Alan De Smet ([info]alan_de_smet) wrote,
@ 2008-10-29 23:56:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:california, civil rights, gay marriage, gay rights, marriage, politics, sexual orientation

Yes on Prop 8 spammer convinces me to donate to No on Prop 8

I'd like to thank "Mikes DELETED" from DELETED@yahoo.com. Mikes spammed me repeatedly with messages trying to convince me to supporting Prop 8. (Prop 8 would amend California's constitution to eliminate the right of gay couples to marry, and in doing so invalidate existing marriages.) Up until this point I'd figured I should stay out. After all, it's a California issue, and I live in Wisconsin. But Mikes's spam annoyed me and got me fired up about it. If Mikes thinks it's appropriate to spam out of state people, I think it's appropriate to meddle in Mikes's state. So congratulations, Mikes. In your attempt to get support for "Yes on Prop 8," you instead convinced me to donate to "No on Prop 8." I wish you and the rest of Yes on Prop 8 the worst of luck.

While I'm at it:

Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.

Normally I find such memes annoying and occasionally outright insulting, but this one rings true for me. It comes to me via [info]billzilla.

On that note, that you can amend your state constitution with a simple majority vote is just one more brick in the Great Wall of Why California's Politics Are Insane.

Edit 2008-11-25: I noticed today that Mikes didn't email me entirely out of the blue. We had exchanged a few messages a few years ago about a programming question. However, he also emailed everyone in his address book, including both email addresses he had for me. There is no possible way this was a targeted message. This was unsolicited bulk email, and thus spam. However, out of respect for him as someone I had a perfectly aimable technical discussion with, I've redacted most of his name and his email address.


(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)

YES on Prop 8
(Anonymous)
2008-11-01 05:13 am UTC (link)
It's unfortunate that you had such a bad experience with the spam sent to your e-mail. I would hope that others will have a much more thoughtful and intellectual approach to making their choice about how to vote on Prop 8. As for me, I will vote YES on prop 8, in part, because of declarations like this one:

"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry....As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation." (Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Peter T. Zarella)

http://yes-on-prop8.blogspot.com/

.


(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: YES on Prop 8
[info]alan_de_smet
2008-11-01 07:18 am UTC (link)

My opposition to Proposition 8 is the result of considering marriage for years. "Mikes" spam just convinced me to contribute to an out-of-state (for me) political campaign, something I normally avoid.

As for "responsible procreation," I trust then that you would support a ban on marriage for castrated men? After all, they have voluntarily chosen to remove the possibility, and if the entire point of marriage is to support procreation, why let someone who scoffs at the fundamental principle of marriage? Come to think of it, marriage costs society. At the very least, it costs employers for family health insurance. Perhaps any couple that fails to bear children within the five years shall have their marriage annulled, so as to encourage them to get the hell on with their procreating duties?

Or, perhaps, we can realize that we've moved just a bit beyond the need to procreate. There is hardly a population shortage. If anything, we could use some population shrinkage to better use what limited resources we have.

If the goal is to provide a better environment to raise children (and all other things being equal, two parents is better than one), gay marriages which can adopt children is a net improvement for society.

Not so many years ago many states had anti-miscegenation laws to try and protect "responsible procreation, " because obviously mixing black and white blood would result in some sort of inferior human being. Then we got the hell over it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…