NO on Prop. 8
I received this article from my sister a few weeks ago. Supposedly, it take on the "yes" position on Proposition 8 from a non-secular perspective. ...Being against Prop 8 doesn't mean I'm against the Catholic Church... Why does it have to be like that? Anyway, as I promised, I will now post all my arguments against EVERYTHING this article has to say. (The BOLD italics are my words. And each section of the article are behind its own cut.)
What's in a name?
This November, California voters are being asked to DEFINE what marriage is. Proposition 8 defines marriage as 'only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'.
The current ballot is titled, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act", originally titled, "Protect Marriage Act".
(That title right there is enough to discourage any sane, educated American to be against passing it... but moving on.)
The origins of marriage
The marriage tradition dates back to the beginning of mankind. Its role in all cultures has financial and conjugal implications as the husband and wife is seen as a family unit (one household), and has the expectation of bearing children. And generally, marriage is seen as a positive ceremony in societies. (But same-sex marriages are not a negative ceremony in society...)
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. (Universal... except to homosexuals? And aren't they human as well???) As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families, and society. . . . marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce. (What about the couples that cannot or decide not to have children? Plus, homosexual couples won't have kids whether you let them marry or not. It's not like they'll decide to go straight because, oh my goodness, they need help this society grow!!!)
Historical Legal Perspective
In a society where the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was at home to care for the children, marriage laws were historically created because of the husband's responsibilities to support his wife and children. (We all realize that rarely do women stay home, yes? In an economy like this, everyone has to work...)
As a result, it was never the will of the government to define what marriage was. (So why start now? :P) The government's role in governing its people was to deter and protect spouses, mainly the women and children, from potential financial/economic hardships. In fact, until recently, no one ever questioned what marriage was.
'Legal preferences for marriage are justified by the underlying purposes of marriage: to regulate the sexual relationships that produce children in order to (a) discourage men and women from having children in fragmented families (News flash: kids are born into fragmented families and they will continue to do so. Parents should have to have a license to breed, but that's a whole different issue altogether.) and (b) encourage the creation of children under the conditions in which they are most likely to flourish, and pose the least burdens to the community.' (Just because a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman, it doesn't make them worse at raising a child. Granted it won't be a traditional family, but traditionally, women were not allowed to vote and African Americans were not allowed to marry Whites. So traditions changes... Love is what binds families together and allow children to flourish.)
Modern Times
Today, we are being asked to redefine marriage to be beyond what has been distinctively reserved for a man and a woman. (Marriage was never defined, so why are we REdefining it?) We've been told that anyone who supports prop8 is being unfair and taking away the rights for all. But, we've already established in California since 2000, that civil union partnerships get the same rights as married couples- meaning, same-sex unions already get the same financial benefits as marriage. (Except that they don't. Separate is not equal. Why don't people ever learn from history?)
Unfortunately, it's not enough for the same-sex communities to get the same tangible rights. 'Marriage in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage,' said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry (In my opinion, as far as government is concerned, all unions should be called a civil union. But when government started calling it marriage, well, then everyone should be entitled to it regardless of your religious beliefs. If homosexuals are against your religion, don't be gay. But that's up to the individual...)
'It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that.' (source WIKI on civil unions) (Amen to that.)
However, if there is 'something precious' being held back, what is it? Are they asking government to give them a nod for having such a different relationship? If we assume the role of government is to protect and not infringe on people's personal beliefs (separation of church and state), how is this "precious" recognition protecting and not infringing? (It is PROTECTING basic civil rights for its citizens and if an individual decides to hate homosexuals, well, again, that's their decision. Allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't INFRINGE on anything. You can still believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt another person. Some people are still against interracial marriages in the South...) If anything, it's asking (popular) government to extend and redefine an ancient institution that has been around in all parts of the world since the beginning of mankind. Are Californians really representative of the entire world? (No, but we are not trying to force other states and countries to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples either. ) One might sarcastically say "yes", and try to compare this definition alteration to ending or abolishing something like slavery - in the name of civil rights! (Well, yeah...?)
However, one must recall slavery and genocide were government condoned systems - and just like the way the government tried to regulate the lives of its inhabitants, attempting to change the definition of a universally accepted institution would be likened to saying someone is " THREE FIFTHS OF A PERSON ". Sound familiar? It was in once written (by popular sentiment at the time) that blacks were not full persons. If man could believe another human to only be part human, it shouldn't be shocking opponents of prop8 claim a "right" is being taken away, even though the intangible right to define marriage was never available to "give" in the first place. (Nobody should be treated differently under the law... I don't care what any one person's belief system say, that's between that person and God... or another deity, but the government should not be influenced by what the churches say. That is the TRUE separation between church and state. Proponents of Prop 8 is using that separation to argue that the government is going to intrude into their system when in reality, they are intruding into the legal system by trying to write the religious definition of marriage into the constitution.)
Future Precedence
So, what's wrong with trying to preserve the definition? Why should we even bother to protect the definition? (It is not currently defined in the constitution so you have nothing to protect.)
For the Social Good
Population - We already know that disrupting the natural growth of societies via population control (e.g. China, Japan, and Europe) is not sustainable nor even makes financial sense long term. And we know, same-sex couples can't sustain humanity. (Same-sex couples are going to exist no matter what; whether they are married or not. Therefore, you are not going to get any more kids out of not allowing them to marry.)
Once a population has disconnected marriage and childbearing, and the norms supporting marriage as a procreative union have weakened or disappeared, there is little political leaders can do to improve the situation for young families without creating enormous resistance. (Lots of married couples can't have kids or choose not to, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry either...)
[Practically speaking] Coming up with the necessary resources to keep pension promises becomes a central preoccupation. Even as Europe begins to dwindle, "European governments were for the most part ignoring the problem, 'In practical terms nothing has been done, or just very, very marginally,'" said Dr. Carlo De Benedetti, an Italian financier who created a foundation to study the effects of aging in Europe.74
Separation of Church and State
We are going to be legally reprimanded if we teach children that marriage is between a man and women. (If that were true, why does the California Superintendent of Schools AND California teachers oppose Prop 8?) This has dire consequences for private schools and perhaps even home schooling- parents will not be able to dictate morals to their children. (Parents and private schools have always been able to teach their kids whatever the hell they want. Public schools are required to teach Evolution, private schools do not, especially when it is a religion-based private school. Plus, even if that were the case, even IF public schools are required to teach about marriages, it doesn't hurt for children to hear the alternate view... maybe parents are afraid that they don't have strong enough arguments for their beliefs, in which case, that's not really the government's problem. If you really hate it that much, put your kids in private schools. It really is unnecessary as none of that is true and I hate that they are using kids to manipulate the populace. I would let my daughter marry a princess if that's what makes her happy.) The government will have even more control in our lives.
"...because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between "any two persons" rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of "marriage." (Source protectmarriage.com) (Kids SHOULD be taught that marriages are between two people who love each other. They shouldn't be taught that their feelings are wrong, if they happen to be attracted to a member of the same gender. Homosexuality is not something you can "catch", it's not contagious, and it does not affect those of us who are not. We are all people, all citizens of the same country, so we should all be treated the same under the law. No matter who you happen to love.)
Opening the flood gates for legitimizing other unions (Marriages are between consenting adults... children and animals are not. Maybe Pro-Prop 8'ers should go after the Polygamist sect who are commiting incest and statutory rape...)
I need not add more. (Um... yeah, you do.)
In closing, I would just like to add that my church, the Catholics, are huge proponents of Proposition 8. I have read the literature published by the Catholic Church and I am making an informed decision based on my personal opinions after hearing from both sides. I just agree more with NO than with YES. I will not let the Church tell me how to vote, how the law should treat homosexuals according to the Bible. I don't feel like I'm going against my religious beliefs by voting NO; I believe that everything Jesus did and taught was based on love. Unconditional love, even. So, why is same-sex love wrong? It's not, and that's that.
What's in a name?
This November, California voters are being asked to DEFINE what marriage is. Proposition 8 defines marriage as 'only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'.
The current ballot is titled, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act", originally titled, "Protect Marriage Act".
(That title right there is enough to discourage any sane, educated American to be against passing it... but moving on.)
The origins of marriage
The marriage tradition dates back to the beginning of mankind. Its role in all cultures has financial and conjugal implications as the husband and wife is seen as a family unit (one household), and has the expectation of bearing children. And generally, marriage is seen as a positive ceremony in societies. (But same-sex marriages are not a negative ceremony in society...)
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. (Universal... except to homosexuals? And aren't they human as well???) As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families, and society. . . . marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce. (What about the couples that cannot or decide not to have children? Plus, homosexual couples won't have kids whether you let them marry or not. It's not like they'll decide to go straight because, oh my goodness, they need help this society grow!!!)
Historical Legal Perspective
In a society where the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was at home to care for the children, marriage laws were historically created because of the husband's responsibilities to support his wife and children. (We all realize that rarely do women stay home, yes? In an economy like this, everyone has to work...)
As a result, it was never the will of the government to define what marriage was. (So why start now? :P) The government's role in governing its people was to deter and protect spouses, mainly the women and children, from potential financial/economic hardships. In fact, until recently, no one ever questioned what marriage was.
'Legal preferences for marriage are justified by the underlying purposes of marriage: to regulate the sexual relationships that produce children in order to (a) discourage men and women from having children in fragmented families (News flash: kids are born into fragmented families and they will continue to do so. Parents should have to have a license to breed, but that's a whole different issue altogether.) and (b) encourage the creation of children under the conditions in which they are most likely to flourish, and pose the least burdens to the community.' (Just because a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman, it doesn't make them worse at raising a child. Granted it won't be a traditional family, but traditionally, women were not allowed to vote and African Americans were not allowed to marry Whites. So traditions changes... Love is what binds families together and allow children to flourish.)
Modern Times
Today, we are being asked to redefine marriage to be beyond what has been distinctively reserved for a man and a woman. (Marriage was never defined, so why are we REdefining it?) We've been told that anyone who supports prop8 is being unfair and taking away the rights for all. But, we've already established in California since 2000, that civil union partnerships get the same rights as married couples- meaning, same-sex unions already get the same financial benefits as marriage. (Except that they don't. Separate is not equal. Why don't people ever learn from history?)
Unfortunately, it's not enough for the same-sex communities to get the same tangible rights. 'Marriage in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage,' said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry (In my opinion, as far as government is concerned, all unions should be called a civil union. But when government started calling it marriage, well, then everyone should be entitled to it regardless of your religious beliefs. If homosexuals are against your religion, don't be gay. But that's up to the individual...)
'It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that.' (source WIKI on civil unions) (Amen to that.)
However, if there is 'something precious' being held back, what is it? Are they asking government to give them a nod for having such a different relationship? If we assume the role of government is to protect and not infringe on people's personal beliefs (separation of church and state), how is this "precious" recognition protecting and not infringing? (It is PROTECTING basic civil rights for its citizens and if an individual decides to hate homosexuals, well, again, that's their decision. Allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't INFRINGE on anything. You can still believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt another person. Some people are still against interracial marriages in the South...) If anything, it's asking (popular) government to extend and redefine an ancient institution that has been around in all parts of the world since the beginning of mankind. Are Californians really representative of the entire world? (No, but we are not trying to force other states and countries to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples either. ) One might sarcastically say "yes", and try to compare this definition alteration to ending or abolishing something like slavery - in the name of civil rights! (Well, yeah...?)
However, one must recall slavery and genocide were government condoned systems - and just like the way the government tried to regulate the lives of its inhabitants, attempting to change the definition of a universally accepted institution would be likened to saying someone is " THREE FIFTHS OF A PERSON ". Sound familiar? It was in once written (by popular sentiment at the time) that blacks were not full persons. If man could believe another human to only be part human, it shouldn't be shocking opponents of prop8 claim a "right" is being taken away, even though the intangible right to define marriage was never available to "give" in the first place. (Nobody should be treated differently under the law... I don't care what any one person's belief system say, that's between that person and God... or another deity, but the government should not be influenced by what the churches say. That is the TRUE separation between church and state. Proponents of Prop 8 is using that separation to argue that the government is going to intrude into their system when in reality, they are intruding into the legal system by trying to write the religious definition of marriage into the constitution.)
Future Precedence
So, what's wrong with trying to preserve the definition? Why should we even bother to protect the definition? (It is not currently defined in the constitution so you have nothing to protect.)
For the Social Good
Population - We already know that disrupting the natural growth of societies via population control (e.g. China, Japan, and Europe) is not sustainable nor even makes financial sense long term. And we know, same-sex couples can't sustain humanity. (Same-sex couples are going to exist no matter what; whether they are married or not. Therefore, you are not going to get any more kids out of not allowing them to marry.)
Once a population has disconnected marriage and childbearing, and the norms supporting marriage as a procreative union have weakened or disappeared, there is little political leaders can do to improve the situation for young families without creating enormous resistance. (Lots of married couples can't have kids or choose not to, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry either...)
[Practically speaking] Coming up with the necessary resources to keep pension promises becomes a central preoccupation. Even as Europe begins to dwindle, "European governments were for the most part ignoring the problem, 'In practical terms nothing has been done, or just very, very marginally,'" said Dr. Carlo De Benedetti, an Italian financier who created a foundation to study the effects of aging in Europe.74
Separation of Church and State
We are going to be legally reprimanded if we teach children that marriage is between a man and women. (If that were true, why does the California Superintendent of Schools AND California teachers oppose Prop 8?) This has dire consequences for private schools and perhaps even home schooling- parents will not be able to dictate morals to their children. (Parents and private schools have always been able to teach their kids whatever the hell they want. Public schools are required to teach Evolution, private schools do not, especially when it is a religion-based private school. Plus, even if that were the case, even IF public schools are required to teach about marriages, it doesn't hurt for children to hear the alternate view... maybe parents are afraid that they don't have strong enough arguments for their beliefs, in which case, that's not really the government's problem. If you really hate it that much, put your kids in private schools. It really is unnecessary as none of that is true and I hate that they are using kids to manipulate the populace. I would let my daughter marry a princess if that's what makes her happy.) The government will have even more control in our lives.
"...because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between "any two persons" rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of "marriage." (Source protectmarriage.com) (Kids SHOULD be taught that marriages are between two people who love each other. They shouldn't be taught that their feelings are wrong, if they happen to be attracted to a member of the same gender. Homosexuality is not something you can "catch", it's not contagious, and it does not affect those of us who are not. We are all people, all citizens of the same country, so we should all be treated the same under the law. No matter who you happen to love.)
Opening the flood gates for legitimizing other unions (Marriages are between consenting adults... children and animals are not. Maybe Pro-Prop 8'ers should go after the Polygamist sect who are commiting incest and statutory rape...)
I need not add more. (Um... yeah, you do.)
In closing, I would just like to add that my church, the Catholics, are huge proponents of Proposition 8. I have read the literature published by the Catholic Church and I am making an informed decision based on my personal opinions after hearing from both sides. I just agree more with NO than with YES. I will not let the Church tell me how to vote, how the law should treat homosexuals according to the Bible. I don't feel like I'm going against my religious beliefs by voting NO; I believe that everything Jesus did and taught was based on love. Unconditional love, even. So, why is same-sex love wrong? It's not, and that's that.