Damnit to hell, where are the people supporting Prop 8 on this board? I've become so frustrated with it that I came to this thread looking for someone to argue with, and what do I see? We all agree that it was a terrible decision.

So in the interests of discussion, I'm going to start.

This is REDEFINING WHAT MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS MEANT! How can we erode the foundation of our country just so some sexual deviants can marry? What's next? We allow bestiality and incest? We can't afford to erode the clear foundation of this country. Am I right or what?

Prop 8 in a nutshell: Hey, gays! So, here's the thing....we need you to pay your taxes and abide by the law and all that stuff, right, but...well....you're sorta loving the wrong people, know what I mean? So I'm afraid that we're not going to let you get married anymore. Sorry, thought you understood. Love always, 52% of California

smooth, thanks for clearing that up!

I always interpreted it as more like this:
"Just fyi, there's a verse in Dueteronomy sandwiched in between a ban on shellfish and a ban on bastards in church that says you're love is an abomination. What we're going to do is enjoy eating shellfish and allow people without fathers to attend church, but when it comes to your love, we're going to hate you with the fire of a thousand suns. You're lucky we can't vote to kill you!" Inconsistent literalism is quite frankly everything that's wrong with religious people.

Edit: to clarify that last sentence, those religious people that are flexible and filter the Bible through common ethics and morality are awesome and I have no problem with them. I'll even offer them the last slice of pizza.

What's so bad about guy on guy, or girl on girl love?
What's the objection?

A few words in an old book that a whole lot of people believe contains the words of an invisible man in the sky who has chosen them as his people, which makes them better than us.

edit: and for some reason don't have to pay taxes when they preach out of that book

More like, "Hey, gay people--you can have all of the rights and responsibilities of married people, but you can't call it marriage, because it isn't. Call it something else, and everything is fine."

Gays: "If I can't have things exactly my way, I'm going to scream and cry and disrupt traffic, and otherwise act like infants. And I can't figure out why you don't like me!"

there are federal rights and responsibilities that state-sanctioned civil unions don't provide. Other states aren't required to honor civil unions as they used to have to honor marriages, too. They aren't literally the same, even in the best of interpretations, so that's not a fair paraphrase, Necrosis.

smooth has it right.

With marriage comes rights that are otherwise denied...so NO, calling it something else does not "guarantee all the rights and responsibilities of married people."

no, not even close. and the assholes who don't want gay marriage come across as the crybabies to me

in the interest of conversation and actual debate, I'm going to quote and further argue this point. As the devil's advocate I too support proposition 8, not only because gay marriage encourages deviant behavior, but also because it encourages sexually deviant people to raise children who no doubt will become as sexually off-course as their parents. Furthermore, the sexual promiscuity rampant in the gay (and) sexually deviant community is what led the outbreak of AIDS in the first place. Marriage is an institution for the morally righteous, God-fearing Christian Americans - and no one else.

Second: civil unions have all the same rights as marriages. Therefore it is childish for a gay (deviant) couple to want to say that they are "married" when being in a civil union is the exact same thing. They are confusing religion with politics. Marriage is a religious rite and the joining of two happy christian adults - one male, and one female. A civil union is a legally-binding union between two (deviant) people and affords them the same rights, so they have no ground to stand on and no merit-worthy complaints.


Ok, go.

I may be using an outdated source, but having gay parents does not guarantee the children will grow up with the same "sexual deviation." Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

I'm also going to need someone to clarify this for me, but I don't think civil unions grant the same rights as marriage. I was told it mostly applied to state laws but not federal, especially regarding taxes, social security and insurance benefits. What happens if you find a job in another state that doesn't grant the same rights?

Last and fairly off-topic: I always think about the horror stories about people marrying for money, leaving the spouse and taking half of everything they own. Or loveless couples who stay together because they don't believe in divorce. Doesn't this do more harm for the righteousness of marriage than having same sex couples marry? Shouldn't more attention be spent on fixing opposite sex marriages?

Sounds good, lets here a good argument for Prop 8.
Ok I get it. Gays are evil, evil people raise evil children. While were at it we need to make sure to take children away from murders, adulterers, slanders, gossips, liars, cheaters, thieves, people who don't honor their parents, jealous people, people who misuse the lords name.. . and i'm sure there are a few people. After all these people are evil to according to the bible for the children of course...

Yes what a terrible gay disease AIDS is. God sent the virus to get them because of their deviant ways.

Good thing all of us married folk fit this bill exactly.

Yes this country has proven time and time again how good we are at having two separate systems that are entirely equal. I mean look at how good black schools were in the south. To bad the rest of the country doesn't understand how good separate but equal is. I mean if we were to give gays their own water fountains then we wouldn't have to worry about catching any gay diseases...




ps. I could not tell if the post I responded to was real or a snark so I assumed real. Mine is of course a snark.

Sorry to come to this late, but I personally find it astonishing that a single state is allowed to pass such laws which effect the human rights of those who live there. Surely the law is a matter for the nation state, not local government?

The US has two different sets of laws, one of the nation (US constitution and all of its enumerated powers) and one of the states (State constitutions and all of its enumerated powers).

For over 150 years, we've been fighting over which ones are supposed to be supreme.

Prop 8 wasn't an amendment to either the federal or a state constitution. It's an attack using the weapon of semantics. Prop 8 redefined California legal language.

I find it astonishing, too. Maybe there's room in the UK for one more old Labourer.

For the life of me, I cant understand why anyone who isnt gay would object to gay people getting married. I cant tell how it effects them or what right they have to decide anything about it. There isnt even a religious argument, because this isnt about religious ceremony, its about legal recognition of people's right to choose another sane and consenting adult as a life partner and for this to be treated with legal dignity.

I wouldnt oppose any church applying any arbitrary restrictions it chooses - thats a moral question.

Denying one group of people something that is considered a basic human right on the basis of their sexual inclination is a legal question, and I cannot imagine how it is legal under the US constitution.

In my opinion the rule of law must be enforced on California and any other rebel state which wishes to act unilaterally in this manner.

What do you mean it wasn't an amendment to the State Constitution? I thought that's exactly what Prop 8 was?

Either way, for the moment gay rights and marriage fall squarely within the realm of state rights and action. The other suspect classes have been incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause in the federal constitution. When it's come up to SCOTUS, they've deftly avoided adding sexuality to the federal standard of protected class (for any number of reasons). As the federal constitution does not have any language referring to marriage or to sexuality, it falls within the 10th Amendment and is therefore reserved for the states.

Much of the impact of Prop 8 could be negated if Congress repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in that any federal rights (more than 1,000 specific rights) guaranteed to married couples would be extended to civil unions.

Obama supports its repeal, but it would be a bold step for many Democrats from swing districts.

However "separate but (almost) equal" is only a short-term remedy, at best.

Mmm, yes, there is that little pesky detail, true. I meant more that the definition of marriage as being anything specific is still within the realm of the states, not that the feds don't have any legislation on it.

Also, separate is never equal, see Brown etc.

I should be more clear. Prop 8 adds a sentence to Article 1 of the California Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Sec. 7.5). It changes the legal definition of "marriage".

If gay marriage is allowed, what's going to stop bigamy or incestual marriage from being on the next ballot? Bigamy or incestual marriage seems to be the next logical step in this progression. Is bigamy or incestual marriage a bad thing? If not, the next logical step would probably be marriage to an animal or a child. Is that a bad thing? You have to put a limit on marriage somewhere, and I think it's just fine where it is - the same institution that's lasted for a long time.

Setting aside the "slippery slope" issue...

If consenting adults of sound mind (notice that this is very different from what we see with Warren Jeffs, et al) want to participate in polygamous relationships, then who are we to deny them that right? We can debate about whether children should be brought up in such environments - I have my own opinion, but I do recognize it as a worthwhile debate - but I fail to understand why anyone should have a problem with what consenting adults of sound mind do to or with other such adults.

Yes, letting Adam and Steve marry will lead to the legalization of bestiality and child molestation. What an asinine argument.

As far as polygamy goes I could care less. I had one wife for 25+ years I wouldn't want more then one at a time. But there's a lot of religions and cultures around the world that widely accept polygamy. Heck, in Iraq the guy we supported for President has three wives. For you Christians out there using the Bible to prop up your contention and unbending disapproval of gays go check out what Deuteronomy says about having more then one wife. I'm not even sure the New Testament makes any statements about forbidding polygamy. In fact I think if you read through Matthew you'll find Jesus taking about multiple spouses without disapproval.

As for...

Lots of institutions lasted for a long time, didn't make them right. Slavery comes to mind. Another issue I believe you'll find addressed in the Bible.

Following your "logical" progression.....we should probably begin at a higher starting point with constitutional amendments to prohibit adultery and divorce, since the "logical" next downward spiraling step of those sinful and immoral acts is entering into a gay relationship.

This same apples to oranges comparison is constantly used here in Utah. Children and animals CAN NOT GIVE CONSENT to sexual activities or marriage. Gay adults can. Adults who want more than one spouse or want to share a spouse can. And as squicky as I find it, related people can too.

Heterosexuals are doing enough to damage the sacred institution of marriage - I don't think we need to worry about how gay people are going to threaten ours.

Do I come off as religious? I'm conservative, sure, but not overly religious. My viewpoints have nothing to do with religion. That's a strange assumption that a lot of liberals make, probably from watching too much TV. I don't assume that all liberals go around handing out other people's money to vagrants and criminals, throw red paint on fur coats, or wish that communists would take over the American government. Your broad brush may be too broad sometimes.

I don't think incest, bigamy, bestiality, or pedophilia should ever be legally recognized as marriage in this country. If gays can marry, why wouldn't these other minority groups try to gain the same thing in the future? I'd love to hear a logical argument that discredits this idea. Incest, bigamy, bestiality, and pedophilia are illegal now, so you would think they could never result in marriage because they are illegal. But homosexual behavior used to be illegal and is still on the books in some places.

I don't care what other countries do with their citizens. I don't live in other countries. Personally I'd love to import some ideas from the Middle East, like cutting off the hand of a thief. The problem is that we in the West have certain values and constituitional rights that don't allow such things.
-----Added 27/11/2008 at 10 : 39 : 14-----
Who says that children and animals can't give consent? What is consent? Who determines what consent is? Are you relying on the opinions of a bunch of senior citizens dressed in black (judges) who hand down these opinions? If that's the case, change the senior citizens and the opinions can change.

Maybe one day some combination of senior citizens will say that children and animals CAN give consent. I mean, there were plenty of guys fucking kids in the ancient world right? This was socially acceptable behavior and those civilizations did OK, so why can't we go back to the good ole days of kid fucking?

Say we do recognize gay marriage. And then people start having sex with rocks? And what if a super race of rock-humans are born and kill all the regular people?

Guys, this is gay marriage thing is a bad idea.

i share your concern about the super-race of rock-people, but was more worried about sex with lunch meats becoming acceptable, and then you'd have lunch-meat people who would be raised in special camps and slaughtered and sliced for food. soylent pink.

put a stop to this now before everything goes haywire.

Why are some people so against officiating the life-long friendship of two people whose only difference from traditional married couples is that they're both of the same sex?

More important, why is this friendship compared to the acts of bigots, pedophiles, and the incestuous? They aren't the same. There are already many healthy homosexual relationships in the world; the same cannot be said, necessarily, about the other things brought up here, especially within the context of the legitimacy of marriage.

Gay marriage is far closer to heterosexual marriage than any of these other things. People need to get their head around that.

Don't worry guys, I have a perfect plan to stop the rock people. Allow people to marry paper bags and produce paper bag offspring since we all know paper beats rock. Problem solved!

Oh I dunno...science?

I'm thinking if you have your pants around your ankles and you hear a chicken squawk "Do me now big boy." You've more problems going on then the fact you're about to screw a chicken.:oogle:

I must be a masochist, because for some reason, I have spent a lot of time debating this issue on more conservative and even religious forums recently. There really is this self supporting propaganda machine when it comes to homosexuals... I guess for the benefit of many of these people who never actually met a real live homosexual.

If you look at conservative/Christian news sources you will find non-stop demonizing articles and stories about misdeeds of homosexuals... especially if the story can in any way conjure up fear regarding what they feel is an ever increasing persecution of their religion/beliefs. Some place, somewhere, a homosexual forgets to say "God bless you" when a Christian sneezes its all over their media. Another place, some place a homosexual says "God bless you" to a child who sneezes and he's a paedophile trying to abduct your kid. Endless supplies of these hit pieces get posted and passed around the conservative/religious media sphere.... over and over. It's all designed to reinforce anti-homosexual feelings while propping up religious beliefs. It's really no wonder they are so afraid.

To many, paedophilia is a severe case of 'homosexuality'. I've talked with many who literally would be afraid to leave their children etc alone with a gay man because of this. You act gay long enough, and you'll become a paedophile... I can't tell you how many times I've run across that myth and they will argue with me till we're both blue in the face. They'll trot out some hit piece article from a bigoted site as proof of their claim and I'll show them dozens of peer reviewed studies about paedophilia and sexual orientation and they still don't believe it..


With all the imagery and protests against the churches after the prop 8 pass, I've seen more end-of-days rapture conversations than I can believe myself. Even I didn't think the absurdity could get as extreme as it did... and its still going on, but at least it seems to have died down a bit. I really don't know how such madness can be defeated.
-----Added 28/11/2008 at 10 : 18 : 37-----
If the only reason, as a society, we can come up with to keep paedophilia and bestiality illegal... is that gays cannot marry.... well, then we are just screwed. That's basically what you are saying here... there are no good reasons against paedophile marriage and animal marriage if we allow homosexuals to marry.

Not really. You comes off more as an extremely ill informed, illogical person. I mean seriously... animals giving consent? To who Dr. Doolittle?

There is nothing wrong with having fantasies about Foghorn Leghorn.

Guess not. But I've always been more of a Jessica Rabbit guy myself.

While I appreciate the comments about being ill informed and illogical, that doesn't really do anything to advance any kind of logical argument about the origins of consent.

You do realize that consent can be non-verbal right? There are people in the world who would argue that an animal CAN give consent by not running away or fighting somebody who is trying to fuck them. I think this argument is absurd, but all it would take is a few of the wrong judges to make up a court (9th Circuit?) and before you know it, people are marching through the streets demanding the legal right to marry Fido.

Look at how homosexuality was looked at a few decades ago. It was looked at as immoral, nasty, and a deviant act, much like pedophilia and bestiality are looked at today. Times change and attitudes change, and not always for the better.

Can a minor child give consent? Legally right now, no. But there are some groups of people in the world that claim that a child can give consent by making a verbal statement. While the current state of the law goes against this view, the law can change.

The marriage between two consenting adults has absolutely nothing in common with pedophilia or bestiality. The argument is merit less.

If a state wants to enact constitutional amendments as a reaffirmation of a ban on pedophilia or bestiality, then they should take that route.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Origins of consent? Umm, either a person gives consent or they don't.

The argument is absurd and anyone claiming an animal can give consent is being absurd. People usually resort to absurd arguments like this when logic and reason fail them. Much like your entire position on this subject.

True and a few decades ago people made the same claims regarding interracial marriage.

Laws do in fact change. Hopefully reason and logic will prevail and people wanting to marry other adults they love will win out over pedophiles wanting to have sex with children.