Proposition 8

[Rissask]

So explain to me, Americans, how a supposedly liberal state like California can pass a ban on gay marriage? At the same time a new Democrat President is voted in, even more puzzling?

What the heck happened here? Some have called this issue the most crucial civil rights issue of our time.

Why make moves towards equal rights for same sex couples and then snatch them away? What gives?

[Dan-0]

I think a lot of people may be politically liberal but still somewhat socially conservative, like me. It's a political struggle, it's back and forth, who knows why it passed this time? I'm for civil unions, and against discrimination against gays, but I strongly oppose gay "marriage" because it will put gay couples on equal footing with traditional couples in terms of adopting children. I also strongly disagree with those who want to equate this issue with the Civil Rights struggle and I find doing so somewhat offensive to racial minorities who actually. Don't you allow gay marriage in Canada? I guess you can expect a mass migration of gays any day, eh?

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Dan-0

I think a lot of people may be politically liberal but still somewhat socially conservative, like me. It's a political struggle, it's back and forth, who knows why it passed this time? I'm for civil unions, and against discrimination against gays, but I strongly oppose gay "marriage" because it will put gay couples on equal footing with traditional couples in terms of adopting children. I also strongly disagree with those who want to equate this issue with the Civil Rights struggle and I find doing so somewhat offensive to racial minorities who actually. Don't you allow gay marriage in Canada? I guess you can expect a mass migration of gays any day, eh?

I don't believe I capitalized C and R....not that it should make a difference.

Let's try not to muddy the issue here and maybe let's review:

Civil rights:

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

No mention of race anywhere in there.

So-it's the word marriage you object to? I can never 'get' this- why??

And heaven forbid they adopt a child? Why? Is a child better off with no parents rather than gay ones?

[james]

I don't get it either.

I only care about my own marriage. For everybody else, whatever gets you through the night is alright.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by james

I don't get it either.

I only care about my own marriage. For everybody else, whatever gets you through the night is alright.

It just always strikes me as a crappy and lame excuse to be discriminatory.

My husband and I don't have kids, we never will, unless we wanted to and then we would need medical intervention or have to adopt (just as if we were both girls or both boys, say ).

We were married by a Justice of the Peace in a hotel ballroom and not a church. Our marriage was not 'blessed by god'.
And so what, I ask? We call it a marriage, it is legally called a marriage ...it is not negatively impacting anyone else's 'marriage'.

It's the exact same situation with a union between homosexuals.

The indignation stinks.

[PlayaGroom]

Originally Posted by Rissask

So-it's the word marriage you object to? I can never 'get' this- why??

And heaven forbid they adopt a child? Why? Is a child better off with no parents rather than gay ones?

I mentioned in the "Facebook" thread yesterday that I was following a close friend of mine while he "debated" on his facebook status with someone over the civil rights/gay marriage topic. My friend ran for the State house of reps in Minnesota on Tuesday, and is GLBT, and obviously has very strong beliefs in this department (he only got 4% of the vote).

The guy with which he was debating brought up a very provocative point (although, one that I don't agree with), in that GLBT have the same marriage rights as non-GLBT people: a gay male is allowed to marry a female just like a straight male can; and a straight male is not allowed to marry another male, just like a gay male.

This logic is very flawed, IMO, but it actually made me think about it for a second.

I'm very confused about what happened with this prop though, especially in CA...

[CalifGuy]

More important propositions, R and K also failed in SF

[Mogley]

Originally Posted by Rissask

It just always strikes me as a crappy and lame excuse to be discriminatory.

My husband and I don't have kids, we never will, unless we wanted to and then we would need medical intervention or have to adopt (just as if we were both girls or both boys, say ).

We were married by a Justice of the Peace in a hotel ballroom and not a church. Our marriage was not 'blessed by god'.
And so what, I ask? We call it a marriage, it is legally called a marriage ...it is not negatively impacting anyone else's 'marriage'.

It's the exact same situation with a union between homosexuals.

The indignation stinks.

I agree 100% and I have no idea why of all the places on earth this would happen in California.

It is a total WTF moment

[Rissask]

The guy with which he was debating brought up a very provocative point (although, one that I don't agree with), in that GLBT have the same marriage rights as non-GLBT people: a gay male is allowed to marry a female just like a straight male can; and a straight male is not allowed to marry another male, just like a gay male.

That is very flawed logic. Just wordplay.

The whole point is that in a free country we should have freedom to CHOOSE who we want to marry. Arranged marriages are a hallmark of societies with restrictive rights, usually women's. Like the fundamentalist Mormon men who marry 14 year old girls.


A gay man or woman should be able to marry who he or she loves and want to spend the rest of their lives together- JUST LIKE THE REST OF US CAN. Right?


Since Dan already brought it up.... to me,it just smacks of 'oh, okay, you can RIDE on the bus, just sit at the back'....or 'oh, okay, you can DRINK at a water fountain, but only those specially labelled for your kind.' 'You can have a ceremony, but it won't be called the same as the rest of the citizens.'

Oh and Dan, sure, send them all up, we welcome all people, gay or straight.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by CalifGuy

More important propositions, R and K also failed in SF

And they are?

[Dan-0]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I don't believe I capitalized C and R....not that it should make a difference.

Let's try not to muddy the issue here and maybe let's review:





No mention of race anywhere in there.

So-it's the word marriage you object to? I can never 'get' this- why??

And heaven forbid they adopt a child? Why? Is a child better off with no parents rather than gay ones?

I didn't say I disagreed with you equating gay marriage, not that you do, with the Civil Rights struggle, I said I disagree with those who do- and there many in the U.S. who have done so for years. The term "civil rights", regardless of its textbook definition, conjures up images of the Civil Rights movement, which I'm very familiar with because I'm from the Deep South. There's no mention in your definition of race, but there's also no mention of marrying someone of your own sex, or marriage in general, as being a "civil right".

Who's muddying the issue? Not me. I object to calling a civil union between homosexuals "marriage" in the same way I object to calling the sun the moon or the earth the sky- it is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. Calling a civil union "marriage" is really what's muddying the issue. As far as children and gay parents, I believe a child is better off with gay parents than no parents at all, or good parents regardless of sexual orientation, but, as a general rule, I believe heterosexual couples should receive priority when it comes to adoption.

With young people, we're now seeing the fruits of the social permissiveness of the last few decades. With teenagers, being gay has evolved from being a lifestyle that's tolerated to one that is considered as normal as heterosexuality. So, it's now the "in" thing for teenagers to come out as gay or, more commonly, bisexual. Henry Miller said "the taste for the abnormal kills the taste for the normal". And now we want the state to condone it by recognizing gay marriage? No, I disagree.

[CalifGuy]

K: to rename Oceanside Water and Pollution Control Plant "the George W Bush Sewage Treatment Plant"

R: Legalize Prostitution

Just curious, how many countries in this world allow legal marriages between gay individuals. I bet it's a short list.

BTW I voted no on 8.

[roni]

I think it is a darn shame that 8 passed.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Dan-0

I didn't say I disagreed with you equating gay marriage, not that you do, with the Civil Rights struggle, I said I disagree with those who do- and there many in the U.S. who have done so for years. The term "civil rights", regardless of its textbook definition, conjures up images of the Civil Rights movement, which I'm very familiar with because I'm from the Deep South. There's no mention in your definition of race, but there's also no mention of marrying someone of your own sex, or marriage in general, as being a "civil right".

Who's muddying the issue? Not me. I object to calling a civil union between homosexuals "marriage" in the same way I object to calling the sun the moon or the earth the sky- it is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. Calling a civil union "marriage" is really what's muddying the issue. As far as children and gay parents, I believe a child is better off with gay parents than no parents at all, or good parents regardless of sexual orientation, but, as a general rule, I believe heterosexual couples should receive priority when it comes to adoption.

With young people, we're now seeing the fruits of the social permissiveness of the last few decades. With teenagers, being gay has evolved from being a lifestyle that's tolerated to one that is considered as normal as heterosexuality. So, it's now the "in" thing for teenagers to come out as gay or, more commonly, bisexual. Henry Miller said "the taste for the abnormal kills the taste for the normal". And now we want the state to condone it by recognizing gay marriage? No, I disagree.

I think it was muddying the issue to bring up race right away, that wasn't remotely what the topic was. You may associate the term with that, but that is your problem. All people have civil rights; I was clearly not referring to what is known as the 'Civil Rights Movement' but the arena of gay rights.


anyway...


I also don't buy into the 'we're going to hell in a handbasket' theory, I guess. Crimes of all types including homicide have been falling for years in both our countries. Literacy is up and poverty rates are down. The average life expectancy is getting higher all the time. Teenagers are the same basically today as they were in the 50s.


And I don't see a big problem where I live with people who are not gay pretending to be to get attention or anything.


So I don't see a problem with people who really ARE gay being comfortable enough to come out younger than before. How many people do you know who didn't come out until much older because of society's negative attitude towards it- many lives are ruined by that, you know. I think it is preferable for people to be themselves when they KNOW themselves instead of lying and hiding.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by CalifGuy

K: to rename Oceanside Water and Pollution Control Plant "the George W Bush Sewage Treatment Plant"

R: Legalize Prostitution

Just curious, how many countries in this world allow legal marriages between gay individuals. I bet it's a short list.

BTW I voted no on 8.

Take a good hard look at all of the countries who DO recognize them.....


and then take a good hard look at ALL of the ones who don't.


Which group do you want to be with?


edit: and good for you!