on the Proposition 8 issue in other forums besides my blog.
LikeLike