As a gay man I supported prop 8. I grew up in a traditional household and cherished my childhood. Simply because I want a special right does not mean that I am willing to destroy the ideal to get it.
I am not willing to undermine our form of government because I want something...what happens when someone wants something that I disagree with and uses the same rationale?
I will have no recourse.
This is an issue of respecting the will of the voters and the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Nice try, but I am not ashamed nor regretful that I voted in favor of Prop. 8. It WOULD be a good thing if divorce were outlawed, but a better thing if every person realized what a commitment marriage is and saved divorce for only the most extreme circumstances.
The anti-Prop. 8 people stuck a fork in their own arguments! |
|
makes society stronger. It shouldn't be entered into as lightly--or ended as easily--as it is among, say, the Hollywood hoi polloi; not coincidently among the strongest proponents of same-sex marraige.
I'd just like to know why I'm a "bigot" because I DON'T want to change the definition of something that's stood since the dawn of civilized society.
Or that I want to "destroy the human right" that never existed...until ONE person (the CA Supreme Court decision was 4-3, remember) decided to overrule an issue already overwhelmingly decided by more than four and a half million California voters.
All Prop 8 did was reinforce the will of the electorate by saying, "we want to keep the same definition of marraige as has existed for centuries: 'Marraige shall be between one man and one woman'"
By the way, every time a similar issue has been on state ballots in elections, it has won.
Every. Single. Time. |
|
|
I truly wish I could sign this petition. |
|
|
If you think people have only been marrying the person of their choice since 1908. So all marriages before then were arranged? I don't think so. |
|
|
How does the Mormon Church retain its tax exempt status after this? |
|
|
|
That's the way it has been, that's the way it will be.
Moral Equivalence is NOT going to happen. The lifestyle is a choice. I've read the gay literature that suggests it's genetic, only one study made such a claim and it's been debunked.
All you need to live your life's "CHOICE" is available. Marriage is NOT. |
|
|
Thank you for being honest and rational. |
|
|
can be right on occasion. nice idea, perverts. can you get a similar petition going in arkansas? it would be nice to give up the bigot status imposed on me by our beloved media by for once being able to agree with politically correct perverts. |
|
you seem to be the one that is the hater. Your venom is evident with all of your posts. You clearly do not understand the legal, moral and societal issues surrounding why people are against legalizing gay marriage. It is not just a "religious thing". Go read some of Dennis Prager's articles on the topic and then come back when you can discuss the issue rationally and with a tad bit of grace and humanity.
Have a blessed day : ) |
|
How does it affect the rest of us? If two people of the same gender get married, how does that affect me? I haven't noticed any change in my marriage since same-sex marriages have been occurring.
|
|
Wesman, you and the gays I actually know are the reason I do not (as the activists yell) hate gays. I support "Gay Rights" because I support everyone's civil rights and the laws are on the books to protect those rights. Neither I nor the law recognize marriage as a right. Civil unions are fine by me.
On the other hand, I do not support and I don't like the "Gay Activists." But I promise, I will never judge all gays based on what I see as extremism and offensive behavior by some. |
|
Rampant divorce is a plague on our society, and in fact, divorce was relatively rare in America until the middle of the 20th century, when it spiked in response to some newly popular ideas about women's rights, birth control, abortion, and other related concepts.
In fact, divorce was so frowned upon in some European countries in the 18th-19th centuries that people who git divorced often suffered from serous social stigma. Read some period novels by some of the great writers if you want to know more about this.
I think divorce should not be undertaken during child rearing years without severe provocation, such as wife-beating or sexual danger to the children. I say this as a person who has suffered for decades from having an emotionally cold husband who happens to be a warm and fine father as well. This is an extremely painful way to live, but I cannot see any other path that would not be more harmful to my children than it is to me. |
|
Let's not forget the sexual revolution of the 60s - you don't have to be married to have sex. The core value accepted by so many is "do what makes you feel good." Lots of kids born outside of marriage; lots of marriages destroyed by adultery.
And it does hurt people - even if you have no religious perspective. USA Today reports that in the 2000 census, about 1/3 of single moms live below the poverty line. Guess their kids do, too.
This is the power of an idea that lessens the importance of marriage in comparison with what makes you feel good.
Gay marriage takes this to a whole new level. Not only is marriage suffering in society, but what's left of it should be redefined to be so broad that it no longer means what's best for children?
Somebody above mentioned the arranged marriages throughout history. A different way to see that is societies didn't look at marriage as a thing to make you feel good for the moment. Being in love was way, way, way less important than providing a man and a woman as the structure for raising children. |
|
Given that gays already had all the rights of marriage without being able to call it that - what is the right to be gained by winning that word? Nobody's clamoring to call gay relationships "heterosexual" in order to prevent discrimination. There is a difference and it's called something different. So why the battle to get the word "marriage?"
Seems to me it's to gain a new right not held by anyone in this country - the right not to be disapproved of by anyone.
But in America we sacrifice the protection of any one person or group in that department so that we can talk about how wrong the president is, how wrong the Christians are, how much the Republicans are messing up the country - without legal repercussions. It's what makes America great. |
|
|
By the way, Eve, your post broke my heart. I prayed for your marriage this morning. |
|
|
Just some thoughts. If homosexuals don't care what society thinks about their sexuality, why then does it matter that society sees you as married instead of a civil union? You say you don't want to use words or be generalized..why do you seak approval from outsiders/close ones to say you're married to prove that you love your partner? You have all the rights of a married couple... |
|
Thanks for posting. Wish his civility were contagious on both sides of this issue.
I'm a strong advocate for the civil rights of all Americans.
However, changing the definition of marriage from one man and one women to any other adult sexual combination is a misuse of the term marriage and plays havoc with the core unit of all cultures.
A traditional marriage gives us a family-- with a father and a mother as the adult leaders who have the legal and moral responsibilities to create, raise and nuture their children, adopted and natural.
Same sex unions are not new but they have never been confused as the core unit of society, a traditional family.
I think it is good that same sex unions are given legal rights and protections under the same Constitution that protects those who feverently believe that marriages are ordained of God from the beginning, Adam and Eve. And I think it is good that the country is having this discussion to make sure that all civil rights are respected.
As an LDS person I find it sad that LDS temples and chapels are being vandalized and person's who backed Prop. 8 are being harassed, even threatened.
For the record LDS people support the fine arts world and are comfortable with other artists who are gay, admiring their considerable talents and abilities.
There is no need to drive a wedge between straight LDS people and gay communities.
Some year's ago I voted in favor of a California law to make sure there was no discrimination in housing purchases, a law which was worded to protect gay rights.
This personal example is to suggest that LDS people such as myself will always be concerned about the legal rights of all citizens. I doubt a real case could be made for LDS people being unfair. We tend to be law abiding citizens. It is one of our beliefs. And as individuals we vote and work for the passage of laws we believe are important.
Let the media find a real story to chase. |
|