Please vote no on Proposition 8

[Michlo]

Interesting post, which I mostly agree with.

 

It makes me think that the idea situation would be the government handing out the legal rights of marriage under the label "civil union." Under that plan, the religious "wrong" could not object since it "keeps marriage sacred" and it allows those homosexuals in committed relationships to receive the rights they deserve. In addition to that, it would strengthen the separation of church and state since it would cause the government to leave the business of sanctifying marriage. However, I put the phrase "keeps marriage sacred" in quotes since I personal believe marriage is not a sacred institution of any religion since marriage has historically been about property and family power.

 

I agree to an extent there, Landsknecht. It shouldn't really matter what it is called as long as the rights are the same but to some people (and myself to a degree), it is the principle. We are just people, we work, pay taxes, etc. just the same as heterosexuals so the whole thing shouldn't even be an issue. Having to compromise with a different word for it could still be construed as separating us from the general public.

 

I too don't think religion should come into it all but of course, we know it does and will, especially in this country which separates religion and government. Oh wait. ;)

 

Cheers.

[stephanie]

"Summary: Stop gay marriage in California."

 

I don't live in California and I hope I never will. The place is turning into a playground for people who just want to do something unusual only for the 'shock' value. "Gay" people (my grandmother still says 'gay' when she means 'happy') cannot be married in the true sense. They can make a pledge to each other and bond together, but married? No way!!

 

I vote to ban "Gay" marriage as an abomination and as something against the laws of nature.

 

:)

[Dark0ne]

Having to compromise with a different word for it could still be construed as separating us from the general public.

 

This argument was raised several years ago on these forums. People argued that using a different word is unequal, and ergo discriminatory to homosexuals. I like to argue differently; whites, blacks, hispanics and asians are all a subset of "humanity", different but equal under humanity's master set. Why can't marriage and <insert word for homosexual union here> be a subset of "civil union", different but equal under the civil union master set?

[Ethre]

That arguement is borderline on bringing back the "separate but equal" logic. Even though under the law they may be identical, in people's minds they will likely never be.

 

 

Myrmaad: There's the second side. :)

[Dark0ne]

That arguement is borderline on bringing back the "separate but equal" logic.

 

What I like to call the "different but equal" logic. Please, say what you have wrong with it; or revert back to my original post in this thread to see my thoughts on the issue.

[Lisnpuppy]

To begin..

 

I think that the govenment being involved in this...when there are SO many more important issues....is sad.

 

Until rather recently, marriage was viewed as more of a economic or social connection than one of a moral or ethical basis. Unions were made in order to combine resources, power, etc. As you know many unions were made when parties (especially the females) were far too young to consumate the marriage or participate in any way that we modern humans view as what a marriage should be.

 

I don't give a rats butt if a white country girl and a one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater get married. I DO care when the government begins to (or continues to) dictate morality--which is all this is. Homosexuality is something that has been around since the beginning of time. To refuse people basic rights that they would otherwise enjoy that are basically economic anyway (because then they would be eligible for spousal benefits, healthcare insurance, etc) is depressing. A government that insist on dictating morality and putting religious interpretation into daily life is scary.

 

It is my hope that some day...these issues will be seen as irrelevant. That people are viewed as that...and that their basic rights and privledges are granted to all...and not infringed upon through the ideas of morality or religious high-ground.

 

I ask myself..how does a gay couple in whereversville...getting married..effect me any more that anything else? I mean they let Britney Spears get married...I know many gay couples that have far healthier relationships....

[Ethre]

What I like to call the "different but equal" logic. Please, say what you have wrong with it; or revert back to my original post in this thread to see my thoughts on the issue.

 

I'm sorry, I did sort of leave that post a bit short.

 

The deal with "different but equal" is that it becomes hard to differentiate between that and "separate but equal" (which has been successfully argued in the American Supreme Court to be inherently contradictory).

Although you are claiming it to be "different" as opposed to "separate", it is hard to get around the issue that you are increasing the divisions inside of society. While race/skin color is hereditary, you still don't find different designations for them under the law. (With the census, and some discrimination laws being obvious exceptions. As an example though, you don't have a different name for drug crimes depending upon the race (I chose drugs, because there are statistical differences in the usage rates between races)).

Basically, creating separate designations is furthering the "difference" into a larger "separation".

 

There's also the deal of the mental impact - for most people, the legal definition of something is less important than their personal feelings, or society's view. Regardless of what the law may say, people will still want their "loving relationship" to be considered a "Marriage" by society.

 

That make it more clear? :)

[Michlo]

"Summary: Stop gay marriage in California."

 

I don't live in California and I hope I never will. The place is turning into a playground for people who just want to do something unusual only for the 'shock' value. "Gay" people (my grandmother still says 'gay' when she means 'happy') cannot be married in the true sense. They can make a pledge to each other and bond together, but married? No way!!

 

I vote to ban "Gay" marriage as an abomination and as something against the laws of nature.

 

:)

 

I barely know where to start with you. First of all, I too hope you never come to live in the same State that I am. With your ridiculous close-minded views, you would NOT make a good neighbour.

 

Where do you get your evidence that gay people are striving for equality "just for the shock value" ? Where do you even get off pronouncing such a thing? How unbelievably rude, ignorant and outright stupid of you! Two people wanting to share a legal commitment and recognition is NOT unusual. These are the people who 99.9% of the time will be more helpful, open minded and caring than so many of you heterosexuals, ESPECIALLY the hypocritical religious bunch.

 

Even if you are mired in your belief that this is "an abomination", you surely can open your eyes enough to see that it does NOTHING TO YOU WHATSOEVER if the equality we supposedly ALL strive for in this country is finally given.

 

Finally, if this is "against the laws of nature" then why is it prevalent in all of the animal kingdom? Where do these instincts come from if not nature? Pathetic.

 

 

@ LisnPuppy and Ethre - Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.

@ Dark0ne - I'm surprised at you. How can you be so close-minded already at your age, especially when you're connected to people and views from all over the world? Do you think Blacks would have accepted a different word for their marriages?

 

*sigh* I sometimes really despair for humanity.

[Dark0ne]

I think you need to calm down. Discussion here has been mature and englightened thus far, minus perhaps the "abomination" remark that can be overlooked as just sensationalist on Stephanie's part. You are in the realm of personal insults, and also managed some irony that was not wasted on me with your remarks on gay couples getting married being 99.9% more helpful than heterosexuals ;)

 

Take a breather and come back when you've calmed down.

[Michlo]

I think you need to calm down. Discussion here has been mature and englightened thus far, minus perhaps the "abomination" remark that can be overlooked as just sensationalist on Stephanie's part. You are in the realm of personal insults, and also managed some irony that was not wasted on me with your remarks on gay couples getting married being 99.9% more helpful than heterosexuals ;)

 

Take a breather and come back when you've calmed down.

 

Put yourself in my shoes, Robin, then talk about calming down.

 

I'm a paying Customer of this site and I have not broken the rules, all whilst being incredibly insulted myself.