Pages

December 9, 2008

Local Hero: High school Gay Rights Activist and No. on 8 Advocate Explains What it Means to Her that Proposition 8 Passed

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.

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.

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.

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.



86 comments:

Anonymous said...

This young woman is very brave to be willing to put herself out there. I also admire her intelligent, articulate, honest responses. Reading her remarks gives me hope for the future of our younger generation of our country. And yes, I agree with Soccer Mom that Yes on 8 treats gay and lesbians like second-class citizens, and it makes me ashamed that we haven't moved beyond that in our society yet.

Anonymous said...

But imagine the disappointment you would feel if you were young and were into farm animals, or your sister, or corpses, or etc.
How sad would you feel if your community thought there was something wrong with you. Would you be ashamed if a majority of California voters decided that your perversion didn't entitle you to ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGES. (You would of course have the same Constitutional Rights as all citizens; and like everyone else would be accorded the privilege of marrying a consenting adult of an opposite sex, to whom you're not related). Would you start a Club For Deviants & Sympathizers while claiming to be a victim of bigotry and oppression. Or would you actually get help for your problems? Curious minds want to know.

P.S. "A Day Without A Gay" is definitely something I can get behind (no pun intended). Can we have that every day?

Anonymous said...

i'm proud to be her friend and support her in every way possible. i always have and i always will :)

Soccer Mom said...

Dear "Anonymous":
As much as I want people to feel they comment freely on my site and express any point of view, I was very tempted to remove your hateful comments. Oh, if the subject of my post had been a woman in her 20s, 30s, 40s, or older, I would have let it stand. But I was praising a high school student. And for you to attack a young woman like that is sick. You call gays and lesbians perverted. Whoever you are, you have some serious pathology of your own you need to work out, perhaps in a 72-hour lock up in the county mental health unit, and then in some serious therapy. Why are you so angry, and what are YOU afraid of?

So, as I said, I was tempted to remove this comment, because I didn't like hateful comments being directed at a young woman. But Jennie herself said not to. In an email to me. she said it just shows the extent what she and others in her organization are up against. "Just so you know, I've been threatened 'anonymously' to be beaten up, have my car hurt, etc. Comments like that aren't really anything. It shows that a grown person is willing to hurt the feelings of a teenage girl with genuine emotions, and that they're only willing to attack her anonymously."

Anonymous said...

Dear "Soccer Mom"
I was wondering what would happen be when someone speaks the truth on the issue. Suffice it to say your response is disappointing, but certainly not surprising:

1. You're being intellectually dishonest in exploiting a high-school kid to try to squash criticism of YOUR views. It applies to just about anyone who tries to legitimize perversion and grant the deviants additional privileges in society: gay, straight, 15, 30, 80, whatever.
Likewise, your post is more about opposition to Prop8, rather than Jennie specifically; as the same (nonsensical) arguments about equality could have been made by any of its opponents. But of course it's easier to say 'boo hoo you're hurting her feeling, so sit down and shut up', than to actually debate the issues.
For that matter, let's say I found a straight kid who felt as if members of society were treating him as a second class citizen by granting homosexuals extra marriage privileges. Would you stop advocating for gay marriage?
2. You can't address the arguments, so you simply dismiss them by with the label 'hateful' - care to explain why calling a perv a perv is 'hateful'?
3. Further, you try to associate me with people threatening violence against Jennie when no such threat has been made by me, anonymously or otherwise - can we say 'McCarthyism'.
4. Ironically YOU then threaten violence with the 72hour lock up talk - can we say 'hypocrite', as well?
5. You'd have shut me up, but a high-school kid managed to restrain you. And yet I'm the angry and hateful one, right?!
In the end your attitude is one of fascist thuggery, where dirty tactics and brute force are used order to silence the truth. And I'M afraid you would succeed - but not on Nov 05 and not today!

P.S. At the risk of sounding redundant, how about addressing the actual issue instead of whining about hurt feelings: If gays aren't perverted, then where do zoophiles, necrophiles, etc. stand in your book? Do are they deserve special marriage privileges as well?

Soccer Mom said...

Wow, "intellectual dishonesty," "McCarthyism," "hypocrisy," and "facist thuggery."

You seem to be giving me a lot more power to sway public opinion on this issue than my silly little blog deserves. Should I be flattered? Wow, to be labeled a "thug." That's a new one for me, honestly.

As for your accusations that I "threatened" a 72-hour lock-up: Please, I have absolutely no such power. Why would you think I would? My understanding of California law on this issue is that someone in a legal position of authority--cop, doctor--can make that call, if they deem you a threat to yourself or others.

Certainly, I as Soccer Mom, have no such authority. Of course, anyone can voluntarily commit himself to a psychiatric unit for 72-hour observation. Personally, I have known people who have done this.

I don't know that there is much for us to argue about. You equate people who are gay with those who are "zoophiles" and "necrophiles." You have an interesting view of human sexuality.

Have you come across gay people who are into doing animals and dead people? It would be interesting to talk to those people. Send them my way. And have you come across the "straight kid who felt as if members of society were treating him as a second class citizen by granting homosexuals extra marriage privileges?" If so, I'd be interested in talking to that young person as well. I'd like to provide that young person with equal time to express his/her views on this issue.

Overall, thanks for your comments. I say, with all respect, that I agree to disagree with pretty much everything you have said.

Sally said...

Wow. Just wow, Anonymous.
First of all. Being gay does not even BEGIN to compare to being into bestiality, or incest, or necrophilia. Why?
A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two consenting human beings.
Regardless of what anyone's specific interests may be, the fact remains that animals and corpses cannot consent, and therefore it is illegal. Incest, as we've seen throughout history in royal families, completely destroys the gene pool. First rule of genetics: spread the genes apart.
You may bring up the point that homosexuals cannot have children, but they can. In this modern world which you so blatanly refuse to adapt to, there are ways. And those children grow up in just as good, if not better, than a heterosexual household.

And yes, you can have a "Day Without a Gay" every day. Try moving somewhere where people like you are the majority. Say, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Somalia. I'm sure you'd be welcomed there. I hope you like burkas.

Anonymous said...

Hi. I'm Jennie.
I actually wasn't going to comment on this at all. But I kind of felt like I should step in.

To the first and third Anonymous, thank you so much :)Your support means the world to me, I hope you know that.

To the second.
Soccer Mom in no way exploited me. I agreed to do the Q&A, and was, and am, very excited about it. I'm glad I got this chance.

And people need to be able to put a face, or a situation, to what happened with Prop 8, and what's happening when equal rights are squashed all around the United States, and the world. Of course others have the same story I do. That's the point. How do you know that someone you're close to isn't going through the exact same thing? They may just not be able to tell their story, not to you. So I told mine, and hoped it would lend a face, sympathy, empathy, to my cause. To our cause.
Because when you attack this cause, you're not only just hurting my feelings. You're hurting hundreds of thousands of people's feelings.

Remember, not too long ago interracial marriage was against the law, and against society, as well. We are not taking away rights, we are not adding rights. We are simply preserving the right to equality our Founding Fathers guaranteed everyone.

You also just called me, quite a few of my friends, some family, and all those hundreds of thousands of people "pervs." Thanks for the maturity level.

I'd be happy to talk to you, Anonymous 2, about this issue. Soccer Mom is just the messenger. Like you said, this story's about me.

Also, you mentioned that kids should get help for their problem.
Since I didn't say it before...homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality...none of them are a choice. It's not a problem. People are born this way. If I had a choice, I would be straight.

I also did not restrain Soccer Mom. She saw it before I did, and did not delete it then. I contacted her, telling her not to. It shows the kind of people the fight for equality is up against...hate with no real reason for the hate.

Thank you.

Sally said...

Also. On the topic of this blog. I've been a good friend of Jennie's for quite a few years now, and I have to say that she is one of the strongest and most well-rounded individuals I know. She has the courage to stand up for what she believes in at all times, even in her church, where not everyone wants to hear what she has to say. When we started our freshman year at SRVHS, there were three kids in the GSA. Enough said.

Light Crusader said...

Well Anonymous you have done one thing right. You have proven the point exactly why gays should get their own rights. To give them protection from the hurt from people like you. I personally have read and seen the same arguments for the Jews and African Americans. I personally am Jewish and my ancestors were killed by the Nazis because of radical haters like you. Your argument is completely based on detesting people that are different. I have personally spoken to many pastors and religious leaders in my life on this very issue and one thing is very clear God teaches us to treat others the way we would want to be treated. Think about that... you might want to reconsider you views. Also to link these people with Deviants is completely despicable. All of these people want is to have free love. Depriving people of their own pursuits of happiness sounds very contradictory to American Ideals. I too at first thought that people were not born being gay but the more i was exposed to these kinds of people the more i understood that it is more a genetic personal preference. Hitler wanted a day in Germany without a Jew would you like to repeat that? almost 6 million of us were wiped off the planet because he shared the same hate you do. I'm sorry but i could not just sit here and let you say all of this hate and not take action.

Anonymous said...

To "Soccer Mom":
I'm glad you like the big words, it would be so boring to have a conversation without them :) But yes guilt by association is 'McCarthyism' and trying to attack & shut up someone personally rather than addressing the arguments is indeed 'fascist thuggery'.
And no you obviously don't have the power, but that didn't stop you from having the desire or making an (empty) threat (I was actually under the impression that it took a judge to have someone committed). But it's good to see you back off nonetheless.
My view of sexuality isn't just 'interesting', it's also shared by most people on the planet. And I normally don't discuss what they're into with the few folks I know are gay, but that's totally beside the point. The original question was, which sexual deviations entitle one to marital privileges and which don't.
In any case, thanks for the opportunity to express my views, looks like you'll get a few extra hits on your 'little blog' thanks to what they've stirred up.


To "Sally":
Good to see someone address the issue, but you're way off on the facts:
A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two consenting human beings.
- Thank you for admitting that there is a choice for people not to engage in that relationship, as the term 'consenting' implies.
Regardless of what anyone's specific interests may be, the fact remains that animals and corpses cannot consent, and therefore it is illegal.
- That's just plain wrong. In nature sex among animals is generally consenting, and while an animal obviously can not say so in words there are plenty of physiological signs which can be used to tell whether it's 'willing' or not. Likewise, a person gives consent on what is to be done with the body prior to death, and that in theory could include necrophilia.
Incest, as we've seen throughout history in royal families, completely destroys the gene pool.
- Well, we've seen throughout history that acceptance of perversions such as homosexuality leads to weakening and degeneration of societies, but that doesn't stop you from advocating it. But let's say the guy shagging his sister had his tubes tied, would it be OK with you then?
You may bring up the point that homosexuals cannot have children, but they can. In this modern world which you so blatantly refuse to adapt to, there are ways.
- Of course 'homosexuals' can have children, but gay couples obviously can't. The best they can do is adopt a child which belongs to one, but never both, of the parents. Hence no reason for marriage under your procreation standard (Which I personally like, but a lot of gay activists would be appalled at).
But more to the point, that's a standard YOU have; much like I have a standard for marriage which you refuse to accept. If someone claims he's in love with his dog and you tell them they shouldn't marry, how's that different than me saying that two gays shouldn't?
And those children grow up in just as good, if not better, than a heterosexual household.
- Yeah sure, and if I rub this lamp hard enough a genie will come out and make homosexuality accepted worldwide.
And yes, you can have a "Day Without a Gay" every day. Try moving somewhere where people like you are the majority. Say, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Somalia. I'm sure you'd be welcomed there. I hope you like burkas.
- Well a burka would bring out my eyes, but are you actually admitting that a lot fewer people chose to be gay in places where the society isn't as tolerant of such things. Although if I were you I'd be careful with the "if you don't like it, leave it" arguments, considering how much more complaining is done by your side in the debate. Heck, the whole original post is a giant tirade about alleged unfair treatment & hurt feelings, but I don't see you telling Jennie to move to say Canada where her views would be more welcome.


To "Light Crusader":
I should probably be upset at your insults, but they're so ridiculously over the top I had to smile. I think sexual deviants need to be helped are being ridiculous when they whine about unfairness, so to you I'm just like Hitler ready to exterminate 6 million people - all that's missing is a mustache and a few storm troopers to do my bidding (and I'm the hateful one, right?), But hey it gets better

I personally have read and seen the same arguments for the Jews and African Americans.
- Really, people have argued that being Jewish or African American is a form of sexual perversion and doesn't entitle them to marital privileges. You might want to try again with that smear.
Also to link these people with Deviants is completely despicable. All of these people want is to have free love.
- But that's exactly the argument that folks engaged in incest, NAMBLA, zoophiles, etc. would make. (Who are you to tell them whom they can love & sleep with - you sound just like Hitler). Why should it apply to gays and not them.


To "Jennie":
Using a kid (willing or not) as means to advance a highly controversial policy argument, thus putting them in a situation where they'd feel hurt, is 'exploiting them'.
...and what's happening when equal rights are squashed all around the United States, and the world.
- Again, you have the same rights that I do and we have the same marital privileges: to marry a consenting adult of an opposite sex. You're demanding something extra for a special group of individuals.
Because when you attack this cause, you're not only just hurting my feelings. You're hurting hundreds of thousands of people's feelings.
- I only 'attack the cause' in so much that I'm stating the truth. The fact that people's feelings are hurt is unfortunate, but not uncommon in the political process. Would you prefer it if I lied?
How do you know that someone you're close to isn't going through the exact same thing? They may just not be able to tell their story, not to you.
- Or maybe their conscience bothers them, because they know they're doing something wrong...
Remember, not too long ago interracial marriage was against the law, and against society, as well.
- Right, but just because we (mostly) corrected racial injustices in our society doesn't mean that marriage should be redefined to suit anyone's desires. In other words, what's to stop zoophiles, pedophiles, etc. from using your argument to claim that they're being discriminated against & treated unequally, that their feelings are being hurt and that they should be able to marry?
We are simply preserving the right to equality our Founding Fathers guaranteed everyone.
- The Founding Fathers never 'guaranteed' rights, they outlined what they thought were God given rights in the Bill Of Rights. But there's no such thing as a 'right to equality' there or anywhere else in the Constitution. The closest thing we've got is the post Civil War amendments, but none of those mention sexual preferences, marriage or come anywhere close to supporting your argument. And somehow I doubt The Founding Fathers would be thrilled with what you're advocating, as well.
You also just called me, quite a few of my friends, some family, and all those hundreds of thousands of people "pervs." Thanks for the maturity level.
- Well it's true and there isn't a better way to say it.
Also, you mentioned that kids should get help for their problem.
- And I mean it.
Since I didn't say it before...homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality...none of them are a choice. It's not a problem. People are born this way.
- That's just logically inaccurate. You CHOOSE who you sleep with (and you certainly choose to have an operation done) and can always refuse to engage in that behavior.
You may be born with the desires (although there's no proof for that as well), but that's hardly an excuse. You may get an urge to eat too much or to shoot your boss, but with a little self control you won't end up the fattest person on death row.
If I had a choice, I would be straight.
- You can be. You can CHOOSE not to engage in a homosexual act today. You can then choose not to do it tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, etc. It may be hard at first, but eventually you'll be in a straight relationship. In the end not you want to do but what you actually do with your life that will define you.

Light Crusader said...

I'm truly sorry if I offended anyone, I think if you really have a huge problem with this whole thing you should pray about it. Pray for them and God will find someone that they truly love that is straight. "I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4:13

Making people angry only encourages anger. If that's what i did on my previous post i'm truly sorry. “Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7 We all have sinned and nobody is perfect. Condemnation and hurting others feelings is not a proper way of opposition. Pray for them as I will pray for you.

Anonymous said...

I think this young woman who gave this interview has more courage in her little finger than anyone leaving comments here. Also, she's not being mean or insulting. Like everyone else, she just wants to live in dignity. There's a lot of anger in these posts, which won't solve anything. In the words of the "famous philosopher" Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?"

Jennie said...

To Anonymous who commented above me-
Thanks so much…it means a lot.

Anonymous 2-

I wasn’t exploited…I agreed to the interview. If I’d said no, then it wouldn’t exist.

I used to have the same rights as you. I still do, technically, since Prop 8 has not been put in the Constitution yet. I have the right to marry, whether I marry a man or a woman. My cause was not demanding any special rights…the Yes on 8 people were. They’re the ones asking for special treatment. Everyone could be married before, but since it “offends” them…the LGBT community is now second-class.

You may be stating what you think is truth. I wouldn’t prefer if you lied, but I would prefer if you had some respect for people willing to stand for something.

When I became Christian five years ago, my conscience bothered me, as well. I was suddenly being told by something that was new to me that something I’d been for as long as I could remember was a horrible thing. I actually became suicidal, because as much as I tried, I couldn’t discard my attraction to girls, because it’s how I’m made. I finally accepted who I am. And I’ve never been prouder of myself. But it was people like you that led me to that suicidal edge. People telling me that I wasn’t equal, that I was dirty.

If you’re going to start that argument…what about the one for the gays? You took away our right to marry, now what? Will our right to teach leave? Hold a job? Own a home? Rent an apartment? Own a pet? Shop in certain stores? Walk down certain streets?

Exactly. Sexual orientations are never mentioned. Therefore, there’s no reason to stop them.

None of us are pervs because we like the same sex. And it’s not a problem that we can get help for, because it’s not a problem.

You’re confusing sexuality with sex. Yes, I may never sleep with a woman, but that doesn’t mean I’ll never be attracted to them. Self-control has nothing to do with sexuality.
Whether I’m in an opposite-sex relationship or not, the fact remains that I am bisexual. Don’t try to give me relationship advice…we are not on the same playing field. And, quite frankly, you don’t know whether I’m in a relationship or not.

What confuses me most about you is I don’t know where your arguments are coming from. Although they’re faulty, I can’t tell where your beliefs are founded. If you have no foundation, and just wish to hate those different than yourself, I begin to question the validity of your statements.

Soccer Mom said...

Jennie,
No one can say it better than you. I referred to you as a local hero, and indeed you are.

Maxwell said...

I have been friends with Jennie for a long time. I love her so much.


I at least understood those who were afraid of the implications of gay marriage on society, especially in children. It was not a valid concern, but with the advertising for Yes on 8, I at least saw why some people may be hesitant to allow gay marriage.

I do NOT understand the Anonymous who comments on what such "perversion" exists in the contexts of homosexuality. This is a constant reminded to me how bigoted some people truly are. Some were just afraid or scared, but you sir, are backwards in your thinking.




Im sure we can bring back all sorts of old American policy, until only the white rich landowners can vote. Then you can be satisfied with your abilities to rip fundamental rights away from taxpayers, citizens, and human beings.

Nicole said...

TO JENNIE,

You are my hero. Last year, hearing you talk about coming out in SRVHS's GSA made me have the courage to accept who I am as a person and that yes, I am gay. You gave me that support and knowledge that i can always rely on you, especially because I'm coming out at the age of 15. Just like Soccer Mom said, no one can say it better than you. Your passion for fighting for equal rights is astonishing. I admire everything that you do for SRVHS and the LGBTQ community. I'm so grateful and extremely lucky to have you as my friend because everything that i've learned about sticking up for myself, I've learned from you wether I've told you that or not.
Please never stop fighting and I want you to know that I will always be by your side!





AND TO ANONYMOUS #2,

Just because someone is bisexual, transgender, or gay doesn't mean they had the choice because guess what, I SURE DIDN't! I can't believe you'd be so ignorant as to think that. I'm with Jennie. If I had the choice, I'd be straight because it'd save me from a whole lot of grief from people just like you! By telling "us" to just not make the choice to be bisexual, transgender, or gay is basically telling us to hide who we are. To keep it on the "down low" just because you don't want to see. Well guess what, only being 15 I've already had to deal with a lot of people just like you and I'm ready fight back and so is the LGBTQ community.

I can't believe that you'd also say that homosexuals would weaken are society. Homsexuals have been around since the dawn of time whether you like to believe it or not.

I mean not only are you homophobic but you're a genuine racsits. Telling the gay community to move to Iraq ect...to be the majority.
I honestly can't stand how anyone could be around you because you come off as a lowsy to person to me.

Saying No on Prop 8 wouldn't of given "us" a privledge, it would have simply just stopped people like you from taking away homosexuals right to marry who they love. Where ever you got this 'bull' from about how saying No on Prop 8 would have given us special privledge is ridiculous!


All I ever want in life is to have the option to be with whom ever I love which will be a woman. NOT MY SISTER!!! NOT MY DOG!!! AND NOT A DEAD BODY!!!

No way will I or the LGBTQ community sit around while people like you try to take away our right to marry! Looking at the words you've said on this blog make me fear my future and think that people will forever try to hurt me because of something I am. Something that I CAN NOT help. Something the DOESN'T defy me as a person, it only says who I happen to like/prefer.

But then there are people like Jennie that shine a little, distant light of hope on my future. A light that shows me strength beyond anything that you can EVER imagine. Yes, you might look at us a disgusting and weak but we will NEVER STOP FIGHTING!!!

Patrick said...

Anonymous 2:

My name is Patrick and I'm gay.
I have always been gay
I will always be gay
And that's that.

When I told my parents that I was gay, they said that they had always known. Since Kindergarten!

Now let me tell you, in kindergarten I wasn't participating in sexual activity, obviously, but I was gay. Are you calling the 7 year old Patrick a pervert? In kindergarted all I cared about was going on the swings and playing with my friends. How does that make me a pervert?

As I grew older the urges became stronger and there was nothing I could do about it. In the seventh grade I was in a relationship with a female for a year and a half trying to prove to myself that I wasn't gay, and it obviously didn't work. I was unhappy with it and I still could only think about men.

You cannot throw perversion out as a norm because It has many meanings depending on what your morals are.

For you, perversion may be men in relationships with men, and I respect that.

For me, I think it would be perverted if I was in a relationship with a woman, because I wouldn't be doing it for "procreation" but instead I would be doing it just to see what it's like.

Our views our different and that is as plain as day, and one can easily tell that the comments on this blog are all very pro gay. So in conclusion, we don't want your comments here because they have no meaning to us, you're not going to change any of our minds about the subject, so please, just stop.

I'm not one for arguing over the internet because people are always different. If you want to meet me in person some time and tell me that my lifestyle is wrong, and why. I would be glad to have a cup of coffee over it. So until then, Auf Wiedersehen.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Anonymous. How you amuse. Being gay is not a perversion. It is not a problem. It is how someone feels, how someone is made to feel. Yes, good job, you have recognized that two people in a gay relationship are choosing to be in that relationship together. That does make it a choice, but it does not mean those two people are both choosing to be gay for fun. If you really believe that, then you don't understand the situation. (Or anything, for that matter). No one is going to go around and tell you to change who you are because everyone else doesn't like it. So please stop doing that to other people.

Gays should not be discriminated against; they should not fear violence, lower salaries, no marriage benefits, job discrimination, etc. You are perpetuating this fear of something different because "gay" is something you don't understand, which is evident through your description of it as a "perversion" or a "problem." Personally, it does not affect me when somewhere out in the world, there is a gay couple. And it wouldn't affect me if they got married. It wouldn't affect you either. There is no proof that it would hurt society, and furthermore doesn't make sense, as gay people only make up a small percentage of the population. So try to be kind, and compassionate. Gay marriage, gay rights, and gay people would not alter the world you live in. It would not force you to do something you do not want to do, you don't have to talk to gays, or anything like that. But it does affect me when you deny certain people the right to marry because they are different. It hurts people I know, and it isn't right. I'm not gay, but what if I was? I would want all of my rights as a citizen of America. That would include marriage rights, and the benefits involved.

You are under the impression that because the Constitution does not say that gay people can get married, it should not and cannot be so. Under the original constitution, blacks, Native Americans, and women were not recognized. All groups have fought for their rights as American citizens, to be considered equal to white men. And they all won rights of citizenship, raised their social status, and much more. It is the framework because it is meant to change with the times and the popular opinion. Thankfully, most of us realize that this will not be a problem soon enough. Everyone will get accostumed to it. In California this was the second vote on such a measure, and the gap is closing. The best part about hearing your views is knowing that 1) you are wrong, gays are normal people who deserve all their rights. and 2) eventually they will get all their deserved rights and your life won't change a bit.

As Harvey Milk once said, “all young people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential.” All I can ask is that you try not to be so negative and hurtful in the face of someone like Jennie trying to better her life, and the lives of thousands like her.

Anonymous said...

gay: consensual. not rape. doesn't include children, animals, corpses, family members.

sexual perversions: something that is present in people who are psychologically ill. rapists, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest.

Gay people are not making this choice, and yes that makes them different. But it does not make it wrong. In the instances of sexual perversions, they can be no consent. The fact that two gay people can have a relationship proves that they are in fact normal (to what they are) and not mentally ill. You cannot simply equate being homosexual to something disgusting and dirty just because they are both strange.

Acceptance, tolerance, open-mindedness, sensitivity, understanding. Learn from these words, and maybe you will see that homosexuals are people who deserve every right that is granted to U.S. citizens.

Max said...

To "Anonymous 2"

My name is Max. I'm a seventeen-year-old straight boy from the suburbs. Wanna judge me on it; because I see a whole lot of judgment in your so called arguments, which you never even had the poor judgment of saying were without bias, which oh, they aren't. You call people hypocrites, and cry about how they don't address your arguments (while telling them they are crying about hurt feelings... hm. Sounds rather hypocritical if you ask me), so here, allow me to be very concise in addressing your far from concise arguments.

From your very first post:
"How sad would you feel if your community thought there was something wrong with you"
I'd like to address this first, as it is a staple in your arguments, and the arguments of people like you. How sad would I feel? Terribly. So your argument of someone making a "lifestyle choice" to be alienated and discriminated against is rather perplexing. You yourself brought up that you'd be sad if you had something wrong with you. I'll get to the "something wrong" in a second. So tell me. Would you choose a life of alienation OR discrimination? Would you CHOOSE to be threatened with violence? Would you choose to be hated just because you are different? No, and if you have an answer otherwise, you are a liar. This brings me rather smoothly into my next point.

To put the above absurdity into context:
"But imagine the disappointment you would feel if you were young and were into farm animals, or your sister, or corpses, or etc."
What a novel concept. Calling being gay a mental disorder, or, even better, a choice. Comparing genetic hormone differences with mental disorders is as insane as the disorders themselves. Scientists barely know what the brain is capable of, so I'm not going to trust you who with your blatantly closed minded and often woefully uninformed statements have shown me, and everyone else, that you are not, thank whoever you believe in, a scientist with a Doctorate in anything, let alone something as complicated as Neuroanatomy. So where do zoophiles and necrophiles stand "in my book"? Mentally ill. Where do homo and bisexuals? Different than me, but no less sane.

"Further, you try to associate me with people threatening violence against Jennie when no such threat has been made by me, anonymously or otherwise - can we say 'McCarthyism'"
"In the end your attitude is one of fascist thuggery, where dirty tactics and brute force are used order to silence the truth"
I'm a pretty big history buff, and you siting McCarthyism and Facism, are both pretty rich. Well McCarthyism. Guilt by association? Here's the dictionary definition: 1. the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, esp. of pro-Communist activity, in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, esp. in order to restrict dissent or political criticism. Hm. I don't see anything about guilt by association in there... Or about arguments. Definitely not about gays. Facism? Comparing you and people who think like to to Hitler is, in my opinion, perfectly legitimate. The Nazis believed in their superiority, but more importantly, that anyone different from them should be systematically destroyed. And they went through with it. But you know how it started? With the exact kind of thinking that you flout now. "Gays are evil, gays are sick, gays don't deserve rights!" This is what you people say, one way or another, and if you replace "gay" with "Jew" hey, guess what. You've got a Nazi party. An American Nazi party. Let's see what the globe thinks of you then. Oh, and your point about most of the world thinking like you. This is not only presumptuous, but downright wrong. But once again there was someone who thought like you. He had a mustache and killed about six million people. Not sounding too redundant am I? Most of the globe? I think someone down there gave you a few examples of how many nations display thinking like that. I don't recall it being much longer than five items. Check your facts. And today yeah, there's a lot of people who agree that people different than you are lesser than you. One of them blew up the World Trade Center. Others are destroying their countries from the inside by means of the Resource Curse. (A nickel if you know what that is)

If you're going to talk historically, allow me to site two examples. Rome, once the most powerful and prosperous society in the world not only accepted homosexuality, but sometimes revered it as more beautiful and noble than heterosexuality. Feudal Japan was much the same, as a period in one of the early dynasties depicts homosexuality in art, music, and poetry, as a beautiful and dignified thing. Let's see. We've got two of the most prosperous societies that out-date the United States by several centuries saying this. Interesting...

I'll briefly address some of your "arguments" below, since this might be dragging on:

Using age as a reason to discount someone's eligibility or logic:
I'm seventeen. I'll be eighteen in three months. Last time I checked, that's legally an adult. So when do my points become valid? When are my arguments legitimate. If I have no voice now, why do I suddenly get one when I'm older. I'm an American Citizen. I was born here, and I want to die here. If I'm silenced just because I'm a little young, why am I even here. Because contrary to your arguments, the founding fathers did want to protect our "certain unalienable rights. Including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If I am ignored because of my age, and if gays are denied their unalienable rights by "the majority of California voters" then yeah. I'm going to go to protests, and start clubs to protest it.

Saying that Soccer Mom threatened you with her psych ward comment:
Grow up. Calling that a threat? Really?

In closing:
While I contest that the only wise thing you did was post as "Anonymous," I also say that it makes you a coward. If you're so firm in your beliefs, why not share a name. If you're going to (once again) cry about how illogical people are and what hypocrites they are, while at the same time being one yourself, why not give a face to the hate, as Jennie has given a face to Hope.

I don't believe in forcing beliefs on anyone. I try to listen to both sides and respect both of their opinions. But in this issues like this there has to be a right and a wrong. Denying people rights is wrong. Even serial killers on death row have rights still. People always say how there will always be hate in this world, and always intolerance. But you know what. Why does there have to be?
You "support" day without a gay so much. You know what I want. How about "day without a bigot?" One better: "day without hate." I think a lot more people would like those days for the right reasons.

And P.S.
If you have nothing better to do than gaybash on a blogsite, you lead a pretty sad existence, and I agree with Light Crusader: you deserve to be prayed for.

Sally said...

Seriously, Anonymous, what are you really hoping to accomplish here? Obviously you're not going to change anyone's minds.

Pandora's Hope said...

First of all, I'd like to applaud Max on his informative, itelligent, and completely valid points and calling Anonymous 2 out on their completely uninformed, biased views. I am glad to be a citizen of America because I live in a country that boasts forward thinking, freedom of speech, and doesn't get stuck on archaic and outdated views. Just this year we have made a huge landmark in history by electing our first African American president. 150 years ago someone would have thought you were insane if you were to tell them that one day it would happen. Which just goes to show how progressive America is in its thinking and actons where something seeminly impossible and/or improbable can come true. That's why an entire era in American history in known as the PROGRESSIVE ERA.

It really saddens me that at this day in age there are people who are so closed minded like you, Anonymous 2. Not to mention that your points are completely redundant and repetitive. Everytime you post you mention something about necrophelia, beastiality, or incest. And over and over people have pointed out how these in no way mirror gay relationships. It's close minded people that were the reason that slavery lasted so long and that genocide exists in the world still today.

I am a 100% straight member of a surburban community, much like I'm assuming you, Anonymous 2, pride yourself on being on. I am a proud Catholic and in a healthy and happy heterosexual relationship. In my experience, those who I have met that are part of the gay/lesbian/bisexual community have all been some of the most respectful, intelligent, loyal, and all around amazing people to know and be friends with. They are faced with discrimination everyday from ignorant peple like yourslef, but continue to perservere in ways that many people over coming obstacles cannot. Society, California, and the United States would be a far better place if Propisition 8 had not passed, if we could learn to accept and not reject those who are differnet than us. Isn't one of the key things we learn in childhood is that racism is wrong and intolerable? It is. And going along right beside that is that discrimination is wrong and intolerable. By saying that perfectly sane, capable members of society, (and that includes gays just as much as that includes you and me)should be denied equal rights, you are a sad excuse for an American citizen, a citizen of the country where millions of people have came and are coming to to find a place of tolerance and oppurtunity.

Anonymous said...

Hi all,

This seems to be very much a charged debate. I, at likely risk to my own health, would first like to say that I genuinely appreciate the attempt that Anonymous is making to actually discuss the issues. I disagree heavily with his solution to the problems at hand.

But, for those of you who are pro-gay, don't commend me yet. I think that homosexuality is a bad choice, strictly from a biological outlook.

Still, my solution is different than Anonymous'. Rather than advocating limiting the legal definition of a word, we ought to remove the word from the legal dictionary. The Federal and federal governments ought to have nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The purpose of "marriage" regulation by the government is tax based and emergency based (medical decisions). It seems to me that given marriage's origins as a RELIGIOUS institution, we ought to leave its regulation, management, and recording to RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. Then, we should make all unions "civil unions," including those heterosexual ones. Anyone ought to be able to have a civil union if they intend the partner to be able to make emergency medical decisions, refuse to give testimony in court, and file taxes jointly. We should do away with "marriage" as a term in government law and documentation entirely. That will solve everyone's problems.

To Anonymous: I agree with many of your arguments. They are on topic, well thought out, and sometimes even right ;). Still, it would behoove you to not be such a prick in the way you make said arguments. I understand that it is a heated issue that creates anger, but if you showed more restraint by avoiding insulting the people you are addressing, you would gain a lot of credence.

To everyone else: If you are going to attack Anonymous' claims, you should do just that; making attacks on Anonymous' character and mental state (something I would have thought above Soccer Mom) makes you look just as intolerant as Anonymous. If you truly believe in what you're saying then you should be unafraid to test the bonds of your beliefs against the pounding of Anonymous' arguments.

Also, being "gay" is A CHOICE. And I mean this in the same way that being academically accomplished or violent are "choices." This does not mean that some people don't have a predisposition to act homosexually, but in the end, you have to choose to act on the want and buy into the idea. This is simply proven by the existence of twins where one is gay, one is not. Clearly one is not born gay the way that one is born with down syndrome or a big brain.

Additionally, I don't think that gay's ought to be persecuted or legislated against. I think that the government ought not to act against any individual who does something (be it a good idea or a bad idea) which does not harm another individual. To quote Thomas Paine, "SOME writers have so confounded society and government as to make the two indistinguishable." If anyone should look down on gays, it should be society, not government.


Lastly: I know Jennie personally, and I have more respect for her than almost anyone I know. It makes me sad that anyone would be so intent on forcing their beliefs about what are good and bad personal choices onto others such as Jennie as to blur the line between society and government. Look down on her if you will ( although I think you would be remiss because there are far more significant and appealing things about Jennie than her sexuality), but please... please don't legislate against her.


Ash

Patrick said...

To the person above this.

I agree with removing the word marriage completely, because it is a religious term.

But you can't say whether being gay is a choice or not unless you are gay. It's like a man saying he knows what child birth feels like. You need to experience it to make a decision about it.

Anonymous said...

By ^^^ logic, you can no longer say that murder is a choice until you have killed. It seems faulty to say that experience is the only way to judge something. In the end, logic has to account for something. Explain to me how homosexuality can be completely genetic and exist in only one of two IDENTICAL twins?

Anonymous said...

Jennie, you're awesome and I have upmost respect for you. Your spirit and courage will definitely make a difference towards the GLBT community having equal rights.

Reading these comments, however, is so disappointing. As has been proven countless times, history repeats itself, and it's doing so now. This fight for equality is exactly the same one that African American's fought at the end of the US civil war, and I know someday (most) people will look back at the equality issue we face today with the same feeling of shame that we have looking back at our treatment of African Americans back then.

Although I myself am straight, I will fight along side the gays and bisexuals, as some of them are my closest friends and relatives, in their quest for equality. And while it's frusterating and painful to see how gays are attacked and teased just for being different, the useless hatred people show towards them will only strenghten their determination towards winning the equality they deserve. Because a person like Jennie has more heart and courage than all of the ignorant people in the world like "Anonymous" combined.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are right, identical twins have no differences whatsoever! They might as well be called clones! Oh wait... That's not right, they have differences. And since we do not know how or why someone is gay, you cannot say that it is or is not a choice. For the moment, most people consider it to be a genetic disposition. And "choosing" to act homosexually is not because they don't have any other option. It is because they are being true to what they know, and what they know is to be homosexual. If it isn't genetic, how could this lifestyle persist for thousands of years? Obviously gays have been procreating because they have often had no other choice than to be "normal," marry, and have children. So how can you rule out that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, much like red hair or blue eyes? You, and no one else can, because there is no evidence to support that side. Yes, they are in fact "choosing" to be themselves, but I don't call it choosing to be straight when I am attracted to men as a woman. It is how I was born, and I am not going to pretend to be gay just as a gay person should not have to choose to be straight. Gay is not a choice, pretending is a choice, one made because of the perverse discrimination that is readily dished out by people who just don't like when things are different.

I completely agree, however, that no one should disrespect another person's opinion. If we want a change to occur, we cannot bash other's opinions simply because they seem "stupid," or wrong, or anything else.

I just don't see why this matters to people who aren't gay. Why can't they have similar rights? Maybe it's because you think that gays are lesser than you. Maybe it's because you are afraid of your own sexuality. Maybe it's because you want to impose your religious beliefs upon a whole country. Who knows? My request is that we all be tolerable. And not compare gay people to those who are trying to have sex with animals... That is a stupid comment.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

OOPS COPY/PASTE SCREWUP:
SoccerMom, feel free to delete the previous comment. Anyways,

To Jennie:
I wasn’t exploited…I agreed to the interview. If I’d said no, then it wouldn’t exist.
Just because you're willing doesn't mean you're not exploited.
I used to have the same rights as you. I still do, technically, since Prop 8 has not been put in the Constitution yet. I have the right to marry, whether I marry a man or a woman.
Prop 8 is very much in the Constitution, while it is being contested it still applies. Furthermore, the right to gay marriage was never in the state Constitution. Four out of seven judges decided to grant that privilege, but their claim was always faulty and the people made their choice clear on Nov 05.
My cause was not demanding any special rights…the Yes on 8 people were.
Weak. The only right Prop 8 grants is to live in a fair and reasonable society (which applies to everyone including you), by taking away special (extraconstitutional) privileges from a select group of people.
Whether I’m in an opposite-sex relationship or not, the fact remains that I am bisexual. Don’t try to give me relationship advice…we are not on the same playing field.
We're either discussing you personally or we're not (I'd prefer 'not', but you want a face on the argument). So you told me you would choose to be straight, and I pointed out how you could do so.


To Nicole:
Homosexuals have been around since the dawn of time whether you like to believe it or not.
I do, but again so has incest, bestiality, etc.
I mean not only are you homophobic but you're a genuine racists.
Wow how did race get come into picture here?
Telling the gay community to move to Iraq etc...to be the majority.
The only person suggesting a move to Iraq is one of the gay marriage supporters. And gays a majority in Iraq? What!?
Protest, complain, cheer each other on, ignore the critics arguments all you want, but PLEASE get the facts straight.



The same in spades To Max:

I'm a seventeen-year-old straight boy from the suburbs. Wanna judge me on it;
Nah too easy. I'll judge you on lacking an understanding of basic historical facts (while claiming to be a buff) and on having a hard time writing a paragraph without contradicting yourself.
You call people hypocrites, and cry about how they don't address your arguments (while telling them they are crying about hurt feelings... hm. Sounds rather hypocritical if you ask me)
Calling people on their hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty doesn't make one a hypocrite (or a whiner). Let me demonstrate:
I'd like to address this first, as it is a staple in your arguments, and the arguments of people like you. How sad would I feel? Terribly. So your argument of someone making a "lifestyle choice" to be alienated and discriminated against is rather perplexing. You yourself brought up that you'd be sad if you had something wrong with you.
True, of course the claim by was that gays feel bad while there's nothing wrong with them. If you admit that there is, then we don't have an argument.
Would you choose a life of alienation OR discrimination? Would you CHOOSE to be threatened with violence? Would you choose to be hated just because you are different? No, and if you have an answer otherwise, you are a liar.
Personally no. But if I had a sexual deviance, which morphed into a political crusade, then I'd be willing to take 'the slings and arrows' (they'd give me a reason for fighting, as has been admitted to by several posts on this thread).
Comparing genetic hormone differences with mental disorders is as insane as the disorders themselves.
Except a) there's no proof that it's genetic much less something specifically causing hormonal differences, b) it can't logically be genetic, c) even if it was genetic that wouldn't mean it's not a mental disorder.
Scientists barely know what the brain is capable of, so I'm not going to trust you who with your blatantly closed minded and often woefully uninformed statements have shown me, and everyone else, that you are not, thank whoever you believe in, a scientist with a Doctorate in anything, let alone something as complicated as Neuroanatomy. So where do zoophiles and necrophiles stand "in my book"? Mentally ill. Where do homo and bisexuals? Different than me, but no less sane.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You set up a criterion that only a skilled professional can determine whether someone is mentally ill, and then contradict it in the next sentence by personally declaring zoophiles and necrophiles mentally ill. Trust me, hypocrisy is not an issue you ever want to bring up. (I'll take your word on you being as sane as the gays, though).

Well McCarthyism. Guilt by association? Here's the dictionary definition: 1. ...
2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, esp. in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

Dang, not only did you find the correct definition, you're actually giving a demonstration of how it's done:
Comparing you and people who think like to to Hitler is, in my opinion, perfectly legitimate.
- That would be the 'stifling of dissent' bit.
"Gays are evil, gays are sick, gays don't deserve rights!" This is what you people say, one way or another, and if you replace "gay" with "Jew" hey, guess what. You've got a Nazi party.
- This would be the 'unfair allegations bit', as I never said 'gays are evil' or 'gays don't deserve rights'. Plus the Nazis claimed that Jews are an inferior race, not mentally ill. Of course replacing words in an argument just so you can pull off a cheap smear gets you bonus points for 'intellectual dishonesty'.
But once again there was someone who thought like you. He had a mustache and killed about six million people. Not sounding too redundant am I?
- Of course you are, but hey having your lunacy on display has a certain car-wreck entertainment quality to it.
Most of the globe? I think someone down there gave you a few examples of how many nations display thinking like that. I don't recall it being much longer than five items.
- It obviously wasn't an exclusive list.
Check your facts.
- Checked. The list includes pretty much everyone outside Canada & Western Europe.
And today yeah, there's a lot of people who agree that people different than you are lesser than you. One of them blew up the World Trade Center.
- Just when you thought the smears couldn't get more mundane, yet off the wall.
Rome, once the most powerful and prosperous society in the world not only accepted homosexuality, but sometimes revered it as more beautiful and noble than heterosexuality.
- Originally, homosexuality, along with incest and pedophilia, were on the social fringes of the Republic (practiced by a few nobles). Their acceptance coincided with the Republic becoming an Empire and it's downward spiral.
Feudal Japan was much the same, as a period in one of the early dynasties depicts homosexuality in art, music, and poetry, as a beautiful and dignified thing.
- Again an isolated (and much overexaggerated in significance) occurrence practiced by some elites. Feudal Japan, throughout it's history was neither gay friendly nor a particularly good example of a successful nation-state. So you can keep the nickel, provided you promise to spend it on the Extended Cliff Notes this time.

Using age as a reason to discount someone's eligibility or logic:
- Never did that, just pointing out that using an underage kid's feelings in place of a political argument isn't a very honest tactic.
I'm seventeen. I'll be eighteen in three months. Last time I checked, that's legally an adult. So when do my points become valid? When are my arguments legitimate.
- When you can make a coherent one.
If I have no voice now, why do I suddenly get one when I'm older. I'm an American Citizen. I was born here, and I want to die here. If I'm silenced just because I'm a little young, why am I even here.
- After that tirade you're actually whining that YOU're being silenced!? Can't say this isn't a fun post to read.
While I contest that the only wise thing you did was post as "Anonymous, I also say that it makes you a coward."
- Of course you also say you're a history-buff, that you're addressing my arguments, that you know right from wrong, that you think you know what the word 'contest' means (whole dime for you if you look it up), etc.
I try to listen to both sides and respect both of their opinions. But in this issues like this there has to be a right and a wrong.
- In other words you're tolerant as long as someone doesn't disagree with you too harshly (Psst. by your 'logic' that makes you a Nazi, since they started claiming that there has to be a right and a wrong
You know what I want. How about "day without a bigot?" One better: "day without hate."
- Good idea, but that would involve you having to end your hatred and bigotry towards people who don't share your views, so I'm not holding my breath.


To Ash:
A lot of interesting issues for discussion, but two quick points:
The fact is right now the issue of marriage is in the hands of the state, both with state educators teaching kids what it is and with state judges attempting to redefine its meaning. Hence the need for Prop 8.
Nor would I wish to legislate against Jennie personally or homosexuals in general. They, like everyone else, will benefit from living in a society stabilized by the clearly defined institution of marriage between man and woman. Just because someone feels there's discrimination, doesn't make it true.


To Anonymous#28:
Yes you are right, identical twins have no differences whatsoever! They might as well be called clones!
Identical twins are genetically identical, we don't call them 'clones' because 'cloning' is an artificial process (which involves taking cells from an older host, rather than naturally occurring).
If it isn't genetic, how could this lifestyle persist for thousands of years?
Modern societies have all types of constructs and oddities associated with human psychology, that doesn't make them all genetic.
Obviously gays have been procreating because they have often had no other choice than to be "normal," marry, and have children.
Homosexuality occurs in a diverse range of societies, if it were a mutation which spread out like that then it would have had to happen well before societies started enforcing these rules. But then it would have been selected against. Never mind that your argument suggests that there is the choice of 'normal' life after all.


To EVERYONE:
The arguments seem to be running over the same ground and in circles, so let me summarize to try to wrap this up:

1. The claim that gays don't have the same rights (assuming Prop 8 stands):
- Factually not true. Not only is marriage not a right, but they have the same privilege that everyone else: to marry consenting adult of an opposite sex, to whom you're not related.
Just because it isn't as useful to you as it could be to someone else, doesn't mean you don't have it (The NY Times ges a lot more mileage out of the freedom of the press than I do, that doesn't mean I should be compensated or am being discriminated against).
If you demand extra privileges, then a) you're the one who wants to discriminate, b) the zoophiles, necrophiles, etc. are right behind you.

2. The notion that incest, zoophilia, necrophilia, etc. don't entitle the practitioners to extra rights while homosexuality does.
- Some of you (unsuccessfully) tried to separate them, but usually the response has been along the lines of:
'Because I say it is and you're stupid, or crazy, or a Nazi, or all of the above for disagreeing with me', ironically because I challenged people's perception of what sexual behavior should be acceptable. And, of course, I'm the intolerant one.

3. Now let me tell you, in kindergarten I wasn't participating in sexual activity, obviously, but I was gay. Are you calling the 7 year old Patrick a pervert? In kindergarten all I cared about was going on the swings and playing with my friends. How does that make me a pervert?
No it doesn't make 7 year old a pervert, it doesn't make the 7 year old a homosexual either (regardless of what the parents think). You made the choice later when you acted on the urges and engaged in the relationship.

The idea that being gay is not a choice:
- Logically nonsensical. Fact: you choose who you sleep with. Fact: choosing to sleep with people of the same sex is by definition what makes you gay. Yes we can debate whether your urges are genetic or not, yes you can claim this who you 'really are inside', but the bottom line you choose to define your sexuality through the behavior you practice (arguably 'nature's default' for childhood is hetero, but that's beside the point once you start the practice).

Thank you for the discussion everyone.

Soccer Mom said...

Anonymous Above,
First, I deleted your previous post as asked.
Second, thanks for summarizing your viewpoint and taking the time to participate in this discussion.

Jennie said...

First of all, I want to thank all my friends that have commented the blog since I looked last. You guys are amazing :)

Anonymous 2
I’m not exploited. I would admit it if I was. This part of the argument is over.

In that case, I no longer have the same rights as you. Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. Although I agree with Ash in saying that the word “marriage” should be removed and everyone should be allowed a civil union, that will not happen. Marriages have over 1000 different rights and privileges that come along with them, as opposed to civil unions. The four out of seven judges decided to give people their rights back. And it was not defined in the Constitution that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Therefore, I did share the same rights.
ALSO. It should never have been on the ballot. A decent democracy (which I, possibly naively, believe we live in) is majority rule with minority rights. Human rights aren’t something people should be allowed to vote on.

Prop 8 did not grant anyone any more rights than were already given. The judges decreed the former amendment unconstitutional. Since it was an amendment, it was not part of the original constitution. When reverted back to the way it was before, it was ruled constitutional for gays to be married along with heterosexuals. Marriage is not an extra constitutional privilege.

I told you I’d choose to be straight to show how uninformed of an argument you had with saying homosexuality is a choice. ONCE AGAIN, since you didn’t seem to read it the first time. Whether or not someone is gay or not does not determine who they have sex, or a relationship, with. And in your arguments addressing everyone who’s commented on this, you keep saying that by choosing to sleep with the same sex makes you gay. By that logic, anyone who dies without ever having sex is asexual. It makes no sense. You, once again, are confusing sex with sexuality.
Also, I learned that homosexuality existed when I was in sixth grade. I’d liked girls in elementary school. How could I have chosen something that I didn’t even know about?
Once again, I would never have chosen my sexuality to be this way. It’s caused rifts with friends within my church, and a few without. I was suicidal for four years because I was in denial about it. I’ve been threatened, alienated, had things stolen, and my car dented. All because of my sexuality. No one, even if they weren’t in their right mind, would choose that for themselves.

Also, after reading your responses to everyone, I’m going to side with Ash. Please stop being such a prick when you respond to people. Not only does it hurt people’s feelings, but you also lose tons of credibility. I’ve had plenty of civil conversations with people who disagree with me on this topic. I don’t understand why you’re incapable of providing one.

Sammy said...

So first of all, hey Jennie! So proud of you for doing this, you're so incredibly brave to be put this hurt that I do no think I could tolerate by 'Anonymous,' and you can actually use you NAME instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. I would also like to tip my hat to Soccer Mom for posting this, it is very nice to see that someone other than the SRVHS students on facebook discussing this.
But again, this one to Anonymous, California is going to continue to pass a law saying that Same Sex Marriage is legal, and eventually, California is going to vote and if put into another "Prop 8" situation, eventually, it will not pass, not everyone is completely ignorant as to what is GOING to happen eventually. And for you to say that being "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" is a choice, you need to go look at the studying that has been done that disproves your "theory."
So I guess what I'm really trying to say is, use your real name, or go harass someone else, stop doing it to my friend.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hi Soccer Mom-

I figured I'd better pitch in. Jennie is one of my friends, and I am completely proud of the many things she's done for the Gay/Straight Alliance at SRV, and I direly wish the same justice could be done at my high school, Monte Vista High School, which is a high school that's about 5 or 6 miles from San Ramon Valley. And I find it so funny that there's so many kids at my school who oppose gay marriage so much, I just about got up and left in the middle of my U.S. History class one day.

In that class, before the election, we took a class poll of the election. My US history teacher went through all of the props, what they would do, what good things they would, what bad things they would do. In terms of Prop 8, the supposed bad thing that would happen if Prop 8 didn't pass, it would be "immoral." I still don't understand this comment. When I asked my teacher to clarify, he literally said, "I don't even know how." He was opposed to Prop 8, it was obvious. It definitely was a very touchy subject for me. And I was just curious, everyone was sharing their opinion, but I looked at the kids around me and what they voted for on Prop 8. Everyone around me voted Yes, and I have never felt so out-of-place before. I just don't understand how people (teenagers) my age could be so close-minded. They live in f-ing California, one of the most open-minded states in the country.

Something funny my US History teacher was talking to us about with World War II and concentration camps. When Jews were released from the Nazi concentration camps, just the Jews were released. Anyone who was a homosexual was kept in the concentration camps, and I didn't expect my class to be totally sympathetic, but nobody said anything.

I moved to Danville just last July. I moved here from Walnut Creek, which is like a 10-mile difference. And I went to Las Lomas High School. I fought so hard to get into San Ramon Valley because I'm a half of a mile from SRV, and I liked the social environment there so much more than the Monte Vista scene.

I would be more open and out at Monte Vista, but I'm afraid of how they would react. There's not that many homosexuals at my school. It horrifies me, because I'm never terrified to open up with my sexuality, but here, I feel like I need to be careful who I tell about my sexual orientation, and I actually do need to be careful who I come out to everywhere. Because society is so scared of anybody who's odd or different from the "American Dream Family".

About Prop 8, I was always opposed to it. My parents voted No on it, most of my family voted No on it. My stepdad voted for McCain/Palin and voted Yes on it. I don't ever intend on getting married someday, because I've seen so many god-awful marriages in my 17 years of living, the idea of marriage to me seems like a forever, horrifying lock. But just because I'm opposed to marriage of any kind, I don't want to stop all of those people who do want to get married. I went to a gay wedding in June and it was the smallest (maybe 25 people there), but most romantic thing I have ever seen. I never thought I would see the day where I could actually see 2 men get married. And I love watching people find their happiness and joy, and feel the need to enjoy their lives with marriage, and I would never want to take that away from people who see marriage that way. My mom's been married 3 times, divorced 2. My dad's been married 4 times, going on 5, divorced 4 times. And the divorces have been...pretty bad. So, I'm pretty determined and set on not getting married. haha.

But I felt the need to share my opinion.

Max said...

In response to "Anonymous":

Coherence? In my arguments? Why don't you try yours? Oh wait, you can't because they're all the same. Mud slinging? If I called you a hypocrite again, I'd be wasting my time. And oh. I don't contradict myself half as much as you. And if you're going to say I don't know what I'm talking about, then you better get to know what you are.

The only one who displays logical lunacies and jumps in logic is you, and since you can't see that I'm honestly sorry. Not for you, but for the human race. Hold your breath on day without hate? Have fun.

I won't site examples from your responses which are nothing short of insane. And yes. I'm into history, but I'm not a Professor or doctor. Your comments are tired and your logic is tragically flawed.

I dropped my hate a long time ago. Now it's just pity. I pity you, Anonymous. I know you won't change your mind and this will probably just be used as another way to attack me and undermine the gay community. But the point stands that hate in any form is not right. I agree wholeheartedly that this argument needs to end and a solution needs to be reached. So I won't answer your post directly, anonymous 2. Because it's not solving anything. It's just a microcosm for this whole situation. Both sides merely hating each other more and more and nothing ever getting solved.

P.S.
I find it funny how you didn't address my allegations of your cowardice nor your childish whistle blowing on soccer moms comment, nor your lack of an actual degree in any of the issues you bring up, let alone expertise, nor how you lead a sad existence. I was expecting you to jump right on those. Oh, and the fact that you can't recognize sarcasm is just plain funny.

To everyone else:
Thanks for your support of Jennie and Human Rights. You guys make me hopeful for the future.

And a special thanks to Pandora's Hope for your direct support. Glad to hear your relationship is good!

Anonymous said...

hey jennie its gretchen

i am incredibly proud of you. you are one of the most courageous people i know. i will always be proud to call you one of my best friends.

anonymous #2
i respect your opinion. you are obviously an eloquent and well spoken individual with too much time. i do not support your opinions but i thank you for sharing them as they show exactly the type of courage jennie possesses and the type of courage you lack.

i do not plan on revisiting this debate, and in closing i would only like to say this: anonymous, i am sorry that you feel you need to be an enemy of happiness and equality. sexual perversion may be satisfying to some, but it does not make one happy. a healthy, loving relationship between two human beings, no matter what their gender, is something that all people deserve the right to have. when i first read your posts, i was angry and confused as to how one could be so intolerant. now i feel sorry for you that you cannot find it within your heart to love your fellow humans. there is so much hate in the world today, why would anyone unecessarily deprive more people of happiness?

anon said...

hey

i go to SRV, don't know jennie personally or take part in any GSA things but seeing the multiple times anonymous has called homosexuality a perversion just upsets me. i'm gay but i don't go around thinking dirty thoughts or raping people. i have a friend who i've really liked for a while now but when i found out she had a crush on a guy, i just helped her through her emotional struggles. i didn't take advantage of her instability or discourage her from her crush. i've been good friends with her for three years and i've never hurt or manipulated her. does that sound perverted to you?

you can be homophobic, people have irrational fears. but please don't give us gays false labels to justify your fears. if you have a problem with us, keep it to yourself or try to overcome it instead of trying to spread the hate. if i was afraid of the dark, making other people afraid of the dark wouldn't help at all. it'll just turn all of us into cowards. instead i can have a nightlight for the rest of my life, or just get used to the dark. you don't know me, so how can you judge me for being a pervert? all this stereotyping and hate is the reason why i am afraid to come out. i would have joined the GSA but i'm so afraid that people would suspect.

also, so what if homosexuality is a mental disease? does that give you the right to discriminate against us? even if it was an illness, i'd rather put my effort into something more urgent like AIDS and other epidemic diseases. How many people does homosexuality kill (don't turn this into some gays can't have kids crap because do we seriously need the world population to grow any bigger?), I mean killing as in striking down someone in the prime of life, breaking down their body and destroying their cells.

Anonymous said...

Jennie, I totally commend you for speaking out. I'm basically disgusted that someone actually decided that being gay is the equivalent being a necrophiliac or incestuous. Two consenting adults should be able to have any kind of sexual relationship they choose. To Ash: come on. You're treating not passing on one's genes like it's detrimental to the human species; do you not believe in birth control as well? However, I do agree with your point that the government should stay out of marriage in general. To those who voted Yes on Prop 8, stop being ridiculous and hateful. I know not all of you are bigots or evil human beings. However, this doesn't mean what you did do isn't wrong. i still haven't heard a coherent, reasoned argument FOR Prop 8; at the root of all of them is selfishness, if not outright bigotry.
-Nat

Anonymous said...

Jennie, it's Brandon.

I don't have much time to write a lot, I'll try to find some time in tomorrow to write out something. But in response to everyone who was for Prop 8 and told Jennie that she was "exploited" and that being gay is a choise. What B.S. (please excuse the term), but really now...

My name is Brandon. I am a homosexual and I'm damn well proud of it. I always have been a homosexual and I always will be no matter what happens to me.

I'm fully agreeing with Patrick. I've been gay since I was able to think. In terms of when I thought of coming out, it took my a very long time. I always thought of how people would react. I've never been more comfortable being attracted to men than now. Ever. I knew for a fact I was gay when I was 9. I knew that I wasn't attracted to vagina. Hell, when I was 9, I tried to go to nakedmen.com. Of course, in 2002, there wasn't ever such a website, but I was curious about the anatomy of a male and why I always thought about it.

I think the biggest downfall where I completely decided to not come out to my parents was when I spoke with my dad about a homosexual at my middle school. I told my dad that there was a boy named Robin at my middle school and he was in eighth grade and he was a homosexual. This Robin boy didn't like me at all, I knew that much, but he endured the discrimination, which was and is much ignored by the Walnut Creek Intermediate school administration. I went to them one day telling them that I had been punched in the stomach and called a "Faggot!", and they didn't do anything. I was too scared to tell my parents anything, because I had previously talked to them about my whole middle school calling me "GAY!!!", which happened all the time, I asked them about it, and when I told them they called me gay, both of my parents looked at me seriously, and asked me "Well, are you?" That very question made me immediately think they were going to say "Well, that's why..."

I've always known I was gay. And... just to Sally know... Incest doesn't destroy the gene pool. It might ruin and upset some families, but it doesn't. And second, since when is being gay a perversion? Since when??? I'm not perverted, I just look at things completely differently than you do. I'm sorry I can't be the same person as you and like vagina and appreciate vagina. I'm sorry if I get graphic with words, but I don't like using children's terms to decide wording. We're all adults here. But I'm sorry my views are different than yours, I'm sorry I like and want something special that's different than what you think of special. I, personally, feel bad for you, Anonymous. You'll never experience the brilliance and exhilarance of being a homosexual. Why is thinking something different than you a perversion? Homosexuals are not aliens from another planet, why can't we have something like the label "marriage" on us? I mean we can have a civil union, but we can't have something as small as the label "marriage" on us. God forbid. I am very sad and disappointed that a lot of the world looks at us and thinks there's something wrong with us, like why are we the way we are? We Are People. We are not f-ed in the head, we aren't any different from average human society, just 15% of us think of love differently. I'm not sure if homosexuality has to do with genetics or psychology or what, but my uncle is gay, my second cousin is gay, and neither of their parents are gay. I think it just has to do with where our mind goes. I don't believe that if you're raised by homosexuals, you are a homosexual. That's something I've fought very intensely with a Conservative friend. Look at the film, The Birdcage, I mean I know the show is about Drag Queens, just about, but here's this man who's bringing home a woman and her parents to meet him and his mother. He loves this woman. My uncle has a lover and has raised his 2 sons around him and his lover their whole lives. My cousins are on the football team and sit around playing football video games and hide PlayBoy magazines under their mattresses. Also, their rooms smell like boy. How does this proove that their homosexuals? Both of them have been caught with women in their beds, or empty condom wrappers.

Jennie was never exploited, Soccer Mom was trying to make a point. Explain to me how Jennie was "exploited", because I, and most of the people who've commented on this topic seem to think otherwise. She wasn't exploited, she did this on her own time. This kind Soccer Mom asked her to.

"You're being intellectually dishonest in exploiting a high-school kid to try to squash criticism of YOUR views."
Um... yeah, it's Jennie's views too. She wouldn't have taken the Q&A if their thoughts were otherwise. These aren't just her views, these are everyone's who's agreed with Jennie and Soccer Mom.

"You can't address the arguments, so you simply dismiss them by with the label 'hateful' - care to explain why calling a perv a perv is 'hateful'?"
-Yeah, Soccer Mom addressed the arguments and why she opposed Prop 8, as did Jennie. Calling a pervert a pervert is pretty damn hateful and insulting. It's a pretty harsh and literal way of describing homosexuals when there's the simple word, HOMOSEXUAL. And since when are all Homos pervs? It's hateful because it's an insult. Ask anyone if they think calling someone a perv is hateful, and you can guarantee they will say yes. What do you think if I called you a perv? Would you like to answer that for me? How do you feel if I called you a "pervert" or is that the new label for homosexuals?

"Further, you try to associate me with people threatening violence against Jennie when no such threat has been made by me, anonymously or otherwise - can we say 'McCarthyism'."

-I'm sorry Jennie can't show you literal proof that she has been threatened. I was given a note in the 8th grade, and somebody threatened to beat me up if I tried to walk home. I don't know who this was from, so I, as well, can't show you this literal proof you demand of. We know no threat has been made directly by YOU, we just want to adress that threats have been made. And McCarthyism? I'm certainly not expecting you to compromise or agree with us, I don't care if you ever do. It's just sad you never will. =/

"At the risk of sounding redundant, how about addressing the actual issue instead of whining about hurt feelings: If gays aren't perverted, then where do zoophiles, necrophiles, etc. stand in your book? Do are they deserve special marriage privileges as well?"

Why don't you show me actual proof or evidence specifically saying, "Homosexuals are perverts." Show me something that's not entirely opinionated that we can all agree on! We're not asking for anything special... Since when asking for something such like "marriage" which after all is, JUST A LABEL... Since when is that asking for that so much effort? It's not changing society in any ways.

I'm sorry, Anonymous, that it seems like we're perverts. We must set a bad example for you.

Has something happened to you, maybe? Why do you think we're "perverts"? I'd really like to know.

Anonymous said...

its gretchen again

brendan id like to commend you for your stand. anonymous 2, there is a difference between love and lust. a rapist is a pervert, a zoophile or necrophile is a pervert, all of these examples lust after something or someone for their own sexual purposes. homosexuality is not just about sex, its about two human beings being in love and having the right to be together and equal to all straight couples. if you cannot distinguish between love and lust, anonymous 2, i truly pity you and whomever you may be in a relationship with now or in the future.

Anonymous said...

To Jennie:
I’m not exploited. I would admit it if I was. This part of the argument is over.
Not when you don't recognize it.
Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege.
Marriage has two possible meanings
1. Social: An institution set up (in our case by the people via the Constitution & their elected representatives) to serve as a stabilizing basis for society and to further procreation.
2. Religious (in our Judeo-Christian society's case): A union between a man and a woman blessed by God.
Neither of those makes it a human right, nor do the national or state constitutions, nor did the representatives of the people or the people themselves. And that's a good thing, since if it was a 'human right' then it would apply to the folks engaged in incest, NAMBLA, zoophiles (with the appropriate animal rights), etc.

Prop 8 did not grant anyone any more rights than were already given.
You said earlier that it did "My cause was not demanding any special rights…the Yes on 8 people were. They’re the ones asking for special treatment."
The judges decreed the former amendment unconstitutional. Since it was an amendment, it was not part of the original constitution. When reverted back to the way it was before, it was ruled constitutional for gays to be married along with heterosexuals.
Gay marriage wasn't constitutional prior to the 2000 amendment. I.e. there was no constitutional right for gays to marry in 1999, 1959, 1899, etc. and the only time the licenses were handed out was after the 2008 ruling. The amendment was added by the people to prevent judicial activism, and sadly was struck down by activist judges (no in a reasonable society it shouldn't have been needed).
Marriage is not an extra constitutional privilege.
It is when a court overwrites the constitution and grants it to a special group.
I told you I’d choose to be straight to show how uninformed of an argument you had with saying homosexuality is a choice.
And I pointed out how you could CHOOSE to be straight if you were serious.
Whether or not someone is gay or not does not determine who they have sex, or a relationship, with.
Right, it's the other way around.
you keep saying that by choosing to sleep with the same sex makes you gay.
Precisely.
By that logic, anyone who dies without ever having sex is asexual.
As I pointed out, there's a 'nature's default' of being heterosexual (for reasons having to do with procreation), but that's beside the point since the argument is about people who do have sex.
You, once again, are confusing sex with sexuality.
Nope, just pointing out that you define your sexuality through having sex.
Also, I learned that homosexuality existed when I was in sixth grade. I’d liked girls in elementary school. How could I have chosen something that I didn’t even know about?
You obviously knew about the feelings, just didn't know what the term for them was.
It’s caused rifts with friends within my church, and a few without. I was suicidal for four years because I was in denial about it. I’ve been threatened, alienated, had things stolen, and my car dented. All because of my sexuality. No one, even if they weren’t in their right mind, would choose that for themselves.
Most of what you listed above is a result of your coming out and acting out, rather than simply having homosexual relationships. Teenagers acting out is nothing new. IMHO you choose an extreme form it because it gives you a sense of identity and lets you play the martyr (i.e. you get to act like a victim, be praised as a hero and feel like you're serving a greater cause). So please try not to protest too loudly.


To Max:

...[a usual off the wall & incoherent rant about how insane I am] ...
Examples, knowledge, arguments, logic? Nah, you don't need any of that, just keep yelling while calling others 'haters'. You know who I feel sorry for: the people stuck with you on their side in the argument.
I find it funny how you didn't address my allegations of your cowardice nor your childish whistle blowing on soccer moms comment...
Of course I did. I pointed out that your allegations are worth as much as your claims of being knowledgeable, or logically coherent, or knowing right from wrong, etc. Translation for the slow: Don't hold your breath on me revealing my identity and learn to address the arguments made instead of attacking & trying to silence the person making them.
... nor your lack of an actual degree in any of the issues you bring up, let alone expertise, ...
I never claimed to have a degree. You the only one who insisted that it was necessary to call someone mentally ill; and then (as usual) contradicted yourself in the next sentence by declaring zoophiles, necrophiles, and people who don't share your views insane. What more is there to address.
...nor how you lead a sad existence.
Again, you made an obscene insult so it must be true. Guess it's a good thing I have your tirades to brighten up my day.
Oh, and the fact that you can't recognize sarcasm is just plain funny.
Umm...your entire posts could easily be considered a parody. So yes it's very hard to tell when you're being sarcastic, was it when you said "I dropped my hate a long time ago."?


To Anon:
Yes there are more pressing issues than homosexuality & gay marriage and many gays can lead otherwise normal lives inspite their problems. Nor does homosexuality doesn't rank up there with murder or rape (although we certainly need more people in the US), but since it is a mental disease it's not an appropriate basis for demanding spousal privileges.
And give it a rest with the whole you're afraid, you're angry, something's wrong with you tirade because I don't share your views of sexuality (ditto for a number of other posters).


To Nat:
I'm basically disgusted that someone actually decided that being gay is the equivalent being a necrophiliac or incestuous. Two consenting adults should be able to have any kind of sexual relationship they choose.
That applies to adults engaged in incest and necrophiles (provided permission is given before death). So the comparison stands.


To Gretchen:
a zoophile or necrophile is a pervert, all of these examples lust after something or someone for their own sexual purposes.
It's not just lust it's a very perverse form of lust acting on which will have severe psychological consequences. But more to the point, so is homosexuality. You can claim that gay people can be in love and zoophiles can't, but of course a zoophile will disagree. If I can't tell gays it's not humanly possible for them to love each other, then who are you to tell zoophiles about what kind of feelings they can have (and that would be the 'slippery slope' that gay marriage puts society on).


To Brandon:
I am a homosexual and I'm damn well proud of it. I always have been a homosexual and I always will be no matter what happens to me.
Just because you tell yourself that you've always been a homosexual, doesn't make it true.
Jennie was never exploited, Soccer Mom was trying to make a point. Explain to me how Jennie was "exploited", because I, and most of the people who've commented on this topic seem to think otherwise.
She was exploited because she's a kid who was put in a situation where her feelings would get hurt. Putting a kid (willing or not) in the line of fire like that to make political argument is exploitation, especially if you turn around and say 'hey you're hurting her feelings, stop that' to the first person who tries to debate the issue (And most of the people who comment on the thread are Jennies friends - not exactly a 'random and unbiased' crossection of the population).
"You can't address the arguments, so you simply dismiss them by with the label 'hateful' - care to explain why calling a perv a perv is 'hateful'?"
-Yeah, Soccer Mom addressed the arguments and why she opposed Prop 8, as did Jennie.

They certainly stated their views, but neither addressed my arguments (i.e. that everyone has the same rights with the passage of Prop 8, and if you let gays marry then why not other perverts) at the time of the post.
"Further, you try to associate me with people threatening violence against Jennie when no such threat has been made by me, anonymously or otherwise - can we say 'McCarthyism'."
-I'm sorry Jennie can't show you literal proof that she has been threatened....

That's missing the point. The post wasn't McCarthyism because Jennie was threatened, it's McCarthyism because it tries associate me with people threatening the violence (as a means of dismissing my arguments), when I've done no such thing.
Since when asking for something such like "marriage" which after all is, JUST A LABEL... Since when is that asking for that so much effort? It's not changing society in any ways.
It destroys an institution which lasted for thouthands of years and upon which a society is built. Plus it opens the door to all sorts of other redefinitions. If it's just a label to you then why are you pushing so hard for it (If you want associated privileges like making emergency decisions, inheritance, etc., I personally don't object and neither will most of the prop 8 supporters).

Why don't you show me actual proof or evidence specifically saying, "Homosexuals are perverts." Show me something that's not entirely opinionated that we can all agree on!
First off, the standard of 'something we can all agree on' is an impossible one to meet. On this or any other issue there will always be someone who doesn't acknowledge the argument, no matter how well thought out or backed up by facts it is.
Second your side is asking for additional privileges, so the burden of proof that you're normal and are entitled to them is on you.
Third there's a host of reasons why it's a perversion (i.e. a Pathology. a change to what is unnatural or abnormal):
1. Biological - The primary purpose of sexual behavior is to ensure for procreation and to pass on the genes. Homosexuality either strictly prohibits or severely restricts that.
2. Social - Heterosexual societies have been prevalent throughout human history. Unions between men and women are not only considered the norm but ensure that the next generation both exists in sufficient numbers & is brought up properly.
3. Psychological - Homosexuality was recognized as a mental disorder until the 70's when political pressure was brought on the psychiatric community.
4. Common Sense - Yes you can label this a personal opinion, but the fact is that most of you are able to recognize zoophilia, necrophilia ect. as mental disorders, but can't explain why with an argument which would exclude homosexuality (i.e. you just know it).
If you're bored feel free to come up with an argument as to why necrophilia, zoophilia, etc. is a perversion, but which won't be dismissed by a zoophile as 'your personal view' - no doubt followed by accusations that you're a phobic Nazi, who's trying to keep him from being happy & having the same rights as everyone else, because there's something wrong with you.

This 'wrapping things up' bit apparently takes a lot of time...

Golf cube dude said...

alright, i'm new to this discusion thread so it is all very interesting to me.

i have known jennie for 3 years now and those years have gone towards making me resect her a great deal. I am straight, but i am pro-rights, i don't believe at all that someone should be denied the right to do anything as long as it doesn't pyshiclly endanger themselves or anybody else. i have been exposed to a great deal of homosexual remarks latley over this whole prop 8 ordeal, and all of these anti gay remarks have no basis in reson or logic. they are consistently comments made both in ignorance and unfound hatred.

Anonymous- your comments are unneeded, you will not change anyone's mind, i am going to try very hard to not insult you in the next few lines because what i think is needed is a clear head when discussing most heated matters.

I do not know jay extrodinarly well, (and cant spell well either) but what i have come to relize is that this is not an individual who is exploited, to be exploited you must be unsware of the effects of your actions, jay has stronger convictions on this issue than anyone in this chat room. she knew what she was doing when she was interveiwed.

lastly- when i met jay i was not aware of her orientation, it was in a class the second year i had known her where she told me. at that time i was faces with a choice- do i change my image of her or do i accept that everybody in this world is a little diffrent and move on it appears that i took option c: i embrced the fact that diversity is what makes us the same, and firmly beleve that.

Anonymous- i pray for you, not that you see it my way, or you see it anyones elses way, but that you safely arive at your own conclusion that makes sense to you even if it doesn't to anyone else. and i you already have...then i encorage you to actually make a point, because all this trying to make your self look smart is making you look like a bona fide asshole...and there very easy to disagree with. Jennie i'll see u in Davis and ault

golf club dude said...

all right some revisions-

unsware = unaware

Anonymous said...

Golf Club Dude:
You (and many others, including Jenny) think that because she has convictions on the issues and agreed to the interview means she isn't being exploited.
I'm pointing out that because she's a teenager that's not sufficient and she shouldn't be put in the line of fire like that. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

And thank you for the civility.

Jennie said...

Sammy, Max, Nat, Brandon, Golf Club Dude, and Gretchen
Thanks so much for the support, you guys : ) I really appreciate it, and love you guys.

anon
If you ever need help with anything, come find me at school, or come to a GSA meeting. Or you could just email me through the GSA email. I’m here if you need me.

Anonymous 2:

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.

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. You aren’t only attracted to animals, nor are you only attracted to your sister. And with polygamy, you are not born to marry multiple wives. All of those are either choices or temptations. Homosexuality is neither. So stop comparing me, my friends, hero, and hundreds of thousands of other people to them. Thank you.

That was a typo. I meant that not passing Prop 8 would mean that the amount of rights would stay the same.

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.
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.

The court overrode an amendment to grant equal rights to everyone, instead of just a majority.

I am serious. But I cannot simply choose to be something I’m not. That’s what all those years growing up and coming to terms with my sexuality were about. I was trying to be something I’m not: straight. I’m happy with how I’m made.

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. You make no sense.

And neither does your argument! You continue to time and time again say that sexuality is only determined by who you have sex with. So if I die without ever having sex with a woman, then, by your logic, I’m straight. When I’m obviously not.


Of course I knew the feelings. A girl in my first grade class made my tummy feel like it was full of butterflies, and whenever she smiled at me I couldn’t stop smiling either. Yes, I knew what a crush was. I also knew that I should only feel that way about boys, so I kept my mouth shut about her. I thought I was weird. Turns out I’m just bi.

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. 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.

And I’ll protest as loudly as I possibly can, thank you very much.

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.

Anonymous said...

this lady is a brave young woman and should not be criticeized. I have a lot of respect for her and how she stands up for what she believes in and i dont understand how anyone should feel the right to put her down. Dont let anyone get to you Jennie!

Brian said...

Although I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, simply because that to whom the word marriage applies. I do think that gays should have rights equal to that of marriage, but to vote on a different word or something for the union. But many people on the Yes on 8 side have gone way overboard, and said really mean and threatening things. It doesn't matter what side of the issue you stand on, it is important to be respectful of other people's views, whether you agree or not. 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. Jen has been my friend for several years, and I have felt exactly the same about her since before I knew she was gay, and since she came out. People on both sides of the issue have been out of control, but we need to find a common ground, something that makes both sides happy to what extent it can. As I said I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as the term is intended, but I see no problem in giving gays the same rights that a married heterosexual couple have, but applying a different term to the union. Jen is a very brave young woman, for putting herself out there and making herself vulnerable, to fight for something that she believes in. Anybody who has threatened her and/or called her rude names is way out of line. Jen you are very inspiring, keep fighting for what you believe in.

Max said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max said...

To Anonymous:

I didn't bother to read your attacks against me and everyone else who doesn't think like you, because I think that stands for itself. 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. No one on either sides mind is going to be changed by this. 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. I don't need to site examples for that. None of us do. We don't need to prove to you or anyone else that we're anything. 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. So here, have some words from people wiser than I, and once again, I pity and pray for you.

"A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear."

"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it."

"If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."

"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."

"If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace."

Smile for me.

Anonymous said...

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!

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Max said...

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?

Jennie said...

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

Jennie said...

(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.)

Anonymous said...

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

Max said...

Thanks Jennie. Keep fighting the good fight.

Anonymous said...

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.

Max said...

Three words: Cry Some More.

Anonymous said...

Max,
Why would I cry, when I'm so happy to see you take the mature approach to the discussion.

Max said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max said...

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."

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

sorry for posting it some many times but my computer frozen

Nicole W said...

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.

Pandora's Hope said...

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.

Max said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Pandora's Hope said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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.

Pandora's Hope said...

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! :D

Pandora's Hope said...

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! :D

Anonymous said...

Pandora's Hope,
The state of your denial (and ability to debate) aside, I'm happy as long as you're happy :)

Anonymous said...

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.

Pandora's Hope said...

To Anonymous 2:

No denial here! just the fact that you're a sad excuse for a human being! :D

au revoir!

Pandora's Hope said...

To Anonymous 2:

No denial here! just the fact that you're a sad excuse for a human being! :D

au revoir!

Anonymous said...

To Pandora's Hope:
I see you've decided to exit on a mature note (with a denial of denial, nonetheless). Very well then...

Jennie said...

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, na├»ve, 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.

Anonymous said...

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).

Anonymous said...

In a democracy, we pay respect to minority rights, but ultimately the majority rules. The majority ruled on Prop. 8. Time to move on..

Soccer Mom said...

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.