Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

Haha, again, cut it out with the "Beastial" crap. Haha I'm not sexually attracted to animals. Beastlydebater. NOT beastial.

And comparing the civil rights movement to homosexuals' struggle for equal marriage rights isn't at all a slippery slope argument... You know what the slippery slope fallacy is don't you? Its where you say "Oh, well we can't do (insert p... more >

Haha, again, cut it out with the "Beastial" crap. Haha I'm not sexually attracted to animals. Beastlydebater. NOT beastial.

And comparing the civil rights movement to homosexuals' struggle for equal marriage rights isn't at all a slippery slope argument... You know what the slippery slope fallacy is don't you? Its where you say "Oh, well we can't do (insert policy option here) because that would lead to (insert ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims here)."

Bestial - I might also point out that the homosexuals' comparison with the noble struggle of black Americans for civil rights is also a kind of slippery slope argument.

However, using such pseudo intellectual nomenclature doesn't alter the fact that we have to consider the consequences of redefining marriage for homosexuals, particularly what other classes of... more >

Bestial - I might also point out that the homosexuals' comparison with the noble struggle of black Americans for civil rights is also a kind of slippery slope argument.

However, using such pseudo intellectual nomenclature doesn't alter the fact that we have to consider the consequences of redefining marriage for homosexuals, particularly what other classes of deviant would also become eligible by default.

Honestly, I have no problem with the church prohibiting marriage, or any action for that matter, of any kind they deem to be in conflict with the teachings of the church regarding the rights of their congregation that affect only the religious aspects of their member's lives. That's a club's decision and ruling that their members freely abide. If the membe... more >

Honestly, I have no problem with the church prohibiting marriage, or any action for that matter, of any kind they deem to be in conflict with the teachings of the church regarding the rights of their congregation that affect only the religious aspects of their member's lives. That's a club's decision and ruling that their members freely abide. If the members don't agree, they quit the club. What really gets me is when the American government, or any other government for that matter, becomes involved. Church and state are seperate entities and rule different aspects of a person's life. The simple fact that one can belong to any state and any religion (i.e. the American state and the Islamic religion or the Japanese state and the Christian religion) notes the need for such seperation unless all religions and all states are made to follow the same laws. Now, that may be ideal to some, however, it simply cannot be done without disrespecting the autonomy of many individuals. Because the group of people we are discussing come from various religious backgrounds, the views of any particular religion cannot apply.

That said, if marriage was only religiously recognized, I would have no problem. However, legislative rights are given to both husband and wife under contract after they are married, regarding their partner. It is these rights that I belive any two individuals, regardless of sex or age, should be allowed, as long as both individuals have given their informed consent to such a contract. I should clarify what I mean when I say informed consent. I mean the same agreeance as any medical professional, that the individual giving consent is competent, informed, understanding to the information given, and able to give or withhold consent freely. Children, animals, and corpses do not fit this deffinition.

Again, I don't believe the state should have any say regarding what happens in religious institutions, exept, of course, in the cases where those religous institutions are affecting others, who are not members, in a way that violates their rights or in the cases where religous institutions do not practice informed consent with regard to their own members. What I am for is the equality of rights for all individuals of the United States of America and respect for all autonomy. I shall give a quote from John Stewart Mill from his work 'On Liberty':

"...there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, volunty, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself, I mean directly, and in the first instance; for whatever affects himself, may affect others through himself; and the objection which may be grounded on this contingency, will receive consideration in the sequel. This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense; iberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or decived.

No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

You know... I find it interesting how people get on YesOn8won's comments and leave remarks bashing his beliefs like he is such a bad guy (a hater, or a bigot)..... And yet it is okay for others to bash on him cause he doesn't think like they do (newsflash that makes you a hater, and or a bigot). But when he bash's on them.... its all about how bad of a perso... more >

You know... I find it interesting how people get on YesOn8won's comments and leave remarks bashing his beliefs like he is such a bad guy (a hater, or a bigot)..... And yet it is okay for others to bash on him cause he doesn't think like they do (newsflash that makes you a hater, and or a bigot). But when he bash's on them.... its all about how bad of a person he is... I mean I guess the others are good guys cause they're protecting something he is against correct?? Not directing this towards you Jonathan... I am directing this to those that are attacking him for being different... JUST AS GAYS ARE BEING BASHED FOR BEING DIFFERENT? So I guess the people that attack someone with uneducated and moronic remarks are intelligent??? I like what Mr. Smith, and Mr. 8 have to say... they seem to have a educated argument.... New rule... why don't the retards that do not have something intelligent to say stay out of the topic read and learn something? Alright?! I am done thanks!

Nick

P.S. I am against Gay Marriage, but I will not make an argument over the internet because you will not persuade people to go your way.... No emotion is shown over the internet.... Oh yeah.. one more thing.... Its hard to change stubborn people...

The point is that, if marriage is redefined to accommodate homosexuals, there would be no 'rational basis' not to redefine it for any other group of sexual deviants. Those are the words of Justice Scalia, not only me.

The exact same arguments could be used by any of the groups I mentioned.

You say polygamy is different because it involves more than two people.... more >

The point is that, if marriage is redefined to accommodate homosexuals, there would be no 'rational basis' not to redefine it for any other group of sexual deviants. Those are the words of Justice Scalia, not only me.

The exact same arguments could be used by any of the groups I mentioned.

You say polygamy is different because it involves more than two people. So what? According to your logic there is no need to be restricted to precedent. Let's make PROGRESS! So why not three, four or any number of partners in a 'marriage'?

You say that consent separates some forms of marriage. But if the age of consent for marriage was lowered to 14, 12, 10, then the consent issue disappears for child marriage.

Think it will never happen? That's what most people thought about homosexual marriage only 10-15 years ago.

Similarly, the issue of consent doesn't exist in our dealings with animals. We don't need our pets to sign a waiver, and we don't ask the cow's permission to slaughter and eat it. So why suddenly introduce consent as a false barrier to bestialists pursuing nuptial bliss with the animal of their choice?

Again, you think it won't happen? Once we redefine marriage for a same-sex couple why set any other boundaries to its redefinition?

It seems that you are all for "progress" and equality - except when you're not for progress and equality.

In reality, you want certain restrictions to be placed on marriage too, but you happen not to agree with the wishes of the majority in the case of homosexual marriage.

I'll respond on your other points when I have more time.

YesOn8won, thank you as always for your responses. I've enjoyed discussing this matter with you. However, I was dismayed this time around by one of your responses.

You brought up the topics of polygamy, child marriage, and bestiality to argue one of your points. I asked you to clarify your point and your response to my request was "the onus is on YOU." I'... more >

YesOn8won, thank you as always for your responses. I've enjoyed discussing this matter with you. However, I was dismayed this time around by one of your responses.

You brought up the topics of polygamy, child marriage, and bestiality to argue one of your points. I asked you to clarify your point and your response to my request was "the onus is on YOU." I'm not sure why I should take the responsibility for a point that you brought up. When I state something I'm prepared to defend it. I hope that, in fairness, you do the same. I don't see why I should be responsible for your argument.

Still, I know that your passion for the matter motivated your response, so I'm willing to accommodate this time around.

The issue of consent separates child marriage from gay marriage. Bestiality involves even more obvious consent issues, and thus it is vastly different from gay marriage. Polygamy, by its very definition, is different from gay marriage in that it is the marriage of more than two people whereas gay marriage is the union of two. The fact that laws regarding division of assets, child custody, social security, etc. would have to be entirely rewritten for polygamy while those same laws would remain the same for gay marriage illustrates how the two types of marriage are different.

Legislatively, gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, whereas is it completely different from the other three types of unions that you mentioned. Thus, I cannot understand your point about how laws affecting gay marriage are transferable to these other unions. However, I’m happy to hear your argument to support this point that you brought up.

Now, you categorize homosexuality as deviant, and thus homosexuality defiles the tradition of marriage. I will ask two questions in response. What is your definition of deviance? Also, what do you think of heterosexual married couples who, for example, engage in sodomy in their private sexual lives? I will note that I used the term sodomy, which derives directly from the Bible.

YesOn8won, I asked you to define ‘progress’ and you never did. Instead, you informed me that most Californians and most Americans disagree with my definition. Thank you for reminding me that the rights of a minority group are the issues at hand. Also, I’ll remind you that I copied my definition from the dictionary, a pretty widely accepted text. I’m jesting a little here because of course your contention is with my interpretation of this definition.

Once you again, though, you said that “describing homosexual marriage as 'progress' is highly debatable.” I gave you my definition of progress. Please define what progress means to you instead of sidestepping my question.

Additionally, please support statements like “there is no benefit to society in encouraging homosexual partnerships” and “governments encourage traditional marriage because it is a proven and natural basis for a couple to have children and raise them as part of a family, which is a huge benefit to society” and “in the case of homosexual marriage in California it was never intended to be a right in the first place” with your logic and evidence. You can state these kinds of ideas with authority and thus convince some people of their “truth,” but I can only consider these statements broad and unsupported until you actually support them.

Regarding Jerry Brown, I’m still unsure why you’re bringing him up because I don’t see how he fits into your goal in this debate, which is to show why you think gay marriage should be illegal. I’ll give you my logic about the rewording of Prop 8 at the expense of phrasing it in simplistic terms. The original wording of Prop 8 DISAPPROVED of gay marriage. The rewording of Prop 8 REALLY DISAPPROVED of gay marriage. The fact that Prop 8 won showed that Prop 8 supporters don't just DISAPPROVE of gay marriage, they REALLY DISAPPROVE. So what do you mean when you say “despite his (Jerry Brown’s) unconstitutional behaviour Prop 8 still won?” I’m not sure how you’ve achieved a victory for your side here?

Or, let me ask, would you have preferred the original wording of Prop 8 instead of the current wording?

I’m happy to discuss Jerry Brown’s behavior, I just don’t see how it’s central to the debate we’re having, though I’m interested to hear how it is.

Thank you for explaining your argument about the Supreme Court's decisions on drinking laws and on the death penalty as comparable rights issues. However, I still disagree with your point. The difference between Prop 8 and the drinking age and death penalty laws is that Prop 8 is a discriminatory rights issue and the latter two are not. Because of Prop 8, certain Americans do not enjoy a right that other Americans do. The two laws that you mentioned, however, affect all Americans equally, regardless of color, creed, or sexual orientation. Therefore, Prop 8 is not the same as your two examples and the other two laws qualify as separate debates.

You will of course call this argument a bogus equal rights argument, so please explain to me how a law that denies a right to certain Americans is not an equal rights issue.

I’m also interested in your use of Justice Scalia to support your argument. He was part of the minority in a decision that favored equal rights for homosexuals. Please elaborate on your point about Justice Scalia.

If I were to single out a justice in Lawrence v. Texas then I’d single out Justice O’Connor, who sided with the majority but who would not overturn Bowers v. Hardwick because it applied both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. This thinking in many ways aligns with mine, which is that Prop 8 is a discriminatory law, the very point that I just argued above in response to your argument about the death penalty and drinking age laws.

I would like to ask a new question of you. How did the brief period of time when homosexuals in California could marry affect your life?

As I mentioned before, I am always happy to discuss this matter with you, but please reply with reason and decorum. I read your points closely and I address them each directly. I ask only that you do the same: read my points carefully and address them each directly without sidestepping the issue or making a statement and putting the "onus" on me to make sense of your own argument. I made this very point in my first response to you, that shouting the rightness and righteousness of your side belies a basic misunderstanding of the big picture.

hatchet: The only reason you're pushing any of this sort is to get some kind of revenge

I agree this vidoe is just a childish attempt to shift the goalposts.

For sure the divorce rate is far too high and people don't take their marriage vows as seriously as they should.

But that is no justification for redefining marriage to accommodate homosexuals, pedophiles... more >

hatchet: The only reason you're pushing any of this sort is to get some kind of revenge

I agree this vidoe is just a childish attempt to shift the goalposts.

For sure the divorce rate is far too high and people don't take their marriage vows as seriously as they should.

But that is no justification for redefining marriage to accommodate homosexuals, pedophiles, incestuous couples or any other perverts

I'm straight and have been married 13 years. I agree that the prop 8 decision in California went the way it should have for the greater good of the people because it would have undermined marriage and what it means and what it stands for. I also agree that something like this might be good because it would force people to take marriage a little more seriou... more >

I'm straight and have been married 13 years. I agree that the prop 8 decision in California went the way it should have for the greater good of the people because it would have undermined marriage and what it means and what it stands for. I also agree that something like this might be good because it would force people to take marriage a little more seriously. 50% divorce rate is ridiculous. But if you want to see a higher divorce rate than the national average, look at the divorce / break-up rate of gays. Seriously. And gimme a break. The only reason you're pushing anything like this is to get some kind of revenge on the people you think shot down prop 8. At least have the guts to admit what you're doing. Bunch of hateful hypocrites.

JJonathan: Please define for me what 'progress' means to you. Personally, I endorse the dictionary's definition: "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level."

That is your subjective opinion, and one with which most Californians, and most Americans disagree.

Governments encourag... more >

JJonathan: Please define for me what 'progress' means to you. Personally, I endorse the dictionary's definition: "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level."

That is your subjective opinion, and one with which most Californians, and most Americans disagree.

Governments encourage traditional marraige because it is a proven and natural basis for a couple to have children and raise them as part of a family, which is a huge benefit to society.

There is no benefit to society in encouraging homosexual partnerships. And as I explained previously, if we redefine marriage for homosexuals there will be no 'rational basis' not to redefine it for every other class of sexual deviant who will also use the bogus argument about 'equal rights'.

Jonathan: The simple facts are that the wording of Prop 8 reads "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" and that Prop 8 supporters voted for this phrase back in November. Logically, your mention of Jerry Brown actually seems to undermine your intended point (which I feel was maybe to put some kind of onus on anti-Prop 8 groups?) since the rewordi... more >

Jonathan: The simple facts are that the wording of Prop 8 reads "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" and that Prop 8 supporters voted for this phrase back in November. Logically, your mention of Jerry Brown actually seems to undermine your intended point (which I feel was maybe to put some kind of onus on anti-Prop 8 groups?) since the rewording really only entrenched Prop 8 supporters' disapproval of gay marriage.


My point is that Jerry Brown deliberately re-worded the petition signed by several hundred thousand CA voters. He did it to try and curry favour among undecided voters and tilt them toward voting NO.

As the state Attorney General Brown is supposed to be neutral on these ballots and not favour one side over the other. If he felt strongly about homosexual marriage he should have recused himself from the process or resigned.

Despite his unConstitutional behaviour Prop 8 still won

Jonathan: You mention the Supreme Court's decisions on the death penalty as well as on drinking laws as rights issues comparable to those of gay marriage. I'm interested to discuss these matters with you, but, once again, I need you to show how these subjects are categorically the same as gay marriage.

Canifornian homosexuals made the argument that Prop 8 too... more >

Jonathan: You mention the Supreme Court's decisions on the death penalty as well as on drinking laws as rights issues comparable to those of gay marriage. I'm interested to discuss these matters with you, but, once again, I need you to show how these subjects are categorically the same as gay marriage.

Canifornian homosexuals made the argument that Prop 8 took away an existing right. The same could be argued about raising the drinking age to 21 or abolishing the death penalty.

Arguably the first removes a 'right' to consume alcohol at ages 18-21. The second removes the right of victims' families to see a perpetrator executed.

There are many other examples of changes in law and Constitutional amendments altering rights.

In the case of homosexual marriage in California it was never intended to be a right in the first place. Prop 8 merely plugged a loophole.

Jonathan: For this logic to apply you have to show how these other types of marriage are categorically the same as gay marriage. Otherwise, I can't see how the issue is transferable. Please let me know how these various types of marriage are all the same.


Au contraire.

If we allow the redefinition of marriage for homosexuals then the onus is on YOU to show why... more >

Jonathan: For this logic to apply you have to show how these other types of marriage are categorically the same as gay marriage. Otherwise, I can't see how the issue is transferable. Please let me know how these various types of marriage are all the same.


Au contraire.

If we allow the redefinition of marriage for homosexuals then the onus is on YOU to show why we should not redefine marriage to accommodate other sexually abnormal groupings, including polygamists, bestialists and pedophiles.

Read the USSC ruling Lawrence v Texas and you will see that Justice Scalia states there would be 'no rational basis' to prevent such redefinitions.

This is a fundamental flaw in the homosexuals' argument. They want to change everything and 'evolve' to satisfy their unnatural urges, but most of them still want to deny their fellow perverts based on their own moral reasoning.

YesOn8won, thank you for your response. I'm always interested in your points.

Please pay attention to my words because I always choose them very carefully. I never posited that the government prohibits voters from voting according to their religious beliefs, nor did I imply that voters shouldn't. I never stated how any religions besides Christianity stand ... more >

YesOn8won, thank you for your response. I'm always interested in your points.

Please pay attention to my words because I always choose them very carefully. I never posited that the government prohibits voters from voting according to their religious beliefs, nor did I imply that voters shouldn't. I never stated how any religions besides Christianity stand on the subject of gay marriage, nor did I call for the prohibition of religion. I also spoke nothing of the importance of one religion over another. My point was that shouting the rightness and righteousness of your side belies a basic misunderstanding of the big picture. The private sector has entered the public sector and must therefore understand how the public sector works. My point here was mostly one of decorum, but I also made it to segue into the following discussion about separation of church and state.

You asked whether I support polygamy, incestuous marriage, or child marriages. The implication of your question is that if we allow gay marriage then we must allow these other forms of marriage. For this logic to apply you have to show how these other types of marriage are categorically the same as gay marriage. Otherwise, I can't see how the issue is transferable. Please let me know how these various types of marriage are all the same.

Your mention of Jerry Brown interests me. I'm not sure how it applies to the debate at hand, so please elaborate how it affects your argument and why you mentioned it. The simple facts are that the wording of Prop 8 reads "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" and that Prop 8 supporters voted for this phrase back in November. Logically, your mention of Jerry Brown actually seems to undermine your intended point (which I feel was maybe to put some kind of onus on anti-Prop 8 groups?) since the rewording really only entrenched Prop 8 supporters' disapproval of gay marriage. Bringing up Jerry Brown just seems to strengthen what I already know, which is that you don't support gay marriage.

You mention the Supreme Court's decisions on the death penalty as well as on drinking laws as rights issues comparable to those of gay marriage. I'm interested to discuss these matters with you, but, once again, I need you to show how these subjects are categorically the same as gay marriage. Otherwise, I can't really understand the logic or how these subjects act as viable precedents.

You are right that I shouldn't assume that gay marriage will eventually be part of the norm. Nobody knows what the future holds. I admit that my statement was unfounded and merely based off America's history of establishing equal rights and opportunities for minority groups.

You say that "describing homosexual marriage as 'progress' is highly debatable." I'm happy to debate! Obviously, the debate lies in our mutual definitions of progress. Please define for me what 'progress' means to you. Personally, I endorse the dictionary's definition: "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level." Regarding this definition, I believe that rewarding homosexuals the right to marry will raise society to a superior level because rights will have been equalized, which fits with America's standard that "all men are created equal."

JonathanSmith: in response to some of the points you made:

1) The First Amendment prohibits establishment of a state religion, it does NOT prevent voters from voting according to their religious beliefs. As no major world religion condones homosexual marriage, it's prohibition does NOT favour one religion over another.

2) All men are created equal, and all men... more >

JonathanSmith: in response to some of the points you made:

1) The First Amendment prohibits establishment of a state religion, it does NOT prevent voters from voting according to their religious beliefs. As no major world religion condones homosexual marriage, it's prohibition does NOT favour one religion over another.

2) All men are created equal, and all men, and women, have an equal right to marry , subject to the same conditions. Do you support polygamy, incestuous marriage or child marriages?

3) The wording of Prop 8 was changed by the State AG, Jerry Brown, in a desperate attempt to influence voters to say No. The CA Supreme Court should have stayed their June 2008 decision until We The People had their say. Now they have created 18,000 white elephants.

In any case this is not the first time 'rights' have arguably been taken away. SCOTUS prohibiting the death penalty and states raising the drinking age to 21 are other examples

4) Don't be too sure that homosexual marriage will eventually happen. Gavin Newsom now regrets saying "it's here whether you like it or not". 30 states have amended their constitutions to defend traditional marriage.

And describing homosexual marriage as 'progress' is highly debatable.

lexie: No one's asking you to approve. I am Christian and I pray every day that gay and lesbian couples will be able to marry very soon. Why? Because I believe that they were born that way. (There is scientific evidence that supports that.)

Lexie there is not one shred of evidence that homosexuality is genetic, nor is pedophilia, caprology, necrophilia or any... more >

lexie: No one's asking you to approve. I am Christian and I pray every day that gay and lesbian couples will be able to marry very soon. Why? Because I believe that they were born that way. (There is scientific evidence that supports that.)

Lexie there is not one shred of evidence that homosexuality is genetic, nor is pedophilia, caprology, necrophilia or any of the other forms of deviant human sexual behaviour.

We are all born sinners and the Bible says we must repent of our sins, not redefine marriage to accommodate them.

As a Christian your first duty is obedience to God, who makes it very clear in His Word that homosexuality is a sin and marriage is for one man and one woman (Matt 19:4).