Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Irony Defined

Cease and Desist Right-wing

By Julia Rosen

“While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect.”

That’s everyone’s favorite line in our lawyer’s letter back to ProtectMarriage.com after they tried to bully the Courage Campaign into taking down our parody of Yes on 8′s logo used for this site.

So, according to ProtectMarriage.com a lesbian family is “substantially indistinguishable” from a straight one? Hey, will you admit that in court? Pretty please, it would be mighty useful.

After all, that’s exactly what our expert witnesses have been laying out in court. It’s nice to see that ProtectMarriage.com agrees, or at least their lawyer.

Just so we are clear:

Theirs:

Ours:

Maybe they are just upset because they think it is two men in drag. Nah, it’s probably just the cheerful lesbians that they are pissed about. Not angry enough for them…

142 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Holcombe  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:14 am

    i totally appreciate this website! am loving the work you do! one suggestion: the opposition has shown total animus in misconstruing any possible piece of information. i LOVE the letter, but hope we are ALL careful about "sarcastic" commentary. we, as a community, understand each other and know the intention and meaning of sarcasm. our unfortunately dim opponents, however, do not understand us, nor do they understand the unique perspective we have and the ways in which sarcasm manifest as a wonderful means of communicating… i think the logo parody is BRILLIANT. i think comments like "not angry enough" (the lesbian moms depicted) might be worth thinking carefully about posting here…

    just my thoughts! i love you guys!

    my weariness of sarcasm applies equally to our comments, as well. i see a lot of sarcasm in our open and lively discussion here. i LOVE it but i think, when faced with an opposition as devious as this, it behooves us ALL to SPEAK FROM THE HEART in full earnestness.

  • 2. Christina  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:15 am

    HA! That is great!

  • 3. homer  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Let's count the differences:

    1). "Yes on" is replaced by "Prop"

    2). "Protect marriage" is replaced by "Trial Tracker"

    3). The individual on the left is wearing a dress.

    4). The placement of the arms of the larger figures differs.

    5). There are slight color differences bertween the two.

    In my non-legal mind, you can't confuse the two and the second one is obviously a parody of the original.

    I wonder how much the anti-gay lawyers charged those folks (I hope a lot).

  • 4. Colt  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Yep, definitely my favorite line! I'm SO glad you guys are not backing down from those ridiculous people.

  • 5. moya  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:22 am

    well… i guess some think i DO look a bit butchy. but surely not in my wedding dress!

    thanks for putting us on your logo, btw.
    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Marriag

  • 6. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Win. Pure win. XD I couldn't have said that better myself.

    Their response needs to be duplicated and framed as momentos.

    Maybe you should send them this image and ask them what they think of it: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y93/SirFratley/8

    If Photobucket resized it, I have the larger version saved.

  • 7. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Sarcasm serves a purpose here, but I do understand your point, yet I doubt any of these blogs would be admissable in a court of law.

  • 8. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I'm caught between suggesting an alteration in the colors or leaving it alone just to piss them off. lol

  • 9. Holcombe  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Agreed. But Courage Campaign and this blog are arguably the biggest public advocate for this issue and this case. It was just my gut feeling.

  • 10. Randall Hoar  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:32 am

    I would say it's fair use, each issue apparently "hurts" some group of people so it's only fair that each group can use one form of the image… Though, in reality, the hurt seems a bit one sided, toward a group that actually does get hurt.

  • 11. Dave Babler (Canton,  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Can these letters from them be submitted as evidence.

    No I'm quite fucking serious, let this be put on the god damn record for all to see how fucking stupid the pro-prop8ers are.

  • 12. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Also, your image is smaller in size (lol).

    Thanks for posting an image we can copy and use on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

  • 13. Bill  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:35 am

    NOW I get it…

    See, I looked at the logo and thought that the Dad must have spilled beer on himself, and had to borrow a t-shirt from the Mom, which created a more feminine silhouette on the Dad.

    My bad.

  • 14. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Evidence of what? "Judge, I would like to introduce this letter as exhibit B and submit a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the defendants are whiners"?

  • 15. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Yes, you are of course correct, yet I do feel a need to point out:
    1. They started this battle with Prop 8.
    2. The GLBT community has endured their jabs for years and this is really the first opportunity to air our views. If you will recall (I think it was yesterday…maybe the day before) they attempted to show there had been no damage done to our community by the restrictions they placed upon us.

  • 16. Bryan Baker  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:41 am

    I love it!! When they used our stuff against us in thier commercials, kids in weddings, the mayors speach… That was alright in thier eyes, hypocrates !

  • 17. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Actually, it could be on the grounds of purjury, since their testimony lies in the fact that same-sex couples aren't the same as heterosexual couples, but they're clearly stating that the public cannot tell the difference. XD

    I doubt it can be used, though, but that would be very amusing if it could be.

  • 18. Chris  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Holcombe: I see what you're saying, but trust me – if this case ever came down to a comparison of obnoxious gay trolls vs. obnoxious straight trolls, marriage equality would be legalized from here to Alpha Centauri.

    You know how much hatred I see in the commenters on other news sites? Speaking as a straight guy, I'm ashamed to say that the vast majority of incoherent, obscenity-laced rants come from straight people defending wholesome, heterosexual, child-bearing, traditional marriage. (And, amusingly, God's love.)

    I almost wish that the 8 people would bring up the "mean people on the internet" issue. That would settle the issue of whether or not there was any animus involved, that's for damned sure.

  • 19. Eden w/ the Courage  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Here's another take on it from NBC Bay Area blogger who asked an IP lawyer for feedback on it:
    http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/01/anti-gay-marriag

    —-
    My overall take on it is that the pro Prop 8 people are stupid and I don't think they would ultimately win on this argument, but they have a better argument than I would have otherwise given them credit for.

    (Protect Marriage does) have a point that it's a pretty subtle parody — I actually didn't notice that the trial tracker logo is two women as opposed to a heterosexual couple, so I could theoretically see how people might be confused at first glance.

    BUT the anti Prop 8 people (Courage Campaign) have a good point that it's a parody with some First Amendment protection and I'm hard-pressed to believe that anyone is actually "confused" by this to the point where you'd have enough grounds to sue — you can't sue for trademark infringement unless people in the real world are confused about which site is which site, and I don't imagine people going to prop8trialtracker and being like, wait a frickin' minute, based on that logo, I thought for sure this was going to be an anti gay marriage site!

    But on the third hand, the pro Prop 8 people are insane and I wouldn't put it past them to sue the Courage Campaign just for attention. But on the fourth hand, I don't think prop8trialtracker should cave on this one either.

    I guess if I (was a lawyer who) had to work out a compromise, I'd say "we don't think anyone is confused by this, but as a courtesy to you, we'll change the color of the logo from blue to red" or something minor like that.

  • 20. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:50 am

    heh, I'm pretty sure you cannot perjure yourself by expressing two contradictory opinions… IANAL, but I think it has to be a clearly false factual claim.

    In any case, as much as I loved that line from the letter, clearly there is a difference here: ProtectMarriage is claiming merely that a stick figure drawing of a lesbian couple is indistinguishable from that of a mixed-gender couple. Not the same thing. The irony is hilarious, but there is no contradiction per se.

  • 21. SpoonmanTX  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:51 am

    I'm waiting for Courage Campaign to put a gay couple version out too…

    I'm just sayin' it would be nice to have.

  • 22. Hugo Dann  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Och, nay!! I thought they were guid Scottish laddies!! Not ladies!!

  • 23. Katie  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Isn't parody protected under copyright law? And therefore it doesn't matter how similar they are?

    I agree with those who say it would be amusing (and potentially very useful) to submit their letter into evidence. Hey, can't hurt!

    Let's hope our lawyers have a stockpile of nastiest-of-the-nasty homophobic comments ready for when the fundies inevitably mention others "bullying" them.

    Also, the logo is hysterical, and I laughed so hard when I got it (because, like our fundie friends, I find the image "virtually indistinguishable" and totally thought it was the Prop 8 logo at first).

  • 24. Chris  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Did anyone notice that the ProtectMarriage people aren't even using the logo they claim was improperly copied? You go to their site and all they have is the four people holding hands. No banner, no circle underneath them, nothing.

    (As a graphic designer, I personally think their bright-yellow-on-light-blue combination is horrible, but I suppose that's beside the point.)

    I found another blatant rip-off of the Prop 8 logo here. Apparently the sacrilegious homosexuals are putting it on…bathroom doors!!
    http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/images/bathroom_s

  • 25. Matthew S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Well, remember… we have 'Will & Grace' and 'Brokeback Mountain' so everything must be just fine, right? Ha ha ha.

    Puh-leaze!

  • 26. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Sorry, but even I don't buy "Gay people must be allowed to marry because straight people are stupid."

  • 27. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Or just put "this is a parody" on it?

  • 28. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I'm offended that people didn't realize that the adults in the logo are two adult male drag queens!

  • 29. Chris  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:33 am

    …with a little drag queen, too, no less! Think of the children!

    Next from the Keystone Prop folks: a demand to remove the little non-drag-queen guy from the logo before the other three turn him gay.

  • 30. Marc  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Has anybody noticed that ProtectMarriage.com changed their logo? It's all yellow now with no copy!

  • 31. Dieter M.  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:37 am

    you scare me because you have four hands…lol

  • 32. Brad  |  January 15, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Interesting. It appears ProtectMarriage.com has decided it wishes to distance itself from Prop 8.

    You can grab and save a copy of the "old" ProtectMarriage.com home page (cached on 1/10/2010) by typing protectmarriage.com into Google and then choosing "cache"; and then saving it to your desktop.

  • 33. Brad  |  January 15, 2010 at 11:21 am

    I like the bright-yellow-on-light-blue colors. I think it would be highly effective for marriage-equality proponents to adopt that color scheme in various uses. Of course to this point the color scheme has been used by marriage-discrimination groups such as Yes on 8 and the Maine discrimination campaign:
    http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/nov/

    Marriage discrimination groups may choose to continue to use those colors, but they are pleasant colors that supporters of marriage equality might make use of.

    Marriage equality campaigns could have effective and winning campaigns with those colors just as marriage discrimination groups have had effective and winning campaigns with those colors.

  • 34. Lurleen  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    SNAP!

  • 35. Shell  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Protectmarriage.com has now changed their logo to yellow?

    They turned it yellow…

  • 36. Ryan  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Hahahaha. We got them running with their tails between their legs, now!

  • 37. fuzzygruf  |  January 16, 2010 at 12:58 am

    I hate the logo. Every time I see it, I think back to the Prop 8 ads on TV, and it's like another slam. It's clever, and I love clever, but can't you think of anything more affirming? You're pointing out that Prop 8 is about children. It's not. I don't have kids, I never want kids, and I'm not fond of kids. Marriage is not about kids. It's about adults.

    I love the liveblogging updates. I just hate the logo.

  • 38. Lonna  |  January 16, 2010 at 1:36 am

    I find this to be informative and I hope once and for all Prop 8 is repealed!

  • 39. Dan Hess  |  January 16, 2010 at 2:25 am

    We win. Plain and simple, our lawyer's so much more awesome than theirs that they decided to change it. ^_^

  • 40. george  |  January 17, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Silly gay people. Seeking acceptance by a society in which more than half the people are against their plight, they resort to "clever," sarcastic imitations of their foes' position. When will you figure out that part of the problem with gay acceptance is the very attitude portrayed by this logo. You're supposedly the creative people; go make a decent logo.

  • 41. Andrew  |  January 17, 2010 at 10:00 am

    It's better to be a bit smug than completely witless.

  • 42. Paul  |  January 18, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Wow, George, I'm so glad you've learned enough about EVERY gay person to explain to us how we are supposed to be. I actually really love when people like who post. I could write all day about how totally retarded the pro-8ers are, but you come by and do all the work for me. It almost makes me not wish you get cancer…almost.

  • 43. Mormons for Marriage &raq&hellip  |  January 18, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    [...] its own kerfuffle last week. For details of the logo fight, you can check out this blog entry – http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/15/irony-defined/ This blog also includes quite a few commentary/discussion posts in addition to the liveblogging [...]

  • 44. derek  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Wait.
    It's two women?
    I thought it was a dude in a kilt.

  • 45. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I'm with you on ALL these points!

  • 46. Randall Polk  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:28 am

    I am feeling a lot of pain and suffering due to the attack on prop8trialtracker by the defendant's (via their attorney) attempts to commit what looks to me like a felonius action to abridge free speech. Am wondering if all the thousands and thousands of supporters of Courage are also feeling pain and suffering too? Am also wondering what the consequences might be if we all got very upset and filed thousands and thousands of lawsuits against those attacking Courage and us as well. Hmmmm.

  • 47. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Thanks Chris, I clicked on the link and got real chuckle – thanks for sharing.

  • 48. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:21 am

    Thank you for providing the link to "Mormon for Marriage – Making a Federal Case Out of It – as an excommunicated member of the Church – this story does indeed reflect the true facts regarding the Mormons and why they felt so compelled to have involvement in Prop8. Still, I would argue they violated the Separation of Church and State clause of the US Constitution, when they made Prop8 a subject of Church meetings.

  • 49. ProtectMarriage.com sues &hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:02 am

    [...] 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference [...]

  • 50. One Word: Frivolous&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    [...] 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference [...]

  • 51. mark  |  January 22, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    Julia wrote;

    "So, according to ProtectMarriage.com a lesbian family is “substantially indistinguishable” from a straight one? Hey, will you admit that in court? Pretty please, it would be mighty useful."

    Ironic indeed, it seems that the court believes your interpretation of "family" is a comedic parody of that which is implied by PM.com's logo, it is clear that the court is beginning to see "gay marriage" for the joke it really is. In this instance I agree, you win.

  • 52. Scott P  |  January 29, 2010 at 5:15 am

    OK, I just need to vent for a moment, so forgive me if I reiterate what so many have already stated elsewhere…

    How is it possible in this day and age that the equality of same sex couples must be debated?
    Why do we need to debate hatred versus equality?

    Equality is for everybody, not just a few.

    Same sex couples must have the same rights as anybody else, and to deny them that right is, in my eyes, pure evil, and the very worst example of what we as a society should be representing. It is inhuman, discriminatory, heartless, archaic, and worthless to deny these rights.

    I don't support discrimination, hate, ignorance, prejudice, or anything else that has been used to suppress a group of people. This makes me sick, and as a ~christian, heterosexual it embarrasses me.

    Our government MUST NOT support laws of hatred. In life we must choose our fights, and I choose this one. Same sex marriage is righteous, and any thought to the opposite are abhorrent to me. This is what I believe, and I will not back down, and neither will anybody else that believes that true freedom cannot exist without utter equality.

  • 53. Mark  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Prop 8, is not about the HATRED of gays it is about the LOVE of Family… it stands as a defense from the hatred expressed by those who, by their actions, defy the life of their Family of origin (for what ever reason).

  • 54. Mark  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Clearly it is understood that every living thing has, built into it, an instinctive drive to perpetuate its genetic being (survive) that is the nature of life; for one to blatantly ignore this instinct for the sake self gratification he/she is either genetically dysfunctional, cognitively deficient, or simply socially insane.

  • 55. fuzzygruf  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    You mean like a daughter who converts from Judaism to Christianity? She defies the life of her Family of origin (for whatever reason), so she is showing hatred via Christianity. Simply by being Christian, she is expressing hate. Now it all makes sense. Thanks!

  • 56. Mark  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    No, she would be defying the "belief" of her family,; quite a different thing Fuzzy, but I'm sure that the if it is hate she feels it is towards the religion and not her genetic "being", that is, of course, unless she is gay….

  • 57. Scott  |  January 30, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Regarding comment 53:

    …it is about the LOVE of Family

    Yes, you are right. The love of family is so important. So to deny the right of same sex groups to marry and have a family should be abhorrent to you as well.

    Thank you for making the point.

    And I KNOW that you would not be silly enough to say that same sex marriages cannot have children together if they are same sex, so they cannot have a family.
    There are hundreds of thousands of 'opposite sex' marriages where children have been adopted, by in-vitro, or sperm donor, etc to have children.

    How can people consider that any two same/opposite sex people that love each other and want to share their lives together should be denied that right?

    Remember, God supports love before hate. He also states (according to the old testament) that each individual shall come down to the Earth and choose their own path. How can they do that if you block their choices.

    If you don't like same sex marriage, then you don't have to be around those people. Whether they choose to marry hurts you in no way, but your blocking of their relationship hurts a multitude. Think about that. You are the one breaking up a family.

  • 58. Mark  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Every time a person commits to a "homosexual" lifestyle, he/she is the one who id "breaking" the family lifeline entrusted in them by their family of origin. My vote is on behalf of the ancestors of those who chose to abandon them.

    If you don't like how I voted then you don't have to hang around me, but encouraging others to participate in passive genocidal behaviors is what hurts humanity as a whole, Think about that… it is you who wished to dehumanize the concept of Family,.

  • 59. fuzzygruf  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Mark, you provide some neat advice. My cousin Cheryl is unable to have children (barren). I will immediately contact her family to abandon her for "breaking" the family lifeline.

  • 60. Phil L  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Then I suppose other "passive genocidal behaviors" such as birth control, abstinence, and complete celibacy should also be considered as dehumanizing the concept of family? Those all prevent procreation. Should they be made illegal as well?

  • 61. Mark  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Fuzzms, did your cousin intentionally deem herself "barren"? If she did than we are on the same page.

    Pjhil, neither "Gay Marriage" or Passive Genocide is not Illegal… they are simply considered to be unworthy of social investment…

    there is a difference…

    Gays can merry and freaks can kill their seedlings, the thing is, society should not be forced to support them.

  • 62. Mark  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Thet was supposed to read;

    "…neither “Gay Marriage” or Passive Genocide are Illegal…"

  • 63. fuzzygruf  |  January 31, 2010 at 11:16 am

    What an incredibly horrible thing to say about her health. No, she didn't deem herself "barren."

    Her brother did "deem" himself celibate when he entered the priesthood, so he apparently needs abandoning, too. I'm not sure why you're so bitter. Many people are so much worse off than you.

  • 64. Scott  |  January 31, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Re Comment 58: Mark

    "a person commits to a “homosexual” lifestyle"

    First, you need to understand that people don't "Commit to a homosexual lifestyle". Being gay is not a choice any more that being heterosexual is a choice, you are what you are, and please don't argue this point, because that would be born out of pure ignorance.

    "“breaking” the family lifeline entrusted in them by their family of origin"

    This sentence makes no sense. If english is a second language to you, then I apologize. Can you explain more clearly what you are trying to say?

    I certainly hope you are not suggesting that marriage is for procreation only. If that is the case then you would agree that any opposite-sex couple that choose to marry but not have children, should not be allowed to marry. So then, your Proposition vote should have been to ban marriage for anybody that chooses not to procreate with their partner, and therefore "same-sex" would actually have nothing to do with your choice. Is that the case?

    "My vote is on behalf of the ancestors of those who chose to abandon them."

    Please try to place a comma in the correct part of the sentence. Again, your sentence doesn't make sense.

    Are you suggesting that you voted on Prop 8 to represent the "ancestors" of homosexual people that would choose to marry? That same-sex couples who choose to marry are betraying their ancestors? Who are you to represent the beliefs of somebody you don't even know? How do you know that those people would not have been in support of same-sex marriage? If I was my great grandfather looking down from heaven, I would not want you or anybody else assuming they know what my wishes were. Do you not realize that what you are doing, is forcing your belief set on others, assuming that you know what they would have wanted.

    Speak for yourself. Do not speak for me, or the ancestors of homosexuals, or for anybody else that has not expressly directed you to represent them.

    Speaking for myself, if my son or daughter came to me, and told me that they were gay, and were going to marry a same sex person,

    Firstly, I would cry a little because I know that they have to live in a world with close-minded people like you, that make self manifested statements based on poor assumption.

    and

    Secondly, I would rejoice because my child has found a partner in life to love, to share with, and hopefully to grow old with. My child's happiness would be paramount. Otherwise I might be "betraying" their trust, and that what I give to them is nothing less than what they need the most, my love, understanding, and acceptance.

    Your vote did not bring families together, not did it satisfy the needs of some dead ancestor. What it did was help drive a barrier between to people that want to be a family. The net result of what you did, is the exact opposite, of what you should have done.

    What you think was a success, was actually a horrible failure. I hope you can understand this.

  • 65. Scott  |  January 31, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    two* not to.

  • 66. Richard  |  January 31, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Actually, I want that on a t-shirt. No, wait, I better get two. If I don't my husband will kill me.

  • 67. Richard  |  January 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Hello, Team George. Can we go to at least one blog post without running into you guys? You are only here becaue your team won't let any comments in. Thereofre, no one can help you guys see the truth. Oh, well, sheep are only supposed to follow the leader, they are not to have any usable brains of their own.

  • 68. Richard  |  January 31, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Oh, please. You are ust as juvenile and sheeplike as Team George. Grow up, use your brain for something besides a retention vat for the sludge the Haters teach you from birth, and become a real man who can form his own opinions after actually doing some research and finding out what family is all about.

  • 69. Mark  |  January 31, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    "First, you need to understand that people don’t “Commit to a homosexual lifestyle”. Being gay is not a choice any more that being heterosexual is a choice…"

    Born Gay or not you still have a choice of the kind of life to commit to, that is unless gays are "less that human" and don't have a free will.

    ““breaking” the family lifeline entrusted in them by their family of origin”

    Your parents gave you the potential for life, it is a spit in their face when you defy that life by choosing to terminate it, one's life span doesn't begin with the birth of an individual nor should it end with his/her death .

    "So then, your Proposition vote should have been to ban marriage for anybody that chooses not to procreate with their partner…

    When that proposition comes up I'll support it as well.

    "Do you not realize that what you are doing, is forcing your belief set on others, assuming that you know what they would have wanted[?]"

    The way I see it the dead don't care, if they want to stop me all they have to do is say so. I'll take their silence as an "affirmation" of my representation, and I wont even bill them.

    "Your vote did not bring families together, no[r] did it satisfy the needs of some dead ancestor. What it did was help drive a barrier between to people that want to be a family. The net result of what you did, is the exact opposite, of what you should have done."

    I did no such thing- We did it together. it was called a vote and if you voted you are just as responsible for the results. Besides no one ids stopping anyone from being a part of a "family", hall many people consider their pets to be "family", I don't see any validation beastial marriages for the sake of "family".

    BTW, If you are going to criticize my grammar in some effort to discredit me, the least you can do is spell-check your own posts, otherwise you simply look like an ass.

    Also, what do you have against second-language people anyhow; that comment was just a bit racist buddy.

  • 70. Mark  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    "Speaking for myself, if my son or daughter came to me, and told me that they were gay, and were going to marry a same sex person…"

    So anything goes, right Scott… What if your son tells you he is thinking about canceling his "hetero" wedding plans because he tried out a little drunken anal with his college roommate, and he can't decide which is better…

    What do you say to him then? What choice do YOU think is better for him? There is always a choice when it comes to marriage, just as there is a choice for society to decide which ones to facilitate with government benefits.

  • 71. Mark  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Besides if he stuck it to his roomy, wouldn't that mean he was born gay and has no choice in the matter.

  • 72. Scott  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Re comments 70/71

    Hi Mark, thanks for responding. I would be happy to give you my opinion.

    So lets break this down;

    "…he tried out a little drunken anal with his college roommate, and he can’t decide which is better"

    Perhaps you could give him the same advice as you would if he said, "he is thinking about canceling his wedding plans because he tried out a little drunken anal with another woman, and he can’t decide which is better"?

    However, playing along with the point you are failing to make, here is what I might say:

    Well Son, here are the thing you need to consider before you break off this marriage. First, you have gone off and had sex with someone other than your fiance, so drunk or not, you need to be honest and tell her what happened. You two need to talk about this and decide if it is something you can both live with, and move beyond.

    I also need to tell you son, that being drunk is not an excuse for anything, and you should be responsible for your actions.

    Next, son, because you are considering whether you should break off your marriage, we need to address whether having sex with another man was something you did because you were curious, or because you actually consider that you may be bi-sexual, or gay.

    I want you to know Son, that no matter how you feel, I will support your decisions, and try to provide the best guidance I can. I love you son, and I want the best for you and whom ever you choose to be with.

    Does this help answer your question, Mark?

  • 73. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Well done Scotti, but you didn't answer the question, "What choice do YOU think is better for him?"

    At least you admit it is a personal choice…

  • 74. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Why, if it isn't Marc34Me from the SacBee. Hey, buddy … easy to recognize you from your "procreation should be required" rants on the Bee.

    Friends, this man is a rampant homophobe and misogynist. He makes George look like a flaming liberal.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 75. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Little Mark, I know you're pissed because you got banned from the SacBee for hate speech. Please be advised that you are no more welcome here than there.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 76. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Check again hum, it was just a review, I am alive and well, on the Bee… As it appears that I am here as well.

  • 77. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Fascinating, considering that all of your posts disappeared. Of course it was "just a review."

    You keep telling yourself that, Mark.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 78. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Like I said, Hun… Look again….

  • 79. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Oh, I will, sugarpie.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 80. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Go to… http://www.sacbee.com/personas/?plckPersonaPage=P….

    All are present and accounted for.

  • 81. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Scott, Little Mark thinks that anyone who is not actively breeding is committing "passive genocide" (his words). He believes that parents should receive ongoing childcare credits/tax breaks after the children have reached the age of majority because parents have "done their moral duty" by breeding. He maintains that being gay is "choosing passive genocide," as is being childfree. Infertile people apparently get a "bye" because he assume that if they could breed, they would.

    This guy is a nutbag; I've posted with him on the SacBee for going on two years, and he obviously wants to live in a Catholic theocracy. He capitalizes Family when it's straight people and puts "family" in quotes when it isn't (ditto marriage). He also capitalizes Art, because he considers himself an Artist (admittedly, his paintings are quite lovely if a little bit too religious for my personal taste).

    Just a little background info.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 82. Scott  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Re comment 69 – Mark

    "Born Gay or not you still have a choice of the kind of life to commit to, that is unless gays are “less that human” and don’t have a free will."

    Yes, you should commit to a life that is most truthful to you. If the truth is that you love a same-sex partner then that is what you should do.

    To put it in another perspective, according to your logic, if you were on an island where everyone but you was gay, then you would have to give in to the consensus, and also be gay. Now Mark, you and I know that that is not going to happen, because you are in fact heterosexual (I assume that only). See Dude, it is the same for gay people, they are not going to change for you, because you see, they are in fact, gay.

    Next:
    "Your parents gave you the potential for life, it is a spit in their face when you defy that life by choosing to terminate it, one’s life span doesn’t begin with the birth of an individual nor should it end with his/her death ."

    Oh, you mean that if you are gay, and don't have children because same sex couples can't mix chromosomes and create a child together, that their 'bloodline' ends when they die. So they are 'spitting in the face' of their parents/ancestors.

    So I have already addressed that with several points in my previous comments, and it is not worth going over again. I think we have it covered already. Thank you for clarifying it for me though; much appreciated.

    "“So then, your Proposition vote should have been to ban marriage for anybody that chooses not to procreate with their partner…

    …When that proposition comes up I’ll support it as well."

    I don't feel that I need to respond to this one, Mark. It speaks for itself :)

    "The way I see it the dead don’t care, if they want to stop me all they have to do is say so."

    If the dead don't care, then why do you feel you need to represent them?

    "I’ll take their silence as an “affirmation” of my representation"
    Mark, with respect, that one also speaks for itself.

    Re voting: "I did no such thing- We did it together."

    Every storm begins with one drop of rain. I like that saying, because it reminds me that my choices and actions truly count, even when they are amongst many millions of others. Your vote did count.

    Interesting also to note how many people miss-voted, because they were confused by the question, "Do you support Prop 8 – Yes/No". I had a girl friend that called me up several days after the vote, crying because she realized that she had inadvertently voted to support the ban on same-sex marriage. She has since learned to fully understand the question, before answering.

    "no one ids stopping anyone from being a part of a “family”"

    Oh gosh. Yes, they are. You see if two people are not married, then legally one cannot make decisions on behalf of the other or their children, this includes financial and, medical emergency decisions as two examples. You see, marriage enables certain rights. Here is a quote from another website to illustrate the point, "as of mid-2009, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies married, civil unionized and domestic partnershipped same-sex couples approximately 1,100 federal benefits currently reserved as special privileges to opposite-sex married couples. Even though their marriage may be recognized within a couple's state, the federal government considers them to be simply roommates…"

    "BTW, If you are going to criticize my grammar in some effort to discredit me, the least you can do is spell-check your own posts, otherwise you simply look like an ass."

    It is not the spelling in you comments that was the issue; it was the syntax. I couldn't understand with certainty, what you were trying to say.
    Regardless of my typos, I know lots of people that think I am an ass. I am ok with this :)

    "Also, what do you have against second-language people anyhow; that comment was just a bit racist buddy."

    Actually I have nothing against second-language people; indeed, I am one of them. I speak six languages (not including computer, LOL). In fact, if you review what I wrote, you will see that I was trying to allow the possibility that your inability to express yourself clearly was because you didn't have an adequate grasp of the english language. In which case, I apologized. Odd that you would just assume that I was trying to make a bigoted statement :)

    Anyway Mark, this entire dialogue has been quite interesting, but I don't want it to become a personal slinging match. This forum is about something much bigger than you and I. It is about the fight for equality. I really do appreciate your efforts in responding. I think I now understand your motivation for the choice you made. I respect your thoughts, but will continue to respectfully disagree with you.

    As I stated in my first post, and to bring this back to topic, same-sex partners should have the right to marry; and have all of the rights of opposite-sex couples. Equality is for everybody, or it is for nobody. Our government must not create laws that discriminate against passive groups.

    Love and Light!

  • 83. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Lets review,

    1) We agree that a Gay Lifestyle is a choice.

    2) Yes, on a deserted Island full of gays, I would do what is necessary to facilitate the needs of every available lesbian (including procreation if so desired), in which case Marriage would not be an issue.

    3) We both had an effect on the decision to preserve Marriage.

    4) Syntax is Grimmer and we agree that you were not making light of my spelling.

    5) Second languages are cool.

    and

    6) Though our standards may differ, we both feel the need to decide who "should" qualify for marital recognition, otherwise we would have abstained from voting on Prop 8, which neither of us did…

    In hindsight, It seems we have more in common than not; trust respect and consistency is the path to love and the light will surely show us the way if only we are willing to see…

  • 84. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Mark wrote: I would do what is necessary to facilitate the needs of every available lesbian (including procreation if so desired)

    Oh, look … Mark is now advocating rape. How nice.

    (I didn't see anywhere that Scott said he thought being gay was a choice, BTW …)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 85. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Well Fiona, it is strange that you would suggest that lesbians "need" to be raped… I, was simply offering to shave my mustache and lick a Lilly or two… never the less if you are right and one expresses the desire to be raped… I suppose I be willing to put it a vote amongst the multitude of sexual deviants on the Island; a proposal that would likely pass if it pleases the minority of the one.

    You crack me up, Hun.

  • 86. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Honestly Fiona you take yourself way too seriously.

  • 87. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Rape is no laughing matter, Mark.

    Perhaps you would feel differently if it were some random man offering to "service" your daughters against their will?

  • 88. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Your vulgarity is duly noted.

  • 89. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:16 am

    As is your stupidity… Hun.

  • 90. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Fiona, yours is representative of the insanity that plagues the do-goobers on the Equality Wagon, for your perception of reality is flawed beyond recognition… I am not laughing at "rape"; I am laughing at YOU.

  • 91. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Marky-mark, you think all women are stupid. This has been made abundantly clear to me over the last year and a half.

    You try to pretend that your idea of "servicing" a lesbian would be consentual, when it would patently be anything but … and then try to pretend that such does not constitute rape. And you call *me* stupid?

    A homophobe, a misogynist and a rape apologist. I feel sorry for your wife and daughters, Mark. I really, truly do.

  • 92. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:40 am

    that's "do-gooders", but a suppose goobers is just as well…

  • 93. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:45 am

    That is just as well, they pity you the same. And I don't think ALL women are stupid, but rest assured you consistantly prove one most definitely is.

  • 94. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Oh, Mark. Aren't you a big, tough man, calling me stupid on the internet because I called you out as the rape apologist that you are?

    I've no doubt that you would like nothing more than to belt me right in the mouth for being "uppity" and not keeping to my place as well …

  • 95. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Please fiona, you have my live.com address, please send your love letters there so that you can stop embarrassing yourself in "public" forums. I promises to respond with equal vigor and I might even entice you with more "vulgarities" if you like… LOL ;)

  • 96. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:51 am

    What ever turns you on hun…

  • 97. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Mark, I know that you would love nothing more than to silence me (and all women) in public fora. But guess what? That's just one more decision you don't get to make for me.

    The only one embarrassing themselves here is you, spewing hate speech and promoting rape of lesbians.

    Get bent.

  • 98. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:53 am

    You're a sick, ugly little man, Mark. Seek counseling. Seriously. I am sure you can get a referral from the local community center.

  • 99. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:53 am

    And, I never said you were stupid, i said you are insane…

  • 100. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Pure insanity indeed….

  • 101. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Really, Mark? Your memory is short:

    93. Mark | February 1, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    That is just as well, they pity you the same. And I don’t think ALL women are stupid, but rest assured you consistantly prove one most definitely is.

    91. Mark | February 1, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    As is your stupidity… Hun.

    I guess I'll just add "liar" to the list of your shining qualities. Homophobe, misogynist, rape apologist and liar.

  • 102. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I presume you were looking in the mirror, little man, when you posted that.

    Seek counseling. I am serious. You have more issues than National Geographic.

  • 103. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:59 am

    LOL, "issues" -"National Geographic" you so clever. Me like you long time.

  • 104. Scott  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Re comment 83

    Hey Mark,

    OK, fine I will post just one more time :)

    "1) We agree that a Gay Lifestyle is a choice."

    I agree that a gay lifestyle is just as much of a choice as a heterosexual is.

    2) Yes, on a deserted Island full of gays, I would do what is necessary to facilitate the needs of every available lesbian (including procreation if so desired), in which case Marriage would not be an issue.

    On an island of lesbians, I suspect their only 'need' for a man would be to chop wood. Given the need to procreate; well, I just hope you have a dixie cup handy :)

    "3) We both had an effect on the decision to preserve Marriage."

    I voted No on Proposition 8. I fully support the right to same-sex marriage. As we lost, my vote had no effect on the decision unilaterally. However, personally I am very proud of the vote I submitted, and the reason I did it. I will always vote, and fight for freedom.

    "4) Syntax is Grimmer and we agree that you were not making light of my spelling."

    Correct. I was alluding to your syntax, and you were indicating my spelling (typos).

    "5) Second languages are cool."

    All languages are cool, but no language is as effective if we don't use it to clearly communicate our thoughts. Just as no thoughts are as effective as when they are based on essential facts.

    and

    "6) Though our standards may differ, we both feel the need to decide who “should” qualify for marital recognition, otherwise we would have abstained from voting on Prop 8, which neither of us did…"

    Equality should be the standard, so yes, in that regard, our standards differ.
    Yes, I think that as a member of our society I should 'decide' to support the rights of other human beings who are being denied the same rights as others. It is my responsibility, not just as an American, but as a member of the human race, to support that which is most fair to everybody. Without equality, there cannot be true freedom.

    "In hindsight, It seems we have more in common than not; trust respect and consistency is the path to love and the light will surely show us the way if only we are willing to see…"

    I think it is worth my effort of hoping that sooner than later you will find the true path to love and light. You took the time to read what I wrote, and what I wrote was truth, and I thank you for considering it. I hope that it will sink in, and that you will become, what I define, as a better person for it. I am not mad at you, Mark. Rather than arguing for the sake of controversy, I hope you speak from your convictions, and I respect conviction.

    You really are wrong though, Mark!

    The best I can do is tell you that, and hope that you will think about it, and find out why, before more people get hurt by the same cognitive rationality that you employ, which ultimately is helping deteriorate freedom and equality both here and abroad.

    I wish you all the best, and now I need to move on to other matters outside this forum.

    To all the LGBTs out there. I think all the ignorance that is directed towards you might be a sampling of what African Americans had to go through in the 50s and 60s when they could bare no more. Remember though, despite all odds, they won, and you can win too. The simple reality is, that you are in the right. Don't ever give up, because the fight you fight today, is not just for yourselves, it is also for the freedom of every other suppressed group of people out there. Don't yield one foot, one toe, or one whisker to ignorance. You're loud, your proud, and I am damn happy to be used to it!

  • 105. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Fiona64, you rock.

    You can't take Mark seriously though….he has no ball and still can't figure out why all the pussy he has ever 'serviced' taste like feces.

    And before we get all bent out of shape about rape, think…

    All the lip service about tongue service has to do with the fact that he hasn't got anything else to service with! Poor little thing. Kinda makes you feel ashamed for him.

  • 106. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Well as long as we agree on the six points, than that is all that matters; the rest , of course, is a matter of opinion. It has been interesting.

    M Gallegos.

  • 107. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:17 am

    I Love you too fiona… LOL ;)

  • 108. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Oh wait … Make that Felicks.

  • 109. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:42 am

    See there Liona… now that's vulgarity. WTG Feeeelicker

  • 110. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:57 am

    All Mark and no Might…I'm a man (the kind with a real dick.) I am really not inclined to return your sentiment until you get a brain installed….or at least a penile implant (no more than 12 inches….I don't date dudes with dicks bigger than mine! :P LOLOL)

    Now run along and try to go 'rape' someone with that dull slow witted tongue of yours!

    Oh, and about your so called wife running away the other day, sorry about that. I banged her silly then told her I wasn't really into chicks that much. I recuse myself under the 'Bi-curious obscene for a day clause' as in 'Scene banging your wife all over the city!!!

    Bi the way, don't go near Fiona…I really don't care myself mind you, but it's really for your own safety. They don't call them bull-dykes for nuthin' you know!!!

  • 111. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Felyx, I'm straight. Mark has nothing to worry about from me; I like men.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 112. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Oh, Mark! You may want to give spell check a try yourself. There are quite a few misspellings and grammatical errors in your post at #70. But even without them, youstill come across as a pompous, self-serving ass.
    Sorry about that, I did not mean to insult pompous, self-serving asses. They are a higher life form.

  • 113. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    "Felyx, I’m straight. Mark has nothing to worry about from me; I like men. Love, Fiona"

    It's ok, I don't hold it against you….and like you say, Mark has nothing to worry about from me either…I too only like men.

    Fiona, you are just the type of person that everyone likes to be around; intelligent, warm and most of all compassionate. It's no wonder that something like Mark enjoys getting reactions out of you. I have enjoyed your comments and they certainly have made me think. Seeing Mark bait you to get a reaction out of you, well, it just reminded me of a fat bully trying to boost a lack of self esteem by picking on another. His baiting me however was more tolerable…and I would say more entertaining. In any event, I am bored playing with it and am moving on, but know that I find your personality and online presence very refreshing and attractive. Thank you for participating, and thank you for sharing yourself with all of us.

    Love,
    Felyx

  • 114. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Yes, mark, there is a choice when it comes to marriage–do I marry someone I do not love in order to protect myself from total idiots, or do I fight for the right to marry the man I love with all my heart and have a happy life? How about looking at the REAL Yeshua ben Yoseph instead of the Queen James Bastardized Version. You might learn something. Oops, I forgot. Learning something is forbidden to the sheep.

  • 115. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Scott, I wish I had had a father like you when I was growing up, instead of one who took unfair, abusive advantage of my age and orientation until I was old enough to move out of the house. Maybe I would have had a better childhood, and been able to accept my sexual orientation earlier in life. Your family has truly been blessed. I, on the other hand, had a "father" who was too much like Mark.

  • 116. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    OH, really, Mark, is that why your side wanted to prevent the trial from being shown–so that light could set everyone free? Well, if that is the case, I would have thought that your side would have wanted the trial to be shown even more than we did. And by the way, "grammar" is NOT "grimmer;" they are two different words with two distinctly different meanings. "Grammar" means syntax, "Grimmer" means darker, more depressing. So I guess you are saying that proper syntax in your writing is depressing.

  • 117. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    No, Mark, it is not fiona who takes herself too seriously, it is you!

  • 118. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    And in so doing, Mark, you WERE suggesting rape. Lesbians would not want you, in fact, they would find you disgusting. However, I have often heard that two lesbians together is every straight man's fantasy, and 2,000 lesbians together is every straight man's nightmare. Why is that, Mark? Is it because you think you could overpower two lesbians and rape them, and 2,000 lesbians could overpower you and teach you a lesson in respect? A lesson that you are MOST DEFINITELY in SEVERE need of. You are in the most desparate need of a full course in respect of any straight man I know. Of course, After reading your posts, I am almost afraid that you are not straight, but merely a closet case. And we definitely do NOT need anyone like you in the LGBTQQI community. We have enough problems dealing with the bigots who are truly straight–like Team George.

  • 119. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    And, Mark, fiona is NOT embarrassing herself. You, however, are doing a great disservice to whatever claim to reputation you may have. If anyone is embarrassing himself, it is you! Go home, play with your toys, stay out of sight, and let the adults have a rational conversation.

  • 120. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    No he can't, fiona. They already know it's too late.

  • 121. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Mark, you are Despicable! Utterly, Totally DESPICABLE!!!

  • 122. Dan Hess  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Not only is Mark a truly pitiful excuse for a human being (not that the human race is so great to begin with), he seems to feel the need to make up for his inadequacies by destroying others' lives so that he can point to someone worse off than he is–never mind that he can only do that because he himself voted to take away their rights.

    Fiona, on the other hand, is generally awesome, and if I were not on the opposite side of the country I would ask her for a hug. =)

  • 123. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    I guess you showed him….

  • 124. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Aaaaannd we have full-circle! We are back to the topic of the OP- "parody", and dan, ricker, licker and fiony have proven there is no limit to the absurdity in the gay outlook on life. It is all a big joke being player on humanity and unworthy of consideration or the support of others. Let them sing to their own Choir because no one wants to hear their shit.

  • 125. Mark  |  February 1, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    HU,HU,HU… durrrr. he thed "utter" ;/=

  • 126. Dan Hess  |  February 2, 2010 at 1:11 am

    Erm, yeah. Fiona and I are straight. We don't have a "gay outlook" on life, we have a worldly outlook. We, and thousands of heterosexuals like us, understand what you pitiful right-wing loonies haven't in over four hundred years of American colonial history–that white Christian heterosexual males are not superior to any other combination of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. People like you are almost enough to make me ashamed of being what you term a "superior" human–I fulfill three of those criteria and as a pagan ex-Christian used to have all four under my belt. I say "almost" because I then have to remember that the only possible reason for wanting to take away another group's rights (And I'm sure it's not just homosexuals, people like you are just pissed because you're running out of people that it's societally acceptable to hate. You can't be openly misogynist or racist anymore, so since you can't legitimately go around moaning about "them damn Injuns," "them damn bitches" or "them damn ni***rs," you just move straight on to "them damn f**gots") is a malformed soul–which does, in fact, make me and a good portion of the human race superior to you. Even better, you have some kind of sick persecution complex, so you go around insulting everyone else and claiming that we're all religious bigots trying to stop the free exercise of Christianity or some such bullshit. Just shut up already, it's entirely obnoxious that the Home of the Free in this day and age still has to put up with annoying little bastards like yourself. So yeah. Fuck off. Have a nice day, not that you deserve one.

  • 127. Dracil  |  February 2, 2010 at 3:34 am

    And here we have it. Mark loves DICK. Congratulations on coming out of the closet Mark!

  • 128. MarK  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

    You don't gave to be Gay to have a Gay Outlook on things.

    You argument is typical of "self-hatred", surely you are haunted by the ghosts of your past, because I do not fit into cast of characters that have left you so emotionally scarred, nor are the millions of Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, etc. who turned away from the Gay proposal of Marriage.

    So sing your tune, I'm sure that if nothing else you are appreciated by the Choir of deaf-mutes and the paralyzed-blind; those who don't care and can't escape.

  • 129. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Mark wrote: blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah.

    And the Earth responded with a mighty snore.

  • 130. Mark  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Sing Fiona Sing…

  • 131. Mark  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:35 am

    "So sing your tune, I’m sure that if nothing else you are appreciated by the Choir of deaf-mutes and the paralyzed-blind; those who don’t care and can’t escape."

    Thank you Fiona…

    I rest my cast.

  • 132. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Oh, Marky-mark … I already sang for you earlier today.

    I'll do it again, though:

    How about "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught," from Rodgers & Hammerstein's "South Pacific"?

    You've got to be taught
    To hate and fear,
    You've got to be taught
    From year to year,
    It's got to be drummed
    In your dear little ear
    You've got to be carefully taught.

    You've got to be taught to be afraid
    Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
    And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
    You've got to be carefully taught.

    You've got to be taught before it's too late,
    Before you are six or seven or eight,
    To hate all the people your relatives hate,
    You've got to be carefully taught!

  • 133. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:38 am

    You go rest your "cast," sweetie-pie. I'm sure your wife will be along with a(nother) martini as soon as she finishes doing her assigned chores.

  • 134. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Mark wrote: because I do not fit into cast of characters that have left you so emotionally scarred,

    Sure you do, Little Mark. Bigots always fit into that cast of characters.

    Toodle-oo, little man ….

  • 135. Mark  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:13 am

    I suppose that would apply if it is hate and fear you are feeling… but then,

    I'd have to wonder…

    Who taught you to be hateful dear…
    And to what, you attribute all your fear,
    So broad, it spans form ear to ear…

    And I wonder more…
    Were you carefully taught,
    Or was it a lie you willfully bought.
    so before you infect the six to eight,
    Look in the mirror and check your hate.

  • 136. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:15 am

    I wonder that you are still speaking, Senor Benedick. Nobody marks you.

    – Beatrice to Benedick, in Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing"

    Mark, I don't hate you. That would require far more emotion than I care to devote to the likes of you. The only emotion I carry for you is pity.

  • 137. Mark  |  February 2, 2010 at 7:08 am

    "Pity"?

    I suppose that is taught, as well, same as is "love", "joy" and "sexuality" all emotional perceptions, just the same as hate and fear…

    There is a thin line between "taught" and "bought", what is it you're selling, Hun?

  • 138. Mark  |  February 2, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Yes in deed, irony is certainly being defined on this blog…

  • 139. Ivy  |  July 16, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Well said. Proud fighter for equality here. I'll be keeping an eye on this site, I'm sure.

  • 140. Ivy  |  July 16, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    Because we are an endangered species? It's not like there aren't enough humans in the world already.

    Also: Being gay is not a choice, and if I (as a hetrosexual)choose not to have children, its my right to do so.

  • 141. Ivy  |  July 16, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    She pitties you because you don't understand, and it seems obvious that you won't any time soon. Unfortunatley, I am not as skilled at online debate as others here, and can't possibly express exactly what I would like to say to you in a way that is clear and consise, so I am going to let Fiona speak for me.

  • 142. Inglewood Seo Marketing Companies  |  April 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    Hey There. I discovered your weblog using msn.

    That is an extremely smartly written article.
    I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful
    info. Thank you for the post. I’ll definitely return.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!