Proposition 8 (California)

[Tamaki]

Being only 14, I can't vote yet... but I would definitely vote no on 8 if I could.

I'm not a lesbian, but I think gays, lesbians and bisexuals should be able to get married if they want. Why shouldn't they be able to? Marriage has to do with love, not gender.

I live in California, and almost every morning on my way to school I hear radio commercials telling people to vote yes on 8, so that we can "protect traditional marriage." Excuse me, but wtf? We're not forcing straight people to get into a gay relationship, and we're not taking away heterosexual marriage. Just because you think it's wrong, why should other people should have to suffer?

And, to all of you who think gay marriage/love is "morally wrong..." there are a lot of people here who are gay and would take a lot of offense to your posts. Some of my best friends are gay, and I don't think they'd be very happy reading this thread. And, the Bible was meant to be didactic, not literal. You guys don't need to take everything in it so seriously.

Besides, aren't we all God's children? :] Or does that only apply to straight people?

 

[txteclipse]

And, the Bible was meant to be didactic, not literal. You guys don't need to take everything in it so seriously.

The Bible is very clear, in a very literal and non-strictly-didactic way, that practicing homosexuality is a sin.

Marriage has to do with love, not gender.

It has to do with both. You don't have to be the opposite gender to someone in order to love them, but you don't have to be in a sexual relationship with someone to love them either. Marriage is for opposite-sex couples to have a loving and sexual relationship the way God intended.

And, to all of you who think gay marriage/love is "morally wrong..." there are a lot of people here who are gay and would take a lot of offense to your posts.

I can't see how someone could be offended by a discussion that has thus far not erupted into anything resembling a flame war or name-calling fest. This is a fairly mature debate.

Besides, aren't we all God's children? :] Or does that only apply to straight people?

We are, but this doesn't mean we try to justify wrong. You can't simply sin with the mindset that God is going to cover for you. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Netto Azure]

Short and Sweet!

I understand the Yes argument, but I must say NO on California Proposition 8. Once we the government is given the authority to infringe ones civil rights, I'm afraid where will we stop? I'll add more reason's but I have no time.... D=

 

[Yamikarasu]

On top of this, being gay is a choice. You decide what your sexual orientation is. You decide what impulses to act on. It is your responsibility. Saying otherwise is a cop-out. It would be like my shoplifter example saying they have to steal because they were born that way.

If being gay was genetic, it would have been bred out of the human race by the first few generations. Gay = no children, except in rare instances. In fact, it is such a direct reproductive deterrent that it would be foolish to say it could last this long.

Being gay is not genetic, you are right, it is hormonal. Being gay cannot be passed down from parent to child. A gay male would simply have had a higher dose of female hormones in the womb, and vice versa for a gay female. There are many different theories for how this occurs. Here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe concerning this topic.

If gay was a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? If it goes against our brains and our bodies, like you claim, why would they? Why would they choose to belong to a group that is so discriminated against by people such as yourself?

And I find it interesting you seem to be saying that "the majority gets what the majority wants," and this is true in the sort of system we have now, but does that make it right? If the majority didn't want to allow interracial marriages, would they be right in banning them? Do you think the minority does not deserve to have their rights protected if the majority feels otherwise?

 

[Tamaki]

We are, but this doesn't mean we try to justify wrong. You can't simply sin with the mindset that God is going to cover for you. It doesn't work that way.

I know. I don't think you can, say, murder someone and get away with it, or steal from someone and get away with it. Yes, murder and theif are sins. Homosexuality? Just because a book written by men who claim to have spoken with God say it's wrong doesn't mean it is a sin.

If you don't like gays, okay. I think it's very discriminatory, but it's your belief. But just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean they should have to adhere to your beliefs.

That is all I am trying to say.

 

[professor plum]

On top of this, being gay is a choice. You decide what your sexual orientation is. You decide what impulses to act on. It is your responsibility. Saying otherwise is a cop-out. It would be like my shoplifter example saying they have to steal because they were born that way.

Really? It is a choice?
Mind if I ask how you know this?

Find a sound-of-mind homosexual who claims it was a choice, then.

You're stretching your analogies, AGAIN.
A person IS born gay or straight or another variation - whether or not they realize it/come to terms with it is a whole different story.

If gay marriage stays legal, gay couples would absorb some of the funds that should be going to conventional couples.

What does that matter?

They invented condoms because people have so little control over their sexual desires that they needed a way to stop us from having so many babies. That and it's a good business venture: lots of money is made through sales of birth control.

Anyways, people have sex to a) have babies, b) feel good, and/or c) to express love.

However, condoms are also used to try to help prevent other things, such as the spreading of a few diseases.
Plus doesn't the Bible say something about only having sex to reproduce? D:

 

[Shiny]

The Bible is very clear, in a very literal and non-strictly-didactic way, that practicing homosexuality is a sin.

You make homosexuality sound so cold

 

[AssonantalZ]

I find it funny how in modern times, people are quick to judge the ethics of same-sex marriage, yet no one addresses any of the other marital issues that might be seen as unholy in the eyes of the Christian Bible. For example...polygamy. I think even txteclipse would agree with me that polygamy, for one, violates the sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. On top of that, polygamy acts as a far superior carrier of STI's than homosexuality with frequent and diverse partners. Let alone the implications of our tax dollars.

Secondly, interreligious couples. Jewish people marrying Christians. Christians marrying Muslims, etc. How does that fit into the sacred plan of the Bible? To marry one with religious viewpoints differing from your own? The Christians have a long history of being religiously intolerant of other people... The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. Even modern times where it could be speculated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are President Bush's ways of lashing out on the Islamic people. Yet, on a daily basis, men and women of differing religions unite under some god anyway.

Finally, the actual sanctity of modern-day marriage. Same-sex couples would not be violating anything that straight couples have not already made infamous throughout the course of history. Marriages under a justice of the peace, for example. Is there really anything holy about getting married before a presiding judge? Or eloping. I think I can safely say there is nothing sacred to the context of an eloping couple. To say that same-sex marriage would be violating the sacred words of the Bible seems a bit hypocritical when more and more non-worshippers marry under local officials each year. If we are going to be so critical of people who undermine the ideals of the Bible, then we should be sure to be critical of ALL people if we are going to make the Bible our basis for state law. And I am certainly not condoning that.

I personally have nothing against gay marriage. I feel the intimate love between two human beings in itself is sacred and should not be something that is censored "for the sake of our youth." It is no different in terms of a child's upbringing than raising a Caucasian child with a group of a different cultural background. It is merely a new experience in life that the child is allowed to have in order to identify with him or herself even better. Be it with a different culture, a different religion, or a different sexual orientation.

In the end, I feel it's just a matter of what side you speak for. The legal or the religious. If it's the legal side (which, frankly, has no right delving into religious affairs based on the very foundation of this country's ideals, "separation of church and state") then be sure to include the other issues such as polygamy. If it's for the religious side, then address the other problems as well...justice of the peace, eloping, etc.

 

[Fox♠]

If people feel they should have the right to marry others of the same sex, I'll tolerate it as long as a) this is the majority vote and b) people that perform marriage ceremonies are not forced to perform said ceremonies. This is how democracy functions.

I'm voting yes, anyways. I consider gay marriage to be unethical. On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.

Finally, this thread should be locked. There's no way in heck it's going to stay peaceful for long.

Sorry I didn;t realise it was 1820 still. Speaking of which, don't you have some jewish people to blame for your life problems right about now? Maybe after that we could enslave some Africans and force them to work for us, then possibly bomb London a few times and try and conquer Europe?

You absolute Bigot. Hardly any of your tax goes on married couples anyway, it mostly goes on War, politicians salaries and health care. Grow up.

 

[revelp8]

ok first off, you guys need to simmer down. everyone is getting heated up just because of the stance they have.

Im voting no as far as the thread is concerned.

as far as the myths go about gays and marriage are completely untrue. there is just as much chance of receiving an STD man X woman. its all about being SAFE and using condoms etc. etc.

as far as the gay bars go, that's completely UNCALLED for. im straight, so that must mean i have a horrible time in gay bars. WRONG! but thats just me though correct? if you went in one, and had a horrible time just being in there, that's understandable. to tell you the truth, i've had more fun in gay bars than straight ones. but that has NOTHING to do with gay marriage in the first place, so why does that even come up in debate? i sense a little hatred...

[sarcasm]when two people love each other, is that NOT sacred? oh, i forgot to put which gender in there. sorry [/sarcasm]

Times are changing regardless people. firstly, it was interracials who couldn't get married back then. now its the same gender. whats next? are we, as a society going to stop each other from our own rights?

 

[DarkPrince_]

Well everyone should have their own rights no matter what and I am not a gay.

 

[Fox♠]

I think that gay marriage is wrong. That was my point. Note the bit about shoplifting if those examples aren't cutting it for you.

And it may, in fact probably will, be harmful to allow gay marriage, at least in my eyes. I do not want my children brought up in schools where teachers can take them on field trips to lesbian weddings, or to let teachers be able to teach them in sex ed that being gay is okay. For me, that would be like allowing teachers to tell kids to shoplift. It is morally unacceptable.



It is a holy union between a man and a woman, no matter how that definition has been twisted thus far.



Why did you link to my visitor page?

Anyways, I am a Christian, and I am sure that you are well aware that my religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. This is really all the explanation I need, but it's not all you'll get, as I have others.

First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.

Are you actually mentally inept? A STI doesn't pick and choose it's victims based on sexual orientation.

You do realise 56% of aids suffers are heterosexual don't you?

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

Sorry I didn;t realise it was 1820 still. Speaking of which, don't you have some jewish people to blame for your life problems right about now? Maybe after that we could enslave some Africans and force them to work for us, then possibly bomb London a few times and try and conquer Europe?

Sorry, I just found that hilarious, though I agree with you completely.

I just want to say - If two people are in love and want to marry, why should anyone have the right to stop them? Don't try and use the shoplifter comparison, because these two people getting married is not going to directly affect anyone else is it? If this is a crime (which I don't think it is), its a victimless crime, so really, what's the problem?

Just my two cents, though it doesn't really matter what I think, seeing as I'm 14 and in the UK :D

 

[Fox♠]

That's the thing though. It's the typical bigot argument to compare anything they disagree with to crimes.

Thank goodness not all Christians take his dated and quite frankly disgusting stance.

 

[Venia Silente]

Hey people, calm down!

What happened here? I read Neko Hima's post last time, and two hours later they are already calling each other names and "stupid" or "inept". Didn't txteclipse said a couple of hours ago we were not going into flame wars?

OK, so coming on topic, here's my opinion.

If I had the ability to vote, which I don't, I would vote Yes on P-8. Not because I have something against gays (I don't; I just happen to not have met enough of them yet) but rather because as with all legalese, when rushed by irrational religious fears, they tend to come up very, very, very wrong, and cause more harm than good. If we hold on gay marriage for a while until we (not we, but our legislators) can understand the consequences and can decide what are we really abiding by, then by all means, yes to gay marriage. But until that happens, it's better to study the complex reactions such a dictinary combinatin will have in society. After all, law exists not to prevent new situations, but to regulate their behavious and effects once they become common enough.

If we say No to P-8 now, and five years later things happen to go very, very, very, very wrong again, it will be too late, the genie will be already out of the bottle, as there will be married gay couples. We may know better, but our legislator don't, they are not intelligent enough, so we have to wait for them to figure things out. It is unfortunate, but those are the consequences when mankind as a whole forsakes millenia of gained knowledge that come in the form of common sense and rely instead on a bunch of rules written only to temporarily accomodate those who wrote them to the eyes of the populace: law (mostly law), religion, science, the list goes on.

 

[Fox♠]

Didn't txteclipse said a couple of hours ago we were not going into flame wars?

He also said that being gay is a crime in the league of shop lifting to rape, that homosexuals are sinners, and therefore will end up in 'hell', he has being incredibly crude, shallow, narrow minded and insensitive. He called in the storm, now he's got the thunder.

 

[txteclipse]

Really? It is a choice?
Mind if I ask how you know this?

Perhaps because I've had run-ins with sexual confusion myself? I'm not a parrot spewing what other people tell me, thank you. I have first hand experience with this type of thing.

You know how you become sexually confused? It takes a while. A long while. It usually begins with some type of experience with whatever strain of confusion you are experiencing. Then, over time, you slowly begin building a sexual thought life around this confusion, which leads to actions. In other words, you have sexual thoughts that you normally wouldn't have because that initial experience has tweaked your mind to think that way. This builds until you delude yourself into thinking that what you're experiencing is "normal."

Plus doesn't the Bible say something about only having sex to reproduce?

Not that I'm aware of. It says that you should only have sex when you're married, but it says nothing about only having sex to have children.

Sorry I didn;t realise it was 1820 still. Speaking of which, don't you have some jewish people to blame for your life problems right about now? Maybe after that we could enslave some Africans and force them to work for us, then possibly bomb London a few times and try and conquer Europe?

Capitalize "Jewish." Anyways, why would I blame Jews for anything? And why would I enslave Africans or bomb London? There's no Biblical basis for these things, and they're wrong. Sounds like you're the bigot for assuming I would do that.

when two people love each other, is that NOT sacred? oh, i forgot to put which gender in there. sorry

I agree with you 100% that love is sacred, and that anyone can love anyone else. This kind of love is what we call "unconditional" love, and is completely unrelated to sexuality.

Are you actually mentally inept? A STI doesn't pick and choose it's victims based on sexual orientation.

I don't recall saying this anywhere. Re-read that bit you quoted, please.

You do realise 56% of aids suffers are heterosexual don't you?

Yes. I basically said that a bit earlier, actually.

He also said that being gay is a crime in the league of shop lifting to rape, that homosexuals are sinners, and therefore will end up in 'hell'

Never, ever, make things up. I did not say once that gay people will automatically end up in hell for sinning. If that were true, everyone would be going to hell, because everyone has sinned.

 

[luke]

k

This thread has run its course. Hot topics like this cannot survive on a forum like this for two long with some many varying opinions. Nobody will concede to the other and eventually this will devolve into a flame war. So, as a precautionary move, this thread is:

*closed*