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:
In this day and age, many gay couples choose to have children. Using the rationale of the above argument, they should be able to marry.
The reality is that the "Yes on 8" crowd aren't concerned with the wellbeing of children, they are just anti-gay. If they really were concerned with children they would be working to make divorce much harder. Personally I think it would be good if divorced couples had to pay higher taxes for 10 years following a divorce. It would also be good to have a law that says that if a baby is born out of wedlock, the father and mother automatically become married upon the birth of the baby. If the issue really is having children raised by two parent families, they should be advocating those approaches, not trying to make some families feel they are second class.
It
- Roger47
October 21, 2008 12:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
It is purely alarmist to think and believe that granting the liberty of legal marriage to same-sex couples or any set of non-traditional individuals is the end of what has been traditional marriage. Opposite-sex couples will continue to meet, fall in love and perhaps marry as they always have and likely always will. Perhaps it is time they no longer are able to do so as an elite set of human beings with their liberty purchased at the expense of denying such liberty to others.
The liberty of legal marriage reserved for man-woman couples is elitism. It has little to no respect for the higher value of individual rights and mutual liberty. There is no righeousness in in denying homosexuals the liberty to marry whomever or as many as they choose in the pursuit of personal happiness.
As for redefining "marriage", perhaps we ought not limit ourselves to the very narrow special-interest definition of the major religions. After all, "christian" is only a subset of "human".
- Naumadd October 22, 2008 6:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
This is not an argument against gay marriage, this is an argument for "traditional" families who are dropping the ball to step up. If you really believe that children do best with married biological parents in a low-conflict marriage, why aren't you encouraging that? Why not ban divorce, make fighting illegal, or forbid adoption? All of those things are more of a threat to the ideal child-rearing environment you propose than gay marriage. How exactly does two guys getting married stop you from providing your ideal environment to your children? It shouldn't.
On the other hand, I noticed that you argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and no other purpose should be allowed. The vast array of legal benefits to marriage are completely irrelevant in your mind, right? Fine, if the sole purpose of marriage is for the children, you will have no objection to immediately stripping all legal rights granted to spouses. You said yourself, the purpose of marriage is not to grant rights. It also seems that those who will not or cannot have children, like me, should not be allowed to marry even if they are heterosexual. This is the logical end point of your argument, are you sure this is really what you're proposing? I have a problem with that, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
- lostlo October 24, 2008 9:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I'm amazed the hatred of gays, other by so called Christains!!
You are going to have a problem with this because who is to say what someone is, man or woman?
Everyone is really both man and woman, just different %. Very few supermales/superfemales are born, most a combo of the 2.
Where the problem comes is those whom are both sex appearing having various combo's of sex organs or none at all. Since they are both, does that mean they can't marry? There are many more of these than talked about.
But really sex is in the brain. If you see a nice female and want to kiss her, you are a male sex wise no matter what sexual organs you have.
So this law is illegal if passed as it restricts some to no marriage at all, violating their basic human rights. Let's stop the hate and let whomever wants to be a family be between consenting adults. A family is those who care for you, not whom is biological your parent if they don't care..
God will punish those whom hate, hurt.
jerryd
- jerryd October 29, 2008 9:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I live in a place I'd rather not acknowledge exists. Many children here only have one parent to care for them. It would be a GIFT for these children to have a second adult in their life guiding and supporting them. Gay marriage is not going to tear apart the family structure (and if it does it wasn't a good structure to begin with). I agree that marriage has its purpose to bring children into this world but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that result in two people who have no desire to reproduce. Is that a marriage in the eyes of organized religion?
In closing I don't agree that the best family structure is two parents of opposite genders. I believe the best family structure is two parents who care for their children.
- EAnthes December 9, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You're making the assumption that homosexuality is not natural - that only sex between man and woman is natural and therefore what binds them together.
Homosexuality is quite natural. It exists in nature between animals and also in humans.
You're also making the assumption that marriage has typically been between one man and one woman. As if the entire world has always shared this decidedly Christian view.
Furthermore, in most societies - including those ancestral societies you speak of in which the child was better off with the biological mother and father - the raising of the child has typically been a group effort. It's only been in our society, within the past 200 years that this has changed.
What benefits children is having as many people as possible in their lives who love and support them. It makes little difference if these people are biologically related, or married.
Gay marriage isn't about raising children, it's the right that exists to bind yourself to a person for rest of your life if you so choose. Placing another factor in the mix doesn't say anything about the original argument - that gay marriage is wrong.
And further to that - marriage is a religious act. Government should makes no laws establishing rules of any religious ceremony (barring sacrifices of humans or anything that infringes upon the rights of another).
- SocialistBetty December 30, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm a little confused by your screen name. Tell me, what socialist country allows same sex marriages? And don't say Canada, because it's not a Socialist country.
- csmith January 6, 2009 3:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Exactly. The title makes no sense and neither does what you're asking.
Who said ANYTHING about socialism being a factor for allowing same sex marriage? Anywhere? It's a fucking screen name. I happen to like a blend of socialism and capitalism as I think they complement one another's flaws. I also happen to like the negative reaction people give the word "Socialism". As if we don't already live in a semi-socialist country as it is.
Anywho, anymore off topic questions, please click on my icon and read that. Okay thanks.
- SocialistBetty January 8, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
#1: I doesn't take marriage to raise children. It takes two devoted people. Whether married or not, the child is better off being raised by two. Marriage is an institution of the Church and the government. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with raising children in my opinion should stay out of it. Over 50% of marriages end up in divorce and in some cases, it can get ugly. How do you think that effects the children. HMMM???
#2: Christians can't even handle their own marriages that are under "god". See Statistics below.
Ecclesiastes 4:12 (bible) A cord of three strands isn't easily broken.
NONSENCE!!!
U.S. DIVORCE RATES AMONG RELIGIONS & NON-RELIGIONS
Jews: 30%
Born-Again Christians: 27%
Other Christians: 24%
Atheists & Agnostics: 21%
3: Christians couldn't give a crap less about "children". They promote absence only (unrealistic), deny birth-control (irresponsible), and claim they are "Pro-Life", (but support religious wars) and to top it off, their "god" isn't even pro-life . What happens to all of those children born to people who didn't want them, couldn't afford them, are addicted to drugs, ect.? Let's put them into foster care or an orphanage. YEAH!!! Great idea. And to top it all off won't even let gay or single folks adopt the unwanted children and give them a loving home. Real nice. Let's not forget all of the whining that goes on about having to pay for welfare by the religious right. HYPOCRITES!!! Christians only care about their RELIGIOUS agenda.
4: Million of dollars spent on the Prop 8 campaign by the Christians. Maybe they should have donated to people who would like to adopt a few of the children that were born into this world because of the irrational teachings of the church!
5: It was once ok to discriminate against interracial marriages according to the Church. I wonder if that is still acceptable.
6: Gay folks who would like to devote their lives to one another is NO business of the church. They are hurting no one but themselves. They want to have the right to build their lives with someone they love. They want the right to put each other on their insurance. They want to buy a house together, when one of them croaks they want the same rights that come with marriage. I have NO problem with it. I do hope that they get the right to marry and show those busybody Christians how marriages are supposed to work!
Christians are the ones who undermine the family structure that is best for children. Keep your bigoted noses in the Holey book and out of everyone elses buisness!!!
- River Otter January 19, 2009 3:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Attack the argument, not the source. Also, it's "abstinence," not "absence." As in to abstain from sex. I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of point or if you just didn't know that, but it makes you sound ignorant, not witty. If you take that and the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem out of the equation, the sentence or two that's left (namely point 1, point 5, and parts of point 6) I wholeheartedly agree with. Points 2, 3, 4, the second half of six, the title, and the closing statement, on the other hand, are ad hominem.
- richardsonkr January 19, 2009 8:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I have read what you presented as evidence on an argument that marriage between a man and woman is the only thing that should be allowed when children are involved hence hinting that homosexual couples should not adopt or be allowed to raise children. Bogus. Bogus. Bogus.
There was no mention of abused children in your evidence, nor any mention of children being raised by drug addict, or criminal parents. How then can those marriages benefit a child?
To imply that heterosexual relationships and marriages are the only way to raise children was touted as being biological parents only. So that does not allow for non biological married couples to raise any one's child other than their own. Hence your own argument prohibits opposite sex couples from adopting any child also.
The best interest of the child should be taken in to consideration is true. And it is also true that Homosexual couples children face a world of discrimination, hardship, hate, bigotry, and the cause is by people like you. Those who preach just those values as above. To say to a child that their parents are abnormal, should go to jail, are sinners, etc is hate at its finest. It is the leading cause of children in same sex marriage or unions or family's to have a need of mental health care later in life. To allow same sex marriage, or unions should be excepted by all persons who value the need of children in the world. To argue that same sex persons are looking to sexually abuse the child is a bogus arguement also as it is a proven fact that 98% of all child abuse cases are done by heterosexual persons and mostly by family members of the child in the first place. So 2 % are gay, the rest were not. Another hole in your arguments, by focus on the family. To spout off non facts, or lies will only hurt Focus on the family in the long run when people find the truth in these matters. My mother all ways taught me that you get more flys with sugar then vinegar and that is true here also. Telling the truth will gain you more then the lies you are telling now. To use a religion to hide behind is also bogus lies. No where in the gospels does it prohibit or condemn homosexuality, only in the old testament does it do so. However it also allows for selling our children into slavery, stoning people for eating shrimp and more. So to use the religious argument is totally bogus.
Thank you for your time.
- oldfoxbob May 20, 2009 1:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree. My story at www.hope7.highpowersites.com
Its not an option Prop. 8 must be upheld and traditional marriage must be protected. I will never accept anything else as defined as marriage.
- Hope7 May 20, 2009 7:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to put limits on what can be accomplished by the will of a majority at any given time. Any democratic government will go through periods where a majority of its citizens get upset about something and there is a call to take action because of the mood of the moment. We need the constitution to protect us from our worst instincts at such times.
To use the Constitution to enact permanent prejudice and take away people's rights because of prejudice against them is wrong.
- Roger47 October 21, 2008 1:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The amendments to the Constitution and, indeed, the record of the debate which took place before and during its writing attest to the trend of using the spirit and wording to remove prejudicial limits on liberties rather than to institute them. Certainly, that history is a bit of a mixed bag in that regard, however, in the end, U.S. culture has seen fit to reverse past mistakes and restore the greatest degree of liberty to the greatest number.
If past generations have seen fit to do what was ultimately the right thing, we earn our inheritance of their good thinking by continuing to do that same. We must use the Constitution and every constitution to enhance liberty rather than destroy it. Our children will either have to suffer our mistakes ... or correct our stupidity.
- Naumadd October 22, 2008 5:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The church is not a wealthy Hollywood entity; it supports prop 8. It has supported marriage between one man and one woman for an astonishing long 112 YEARS! Before that church doctrine supported POLYGAMY. That the church should try to force its new philosophy on others is a puzzlement.
- jack mormon November 1, 2008 12:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So that's why strong anti-gay people will shoot a gay person just because they're gay? That's why Westboro Baptist Church pickets the funerals of fallen soldiers?
If that's not hatemongering then I don't know what is.
- bagpiper2005 October 16, 2008 1:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just a reminder: if Prop 8 passes, gay people will still be able to form relationships with their partners. Nothing with Prop 8 has anything to do with condemning homosexuality.
Supporters of gay-marriage may say all that this is about is 'two loving people getting married.' But it's not that simple, and to think it is is very naive. The possible repercussions of legalizing gay-marriage are innumerable and unknown. We cannot risk to leave these unknown consequences to chance.
When you throw a rock in a pond, the ripples extend very far. Prop 8 is not focused as much on the initial impact of the rock hitting the pond as we are on the ripples that will result.
Yes on 8.
God bless.
- TrueStory October 27, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The possible repurcussions are innumerable and unkown? What kind of argument is that? Either you are too lazy to give any real thought to this matter, or your just so scared of gay people that your brain has shut down. Perhaps take the time to list a few of the horrible repurcussions, or don't try and make the argument at all.
- csmith October 29, 2008 6:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Perhaps many supporters of Prop 8 do not, personally, intend to be hatemongers. However, so long as homosexuals are treated as lesser members of society there will continue to be murders and beatings of homosexuals by bigots who feel their acts are vindicated by such social treatment. In that respect, no matter what the intention, the acts are those which support hatemongers.
I made an error on my prior posting and clicked on "yes" rather than "no because I didn't watch what I was doing. Don't pander to the bigots by doing the same thing by voting yes on prop 8. It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and humane actions.
- OddGrouch October 29, 2008 8:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Any religious establishment can refuse to recognize the sanctity of a non-traditional marriage. Whether one is married civilly or not does not force a religion to recognize it as a "holy matrimony." If religious establishments refuse to participate in these and require a JP wedding, so be it.
- bagpiper2005 October 16, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While individuals may chose to agree with or not agree with Same-Sex marriages, including religions, the California Supreme Court has ruled that Same-Sex Marriage and Traditional Marriage are the same (please read the California Supreme Court consolidated "In Re Marriage Cases"), and as such, cannot be legally distinguished or separated. What now happens to individuals or religious institutions who continue to separate them, or to disagree with Same-Sex Marriage. Their right to hold an opinion is now legally weakened. In fact, Catholic Adoption Services in Massachusetts, where Same-Sex Marriage is also legal, has been legally told to include Same-Sex couples in their adoption services or to shut down their operations. Thus, while the Catholic Adoption Services do not "agree" with Same-Sex Marriage, they have been forced to either accept it or close down. The right to disagree has been taken away, and this is only one of several cases I have heard of where even non-profit organizations, religious organizations, and business have been fined for not "agreeing" with Same-Sex Marriage. Those who believe Same-Sex Marriage is a matter of opinion and should not be forced on all should vote Yes on Proposition 8.
- BJG October 28, 2008 10:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I work as a volunteer at Catholic Adoption Services. They have not been fined, their operations have not been challenged, and the courts specific ally stated in their decision that no religious organization could be required to act against the mandates of their faith. Of course, if they refuse to allow otherwise qualified same sex couples to be represented, they may lose their tax exzempt status, but that would require another court ruling. Please make sure the blogs you go to are reporting factually before you quote them.
- OddGrouch October 29, 2008 8:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
How is your right to hold an opinion legally weakened? Are you actually being persecuted under the law for simply holding an opinion? Or, are you allowed to keep your opinion while you are being forced by law to treat people equally? I think what you're really trying to say is that your right to force your opinion on others is legally weakened. Isn't that more appropriate? Let me ask... Do you believe in Equal Protection under the law? Or do you believe that some people deserve more protection than others? Do you believe that there is a chosen class of people who should receive preferential treatement? Perhaps a class of people who's opinions are so important that they trump the fundamental rights of a lower class of people? Have the meek really inherited the earth? Is this really the legacy of Jesus? When his 'Chosen' people would become the "Romans" who stripped the lower class of their humanity?
- csmith October 29, 2008 10:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
By the very statements used to argue against same gender marriages, any heterosexual pair known to be infertile should not be allowed to wed. Single parents having children of the opposite gender should not be allowed to raise them because they are inherently incapable of teaching the child how to act like a person of that gender. People who are suspected of being likely to divorce should not be allowed to wed because of the psychological damage it might do to the children. Very foolish argument.
Also, the fact that I am homosexual does not mean I know nothing about having a relationship with a woman. I fought for decades to live "in the closet" and had a very successful relationship until my lady died. I was not happy, but I concealed it very well. Then I had my first love relationship natural to me -- one with another man. I stayed with him, too, until I lost him to a heart attack. I've also raised four children, 2 boys and 1 girl, who have very stable heterosexual relationships and who have all come to me with their mates to discuss problems because they knew I could look at both sides and advise without attacking or being biased.
Your reasoning is specious and based upon a total lack of understanding of the capabilities of fully cognizant human beings.
- OddGrouch October 29, 2008 1:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
This argument seems to rest on the fact that gay marriage would require different labels for the partners. While I agree that "Party A" and "Party B" are unromantic and absurdly bureaucratic designations, this seems more like a matter of taste than of fundamental values.
"Cold, contractual" language? Well, yes. To the extent that marriage is a legal issue, it is in fact a contract - it involves two people making a commitment, in exchange for which they will receive certain rights and benefits. In New York it is possible for a gay couple to enter into such a contract, only they have to call it a domestic partnership rather than a marriage. In theory, this protects their rights, giving them access to the same benefits associated with heterosexual marriage.
My question is this: why do we need a legal distinction between marriage and domestic partnership? If domestic partnership truly protects gay rights, the contract should be equivalent to a marriage contract. If this is the case, what is the significance of the label "marriage?" If it is a matter of tradition, or taste, or religious preference, it has no place in the law.
- lizzzie October 24, 2008 8:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you check the laws, domestic partnerships do NOT offer the same protections as civil marriage. Domestic partners are not allowed the same health coverage by Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Part D coverage policies for disabled and retired people or under the taxation laws of the United States or most states that have such laws. The Supreme Court Decision stating that "Separate but Equal" is invalid in cases dealing with ethnicity (race, for those who believe there is more than one human race) needs to be expanded to cover all segments of society.
- OddGrouch October 29, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm not sure why this weak argument was even included. The heterosexual couple feels that their rights are being infringed upon? Becuase of the wording on a legal document? They are still allowed to get married. What about the rights of the gay couple who wish to marry and won't be able to if this proposition passes? Who's rights have really been trampled? Words on a document vs. actual legal rights as a citizen of the U.S.
- csmith October 29, 2008 6:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Its about legal rights...hospital visitation, getting into an ambulance, tax incentives. These are not the same for domestic partners. Its exactly like having separate "but equal" drinking fountains or restrooms--or sitting in the back of the bus.
Religions don't have to bless these unions, however its up to the government of the people to treat people fairly and bestow the same rights.
- route66 October 28, 2008 3:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Of course they want government approval. Why shouldn't they? Why do you insist on making homosexuals second class citizens? Take a look at the history of the Quakers in England. Tell me, what is the difference in your view vs. Englands views of the Quakers? Why is your religious heart so dark and shut off?
- csmith October 29, 2008 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Let's be clear: Jews have been denied civil rights; we aren't looking to deny others anything. But this is not about legal rights for gay couples. It is about a threat to religious institutions under the guise of civil rights."
Let me be clear, this is a denial of civil rights, plain and simple, and you are very clearly denying Gays of their right to wed -- you can't honestly debate that fact. Your religion is under no obligation to recognize these people as married, nor will you ever be required to wed these couples, and it does not affect your religion in any way whatsoever. We're not going to regulate or change your religion at all, all we want is for you religion to stop oppressing us and guiding our religious practices.
There is no "guise" here or whatever you want to call it. Gays are being denied an opportunity everyone else has. I honestly don't care what your religion says, just as you should not care what mine says, but we should both have the right to practice our religions. My religions says it's A-OK for gays to marry one another, yours doesn't.
Therefore, don't let gays marry in your church. We'll let gays marry in mine.
From the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We aren't prohibiting your religion from doing anything, so you shouldn't be able to prohibit the exercise of my religion from doing what it feels is right.
- brianegan October 29, 2008 6:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
What a relief to hear that you had at least a twinge of conscience.
The fact that Jews have faced discrimination and oppression does not excuse supporting prop 8.
How incredibly sad that you've chosen to ally yourselves with forces working to take rights away from others based only on their personal prejudice and their religious beliefs.
- hap January 1, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
To claim that it wasn't easy or bigoted is an insult to the intelligence of the readers here. It was easy. The issue didn't affect you at all, your rights weren't being taken away. All you had to do was vote, and simple as that, someone's value as a human being was diminished.
It was bigoted: what exactly isn't bigoted about denying a group the same civil rights you enjoy simply because you don't 'approve'?
- Blue Linchpin January 1, 2009 3:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Not being Jewish, I may be a little confused. I'm aware that the traditional rabbinical treatments of the question deplore the actions involved in homosexuality. I also seem to recall that, as opposed to the traditional Catholic handling of the matter, the synagogues do not refuse homosexuals the right to attend schul because they feel that (I believe) learning and study are imperative in dealing with sins. Does this mean that the families of homosexuals are less likely to disown their children? Will the Jewish community easily accept civil marriage for same gender couples, or are they, in your opinion, deeply averse to such actions?
- OddGrouch October 29, 2008 12:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Shalom.
It seems strange to me that an Orthodox community would choose this issue to take a stand on, when legally, the prohibitions against homosexuality are somewhat murky--The ACT is abominable, but the orientation is not commented upon. Also, the prohibition extends only to men. The problem with taking that verse and using it to prohibit marriage --indeed, any type of legal , contractual relationship, is that you're now assigning a sexual value to marriage which hasn't really been there before. You can't really say that marriage needs to be sexually kosher, because hoo boy, there's a lot more of those in the heterosexual world than the homosexual world.
- quantummechanik September 21, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
There is no way that legalized same-gender marriage would lead to "discrimination against religion." Religious groups have been free to pursue their own beliefs since this nation was founded, even when those beliefs have been odious to the general population. Churches were among the main proponents of antimiscegenation laws, which prevented people of different races from intermarrying. When those laws were overturned, churches continued to preach against interracial marriage, and even to refuse to marry interracial couples.
A couple was denied marriage as recently as 2000 because the bride was white and the groom was black. To my knowledge, no legal action has taken place against the church involved:
http://www.skeptictank.org/wedband.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-29802943.html
The Roman Catholic Church has been denying holy orders to women and denying marriage to previously divorced persons for their entire existence in this country, and has never been the successful target of a lawsuit or prosecution for these activities.
The separation of Church and State is strong enough in this country to protect churches from undue interference from civil legislation which affects other agencies and non-profits. The problem is that separation of Church and State is suddenly not proving forceful enough to protect innocent citizens from undue influence being exerted by churches to deny those citizens basic civil rights protections.
- Babaroni December 11, 2008 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Discrimination is discrimination and it’s always wrong. How would the civil rights movement progressed if we had asked the people of Alabama to decide for themselves if they wanted to integrate or not. The only difference here is the discrimination is not as closely tied to location. When will we ever learn, civil rights and social transparency benefits everyone. Discrimination hurts everyone, not just the discriminated, but also the discriminators and society in general. Gays disproportionately contribute to society. The sooner they are allowed to fully express themselves, the sooner we will all be better off.
- RichNau October 16, 2008 1:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Our founding fathers didn't think women should vote nor interratial marriage should be allowed.
- route66 October 28, 2008 3:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Pacific Justice Institute, are you not familiar with the California Legislative Guide to Marriage Law? Does the 14th Amendment ring a bell? Marriage is indeed considered a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of the U.S. If this is a new concept to you, then perhaps you're overstating your expert status on this matter. The 'Yes On 8' side has yet to make a valid logical argument as to what harm will come to anyone when two gay people get 'Married'. Some people have actually stated that they have been harmed because they can't have an opinion on this matter anymore. Huh? Some people say that it harms the institution of Marriage. What? Marriage is only special because certain people aren't allowed to be married? Some people say that it infringes on their religious freedom. They believe the gay lifestyle is immoral, and they might be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. This is an empty argument. Immoral people get married in churches every weekend. Does the church do a complete background check on every couple before it performs a wedding ceremony? Does it know that the husband to be is a child molester? Does it know that the wife has slept with the entire high school football team? Does it know that the money used to pay the church for the wedding was earned by selling meth? Does it always perform it’s due diligence in these matters? No, it doesn’t. The standard is, as long as you appear moral, then you’re ok. I say, don’t preach a double standard to me. And don’t use empty, illogical arguments to strip people of their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
- csmith October 30, 2008 7:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Ms. McBride is technically correct: Prop. 8, by itself, will not require churches to perform gay weddings or schools to teach kindergarteners [sic] about same-sex marriages. Both things, however, are a logical next step."
The constitution protects freedom of religion. The only motivations for banning gay marriage are religious motivations, which shouldn't be applied to all citizens, many of whom do not believe in any religion. In that light, we have no interest in letting religions regulate all of society, and we do not wish to regulate churches.
"Nor is it difficult to believe that noted historical figures' alleged homosexuality will make its way into high school history books, even though such figures' sexual proclivities are something that students have absolutely zero need to know."
Actually, it is difficult to believe. Textbooks have to pass wide standards from many different regions which water down the content. Many would find the information objectionable (including myself, because as you say it generally does not relate at all to an historic event), and therefore I don't find no reason national textbook makers would start coming out with editions explicitly stating the sexual preference of a historical figure.
"What gays ultimately want is official government approval of their lifestyle."
This is so wrong it's ludicrous. Prop 8 aims to take away rights from gays, and gays are fighting back in order to keep their current EQUALITY, not to gain "approval." What a joke of an argument, quite frankly.
"If they want to pursue that lifestyle, that's their choice (and make no mistake, it is a choice)"
You're right, their lifestyle is their choice. Homosexuality, however, does not appear to be a choice according to most research. They could choose to lead a lifestyle of heterosexuality, but still be homosexual. They cannot simply wish themselves to be straight, nor should we force them to closet themselves and live lifestyles they don't find fulfillment in.
If you don't believe me, and you're straight, turn gay right now. Oh, you can't? You're still attracted to the opposite sex? No matter how hard you try you can't turn gay? If it's a choice for them to be straight, it's a choice for us to be as well, and we could change our minds to be gay. I can't turn myself gay, and I think it might be hard for gays to turn straight, because it's not a simple "choice."
"The government does not have to recognize it, and there is precedent for the government not recognizing relationships other than traditional marriages (polygamous unions, for instance)."
Yes, because Polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and homosexuality are all the exact same thing... Honestly, do you even realize the difference between these acts? It seems like your categorization is "Traditional marriage" vs "Everything," allowing no difference between the abuse of a child and two gays consenting to a relationship.
The reason polygamy between "consenting" adults is illegal is because it was a systematized way to abuse women. Although the women might have been "consenting," the whole world in which they were raised favored the men, hurt the women, and taught those disparities as the proper lifestyle. It was hard for women to break out of those oppressive relationships, and outlawing the practice was meant to protect them.
Incest, while consensual, has been shown to produce offspring with a higher likelihood of genetic problems. Protecting children.
"To keep homosexuals from imposing their way of thinking on the rest of us, Californians should vote yes on Prop. 8."
Are you kidding me? Prop 8 imposes YOUR religious views onto homosexuals, and rejection of Prop 8 is simply the rejection of that inequality.
"Both things, however, are a logical next step."
Wrong. This slippery slope argument is so old and tired it's almost hilarious to see it used again and again in your responses. Kids aren't going to be forced to draw rainbows and say nice things about gays, nor will we impose our religious views onto your churches. You're trying to scare people into voting against this, claiming that they're not just voting against Inequality, but that they'll be voting for an overbearing government on their style of life. This is simply ridiculous.
- brianegan October 22, 2008 5:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Brian, you wrote:
"Are you kidding me? Prop 8 imposes YOUR religious views onto homosexuals, and rejection of Prop 8 is simply the rejection of that inequality."
I would like to add to your criticism.... I would write it this way:
"Are you kidding me? Prop 8 imposes YOUR religious views not only on to homosexuals but on to everyone else who does not share your faith. Rejection of Prop 8 is simply the rejection of that inequality".
I am very weary of the self proclaimed righteous in this country telling me how to live my life (and I am straight) just because they have an old book.
I am willing to stand up with the gays and lesbians here. Because if I don't, some day, the self righteous will come after me because I don't have "faith and compassion" like they do.
People, it is equal rights for all. Not for some..... for all. It's simple. Let God sort it out later. I betchya he can do that.
Michelle
- litebkt October 22, 2008 10:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to infringe on the liberties of another. What those who support Proposition 8 wish to keep in place is the right of what amounts to a religious viewpoint to hinder the liberties of those whose views on marriage are different. If, as you say, there are those who would next demand religious institutions perform marriages against their will, I would certainly and just as adamantly oppose their efforts. One cannot rightly demand liberty while at the same time stepping all over the liberties of others to obtain it.
Nevertheless, historically, the major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are far more often the perpetrators of damage to liberties than are other points of view. It has long been their sense of self-righteousness that has led to an assumption they own the cultures in which they find themselves and can therefore dictate the lifestyles of all. They are mistaken and have always been mistaken. Human history is a long story of removing the prejudices of these religions to restore authentic liberty.
It is long overdue those philosophies lose their arrogance. Perhaps a little humility would do them good.
- Naumadd October 22, 2008 6:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Laurie,
I fully understand and agree with your point about wanting to be with your spouse when one of you is in the hospital...or when any time of celebration or heartache occurs. You should be able to file joint income taxes, and to be covered together under insurance policies. I understand all of that. I want that for you, too. I want that for my daughter and her partner, too. But whether or not your relationship should be called marriage is not something that I and my fellow voters should determine. That should be determined by your church and mine.
I am weary of government sticking its head into issues which are not the pervue of government. What I do with my body is between me and my God. What you and your partner choose to do after you receive a license from the state to be joined in a civil ceremony would be entirely up to you and whatever religious beliefs you follow. Marriage simply does not fall under the items over which the government has dominion.
Over the years, Government has taken a larger and larger bite into our lives, until it seems that they now want to take control of almost everything - how our children are raised and educated, what we can and cannot do about disclipine, and who we can marry. Both major political parties have lost sight of the intent of our forefathers, who left England to seek a life here free of intrusive government. You and your partner should never have had this problem in the first place....so there...nanny nanny boo boo.
- mh78639 October 22, 2008 5:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
God can certainly make the decisions in your church. Unfortunately, he is not in charge of the government. Remember the phrase "give that which is Caesar's unto Caesar?" The government has recognized "marriages" as civil unions in the legal system since the beginning. Unfortunately, we used "that word" instead of "civil unions" or "households" or whatever else you choose to call them. In order for all people to have equal rights, we either need to change the word "marriage" to something like "civil unions" in all of the legal documents and laws, or just take the easier route and allow everyone to use the term "marriage" in the legal sense.
Why can't we allow two different meanings for the same word? It's not like it has never been done?
Michelle
- litebkt October 22, 2008 10:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"I am weary of government sticking its head into issues which are not the pervue of government. What I do with my body is between me and my God. What you and your partner choose to do after you receive a license from the state to be joined in a civil ceremony would be entirely up to you and whatever religious beliefs you follow. Marriage simply does not fall under the items over which the government has dominion."
If that is your view, then government should not be involved in marriage at all. All civil rights and benefits of "marriage" should simply be defined as "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" for ALL couples, including all heterosexual couples. If "marriage" is so sacred, then do not allow government to provide any such thing; your next-of-kin legal status, your ability to file joint taxes, etc. should all be due to your "civil union" status, and your "marriage" will be completely between you and your church.
If, as you say, "Marriage simply does not fall under the items over which the government has dominion," then "marriage" should have no legal or civil benefits or repercussions at all. Let the churches or other private institutions deal with marriage, but your legal and civil statuses will then need to be established by the same "civil unions" that you proscribe for homosexuals: you can't have your cake and eat it too.
- cptspith November 4, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree with you. I don't want it both ways. Like I said...the license is the same for everyone...what you do with it is up to you. Go to a church and get married under the eyes of God. You have a license for a civil union from the government - not a marriage license. Your church lets you get married. The government lets you file taxes as a union...not as a married couple. Your company lets you buy insurance as a union, not as a couple. You file a will as a union...not as a couple. Whatever ceremony you choose to celebrate is up to you.
So where do I want cake and to eat, too??????? DUH? I want the government OUT of my life. But YOU can't have them in my life about other things...like how I raise MY children. If I want to spank MY child, it is none of your business. I was spanked by a wonderful father who NEVER raised a hand to me in anger. When I had misbehaved, he sent me to my room until he was no longer angry. Then he came in and talked to me about what I had done wrong. Then he told me that he had to spank me to make me remember not to do it again. Then he gave me a spanking ...not a beating. I never had a mark. Not a red bottom.
So I believe he did a good job, and the idea that some knee-jerk reaction from a do-gooder could have me arrested for disciplining my child makes me FURIOUS. It's not the government's business. I want the government out of my business. It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a family...a whole family, a loving whole family with proper values and a Mom at home to pay attention and a Dad who comes home and pays attention. It takes FAMILY...not Government...and I want them OUT of my life.
- mh78639 November 5, 2008 1:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I know this is a discussion on gay marriage but I felt like I had to jump in here. I am gay and I think I should have the same rights and resposibilities as everyone else. I am also a child protection worker and have some experience as part of the government you rail against. I think you would agree there has to be intervention from our government and society when you see a child that was not merely spanked but beaten, burned and emotionally scared from abuse. What people don't realize is that no one is going to go after them if a child is spanked once in awhile or disciplined harshly. If there was a mark left, then there is a problem. Trust me, no one is going to tell you how to parent your child unless you are hurting your child which is against the law of our land and agreed upon by our society. It is incredibly hard to balance laws and acceptable society norms when investigating child neglect. "The government" or child protective services is often caught in the untenable position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when either a child has been found to be severely abused or child protection investigates parents that did nothing wrong. To make matters worse very little information about any case can be released to the public because people have privacy rights as they should. I suppose this will always be an arguement with folks that have had no experience or bad experiences with protective services. The fact is protective services investigates and works with hundreds of thousands of cases a year where families were helped and given resources or kids were saved from further abuse and neglect. I will tell you one thing, I love my job because I get to work with families to make thier lives better and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I am not the monster that wants to steal your children as is often portrayed in the media. I also have been a parent and stood on that line where the three year old pushes you to your limits and you stand there in a haze of anger and you want to hit him. Some people hit him, some people don't and then some people beat him to within an inch of his life or further. There are choices and then there are consequences for those choices. By the way, I am no longer a parent because my kids could only be adopted by one same-sex parent and she took them out of state when we split up. I have no legal recourse. No marriage or civil-union, no parental rights or joint adoptions.
- tjhawknest33 December 17, 2008 8:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
...I just don't want them in my face. I am capable of doing for myself, thank you very much. One of the things that spanking father taught me was independence. When I finished college, I was NOT invited home to lounge around while I looked for suitable employment. I was expected to take whatever was available and make do while I found a better paying, more suitable job in my career field. But that was then; and children didn't run families - parents did.
Meanwhile, back at the issue: I agree with you about the abuse of children - it's rampant. Having worked with CASA, I am appalled at the flagrant abuse and neglect this generation of drug-using, irresponsible, sleep-around, me-me-me, gimme-another-tattoo-instead-of-paying-my-child-support jerks is perpetrating on their children. Teenagers having babies without a partner to help raise the child, then discovering that babies are LOTS of trouble. LOTS of work. LOTS of responsibility.
I don't blame CPS in the least - I blame the media, for spreading the idea that anyone can have a baby - who needs to be married? If "Murphy Brown" can do it, so can I. And Follywood wondered why Middle America objected so much back when ole Murphy got pregnant. The little black box which came into our homes took over our lives and our families back when I was a child, and has created a nation of brainwashed people. When the sound of that crying, sick baby needing to be fed and bathed and changed rises above the roar of Jerry Springer, that teenage mother is tempted - very strongly - to hold a pillow over its mouth just so she can hear about the abusive parents on TV.
- mh78639 December 18, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I want to marry my girlfriend so bad, and it saddens me that I can't because the rest of the world thinks it's wrong. I just hope that prop 8 will pass in November!
- ChristinaLovesMariaForever October 15, 2009 3:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree totally with everything you've said. Of course, I'm an old gay man who's buried the three loves of his life with no legal standing to protect my interests and families who turned up after the bills were paid to sue in court to throw out my loved ones' wills. I lost, sad to say.
One thing I would like to add is this. My home dictionary is a 1996 edition of Websters. "Marriage" is defined in it as "10 the state of being married; wedlock. 2) the act of marrying or the state of being married. 3) close union ." The word "Marry" is defined as: 1)to take as a husband or wife. 2) to unite in matrimony. 3) to become closely united." Since "husband" is not gender specific, nor, in English, is "wife", the claim that the definition is being changed is poppycock -- just like almost every pro-Prop 8 claim we've heard.
- OddGrouch October 29, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Please support No on Prop 8 efforts and protests with our official "Prop 8 is Hate" bumper stickers!
Here is a link to our store: http://zazzle.com/Prop_8
- Prop8 December 9, 2008 7:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
Agreement vs. Respect
Restoring the liberty of homosexual individuals to marry whomever they choose has nothing at all to do with agreeing with their preferences in sexual partners or their lifestyle. Agreement with them is not required. What is required in any civilized culture which claims to value individual rights and liberties is respect for their individual humanity and their personal pursuit of happiness. Assuming an individual is not infringing the liberty of another to exercise their individual rights, that individual is owed to them the liberty to do the same.
I must remind those who object to granting liberty to same-sex couples to marry one another that, regardless of how right you believe your viewpoint and values, there are always thousands of individuals in the United States who disagree with your points of view, your beliefs, your values, your chosen lifestyle. Perhaps some of those who disagree with and object to you would see that you lose some liberties to enforce their point of view upon your choices. If you would not have the practice of suppressing liberties because the lifestyle of another makes you uncomfortable become a standard approach to relationships in cultures, perhaps you ought not encourage such thinking by thinking in such ways yourself. You will, no doubt, be forging the chains you will someday wear.
If you wish to live with optimum liberty, although you do not owe another your agreement, you DO owe any and all your respect of their liberties. If you do not believe this true, then you explicitly disagree with a culture that holds as its highest value individual rights and liberties. What you truly value is an elitist culture - liberty for some, slavery for others. Perhaps your viewpoint is better suited for a feudal society or one similar to Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea or perhaps Cuba.
Those dictatorships are always looking for your sort of affirming opinions.
- Naumadd
October 22, 2008 5:44PM
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.
All of this is a waste of time and money
If proposition 8 passes, it will be challenged at the earliest possible convenience, and it will end up in the same supreme court that allowed gay marriage in the first place.
Can't we just let this go? Can't we just allow people to live their own lives the way they want to? They don't hurt anybody. Do you think that they don't get married in their own Churches? What makes your beliefs better than theirs? They use the same Bible.
Let me tell you what. I want ALL people to have equal rights. If they have to borrow a word to gain those rights from straight America to achieve them, I'm all for it.
Michelle
- litebkt October 22, 2008 8:38PM
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.
Waste of time and money
Yes, indeed; and someone should file a class action suit angainst the California Goverment and the California Supremem court for their responsibility in both the overturning of the people's vote and causing another propostion vote. California boasts the world's 6th biggst economy; yet you still bamkrupted it. Their is no way California could afford the 10's to maybe, 100's of millions of dollars this issue cost. -Good job liberals! Now you have contributed to bankrupting your state.
Additionally in response: So then that author, and other's making the same argument about wanting "ALL people having equal rights" then also supports consentual pedophilia. It does not hurt anyone either. -Or is it that ultimately, we actually,(truthfully, behind the smoke and mirrors) only really support the rights of those things that we think are acceptable or are not opposed to? -Hmmmm...
It does not take an intelligent philosopher to understand that "equal rights" are a "delusional illusion" How can everyone have equal rights for all of the things they want? -Proposterous! and a lie of society. And until we admit this and get over our SELF-CENTERED agendas that seek only to have things as it pleases us; and give up on pursuing some of our rights; realizing "you can't always get what you want!" we will only keep going the wrong direction and losing ground; all the while thinking we are accomplishing the opposite. -Spells DISASTER and CHAOS.
- smurph
December 16, 2008 2:27PM
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.
I see...
...........you're perfectly willing to live in a society with self-centered agendas.... as long as it's yours. No one can do anything that you don't like. Not that will harm you, not will harm your children... it's just something that you don't like. And because it's something you don't like, you're willing to pursue laws that are corrupt and bankrupt of any integrity. As long as you get to dictate to people what's acceptable, it's okay.
You're right, it doesn't take an intelligent philosopher... all it takes is a bigoted, close-minded perverter of justice. Or... you.
- SocialistBetty
January 8, 2009 1:14PM
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.
Consentual Pedophilia?
Smurph your arguments are not as good as you think. There is no such thing as consentual pedophilia because minors can't legally consent. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Try looking at this issue from a purely logical point of view. I'm not gay, so I don't have any reason to feel strongly about this, except that the logic is clear. There is no good argument against same sex marriage. All arguments against are purely emotional. Take a few minutes and really ponder this.
- csmith
January 16, 2009 8:29PM
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.
Marriage?
I'll help you out with my non-religious opinion. Since the earths creation, even before religion, it has been a man and woman. Same sex couples can not obtain the progression of life "naturally". Thus, indoctrinating society to accept something that is by natural law "unnatural". Now, why should we indoctrinate society to accept conduct when it doesn't enhance natural progression? Marriage is NOT a fundamental right. The only difference from their equal civil unions is the label of marriage, which is much more than a commitment between two people. It is the formation of a family which includes procreation and the rearing of children. The voters of California have already spoken once to preserve the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It should remain so. We need to evaluate what standards our society want to live by and not a failing judicial system. Civil liberties are NOT civil rights YES on 8
- atchemp
October 27, 2008 4:48PM
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.
Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!
Marriage is indeed considered a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of the U.S. Please do your research on this. It seems that the Yes side is very, very lazy. Lookup Loving v. Virginia. It wasn't very long ago that mixed-race marriage was illegal. This is what a judge in Virginia had to say about mixed-race marriage just 50 years ago... "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." This sounds so much like the Yes on 8 agrument. It should make you all sick to your stomach.
- csmith
October 29, 2008 8:47PM
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.
"yes side is lazy"
Ok, that may be... I do not know... but the "NO" side is definitely and unarguably (as already evidenced) very myopic and self centered, and unintelligent in basis and rhetorical construct, or the lacking thereof. It is unarguable that their positions ABSOLUTELY only uses the basis for their claim for SSM narrow mindedly and one sided, without considering the other and EQUAL side of those same arguments about "equality" and "discrimination." Basically, its the whole use only the parts or position of an argument or example as it suits your agenda; but not as it does not. That is not really being "EQUAL" nd "FAIR" now is it? -Please open your minds and quit having your cake and eating it too. If you can not see this, then you are "still doing it!"
- smurph
December 16, 2008 2:37PM
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.
Huh?
Explain to me who will suffer if same sex couples are allowed to marry? Also, explain how someone will suffer? I want concrete examples, not fear mongering. Try to be clear with your comment.
- csmith
December 17, 2008 8:13PM
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.
Fundamental right?...According to Who?!... YOU?
Then why cant a 42 year old man marry a consenting 13 year old??!! Especially, "they aren't hurting anyone!"
SSM advocates have made the treacherous and unintelligent comparative analogy to racial discrimination; and it will be one of the many of your own arguments, by which their agenda will be exposed. Apples to Oranges! An attorney representing pedophiles, and many other such groups, will have a MUCH MORE ACCURATELY CLOSER comparative analogy to legalizing SSM and homosexuality, than SSM advocates have to "racial" discrimination.
Ok, so then using your argument, a cultural or tribal or religious sect should also be allowed to practice human sacrifice; as was percieved as appropriate and acceptable in many cultures. Who are any of us to say that perspective is wrong and should not be tolerated?
See, you (plural) are doing it again.
- smurph
December 16, 2008 3:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Crazy Logic...
I'm equating inter-racial marriage to same sex marriage on the basis of discrimination. A logical and easily understood argument.
You are comparing same sex marriage to pedophiles and human sacrifice. That's just weird.
- csmith
December 17, 2008 7:52PM
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.
Due Process...
You really need to do some reasearch on the Due Process Clause and the 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution and recent decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. Because, honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.
- csmith
December 17, 2008 9:28PM
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.
I rarely see such bad arguments
First: the right to choose one's own partner is a fundamental right. You'd never give up your right to choose your partner, why should anyone else?
Second: Same-sex relationships are 100% legal as long as there is consent. A minor is not an adult and therefor cannot give consent. Equating grown men and women to children is just insulting.
Third: Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Please explain how exactly two grown men or women cannot give consent legally like a 13 year old? Also, please explain how refusing the right to marry based on physical gender is any different than refusing the right to marry based on skin color.
- Blue Linchpin
December 18, 2008 12:15AM
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.
"Unnatural" - the non-concept
Because one cannot exist nor act "outside of nature", i.e., there being no "outside", all that one does is necessarily natural. Your argument is one of assumption that the purpose of a single human life and the purpose of ALL human life is procreation. Although true, the species will not continue without a sufficient number of individuals reproducing, you assume also that it is the duty of either every or at least some individuals to do so. I would submit there is no such duty to "carry on the species", however, one is certainly and ought certainly be free to do so if one wishes. What one is not free to do nor ought to be free to do is compel a false duty to reproduce on every individual member of the abstract idea of "species".
I must also submit that the word and utterance "marriage" has many meanings depending on the one using it and context of its use. Individual human beings "marry" themselves to one another in an enormously diverse number of ways. Mere "best friends" are married to one another. Employer and employee are "married" from a certain form of view. One is "married" to one's pets if there is a mutual love, mutual dependence. Same-sex and, indeed differently sexed couples and even large groups of individuals have been marrying themselves to one another since before the dawn of this species we call "humanity". There is nothing anyone can do to prevent the emotional marriage of two or more individuals to one another if they so choose. They and their detractors often do not understand or, in the least, forget the fullest implications of the concept of "marriage". Certainly, those who rail against same-sex marriage as a potential redefinition of "marriage" seem to miss the irony of their very limited understanding of the much broader concept. Communities may or may not be at liberty to suppress official recognition of a "marriage" of two or more people. As a more advanced thinker, I am little bothered by what communities allow or disallow on this issue. An authentic marriage is one of the heart, mind, spirit.
No government, vote, voter, law or court can allow or disallow what is quite outside of their control. That communities create a bit of paper and a stamp and then deny some few to participate in ownership of that unnecessary paper and stamp is a ludicrous self inflation of childish human beings. Those genuinely committed to one another have no need of community approval.
- Naumadd
November 1, 2008 11:42PM
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.
Define Bigot
I'm sorry civil union or marriage, homosexual marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. They will have an uphill battle because over half of the US states and many foreign countries have already voted to preserve that marriage "is a man and woman." You go California with your liberal ideologies.
I am a bigot because:...1. Throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman...2. The natural law of humanity only allows an egg and sperm to procreate...3. Civil Liberties is not civil rights..4. Civil rights is not conduct...5. We are being indoctrinated by society to accept conduct when it goes against personal ethics..6. Businesses, churches, government and families should have freedom of speech by the foundation that this land was based on and not be tried for discrimination....
- atchemp
October 28, 2008 2:56PM
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.
Bigot Defined
If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that change for the good is always an uphill battle. There was a time when slavery was considered necessary for the good of the country. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote. There was a time when keeping the races separated was thought to be an idea that God considered appropriate. There was a time when Jewish persons were killed in gas chambers, just for being Jewish. There was a time when Christians were killed for being Christians. I hope that someday soon we'll be able to say... There was a time when we didn't allow same sex couples to marry. Every single one of these changes were hard fought. And every single time, there was someone on the other side, Roman, Nazi, KKK, who argued that the status quo was for the good of society.
- csmith
October 29, 2008 9:11PM
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.
"Throughout History"
The statement "throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman" may be true if one limits oneself to a very narrow definition of "marriage" in order to ignore the overwhelming numbers of authentic marriages that existed and exist now outside of your limited definition. Human beings are quite talented in marrying themselves to places, to times, to objects, to individuals of other species and, of course, to one another in a seemingly infinite number of ways. All that's really required of a "marriage", at least for one involving at least one human being, is authenticity of commitment.
It is quite demonstrable that there have been and are many legally-recognized or community-sanctioned "marriages" lacking authentic commitment from the very beginning and many non-sanctioned "marriages" with unwavering authentic commitment. All this to show, community sanction and legality have little really to do with authentic commitment and genuine marriage.
The statement regarding "throughout history" is unsupportable. Throughout history "marriage" has been defined in a long and growing list of ways and can be expected to be widely and diversely defined in the future.
Bigots can define words for themselves, however, they may not define them for others.
- Naumadd
November 2, 2008 12:17AM
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.
Difference
No one says you have to LIKE gay people, or gay marriage. What you do not have a right to do is force what your notions of right and wrong upon others by preventing them from attaining equal status under the law. You can wear a shirt that says "I'd rather lick a pig's anus than agree with gay marriage". You can be just as vocal about being irrationally against something just like the KKK is.... you don't have to accept gay marriage. But you don't have a right to legally prevent another person from attaining the same legal protections marriage offers.
No one is "indoctrinating" anyone. It's the indoctrination of society that had prevented gay people from being accepted as even people until recent history. Aaaand you would appear to have been indoctrinated.
- SocialistBetty
January 8, 2009 1:23PM
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.
Proposition 8 is Not a Waste of Time
We cannot just let go of the Same-Sex issue because it involves too many fundamental freedoms Californians have not enjoyed for 6 months due to the California Supreme Court's decision. I agree with many of the arguments posed by the Agreement Vs. Respect comment below. Respect of opinions should be given to all and I believe the right to maintain individual opinions on this matter is important. However, the Supreme Court's Decision has taken away Californian's legal right to disagree with Same-Sex Marriage and is in fact forcing that opinion upon us. While I have not qualms with giving a license to Same-Sex Couples, the Supreme Court did more then that in their ruling. Please find and read it. They placed Same-Sex and Traditional Marriages as equals that cannot be separated, and that has brought up a slew of civil-right and religious issues, as well as taking away our right to have an opinion on the issue. If you wish to have an opinion on this issue, vote Yes on Proposition 8.
- BJG
October 28, 2008 10:35PM
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.
Prop 8 is, indeed a waste of time and money
The Supreme Court of California did exactly what they're appointed to do. They determined that the prior voter supported action was unconstitutional. It violated the wording of the California State Constitution, and it violates the wording and spirit of the American Constitution . A yes vote on Prop 8 is a vote against equality for all Americans and a vote for law based upon one particular religious belief -- that with a Judeo-Christian base. That, in effect, establishes a state religion, which is forbidden by the United States Constitution.
- OddGrouch
October 29, 2008 8:09AM
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.
See...
Really...??? -Sounds prety bias and one sided to me. But hey, I am only basing that on the presence of ambigous and abstract agrguments of opinon; and the absince of any rhetorical construct. -Just exactly what I said; and proves the point about how bias and myopic the "No" side, or SSM position is. Although, they are convinced, and would swear the opposite is true. -But of course, then is that not an obvious despriptive result of being "bias" and "myopic?"
- smurph
December 16, 2008 3:18PM
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.
Opinion?
Are you suggesting that a constitutional ammendment is 'just an opinion'? And are you further suggesting that it's ok to have an opinion on this matter as long as the law is on the side of your opinion? And are you also suggesting that when the law is against your opinion, it has also stripped your right to have an opinion? I have one question for you... In your opinion, is it better for you to have an opinion if another persons legal rights are trampled, or is it better for everyone to have equal rights and for you to have no opinion whatsoever?
- csmith
October 29, 2008 7:25PM
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.
"Opinion...?"
Ok, let me try publicly stating my opinion using the "N-word" and see where that gets me! Oh, but wait, we already have plenty of examples of lives that were destroyed and jobs lossed for doing MUCH LESS than that, huh? So again then... is it not that we are only in suport of the "right to opinion" only under certain terms as it does not violate certain offenses or opposing views; and likewise we only support the "rights and freedoms" and protection from discrimination to things which we ourselves accept or believe in? -Hmmmm...
So then what exactly is "free to have your opinion?" And what exactly are "rights and freedoms" that are deserved or supported? -According to who?? I am sure EVERY person or group that does not feel civil or legal freedon to do as they prefer, is waiting in the wings of such the answer. -Pandora's box, people!! Try to burn a brain cell not be so short-sighted abd narrow minded, and look farther down the road, which we have proven as human's we suck at!
- smurph
December 16, 2008 3:31PM
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.
I don't understand...
What are you trying to say here? You have apparently missed the point. Freedom of speech and freedom from the consequences of what you say are two different things. Also, you can't be thrown in jail for having an opinion. But, you can be thrown in jail for acting on your opinion.
Try to be more descriptive with your argument. You may have a valid point, but it's not clear in what you are writing.
- csmith
December 17, 2008 8:04PM
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.
I think fat people wearing spandex should be illegal...
....I also think gross hairy men who walk around without their shirts on when they have bigger boobs than I should be illegal.
Oh... but wait. I can't have opinions because those things are legal. Right. So I'll be forced to smile at the disgustingness or I'll be arrested for not agreeing with something that's legal - and by all right should be legal.
Just because I - and probably a lot of other people - think that mullets are offensive and Keanu Reeves is a really bad actor doesn't mean that laws should be made to regulate such things. Well, I might make an exception to this if it meant no more Reeves, but... ehh.
Nothing prevents you having an opinion.
- SocialistBetty
January 8, 2009 1:31PM
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.
right to your opinion
Nothing can take away one's right to his opinion or his right to express it. One's right to marry a person of his or her choosing is what proposition 8 WOULD do. I think I would prefer to have both of those rights, just as you do.
- jack mormon
November 1, 2008 12:42PM
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.
Majority Rule
Majority rule is all well and good ... unless the majority behaves as a tyrant. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nonetheless and anyone who values individual rights and liberty is within their rights to take action to dismantle such a culture's hold on its victims. One is free to define the characteristics of one's community, provided one's community behaves in a way respectful of its individual members' rights and liberties. No community ought to be free to rule with an iron fist, just as no individual is free to do the same. Right to self-determination does not include right to the determination of others against their will, provided such others are not themselves in violation of your rights and liberties.
If tyranny of the majority is what you advocate, might I suggest some locations elsewhere on our planet more friendly to the tyrannical. We will have none of it in a nation that allegedly values individual rights and liberties. In such a society, ONE is the majority and always must be.
If religious individuals refuse to recognize the authentic marriage of any two individuals, they are within their right to refuse, however, they are not within their rights to forcibly prevent such a union. Opine all you wish, however, you may not turn opinion into a rope around someone else's neck.
You may or may not be at liberty to do so, however, you have never been nor ever will have the right.
Of course, because an authentic marriage is one of the heart and spirit, no man can prevent it when those who wish marriage desire it truly. A paper and stamp, law and community opinion are irrelevant in that regard.
- Naumadd
November 2, 2008 12:34AM
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.
My honor to officiate at same sex marriages
It is my honor and delight to officiate for same sex marriages in Connecticut
I even advised all my 100 or so civil union couples that I would upgrade them to marriage for NO charge (if they came to Norwalk or Darien).
CT is proud to lead the way to provide this basic right to ALL couples.
CT is the ONLY state where a same sex couple can get married in one day- no residency requirement, no blood test, no witnesses. Just the $30 license fee and $10 for a certified copy plus the fee for the officiant (which varies by officiant and by location). I take care of everything for as little as $200.
I have couples who have flown in from CA, FL, TX, IN, OH, IL, Mexico and who have driven in or taken the train from NYC, NJ, PA, RI, VA
Most couples have been together for YEARS...including one couple from Florida who have been together for 45 years!
Let people love each other and take care of each other. Isn't that what marriage is about?
Mary Pugh, CT Justice of the Peace, Norwalk, CT
www.ct-jp.com
- marypugh
March 7, 2009 10:28AM
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.
Blaming the wrong people
America is joining the wide world of socialism, and while proposition eight supporters and opponents are pointing fingers at each other, the state (the entity to blame for this whole ordeal) gets away without scrutiny from its people. What happens when government becomes the creator of marriage, and not the protector? And why does no one see fit to question this shift in power?
To investigate this further, read:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=84
- Cheerikiara
May 22, 2009 9:58AM
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.