My Thoughts on Proposition 8

[gaping_lotus]

What ever happened to a separation of church and state?

Marriage is a culturally and socially relative term.  What right does a government have to enforce it's definition and limitation of marriage on a nation of people with diverse cultural and social backgrounds?  Government should only be concerned with government matters such as taxation, health

Comments

Yes On 8

[michaelk1000]

Your post has all the traits of not having thought through your positions. People oppose gay marriage because 1) they have a right to, 2) Marriage => Family => Building Block of Civilization, and 3) No religion in history, and no society until the last few years, has ever affirmed that homosexual unions are equivalent to heterosexual ones. When you say, "what gives a government the right," it makes no sense. That's what government does. It creates and enforces rules. In our society, those rules are based on the society's wants via democracy. Being a Judeo-Christian-based society, the U.S. has always understood that marriage is between two consenting adults of opposite sex. Period. You want to change that. What right have YOU? States have voted on the subject over and over again and it always comes up the same: People don't want it. Even most gays don't want it or care about it. Majority rules. End of issue.

I laugh when I read "what right does one person have to force their views of marriage onto another?" because you don't acknowledge that this is PRECISELY what YOU are doing. You want gay marriage, while most people don't, and you and the Left are going ballistic to get your way. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

Marriage is how we create Family. Family is the central building block of society. It always has been and always will be. Gay marriage would begin to unravel that. Family = 1 man, 1 woman, and children. Put homosexual relationships into that mix and everything changes. Gays will demand their unions are completely equivalent and thus they are entitled to adopt children just like straights, without prejudice in any way (this already happened and Catholic Charities got out of the adoption business rather than treat gay couples as equivalent to straight - who won there?). Kids will be taught that they are equivalent (you say no, but in the brief time gay marriage was legalized in CA, a group of schoolchildren in San Francisco were dragged out on a field trip to see their homosexual teacher "marry" her girlfriend. The teachers famously called it "a teachable moment." Expect more of this) and further gender ambiguity and confusion will occur.

This says nothing at all of every other "oppressed" group that wants to change marriage to suit them, either. NAMBLA will want to legalize marriage to young boys. Beastialists will want to marry their animals. People will want to marry their sisters, brothers, cousins, whatever. Who is to say "NO"? They will use (and deserve to) the EXACT same arguments that your side uses to justify their cause: They're oppressed by an evil majority that just doesn't agree with them, and that's just not fair.

What about the churches? They will resist the gay marriage debacle, and then I GUARANTEE you that gays will begin to sue every church that refuses to marry them and/or acknowledge or treat properly their state-sponsored marriage. Activists today claim they're not looking for this, but rest assured, it will happen.

Marriage is and always has been a CRITICAL piece of every society EVER in history. Permitting gay marriage will have consequences I just described, and many many more I haven't even thought of yet. You're being naive if you think not.

Re: Yes On 8

[gaping_lotus]

The point is, someone else getting married forces nothing on you. You are still entitled to your belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. But just because you believe that way does not give you the right to actually prevent gays from marrying. You seek to ban other's from having rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals. Same-sex couples are not seeking to take away anyone's rights but simply to enjoy the same rights other's already possess.

The point of our society is not to have the views of the majority forced upon the minority. The point of our society is to give people the protection from the persecution of the many. The purpose of our laws is to protect people from inflicting harm on each other, not from having different cultural views from each other.

Just because we are, as you say, a "Judeo-Christian" nation does not mean Christians have a right to force their views on others. I believe you would quickly change your views if/when Christians became the minority and people began to criminalize your beliefs.

And you should reexamine your facts. Public opinion on same-sex marriage is higher than it has ever been, and a number of states uphold the rights of gays to marry (and maybe to your surprise, society as we know it has not yet began to unravel).

If the purpose of marriage is to create a family then do you think married couples without children or plans to ever conceive should be allowed to be married? I believe that a family can be raised just as well within the confines of marriage as without, so that argument means little to me.

Your slippery slope argument is just moronic and anyone with an iota of intelligence could see through that one. To compare the desires of two loving consenting adults who wish to join in union to a pedophile is morally reprehensible.

If your church does not wish to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, that is completely within their rights as an organization. However, that church or the government, in my opinion, has no right to prevent that couple from seeking union elsewhere.

Re: Yes On 8

[michaelk1000]

Forcing something on me is not my objection, but you bring it up because, in the absence of a religious moral authority, this is how atheists make up their morality: Does it hurt someone else? My point is that you wish to redefine an institution of society that has been around for many thousands of years. It doesn't require a big debate to understand that this is dangerous.

What is a bigger injustice? Having majority rule, or allowing vocal minorities to dictate to the majority? Gays used to be persecuted and hated, and that was morally wrong. "Love the sinner, hate the sin," is a Christian mantra. We've grown to the point where we've de-criminalized aspects of gay behavior, such as sodomy, even though we find it repugnant. The idea is that it's an individual liberty that we should not infringe (public health aspects aside). So that's fine. Unfortunately gays won't stop there.

Rights in this society are not granted to COUPLES. They are granted to INDIVIDUALS. Gay individuals have the exact same rights as straight individuals. What you are seeking is a change to an institution. It is dishonest to frame it as a rights issue.

It's true that public opinion is rising for the idea of gay marriage. The gay lobby has been very active. But you even used the word "uphold" regarding gay marriage laws. The gay lobby has not been fighting fair. They have never won at the ballot box, so they get these leftist activist judges in place who decide cases that create precedent for gay marriage, sometimes in direct opposition to the voters of that state, who then (in Prop 8's case) have to actually go BACK and RE-VOTE the same thing in again as a constitutional amendment in order to overrule the judges. Voters keep saying "we don't want this" but the gay lobby will do anything it takes to get what they want. Talk about forcing your views on others.

I don't think married couples without children (and I know several) should be banned. They're at least providing a role model (man + woman) for marriage. But they're not contributing to the next generation, which is the purpose of marriage. I believe it's ridiculous to believe that kids can be raised just as well outside of marriage as within it. What on earth could you possibly base that on?

You may find the slippery slope argument ridiculous (all in your position do), but I don't see why. As I said, they will use the exact same arguments that gays use today. People, maybe even you, will make counter-arguments but at the end of the day it will all boil down to "I don't believe that's morally right," which is exactly where we are today, and yet you see how close we are to jumping off THAT cliff. Watch and see.

Similarly, your point that churches can decide who to do marriages for and who not to, doesn't work. As soon as churches refuse to wed a gay couple (after their state enshrines gay marriage into law), they will be sued. The gay lobby will go after the churches for being evil, and discriminatory, and bigoted, etc. Gay employees who are "married" but not in the eyes of their employer, the church, will sue for benefits or damages to their self-esteem, etc. Photographers (this has actually happened already) who refuse to shoot gay marriages will also be sued, and go out of business. Churches will shut their doors as they lose lawsuits, and/or to avoid having to conduct gay ceremonies. It will get real ugly, real fast. This is a guarantee.

As a Christian I love gays as much as anyone else, and would like for them to be happy. I empathize that they cannot marry the people whom they love. But I don't think society should be re-invented just to ease their pain. There is too much at stake, too many other variables in the mix.

Re: Yes On 8

[henryfaber]

My point is that you wish to redefine an institution of society that has been around for many thousands of years. It doesn't require a big debate to understand that this is dangerous.
I'm not understanding your point here. Things change; it is the nature of the world. "Institutions" of society have mutated countless times, and yet society is still here.

I don't think married couples without children (and I know several) should be banned. They're at least providing a role model (man + woman) for marriage. But they're not contributing to the next generation, which is the purpose of marriage. I believe it's ridiculous to believe that kids can be raised just as well outside of marriage as within it. What on earth could you possibly base that on?
50% divorce rate. Your way is not working either. By your logic, 50% of the kids now are *just as bad off* as if they were raised by a couple of d00ds, since they are not in a traditional "marriage"-oriented family. Society is not falling apart. I see no Proposition 9 to force an end to the practice of divorce. Until the "Protect Marriage" lobby introduces and fully supports such a referendum, they are only practicing bigotry and discrimination against ~10 percent of the population.

The gay lobby will go after the churches for being evil, and discriminatory, and bigoted, etc.
Exactly. Because they are.

Gay employees who are "married" but not in the eyes of their employer, the church, will sue for benefits or damages to their self-esteem, etc.
Incorrect; they will sue for damages *to them* due to denial of service, but courts will likely throw them out unless the will of the people has been expressed through laws preventing such discrimination. In California that might be the case, but for most of the country this is not an issue (yet).

Photographers (this has actually happened already) who refuse to shoot gay marriages will also be sued, and go out of business.
Welcome to Capitalism! Enjoy the view.

Churches will shut their doors as they lose lawsuits, and/or to avoid having to conduct gay ceremonies. It will get real ugly, real fast. This is a guarantee.
Yay! I, for one, Welcome our new atheist logic-using overlords.

Re: Yes On 8

[michaelk1000]

You admit that I'm right about all the things that gay marriage will bring, and yet you still think it's relevant to ask people, "how will your marriage be hurt by allowing gay marriage?" THIS IS HOW. It's not just about the word "marriage." Because marriage is so fundamental to society, and because it affects SO MUCH, altering it in this way will have massive repercussions all through society. What I've mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg.

You can be fine with all these changes that are coming, but at least be honest and acknowledge that people who are opposed have very valid reasons for their opposition (i.e. not bigotry, homophobia, etc.). They see a tidal wave of changes coming unlike anything in history and it scares the hell out of them.