Prop 8

[TAY]

They can have a civil union, I never argued that. But yes, our country is based on the majority vote. Thats the way it is. We didn't allow the Mormons to have multiple wives, thats a minority group that wanted something different in marriage. We dont allow adults to marry children. And there has been no proof that they are "born different" so that statement is irrelevant. I say they can have their domestic partner ships, they can go to a church that will allow them to get married and have a ceremony, the law isnt stopping them from living together and having a privet ceremony. Prop only stated that it isnt recognized. You do not have to have a legal document to live together or have your friends get together and call yourselves married. However, the federal government does need to fix and recognize a civil union and i would be in support of that if it was voted on.

This country is never necessarily based on a popular vote. Gay marriage was not legalized in California by a vote; a judge ruled that, under the California Constitution, there was no legal way to stop gay couples from getting married. There have been countless other cases throughout history where a judge has found a particular law to be unconstitutional, and common practice was changed overnight. Most Americans should be familiar with the case Brown vs Board of Education, in which the supreme court basically ruled that segregated facilities (including schools) are inherantly unequal and thus unlawful, and Schools literally became desegregated overnight.

Anyway, my point here is that the popular vote is not always "right." In fact, the electoral system was intentionally set up (in part) to restrict the power of the majority, since the founding fathers did not trust the majority to always be right.

To conclude, I have a (serious) question for the Christian community here: What is the reasoning behind not wanting gays' "civil unions" to be called marriage? Do you feel that it makes your marriage any less meaningful?

My very Christian roommate voted yes on prop 8, and said, "I would be willing to me them half-way, but this is just too black and white." Honestly that shit disgusts me, but I didn't bring it up to save myself an argument with a close friend. This just seems like the epitome of forcing your religious beliefs down others' throats, which is the exact opposite of what this country was founded on. I am a very well reasoned person, and I always try to see both sides of an issue, but every time I think hard about this proposed ban on gay marriage I just don't get it. Is denying an innocent social group's rights really worth a victory in semantics? Are you really so arrogant as to think that your beliefs should apply to everyone? I totally understand why people would be against gay marriage. That part makes perfect sense to me. What I don't understand is how you can justify forcing other people to abide by your beliefs when it has less effect on you than Hi Jump Kick does on a Gengar, and when your beliefs have nothing to do with State affairs. This isn't about me trying to convince anyone, I'm just the type of person that aboslutely needs to understand things. I really want this to make sense to me, but as of right now I see no logical moral justification for passing a legal ban on gay marraige.

 

[Darkflagrance]

I don't understand Christians who oppose gay marriage either. But this kind of thing is religious, and very sensitive, and frankly I think it's safer not to try to mess with the tenets of a person's faith. These things aren't logical; they just are, and we deal with them. Besides, give it another half century and attitudes in the US will change anyway.

Rather, I feel that marriage as a term has become too charged with meaning, and in all cases it should be discarded for civil unions for matters of law. Let people get married, but it will be from some non-legal institution, and they will also get civil unions to get legal status. In this way you work around it.

 

[Deck Knight]

I don't understand Christians who oppose gay marriage either. But this kind of thing is religious, and very sensitive, and frankly I think it's safer not to try to mess with the tenets of a person's faith. These things aren't logical; they just are, and we deal with them. Besides, give it another half century and attitudes in the US will change anyway.

Rather, I feel that marriage as a term has become too charged with meaning, and in all cases it should be discarded for civil unions for matters of law. Let people get married, but it will be from some non-legal institution, and they will also get civil unions to get legal status. In this way you work around it.

Someone please answer me this single question:

What is logical about gay marriage in and of itself?

I hear constant analysis of "why do Christians do X" or "Equal Rights."

But what is logical about gay marriage? At all. How do you reason "Two people have sex that by design offers nothing to anyone. Therefore they should get free government benefits."

PLEASE vote no on prop 8.
jesus, i'm honestly more occupied and worried about this than the actual president.

WHY would we eliminate the rights of gays? Why would we add discrimination?
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a while now and it hasn't been hurting anyone.

As a Massachusetts resident, I'll have to correct you on that.

Ever since the ruling, school administrators have told parents that what the school teaches about matters of sexual morality is none of their business. School administrators. Of public schools. Funded by parent taxpayer dollars.

Catholic adoption services here were sued when they did not allow gay couples to adopt. Gay couples presumably knew a Catholic agency would have no part of their decision. But instead of doing the logical thing and going to a more secular agency, they tied up resources that could have gone to giving kids homes that instead were spent feeding the narcissism of two holier-than-thou perverts [I have difficulty believing you "care for the children" when you choose litigation over an easier and more logical option]. Similar things have ocurred in Canada and Britain.

To argue that gay marriage never has any effect on anything else is demonstrably false. Where gay marriage occurs, litigation against Catholic agencies follows.

 

[Big Bayou]

Someone please answer me this single question:

What is logical about gay marriage in and of itself?

I hear constant analysis of "why do Christians do X" or "Equal Rights."

But what is logical about gay marriage? At all. How do you reason "Two people have sex that by design offers nothing to anyone. Therefore they should get free government benefits."

Uh I feel almost bad pointing this out but sex != marriage.

And even then...any sort of biological-efficiency argument against gay marriage would only be okay provided that the United States was a large ant colony but as it stands people have emotions and seek companionship and no one should be denied any legal benefits just because they are not straight or Christian and/or don't want kids.

Or do you mean to say that even man-woman couples who choose not to have kids should not be allowed to marry?

Honestly there is no way you can debate against gay marriage in this country from a non-religious POV. Boiling the issue down to basic logic doesn't really help the conservative side of things because that position isn't grounded in anything nearly as sound.

 

[Atlas]

marriage has existed before christianity. the word doesnt belong to it and the country recongnizes people being married whether christian, jew, athiest, buddhist, what have you.

 

[Atlas]

Ever since the ruling, school administrators have told parents that what the school teaches about matters of sexual morality is none of their business. School administrators. Of public schools. Funded by parent taxpayer dollars.

as it should be, public schools are privledge not a right. if you dont want your kids in school learning about things you dont want them to then you can choose to home school your child.

Catholic adoption services here were sued when they did not allow gay couples to adopt. Gay couples presumably knew a Catholic agency would have no part of their decision. But instead of doing the logical thing and going to a more secular agency, they tied up resources that could have gone to giving kids homes that instead were spent feeding the narcissism of two holier-than-thou perverts [I have difficulty believing you "care for the children" when you choose litigation over an easier and more logical option]. Similar things have ocurred in Canada and Britain.

so the the agency got in big shit for not giving a kid to good home when all they want to do is give a kid a good home. fucking crazy.

To argue that gay marriage never has any effect on anything else is demonstrably false. Where gay marriage occurs, litigation against Catholic agencies follows.

and vice versa. so ban catholic agencies?

 

[ViVi]

I voted yes..and before you flame me for it..this is why, If my understanding is correct (It may be a bit off, I had to crunch alot of studying into a short amount of time), Churches will be forced to marry homo-sexuals, in their churches and place of worship. Can anyone honestly say that is fair? Christians have just as much right to uphold their beliefs and traditionsas homosexual people have to be married.

If the prop is re-written to not force churches to go against one of the biggest beliefs of there religion, I would happily vote no on it.

 

[Syberia]

You can get married by a judge, so there's absolutely no reason to force churches to go against their own beliefs and perform gay marriages. But they most likely will be forced to.

Also, traditional marriage is not taught in schools, so why are they trying to make them teach gay marriage if it passes?

 

[Atlas]

i dont know how it is in the usa but to be married by the church dont you have to be christian or catholic or w/e? if not then its just a matter of whatever the equivalent of racism is in this situation.

 

[ViVi]

You can get married by a judge, so there's absolutely no reason to force churches to go against their own beliefs and perform gay marriages. But they most likely will be forced to.

Also, traditional marriage is not taught in schools, so why are they trying to make them teach gay marriage if it passes?

From my understanding, churches will start being taxed..or lose some sort of tax funding..or something..either way its completely unfair to force people to go against there beliefs.

i dont know how it is in the usa but to be married by the church dont you have to be christian or catholic or w/e? if not then its just a matter of whatever the equivalent of racism is in this situation.

Not sure about Catholics but I know non-christian people who have been married in Christian churches, not something that happens very often I dont think..

 

[Syberia]

From my understanding, churches will start being taxed..or lose some sort of tax funding..or something..either way its completely unfair to force people to go against there beliefs.

I'm agreeing with you.

 

[ViVi]

I know, i was following it up with a point I forgot to add to my first post, and I know that most people in this thread dis-agree.

 

[Deck Knight]

as it should be, public schools are privledge not a right. if you dont want your kids in school learning about things you dont want them to then you can choose to home school your child.

You still get taxed to pay for the public schools whether your children attend them or not, which is why they should be beholden to your judgment as parents, not you beholden to theirs. You have it exactly backward.

so the the agency got in big shit for not giving a kid to good home when all they want to do is give a kid a good home. fucking crazy.

No, the agency got sued because perverts were more interested in their own self-aggrandizement than the adoption of children. They could have gone to another agency. They didn't. They sued. Catholic agencies by matter of doctrine believe that a homosexual home is not a good home. The perverts knew that going in. Didn't care. Sued.

Given that they were more into vanity based on their decision to litigate, I'd say they wouldn't make a "good home" for any child. Two mothers or two fathers is an objectively inferior model to one mother and one father to begin with.

and vice versa. so ban catholic agencies?

Here in America we have something called religious freedom. It means you can't use government jackboots to ban institutions you don't agree with. That and all gay marriage's effects are decisively a net negative for society (since you must, to be objective, exclude the supposed good of allowing it to begin with.)

Logic test 2:

One Man and One Woman can, excluding extenuating circumstances, procreate children with each other which then carry on society, pay taxes, generally marry other members of the other gender and procreate children, etc.
Two Men or Two Women can, regardless of circumstances, never procreate children with each other.
Therefore, the relationship of One Man and One Woman is superior.

Your test is to prove this wrong, e.g. prove that on the merits homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are equal. "Equal rights" demand equal weight and equal usefulness, and homosexual marriages have neither.

A black man and white woman can procreate a child just as two non-mixed couples. To compare this to gay marriage is ludicrous, and in fact an insult to actual civil rights.

 

[Firestorm]

Someone please answer me this single question:

What is logical about gay marriage in and of itself?

I hear constant analysis of "why do Christians do X" or "Equal Rights."

But what is logical about gay marriage? At all. How do you reason "Two people have sex that by design offers nothing to anyone. Therefore they should get free government benefits."

Do you even listen to the shit you spout? You are not receiving tax benefits for having sex and producing children (well, you are, but that's a different tax).

They can have a civil union, I never argued that. But yes, our country is based on the majority vote. Thats the way it is. We didn't allow the Mormons to have multiple wives, thats a minority group that wanted something different in marriage. We dont allow adults to marry children. And there has been no proof that they are "born different" so that statement is irrelevant. I say they can have their domestic partner ships, they can go to a church that will allow them to get married and have a ceremony, the law isnt stopping them from living together and having a privet ceremony. Prop only stated that it isnt recognized. You do not have to have a legal document to live together or have your friends get together and call yourselves married. However, the federal government does need to fix and recognize a civil union and i would be in support of that if it was voted on.

Do you not see the problem here? Why is not recognized? It's using one religion's interpretation of marriage and creating a law out of it. This should be against your constitution.

 

[TAY]

I voted yes..and before you flame me for it..this is why, If my understanding is correct (It may be a bit off, I had to crunch alot of studying into a short amount of time), Churches will be forced to marry homo-sexuals, in their churches and place of worship. Can anyone honestly say that is fair? Christians have just as much right to uphold their beliefs and traditionsas homosexual people have to be married.

If the prop is re-written to not force churches to go against one of the biggest beliefs of there religion, I would happily vote no on it.

Are you really, really sure about this? Because I'm extremely suspicious that the government would force a private agency to do this. Another thing to consider is that yes on 8 is against the status quo. So are you saying that churches have been forced to marry gay couples since gay marriage was legalized here? I never heard anything about that before voting time, which makes me even more suspicious of it. BTW by your phrasing it seems like you think you're voting to keep things the same...

On another note, how can you talk about "fairness" towards homosexuals? They have been screwed over so, so much by this country, and honestly at this point they deserve some help.

 

[Firestorm]

I'd say that it's more positive to encourage gay marriage so that we can keep the population down.

This is exactly like interracial marriage arguments. Bigots cannot accept people who are different from them and complain. They seem to think they're right and try to justify it with nonsense. Decades later, we think back and cannot imagine how anyone could be that close-minded. I hope that in 50 years (or ideally earlier), not allowing gay marriage is as laughable as not allowing interracial marriage.

 

[Hipmonlee]

No woman has ever heald the world record for both sexes for the 100m sprint. Therefore men are better than women and women should not be able to vote.

Do you think infertile people should not allowed to be married?
Do you think people who do not want children should not be allowed to be married?
Do you think it is better for gay people to be in commited longterm relationships?

Have a nice day.

 

[Darkflagrance]

Actually, I think the Catholic Church would not approve marriage in any of Hip's three scenarios, so it's not that farfetched.

Also, about keeping the population down, unless we want to encourage mass immigration from poorer nations like Mexico and India to replace an aging caucasian population, I would suggest current Americans keep popping out babies. It's not looking pretty, the imbalance of old and young soon to come in the world.

 

[TAY]

Oh in case anyone cares...it's pretty clear at this point that prop 8 is going to pass. So I'm not in a great mood right now =/

 

[ViVi]

Are you really, really sure about this? Because I'm extremely suspicious that the government would force a private agency to do this. Another thing to consider is that yes on 8 is against the status quo. So are you saying that churches have been forced to marry gay couples since gay marriage was legalized here? I never heard anything about that before voting time, which makes me even more suspicious of it. BTW by your phrasing it seems like you think you're voting to keep things the same...

On another note, how can you talk about "fairness" towards homosexuals? They have been screwed over so, so much by this country, and honestly at this point they deserve some help.

I meant to phrase it like this:
It isnt like the government would be like 'Oh, Churches have to marry homo sexuals", its more like 'if they dont, they will start being taxed', and if youve spent any time at a church, most cannot afford to pay taxes. So basically they would be forced to either allow gay marriages in there church, which I would think must include that the pastor does the ceremony, or face being closed down. Once again I am not 100% sure on all the specifics of it, that is the gist of what I was able to cram into my brain, I didnt have as much time to study the props and everything as I would have liked.

To clear up what I was meaning, I voted yes, to ban gay marriage. Now, if they have a prop that would allow gay marriage without interfering with church and religious stuff, I would vote to allow gay marriage.

 

[mutant_ally]

Given that they were more into vanity based on their decision to litigate, I'd say they wouldn't make a "good home" for any child. Two mothers or two fathers is an objectively inferior model to one mother and one father to begin with.

Deck Knight, being litigious has nothing to do with parental ability. The couple you describe as 'perverts', which is offensive that fighting for equality in the adoption of a child is something you label as perverted, have the right to seek adoption through whatever avenues they want (or they should anyway). if they sought it through an 'inherently' more difficult agency its their prerogative.
your 'objective inferior model' is based on what exactly? procreation in the instance of adoption aside, a gay couple has as much fucking ability as a straight couple to raise a child happily and healthily.

you also quote religious freedom as your base of reference, what about all other freedoms, basic civil and human rights, right to marriage.

merely insinuating that gay marriages and by extension all gay relationships have a 'net negative' influence on society is painfully ignorant. citing procreation as the only positive influence of marriage is insulting in every sense of the word. ignoring for a moment that todays technology means that procreation is no longer the single domain of 'married het couples', your test is fundamentally flawed (to put it in the single MILDEST possible way). equal rights do not demand equal usefulness, equal rights -- as i take them from human rights, are rights afforded to every one by virtue of being human regardless of factors such as sex, gender, race, sexuality, religion, marital status etc. usefulness in itself is such a subjective notion that applying here where we are discussing broad rights is moot. anyhow heterosexual married couples can choose not to have children. it casts no reflection on their quality as a married couple.

besides, firestorms points are right, gay marriage can help many orphaned children in developing countries or clean up after the long list of orphaned babies/children left in the wake of 'responsible' heterosexual marriage or sex. that extends beyond marriage but from what your suggesting it seems that gay people are there for show or sth, being socially stunted (in the realm of contribution) beings.

anyway firestorm and a lot of others are making good points, while it seems deck knight and some others are making purely subjective conjecture - making ignorant comments.

the other props in like arkansas and florida it seems have passed, and TAY says 8 is passing aswell. so fuck that. ignorance and stupidity and lasting inequality win out.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

If it fails it will open up for anyone saying anything against gay marriage to be charged with a hate crime.

Doesn't it happen with racist people too?

But to be able to toss someone into jail over this issue is wrong or to force someone's child to be taught about it when the parents dont want it is wrong.

What about those parents who think evolution is wrong and that criationism should be the only "theory" taught in schools? Now we can't "force" it on the kids?

 

[mutant_ally]

so proposition 8 has passed now. i don't know how final this is, and i'm hoping that its not, but the chilling title of an article on the daily californian entitled 'Proposition 8 Passes, Gay Marriage No Longer Legal' is chilling.

52.6% apparently.

its such a sad step backwards for gay rights and imo broad rights everywhere, as well as being a taint on what could have been a purely good day with Obama being the president elect.

depressing. fight again tomorrow, yes, but still fucking depressing.

 

[DM]

I meant to phrase it like this:
It isnt like the government would be like 'Oh, Churches have to marry homo sexuals", its more like 'if they dont, they will start being taxed', and if youve spent any time at a church, most cannot afford to pay taxes. So basically they would be forced to either allow gay marriages in there church, which I would think must include that the pastor does the ceremony, or face being closed down. Once again I am not 100% sure on all the specifics of it, that is the gist of what I was able to cram into my brain, I didnt have as much time to study the props and everything as I would have liked.

Churches don't pay taxes at all, they're already NFP organizations. I've been against that all along, so if they want to practice intolerance, let them pay.

And do you really think gay couples will want to get married in churches that don't want them? That's a stretch.

 

[Lexite]

Doesn't it happen with racist people too?



What about those parents who think evolution is wrong and that criationism should be the only "theory" taught in schools? Now we can't "force" it on the kids?

I do not like it when teachers flat out say creation is wrong. The teachers can simply NOT say creation is wrong and the child at home can listen to the partent/church about creation to themselves. Not all christians feel that ALL evolution is wrong. I beleive in micro evolution but I do not beleive in macro evolution. AS it is, evolution is a subject that should be taught in school but a teacher should NEVER say creation is wrong since teh two can fit together. I went through school just fine and my teacher did not say that creation is wrong and evolution is correct. As long as that is done then I am fine with evolution being taught in school.

So first of all, homosexuality is NOT an educational matter and does not belong in school. Doesnt need to be taught. Since homosexual sex is purly for pleasure and has no way of reproducing, it is not relevant to be discussed while teaching about the reproductive cycle. A health class A class can teach about the human boidy and teach about how sex works without talking about homosexuals. I do not want my children to go to school and be taught that homosexuality is OK, that is my religious decision if it is right or not.

Churches don't pay taxes at all, they're already NFP organizations. I've been against that all along, so if they want to practice intolerance, let them pay.

And do you really think gay couples will want to get married in churches that don't want them? That's a stretch.

And EXCUSE ME but we have something called the first amendment that protects the Church from the government. So Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance but other religions are not? Muslims are allowed to gather on a college campus and tell everyone that we need more terrorists and that the US should die but a Church or a Jewish temple cannot express what they believe God has said for well over 30,000 years? No a Church should not be taxed. The money coming in goes to charities and to help people in need. Do you want to tax charity? A Church (following what it is told to do, i do agree that there are bad ones out there but this statement ignores them) is not a business and there fore has no reason to be taxed.

No woman has ever heald the world record for both sexes for the 100m sprint. Therefore men are better than women and women should not be able to vote.

Do you think infertile people should not allowed to be married?
Do you think people who do not want children should not be allowed to be married?
Do you think it is better for gay people to be in commited longterm relationships?

Have a nice day.

I hope you are joking about the woman thing.
Your questions are completely irrelevant. Most couples find out they are infertile after marriage, not before and yes they still should be allowed to marry, not everyone decided to have kids and I have no clue why this is relevant at all. And GAYS CAN CALL THEMSELVES MARRIED. You do not have to have a marriage license to call yourself married, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a ring, you do not have to have a marriage license to have a privet wedding or have someone pronounce you married. You can have a fried go online and be certified to marry a couple. The only issue here is that the Government does not recognize that couple as married. They dont have to stay in a long term relationship for the rest of their lives.

so proposition 8 has passed now. i don't know how final this is, and i'm hoping that its not, but the chilling title of an article on the daily californian entitled 'Proposition 8 Passes, Gay Marriage No Longer Legal' is chilling.

52.6% apparently.

its such a sad step backwards for gay rights and imo broad rights everywhere, as well as being a taint on what could have been a purely good day with Obama being the president elect.

depressing. fight again tomorrow, yes, but still fucking depressing.

Depressing that the people's vote of 66% was over turned by judges and it had to be put to the ballot to get back what was voted on. Depressing when the people's vote doesnt mean anything anymore and the Government can just do what it wants when the Government is "For the People and By the People."