Very nicely put. And well-done :)

This is pretty awesome. The pink of his cheek is a bit overdone and a design choice i wouldnt have made but over all, this is great.

Simple message, simple clear animation and design, good approach and that “Yeeeesssssss” moment is a great light hearted touch to what some may consider a “heavy” message.

It’s always great to see animation artist using their talents for something more (”not that there’s anything wrong with that”) than kiddie, commercial products.

I could tell that he was gay right from the start.

Damn nice commercial. I’m still against gay marriage. Not the love / togetherness / benefits / rights part.

I just wish they’d call it something else. I’d like the word “marraige” to define man-woman, mom-dad.

Goddam their type stealing our words, eh Matt? First they steal ‘gay’ from us (Christmas hasn’t quite been the same since) and now they want ‘marriage’ too? Well that’s just greedy.

This is a lovely piece. I was wondering if they were going to make reference to that tumour on his face but, alas, it didn’t happen. A nice simple message with plenty of character.

I find it odd in this day and age that people would put the time into making a proposition that would limit the rights of gay people. Haven’t we moved on at all?

Really nice, very refreshing!

Not limiting the rights of gay people, Bitter. Confirming and codifying what has been a de facto lack of rights for thousands of years.

And with perfectly good reason, too. Just because some “enlightened” people don’t have any religious or personal investment in the concept of traditional marriage doesn’t mean nobody else is allowed to.

Please, knock off the sanctimonious being-outraged-on-our-behalf-with-affected-bigoted-Southern-drawl-for-comedic-effect stuff. It makes me sick to my stomach to have millions of people’s perfectly sensible beliefs made fun of and their desire to keep words meaning what they’ve always meant likened to some kind of fascism.

I say this as a gay man who is sick of being everyone’s pet minority to be loved and cherished and called George.

@ Matt. How about we call it garridge? I’m not quite sure how you can be against gay marriage but still be tolerant towards gay people and their right together. Marriage is just a word and a method - but it matters a lot to people, regardless of their sexuality.

Hopefully this makes a difference. I’d hate to see a such a backwards step in equal rights.

But yeah, what is with that tumour anyhow?

I think it’s interesting how there are more and more of these little movies making political points (and also just being entertaining) while political cartoons and comic strips in newspapers are stagnating. I’m hoping print stays around in some form, because that’s what I can deal with best, as a creator.

Cool spot. But the guy’s cheek look likes a tumor or some sort of inflateable face-bladder used to attract mates. Is that a gay thing?

Aren’t ALL of our rights about love? Everybody knows the Philadelphia Convention was just one big ol’ love-in. But that…that means that anyone who supports the initiative is full of HATE. They hate gays!!!!
……May I just say that the position taken in this film is illustrative of a certain imbecility?Amid, you are a virtual font, a ceaseless rat-a-tat of abecedarianism.

Really nice, fun animation. It reminds me of the T. Hee Disney titles from the 50’s and 60’s. Was this done with stop motion cutouts, or some sort of digital fakery?

Shoulda chose my words better. I mean just call it something else that’s all.

That’s a fantastic piece! Adrian Molina’s work is wonderful.

Since marriage is a CIVIL agreement, and–according to the Constitution of the United States–we live in a [thankfully] SECULAR state, and the only real reason people seem to oppose gay marriage is based on “religion,” there’s no question left.

Why do religious people want special rights?

Hey now, I like the rosy cheeks on the guy. Didn’t look like a tumor to me at all. Nice work, Adrian. Looks great!

Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% approval and 38.6% against. This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down this initiative and related California law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry. So much for the right of the voters. I GUESS THOSE 61% ARE ALL BIGOTS..

One thing that a lot of these ads don’t mention is that a No vote will take rights away from those that want to define Marrage as only between a man & a woman.

A No vote means that all schools will be forced to teach that a marrage relation is between any two adults when which chashes with the right of parents to teach their children their own values & beliefs.

Churches will be sued if they refuse to preform cerimonies that are against their beliefs.

Church leaders who preach their beliefs will be sued for hate speach.

Religious Adoption agencies will be sued if they don’t place children in same sex homes.

Religious sponsered private schools will lose tax exemptions unless they allow same sex housing.

Plus all of the money that will be taken away from churches that could have been used to help people because of all of the law suits.

And thats just the begining of all of the problems. We don’t want special rights, just the ability to worship in the way that we need to. Prop 8 has nothing against Homosexuals or Gay Rights. It would be great if they were able to obtain the same rights in a different way. Changing the definition of marriage that has been around for millions of years would take away the rights of those that do believe in Traditional Marrage though.

Well, Seriously, I’m straight, and I disagree with you. I think it is bigotry. It’s “We don’t want THOSE kind of people in our Marriage Club.” What the hell difference does it make to me and my marriage if a couple of guys or gals get to call themselves “married” too?

There were people in the past who thought blacks were perfectly decent people… but really, shouldn’t they still have their own drinking fountains? “Because, heck, that’s the way we’re USED to it having been for years and years!”

It’s bigotry, dude. Deal with it.

On the political side, I think that gay marriage should be up to the two people involved and that’s it. If a church doesn’t want to marry them, that’s on the church, but the state shouldn’t get involved.

I really liked this cartoon, and the execution was perfect. It was nice to see such a controvercial topic covered in such a way.

HERE HERE Fred Sparrman! I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Future generations are going to look back at these times and shake their heads in disgust thinking how small minded and stupid we all were.

Everybody’s equal.

Sticking strictly on the cartoon side: VERY VERY NICE!

But yes, I didn’t like the guy’s cheek either…

Ok, I can’t help it, here we go to politics again: I’m pro gay marriage. If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together and shout their love to the world, who am I to dissent? I’ve discussed this issue AD NAUSEAM with Catholics, and their argument is too feeble —it’s against Nature.

Well, drinking the nutritious secretion of another species intended for their young—and worse, keeping doing it on your adult life!— is also pretty unnatural too, and yet we don’t see people against it.

…the secretion I’m talking about,is milk ;-)

Very well done, sweet short. Gay or Straight, marriage should just be banned all together. Times are changing and the open minded evolving thinkers are getting restless of the people stuck in the old fictional ways of our past. This country has bigger problems than trying to stifle the happiness of another fellow human being. But back to the well designed and thought out animation. I hope to see more animators using their art to speak for themselves. America loves and listens to cartoons and sometimes we forget just how powerful the talent and skill we have inside of us can be. Speaking of cartoons, be sure to catch the new adventures of Sarah Palin tonight on the debates… best cartoon ever!

It’s great to see an artist stand up for their rights. We have had equal marriage in Canada for a couple of years now, and we have not been struck down by a wrathful man in the sky or anything.

“Changing the definition of marriage that has been around for millions of years would take away the rights of those that do believe in Traditional Marrage though.”

Penn & Teller pretty much debunked the myth of “traditional marriage” in their own show a few years ago. Do you think cavemen stayed with the same women for the rest of their lives, or that the prophets of the Bible didn’t practice polygamy?

This spot is everything the “Swiftboat Willie” short in the other post isn’t: intelligent, sensitively done, and willing to give the audience credit for not being total goobers. Love it.

millions of people’s perfectly sensible beliefs

Cartoon blog = Cartoon opinions

“the California Supreme Court struck down this initiative and related California law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry. So much for the right of the voters.”

Propositions in California are not vetted for constitutionality before they are placed on the ballot. Prop 22 was challenged after the election and found to be unconstitutional. That’s why it was struck down, and that’s why Prop 8 seeks to change the constitution. That’s why the “rights of the voter” argument here holds no water.

paburrows, I’d encourage you to read the proposition itself and stop taking the word of religious leaders and right-wing pundits. What you said is completely untrue.

Kelly Tindall says:
It’s great to see an artist stand up for their rights. We have had equal marriage in Canada for a couple of years now, and we have not been struck down by a wrathful man in the sky or anything.

This is a common folly of our age, and one I like to call “the lightning strike fallacy”. Justice is seldom swift and never immediate. Whenever systems self-correct, they generally do it over a great period of time, unless some outside force comes to bear upon them. It might be a century or more before your unfortunate progeny has to weather the full blow of your intellectual and moral bankruptcy, and then you will wish, from whatever perch or pit you occupy, that lightning had only struck. And (to quote Rudyard Kipling) the Gods of the Copybook Headings will limp up to explain it once more.

A No vote means that all schools will be forced to teach that a marrage relation is between any two adults when which chashes with the right of parents to teach their children their own values & beliefs.

What–you don’t believe in raising your children to make up their OWN mind? They will anyway. And schools have always taught tolerance, so this is nothing new.

Churches will be sued if they refuse to preform cerimonies that are against their beliefs.

No—Church and State are seperate. Civil marriages have NOTHING to do with church. ZERO.

Church leaders who preach their beliefs will be sued for hate speach.

“Speach” is spelled “Speech.” And besides, there’s a little thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT, which protects us ALL from religion.

Religious Adoption agencies will be sued if they don’t place children in same sex homes.

So–you’re against adoption? Again, it’s a civil matter.

Religious sponsered private schools will lose tax exemptions unless they allow same sex housing.

What law says this? Oh…NONE. The sky is not falling.

Plus all of the money that will be taken away from churches that could have been used to help people because of all of the law suits.

Most of them should be taxed, anyway. But that’s just an opinion.

Not enough lions…

Sounds to me that most of the pro-gay arguments are coming from some pretty angry people…who might possibly be bigoted towards anyone who disagrees with their “beliefs” as well.

We’re all bigots. Everyone is a special interest. Everyone wants special rights. Anti-gay agenda people are “homophobes,” anti-religious people should be called “religophobes.” Both sides seem incapable of middle ground.

Sounds to me like some people want to change institutions that have been around for millenia. Maybe instead of legislating your will on things that are sacred to millions of people, just make up a comparable alternative. Semantics matter.

G:

Thats what Im saying.

Paul N:

I have read the Proposition, and it wasn’t the religious organizations that have said the points that I have brought up. All of those points have happened in Canada, Massachusetts and other places that have made same sex marrages legal.

Sounds to me that most of the pro-gay arguments are coming from some pretty angry people
Gee I wonder what they could possibly have to be angry about?

Hey can you come up with a snappy title for people who are bigoted against mind-bogglingly moronic and terrible animation blog comments? I need to know ASAP, thanks.

I enjoyed this……I did not enjoy the pink potato on the side of the kids face……what is that thing???????

On the issue…….

If the argument against gay marriage is based purely on the violation of the sanctity of marriage, which seems to be the overwhelming argument, then why aren’t these same people fighting to get the practice of divorce or adultery made illegal? Why is it not ok for two people of the same gender to enjoy marriage…but it is perfectly ok for a man and a woman to treat it with complete abandon?

Why the double standard? If the sanctity of “marriage” is what is so damned important, why the solitary focus on gay’s and not the ones that truly make a mockery of marriage?

I mean come on….adultery is No. 7 on the list of commandments…. gayness doesn’t even rank.

” All of those points have happened in Canada, Massachusetts and other places that have made same sex marrages legal.”

Good things all. At least Canada and Massachusetts believe in the U.S. Constitution.

Why are religious nuts so scared? And why do they lash out in such hatred? Whichever god is theirs may forgive them, but since we live in a thankfully secular state, what they think doesn’t really matter.

With respect, G, what would the middle ground between a homophone (or, for the sake of argument, a “religophobe”) and a non-homophobe be? Either someone’s a bigot, or they’re not. The idea that gay marriage takes _away_ the rights of people having straight marriages is patently absurd. It merely extends the rights to people who’ve been denied them for.. well, basically forever.

So if I vote yes on 8 that means I dislike gay people? Oh, and I’m ignorant about what it means to be gay? Love the look and animation of the short. Too bad it was wasted on this subject matter.

G:

I think that you miss the point….yeah, everyone has their hangups. Anti-gay marriage advocates hide behind the sanctity of marriage argument simply because they don’t have the balls to just come right out and say that the don’t approve of being gay and don’t want gays to have the same rights as straight folk, for whatever reason. I haven’t seen anyone laying legislation on the table to outlaw divorce or adultery…….so, it’s not the sanctity of marriage that ruffles their feathers….it’s gay people…..plain and simple. It’s an external pattern of thought……they want to project they’re ideals on to others, because the idea of homosexuality makes them uncomfortable.

On the other hand…..gay people don’t want to get married because they want to show those religeous folks a thing or three……they just want to be married….it’s an internal thought process…..they just want to be accepted for who they are and treated as such.

It’s complete BS, in my opinion, there is no validity to an anti-gay marriage position, because it’s clouded in selfish and self righteous ideas filtered through a sacrosanct ideology.

Here is an interesting comment…..”Maybe instead of legislating your will on things that are sacred to millions of people”. This statement works both ways…..

I’m sure there is a compromise…..perhaps we should make marriage available to ONLY people that get married in a religeous setting….gays and straight (depending on the church’s rules)……and call everything else’s “relationship” a civil union. I can’t imagine that straight folks would view that as fair and it would never fly, just as gay folks view civil unions as being unfair…..because it’s not.

or we could always go with this….. people could just grow the f up and accept people for who they are and worry about their own marriages….it seems like that is what would strengthen the moral fiber of this country a little more than gay people getting married.

Sorry man, I’m not trying to go off on you….I just think that justifying a selfish ideal by saying “We’re all bigots”…..just doesn’t do the argument any justice.

paburrows, I don’t expect you to believe this, since it’s from the No On Prop 8 site, but here’s what they have to say about churches being sued, school curriculums, etc.

http://noonprop8.com/campaign_updates?id=0001

If you’ve read the proposition, then it should have put your mind at ease about some of the points you made. Since you still made said points, you’re either ignoring the facts or intentionally fear-mongering.

Truth….YES

He do me a favor and don’t post that last one directed at TRUTH…..I don’t need to go fishing for any more arguments…thanks guys.

PS…..I enjoy invoking politics with animation. At the end of the day, and in the grand scheme of things…animation, as a means of entertainment, really isn’t that important, the world we live in is…..it’s comforting that animation can be a used to convey our ideas on,in, and around the world…thus making it a true form of artistic expression….and that’s pretty fucking cool IMHO.

Thanks for introducing me to Prop 8, now that I know what it is I won’t be voting for it…..oh wait I don’t live in the US.

Here’s the first amendment Marcus and anyone else who is waving it around as a safety net to protect them from religion:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So the First Amendment actually protects the establishment and practice of a chosen religion from any form of government suppression. They are also not allowed to squash a person’s right to free speech and it also states that if people want to peaceably oppose something they’re allowed (which is interesting because it’s the people who are the ones in favour of gay marriage who are hurling the insults). If your going to quote laws at least understand what they actually mean.

If people decide not supporting something because of their beliefs how is that different from others supporting stuff because of what they do or don’t believe. But as soon as it comes to a decision made because of religious belief, all of a sudden 19 out of 20 people in the world are automatically considered wrong by the 1 in 20 and their decisions and opinions null and void because of the basis for their decision.

The issue here is that there are a lot of us who want to keep the word “marriage” and it’s meaning and rights contained to the natural union of a man and a woman. We view marriage as something which has very specific and special meaning and we don’t want that meaning diluted or changed just to accommodate whatever the flavour of the day is regarding secular opinion.

Just because there are people with louder voices or more press coverage calling for this change doesn’t mean that we want to follow them.

Hey anti-gay marriage people, why the hell should be sacred?Why not destroy of tradition? We need some freedom and variety!

Okay so Andrew says I dislike gay people if I vote yes on 8. I’m glad he knows me well enough to make this conclusion. I like how you asked the mod to delete your comment. You shot from the hip and missed the target.

Hey Adrian, great job on this man! Once again your film is great. I’m voting a BIG no on prop 8! Very proud of you dude. I just wish that this film didn’t have to go through the cartoon brew comment hazing.

I don’t think we would be in this situation if government kept its nose out of religious ceremonies. Why not regulate Bar-Mitzvas or First Communions or circumcision rituals then? So much for separation of church and state.

Adrian, you made a great little film with an honest heart in a country where you’re allowed to do that. High five. Anyone with an ounce of your courage, who disagrees with your views, is welcome to sack up and make a film of their own and we’ll see who sways who.

You help me love America man.

The “tumor” that people keep referring to kind of reminded me of John McCain’s cheek thing.

I have seen three No on 8 commercials so far and none have attempted to actually show a gay marriage, one even shows a heterosexual marriage; the other two show a male and a female talking. The passing of Proposition 8 would not take away any legal rights from gay couples, which rights are exactly the same as that of straight couples. As Matt Sullivan did, I do wonder why they don’t just come up with a term that describes a gay union. “Marriage defines a union between a man and a woman. ‘Garridge’ (or some other such term) defines a union between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman.” What could be the problem with that? Then straights would be “kept out” of the gay club. But it’s almost like gays see straight love as more legitimate so they desperately seek the same label to describe their love.

Both vice presidential candidates have stated that they feel that gay couples should have the same legal rights that straight couples do without calling their union a “marriage.” Even France is now reconsidering its prior stance of allowing gay marriage.

> Damn nice commercial. I’m still against gay marriage. Not the love / togetherness / benefits / rights part.
I just wish they’d call it something else. I’d like the word “marraige” to define man-woman, mom-dad.

Congrats on missing the whole point of the clip.

Uhm…..Truth…I don’t know you….and it was a kneejerk reaction. That’s why I asked Amid not to post it…….it seems he does a fantastic job of moderating huh :)

I apologize for calling you out, obviously I regretted it the moment I sent it. However, since we are here…. you did ask a question and I gave you an answer.

I will concede that there are those that oppose gay marriage and view adultery and divorce with the same amount of disdain, because they themselves are ONLY interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage and would just as quickly sign on to a proposal to outlaw divorce and adultery. To those people I applaud you, not for your ideals…..but at least your not hiding behind a phony argument. Truth, I can only hope that you are one of these people.

That being said…. it is obvious that that is not the case with the mass majority of people who oppose gay marriage….I’ve outlined those points previously….no point in being redundant.

Truth…I would really like to here your take on the subject, I have yet to here a valid explanation for excluding gays from marriage that isn’t based in some form of discrimination aimed exclusively at gay folks.

Josh, I know you were speaking to Marcus, but I hope that I can interject a little something. You said, in regards to opposition of the term of marriage being applied to gay couples, “We view marriage as something which has very specific and special meaning and we don’t want that meaning diluted or changed”

My reply……Gay people feel the same way my friend. The term “marriage” isn’t the property of religious institutions. I touched on this earlier, if marriage is regarded as a faith based ideal, then why is it acceptable for non-religious people to use the term marriage? The argument for or against gay marriage and the terms of it’s definition have, in my opinion, little to do with religion. While marriage is important to one’s faith and religion, the church does not own it….on the surface though, religion is the shielding argument, because it’s an easy theme to justify, but at it’s core……it’s simply prejudice.

But hey man…..this is strictly my opinion….I’m open to discussion as to why I could be missing the point.

I don’t think if you vote yes on prop 8 that it means you hate gay people. I think it means you just don’t see them as equals.

(which is horrifying.)

When I got married, my fiancee and I had to obtain a marriage license from the county clerk. With that, we could then have an official, authorized by the government, perform our marriage ceremony. In our case it was an Episcopal minister, but it could just as easily been a judge on the steps of the courthouse or an Elvis impersonator on the Vegas strip. Without the license from the government, all the religious ceremonies in the world would have been meaningless and we would not be “married”.

The point is that my marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one. This proposition seeks to use the law to deny rights to a group of citizens. The religious arguments are secondary, as the religious aspects of marriage are secondary to the governmental requirements necessary to successfully marry someone.

As to civil unions being “as good as marriage”, and calling gay unions something other than marriage, it sounds like what supporters of this proposition want is a “separate but equal” system for this minority group of citizens. We’ve seen how well that’s worked in the past.

“The passing of Proposition 8 would not take away any legal rights from gay couples, which rights are exactly the same as that of straight couples.”

Separate but equal? We all know how THAT one works out…

That’s a bold generalization Dan. I like how you try and emphasize your point by throwing the word “hate” in there.

The clip is pretty awsome i too wonder if it was straight motion capture or made on the computer. As for everyone else…. hehe lordy there are real problems in the world how about we spend less time worrying about what gay folks are doin and worry about yourself. Adam and steve marry in cali and your life doesnt change a bit. Most of our friends in europe and canada legalized it and yet its the conservative usa thats in turmoil. Gay people have been around since before biblical times they arent going anywhere. So worry about starving children, natural disaters, and rapists. Change some important things! instead of waisting your time trying to make two u.s citizens miserable. Telling anyone that they arent worthy of something alot of people take for granite isnt right. If all political statements were as well done as this i would look forward to all the ads that plauge us on election years.

“Separate but equal?”

Yes, and as an example: men are “men” and women are “women.” Different terms, equal rights (when things are done correctly which they *basically* are in the US . . . and I’m aware that some women don’t feel like they are equal to men unless they start acting like men). Men and women don’t have to be called the same thing to make them equal.

A union between a man and a woman is called a “marriage.” A union between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman is called something else but gays don’t seem to want to come up with a term for it — they are like Nazi feminists who feel like they aren’t “equal” unless they can blend in with the group they feel is superior to them instead of having enough confidence to stand on their own. But, still, the legal rights are the same and Proposition 8 passing would not change that.

Great spot, and great to see artists and animators getting involved in the political process in such important times!

Josh

In las vegas there is a drive through marriage. Theres no respect or sanctity in that. Human rights is for all to be equal, apparently your religion is not about human rights in any way.

“Prop 8 has nothing against Homosexuals or Gay Rights. It would be great if they were able to obtain the same rights in a different way.”

Lets rephrase that for fun ok

“Prop 8 has nothing against Blacks or Black Rights. It would be great if they were able to obtain the same rights in a different way.”
(and of course this would be when they were still slaves)

Does that sound ok to you? if it does, thats unbelievable to me, so backwards, and gross.

Some things are just wrong, and if your majority does actually believe something like that, theres something intensely wrong going on. Especially from a country that parades the world trying to force their ideals on others.

I looked on this guys blog and he made it with photoshop and a computer program but kept the cool cut paper vibe! and everyone else… ahh i know some people have there hearts in the right place tryin to get someone to understand how it feels to be treated like a second class citizen.. but its like if your crazy, you dont think your crazy. your a homaphobe but you dont think youre being homophobic . If straight people who werent married in a church all had to be downgraded to civil unions they would flip out. Its a double standerd that unfourtunatly unless your in a gay persons position or are open minded enough to understand… your just not gunna get it… but its good to hear so many people on here say such smart and thoughtful things

I don’t think if you vote yes on prop 8 that it means you hate gay people. I think it means that you’re tired of voting on propositions that oppose gay marriage.

(which is horrifying.)

Christian, your comment about “Nazi feminists” completely discredits you. Not only does it indicate a lack of understanding as to what feminism really is about, and why it continues to exist (no, we are not living in an ideal equal society, yet, and it has nothing to do with women wanting to ‘act like men’), but it suggests that feminism seeks to belittle one group of people in favour of another. It doesn’t. Unless elevating one group to the same level as the other counts as ‘belittling’.

As well, “men” and “women” are physiologically different in a few important ways. These are obvious. Their rights are equal (as the rights of gays and straights should be) - but they do NOT have different names. There is no special name for a woman’s freedom of speech as compared to a man’s. These are HUMAN rights. The same for everyone. Period.

(You understand that when people talking about ’separate but equal’ they were referring to racial segregation, right?)

message was clear and honest, if slightly over-sugared. Cheek was disturbing. I thought he had something in there till he turned and the other one popped out momentarily. But ignoring that, good job.

I’m finding some really convenient oversights in the “equality” argument. The fundamental purpose of a marriage, as handed down through thousands of years of history, is to rear a family. That is why a union between two men or a union between two women is not “equal” to that of a man and a woman. In terms of rearing children it is deficient. Men and women are different sexes and like every other animal on the planet the sexes have giant differences between them. A woman has a much more varied and different set of innate skills in raising a child. Men offer different things as well. They are not interchangable. I have nothing against someone who is gay. I’ve lived in NYC, Atlanta and LA and I’ve had gay friends in all of those cities. Yet, the fact remains that I love children more - more than gay adults or straight adults. I want kids to have two parents that represent both genders to guide them through a world filled with both genders. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with evolution and Darwin. But before anyone rushes to call me a bigot because I differentiate between the sexes in having different assets in raising children, consider then that every single judge in our legal system is just as bigoted as I am, for all judges(discounting extreme circumstances) side with the mother in custody battles. The resistance against gay marriage is about children being raised by gay couples.

“Christian, your comment about ‘Nazi feminists’ completely discredits you.”

Apparently you didn’t catch the distinction between “*Nazi* feminists” and “feminists.” There is a difference and I’m not claiming all feminists are hardcore militant radicals. I used *one* of the groups, and not the other one, to make a point. It’s hard to get too nuanced when this is being discussed on a cartoon forum so I just trust that reasonable people will not read the wrong things into things I say. Yet, unfortunately, certain things I have brought up have been ignored and others have been twisted.

“(You understand that when people talking about ’separate but equal’ they were referring to racial segregation, right?)”

Yes, and I’m not the one who brought up the separate but equal thing. It’s not phraseology I am apt to use.

Is it about love, or semantics? If it’s semantics, I don’t think a word should be redefined that has come to mean so much to so many who have subscribed to the notion of marriage between a man and a woman. I’m not convinced that the definition is anything other than that. And, I’m completely open to empirical evidence and it would sway my opinion. I have always thought that when you live with your lover, in effect you are married. Or, at least I wouldn’t expect your life to change when you do get married (free advice). Of course, equal rights for everyone is a different issue in my opinion. And, the answer to that is right in our Constitution and our hearts, I would hope. I always thought that there should be a new term for gay marriage and that would be that. Nobody would object to that. If it is just about love, then I’m all for it. I just can’t get over the logic of it all. So, to sum it up, I don’t think this sweet and funny cartoon has changed my mind.

As long as we’re rephrasing…..

“Prop 8 has nothing against Illegal Aliens or Illegal Aliens’ Rights. It would be great if they were able to obtain the same rights in a different way.”

No one ever talks about who is really discriminated against in this country.

If any of you had people try to kill you for just trying to get to a country that offers money for work, then you can talk about discrimination

Before computers, “reading” was something you did with printed text. An old dictionary might possibly have defined it as such. Now, we can read text from a computer screen, which isn’t “printed” at all. Does this mean the definition of “reading” has changed? Not essentially, but the definition does need to be broadened a bit to accommodate changing times.

So it is with the word “marriage”. No one is asking for the essential meaning of the word to change, they’re just asking for it to be broadened to apply to all humans on earth. And if you’re not for that, it’s hard for me to see how you aren’t a bigot.

Hieronymous…….

I can see the point you make about raising children in a home that has both parents, I don’t agree, but I see the point…however, having kids is not a prerequisite for marriage. One could have a marriage and continue to be married for all of time and not have to have children. So if a man and a woman marry and don’t have children, how is that any different from two men or two women getting married and not raising children?

As far as kids go…..are you saying that one has to be straight and married to be a good parent….or at the very least have a mother and father influence to be a properly raised????

Because if that’s the case, I’m not saying it is but that’s what it sounds like…..but if it is, I think you might need to have a chat with some single parents and their children, maybe even some gay parents and their children…sexual preference and gender doesn’t make you a good parent…being a good parent makes you a good parent. Using the law to define what is right and wrong is where your argument falls short. What is right and wrong is what defines the law….and laws can change, because peoples concept of what’s right and wrong change.

Anyone that has gone through a divorce and\or has dealt with custody issues knows that the law is not always right or fair….but that is a whole other argument.

Fred…..right on the money.

Nobody ever brings up who will be affected the most when it comes to this issue, and that’s kids.

What is best for kids is a mommy and a daddy that love each other and their kids.

Fred, The “N” word has deep rooted meaning. I think it’s understood by all to be a word that we don’t use and if you do everybody knows where your coming from. In the same light, it has been re-appropriated, but in most cases it is spelled differently. And, unless you’re of African decent it has still has stigma, as it should. I don’t agree that the term “reading” has changed it’s meaning. So, basically again I think changing the meaning of a word to suit changing times is an affront to all the people who have already subscribed a meaning to it and believe strongly about it. What is so bad about forming a new word to describe the bond between a gay couple? I think a bigot is someone who would discriminate against that couple or not afford them the same rights as everybody else. Two different issues. It’s like the idea of separation of church and state. You have to use two parts of your brain to make that idea work: the analytical and the emotional.

Or at the very least have a mother and father influence to be a properly raised????

Yeah, thats what I’m saying - and whats more its what biology and nature defines as the optimum environment for children to be reared in. I’m not making anything up here, a good place to start reading about how much guidance human children require is the first chapters of The Dragons Of Eden by Carl Sagan. By desing, we are born without any instincts. We are born more vulnerable and more maleable than any other animal on the planet. Thats whay our formative years are longer than any other animal on the planet. Children take in what around them and define their identity and there isn’t anything more prevalent in us identifying who we are than our gender. There isn’t anything more important to our interractions with
other humans than our gender. When a child is raised WITHOUT one gender, to look to it is a deficient environment. So parents that are same sex are not equal to traditional parents at all.

, I think you might need to have a chat with some single parents and their children

I live next to a single parent. A lot of my friends are single parents. Single parents have an unfortunate amount of obstacles in raising a child, this is true. But single parents are not asking to be seen as equals to two parents. Single parents don’t get prefered treatment from adoption agenices. Single parents are more than aware that their child has only half of what makes a good family parentwise. Single parents are also always looking to fill this void. You won’t find a single parent who prefers it that way. They are all dealing with circumstances in being single parents.
Same sex couples are eliminating one gender from the parenting process completely - and they are assuring us that this has no effect on a childs upbringing. Thats preposterous - furthermore, they are doing it and claiming that they are somehow victims. That their rights to have a kid are more important to the common sense and science thats dictates that a child should have a guide of each gender to raise them in a world that is full of both genders. Do you think you would be the same if you had been raised without your father? Or without your mother? More specifically, without ANY of one sex in the household?
Thin about it. Think about what you would not have experienced and then think about kids being raised with two parents of the same sex. Its not an “equal” environment as a kid with both a mom and a dad. Its definitely substandard.

Okay, my last post here:

Sploosh - Welcome to the real world, where many children don’t have mothers and fathers that love them and that don’t take care of them. I guess they’re better off being raised in an orphanage than by a loving gay couple that actually WANTS them?

Dan- Thanks for your insight on the workings of my brain. I’ll withhold my comments on yours. Now then, I’ve really tried, but I don’t see how the “N” word relates to my analogy. My point was that an old dictionary that defined “reading” as having to do with “printed text” would now be wrong, because when it was published no one could foresee reading on computer screens. It must be changed to keep up with the times. You ask “What is so bad about forming a new word…” What is so bad about it is that it isn’t what many gay people WANT. You want them to have what YOU say they can have. You say “a bigot is someone who would discriminate against that couple or not afford them the same rights as everybody else.” Guess what, buddy: That’s you, by your own clear admission.

Hieronymous- You start by recommending that we all read Carl Sagan. I haven’t read the book in question, but does he express your personal beliefs about male/female couples as opposed to same sex? Perhaps he does, but I doubt it. You present your own conclusions as if they are scientific fact. Where are the studies backing up your personal theories about the “deficiency” of same sex couples? And of course, you completely skirt the true issue. I’ve got to ask you: What if a gay couple wanted to get married, but they PROMISED you that they wouldn’t try to adopt. Would you grant them your permission?

In short: If you aren’t a gay person who wants to get married, then what the hell does this have to do with you? Nothing, that’s what. You’re trying to impose your personal beliefs on those you feel aren’t worthy of having what you have. You’re bigots, all.

Sploosh…..right on the money. He he.

Fred Sparrman - Just because it’s not always the scenario that a child is blessed to be raised with a Mother and Father in the home doesn’t mean it’s not the BEST environment for a child to be raised in. I wasn’t blessed with this environment as a kid but it doesn’t mean I don’t want it for other children. Thanks for the close-minded ending to your last post. Very positive and inspiring to all us bigots. Which BTW I love that we’re bigots only because we don’t share the same views you do.

Hieronymous, thank you for clearing up your points. However, you didn’t address my question of if a man and a woman marry and don’t have children, how is that any different from two men or two women getting married and not raising children?

As for parenting…..I didn’t want to make this a personal thing, however, I am living proof that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I was raised without a father, I met him once when I was 6, he bought me a soda, I didn’t see him again until I was 25…..My mom, she was single for a very long time for most of my young life….and guess what…..she’s gay and so is her girlfriend. I met, my other mom when I was 12, they both raised me into adulthood, they both helped me through college, for all intensive purposes she is a parent to me. Now for me….I graduated at the top of my class from a respectable university, I have a stable career as an animator, I have a wife, and yes, she is a woman, and we have a child, I own my own home, I don’t live in debt, I’ve never been arrested, and I don’t see any therapists. Both my moms have an active roll in raising my child, and they both do an outstanding job.

The guy that sits right next to me lived with his mom and dad, until they went through a nasty divorce, his dad beat his mom, custody battle.. the whole nine yards….he himself is now divorced because he can’t handle relationships…he’s also an incredible artist…….he spends his Thursday lunches in therapy.

It must be nice to lump everyone into a tiny little box to suit your ideals. I’ll say it again, sexual preference and gender doesn’t make you a good parent…being a good parent makes you a good parent.

It’s not the gender of the parenting that’s a problem….The problem is with the people that see it as a problem.

RAMPART……hey man…..you can’t steal my lines:)

My personal belief is that the BEST environment for a child is with a family that loves them…..be it gay, straight, divorced, single, step, religious, non-religious. If the parents involved in the child’s life love them, teach them right form wrong, and help them to achieve their goals and dreams….what’s the problem?

Nice try Fred, but your logic is off. Basically, if marriage does indeed define a bond between a man and a woman, then no matter how much one wants it to mean something else, I can’t see it changing because of the reasons I stated above. My argument is purely analytical. If you can prove to me that the meaning of marriage also involves a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, etc., then I’d change my view. Ultimately, I see it as semantic problem. Just like the “N” word. You can try to convince me that it has a new meaning, but I won’t believe you.

Guys….if you are for gay marriage start giving money because the Morman church has all these people calling Californians….

http://www.noonprop8.com

After having some compelling conversations, I thought my gay friends would be happy to know that I value people over semantics, so I’ll be voting no on 8. The idea that married couples today would all of the sudden become criminalized is just plain wrong. As “Again9″ just posted, there’s is a large front to contend with, and I don’t believe the voting majority is on the side of homosexuals. So, if you’re a strong advocate you better get to work! I can’t help being pragmatic. Fred, I hope you’re pleased. And, Andrew you made some strong points. Finally, the tone of this animation remained in my subconscious. So, kudos to Adrian.

TO THE PERSON WHO ADVOCATED FOR A DIFFERENT NAME FOR GAY COUPLES OTHER THAN MARRIAGE:

You should READ the Supreme Court decision. They address this and state that calling same-sex marriage something else sets up a two-tiered system and marks their relaitonships as second class. In the civil rights movement, we learned that “separate but equal are inherently unequal”. This is the same lesson all over again.

Sue, hopefully you read my whole thought process, and know that I changed my position. But, on the semantic argument: “Man” and “Woman” are two defined words, and yet they are equivalent-or should be. According to the courts line of thinking, we should consolidate the terms to a singular Man or Woman to avoid the two-tiered bias. I can’t see that happening any time soon. My whole point was that the word “marriage” has a definition that has been “agreed” upon for ages. When it comes to vocabulary, ultimately we collectively agree upon meanings of words. Otherwise, language couldn’t persist. And, I can’t imagine there will be a critical mass that will accept the definition of marriage to be altered. So, sadly I predict, this Prop 8 will pass. I’ll READ the opinion of the Supreme Court. But, I don’t hold even their views as infallible.

I’ve noticed a lot of people talking about how accepting gay marriage or expanding the meaning of marriage to also encompass the unions of same sex couples, some how destroys what marriage is, and has been for millions of years. This implies that marriage has been some static entity since its conception. We know that what marriage is has evolved with our culture. At one point marriage was arranged to seal a deal between land owners. At another point in history blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. So from my perspective this whole issue is just another step in the evolution of our society. I, like Dan believe that proposition 8 will pass, though it will get no help from me, but I also believe that marriage equality is very near. This issue isn’t going to go away and I predict within two generations it will finally be settled, with equality as the victor. To those who believe the supreme court has ignored the majority’s vote, I completely agree with you. They have, but it is not the function of government to insure that the majority have their way. It’s function is to protect the rights of every last one of it’s citizens. If the courts only ever heeded the will of the majority we wouldn’t have a republic we would have mobocracy. Just some thoughts to let simmer. I will also tell you, I am not unbiased. I myself am a homosexual and I would love to marry one day. But biased as I am, my points are not invalid.

I don’t understand why gays are so insistent on co-opting such an antiquated and obviously flawed institution of marriage…

http://www.queercents.com/2008/10/22/go-%e2%80%9cno-on-8%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%a6-to-be-more-like-%e2%80%9cyes-on-8%e2%80%9d/