Saturday, November 29, 2008

Mormons getting tired of protests

bam1399 said: "you have to deal with it like everyone else has to deal with things that aren't always fair in life."

Yup. That's what the protesters are doing -- 'dealing' with it.

"Majority Rule" be damned. Same sex marriage is an issue that has no physical effect on society. The effects are all in YOUR head. This crazy, irrational idea that 'marriage' is somehow 'protected' and 'defended' by disallowing stable same-sex couples the same opportunity to establish a recognized relationship that confers over 1500 rights, privileges and benefits on the pairing that are conferred by the concept 'married' is insane.

If your marriage is strong and stable, there's no way that having 7% or less of marriages be same-sex could rip that asunder.

If your marriage is unstable and in danger of falling apart, there's no way that outlawing divorce could make it stronger.

"Till death us do part" is a holdover from the middle ages, when death of one partner or the other often came within 10 years of the marriage ceremony. If the marriage was bad, stick it out.

And let's not even talk about arranged marriages, bride-prices, wives and daughters as chattel and, dare I say it, polygyny...

As to their dealing with it, I hope those who are activists for same-sex marriage start using the donor databases to find the yes-donors' identities, and approach them to have respectful, civil, but I expect rather tense discussions on the ramifications of excluding a minority from participation in a benefit you take for granted.

In other words, I'd like same-sex supporters to take a cue from the Mormon church and, using those databases as 'leads', become 'missionaries' for rights to marriage for gays and lesbian couples.

That would be a GREAT way to 'deal with it.'
suncrest: said "Okay, the protesting was amusing for a few's time to get over it. You lost fair and square. Plenty of people donated times and money to the pro-gay side and nobody is out protesting them. Life sucks, deal with it!"

This is not a football game. Or a horse race. "Gee, your team didn't win. Better luck next season..."

The only thing that really happened is that at the end of the sturggle (election) a ratchet point was set for a while.

Those that support same-sex marriage would well and truly be the losers if they just said, "Okay, you win, see you in 2010."

No, the struggle for equal rights, for freedom to marry who you really want to, (and not who you 'have to' just so you can get your bride-and-children ticket into your very own celestial universe,) will go on.

The election does not signal the end of the struggle.

Suncrest, you're going to get positively SICK of this. Calling the activists for same-sex marriage 'whiny little spoiled babies who never grew up,' or some such won't do more than make you and like mindeds feel good about yourselves.

And, what will you do about it, if it keeps on going and we don't just 'get over it'?

What WILL you do?

Friday, November 28, 2008

Mormon flak tries to say no rights were taken

My comment
Nope, Dave, I disagree.

The right was there all along in the state constitution. It was just never enforced, because for too long homosexuals were one of the universal bogeymen.

That it was there all along is why, NOW, the social fundamentalists are rushing around to MAKE SURE that it's taken away in writing by getting the words 'marriage is one man and one woman only' into as many constitutions as they can. The good thing is that it takes a lot more to change the constitution of the United States than to 'amend the constitution of California. That's why the Equal Rights Amendment failed.

I have worked as a flack, so I know one when I see one. Dave, you're a flack for the LDS church, you're supposed to write this stuff. And as a fellow flack, I know that maybe, if you keep pushing the message, people will come to believe it.

But sometimes they don't. Then, what do you do?

Thursday, November 27, 2008

And more trans hate from the same board


So, you've just made it all right to harm transsexuals because they 'trick straight men into having sex with them', the issues that you seem to believe are mitigation against the murderer of a transsexual being guilty of first-degree murder are probably:

-Born male
-Having sex with a male
-Not telling sex partner that you are the same birth sex as partner
-Sex outside of wedlock
-Possible prostitution (specifically, offering yourself sexually to men in exchange for money or other things of value)

I'm sure there are a few other things that can support your contention that the killing of a transsexual is not murder, but that the transsexual "got what he deserved."

What about female-to-male transsexuals? I don't see anybody freaking over them the way they freak over MtF transsexuals. For every two MtFs there are at least one FtM. It's hard to count them because they blend in so well.

Well, with the new administration, maybe a comprehensive hate-crimes bill will be passed -- one that disallows the 'trans panic' defenses that let so many murderers of trans-women off the hook with a legal slap-on-the-wrists or less.

Hazumu Osaragi

More trans-hate

The first post to the new topic. This is the one that got the ball rolling. Remember, these are pharmaceutical sales professionals. They can make a LOT of money pushing drugs for big pharmaceutical companies.

Anyway, hold your noses...

Default Transgender Day of Remembrance(GLBT)

Hello my fellow Novartians. Aren't you excited about the November 20th Holiday of and for Transgender Day of Remembrance. Are you kidding me? Have we as a company and a nation lost our fucking minds to allow this shit. So tell me, what am I to remember? I am confused. But wait, that's what this day is all about anyway, confusion! Remebrance? I'm certain guys like Patton, Omar Bradley, Schwarzkopf, and for you unread mullafukas, Lt. General Chesty Puller, I'm certain they would make certain these homosexual deviants would be made to feel, well, nice, in a pair of lace panties somewhere along the way. When are we as RED BLOODED AMERICANS going to stand up and say "enough of the politically correct horse shit" and tell these queers to go straight to hell. And do not tell me I shouldn't say these things.....I have the right and it is protected by the first amendment and the notion of FREE SPEECH. Yeah , you have the right to take your cobb and send it home the way you choose......Transgender? You gotta be shittin' me......I think Thursday, every bad ass dude in the company should go straight bitch when we make our calls.....the works, dress, panties, wigs, heels, thong and schlong.........damn. Continue to make your one or two calls a day for these fruitcakes and enjoy the check.....I am too damn country to understand this one. Anyone else feel the same?
The posts get worse, as the feed off each other.

My response, including my standard shake-up-the-bigots letter
Wow! I've found a bigot-rich environment!

What scares me is that this is a board that is for "pharmaceutical sales professionals". And what doubly scares me is that the posts are moderated. So not only did the first ten (at least) hate-filled posts get posted by "pharmaceutical sales professionals", they were approved by the staff of this board for posting! Un-freaking-believable.

I've copied the board thus far, just to have something to show that the industrial-strength hate still exists. I'll show it to friends of mine who don't believe when I tell them that, although they are accepting of my transgender-ness, there are STILL those who are likely to do me and my trans-brothers and -sisters great harm, given a tenth of a chance. Thanks for the show-and-tell material.

So staff, please post my message, unedited, out of 'fairness'. If you don't, I have a blog where I record posts I make to bigoted, 'moderated' echo-chamber boards so there's a record somewhere that an alternative voice was stifled by hate.'

Below is my standard, canned response to bigot-boards...

May I interject a real life situation. I’d like to hear your guidance on this.

My mother was given a drug to take to lessen the chance of miscarriage and promote healthy babies — that’s what the doctor told her. The drug is Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. In male fetuses, it feminizes the brains of one in five of us ‘DES sons’.

I finally came to terms with this, and realized my choice was transition or die. So, I’m now a male-to-female transsexual who’s had ‘the operation.’ I’ve changed all my legal paperwork and although I still have a male body with XY chromosomes, it has been retrofitted to approximate female anatomy, which is good because if I ever end up in an accident, there will be no ’surprise’ for the first responders.

I ‘pass’ very well, thank you. Only rarely do strangers figure out I was not born this way. Most people have to be told, by me, or, more often, by someone else who just has to ‘drop the bomb.’

All my paperwork has been changed. Legally, I'm female. But I have to find an OB/GYN who can check my prostate during my yearly pelvic exam (yearly mammograms don't need that level of disclosure.)

So my question to you is — knowing what you know now about me, and assuming for the moment you get absolute power to label me and make determinations on where I can and can't go —

-Do I marry a man? Or do I marry a woman?

-Which restroom and changing facility do you feel I, a male-to-female transsexual, should use when in public spaces?

-Am I immoral?

-Am I a paedophile?

-Am I tearing down western society in support of a deviant agenda?

-Am I selfish?

I eagerly await your responses;

Hazumu Osaragi

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

I'm amused by the fact the article suggests LDS don't get the animosity aimed at them.

I've been as close as one can get to Mormons without being born into the church or marrying into the church. I do admire many of the social aspects. I've always been treated civilly and warmly, as long as business-push never came to -shove.

Mormons will always favour fellow Mormons over gentiles, no matter how many years the business relation or friendship has existed. All it takes is the conditions to be just right - and the gentile will be lulled into that trusting place by those warm and friendly Mormons -- and..."We're very sorry, but it's just business."

It's just like the Musical Director in Sacramento (who voluntarily resigned for the good of the organization, BTW. And I applaud his ethics in doing so.)

For 25 years he used the creative output of gays and lesbians to mount productions of musicals -- an entertainment form that attracts an audience that has a much higher gay-quotient that general forms of entertainment. 25 years he worked with and entrained a lot of LGBTs.

He votes his conscience. He gives a donation (a protected form of speech covered by the free-speech clause of the first amendment.) Word gets out, and he 1) discovers that speech, even speech (including donating) that is protected by the first amendment doesn't necessarily come FREE of consequences (that's the Sarah Palin version of constitutional rights.) and, 2) his former friends don't believe him when he says he still respects and honors them.

The naivete is -- breathtaking... Or is it really believing your own kool-aid (to mix a metaphor,) while those outside the church who've had or witnessed the rug be pulled from under non-Mormons get a truer picture of the underbelly of a society that appears to promise so much, but systematically delivers betrayal to all who are deemed not worthy?

This is either Dogpile-on-Mormons, or an opportunity for an epiphany. Try the epiphany...

Monday, November 24, 2008


I'll hog things a bit more.

The above is in a topic at Pam's House Blend

Someone asked why religion hates gays. There are religions that accept gays as part of the human condition. It's Social Fundamentalists (sometines referred to as Conservatives) who hate gays.

George Lakoff, in his book Moral Politics, suggests the worldview that these social fundamentalists hold that would motivate them to stop ANY sort of gay rights and equality:

Or go to, look up "Moral Politics" Lackoff, and then navigate to Pg 225.

The thing that drives the Social Fundamentalists the craziest is that a same-sex family is an utter repudiation of the 'traditional' father-is-in-command-mother-is-subordinate-both-rule-the-children family that is also the metaphor for their worldview of society (think Prez Bush's "I'm the Decider!" comment.)

And in their worldview, 'the gay problem' is just a small part of what's wrong with society. But that's why they absolutely and utterly have to hold the line on gay marriage, because if it becomes reality, it WILL destroy their worldview based on the "Stern Father" moral reality they live by.

And until those who support the rights of same-sex couples to marry understand this worldview, and from that understanding can anticipate their behaviour (rather than writing them off as 'ignorant' or 'crazy',) they will continue to hold on and gain the upper hand in ways which we see as reprehensible but they see as absolutely morally necessary.

Read the chapter, f'r crissake! H[eck], read the whole d[arned] book!


The "whiny losers" comment, one too many times, got to me. Two back-to-back posts here

Sunday, November 23, 2008

This is the right time for judicial restraint


Can 50%+1 of the voters use 'legislative democracy'(your word for initiative by simple majority vote) to overturn the right to keep and bear arms?

Can 50%+1 of the voters use 'legislative democracy' to give women the right to vote?

Can 50%+1 of the voters use 'legislative democracy' to make it legal to take property from anyone, whether an individual or some particularly defined group, such as illegal aliens?

Did your vote for the President of the United States directly count? Is your vote for the presidential candidate of your choice 100% certain to always be applied to the candidate of your choice? How much is your presidential vote worth, when compared to the 'worthiness' of voters in lightly populated states such as Wyoming or Idaho?

Can a President of the United States be elected with less than 50%+1 of the voters supporting him or her? Can the will of the people in a presidential election ever be overturned by judicial activism?

What if 50%+1 of the voters use 'legislative democracy' to make some aspect of what is fundamental to you (your particular religion, say,) illegal to practice? Will you just go, "Oh, well, guess I'd better do what the majority tell me to do"?