Prop 8

[tea_and_blues]

Did you note, earlier, the 9th Amendment, Janenmori? US citizens may not use their rights (including their right to vote) to remove or hinder anyone's non-enumerated rights. It is anti-constitutional to vote to take a minority's marriage rights away, even if a majority wants it. Technically, it should not have even gone up on the ballot, it gives all the bigots false hope. Or, if it stands, it endangers minorities all over the states in the future by allowing a voting majority to ignore the 9th Amendment and remove a minorities fundamental rights.

That is one of most important, most freedom-providing Amendments in the US Constitution! It is the one thing protecting citizens from a sort of creepy democratic fascism.

 

[bulbasauresrec]

Marriage is between man and woman. If homosexuals want to get married then call it something else. Marriage is a sacred ceremony to most people and there is nothing bigotry about such people who oppose homosexuality.

Unless of course you're the type that sees marriage as a game, then you'll just be pissed at people disallowing you from having your fun. Anyway facts show that gay marriages are alot more prone to divorce then normal couples. They don't really respect marriage.

 

[TAY]

Marriage may be a sacred ceremony to you, but under the law it is nothing more than a binding contract. So your argument is that gays cannot sign a government contract because some people object to gays having a non-government ceremony? So if I am a Buddhist should I call my marriage something else as well? Tell me if I'm missing anything here.

Also, if you don't mind I would like to see your "facts" about homosexual couples having a higher divorce rate. Because honestly I'm not buying it. Even if it's true, it is a bit humorous that you're arguing that "they don't respect marriage" as the heterosexual divorce rate approaches 60%. By your logic here, a woman who is twice divorced should not be able to remarry a man, for she does not really respect marriage (and surely has proved it more than a random homosexual!)

Responses are welcome, bulbasauresrec ^__^

EDIT: P.S. Ancien I agree with your stance re: removing the religious aspects of legal marriage...but hypothetical situations aren't great at arguing against someone's logic in this case =P

 

[Griffin]

Marriage is a sacred ceremony

It's not. And even if it were it's definately not a Christian ceremony. Marriage has been around for many, many ages, and dates back to long before Christ.

gay marriages are alot more prone to divorce then normal couples. They don't really respect marriage.

I'd love to see a source for this, it looks a LOT like a made-up-on-the-spot statistic.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Marriage is pre-Christian obviously, I don't think anyone is implying that marriage began with the Church.

Is marriage pre-religious?

That's a far more difficult question imo.

I honestly can't think of a marriage tradition that did not have at least some religious overtones. If someone can name one I stand corrected.

Marriage may be a sacred ceremony to you, but under the law it is nothing more than a binding contract.

Which is the entire point - seperate anything that may be construed as sacred, and equalize access to the binding contract. Simple as that.

 

[DM]

Marriage is between man and woman. If homosexuals want to get married then call it something else. Marriage is a sacred ceremony to most people and there is nothing bigotry about such people who oppose homosexuality.

Yes, it's so sacred with its 50% failure rate and the fact that you can have your service performed by a man in an Elvis suit.

Unless of course you're the type that sees marriage as a game, then you'll just be pissed at people disallowing you from having your fun. Anyway facts show that gay marriages are alot more prone to divorce then normal couples. They don't really respect marriage.

What the FUCK are you blathering about? What gay marriages are you talking about? They're mostly banned, remember? And once again, are the 1 out of every 2 heterosexual marriages ending in divorce really respecting marriage either?

 

[Bakuhatsu404]

Yes, it's so sacred with its 50% failure rate and the fact that you can have your service performed by a man in an Elvis suit.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I also find it funny how something regarding homosexual rights was put in the hands of heterosexuals.

 

[Cynthia]

Marriage is between man and woman. If homosexuals want to get married then call it something else

Why does it have to be between a man and a woman? Explain.

Marriage is a sacred ceremony to most people

50% divorce rate begs to differ

and there is nothing bigotry about such people who oppose homosexuality.

Opposing specific minority groups is more or less the definition of bigot.

Unless of course you're the type that sees marriage as a game, then you'll just be pissed at people disallowing you from having your fun.

Yeah that's what homosexual couples really want, to protest for years to have something to do one weekend. *sarcasm*

Anyway facts show that gay marriages are alot more prone to divorce then normal couples. They don't really respect marriage.

First off gay marriage has only existed in two states maximum until very recently, the whole point of the argument is that gay marriage only exists in very limited areas, so how you came up with these "facts" is highly debatable. I'd like to see an unbiased source that says well over half of gay marriages end in divorce by the way, since that's the mark the heterosexual couples have set.

OK, I looked it up myself. Gay marriage is too recent in the United States to have any reliable statistics although there have been divorces (duh). However , statistics in the United Kingdom have the gay divorce rate at 1%. Denmark reports their gay divorce rate at 17%. The Dutch seem to have equal divorce rates for homosexuals and heterosexuals(which is 1 percent by the way).

I find it interesting that these countries allow gay marriage, but their divorce rates are much lower than in the United States. So it would be reasonable to say that marriage is actually less "sacred' in the US than in these countries that allow gay marriage.

 

[Firestorm]

Marriage is between man and woman. If homosexuals want to get married then call it something else. Marriage is a sacred ceremony to most people and there is nothing bigotry about such people who oppose homosexuality.

Unless of course you're the type that sees marriage as a game, then you'll just be pissed at people disallowing you from having your fun. Anyway facts show that gay marriages are alot more prone to divorce then normal couples. They don't really respect marriage.

I too would like to see the source for this. Preferrably not from some right-wing think tank manipulating statistics to push an agenda. Then again, I'm pretty sure this source doesn't exist so go for it.

 

[maddog]

Even though marriage was pre-Christain and might even be pre-religious, in our Jeudo-Christain country it has a religious defination. So Cynthia, religion would be a good answer to why it 'has' to be between a man and a women.

 

[Cynthia]

Isn't freedom of religion covered under the First Amendment of the Constitution? And as such, Christians don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs onto others in matters of state. One shouldn't have to believe in the Bible(actually just the man cannot be with man and woman not with woman parts)in order to get married, this is denying citizens rights based on religious affiliation.

 

[maddog]

It has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Its just the way its coded in our law. And last time I checked, you don't have to believe in the Bible to get married either.

 

[shipship]

The arguments against gay marriage are seriously the most hypocritical shit ever.

"Gay people shouldn't get married because they cannot procreate."

- I don't see anyone complaining about infertile heterosexual couples, or old people getting married. Hypocrites.

"Gay marriage is unnatural."

- Even if it were "unnatural" it would still be irrelevant. Ignoring the fact that homosexuality has been observed in non-human animals, it's pretty obvious that humans don't necesarily adhere to what is "natural."

"Homosexuality is a sin, just like theft, murder, etc..."

- How about a non-religious reason based on REAL facts? We have laws against theft and murder NOT because it is in the Bible, but because there are REAL negative consequences that arise from theft and murder and therefore the offenders should be punished. I want to hear a REAL, non-religious reason for why homosexual marriage is wrong.

"Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman."

- So? Definitions change all the time, as the real world changes. We define things based on what happens in the real world, not the other way around.

"Marriage is a sacred religious ceremony."

- Says who? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, and it never did.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Good arguments people. Just one more thing. The Romans basically brought Christianity into the mainstream, right. If you disagree, go look up the emperor Constantine.

For the Romans, homosexual relationships was true love. The Greeks were more like this, but they didn't have Christianity, so I'll use the Romans. Heterosexual relationships were more for reproduction. Only a man could understand what made a man happy. Only a man could understand love. So homosexuality was THE way to go.

"But that was a long time ago!" you argue. Well, it just so happens your Bible comes from that time period of "man-humpers" (I promise I only used that so bigots could understand) or before, so if you discredit homosexuals, you are discrediting one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever seen and your own Holy Scripture.

If you're Catholic, I don't see how you can take orders from the series of popes (many who have been corrupt and evil) who have no organization or relationship to each other and who contradict their own past to gain support and money, and still can convince people that its what God wanted.

Christianity was made up by humans. Humans with a now-ancient view of the world. I'd say its outdated, but as the world's biggest, longest-lasting, and richest corporation, its hard to take down.

I'm feeling critical right now, but I will always back up minority and individual rights, though often not quite as aggressively.

On a side note people (if it hasn't yet been brought up), are all gay marriages performed in California now null-and-void? I want to hear some opinions other than the extreme left-wingers here in Portland.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Ok Deck Knight, it has become clear that you have foregone any sort of reasoning other than:

why would you give public recognition to a societal cancer?

I am not even going to address your asinine post other than this: After re-reading the question of yours that I just highlighted, can you really sit here with a straight face and sleep at night? You are making wild accusations of homosexuals being the intolerant ones, and then you make a serious post like the one you just made filled with hate speech and blatant ignorance of reality...

I am glad that you actually took the time and responded to someone who called you out on your dumb arguments and explained the true reason why you said the things you do. You basically just made my argument for me, that those who are against gay marriage have a fundamental problem with gay people, and that bias forms their outrageous opinion on the marital status of people who have nothing to do with them. People who voted yes on 8 couldn't care less about marriage, they only cared about keeping gays out.

 

[tea_and_blues]

why would you give public recognition to a societal cancer?

Indeed, I do not wish to, which is why henceforth I will not publicly acknowledge anything you post.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

haha, lol t&b.

Oh and since I never addressed the "marriage is fair because both men and women can marry someone of the opposite gender": That is a pretty naive argument. A man can marry a woman, but a woman can not. What is so hard to see about that?

 

[manekineko]

I'll just quote in reverse for this one...

Funny local story. When an RI lesbian couple moved to Massachusetts to get married (you need residency), they were overjoyed. Then they moved into RI and now they can't get their divorce honored. It's been three years, and now the thought they might be married forever tears them apart inside.

Yeah, just because you campaign ostensibly for "justice and civil rights" doesn't mean once you get what you want that you value it any more than you did before.

Sorry, I fail to see the humor. Is this just funny to you because it's about lesbians?

The message is clear: Support gay marriage or we'll turn violent on you. Especially if you're a Mormon or a Catholic. Religious Bigotry comes with the territory of homosexual activism. Cowardice too. African Americans supported the measure in greater percentages than any other group, but mysteriously those black churches aren't getting white powder in the mail. Vile Cowards, the whole lot of them. First they pretend that blacks and latinos will jump on any bandwagon that claims to be about civil rights, then when they lose, it's Mormon and Catholic bashing time.

The majority of African American voters identify themselves as Christians. Christians, Mormons, and Catholics are all historically against anything that their antiquated book opposes. Also, are you implying that there are no blacks in the Mormon or Catholic churches? You'd probably know better than I would, of course.

Thanks for all the name-calling, by the way. It really enhances your arguments.

Nowhere in the text of Prop 8 does it say "homosexuals shalt be banned from marriage." What Prop 8 does say is it amends the constitution to define the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. if you are homosexual, you may still marry one person of the opposite gender.

...which is clearly not in the best interest of that individual. I would certainly never consider entering into an eternal bond with someone I'm incapable of loving, and neither would you. I love that you keep saying, "it's their choice!" Sure. a homosexual person could choose to marry someone of the opposite gender just as you could choose to marry someone of the same gender (wait--no you can't), but the same problem would occur. One parent doesn't really love the other, kids grow up in that unstable environment, and suddenly, everything in man-and-womanville isn't so peachy-keen.

Btw. if we are supposed to be oh so tolerant, why can't the No on Prop 8 crowd stop threatening churches and business owners with boycotts because of their personal decisions to support Yes on 8 financially?

You'd be angry too if your state decided that you couldn't do something so basic. No more driving cars for straight people; only gays can get from place to place. No more shopping at grocery stores, straights; you'll have to grow it yourselves.

Marriage should be a fundamental right for everyone. Wait, that old book says gays are evil. Nevermind.

Gay marriage is Separate and Unequal. I'd waste your time with statistics about how gay men live shorter life spans than straight men because of the risky decisions associated with the gay culture, but you'd just argue the source, so that goes nowhere.

I assure you, separate and unequal is exactly what gays don't want.

I really would like to see your awesomely relevant statistics, please.

 

[sanjay120]

they have the same civil rights. They can marry a man if they are a woman or a woman if they are a man

you don't listen very well do you

The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender is somewhere in the Constitution. If a government makes a distinction between one kind of legal contract and another on the basis of gender (not sexuality, gay people can get married, just not to someone of the same sex), then it is being discriminatory. And if the people want the government to be discriminatory, it is the government's responsibility to step in and say 'no'.

 

[Luduan]

I just wanted to respond to this because you are factually incorrect:

By and large marriages are stable. The 50% number being thrown around here includes second and third divorces, which skew the number upward greatly.

Some demographers estimate that about 40% of recent first marriages will end in divorce. Other demographers put the figure higher, at around 60%. Most researchers appear to have settled for a figure of about 50%.
​

Source: http://www.smartmarriages.com/divorcestats.html

 

[Griffin]

Gay Marriage sounds pretty impractical. Yet that isn't a valid argument against it according to you. Then the argument magically shifts from practicality to "civil rights."

Impractical? What would be impractical about it?

Nowhere in the text of Prop 8 does it say "homosexuals shalt be banned from marriage." What Prop 8 does say is it amends the constitution to define the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. if you are homosexual, you may still marry one person of the opposite gender.

Do we need another analogy to racism in here? You're making it rather easy.

Nowhere in the text of <...> does it say "blacks shalt be banned from marriage." What <...> does say is it amends the constitution to define the legal definition of marriage as between two people of the same skin colour. if you are black, you may still marry one person that is black as well.

Gay marriage is Separate and Unequal. I'd waste your time with statistics about how gay men live shorter life spans than straight men because of the risky decisions associated with the gay culture, but you'd just argue the source, so that goes nowhere.

So, because gays live shorter, let's not allow them to get married. Besides, this argument defeats itself because getting married (i. e. having a monogamous relationship) would prevent the spreading of STDs rather than promote it.

Btw. if we are supposed to be oh so tolerant, why can't the No on Prop 8 crowd stop threatening churches and business owners with boycotts because of their personal decisions to support Yes on 8 financially?

The message is clear: Support gay marriage or we'll turn violent on you. Especially if you're a Mormon or a Catholic. Religious Bigotry comes with the territory of homosexual activism. Cowardice too. African Americans supported the measure in greater percentages than any other group, but mysteriously those black churches aren't getting white powder in the mail. Vile Cowards, the whole lot of them. First they pretend that blacks and latinos will jump on any bandwagon that claims to be about civil rights, then when they lose, it's Mormon and Catholic bashing time.

And I'm pretty sure Mormons are a smaller minority than Gays. But that, after all, is the last acceptable bigotry isn't it?

Oh I know, you can't be responsible for the actions of a tiny minority of your... tiny minority. But Gay Bars don't get vandalized by Christians after 4 out of 7 Supreme Court Justices rule against true marriage.

One REALLY REALLY long Argumentum ad Hominem. The people who support the cause are doing bad things, therefore they are wrong.

Homosexual marriages have negative social effects (which I have enumerated, and you have ignored, so I will not bother you with them again.)

From what I have read in this thread, all of your arguments have been refuted. But if they haven't, please repeat one.

Marriage is a legal relationship whose primary function is for the safeguarding of children in an emergency.

This is a mere opinion. Sterile married couples would disagree, I think.

Greater Chance of abuse and neglect. Birth Defects. Internal family power struggles. Greater chance for abuse and neglect. Internal family power struggles.

It's still all with consent, so they agree to handle those things.

No, for reasons outlined above. The sacrifice procreative ability for family stability, producing an inferior societal end product. Marriage in America is one man and one woman. Not coincidentally, America is the most successful society on earth, at least until we started deconstructing the family. No-fault divorce was the first blow, gay marriage only unleashes more cancer on the patient that is the moral culture of America.

This is a whole paragraph of nonsense.

I hardly think denying a child a mother or a father because you view children as a commodity to "normalize" your "family" is a noble goal, no matter how scientifically possible it may be. The difference between two lesbians and two lesbians with an adopted child is that in in one case a child has a chance to have a father and in the other case the child has no chance to have a father. Gay couples are just couples, not families. Throwing a child into the mix just hurts the child.

Deck Knight, you are begging the question. Exhibit B is only clearly inferior if you presume that it is. For all you know, the father in the first pic is a pedophile and the mother an alcoholic crack-whore.

Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts. Organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples include the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.[3]
The American Psychological Association states in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (adopted July 2004):

there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."[1]
​

Similarly, Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types, a major report prepared by the Department of Justice (Canada) in July 2006 but not released by the government until forced to do so by a request under the Access to Information Act in May 2007,[4] reaches this conclusion:

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.​

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

Thanks you for that once again brilliant post Luduan.

 

[Sudo]

I'm just wondering, gay couples have most, if not all of the rights that traditional married couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, so why do they care about legalizing gay marriage? You guys aren't being very clear why it should it legalized in your arguments..

 

[DM]

How about the fact that few states even have civil unions?

 

[TAY]

I'm just wondering, gay couples have most, if not all of the rights that traditional married couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, so why do they care about legalizing gay marriage? You guys aren't being very clear why it should it legalized in your arguments..

Syberia, I think that their point regarding "Separate but Equal" had to do with the fact that many people are arguing that Gays still have Civil Unions, which are the same thing as marriage, but without using the word itself.

Even if we ignore how silly the implications of this argument are (semantics justifying the restriction of civil rights?), Civil Unions do not grant all the same rights as marriage. The almost laughable kicker here is that the phrase "Separate but Equal" is pretty much as hotword for racism in this country if you know your history (see Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education). "Separate but Equal" was ruled discriminatory by the supreme court over fifty years ago. So I agree with Jrrrrrrr in that it is a huge embarrassment to this country and to our previous Civil Rights advances that "It's OK because they have civil unions and straight people have marriage" is a widely used and accepted argument.

The ignorance involved is astounding.

Does this help?

 

[Luduan]

I'm just wondering, gay couples have most, if not all of the rights that traditional married couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, so why do they care about legalizing gay marriage? You guys aren't being very clear why it should it legalized in your arguments..

Not all states have civil unions.

██ Same-sex marriages
██ Unions granting rights similar to marriage
██ Unions granting limited/enumerated rights
██ Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
██ Statute bans same-sex marriage
██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage
██ Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg


And there are quite a few benefits for married couples.