The California Supreme Court abolished the state’s same-sex marriage ban in May, sparking public celebration in some places and angry protest in others. Now some critics of same-sex marriage are fighting back with an initiative to reinstate the ban, leaving voters once again divided. Should marriage remain between a man and a woman, or is it time to widen the aisle for same-sex couples? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.)
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should California Pass Prop 8?
Good Grief People!!!
People want to love who they want to love, and we need to butt out. If they aren't hurting anyone, I don't give a rat's behind who loves who and who wants to marry who. For all I'm concerned people can marry their cat if they want to. If it doesn't hurt anyone, what does it matter? It doesn't hurt me if same-sex couples get married.
In the end...don't like same-sex marriage? Then shut up and don't get one. That easy. People like Westboro Baptist Church can just keep their rallies indoors. I don't know if you heard but they got sued and rightfully so.
- bagpiper2005
October 16, 2008 12:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marry their cat? Please.
"For all I'm concerned people can marry their cat if they want to. If it doesn't hurt anyone, what does it matter?"
1) It would certainly hurt the cat if the person who married it tried to consummate the marriage. Aside from the physical harm it would suffer, I highly doubt that the poor feline would consent to being violated in such a manner.
2) I'm pretty sure bestiality is outlawed everywhere. It's one of many so-called "alternative lifestyles" that federal and state governments neither protect nor should protect.
- Pacific Justice Institute
October 16, 2008 1:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Since when has a cat had the same rights as a human?
Now, I'm all for animal rights, but let's be reasonable. Cats don't have the same rights as humans! I was exaggerating by the way, and I figured someone with half a brain would have been smart enough to recognize that, but apparently since you don't have even half a brain you weren't smart enough to recognize that.
My question still remains...who does the homosexual lifestyle hurt? The answer is absolutely nobody. Or perhaps you are still living in the past where AIDS was called the "gay disease" (which it has been proven that it's transmitted just as fast in unprotected heterosexual intercourse)? Not everybody is a Christian. Stop trying to enforce Christian values on non-Christians. That's the ONLY (and very poor) excuse to deny 10% of the population their civil rights.
- bagpiper2005
October 17, 2008 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Christian issue"
No, not at all! Look up the definition of "pervert" (the verb, not the noun) or "perversion" Then go do some sociological and psychological research (that you(plural) obviously have not done) on the developmental and childhood causes of most homosexuals, and then take of your "myopic rose colored glasses." I do not stand against homosexuals being as they are, anymore than it is that no one is perfect or without blemish. I have had homosexual roomates and dear friends. I do not at all have a problem with them living their lifestyle as they choose. -as so may of you put it, "they are not hurting anyone" But when we start to ourselves, as a society, pervert the truth about the issue(pervert the truth about perversion), and THEN TAKE IT AN UNACCEPTABLE STEP FARTHER, by saying it is ok, and promoting or advocating it through the legalizing of the sanctity of marriage, is a totally different issue from with which should be protected from. Society should not be able to legislate the advocation of homosexuality to children or anyone else. That is the issue. Homosexual's were given protection from discrimination and same rights as married couples (which is discrimination, by the way) yet, it is never enough and are not satisfied. It is a lie to say it is about rights and equality. It is about cramming the advocation and acceptance of that lifestyle down the throats of society. Please, practice what you aree preaching, "leave society in peace!" -But you will not do it; because you refuse to see anything other than how it suits your own desires or your own agenda. I once realized, and accepted the idea that I can not always have things the way i want them; or always force or have people give in to my preferences and my perspectives. Why can you(plural) not do the same?
More importantly, that same argument, then exist for almost any other group, or person, with an unusual, or seemingly distasteful, illegal or perverted preference or lifestyle. Stop lying!
- smurph
December 16, 2008 3:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Discrimination?
Your comment above states:
"Homosexual's were given protection from discrimination and same rights as married couples (which is discrimination, by the way)"
First, how is this discrimination? How is giving someone equal rights discrimination? Who is being discriminated against?
Second, if Homosexuals have been given protection from discrimination and the same rights as married couples, then why can't they be married?
Have you really given much thought to your opinion? Give me a legitimate argument for banning same sex marriage. I think we both agree that marriage is a good thing. It helps to stabilize society and is an enriching experience for the couple and their family. So, if we agree that marriage is good, how can marriage also be bad? How can including more people in a good thing be bad?
I know, it is morally wrong to allow same sex couples to marry... Right? Well, as I said before, that was the same argument used against inter-racial marriage just a few years ago. It's an empty argument and it won't hold up to the Constitution. So you'd better come up with something else.
- csmith
December 17, 2008 10:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Sanctity?
I believe that was ruined long ago.
Furthermore, marriage sucks. I'm not kidding. Unless you think it acceptable and sanctimonious to sell you daughter? Or unless you believe that women are merely property of men?
That's the original intent of marriage and for thousands of years, that's how it went. Calling a hideous tradition a sanctimonious act is like calling slavery sanctimonious. Simply because this has changed to marriage being an actual choice between two consenting adults who love each other doesn't change the history of the act, does it? Nor was the "sanctity" of marriage any less sanctimonious when it was illegal for inter-racial couples to tie the knot.
And just how has the sanctity of marriage been preserved and protected from heterosexual couples? Britney Spears? Drew Barrymore? A 17 hour marriage? Drive-thru chapels? Sanctimonious enough for you?
What is UNACCEPTABLE is for one brainwashed group of people to say that homosexuality is not okay. What is UNACCEPTABLE is for one brainwashed group of people to use democracy to discriminate against another group simply because it "suits your own desires or your own agenda."
You do not have to like homosexuality anymore than I like the fact that some people will continue to wear crosses around their necks and carry guns in their hands and march off into war because it's their duty for country. As if the laws they say they live their by are superseded by their love country. (Which, you don't have to say anything about that, I'm using it as an example of what I have to accept.) What you cannot and should not do is to support laws that intentionally leave out a group of people simply because they are in the minority.
Unless, of course, you thought it was perfectly acceptable for laws to be made that discriminated against black people simply because black people were in the minority.
Stop lying to yourself.
- SocialistBetty
December 30, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Same Rights" As Married Couples
I don't need to run through the 1,183 reasons why that's wrong.
As the Supreme Court stated in Loving v. Virginia:
"Because we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959).... In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the state from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race."
In other words, miscegenation laws were not "equal protection" even though both races were punished equally for entering an interracial marriage. Similarly, DOMAs are not "equal protection" even though both genders are punished equally for entering a same-sex marriage because there can be said to be an invidious gender-based discrimination. The test, then, is whether there is a "rational" basis for same-sex couples not to get married, which I contend that there is not.
Or perhaps people wanting to engage in same-sex marriages should just put up and shut up with how they are already treated? Perhaps miscegenation laws were also Constitutional?
- QuinceyQuick
February 7, 2009 12:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marry their cat...Equality, Right?
Is not the very basis for same sex marriage, "EQUALITY?!" So then, now that YOU mentioned it: Why should someone who wants to paractice beastiality be denied their "right" to do so? Why should they be "discriminated against." And so then, likewise, why should pedophiles also be deinied the same oppostunity to love and care for somone of their sexual preference and orientation?? -If it is concentual; or at least at certain age minimum, like say, 12 or 13. what if they were "born that way?" They are "people too." Pedophilia laws and beastiality laws are "discriminatory" and violate their rights to excercise their freedom. -Maybe almost ALL laws are then. After all, "who does it hurt?" It does not harm anyone. What about people that want to murder, and people that want to die? Let us hook them up and legalize that.
Supposedly, according to that same SSM agenda agument basis, who is another person to determine what is and is not acceptable?... or what is and is not right? Just because you disagree; or you think it gross or unacceptable; what gives us the right to try and "force that on another, and deniy them "inalienable rights?" For that matter, who or what determines what rights are "inalianable?" So then we have to allow ALL rights then. What if I want to urinate in the neighborhood park, at night where not exposing to anyone? Why should I be denied that right? Who does it harm? Public urination laws are "discriminatory."
Are you starting to understand the definition of "pandora's box" yet? Where do we draw the line? -Or do you realize you are indirectly advocating the drawing of NO LINES, and the erasing of many? Hey, "EQUAL" means "EQUAL!" and "right to" means "right to" and escecially, "DISCRIMINATION" means "DISCRIMINATION!" -Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Yes, you certainly are. The fact that one may not have intended to, nor realized they were, does not exonerate one form the guiltiness of such, nor preclude one from the responsibility.
("You" and other pronoun references are general and not aimed at author in reply, but only "as the shoes fits" for rhetorical purposes)
BTW: this excerp pretty much addresses almost all of the comments in support of SSM, in one way or another; as it completely obliterates the primary basis of the SSM argument.
- smurph
December 16, 2008 2:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you serious?
Are you suggesting that we should freeze things the way they are now? No more rights for anyone? We've finally got it right, and if we go any farther we'll open 'Pandora's Box'? Are you sure we haven't gone just a little too far? Maybe we should take away a women's right to vote... Or maybe we should take away the right for persons of different races to marry... Or maybe we should segregate the schools again... We should have a negro league for all sports... We should outlaw liquor again... We shouldn't allow women to work... We should decide on just one religion and throw all the non-christians out of our perfect country.
God only knows the dangers of allowing two consenting adults to pledge themselves to one another. It would be just like a man raping a child. Or maybe it would be more like a man raping a cat. And also, 12 and 13 year olds would be considered adults if we allow same sex couples to marry.
Now, quite frankly, I think your opinion and your logic is gross and unacceptable. But that's your business. And I can choose to think you're wrong without wanting to force you to think just like me. And you can think same sex marriage is wrong. But how will it affect you on a daily basis if same sex couples marry?
- csmith
December 17, 2008 8:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
EXACTLY...!
Ok, good point about "In the end...don't like same-sex marriage? Then shut up and don't get one. That easy." So I do not like pedophilia, so I will just shut up and not fool around with boys and girls. You are right, that was "easy." -Good thing I dont have children to protect, huh?
- smurph
December 16, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
OK you idiot...
Since when has pedophilia been consensual? Answer: NEVER.
The cut here has to do with consent. A young person does not have the mental capacity to consent to anything. Same-sex marriage hurts nobody because it's done by two consenting adults.. BTW, I also support euthanasia, as you mentioned previously, for whatever reason...depression, terminal illness, just tired of life, etc.
Again, we boil down to the religious argument. It ALL has to do with religion, and since religion is BS anyway, oh well.
- bagpiper2005
December 16, 2008 4:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
prop 8
i agree. i have 4 wives and i'm getting ready to marry my 17 yr.old cousin. it is no one's business. i love my wivies and i'm in love with my cousin too. and he loves me...
- robbyjon
March 26, 2009 12:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If everyone is of sound mind and is consenting why not?
I really don't have a problem with polygamy either. Seriously. It's part of some people's religion (as stupid as organized religion really is and the fact that God is a non-existent figment of people's imaginations).
Now 17 might be pushing it a bit. The age of majority may still need to be enforced, but you know, that's about it. Of course you have to be 18 (or have parental consent) to enter into other contracts as well. People do need to butt out of what two consenting individuals do and focus more on issues that matter (i.e. the economy ).
- bagpiper2005
March 26, 2009 1:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
religion
now don't be coming down on us who believe in God as stupid. and my cousin will soon be 18
- robbyjon
March 26, 2009 1:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.