In the November election, people in California will be asked to vote for or against the "California Marriage Protection Act", aka Proposition 8. Doesn't sound so bad, right? If I were uninformed I suppose I would vote for it.

By voting for it, people are actually voting to make same-sex marriages illegal in California again, only a few months after the California Supreme Court deemed a ban on them unconstituational. Proposition 8 would add the following words to the state's constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

This is shifty legislation at best. The supreme court deems a ban unconstitutional, so opponents counter by proposing an amendment to the constitution? And they name it the "Marriage Protection Act" to make it sound like a good thing? At least name it what it is: "California Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act".

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by any means. I will say that the continued oppression of the gay community in this country (and others around the world) is one thing I find contemptible and indefensible. It's pure bigotry. Why in the world do so many folks feel the need to hold their brothers and sisters down? Who gains by this? If indeed there is a Christian God in Heaven then let him be the one to pass judgement. I see no reason why, on this earth, everyone can't be treated fairly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sans_success,

I think one day we'll all look back on these gay marriage bans as being as absurd as not letting women or minorities vote or own property.

The thing that I find terrible about these gay marriage bans is that there's no logical argument to be made against gay marriage. You're basically saying that these two adults (because they happen to be the same sex) should not have access to the same rights as these other two adults. There's no harm being done to anyone in granting these rights.

It's a case of a group of people trying to make their religious beliefs into law, which I can't get behind.

Exceedingly well presented argument Eric. You queer.

If this proposition was just about a person’s ability to marry who, or whatever, they wanted I would have no objections. Let a dog lover marry their dog for all I care. But we all know the consequences, good or bad, are much different than just a ability to marry. I see this proposition as a bold intrusion on parent’s rights over their children and their parental right to teach them what morals parents want to teach. Our California laws say that our schools will teach about families and sex education at age appropriate levels. At the start of the 2008 year this required parental notification for the sex Ed and notification for families was given at request. Like wise I had a friend growing up whose parents pulled him out of school during the hours we had our history lessons. Parents have been JAILED for demanding notification of when teachers are going to teach about gay families. I am willing to give gays the ability to marry but I also ask that if I am going to tolerate there lifestyle that they tolerate mine. If I have a club for only women, that is tolerated. If I have a club for only men, that is tolerated. If I have a club for only blacks, that is tolerated. If I have a gay only club that is tolerated. But if I have a straight only club I get sued for intolerance and discrimination. I am asking for equal rights. Not a double standard.

Welcome to the 21st Century Coradon. We no longer measure cranial capacity as a guide to intelligence or keep slaves.

You might you like it here in this world where idiotic prejudices are leaving our society at a rapid rate...

quote:

Originally posted by Coradon:
I am willing to give gays the ability to marry but I also ask that if I am going to tolerate there lifestyle that they tolerate mine. If I have a club for only women, that is tolerated. If I have a club for only men, that is tolerated. If I have a club for only blacks, that is tolerated. If I have a gay only club that is tolerated. But if I have a straight only club I get sued for intolerance and discrimination. I am asking for equal rights. Not a double standard.

I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of the law here. If you're a private club, you can legally deiscriminate based on whatever criteria you want.

However, marriage isn't a private club.

Look at Massachusetts where this is happening. Private clubs and organizations are being sued today. If we don't pass this what is happening there will come here.

I believe that the government needs to get out of the "marriage" business entirely. Gay marriage, straight marriage, it doesn't matter. The government should be in the business, if it wishes, of ratifying contracts or civil unions. Protecting the rights of individuals of opposite sexes, same sexes, whatever, to enter into whatever sort of contract they wish, that doesn't violate civil or criminal law.

Marriage is an issue for religions. If you want that religious sanction, by all means, find yourself a priest, rabbi, shaman or whatever, to sprinkle whatever kind of magic dust makes it all OK with your god, gods, earth mothers, or ancestors.

Mixing "marriage" with government comes within a wafer's edge of violating the establishment clause.

In my opinion, of course.

An opinion that I agree with, nice to have you back, kendo.

Sure, I'm voting the way which enables ALL "people" to be married. That's the way which supports the "radical" Supreme Court which said that you don't violate people's civil rights. Now, I don't want Gene Wilder to marry a sheep, like something out of a 1972 Woody Allen movie, but, as long as it involves humans, let 'er rip.

I don't see this as an attack of religion though. It's the more radical groups using religion to try to instigate a constitutional amendment. Even if "religions" don't support the idea of same-sex marriage, they are not the ones who are truly supporting the Amendment. It seems to be more a question of people who are misinformed about the people involved and people who deal with fear and cliches. A same-sex couple being married cannot attack me as a married person and it certainly cannot attack God. If it turns out that it does, let god deal with it instead of screwball humans.

I am "pro" traditional marriage. I feel strongly that traditional marriage is the healthiest environment for children, and that promoting traditional marriage is in the best interest of our youth and our society.
I believe we can have a difference of opinion and still be civil and even be friends. From my perspective, the attacks and intolerance are coming from the opponents of Proposition 8. I have had two "Yes on Proposition 8" signs stolen from my front yard. It seems like the opposition may be paying people to steal signs.
I would be happy to provide (what I believe are compelling) reasons as to why I support proposition 8. Unfortunately it seems that far too many people are so "close minded" that they will not have a respectful interchange, but will use personal attacks against those with whom they disagree.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ProMarriage,

I would love to get a job stealing signs.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
I would love to get a job stealing signs.

lol

quote:

Originally posted by ProMarriage:
I am "pro" traditional marriage. I feel strongly that traditional marriage is the healthiest environment for children, and that promoting traditional marriage is in the best interest of our youth and our society.

But the proposition doesn't really address your problem. Gay partners are still allowed to raise a family, just as two people who are "traditionally married" are. I would imagine you'd think it better for a child's well being if his or her's parents were married, not just partners.

Second of all, this point is incorrect. There have been hundreds of studies that have shown no difference in development between children of gay couples and children of married couples.


Lastly, the point is irrelevant. Even if kids were traditionally worse off under the care of gay parents, it wouldn't matter. Kids are traditionally worse off under parents with no money, but that doesn't mean the parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids and at least give it a shot.

With this in mind, I would like for you to explain why promoting traditional marriage is the best interest of our youth. Seems to me like it's promoting discrimination.

Also, it's pretty likely you are just spamming, as your name is ProMarriage. If that's the case I don't know that you have much to gain from this website.

He sort of strikes me as a troll. Goes against gay marriage, calls gay marriage supporters closed-minded, then will say that I'm personally attacking him and avoid all of your points entirely. Of course he could disprove me by actually arguing your points, who knows.

Grabblegarr, you were respectful (which I appreciate), and no this was not spam. I only signed up for this website since this was an interesting topic. I will provide a quick response.

GG: Although same-sex unions (as well as religious marriage ceremonies) will still be legal, traditional marriage should be promoted. Namely, this is the best environment for children. "hundreds of studies have shown that there is no difference" is just a line that is repeated enough that it is believed. I am aware of a handful of studies that are cited, but that are dubious and biased. Alternatively, there is evidence that shows that children that grow up in fatherless households or motherless households under-perform their peers in school and are more likely to be involved in crime (I also think they have higher occurrence of childhood pregnancy). Additionally extensive research shows that children raised by both of their biological parents are the most likely to succeed. A father and a mother provide complementary elements that are beneficial to childhood development. I want to encourage this as the "gold standard".

Gay partners are still going to be able to raise children, even though it is not the best scenario. I am not in favor of removing children from gay partners, just like I am not in favor of removing children from single parents. Although I would allow adoptions to gay couples, I am in favor of allowing adoption agencies the option of given preference to traditionally married couples. This would not be possible if gay couples are seen as the "same" as traditionally married couples.
I disagree that children of "parents with no money" are worse off. In fact, there may even be an inverse correlation between proper parenting and affluence. Parents may be more likely to spend time with their children if they are less well-off (I do not know).

To clarify, I understand that there are (in my mind) non-ideal parenting scenarios: gay parents, single parents, traditional marriages with problems.
Nonetheless, I believe (and studies show) that traditional marriage is the best environment for children. Therefore we should promote that.

Alternatively, if same-sex marriage is legal, there will be schools that promote gay marriage. This has already started in Massachusetts and here in California. I would not want my child indoctrinated in school, say at the age of 7. I, as a responsible parent, want to teach my children about sensitive/moral topics and teach them to be respectful to everybody.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ProMarriage,

Promarriage, you come across a reasonable person, but it is totally and uttterly insane to discriminate in any way, shape or form regarding sexual preference.

You may as well discriminate on eye colour.

Your thinking belongs in the dark ages. And it's terrifying.

quote:

Originally posted by ProMarriage:
Alternatively, if same-sex marriage is legal, there will be schools that promote gay marriage. This has already started in Massachusetts and here in California. I would not want my child indoctrinated in school, say at the age of 7. I, as a responsible parent, want to teach my children about sensitive/moral topics and teach them to be respectful to everybody.

Surely kids become aware of gay people at some point now, don't they? Banning gay marriage isn't going to ban gay couples. You're still going to have to explain the same sex couple you see walking down the street to your kid. I'm fairly certain I learned about gay people at a relatively early age, and it didn't turn me gay or anything.

I also question your idea that making kids aware of same sex couples equals "promoting" it, as if it's a lifestyle choice. However, it does teach them to be tolerant and not discriminate against others. Sheltering them and teaching them that you should treat gay people differently has the opposite effect. It only perpetuates hate.

This proposition is simply attempting to create an equality that America has not had.

To Promarriage:
Although your intentions at least appear well, you're sort of glossing over your own argument to make is politically correct. The main issue here is whether it is constitutional to allow homosexuals to be second class citizens. It doesn't really matter what you personally feel regarding homosexuality, it involves whether you are willing to dictate the lives of others simply because you have a different lifestyle. In any society you will find taboos, one of the most widespread in this country is, unfortunately, homosexuality. It is simply out of style currently.

Regarding your main argument, the actual amount of studies is certainly more than ahandful and most of them illustrate that there is not much of a discernable difference between gay and straight parents. All you need is love...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mikey Rocks,