Prop 8

[Bennett]

I also like the "we hope" part. How honest they are!

 

[MissIzzy]

Of course, all this "marriage protection" isn't really protecting traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is more or less gone now, and good riddance, as it kind of consisted of a woman pretty much becoming the property of the man she marries. Yeah, if that's your definition of marriage, I'll happily live my life single, thank you very much.

 

[Buttercup]

The nuance at this moment in history is that the institution (marriage) and emerging institution (same-sex partnerships) are distinct and, we hope, equal. We hope they are equal because of the great consequences attached to each.

I'm surprised at the way that was phrased. I think "separate but equal" has been tried in the US, and AFAIK it didn't work out too well.

And, as others have pointed out, this:

The ability to give life to their biological children is a real distinction between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. Hence there is a rational basis for the less inclusive definition of marriage.

limits marriage to heterosexuals of childbearing age who wish to have children. Which strikes me as out of touch with what is actually happening today in society.

 

[antmanb]

From the concurring opinion of PARRILLI, J., in re MARRIAGE CASES, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, October 5, 2006.


The ability to give life to their biological children is a real distinction between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. Hence there is a rational basis for the less inclusive definition of marriage.

But then should infertile hetero couples then have their marriages "revoked" and replcaed with a "civil union". Seeing as they won't be give life to their biological children?

Ant

 

[antmanb]

All the infertile couples out there - you heard it: your marriage has no biological sense and is therefore less worthy. The men who are married to infertile women and the women married to infertile men: get a divorce, pronto please! If you stay married your marriage will be downgraded to a "civil union" by proposition 88 in the year 2012 because your love has no biological sense. How dare you not to make any biological sense, by the way? You're nearly as bad as the gays out there...

We obviously had exactly the same thought!

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I'm surprised at the way that was phrased. I think "separate but equal" has been tried in the US, and AFAIK it didn't work out too well.

The correct description is APARTHEID Separate but equal, uh, almost equal. I mean, who would want gay people on the same beach as we heteros?

 

[jennylovskt]

To form a steady union in order to take the full resposibilities of producing and raising children is the main reason of a marriage. I don't understand why gay couples have to ask for this? Are you going to fight with God and say it's unfair that you cannot have children together?

The reality is the candy will give to whoever cry the loudest, isn't it?

I don't feel that I do not respect the gays. I feel that the gays have asked too much.

All of you who support the gay marriage, will you fight for one man and two or more women, or one woman and two or more men marriage? They are in love, if the definition for a marriage is solely based on love. Why? Why not? Can some one please answer this question?

As of infertile couples, it has certainly lost a part of the meaning of the marriage. It's not their fault. it's a tragic. Medusa, there is no need to throw rocks on the couples in pain.

 

[antmanb]

To form a steady union in order to take the full resposibilities of producing and raising children is the main reason of a marriage. I don't understand why gay couples have to ask for this? Are you going to fight with God and say it's unfair that you cannot have children together?

If the only reason you are wanting to (or are already married) is to go forth and multiply, then you've obviously missed the point of marriage IMO.

Is it also really beyond your comprehnsion that a gay couple might also wish to raise their own family???
Give me an audience with your "supposed" God and i'd happily try and have the fight!

The reality is the candy will give to whoever cry the loudest, isn't it?

Apprently so because gay marriage is still not legal

I don't feel that I do not respect the gays. I feel that the gays have asked too much.

I see - you don't disrespect gay people, you just think that they have asked for too much. That is, in asking for the same rights as you, they are asking too much? Tell me, do you think that you should giv back your vote and that women were asking too much when they felt they should be given the power to vote and therefore something towards eqaulity with men?

All of you who support the gay marriage, will you fight for one man and two or more women, or one woman and two or more men marriage? They are in love, if the definition for a marriage is solely based on love. Why? Why not? Can some one please answer this question?

BRILLIANT! More utterly stupid tactics from the extreme right. Wait why not ask about humans marrying animals, or innanimate objects like cars because they are in love? This is the most unthought out "floodgates" type argument used by unthinking idiots. Marriage currently refers to two people. I have yet to hear a single person argue that marriage should be extended to three people...(except, um, you!) but if someone wants to make the argument then i'm willing to listen to what their thoughts are on it since i'm not in this game to opress people. In any event marriage exists for two people now provided they are one man and one woman. It is not very difficult to see how that is descriminatory. If you can't see that that is, then frankly there is very little point in entering into th debate is there?

As of infertile couples, it has certainly lost a part of the meaning of the marriage. It's not their fault. it's a tragic. Medusa, there is no need to throw rocks on the couples in pain.

Of course not - they're straight and married, we wouldn't want to upset straight married folk would we? It's only the evil gays and lesbians we should punish with a lesser union and lesser rights.

Ant

 

[Medusa]

As of infertile couples, it has certainly lost a part of the meaning of the marriage. It's not their fault. it's a tragic. Medusa, there is no need to throw rocks on the couples in pain.

You have to be kidding me here! So it's the fault of homosexual couples that they can't have children together? It's their fault that they fall in love with each other, so it's "please, suffer the consequences"? And don't you dare to "ask too much" - be happy that we don't hang you, but equal rights - who do you think you are - real people?

Don't you think they are in pain too, because the government doesn't even want them to adopt children? Of course it's tragic that infertile couples can't have children, nobody ever doubted that. But apparently their pain is deeper, more understandable - why, because they actually are normal and deserving of happiness? In contrast to gay people who, what, brought it over themselves? This sentiment totally reminds me of AIDS treatment centres where even today patients who were infected through blood transfusions (e.g. because of haemophilia) are treated with much more compassion and sympathy than, well, the others who brought it over themselves.

What's with couples who decide not to have children, because of careers, illnesses etc.? What are they? Is their marriage also less worthy?

And about the polygamy argument - nobody has the right to marry more than one person in our countries, that means the rights and restrictions apply to all the citizens. That is not the case with marriage - apparently only a man is allowed to marry a woman and only a woman is allowed to marry a man.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

but isn't the word pursuit and actually abtaining happiness two different things?

sorry devil's advocate here, this morning.

and the gays actually did win the battle to get married, but it was taken away from them - and you know how..

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

To form a steady union in order to take the full resposibilities of producing and raising children is the main reason of a marriage. I don't understand why gay couples have to ask for this? Are you going to fight with God and say it's unfair that you cannot have children together?

That's very biblical which is my argument that this whole thing is based on religious zealots. Should all people follow the dietary laws?

As to gay couples having children, from what I've been reading about that particular segment, there is much more than you would like. It's not just adoption. It's in vitro fertilization. Actual blood lines continue.

Also, it's very easy for anyone including a gay couple to adopt a baby who's mother was on crack. Would you want to raise a baby like that? That would be a noble thing to do.

 

[Bennett]

This sentiment totally reminds me of AIDS treatment centres where even today patients who were infected through blood transfusions (e.g. because of haemophilia) are treated with much more compassion and sympathy than, well, the others who brought it over themselves.

The Others (guilty ppl who are deservingly sick) vs. Us (innocent ppl who are undeservingly victimized) arguments. I think that people want to divide the patients into these two groups because they are so scared of the disease..... HIV/AIDS connotates too much moral judgement when it is one of numerous fatal infectious diseases.


Re polygamy, numerous countries in history and some countries in the contemporary world have practiced it. I actually am not necessarily against polygamy if it can be applied to both sexes. I am against the inequality between sexes. If it is all possible to have a polygamy marriage without oppressing anyone (which might be rare though), I would be fine with it. Despite that polygamy is usually opressive, I am not necessarily against the idea of polygamy itself. I think so because the traditional Western marraiges that have been very opressive for women have been progressing towards the ones that are more equal without abandoning the institution of marriage itself. It would be far more difficult for the institution of polygamy to do so, but might not be impossible. It depends.

Having said that, this is totally off topic and I would not think it a good idea to extend the argument on gay marriage to polygamy, marriage between relatives, etc etc because each topic has different history and social context.

In any case, it would be so extremely unlikely for the contemporary developed countries (esp. Western countries) to adopt polygamy as a social system for various reasons even when they come to allow gay marriage. Don't worry

From an anthropological perspective, I could just say that what the given society defines "normal" is rather arbitrary, which is subject to change by time and space, and there seems no absolute, ultimate templates as to the "right" forms of families.

 

[Tonichelle]

and the gays actually did win the battle to get married, but it was taken away from them - and you know how..

I do? huh. didn't know I did.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I do? huh. didn't know I did.

C'mon Toni, you know the soul savers got mobilized to bring this legal battle to make it illegal. Americans put god before country and that's fact. If the soul savers say, it's against god, then they will work to destroy it. You know that. We all know that.

 

[Tonichelle]

I'm not a member of the Mormon church (whole different religion IMHO), take it up with them.

 

[jennylovskt]

BRILLIANT! More utterly stupid tactics from the extreme right. Wait why not ask about humans marrying animals, or innanimate objects like cars because they are in love? This is the most unthought out "floodgates" type argument used by unthinking idiots. Marriage currently refers to two people. I have yet to hear a single person argue that marriage should be extended to three people...(except, um, you!) but if someone wants to make the argument then i'm willing to listen to what their thoughts are on it since i'm not in this game to opress people. In any event marriage exists for two people now provided they are one man and one woman. It is not very difficult to see how that is descriminatory. If you can't see that that is, then frankly there is very little point in entering into th debate is there?

I do not support polygamy marriage. It's just an example of the result of defining marriage as for the loving people. You are right on one thing that is it has opened a "floodgate". It can be extended on and on depending on who cry louder.

FYI: a few years ago a person from Britan wanted to marry an animal - I didn't recall what it was though.

That's very biblical which is my argument that this whole thing is based on religious zealots. Should all people follow the dietary laws?

It is not biblical at all. Through out the human history, all kinds of people including people with no religions at all followed this law. Even polygamy marriage served the same purposes. Now who do you think you are to change the law that is based on the nature of all kinds?

 

[ChrisH]

It's nice that you believe in equal rights but do you believe in Democracy?

I know that the core element of democracy is voting by the people. Prop 8 got 52.1% yes votes and before that, prop 22 got 61.4% yes votes.

... where all people are created equal and have the right to the pursuit of happiness?

Is it just a passing fad, or do you really advocate discriminating against religious people as your posts have done while not discriminating against sexual orientation in any way? Do you believe that religious people should not be able to vote? A large majority of african-americans voted for prop 8. Should their votes not have counted either?


I now know that:

As of November 2008, twenty-nine states have passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, nineteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of any same-sex union. Nineteen additional states have legal statutes that define "marriage" as a union of two persons of the opposite-sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

So 48 out of the 50 states explicitly define marriage as being between opposite-sex couples. The strength of their position suggests that their arguments have a lot of merit or at least should be taken seriously rather than being dismissive. If you really want to extend civil rights, you'll have to do a lot better than railing against religious people and misinterpreting democracy. Perhaps you could start with those 19 states prohibiting same-sex civil unions. Then seek to have the "right to marry" explictly added to the USA Constitution (which would also open some doors for polygamists). For the more distant future, you can donate to reproductive science so that same-sex couples can have their own biological children (which would likely benefit infertile opposite-sex couples first). Until then, same-sex couples will by their very nature be unequal.

 

[Mathman]

I know that the core element of democracy is voting by the people.

The other of the twin pillars of Western democracy is protection of the rights of the individual. The States would not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added, lest "democracy" descend into mere mob rule.

For me, what has not been established is a legitimate governmental role in writing definitions of "marriage." 52.1% of the people voted to restrict the legal options of some of their friends and fellow citizens. It is hard for me to comprehend the rationale for this vote. I may not want to marry a man, but how is it my business whether you do or not?

 

[Bennett]

I do not support polygamy marriage. It's just an example of the result of defining marriage as for the loving people. You are right on one thing that is it has opened a "floodgate". It can be extended on and on depending on who cry louder.

FYI: a few years ago a person from Britan wanted to marry an animal - I didn't recall what it was though.



It is not biblical at all. Through out the human history, all kinds of people including people with no religions at all followed this law. Even polygamy marriage served the same purposes. Now who do you think you are to change the law that is based on the nature of all kinds?

I do not think that anyone on this board or those who are for gay marriage was talking about marriage with an animal. I do not tihnk it productive to keep changing the subject. First polygamy, next marriage with an animal, and what is the next example you would like to bring in? They may be common that they are all talking about love. But each of them has very different background, hostory, and social context. I think that there is a big leap in logics that mix all of these so roughly.

 

[Medusa]

The other of the twin pillars of Western democracy is protection of the rights of the individual. The States would not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added, lest "democracy" descend into mere mob rule.

For me, what has not been established is a legitimate governmental role in writing definitions of "marriage." 52.1% of the people voted to restrict the legal options of some of their friends and fellow citizens. It is hard for me to comprehend the rationale for this vote. I may not want to marry a man, but how is it my business whether you do or not?

^^First of all, aren't you like really really old? But at the same time so liberal, it's freaking amazing.

One of the core questions here is if humanity - or the "Western World" (I just hate that expression, the Earth is a globe for heaven's sake, every point on Earth could be called "Western", except for the poles maybe) - was where it is today if we always had been allowed to vote on equality. Women's rights? I mean, not all women were for them and only very few men - no majority for women's rights then. Freedom of religion? Friedrich Wilhelm III didn't ask the Prussian population before he gave equal rights to all Jews in Prussia. I doubt that even 10% would have voted in favour of such a proposition. Blacks in the US? Does anybody even want know what would have happened if that would haven been on a ballot?

Is that really the core element of democracy? Voting on who deserves equality and who doesn't? Because that's what people voted - with their vote they said that a certain group of people doesn't deserve the same privileges and rights they have. These people think that they deserve more than the "gays". I mean, do they really believe that? ChrisH and jenny... - do you really believe that gays are undeserving of the same rights that you have? What makes you more deserving of those rights? What makes them less deserving? That the bible (insert any other book of faith) says otherwise? That they can't have children?

What makes you better than gay people, what makes your love so much more precious and better that it deserves to be sealed with a marriage - and theirs doesn't?