Comments by bigyoonit

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on April 15 at 9:22 a.m.

Man, it's kids with disabilities, NOT disabled kids.

Use person-first language.

On Disabled Kids Hit the Diamond

Posted on April 7 at 12:30 p.m.

Support your local grocer.

To Happy Harry's: a bike rack would be a nice addition to your store.

On None

Posted on December 4 at 1:23 p.m.

livingsb, what the does population stabilization have to do with this incident?

The police arrested these thugs. There is no indication yet that the federal government will become involved in this.

hank called it.

On Four Arrested for Armed Robbery of Area Shops

Posted on November 12 at 2:57 p.m.

The right of citizens in this state should not have been put up for vote in the first place.

On Why Prop. 8 Won

Posted on November 5 at 10:07 a.m.

Congratulations California, you've successfully voted to take away an existing right from a group of people. Where to go next - their right to be in a relationship? How about their right to vote? Why don't you just vote them out of existence while you're at it? Afterwards, you can move on to other minorites you hate.

Don't say that you are in favor of equal rights but add a qualifier that excludes one particular group because you fear them out of blind ignorance.

The passage of Proposition 8 is a result of what is called the Tyranny of the majority. Those of you who voted for this discrimination are tyrants, plain and simple. There are a number of other unsavory things that I can label you with but I don't want to contribute to the superfluous hate already residing within my neighbors' cold souls.

On Eyes on Prop 8

Posted on October 31 at 3:39 p.m.

Yes, Paul the Protestor is so comical that I can't help but laugh AT him.

On UCSB Students Rally Against Proposition 4 and 8

Posted on October 10 at 10:52 a.m.

billclausen - No, it does not mean that we should scrap the U.S. Constitution. But we shouldn't take its literal meaning and apply it to contemporary life. Nor should we also accept that it is perfect, thus the need for the Amendments. Unfortunately, there is no way in their hell or heaven that Christians will allow for amendments to its flawed bible, which is rife with contradictions.

Bill, it's obvious that you have not spent time with anyone who is gay (out of fear, hatred, ignorance - who knows?) because you believe that those you've seen in gay pride parades, probably on t.v., represent the entire population of gay people in the world. Nope. They come in different sizes, shapes, flavors, ideologies, customs, religions and varying degrees of conservatism, just like you and me.

And if you're worried about promiscuity, then Vote No on Proposition 8. Because if we extend the institution of marriage - which you and the others put so much of their faith and effort into defending - to all people, wouldn't this mean there would be fewer unmarried and promiscuous people around? This sounds like your kind of Christian logic.

On None

Posted on October 9 at 10:37 a.m.

Pastor, the Bible is a book written by privileged and literate men, hardly representative of the society as a whole, so let's not use your good book as empirical evidence in this debate.

It's MY deeply held belief that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. While my perspective conflicts with yours, it does not deny your opinion in this country nor does it deny your ability to practice your religion in your church, synagogue, mosque, etc.

However, your perspective does not allow for the tolerance, acceptance or embrace of homosexuality in this country and in the world. You and your parishioners seek to deny a particular group of human beings the right to marry. Again, you have the right to do this within the confines of your church. However, you have no right to dictate to whom the state of California issues marriage certificates.

On None

Posted on October 8 at 4:14 p.m.

Imagine a Catholic heterosexual couple who despise each other but don't divorce because of church law and they want to adopt a child. Imagine two exceptional men in a committed relationship who respect each other and love each other and they want to adopt a child.

Which would be a safer and more nuturing environment for this child? Not the former. Why should a heterosexual couple be given preference in adoption over a gay couple with sexual preference being the sole criterion? That's what the Catholic Charities wanted to do and the state wouldn't allow them to discriminate.

Author, you're promoting the continued discrimination of a particular group of human beings. This is wrong and this is very, very sad.

On None

Posted on October 7 at 10:51 a.m.

Ashaw, just a few of points in an attempt to keep it brief:

I agree with you on free speech. You're free to post your comment and I'm free to criticize it, and vice versa. I look forward to these exchanges with you but be smart and don't direct any of your attacks on any singular person.

My 'independent thought' comment is an assumption of you, that you watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh, love their ideas and recycle their vitriol into this community. I just believe that if anyone gave it enough time and thought, you would come to the conclusion as I did that being gay does not make you less deserving of rights afforded a heterosexual person; equality is a good thing.

You are the only one making the link that someone who is courageous is a hero. It's a required attribute of a hero, but being courageous doesn't make one a hero. Soldiers, police officers and even Jesus Christ - very courageous, but not my heroes. They're your heroes, fine. My hero is my mom. Have you even thought that coming out is not selfish? It may give courage to others to come out - not selfish.

Lastly - I can't believe you just defended bigotry.

On None

Page 1 of 2 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: