Say No to Proposition Hate

 

What about the kids? Separate but not equal, right? Yet you want to foster a society that doesn’t place a value on children having a mother AND a father. How is that upholding the ‘separate but not equal’ view? And the common ‘Gay people have been around forever’ well so have people with anger management issues, does that mean we alter foundational units in our society so that people with anger management issues don’t feel any pressure to change, or don’t feel that their unbridled anger is not accepted in our accepting society? Can we have any more logical fallacies from the No side? YES. To say gay marriage is a fundamental right, and then say in the next breath that it will not necessarily be taught in schools is to insult everyone’s intelligence. We’re suppose to believe that it’s to be seen by the law as a fundamental right and that for some reason that ‘fundamental right’ will be kept out of dialog in schools while every other ‘fundamental right’ is the center of our education philosophy? The No on 8 side is trying to reform the fundamentals of society and their doing it under the guise of a false ‘equality.’ They are trying to get people to think that the sexual choices made by adults are more important than society promoting the optimal conditions for children. Gender is not irrelevant. A mother and a father each provide something the other can not. I’m not talking in terms of single acts or single actions, I’m talking about the dynamics manifested over the course of a life time. The genders matter regardless the sexual orientation of a person. Men still generally desire a variety in partners regardless their ‘sexual orientation’ without the balance of the relative general desire for monogamy found in females male couples is just one of many recipes for disaster for children. Don’t buy the garbage about equality, gender matters and we will all be equal respective to our own genders if Prop 8 passes. Marriage is more about the love of children than the love between two people or the ‘rights’ for them to change the definition of the foundational unit of society and culture.

- HiveRadical

Posted 11/02/08 03:26 PM

 

 

What about the kids? Separate but not equal, right? Yet you want to foster a society that doesn’t place a value on children having a mother AND a father. How is that upholding the ‘separate but not equal’ view? And the common ‘Gay people have been around forever’ well so have people with anger management issues, does that mean we alter foundational units in our society so that people with anger management issues don’t feel any pressure to change, or don’t feel that their unbridled anger is not accepted in our accepting society? Can we have any more logical fallacies from the No side? YES. To say gay marriage is a fundamental right, and then say in the next breath that it will not necessarily be taught in schools is to insult everyone’s intelligence. We’re suppose to believe that it’s to be seen by the law as a fundamental right and that for some reason that ‘fundamental right’ will be kept out of dialog in schools while every other ‘fundamental right’ is the center of our education philosophy? The No on 8 side is trying to reform the fundamentals of society and their doing it under the guise of a false ‘equality.’ They are trying to get people to think that the sexual choices made by adults are more important than society promoting the optimal conditions for children. Gender is not irrelevant. A mother and a father each provide something the other can not. I’m not talking in terms of single acts or single actions, I’m talking about the dynamics manifested over the course of a life time. The genders matter regardless the sexual orientation of a person. Men still generally desire a variety in partners regardless their ‘sexual orientation’ without the balance of the relative general desire for monogamy found in females male couples is just one of many recipes for disaster for children. Don’t buy the garbage about equality, gender matters and we will all be equal respective to our own genders if Prop 8 passes. Marriage is more about the love of children than the love between two people or the ‘rights’ for them to change the definition of the foundational unit of society and culture.

- HiveRadical

Posted 11/02/08 03:28 PM

 

 

@hiveradical - This is a very well thought-out and put together argument. It’s still wrong though. The argument that we should “put the children first” is a red-herring. The anti prop 8 movement is using the wrong weapon to fight with. I think kids should be taught about everything that happens in the real world. Gays live and exist in this real world and to teach kids that it is wrong for them to be together is to take a step backward for the evolution of our society. All of your arguments are fairly sound… they just miss the point. Besides, most gay couples raising families are lesbians who include many male figures in their family life. I fail to see how depriving gays the right to be like everyone else adversely effects children. To say that it does or would if prop 8 passes is to be at best, guessing… at worst, lying. You don’t know. Lets treat everyone as equals and teach the kids about reality and trust them to be the better for it. It’s the only way to make a better world for everyone.

- jerry

Posted 11/02/08 03:54 PM

 

 

I can appreciate this article, for getting out the truth about Prop 8. This prop IS about equality and rights for all. This prop is NOT about what they will be teaching in schools to children. With or without this prop passing…kids are going to see gay couples in their life time and ask questions. Why not equal rights for all? Especially for dedicated gay couples that have a strong bond that we heteros also share. C’mon…consider that we do NOT choose our sexuality…we are what we are…and we all deserve equal rights.

- Steph

Posted 11/02/08 04:12 PM

 

 

@hiveradical: I agree with Jerry that your arguments are missing the point, but (respectfully) I don’t think they’re “basically sound”. I admire your rhetorical abilities, though. There’s one thing I’d like for you to consider. You claim that children need to have something from both a mother and a father - something about “dynamics manifested over the course of a life time [sic]”. First of all, I’d disagree very strongly with the idea that all women or all men, or even most women and most men, have some sort of gender-specific dynamic that’s present in every other member of the same sex. I think the real thing that you’re (correctly) getting at is that for a marriage to be successful, there must be a complementary interaction between the partners. This same complementarity is what is so essential for children to be exposed to. Most of us find a complementary partner in the opposite sex, but there are those of us for whatever reason who emotionally and sexually find a complementary partner in the same sex. If two gay people find each other and establish such a lifelong complementary partnership, we may properly refer to it as a marriage, and there is every reason to believe that children they raise will be exposed to the dynamics over a lifetime that are so essential to their healthy development. As for your arguments about marriage being taught in schools, Prop. 8 will not affect what is taught in schools. If Prop. 8 passes, teachers will still be free to teach about the history of same-sex marriage and how it is legal in two (three? four? five?) other states, and they will have every reason to do so. @Momlogic Jackie: Thanks for writing such a lovely article! God bless you and your lucky daughter Lucy.

- Patrick

Posted 11/02/08 04:46 PM

 

 

thats gay

- geen

Posted 11/02/08 07:41 PM

 

 

As a gay woman with two kids, I appreciate your article. I would hope that as times change, people will too. Change can only happen when people are willing to change and teach their children that skin color, sexual orientation or what sex you are is of unimportance. But, the most important thing besides change at this time is that we all live together without any hatred and have tolerance for each other’s differences. Our two children do have their father in their life. That is a choice that we as a couple made and works best for us…however, not all children are better off with their mother’s & fathers around. Let’s talk about all the children that are abused by their mother’s & father’s or the mother’s & fathers that abandon them for various reasons. I would much rather have my children have two loving parents of the same sex than the latter! The best thing children can have is unconditional love and two parents that want to be together as we do, unlike over 50% of traditional marriages that end in divorce anyway…NOW THAT’S FAMILY VALUES??? A child spending every other week with one parent then makes the swap to the other parent is healthier than a child seeing two parents who love each and simply want to be together and show their children how marriage can work. So, if people want to have a prop to protect marriage, then why isn’t there a prop to ban divorce? NOW THAT IS A REAL ISSUE…not if two people who love each other regardless of sex should marry!

- Michelle

Posted 11/03/08 12:31 AM

 

 

There is nothing in prop 8 that requires teaching of same sex marriage or other LGBTI related topics, there is nothing in Prop 8 that reduces the rights of opposite sex married couples. There is nothing in prop 8 that can have any affect on any existing marriage what so ever unless a specific married couple allows the idea of a same sex couple to affect their marriage relationship. The belief that children must have a father and mother figure to grow up into “Healthy, Normal Adults” is absurd. There are numerous children who grow up in single parents homes, same sex couple homes that what the “norm” considers “healthy”. We can discuss the problems with neglected abused children in “normal married homes with a father and mother”. opposite sex parents is not the sole requirement for raising children. It is threatening to individuals who are homophobic and are bent to leave their DNA, family customs or legacy via their children. Here is organized religion using children and homophobia as a socially divisive political tool to get what they want. It has also done wonders to build the power, influence and wealth of specific religious groups supporting prop 8. What Prop 8 does do is allow one specific group to talk away a constitutional right from an oppressed minority group plain and simple. Using religious interpretation is not justification to support prop 8 as America is NOT a Theocracy. There is nothing in prop 8 that threatens any organized religious group or their definition of “marriage”. The entire pro prop 8 campaign has been run on fear, hatred and ignorance of individuals that are considered differnt. It has also been a test of just how much influence religious organization have over their flock and the foundations of American government. If they can get prop 8 passed, then what other religious based changes can they put into the foundations of American government. America has a separation of church and state for very sound reasons. Even if one believes in the “Bible” the reader must accept the Bible was translated from an ancient form of Arabic in to English, like any language translation, there will be errors and mis-interpretation simply due to the way languages work. What one might consider is the “Word of GOD” is in fact an human interpretation at best.

- rupunzel

Posted 11/03/08 12:50 AM

 

 

Any religion without followers and supports will die,plan and simple. They see the continuation of their legacy and religion by couples that are able to have children and indoctrinate them into their religious customs and ways. Leaders of any organized religious group will starve and die if they have no supports or flock to fleece. This is why some organized religions see same sex marriage and LGBTI individuals so threatening. These leaders feel their wealth,power,influence and legacy are doomed if they cannot no longer own a flock to fleece. Organized religion has been the cause of many wars and power struggles in human history. How many lives were lost over differences of religious interpretation? What price has humanity and the human family paid over the thousands of years since the invention of organized religion?

- rupunzel

Posted 11/03/08 01:04 AM

 

 

Historically, marriage had NOTHING to do with children. It was pretty much all about property rights and a woman’s survival in pre-industrial western civilization. Marriage was very much a “Business”. Jane Austen’s novels deals with this specific topic quite well. Even if is was fictional. Catholic priest were sworn to celibacy to protect the wealth of the church. As a marriage can re-distribute church wealth. In Asia, marriages were arranged when children were young. This was done for the benefit of their families and nothing to do with the happiness of that couple. Many women died during child birth back in those days and it was common for children to have step parents or be sent away to a relative or other care taker if the parents are unable to care for them.

- rupunzel

Posted 11/03/08 01:13 AM

 

 

What about the fact that the “Fundamental” rights are already given under California’s Domestic Partnerships? (no rights will be “taken” away) What about the fact that there are gay and lesbian groups now trying and creating lawsuits to take away tax exemptions from churches who do not support prop 8 or gay marriage (churches will have to close from revenue loss to taxes) ? What about the fertility doctors who could lose their license because they refuse to use IVF on two lesbian couples because they don’t believe in doing so? Doesn’t that take away from their moral beliefs? Doesn’t that take away their rights to have what faith they wish? What about the 2nd grade class in SAN FRANCISCO that took a field trip to their lesbian teacher’s wedding because she believed it would be “educational”? What about 1st graders in Massachusetts who read a story about the “king and the king” about a prince who falls in love with another prince? And the fact that their parents had no “RIGHT” to opt their children out? That takes away my right to raise my child up with the beliefs my husband and I have. What about the fact that a man and a woman is a heterosexual and a man and man (or woman and woman) is a homosexual yet we have to use the same religious term to describe both unions? It is different and it should be termed differently. I respect and believe in equal rights, but to call it the same is not right. This just comes down to the term marriage, it has NOTHING to do with rights and does not take any RIGHTS AWAY, it just keeps the term marriage between a man and a woman. How is it discrimination if gays and lesbians already have the same rights (Which will not be taken away)?

- Yeson8

Posted 11/03/08 11:10 AM

 

 

@Yeson a few thoughts on your comments: “What about the fact that the “Fundamental” rights are already given under California’s Domestic Partnerships? (no rights will be “taken” away)” The DP laws do not grant all of the same rights that are available to married couples. There is a long laundry list of exclusions - which have been enumerated in many places and are too many to list here. Your argument is akin to saying “well blacks should sit in the back of the bus because it gets to the same location anyway.” The difference, however, is that since DP and marriage is NOT equal, it is like asking the blacks in the back of the bus to get off 2 blocks from the destination and walk the rest of the way. “What about the fact that there are gay and lesbian groups now trying and creating lawsuits to take away tax exemptions from churches who do not support prop 8 or gay marriage (churches will have to close from revenue loss to taxes) ?” Can you name a single such lawsuit or law firm? “What about the fertility doctors who could lose their license because they refuse to use IVF on two lesbian couples because they don’t believe in doing so? Doesn’t that take away from their moral beliefs? Doesn’t that take away their rights to have what faith they wish?” The medical board makes licensing decisions, and there are no such license revocations. “What about the 2nd grade class in SAN FRANCISCO that took a field trip to their lesbian teacher’s wedding because she believed it would be “educational”?” What’s wrong with teaching children the realities of the world, that gay people exist and form families? Would it be better to take them to a hetero divorce proceeding or family dispute court where a husband has repeatedly beat his wife? “What about 1st graders in Massachusetts who read a story about the “king and the king” about a prince who falls in love with another prince? And the fact that their parents had no “RIGHT” to opt their children out? That takes away my right to raise my child up with the beliefs my husband and I have.” Homosexuals are exposed daily to ‘hetero’ indoctrination (TV, ads, books, movies, people walking down the street). Maybe a little real life exposure would help reduce the homophobia and gay bashing that

- DigDug

Posted 11/03/08 12:54 PM

 

 

DigDug, why don’t you learn how to read the family code..maybe you’ll learn something. California Family Code Section 297.5 California Family Code Section 297.5 (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. Every same right is given.. and for you to call me a whiner? WHen I have my beliefs and you have yours? Why should your beliefs be imposed on my family without my consent?

- Anonymous

Posted 11/03/08 01:30 PM

 

 

You DO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. California Family Code Section 297.5 California Family Code Section 297.5 (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. (b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses. (c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower. (d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses. (e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law. (f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses. (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part 3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

- yeson8

Posted 11/03/08 01:33 PM

 

 

We’re talking about legal marriage. If a church doesn’t want to recognize it… fine. But all legal marriage is is a legal agreement so why can’t we just let them have it? Atheists are allowed to get married so “beliefs” should be left out of it. Get off your high horse.

- Anonymous

Posted 11/03/08 02:16 PM

 

 

@yeson, That is the family code of California, just ONE of the 50 states. Try reading the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which dictates how state laws are implemented, and maybe YOU will learn something…or at least understand why rights WILL be lost and why your premise that Prop. H8 ‘separate but equal’ is factually incorrect, regardless of your ‘morals’ (although I have never considered discrimination and bigotry a terribly sound moral foundation). Consider these points… If a man and a woman get married (civilly) in CA, that marriage is automatically valid recognized in every other state of the union. Similarly, marriages performed after a few strong drinks in Las Vegas (aka, Britney Spears), or in Mexico, Yemen, Sweden, China, on a cruise boat, etc. are all valid and would be immediately recognized in all 50 states - no questions asked (at most, a checkbox). Do you know the ‘hoops’ gays have to go through to be considered DPs and to ‘obtain’ protection under that code? Hint: they have to be registered. Is that process “equal” to heteros that can grab a strong drink and a quicky Vegas wedding which would be immediately recognized in CA? On this basis ALONE, i.e., the need to be “registered,” DPs are not functionally or legally ‘equal’ to marriages. The CA fam. code you provided does not touch on “registration,” does it? You need to think more deeply rather than just reading words out of code. You need to be able to put pieces of a puzzle together. You need to analyze. Anyway, since hetero marriages (even the 10-minute Vegas specials) are valid and immediately recognized in any other state (note: no registration required), any rights conferred thereby will travel with that couple regardless of where they go or when they arrive. Contrariwise, a gay (civil) marriage in CA is NOT recognized in all 50 states. Nor are the ‘RIGHTS’ conferred by the CA family code (which you cited without much analysis). This is because SCOTUS has not yet spoken to the full faith and credit clause as it relates to ‘gay’ marriage. Nevertheless, a gay couple civilly ‘married’ in CA *would* have a cause of action under the U.S. Constitution to enforce the CA marriage across the state line (in AZ) under the FFC clause. A DP gay couple from CA would not have such standing’ because AZ treats marriages

- DigDug

Posted 11/03/08 05:11 PM

 

 

Just show us how married same sex couple affect your family directly or affects it in any real measurable way that is NOT based in fear, ignorance, and intolerance of those who are differnt than you? Or maybe those against same sex marriage simply do not have the compassion to see life thru another’s eyes or comprehend what their lives are like? Or does the ability to deny the basic rights of those not like you makes you feel better than them in some way?

- rupunzel

Posted 11/04/08 12:54 AM

 

 

Why not ask that the domestic partnership laws be changed instead of insisting it be called “marriage?” I am not Jewish and therefore would not want to insist in having my child participate in a Bar Mitzvah. Why would people who aren’t religious want to be “married?” Why not change the domestic partner laws so there is no registration required and that even heterosexuals might want to consider this type of legal union? All of the people that I have talked to do not hate gays or lesbians; quite the contrary. I have very good friends and relatives who have same sex attractions. I want the best for them. However, many of us find it odd that gays and lesbians want a label (being married) that has been defined for years to be a union between a man and a woman. Make up a new legal union (if you don’t like the “domestic partners description) and make it better than “marriage.” Then everyone can keep it out of the religious sphere that follows the teachings of the Bible that does not approve of such unions.

- anonymous

Posted 11/13/08 08:28 PM

 

 

jerry, You miss out on the fact that the influence of other genders will not be what determines the dynamics of the parents of the children. Factors tied to sex/gender, independent of sexual orientation or cultural gender roles, create a dynamic that varies significantly when the gender pairings are altered. This means that the dynamics, the net output of the relationship, can never be the same on a general level. You can’t tweak a fundamental component of marriage without significant consequences.

- HiveRadical

Posted 11/16/08 02:46 AM

 

 

rpunzl, i’d like to say you are mostly correct- history shows that you are. but if you look at the origin of the maritial arrangement-i mean the 1st. ever it was adam and eve, and it was with procreation as it’s main purpose. how else would they fulfill god’s command to be fruitful and multiple. so originally it really was about the children. i’m not talking organized religion, or any of that i’m just saying what the bible says.

- cg

Posted 12/05/08 08:51 PM

 

Comment Page: <<   1  2   >>