Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.



Wednesday, August 4, 2010

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

The ban on same sex marriage in California, passed as Proposition 8 in 2008, has been overturned by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker is a Republican, appointed by Ronald Reagan. From AP:
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.
He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.
"Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker wrote.

An appeal from the losers is expected. Boo.


Anonymous said...

I'm rather glad that this happened so soon. I knew prop 8 wasn't going to last but not that it would be defeated within a few months. Hopefully we'll see a domino effect across all the states til' most, if not all of America provides marriage for same sexed couples fully.

- The Artist

M.O.R said...

Okay, I'm gonna burst the bubble of positivity and be all monetary (Albeit highly satirical).

Not about the gay marriage thing. They should totally be able to marry whoever they want. Hell, in Greek society, and Spartan society, it was totally okay to date the same sex.
They were seen as equals.

But how great will this be to the economy? I mean, have you seen how much straight couples spend on flamboyant weddings? Then you look at Gay Pride parades, Scissor Sisters and Elton John, and Queen, and you just have to imagine how flamboyant the gay weddings will be? :O
Elephants sprayed pink, decorated with massive costumes, pink boas and tiaras, carrying the bride and bride/ groom and groom, all the way to the registrar, who would be decked out like an extra from Dangerous Liasons.

Then we would have Elton John on Piano, serenading the couples, all while a gay Jesus Christ impersonator, "You call that sinning? I can't even sit down ;)", watches over them. Then we have the gay reverend telling the story of Christ, telling us that JC was afraid of crucifixion, "First he was afraid, he was petrified..." That will cost money, and lots of it.

If all this sounds like I am being homophobic, I am not, I'm more presenting a humourous visual nightmare of what the FundaMENTALists imagine when they picture a gay wedding.

But what I see this doing is doubling the amount of marriages (and divorces, we gotta be realistic) which in turn will bring more money into the economy, create more jobs (caterers, wedding planners, tailors, dressmakers, musicians, etc) and thus alleviate the recession.

It will also be another big step towards enabling the same civil liberties that every human being should enjoy.
To be honest, though, I don't see the point of marriage anymore, gay or straight, straight or gay. Went to college, studied the foundations of it, seen how one human being is seen as property, must therefore wear 2 rings denoting "their mine!".

I also, sadly, do not see this as the final word. Some douche is gonna step in, be it a Palin or a Cheney. I hope this judgement is final, but I don't see it as so.

M.O.R said...

By the way, if it sounds like I am being incredibly negative and pessimisstic, I am not intending to be like that. I am trying to be optimistic.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious as to what people here think the purpose of marriage is. Is it primarily based on an emotional feeling? Is feeling in love all that is needed to legitimize a union? Are scientific, societal, moral, family, or monetary factors at all?

Are those of you who are for this judge's decision okay with us not operating as a democracy? If you ignore the subject (gay marriage) and just look at a judge acting in opposition to the will of the voters, is this how you want your government to work? Or do the ends justify the means?

I hope the rhetoric and inaccuracies in the press has not confused anyone. Remember gays always had the same rights to marriage as everyone else, this is changing the definition of marriage.


Anonymous said...

*edit: Are scientific, societal, moral, family, or monetary considerations factors at all?

Anonymous said...

The thing is Steve, civil partnership != same as marriage. It's just not the same, okay? Not just in religious views but in ways of laws too, rights and so on. You don't get the same package with partnership as you do with marriage (being able to combine insurence and so on).

I have no idea where the hell you get "Remember gays had the same marriage as everyone else,-.."
It's just absurd because they didn't, the whole reason the marriage is being EXPANDED, not changed, is because people actually DID LOOK at the moral values, WHAT would be just and equal.

If you were to remove your religious perspective, is there really any reason you can come up with which would call for some inferior stamp on a gay couple vs a straight one in equality, a reason why they should not have the same basic human rights we all in the west world tend brag about so much.

As for the cost of it all, I believe that there was a calculation on the revenue it would create for California if gays were allowed to marry and it would be around 200 million dollars. So I don't really think you could say that it would pull the economy down the least.

As for one of your previous posts I would just like to adress, where you pointed out that gay people generally have more medical bills to pay and smoke, drink etc etc more than gay people. Really Steve? You can't figure out why? It's not like there's people hating them, spouting shit in their face just for being who they are and even get beaten up for trying to be truthful to themselves. I mean, it's not like people fight against you in some sick ways to get ridd of who you are, kill you in other countries and general persecution from the major religions in the world. I mean, that can't be why you're down and need to talk to a therapist or drink some of it away, it has to be because you're gay, right? That makes the most sense.

Sorry to go off-topic, but I could not let that one sit there unnoticed because it downright pissed me off.

As for family, I would say go outside the cave Steve, it's 2010, not 1920. People can take care of children by themselves, alone. Wouldn't it make more sense that one could group up and do so togeather? The more the merrier, right?

If you want to point out moral once more, what moral is there to lower the value and rights of other people because of who they are, isn't that the same ordeal that happened 60 years ago with the black people? What moral right is there to allow something that would've been racist if it had been towards ethnicity and not sexuality? Could you call that the right decision? I know I couldn't.. Not for a second.

- The Artist.

Brett said...

Steve said,

"Are those of you who are for this judge's decision okay with us not operating as a democracy? If you ignore the subject (gay marriage) and just look at a judge acting in opposition to the will of the voters, is this how you want your government to work? Or do the ends justify the means?"

If this were the case then slavery would still be OK, women wouldn't be able to vote or demand equal pay. And your bad creation science would still be taught in the southern state schools. SOmetimes the courts step in when bad laws are made and struck down, THAT"S THERE PURPOSE and why we have 3 branches of government. Democracy does not mean majority (or in this case mob) rule. Look it up and stop speaking from ignorance!


Jade Starrz said...

Just a simple thought from my end... I got the word of the overturn at work yesterday and people at my job stopped and took a moment to celebrate. I don't know how this will effect me and my partner but we are thankful. I hate to sound so simple but it makes us feel like we are getting to be on the same playing field as everyone else. At the same time, I'm still holding my breath because the rebuttal is coming from the other side.

Derek Ruiz said...

Hey Gays have the right to be just as unhappy as straight married people.

So I'm all for this decision.

I see marriage as a partnership...It definitely doesn't mean bone and make kids.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea where the hell you get "Remember gays had the same marriage as everyone else,-.." -some Anon

Pretty sure Steve meant that they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Since everyone is free to do that so technically he's correct. It's absurd to think that a gay man or woman would want to marry an opposite sex person, just as it would be to think a straight man or woman would want to marry the same sex.

The funny thing is about this whole "they have the same rights" line of logic is that allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't "give special rights" to a subset of people.

If a same sex pair could marry it would mean simply that. A heterosexual would be just as free to marry a same sex person as a homosexual, not that they'd want to but they could. I can see no special rights being granted there.


Anonymous said...

Uhmm okay. Look I get the topic is a hot button issue, so not every one is thinking clearly.

Marriage is a primary building block for society. Marriage is not just about feeling lovey dovey about someone. So the social impact has got to be considered. I'm still curious if anyone has considered it from this angle or if the spin machine of "all we need is love" is where most folks are coming from.

The Artist (are you really Prince?), you may want to reread the stats from my previous post. I used a Canadian pro-gay set of stats just so to avoid the type of rhetoric you just displayed. You may want to go back and reread and then modify your post.

The 200 million revenue stream it will create. That is classic, hold onto that one.

Also please refer me to the social science studies you are appealing to when you suggest the current state of families is more stable than those found in the 1920's. It is going to be tough going for you, but I would be interested if you did find a study saying single parent, broken home, blended families, divorced, or absentee father model homes are more stable than the one mom, one dad cave I crawled out of. Seriously, do you have no friends who are social workers?

Brett, exactly what landmark cases are you referring to where the court went against a State popular vote on slavery, creationism, and women's suffrage?

Those interested in actual facts may want to check out After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's.

It is a pro-gay book, so those who don't like my views should like this book. It is sort of a game plan on how to spin pro-gay issues and negatively paint anyone who disagrees for moral reasons. It is pretty enlightening.

There is also a book on the history of the Gay Rights Movement called something like the History of the Interaction of Gay Rights and American Psychological Association. I forget the exact title, if anyone knows the proper title please correct me.


Brett said...

Steve, Steve, Steve, I'm thinking just fine. Equal means equal not sorta, kinda equal like you seem to think.

The only reason you are again gay rights is for religious purposes. If your bible said gay was OK, you would be saying Jesus said it's OK and demanding that your views be heard!

Complain all you eant but the fact that MAYBE 10% of the population may be gay and then maybe some of them might get married and then maybe some of them might get divorced is nothing compared to the regular straights getting divorced. MAYBE you guys should focus on trying to keep THOSE marriages together and leave the gay people alone. Separate but equal doesn't work for the US, and denying people the right to marry who THEY want IS MORALLY WRONG (as long as everyone agrees and it over 18, personally I think it should be over 25.)

Agriculture and trade are the bedrock of society as without those there IS not society. You can be married and live by yourselves or in a small family but you need to go outside that and mingle with others to make a society, and that means trade and agriculture.



steve said...


Agriculture and trade have yet to produce children. Marriage and the family is still the bedrock of society.

The big problem is a gay judge is reinterpreting the US Constitution and reversing the democratic vote of the people.

The above is a link to Judge Walker's conclusion. I think there is little doubt that his reasoning is pretty biased and undependable. I'm not being snarky, it really is pretty bad from a legal viewpoint. This may be a short term victory for gay marriage, but the slap shod way it was done I think will ultimately hurt their agenda. This is just not how our legal system is to work.

Maybe I didn't stress it enough, but I'm not saying homosexual people are not capable of feeling genuine affection, form deep relationships, or be sincere in their intentions to form lasting relationships. It has got to be a scary place to be in when you feel love for someone and the whole legal system seems to be against you. My gay friends and relatives are warm loving people, not evil hate mongers. But Marriage is not just about two people and their feelings and intentions, it effects all of society.


Anonymous said...

"But Marriage is not just about two people and their feelings and intentions, it effects all of society."

Marriage was originally not about love at all. Back in the days when most of us were farmers and so on it was like having a business partner. I.e in Sweden it was unacceptable for a man to do certain chores (milking and such things considered female tasks) by the genus of that time. Marriage was simply for business and if you were lucky you'd fall in love later. So in a sense, agriculture and trade have led to children.

Also, question, if we decided that we'd remove this little ceromany from existence, how would it change the world really? Marriage in the basics is just an act which says "we are togeather more" than regular couples. So in what sense would it change the world if it didn't exist?

Unless you can call any word of "faith" there really is no difference wether you are wed or not, it's just like prayer, you can do it, but will it really change anything unless you think some higher might will look down upon you with a smile?

- The Artist

M.O.R said...

Hi Brett,

Not anti gay marriage, very much pro gay marriage, but I had a little quibble about you saying that the bible, Torah, Koran and so on condemn homosexuality.

They do not. They condemn rape, not homosexuality. The religious leaders, less intelligent than many folks, misinterpreted this to mean homosexuality was evil. Ya gotta remember that when an army was defeated, the winning army humiliated and tortured the loser, including raping them. The holy texts condemned this, and rightfully so. There's an interesting documentary about this on youtube.

In regards to the judge. Unfortunately, being gay may be seen as an issue by the AFA and the oppossition. However, guys like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Sen Mark Leno have said it is a total non issue. The case has been ongoing for months, and everyone knew, since it began in Jan/ Feb of this year, that he was gay. They could have brought it up long beforehand. This seems like a dirty ploy to argue his bias.
They never brought up their own heterosexuality in regards to their bias, did they? Nope.
Curious then, that Walker's sexuality is an issue, while their remains a non entity. Judge Walker (Oooh, sounds like a comic book villain ;) ) has never hidden his homosexuality, and all parties knew of it.

Sexuality is not an issue in terms of politics or judgements. In fact, here in Ireland we have a number of gay figures in the media, and politics. One such politician, Senator David Norris, is openly gay. During the 80's, when a proposal was put forward to seperate church and state in IReland, he was one of a number of politicians who openly opposed the bill, even tho the Catholic church oppressed homosexuality. The bill was passed, and church and state, at least on paper, are seperate.

I hope that this legalised gay marriage remains. I also hope that Judge Walker is not impeached, as the AFA want.
But you never know in a dirty game like politics.

Brett said...


You don't need marriage for society simple as that. In fact you don't need children for society. You could in fact just clone people. You're not even attempting to think clearly on this.

The judge is also a conservative republican. He put aside any bias and ruled on the Law. It violates rights, pure and simple.


Well that seems to be a matter of opinion. I've read the anti gay passages and it sound like it to me. Of course those were written by a Greek who apparently doesn't like gays so make of that what you will. It can also be argued that I was referring to Steve's version of the bible.

Not sure about the Torah, but I'm fairly sure the Koran is pretty anti gay, of course the Koran was whatever Muhammad wanted so again take what you will of that.



M.O.R said...

Hi Brett,

Here is the link I am citing.
When you have a number of religious figuress, one of whom is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, clearly stating, analysing and pretty much saying straight out that "No, homosexuality _-7fJjo&feature=related
is not a sin, and the bible does not say it is", then you have to wonder what is up with the other idiots. One of the guys in the documentary is a penetant former homophobe. The clip is from "For the bible tells me So", a very interesting and educational documentary for all the homophobes out there. IT also holds up a mirror to society showing the homophobia and hatred that seems to dominate our society, and which never gets criticised. There is a really funny animated clip in the documentary where they discuss homosexuality in nature, which, I must add, alludes to evolution. Only thing is that the media brushes that under the table. Plus it never features in nature documentaries either. Notice, however, that the religious right wingers went ape when the news media started covering the exploits of two gay penguins who raised a chick. They even got a childrens book.

I cannot find a clip from another documentary I saw which stated that the Koran does not denounce homosexuality either, it repeats the bible and condemns rape.

Again, I aint out to force faith on anyone. We all have faith in something, whether it is a God, our parents, our friends, our loved one,science, the human race, ourselves or humanity. We may believe in all of them, or just one of them.

M.O.R said...

Sorry, I messed up the link above.

Here is the correct youtube link. The full doc is there if anyone else wishes to see it, it has been broken down into 9 or 10 parts.

Take care, and have a good day.

Brett said...

Hi M.O.R.

Videos... too long for this time of day. But I think it just comes down to interpretation of the texts. Either way, the only 'official' rules god sent down were the 10 commandments. Everything else is just people making up rules. Not that I believe any of it so it's not an issue with me so no worries:)



steve said...

Remember, homophobe is often misused as hate speech.

Phobias are fears. A homophobe would avoid homosexuals because they fear them (similar to someone suffering from arachnophobia avoids spiders). “Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual,” this is the (mis)definition on Wikipedia, this is actually closer to bigotry. Homophobia is often misused against people who disagree with homosexuality on moral or religious grounds; disagreeing is possible without fear, hatred, or disgust.

Phobias are treatable psychological conditions, anyone who suffers extreme levels of anxiety at being around homosexuals is rare, but they should not be ridiculed. Most often what you observe online is a clash of liberals and conservatives with differing social views. It is mean spirited to speak in a false derogatory manner to those who disagree. I think bigotry should be left for discussing someone like Fred Phelps and the members of Westboro Baptist Church. Those are bigots, not homophobes.

Misusing this word is similar to if someone critical of the homosexual lifestyle used terms like “fag, dyke, fruits, and nuts.” It may gain you some points with those who share your views, but it belittles your opponent rather than opens up the opportunity for honest conversation.


steve said...

M.O.R., the bible is highly critical of homosexuality. I could walk you through the Hebrew and Greek if you would like. But rather than concentrating on the several verses which specifically condemn the practice, why not just look at God's definition of marriage and family:

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

M.O.R. if you can figure out a way to make that verse fit homosexuality I would like to hear it. Sex is only for married couples, a marriage is a man and a woman; anything else does not fit into that verse.

So rather than arguing about rape, temple prostitutes, and all the other garbage people try to shove into the homosexuality verses lets cut to the quick and deal with the foundational definition of marriage.


Brett said...

Steve, M.O.R.

You both seemed to have stepped in it, LOL!

Steve, WHO'S definition of Marriage are you going to use? Yours? It's yours right? What about a marriage of minds? The meaning of it has changed, get with the times. You don't seem to honor ALL of the bibles rules (I know this for a fact!), why are you fighting so very hard for this one? Things change, get over it. Sometimes traditional does not equal better or right. Not everyone is the same deal with it. What if one of your kids comes out as gay and wants to get married? What are you going to do then? I fail to see what a fricken piece of paper has to do with your religion anyways. No one is forcing you to marry them! FUCK! Stop trying to impose YOUR will AGAIN. Sorry got a bit annoyed there.


I do have to agree with Steve, but I think the whole reason for some marriages is so that the rape in the Bible and Koran will be 'legal' ie: spousal rape. Rape in those days was thought of as stealing and women were property of their fathers and husbands. Sucks but it's true. Do you see how things have changed Steve? Oy!

I think the no gay marriage people need to stop focusing on what others do and what their impact is and take a GOOD look at themselves. 50% straight divorce rate is FAR, FAR more expensive then a few gays getting divorced. Maybe they should try and stop that from happening so much.



M.O.R said...

If people would look at the video I posted from youtube, they will see that homosexuality is not condemned in the bible, it never was. Rape was. The documentary even discusses Sodom and Gomorrah, which those who oppose homosexuality often cite as the ultimate proof that God hates gays. That again, goes back to history, where the victor would rape the loser.

One has to understand the disturbing tenets of rape, which is generally about humiliation, domination, and breaking a person down. There is no lust or attraction. One can be heterosexual and commit homosexual rape, or be homosexual and commit heterosexual rape. If a husband were to rape his wife, or vice versa, it would be about asserting his/ her will, and punishing the victim for challenging their power. One of the many, many failings of all media, be it film, TV, video games or comic books, is that they see rape as a form of attraction, so if someone was jilted, they would rape the object of their attraciton. Rape is not about attraction.
Rape of a woman was seen as stealing, and consensual sex with a woman was also seen as stealing. Such were the days. If either one was committed, then a penalty, usually monetary would have to be paid.

Seriously, that documentary is eye opening stuff.

Brett said...

LOL! OK, now I'm not sure if you're just dicken with me! Canada is FAR better than the US right now about this. I have NO problem with them.

I don't see a dark hole (I will NOT make the joke I was going to) I see a new beginning. A better one where everyone is treated the same. No is going to force your beloved church into gay marriage, you can verbally gay bash all you want, it's you're right as private citizens and businesses. I will fight for that right even though I don't agree with it. But churches will have to to make some changes if they want money from Uncle Sam.

I don't care who you marry or how many wives or husbands you want to include. Whatever works for you.

And please stop with the 'traditional' crap. Your religion has only been around for a fraction of the time humans have, I doubt our ancestors did things the way you guys like to think they did.


I don't usually watch things like that on youtube that are that big, I'm limited in my download size, they shut you off if you go over. I've seen things like that and while I applaud the effort and spirit of inclusion, I think the leaps you have to take in translations are a bit far. I may be wrong, but to me it doesn't matter. Since its all junk, the specifics don't matter. So god doesn't really hate gays, he sure is a dick for killing everything on earth because a few humans may or may not have pissed him off. Not very enlightened if you ask me, which is why I don't buy into it.



steve said...

M.O.R the documentary is also blatantly wrong. I can walk you through the Hebrew and the Greek verse by verse if you would like, but I generally find that a futile attempt when someone is convinced they want to believe one of these screw ball youtube videos. I don't want to seem like a jerk, but indulge me a moment with a little humorous look at their shoddy reasoning.

So to make it real simple do you believe adultery is wrong? There are hundreds of verses, but let's look at one of the really difficult ones:

(Exodus 20:14) 14 “You shall not commit adultery." -God

Hmmm....You shall not have sex outside of marriage. What possibly could that mean? Do you think maybe God is telling us not to commit adultery? It is almost like God is setting some boundaries for sex or something. Sex only with your married partner. Weird, that is so hard to understand.

I wonder what God means by marriage. It sure would be helpful if God said what he wanted marriage to be. Oh looky, He did!

Genesis 2:24

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

So let's see. To have sex with someone I need to be married to them, and to marry them it takes a guy and a girl. Hmmm...This is so hard. Does that mean I can have sex with a goat? Wait, no. I can't marry a goat, it isn't a man or a woman, it is a goat. Can I have sex with a man? I a male or a female? Let's look. Oh, I'm a man, so I guess the man part of the one-man-one-woman thing is already taken. I can't marry a man. Can I marry a woman? Well I am a man, and there is a woman I want to have sex with. Can I? Am I married to her? What is the adultery thing again. Oh yeah, if not married no sex. If married lots and lots of sex. I think I will marry a beautiful woman and have sex with her. Then I will get a goat. But only for a pet.

But that is Old Testament meanie God, sweet meek Jesus would never be so intolerant. Uh-oh

(Matthew 19:18) 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, "“‘You shall not murder.’ ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘You shall not steal.’ ‘You shall not offer false testimony.’

I guess Jesus kind of shot down practicing homosexuality too when he held up the old "no adultery" thingie.

So no gay marriage because it is adultery.

It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ even forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

But what about single people? Oh yeah a little thing called fornication.

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Wow, not a whole lot of wiggle room.


M.O.R said...


Actually, the documentary "For the Bible tells me so" was released theatrically, just like many other films and documentaries, and television shows that are uploaded to youtube. Some legally, some not. For example, one can actually watch the Disney film Oliver and Company in its entirety on youtube.

As far as the fornicating...become a Fundamentalist Mormom, and you can marry are many women as you want. Problem solved.

Secondly, those who are interviewed for the documentary include reverends, Rabbis, and Nobel Peace prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has spent a far greater amount of time studying and reading the bible, and other respectable Theologians and philosophers' works. His word, in regards to homophobia in religion, carries more weight, I feel, than the average layperson on the street might carry.

Adultery is when one cheats on a partner. Homosexuality is not adultery when on is in love with their partner. If they cheat on the person they have chosen to marry for life, as marriage has evolved for the most part, in regards to asking your potential bride or groom to marry you, then they commit adultery. If they commit themselves for life to someone who happens to be the same gender, then no, it is not adultery.

Its not as if any straight man or woman is going to decide, tomorrow morning, that they are bored with heterosexuality, so they are going to date someone of the same gender.

Why tell someone that the God they have believed in all of their lives, someone who they believe has given them comfort, no longer loves them because of who they love. IT is not as if they can change their minds.
Many people lose their belief in a deity (Brett and Jess can tell you a far more personaly story of why they lost their belief. I'd be just speculating, since I am still theist) but some people who happen to be homosexual lose their faith because religious figures tell them that they are going to hell because of the tiny fibre of their being which is their sexual orientation. I've known many a person who I've hated because they are total jerks, many of them straight. I've known many people who are kind individuals, many are gay. Am I to believe they are going to heaven, for being total jerks, yet straight, while the kind gay man or woman goes to hell?

Secondly, the bible is not the word of God. It has been edited by kings, and queens, to suit their needs. It is the word of God filtered through man, and the real word, is lost to time. The people who wrote the bible wrote it as something that people could relate to, trying to make it easier to understand. Language has also evolved, and the words used now mean something completely different to us eg Abomination, which meant against tradition, or against ritual. Something like going to a different store for your groceries at the weekend would be seen as an "Abomination", for example. So when homosexuality is called an abomination, because it is "against ritual", but not against God or nature/ evolution.
There are gay animals for crying out loud. Nobody goes crazy about gay lions or penguins.