by MPD
Categories:
Tags: .

PETA is all UP in Samantha Ronson’s junk after she posted an entry on her blog yesterday comparing Proposition 2 and 8. On Sam’s blog, she writes:

“i guess people care more about farm animals than they do their fellow man, that’s really sad to me.

yes, i am glad that the chickens will have more room and better conditions as they wait to die, but i just think it’s frightening that people show more compassion for tomorrow’s dinner than for the chef.

yup, miss piggy and chicken little may rest easy, but gay people in florida and california can no longer get married and gay couples in arkansas can’t adopt children. g-d forbid a loving family (regardless of sexual orientation) give a needy child a home! there aren’t children out there in dire need of love and shelter, no this country is thriving and no child is in need.

oh well, i guess one out of four ain’t bad!”

In response, PETA wrote a letter to Ronson saying: “Abusing animals is always wrong, and discriminating against gays is always wrong. We’ll continue to fight against the ban on gay marriage, and we hope that we can have your support in our efforts to eliminate cruelty to animals.”

Okay, let’s hash this out Ecorazzi style.

Here’s the thing: while it’s unfortunate that Prop 8 was passed and that a group of people will be denied rights based on their sexual preference, I don’t really see how it’s valid to compare and contrast Prop 2 and 8. Proposition 2 grants animals who are tortured in the most brutal ways a smidgen of relief, while Proposition 8 takes away the right for gay and lesbians to get married. Using the argument that “people care more about farm animals than they do about their fellow man,” seems lazy and backwards to me. Compassion and understanding is infinite, not case specific. Furthermore, as an oppressed people I would hope that the gay and lesbian community would support the liberation of other oppressed beings.

How do you feel about comparing Prop 2 and 8? Can specific parallels be drawn between the two enough to warrant a valid argument? Chime in and share your thoughts!

  • Ty

    I agree with the point that we should all be compassionite towards each others issues. But what I think has made everyone so FRUSTRATED, is that a propostion trying to improve a group of human’s lives DIDN’T pass. And a proposition intended to enhance livestock’s lives (before they die ironically enough) DID pass. That is what people are upset about. And yes, as human beings in the top of the evolutionary food chain (regardless if you take part in it or not) it is VALID to feel frustrated that a “lesser” animal (IN TERMS OF BRAIN CAPACITY AND LIFESPAN, CAN’T DENY THAT ONE) had a protection given to them, while human’s had one TAKEN AWAY.

  • Ty

    Overall, I guess it’s just sad that we have to vote on these things to begin with. Where the eff is human decency.

  • http://www.mcfarlanddesigns.com Tamara

    I totally agree with your post (and disagree with the first commenter). First, let me say I am horrified and disgusted that Prop 8 passed. I think it’s a travesty that any group of people be denied their rights, and I have no problem with GLBT marriage or child-rearing. That being said, I don’t think it’s a valid comparison at all. If gay people were being physically tortured and enslaved, then maybe the comparison would be real. Thank goodness that’s not the case!

    I also would like to address Ty’s assertion that humans are on top of the evolutionary food chain as a result of brain capacity and lifespan…

    1. Intelligence means different things to different species. When humans are the ones measuring intelligence, it’s no surprise that we determine ourselves to be superior. But do you have the eyesight of a hawk? The hearing of a dog? The speed of a gazelle? We are not superior in every way – in fact, far, far from it – and I bet if were able to ask another kind of animal to define intelligence and superiority, there would be a much different response.

    2. If we are basing superiority on lifespan, you’d better prepare to subordinate yourself to giant tortoises and turkey vultures, who have been documented to live up to 152 and 118 years, respectively.

  • parrish

    Ty- Be very careful with your facts. There are quite a few animals that have the same cognitive level of intelligence as a human child or a person with a serious disability. Why not inflict the same torture on them simply because they are equally as “intelligent” as an animal?

    Now I understand what you’re saying about having rights taken away — of course we here at the Razz hate to see this happen. However, as stated in the post, I would hope that the gay and lesbian community would support the liberation of other oppressed beings instead of getting frustrated over the outcome.

  • Ty

    First of all, WE ALL SHOULD BE FRUSTRATED over the outcome. It seems the gay and lesbian community WAS for Prop 2. You can be both for Prop 2 and at the same time be frustrated over the outcome.

  • Ty

    Oh, and be careful not to be condescending;)

  • parrish

    To clarify- When I said: “getting frustrated over the outcome”, I was talking about getting frustrated that animals were given rights, not that humans were denied them.

  • Passion Spaces

    I think everyone here is missing two central points. First, nowhere in her post does Ronson express displeasure at the passing of Prop 2. She merely expresses her disappointment that BOTH issues didn’t turn out the way she hoped. Her remarks are in no way disparaging to the passage of Prop 2. Second, the two Props are, at their core, very similar and absolutely comparable. Both propositions involve protecting/denying the basic rights of beings…that the details mean different things to different people is perhaps notable but ultimately irrelevant, as everyone will have a different opinion as to where animal rights and gay rights fall on the greater scale of social justice. She is completely within her rights to compare the two. Anyone who portends to be a crusader for the equal rights of all beings should be enraged by the passage of Prop 8 and emboldened by the passage of Prop 2. To elevate the importance of one over the other is de-facto acceptance of oppression.

  • parrish

    Passion- First off, Sam may not be outwardly expressing displeasure for Prop 2, but she’s certainly being smug, isn’t she? By saying, “yup, miss piggy and chicken little may rest easy” she’s down-playing the situation in a big way. It’s not about resting easy – I guarantee you these animals will STILL not be resting “easy” — it’s about not being tortured.

    While personally I am pro-gay marriage, simply by not being able to enter into a union, gay people are NOT being tortured. This fact alone makes the two propositions very different. It’s not rights vs. rights, but torture vs. rights. Well fundamentally these issues might touch on the same subject; specifics are a necessity in this case. If we were voting on animals getting married vs. gay people getting married we’d be having a different conversation.

    Honestly, I think we’re making the same point to argue different sides of the issue. As previously stated, I think that a group of people being denied rights is terrible, and while one can be frustrated about 8, one should be equally pleased about 2. Oppression is oppression is oppression is oppression is oppression. Human or animal.

  • volk

    In any moment Samantha fight against prop 2, she just speaks about the fact that people where more condescending with animals than humans. Also when she say miss piggy and chicken little, she is just sarcastic… maybe if we, all gay people where miss piggy or chicken little, we can marry

  • hil

    What I read is that the frustration lies in that compassion seemed to wain from prop 2 to prop 8. There seems to be an assumption that the same people that were against animal torture would also be the same people that are against blocking gay marriage, so perhaps to her she felt that if one would pass so would the other, so by passing prop 2 and not prop 8 it may have been more of a shock then if they both had failed.

  • John O’Malley

    If you had to choose whether to visit your husband or wife in the hospital before they died or help a chicken before it’s deep-fried, who would you pick?

    If you had to pay state taxes for rights you didn’t have but others did, would you?

    Do dolphins (who have the same intelligence as humans on some levels) get married? Pay taxes?

    So a gazelle can run faster then me….that might also mean it’s adapting to its environment. I don’t live with lions and cheetahs but I’m sure I would run just as fast as a gazelle if I did.

    And finally…Vegans and vegetarians are so hard on humans. Why don’t you protest lions? Sharks? They kill animals a lot more savagely….but what do I know.

    Basically….if you think animal rights come before you own, you must live Narnia.

  • Ashley

    John O’Malley…lions and sharks have to kill to eat. Humans don’t, they just choose to for taste. Which is crueller?

  • parrish

    John- What in the world are you talking about? Seriously?!

    “If you had to choose whether to visit your husband or wife in the hospital before they died or help a chicken before it’s deep-fried, who would you pick?”

    That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. NOBODY is asking anyone to make that choice! The point of this whole debate is that you can be happy about Prop 2 while still being unhappy about Prop 8. One doesn’t equal the other and there’s no reason to compare or down-play the achievement of Prop 2 just because 8 was also passed.

    “And finally…Vegans and vegetarians are so hard on humans. Why don’t you protest lions? Sharks? They kill animals a lot more savagely….but what do I know. Basically….if you think animal rights come before you own, you must live Narnia.”

    That’s just ignorant. I’d like you to cite one time in this entire piece where anyone has stated that animal rights come BEFORE human rights. Both animals and humans deserve rights and denying the achievements that WERE made for one case is wasteful and counter-productive to the advancement of global freedom.

  • Aslan, the Lion from Narnia

    As a lion living in Narnia, I take offense to the statements above.

    We are a peaceful people with low taxes. All our gay lions get married and we have high speed trains as well. We are soooo greener than you, utilizing our poop to run the kingdom.

    So, please do use our hood to show disrepect to others opinions. We now have control of Jadis of Charn, and will send her over there to make bimbo war like Sarah Palin.

  • John O’Malley

    Well, Ecorazzier’s, now that the proverbial s**t is stirred, I can state how I really feel. I certainly don’t feel the way I stated above. I was simply playing devil’s advocate the the responses and questions stated before me.

    Here is how I truly feel. Comparing a dead lover to a dead chicken, is a silly argument. But when proposition’s get passed and more people feel passionately towards animals then towards their fellow human beings, there is something truly scary.

    I’m personally not a vegan but I feel no ill-will towards them. But no matter how much YOU (the vegan and vegan supporters on this site) support gay marriage, the people have spoken and there is something truly f***ed up with the results.

    The arguments above are silly and go in circles. “I never said I don’t support gay marriage…” etc. But this is a much bigger issue then just animals alone. Children suffer from propositions like the one in Arkansas. Children who are being abused, neglected, harrassed and who are in horrible living environments suffer. Someone who lost their lover loses EVERYTHING but they don’t have the rights to their estate. Churches funnel their tax-exempt money into campaigns of hate. These issues can’t be compared because they are nothing a like. One is for better treatment of animals before they die and the other is for RIGHTS. Animals are citizens, they don’t pay taxes, they dont’ apply for citizenships, they don’t have loved ones they try take what’s not theirs.

    Sorry.

  • http://celebrities.com/ Key

    I’m flabbergasted. Why are we jumping on Samantha here, for a bad choice of phrase? The woman just had some major rights taken away from her, I don’t see anything wrong with her being upset.

    What Samantha’s trying to say seems similar to a conversation I had with a friend after the election it went something like this:

    Friend: Obama won! Discrimination is finally over int his country.
    Me: If that was true Prop 8 would have passed at the same time.
    Friend: It’s sad but the bigger issue is that WE won!
    Me: WE have a lot more work to do before I’ll believe that.

    What’s appalling is the divide between causes that doesn’t need to exist but apparently does. For once I think PETA is right – this is a wonderful opportunity to extend the hand, build bridges and combine strengths. Instead of repudiating Samantha we could be opening our arms and embracing her while gaining support for our causes and a larger audience as well.

    In the end don’t we ALL want things to be better? For everyone, humans and none humans and this beautiful planet we live on? It’s not a fight that’s going to be won by alienating other causes or celebrating our own victories without acknowledging others defeat as valid.

    It was a small step forward for some – and a BIG defeat for others. It’s easy when you’re on the winning side to want to sit on the high horse and bask in the glory, ignoring the pain of the others or belittling it outright but I don’t think it’s the best way to go.

  • http://cookbakelive.onsugar.com Kristin

    I am all for Prop 2 and totally thrilled that it passed, but I can agree that it is kind of scary and backwards that I am being treated like a second class citizen while animals are being given better treatment. Again, I think it’s awesome that Prop 2 passed, I just think that the people who voted yes on 2 and then also voted yes on 8 have their priorities really mixed up. To me, it brings to mind a situation, if I were drowning alongside a pig, who would those people save? Because I am a second class citizen and am morally bankrupt (in their eyes) then, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would save the pig? I find that to be messed up.

  • Rachael

    As an animal rights activist and vegetarian, I agree with Samantha Ronson.

    I think you missed the point of her blog, and so did PETA. She is not in anyway dismissing animal rights, she is just placing more value on human rights.

    I´m all for the ethical treatment of animals too, but that doesnt mean that I think of them the same way that I do humans or that I think both species are equally worth. They are not. To think they are is to become fanatical and extremist. The well- being of a human is always more important that an animal´s.

    It is not necessary to value animals and humans the same, in order to defend the lives of animals. It is not an either or deal. You can admit that what conserns humans is always more important and still be an animal rights activist.

    I dont think Ronson is comparing humans to chickens at all. Shes actually saying that both issues are NOT comparable.
    You guys are the ones that do compare gays to chickens by expecting all Queers to authomatically embrace the struggle of oppressed animals too.

    That struggle should be held by all people on the basis of compasion; Regardless of their sexual orientation. Im Queer myself, but that is really not why I fight for animals at all.

    cheers and excuse my english.

  • http://glutenfreevegan.wordpress.com Renée

    What’s with all the ridiculous Them-versus-Us?

    When, in practical terms, do we actually have to choose between supporting human rights or animal rights? So very rarely. One should not need to be supported to the exclusion of the other. They are, in fact, extremely compatible aims. It doesn’t matter whether humans or animals are more important – why does there have to be a hierarchy of better to worse or more right to wrong? That’s where all this trouble starts. What is the value on a life? What is the value of a right? OF that right versus this right, of that life versus this life? There are no definitive answers, only subjective opinions and all-too-often bigotry.

    As Arthur Schopenhauer said: “Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”

  • AP

    I agree with Parrish 100%

    I would like to add that people who voted against Prop 8 did so mostly because of religion-induced bigotry. If they had been asked whether gay people should be eligable for the legal/civil protections conferred by marriage, it definitely would have passed, probably with a much larger margin that Prop 2 passed. Remember, Prop 8 failed only by 4 points. It is terrible that many religious people voted no on Prop 8, but try to remember how big a deal to them this is, even though they are completely wrong and irrational. A lot of these same people think the rapture is right around the corner; what do you expect from them?
    I am very upset about Prop 8 and also very happy about Prop 2. They both should have passed with 100% of the vote.

  • AP

    I meant that Prop 2 should have passed and NO on Prop 8 should have passed. Sorry for the confusion! By the way, I volunteered for both Yes on Prop 2 and No on Prop 8, and a lot of my fellow volunteers were involved in both efforts, too.

  • http://thevibe.socialvibe.com Sarah Townsend

    I agree 100%. I took part in the Prop 8 protest rallies here in West Hollywood, and saw many protesters with signs that had similar messages. It’s not that people care more about chickens, or pigs, or any animals in general, it’s that standing up and living a less-painful life (even in still inexcusable conditions) is a completely different issue than marriage. Giving an animal the right to move around more as they are being raised to be killed is in no way comparable to allowing two people of the same sex to marry.

    I don’t see why the two are being compared at all. We’re also giving young women the right to abstain from sharing their pregnancy with their parents… (Prop 4) where is the mention of that?

  • Pingback: Drew Barrymore Declares Proposition 8 “So Wrong” // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

  • http://www.goveg.com/order.asp Lianne

    Thanks for the mention! It’s unfortunate that Samantha Ronson feels that Prop 2 and Prop 8 have to be one or the other, and also that Prop 8 didn’t pass among CA voters. Lashing out against animals won’t do a thing for the human rights cause, and denying rights to “tomorrow’s dinner” doesn’t help her equality argument. Find out more about why animals need your help at http://www.peta.org

  • VeggieTart

    My understanding is AP is right–it’s about religion. Maybe their religion got it right on one area–a little less cruelty for the animals they eat–and wrong in another–denying gay couples the right to marry. My understanding, though, is Prop 8 banned same-sex marriage, and gay-rights advocates were hoping for its failure.

    Although I’m not gay, I understand her disappointment that she has lost a civil right–to marry the person she loves, should it come to that–and that’s all it is. She’s not upset that Prop 2 passed–in fact, she’s quite happy–but she’s disappointed at the way other things have gone.

    Cut her some slack, huh?

  • Jennifer floyd

    I think Ronson let her frustration get the best of her by suggesting that the results of Prop 8 had any real correlation to the results of Prop 2.
    Animals were not given the right to marry. They were given the right to turn around. I’m 100% for gay rights, and am saddened by all oppression, but I think Ronson is being a little whiney and self-centered in thinking that the right to marry is somehow equivalent with the right to not be physically and mentally tortured.
    The reason Prop 8 passed is because the anti-8 campaign was heavily flawed. Minorities were left out of the outreach process. A lot of the communities that came out for Obama were the same who voted for Prop 8. It may seem that all minorities would support each other, but religion and machismo run deep in black and hispanic cultures, and the anti-8 campaign managers obviously failed to do their homework.
    Instead of partying w/ Lohan and belittling the importance of other causes, Ronson should be reflecting on why it passed, and what she can do to remedy the problem.

  • Ultimate Veggie Sympathizer.

    Okay, So I’m not exactly a Vegan or whatever but I do love animals & I don’t think its right to compare Prop 8 & 2. The whole world is full of problems and both are worthy causes but I don’t think Ms. Ronson needs to get all pissed off just ’cause marriage between same sex has been knocked off the building (I’m sure gay-rights advocates will one day find a way to change it somehow). I don’t necessarily despise the girl but I don’t think she, or anyone for that matter, is right in thinking that Prop 2 was passed because animal rights triumph over the right to having same-sex marriage or human rights for that matter. First point, why should we think so highly of ourselves when we are the ones actually doing these to the animals? They are being tortured just so that we enjoy them at feast time so why not give them the pleasure to live a life without cruelty of a small cage. Second point, What has been taken away from the gay community beyond all this? A paper. A state paper professing their love for each other that is all. They weren’t tortured like the men in the 16th century hiding their love for other men because they will otherwise be killed. I may not understand gay love because I am in no way gay or otherwise but I don’t think this will stop them from still professing their full and utter love to someone they adore, they most certainly don’t need that approval from anyone. Third, Are we even to think that people care MORE about animals that people? Not so likely. We self-conceited organisms damaged enough of our environment for our own progress to tell the whole universe we care more of ourselves than anything. So, tell me, is that much to ask Ms. Ronson to actually show some care for her dinner?

    It sounded so arrogant for her to think of herself more than the poor chicken dying in its cage just for her mere satisfaction.

  • Kay

    oh Fuck me. it IS 2008. wake up . stop wearing animal pelts!!!( duuuh) and gay and lesbian couples ( u know since this IS 2008 ) should be allowed to marry i mean why the fuck not eh. just come 2 canada. dont worry u wont have 2 stay that longgggggggg.

  • Love one another

    I’m sorry but I think everyone is truly missing the point here what she was truly upset with is that her gf was publicly humiliated for wearing something the animal rights community didnt agree with. While some people do things that others dont necessarily agree with I believe her true point is that perhaps people should try and come together to fight issues rather than trying to bully and humiliate each other.