Inside My Velvet Rope

Sources. You need to cite sources if you're going to make claims like that.

From:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=story&id=1061&articleid=VR1117996451&cs=1

http://www.peacelovelunges.com/relationships/el-coyote-owner-expresses-regret-over-prop-8-contribution-but-boycott-looms/

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/15/local/me-elcoyote15

http://gayconservative.org/2008/11/07/burn-their-churches-to-the-ground/

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=819d49c3-7feb-4e32-b36f-5000172a664d

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=6584961

http://www.kcbs.com/pages/3595819.php?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=3

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4762579

http://www2.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/vandals_hit_2_churches_in_california/23349/

From:

Yeah, none of that stuff is rioting and physical attacks on people, as you alleged.

The vandalising of churches was wrong, but there was nothing wrong with protesting and calling for boycotts.

From:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbXMZEO6lv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VS3Us-TRU0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tAGE6McX4

From:

I do not fault the Prop8 people for being afraid of intimidation/harrassment. After Prop8 was voted in, there were riots against them. Their reaction of the homosexual population was totally out of proportion to what happened. They destroyed people's businesses and careers, but the Prop8 supporters never tried to destroy their businesses and careers. Gays and lesbians in California do not have my sympathy.

From:

As per

flewellyn's comment, you need to cite sources, if you are going to make claims like that.

You don't find it the least bit of a double standard that they are worried about their own people's right to live in peace, but not same-sex couples' right to live in peace? That seems like obvious cognitive dissonance to me; I'm interested in understanding how it isn't to you.

From:

well, speaking about homosexuals' right to live in peace... take a look at Iran which routinely rounds up and tortures or hangs homosexuals just for their orientation.

Homosexuals in Iran are completely unable to live in peace, but they can in our country because our country protects them. I do not understand how being denied marital status qualifies as "not living in peace"

Furthermore, marriage is a social and subjective construct. Marriage has no impact upon anyone's well-being, whether heterosexual or homosexual, unless that person gives it a subjective value.

Homosexuals in the United States do live in peace. They can talk about being gay and enjoy their sexuality without fear of the government coming to torture them for it. In fact, what Iran permits is a hate crime in our country.

From:

Furthermore, marriage is a social and subjective construct. Marriage has no impact upon anyone's well-being, whether heterosexual or homosexual, unless that person gives it a subjective value.

Marriage is a legal status which confers legal rights and privileges. It is not subjective, it's codified in law.

Also, saying "you're not oppressed because people in X country have it worse" is fallacious.

From:

My statement is that there is NO oppression. How is being protected from violent attacks under a hate crime law a part of an oppressive society?

There are supporters of civil unions, which gives the same rights, without the subjectivity of marriage.

From:

Yeah, just stop digging.

From:

In fact, marriage impacts a couple's well-being, and it is very different from civil unions. (http://wlotus.livejournal.com/1315303.html) The ability to visit your loved one while in the hospital and make informed decisions about their medical care when they are incapacitated is one example. The ability to claim your partner's body after death and fulfill their wishes for cremation/burial, etc. is another. So is the ability to inherit your partner's estate just by virtue of you being married to them. Imagine the trauma you would feel if, on top of the grief you already felt about having your loved one injured or die, you were told you had no say at all about what happened to them or their body or the remnants of the life you built together, simply because you were not married to them. To you that may not seem like much, but to the many same-sex couples who have to deal with this reality, it is a lot.

And none of this explains why Prop8 people who are concerned about their supporters' well-being cannot extend compassion to others and think, "If I am concerned about my livelihood (my business, my career), I ought to be concerned about the damage being unable to marry does to the livelihood (the financial status of their families and their children) of same-sex couples."

So because same-sex couples in America are not rounded up by the government and tortured, they don't have the right to want more and better treatment, they don't have the right to have their commitments legally protected and respected just like opposite-sex couples'? Be careful: I have heard abusers make that same argument towards their victims. "After all I've done for you, how DARE you complain about a little yelling now and again?"

From:

"So because same-sex couples in America are not rounded up by the government and tortured, they don't have the right to want more and better treatment, they don't have the right to have their commitments legally protected and respected just like opposite-sex couples'"

Now, you are putting words in my mouth, and I resent that. This has nothing to do with what I feel toward the rights of homosexuals. This is all about my attitude toward the population in California.

From:

I read your other comment, which specifically said you believe homosexuals should have the right to visit loved ones, after posting this one. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, though. What I wrote above was what I thought you were saying, so I restated it to clarify, which you did.

From:

I am also interested in how being the victim of rioting (which is, of course traumatic) is somehow more traumatic than being the victim of laws which say you do not have the right to legally protect your relationship with your loved one in the case of hospitalization, death, etc.

My argument here is not that the Prop 8 supporters should not be concerned about harassment/intimidation, nor that supporters of same-sex marriage have the right to harass/intimidate the Prop 8 supporters. My argument is that if the Prop 8 supporters are concerned about harassment/intimidation, that concern should make them concerned about upholding laws that oppress an entire group of people. They don't seem to be making that connection, and that is what I find ironic and hypocritical.

From:

Riots are worse because riots always involve violence, and violence is always worse.

Now, this convsersation here is completely different from my views on homosexuals as a group and my attitude toward their rights. I do believe they should be allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Please, do not misunderstand me. Merely, I have little sympathy for what goes on in California.

From:

Physical violence is not worse; it is a different, equal kind of bad. Victims of emotional abuse will tell you that.

I'm just surprised that your compassion for one side does not extend to the other. I did not expect that from you.

From:

"I'm just surprised that your compassion for one side does not extend to the other."

That is exactly how I feel about the situation in California, and why I have very little sympathy for it. I wish the people in California had more compassion. I am worried that we have come to a misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with what I think about homosexuality.

From:

I am having a difficult time separating your view of California's homosexuals from your view of all homosexuals. I know in your mind they are two different things, but to me they are part of the same issue, so they cannot be separated.

From:

I think this is because we have focused on different things and read different things in forming our opinions.

And as long as we understand each other and where each other is coming from to a good degree, which I do believe we understand each other now, then all is well, and I think we can leave this argument in peace. So this will be my last comment here.

I haven't been checking my inbox for LJ comments; I've just been clicking "refresh" Now to my inbox to delete everything I've already read through "refresh"

From: