VOTE NO!

hm

it seems that homosexuals want to become normal by being able to get married, do they think that by being able to get married they will become normal or be viewed normal in the eyes of society? no they will always be a homosexual and not the way nature intended it. evolutionary or designed .
they will only disappoint themselves if they think their lives would be any easier. it seems as a whole they are seeking validation from the society that "we are just like you" "we are the same" but they are not so when they are able to get married and find out that what they wanted from this proposition is just a wishful thinking they will only disappoint themselves.
personally i don't care if you are gay or straight, but if you are gay and out of the closet stop asking for validations.

IRANdokht

Proposition 22 gave same sex couples in California the same legal protections and benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

These judges in San Francisco created legislation, which is oversteps their boundaries. The judiciary cannot create legislation.

The issue

The issue is not whether Capitalism has anything to do with Marriage or not. The issue is, people have a right to advertise, and people are capable of deciding for themselves. Insinuating that allowing ads is an immoral act of economic desperation comes from an ideological standpoint that, despite its loud claims to the contrary, does not recognize the capability and the right of individuals to choose and decide for themselves, and which sees any choice against the ideology as a corruption of masses. In that sense it has everything in common with the Inquisition and other forms of ideological tyranny.

Capitalism is the backbone of a free society. That is why it is so vehemently opposed and hated by tyrannical ideologies. In old or new "progressive" garbs.

tamaam tala jaan,

I simply do not have my password. I guess after the Iranian.com format changed a while back, JJ registered me. I think he might have emailed my password to me, but I have never used it and am too lazy to find it and use it. Hence the "not verified" comments.

I will vote No on 8

Choobe aziz:

I will vote no on 8 tomorrow.I was going to do it anyway, but I'm glad you wrote about it.Please don't lose heart when people attack your choices in life.

About your name: why can't it be Choobe do sar tala?If you think about it, you have choices you are exercising, so why the negativity? Anyway, it looks like you have a registered ID on the site. May I ask why when your articles are published here,you post your comments under an unverified name?Just curious.

Yes on 8 and Obama!

Sounds good to me! Yes? Yes!

To Choob Ye sar Gohi, Iranian Reader, and Zion:

1. Yes, it is a constitutional issue and it will go to court if it passes. And if it does not, the Christian lobby will try to give it another name and push it in another form... just like how prop.22 has been reintroduced as an amendment to the state constitution in the shape of prop. 8, after the judges struck down 22. But this does not mean that one should just give up and let it slide. What is the purpose of voting on anything then?

2. with regards to the survival of the fittest and the phobia of the other, I hope you realize that heterosexuality as a norm is not a transhistorical phenomenon. Other forms of sexuality have existed along side heterosexuality long before heterosexuality took the status of the 'norm" and long before other sexualities were marked as "abnormal." Human race was not wiped off the map, despite the fact that other forms of sexuality existed, was it now? Sexuality is not about reproduction and neither is romantic love, which is assumed to be the basis of marriage (heterosexual or not). The nuclear heterosexual family has not always been the naturalized form of family and marriage has not always been just between a man and a woman. The kind of marriage that some people take for granted as natural and transhistorical has a history. Marriage has nothing to do with the evolutionary logic or the survival of the fittest. It has had many functions, one of which being securing property rights.
The rhetoric of phobia does not really work, as it excuses hatred and discrimination in the name of fear.
3. Choob dosar gohi is a slang, as I am sure you know. Saying No to 8, coming from someone who is against marriage all together, makes the state of being choob do sar gohi even more relevant.

4. we are talking about human beings here. not cartoon characters and not animals. human beings who happen to be excluded from the realms of equal citizenship because of forms of power that have historically produced them as abject. The analogy of cartoons, etc. is irrelevant and disrespectful to people who want to be married to their life partners.

Your question about Zion's comment: Only zion can say what s/he means. I assume s/he is being cute and sarcastic while attacking what s/he sees as a unified front against capitalism. While I do not subscribe to a deterministic idea of capitalism, I do think that capitalism has a lot to do with the institution of marriage in the US. No body said masses are pure. No body made capitalism into this unified monster. But capitalism (even if it does not exist as we know it and is more fragmented now than ever before) does have a lot to do with liberal democracy, advertisement, and the formation of individuals both as consumers and self-responsible entrepreneurs in neoliberalism.

Iranian Reader: I agree, but as you know queers have been incorporated into the consumerist logic in the US, especially because of the buying power of white gay men who make ideal consumers. The visibility of queers in advertisement is not a new thing. While I agree with you in criticizing the appropriation of queer politics for the purposes of marketing, I believe that this formulation ignores an important point, which is the emergence of queer subjects not prior to consumption, but through it. There is no purely transgressive queer politics. I guess queer liberation and consumption are interlocked in the US. But the question is if denying queers the right to marry is the answer to the appropriation of queer politics by the market. I don't believe that it is. That is why despite my criticism to certain queer politics, I still strongly believe that one needs to defeat proposition 8. Prop. 8 is a matter of dehumanization, as you can see from some of the comments.

Zion said it best

Vote YES for Obama.
NO for Prop 8.

Thank You.

Can someone explain

...in simple words what the post “Corrupting the masses” is supposed to mean? I don’t get it.

By the way someone in Japan is collecting signatures for a petition to make it legal for people to marry cartoon characters.

//afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEnZ28LQeaD-jc...

Corrupting the masses

Yes, of course. It is a shame, a tragedy of living in a free liberal society, that evil tempting forces of corruption can be allowed to actually advertise and infect the purity of the masses. Realization of this eternal truth is yet another example of the glorious harmony between the Inquisition and "progressives" of our time. But fear not. Change is in the air, and hopefully once The One gets to form his grand Civil National Security Force, it can be used as a force of progressive good and shut the mouth of all who disagree with us (the reactionary dissidents) and by preventing the corruption of the masses pave the way for the day all march towards progress in purity and unity and with divine smiles on their faces. That day we will be finally free of the capitalist evil once and for all.
Yes, we can!

I am proud to vote YES on prop 8

First of all I don't even believe in marriage, let alone allow gays to get married! What is marriage in USA? For the most part it's all about taxation and certain benefits. So, here I am with no insurance, no marriage and no benefits and no one gives a hoot and you want homosexuals to be allowed to get married to have better benefit for people who have been working all their lives and not expecting a preferential treatment? If society is to be ran properly all benefits for a married couples should be taken away and it should be one person one benefit, same for all. Then we will not sit around and talk about the gay rights. I think next election the issue will shift to transvestiles who would want to marry themselves. A hermofrodite rights. Vote Yes on Transvestiles rights of self marraige! Stop the nonsense. I think marriage should be outlawed all together.

My thoughts

* It’s meaningless to vote or don’t vote in this issue. Whatever the result is, either it will go to court again if it passes, or there will be another proposition in another shape another time. This is a constitutional issue. It will never be decided by the voters.

* It’s any animal’s natural instinct to be phobic to things that are against its survival. It’s in the genes. If people were not afraid of poisonous snakes they’d be all dead now. If “straight” people did not have phobia to same gender sex there wouldn’t be any people to argue about the issue now. It’s unreasonable to expect people not to be ophidiophobic, claustrophobic,… or toxiphobic, and it’s not reasonable to expect “straight” human-animals not be homophobic.

* With a name like ‘Choob Dosar-gohi’ and your anonymity it is hard to pay any attention to the “I encourage you to vote…” part of the article.

TO: Irandokht

Both articles are against Prop.8. It is the ads that are pro 8. Just clarifying that both Mali and Choob (despite their differences of approach to marriage) are against prop. 8. If people want to get married they should be able to do so regardless of their sexuality.

Q you've gone too far!

Is this language really necessary? why are you so outraged?

if you have something valuable to say about this prop. you can convince the readers by making your point in the comment section.

I wish people would use proper language addressing each other.

Thank you

IRANdokht

PS: now I understand the outrage was about ads?  I see ads about Kiosk, calls to Iran and US Study... so I am not sure what the problem is.

No on 8

I don't think people who have lousy marriages themselves (or polygomists in case of the mormons) should be restricting other human beings and taking their rights away.

Two people who want to get married should get married.

Plain and simple!

IRANdokht

Fact vs Fiction

FACT: Same sex couples have the right to enter into registered domestic partnerships that provide all of the same rights with respect to estates, wills, trusts, and rights of survivorship that exist with heterosexual marriage. It is called Proposition 22. It is civil marriage.

FACT: There is nothing in California state law that PROHIBITS public schools from teaching about same sex relationships. It may be added to the curriculum at their discretion.

FACT: The way Prop 8 is written leaves too many possibilities for people who have objections to the issue of same sex marriage to be penalized for their beliefs.

Choob jaan...

I will certainly do my progressive civic duty and vote no on 8 but I really only do it out of duty. This idea of gay people so excited about joining the mainstream is so unappealing! I mean -- and I know you know -- instead of opening up the mainstream and infusing it with more daring and imagination we should now get all excited about gay people who have exhibited a great deal of daring and imagination in their own history now squeezing themselves into the tight and constricted boxes of mainstream? Like the gays in the military issue... How can we possibly get excited about that sort of thing?

OK, so gay people who want to get married, go right ahead. I have a feeling the major beneficiaries will be Macy's and Williams Sonoma bridal registeries. I'm sure that will boost consumer spending which is our foremost patriotic duty right now.

To Q: I am not sure if

To Q:

I am not sure if Jahanshah is personally responsible for the overwhelming "Yes on 8" ads in every corner of this site. I know for sure that he himself is against proposition 8. I guess it's just sad that in order to survive, many Iranians in diaspora have to become complicit with the most conservative politics in the US. But I don't think JJ personally knows what ads become posted on this site. I guess whoever is in charge of Iranian.com's marketing knows who buys ad space on this site. I onder if there is a way to reconcile between the need to survive and maintain a site and the politics of funding.
JJ jaan, I love you man, but it is depressing to see such hateful ads on iranian.com. just my two cents.

Javid has gone too far

It's bad enough he has whore-ed this site to US State and Pentagon interests, now he's selling out to the Mormon Church (the people behind "Yes on 8")

This is outrageous.

He has no room to criticize Ahmadinejad or anybody else for being intolerant as long as he makes a living from violent and intolerant sources at a crucial time in the elections.

The national elections may be a landslide by prop-8 numbers are REALLY CLOSE in California.

TO: NOT A PERVERT

I don't know about you, but most perverts I know are heterosexual, buddy. what makes you think that queers are any more or less perverted than heterosexuals?

Perverts are now OK! The law

Perverts are now OK! The law says so. Does that really change anything? Is being a pervert now OK, because the law says so - because powerful lobbyist with gobs of money and connection lie to people?