Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say whatever you want. You can talk until you're blue in the face. I really don't care. But don't you enact legislation preventing me from marrying another woman, when it is none of your effing business which sex I marry.
Well, your statement above is not true - A number of states HAVE ENACTED LEGISLATION that codifies the definition of Marriage as between on man and one woman.
I oppose Gay Marriage yet I do not oppose a legal, loving and committed union between a same sex couple. My opposition is based on the terminology. Marriage, for generations, has long been defined legally and culturally as a union between a man and a woman. A spiritual and legally binding ceremony to unite a same sex couple in an equally valid institution should be termed something other than marriage. I recognize that some might view my position as semantics but I respectfully disagree. I do feel that to invalidate the traditional definition of marriage, rather than creating an equally binding parallel ceremony, lessens the value of the very thing they seek.
My vote was not to support pain and hate. I embrace the tradition of marriage and truly welcome same sex couples to initiate their own.
So what should we call this gay union???? Gayrriage? Homarriage? It is plain discrimination. Funny thing is that blacks oppose it more than whites. Did they forget how bad they had it 40 years ago?
I really want to know, if you are opposed to gay marriage.. WHY?
How does a same sex couple having the same legal rights of a straight couple hurt you?
First of all, I want to agree with the poster who said the government should not be the "moral police." Ironically, this is exactly why most of us voted yes on 8. Their may be a small number of extremists (haters, as one person called them), but I can assure you of all the people I worked worth the number one concern was families and education.
If prop 8 didn't pass then the government is still the moral police, just in a different direction. You have to remember we already voted for prop 22, and the state supreme court overturned that. That is the government interjecting in a way I don't agree with, as the other poster said.
Why don't I agree with it? This is the answer to the quoted text. Gays couples having the same rights as me DOES NOT HURT ME OR DISTURB ME IN ANY WAY. It is when these rights, or civil unions, are assigned the title marriage by the supreme court that it hurts me. I understand the sentiment from some, (a friend in a different religion in me) who feels that gay people are co opting the word marriage and redefining it. But I'm not answering the question for him, but for myself (just wanted to point out that isn't how I feel personally). For me, it is a clear understanding of our common law judicial system, current state law, and the periphery effects of its passage that drove me to action.
First of all, without getting too deep into the criticisms of utilitarianism or jargon, I find the old formula of social benefit minus social cost for the net social utility pertinent in all social matters, and I'll use it here. I would also like to point out that state specific data is difficult to come by, so most of my numbers are national.
Less than 6% of the nation have had a same sex partner in the last five years. By any accounting, this is a much smaller minority than those that practice religion and whose beliefs would be persecuted by the government if prop 8 didn't pass.
Let me explain, Catholic Charities in MA was told it must allow same sex couples to adopt children through their system. They chose to stand on principle and close their doors instead. Teaching marriage is a part of the CA education code, and would thus be forced to learn about gay marriage in the public domain, thus making the state the moral police again! You may thing this is ridiculous, but it has already opened at least once and is law in MA as well.
So now, in the state of MA, one of the largest private charities has closed its doors, parents cannot prevent their children from being taught same sex marriage, and we are only a short time away from same sex intercourse being discussed in the public school as well. For example, when I was in 6th and 9th grade we discussed sexually transmitted diseases, risks associated with oral sex, and so forth (a little early for 12 year olds, I think). It would only be a matter of time before same sex intercourse was taught as well, once again with parents having no legal right to object (except in the case of the 6th grade health day, as they have the right to object to sex ed at that early age, or did when I was in school). There is also the threat of any church who does not believe in same sex marriage to be sued for discrimination, much like doctors are forced to perform abortion against their conscience even if there are other doctors to perform it available. What you have then under the current system is a small percentage gaining a title (no positive rights are gained as they already exist under the name civil union) and a large group whose religious rights are upheld in the constitution would be forced by the state's moral police to accept a lifestyle they disagree with. Net social utility clearly falls on the side of prop 8.
So, how does one argue that the right to marry someone of the same sex trumps the fundamental constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Religion? It simply doesn't. With our current judicial structure and laws, the granting to a small minority to marry would adversely affect a much greater number. When this problem is rectified, many people such as my wife and I would probably do a 180 and support it.
Of course, the main argument is that it passed in all three states and the majority, even in a liberal state such as this, still values traditional values and the rights enshrined in our constitution above all. I think that is a good thing. Sorry for the long answer, just trying to be thorough. If I left anything out or wasn't clear anywhere, give me a heads up and I'll try to explain it.
i sort of agree. i want to know why straight men aren't offered the same protection under the law!
on a more serious note, i wonder why the religious whacko's don't condemn usury? all this condemnation of abortion, homosexuals but no problem with unjust wars and debt(which is responsible for all our social, environmental, economic and moral problems)!
didn't jesus say that those who have never sinned should cast the first stone? didn't god say that he'd be the judge and we should stay out of it?
i don't know. i stopped believing in god a long time ago but if my memory serves me correct that is what the bible says.
I oppose Gay Marriage yet I do not oppose a legal, loving and committed union between a same sex couple. My opposition is based on the terminology. Marriage, for generations, has long been defined legally and culturally as a union between a man and a woman. A spiritual and legally binding ceremony to unite a same sex couple in an equally valid institution should be termed something other than marriage. I recognize that some might view my position as semantics but I respectfully disagree. I do feel that to invalidate the traditional definition of marriage, rather than creating an equally binding parallel ceremony, lessens the value of the very thing they seek.
My vote was not to support pain and hate. I embrace the tradition of marriage and truly welcome same sex couples to initiate their own.
OMG, get out of my head! I can't add anything to your post really as I have the exact same view.
Everywhere I go when I look at this issue, I see the straight traditionalists being chastised. I can't tell how many people call me a racist, or a gay-basher, etc just because I'm a straight white male with traditional beliefs.
In my neck of the woods, the lesbian community isn't about "live and let live". The militant female homosexual population here prides themselves on the fact that their main goal is to convert every straight woman, and take them away from the straight males. They do NOT hide this fact. In fact, they flaunt it. This behavior isn't seen as much in the gay male population, though.
So, how would the passing of Proposition 8 in California hurt me and my family? Well, I for one don't want anyone teaching my children in school that homosexuality is right. This instruction would have been mandatory. THE MORAL TEACHINGS OF MY CHILDREN ARE FOR ME TO DECIDE, NOT YOU!
A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, although fewer than the “unpartnered,” and that men in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates, much higher than those in heterosexual relationships. YOU CALL THIS PROGRESS?
As for the moral argument, a powerful case can be made on purely sociological grounds (without the religious implications). Sanctioning “gay marriage” would, among other things:
Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.
Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at greater risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. This fact absolutely shocked me the first time I heard it. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).
A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.
Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the current practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.
Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.
Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.
Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association.
California is Exhibit A, where “domestic partnerships” are part of an overall homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexual relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote transsexuality as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care parents must take “diversity” training that orders them to affirm a child’s sexual behavior, including “cross-dressing.” This certainly doesn't sound like EQUAL RIGHTS to me....
If you’re an American who believes in traditional morality, your government and media will regard you as an enemy of the state.
Because it would. When marriage was invented only churches had the kind of power to perform them. In many places only churches still do. In America the churches have lost some power to the Federal Government but not a whole lot. A Baptismal Certificate is as powerful as a govt. issue Birth Certificate and a Church certified Marriage Certificate is as good as one done at City Hall. Thus we have said and thus we have done. Now just because you are a generous sort and don't mind if the requirements for being married are relaxed to include others doesn't mean that its o.k. If you are a 6'2" State Police Officer you might take issue if the height requirement is lowered to 5'8". It was 6'2" when you joined the force and you just made it in. Now 10 years later anyone over 5'8" can get on the force. Might make you wonder why the requirement was ever 6'+ in the first place. RebOver said it better than I did. Read his/her post again. By relaxing the standards for marriage you expose it to the risk that someone someday might up the ante and want to remove it for everyone, i.e. abolish marriage entirely as an even better way of being fair than to allow it for both Gay and Straight people.
H
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Marriage predates the Christian Church. The Church is the institution which set limits upon marriage and appropriated the custom as if it were something brand spanking new invented by the Church for the edification of its members.
Many cultures embrace marriage without gender specifications, have done so historically, and they have yet to perish from the face of the Earth.
When it comes down to brass tacks, each of you who are so vehemently opposed to gay marriage really haven't got a clue about what it is you are opposing. Homosexuality scares the living crap out of you and what you really fear is that if lesbians and gays are given equal protection under the law, their "lifestyle" may some how become contagious. Your religion is not every person's religion. You need to remember that and stop trying to shove your belief system down the gullets of every person in this country.
Additionally, if the government is to avoid becoming the "moral police" then they need to stop promoting laws which give all protections to one segment of the population while consigning another to sub-citizen status.
Do I care if one man wants 2 or 10 wives or vice versa.. no.. that's their choice..not mine.....
And I don't believe I have the right to push my belief onto anyone else's.. and my belief, btw , is that it's wrong FOR ME.. but maybe it's right for someone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
