some help on Prop. 8

[Nathaniel]

I was debating the topic of prop. 8 on another forum, and can anyone help me refute or otherwise answer these statements?:

I linked them to two prop 8 articles on this site and this is what they had to say:

first article(http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/no_on_prop_8.html): "The problem with this argument is that prop 8 is not about restricting marriage in certain circumstances, but for an entire class of people."

for the second one(http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/no_on_prop_8.html): "This is more of the same, with one additional point that "Marriage is for procreation, not recreation." This is a ridiculous point. The state has never enforced any law that married people have to procreate. The state does not prevent sterile people from getting married. Any abstract notion about "what marriage is for" is someone's personal or religious philosophy. There is no general agreement."

and also:"The big lie was that teaching in schools would be affected by the passage or non-passage of proposition 8. This was also a way of attempting to disguise their bigotry... millions of people who previously had never worried about homosexuality were prompted to be worried it would be "taught to their kids." Of course, if we as a society really didn't have a problem with homosexuality we wouldn't mind it being mentioned in school (unless as a parent you want to pull your kid out of sex-education classes entirely, which in CA you have a right to do)."

[Harry12345]

"The problem with this argument is that prop 8 is not about restricting marriage in certain circumstances, but for an entire class of people."

How so? Everyone has the right to marry... a member of the opposite sex. No one is being denied their rights.

""This is more of the same, with one additional point that "Marriage is for procreation, not recreation." This is a ridiculous point. The state has never enforced any law that married people have to procreate. The state does not prevent sterile people from getting married. Any abstract notion about "what marriage is for" is someone's personal or religious philosophy. There is no general agreement."

Marriage is pre-politcal and pre-governmenal. It has been around and celebrated since the dawn of time. The government has NO right to interfere with marriage. They should not ban gay marriage, they should not give rights to married couples, they should not pass acts concerning marriage etc. - marriage is not property of the government!

The government is free to offer civil/ legal contracts and what-not, but marriage is for man+woman only.

[B. W.]

Nathaniel,

My understanding of prop 8 is this. I think it was 2000 that CA voters passed an amendment to define the institution of marriage as between a man and woman. Later, four CA Court Judges overturned this and made it an issue. Prop 8 is a re-edited version of the law.

The battle is in reality this: do the people really have a political voice in the legislative process or do the courts have supreme powers to govern by overturning the legislature and legislative process? This is a very serious threat to the US form of government — a Republic (not a true democracy but a republic style of democracy). When the Courts begin to rule, the people lose their power to govern through legislative process.

Again, 30 states had similar props on their ballots last election day and they all passed. People desire to protect the institution of marriage and keep it that way — not to make it a right.

To make marriage a right opens the door for people to sue in court for violation of rights. Keep marriage as an institution and not a right…
-
-
-

[Nathaniel]

Wonderful

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Did anyone see Larry King last night discussing Prop 8? (I missed the first half with "Dr" Laura...darn it!)

He initially spoke with Kathy Griffin briefly on the matter, but she, not surprisingly, was not very serious about it and made too many jokes. Then the panel was next to discuss Prop. 8. Stephanie Miller, Dennis Prager and Bishop Harry Jackson...I can't remember the name of the female attorney also.

My stance as a citizen of the U.S. is Prop 8 is a civil right...but Stephanie and the other attorney, I was surprised, were anything but good debators for this cause. S. Miller seemed to want to make a joke of the whole thing. They got "beat" by Dennis Prager and the Bishop.
.
.

[RickD]

and also:"The big lie was that teaching in schools would be affected by the passage or non-passage of proposition 8. This was also a way of attempting to disguise their bigotry... millions of people who previously had never worried about homosexuality were prompted to be worried it would be "taught to their kids." Of course, if we as a society really didn't have a problem with homosexuality we wouldn't mind it being mentioned in school (unless as a parent you want to pull your kid out of sex-education classes entirely, which in CA you have a right to do)."

It has already happened in Massachusetts. If the law states that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and homosexual "marriage" is legal, it has to be accepted, or someone would be labeled a bigot. In Massachusetts' government schools, they teach the children that it is normal, and immoral to speak out against homosexuality.

[RickD]

and also:"The big lie was that teaching in schools would be affected by the passage or non-passage of proposition 8. This was also a way of attempting to disguise their bigotry... millions of people who previously had never worried about homosexuality were prompted to be worried it would be "taught to their kids." Of course, if we as a society really didn't have a problem with homosexuality we wouldn't mind it being mentioned in school (unless as a parent you want to pull your kid out of sex-education classes entirely, which in CA you have a right to do)."

It has already happened in Massachusetts. If the law states that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and homosexual "marriage" is legal, it has to be accepted, or someone would be labeled a bigot. In Massachusetts' government schools, they teach the children that it is normal, and immoral to speak out against homosexual behavior.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
I wish we had a gay "contingent" of sorts here that we could pose some questions to and maybe they could answer as the voice of the gay community or at least their personal beliefs.

My position is that it doesn't matter to me if a gay couple marries. What they are looking for is equality in the benefits of marriage. I don't know if they care what the union is called, but they want the "union" and traditional marriage to be equal in benefits...wherever they go in this country. I don't see a problem with that. Is there more?

The problem here that I see is that we are trying to dictate CIVIL law based on Biblical principles and beliefs. While I don't see THAT as being necessarily wrong, in this society it hasn't been accepted yet...at least we are not a "Christian" nation or even a "Religious" nation for that matter. (The topic of whether the U.S. began as such, is a different topic altogether) No civil authority can force any religious organization to marry anyone. If a priest, pastor or whatever finds they don't agree to marry a certain couple, they don't have to. The couple can still be married by the court and gain all the civil rights under marriage this country affords.

NOW, if allowing such a thing as gay marriage results, down the line, in the forcing of religious organizations to marry these couples against the organization's will...THEN I stand up and fight against that.
.
.

[Byblos]

.
.
I wish we had a gay "contingent" of sorts here that we could pose some questions to and maybe they could answer as the voice of the gay community or at least their personal beliefs.

My position is that it doesn't matter to me if a gay couple marries. What they are looking for is equality in the benefits of marriage. I don't know if they care what the union is called, but they want the "union" and traditional marriage to be equal in benefits...wherever they go in this country. I don't see a problem with that. Is there more?

The problem here that I see is that we are trying to dictate CIVIL law based on Biblical principles and beliefs. While I don't see THAT as being necessarily wrong, in this society it hasn't been accepted yet...at least we are not a "Christian" nation or even a "Religious" nation for that matter. (The topic of whether the U.S. began as such, is a different topic altogether) No civil authority can force any religious organization to marry anyone. If a priest, pastor or whatever finds they don't agree to marry a certain couple, they don't have to. The couple can still be married by the court and gain all the civil rights under marriage this country affords.

NOW, if allowing such a thing as gay marriage results, down the line, in the forcing of religious organizations to marry these couples against the organization's will...THEN I stand up and fight against that.
.
.

I am on the fence wrt this issue but must admit I cannot find fault with what you state. Perhaps to the exclusion of what might happen down the line with other types of unions. Once a civil union is open to be for other than a man and a woman, who's to stop it from becoming a civil union between adult and child, adult and animals? And if adulthood and rationality is the cutoff, then how do you stop multiple adults form unionizing so-to-speak? Marriage, civil union, whatever you want to call it becomes a slippery slope with no clear delineation of individual rights.

[BavarianWheels]

I am on the fence wrt this issue but must admit I cannot find fault with what you state. Perhaps to the exclusion of what might happen down the line with other types of unions. Once a civil union is open to be for other than a man and a woman, who's to stop it from becoming a civil union between adult and child, adult and animals? And if adulthood and rationality is the cutoff, then how do you stop multiple adults form unionizing so-to-speak? Marriage, civil union, whatever you want to call it becomes a slippery slope with no clear delineation of individual rights.

I appreciate your comment, Byblos. You are right...what can happen down the road? What did happen down that road that caused God to wipe out humanity and leave 8? In my mind, and with all due respect to you, this is a religious argument that has no place in civil law dictated for the most part by a secular society. How does one stop the fall of society into apparent debauchery and ruin? Is it through civil legislation against homosexual marriage? To me, that's a 'no' answer. The answer lies not in stomping out homosexual marrage/unions, but in the spreading of God's word and love TO the homosexual. As long as we ("Christians") keep alienating homosexuals as sinful and unsavable as such, we fail them and ultimately God thereby tying His hands at working a miracle.

Where does this slippery slope end? It doesn't end until secular society makes an end...through civil law. For now, there is no law against homosexuality and so IMHO there cannot exist a law that keeps homosexuals from equal civil rights.

I hope that wasn't combative...I'm trying.
.
.

[Byblos]

I am on the fence wrt this issue but must admit I cannot find fault with what you state. Perhaps to the exclusion of what might happen down the line with other types of unions. Once a civil union is open to be for other than a man and a woman, who's to stop it from becoming a civil union between adult and child, adult and animals? And if adulthood and rationality is the cutoff, then how do you stop multiple adults form unionizing so-to-speak? Marriage, civil union, whatever you want to call it becomes a slippery slope with no clear delineation of individual rights.

I appreciate your comment, Byblos. You are right...what can happen down the road? What did happen down that road that caused God to wipe out humanity and leave 8? In my mind, and with all due respect to you, this is a religious argument that has no place in civil law dictated for the most part by a secular society. How does one stop the fall of society into apparent debauchery and ruin? Is it through civil legislation against homosexual marriage? To me, that's a 'no' answer. The answer lies not in stomping out homosexual marrage/unions, but in the spreading of God's word and love TO the homosexual. As long as we ("Christians") keep alienating homosexuals as sinful and unsavable as such, we fail them and ultimately God thereby tying His hands at working a miracle.

Where does this slippery slope end? It doesn't end until secular society makes an end...through civil law. For now, there is no law against homosexuality and so IMHO there cannot exist a law that keeps homosexuals from equal civil rights.

I hope that wasn't combative...I'm trying.
.
.

Not combative at all. I like that side of you Bav. And like I said, I can't find fault with your reasoning.

[jlay]

As much as I hate to admit it, there is little I can find fault with. But there are a few things. I would strongly argue that 'gay marriage' is an oxy moron and not a thing at all. Of course, the reality is that they can call it civil union or whatever. The bottom line is our government and the private sector affords certain priveleges to married people. It recognizes marriage as something deserving of special recognition. For example a wife gets the benefit of being on the husbands insurance, inheritance, etc. Gays are saying they want this recognition for their unions. It is apparent that the will of the people is that gay unions should not be recognized with the same standing as married couples.

I see this open for lots of abuse. As what is to stop two single straight men or women who are roomates, lobbying for the same benefits. If my best friend gets this awesome insurance plan through his employer, who is to say that we aren't a union, and that I should be added to his policy?? I know that is extreme, but it was a thought.

But all around, good points guys. It's a tought situation.

[Gman]

I can't support gay rights for two reasons...

1. God created man for women and the woman for man Genesis 2:24. Ultimately God knows what works best for both the believer and unbeliever, not he world.. It is sinful according to God Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13, 1 Tim 1:9-10, Rom 1:26-27. Therefore would you want an unbeliever to waste themselves away in sin or possibly go to hell for it? I really don't think anyone would.. Also beware, we will be judged on how we handle this issue..

2. Regardless what the Bible says about it, it's a perverted lifestyle.. And I can't consciously vote for something that I think could harm someone. The body was not designed for doing things that they shouldn't belong. Despite what the liberal media says about it, this type of lifestyle...

1. Eliminates procreation.
2. It promotes diseases (some deadly). See here.
3. Many forms of sexual behavior prevent blood from being accepted through the Red Cross and other agencies.
4. It destroys traditional male/female family units.
5. It could promote polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. One being man-boy perverted unions. (NAMBLA)
6. Public schools in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
7. Courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.
8. Promotes psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders. See here.
9. Raises insurance costs for everyone.
10. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad.

Bottom line, it shouldn't be supported for any reason...

Source: http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

[jlay]

G,

I don't actually think you will get any argument. Those are all good points. It is a perverted lifestyle. So are the millions of professing Christians living in sin, committing adultery, and divorcing. Those 10 points you link are good, because they do not address it as a religious issue.
We can't try to coerce people by imposing our faith positions on to them, especially through politics. Faith coerced is not faith at all. So, yes, there may be very legitimate reasons for speaking out against HS, as opposed to just telling them, "because the bible says so."

The reason the very definition of marriage is under attack is because it has been weakened by the behavior of straight people. If the institution of marriage were strong, and if those who claim Christ would live worthy, we wouldn't be having this debate.

A little more on my earlier thought. Is it a problem to offer married people special recognition vs. not extending such to homosexuals? I don't think so. There are many laws that grant certain priveleges to certain groups based on a myriad of reasons. So, I do take some excpetion with what Wheels says, "For now, there is no law against homosexuality and so IMHO there cannot exist a law that keeps homosexuals from equal civil rights."
There are priveleges afforded to minorities and other groups in this country that I do not have access to.

[Gman]

A little more on my earlier thought. Is it a problem to offer married people special recognition vs. not extending such to homosexuals? I don't think so. There are many laws that grant certain priveleges to certain groups based on a myriad of reasons. So, I do take some excpetion with what Wheels says, "For now, there is no law against homosexuality and so IMHO there cannot exist a law that keeps homosexuals from equal civil rights."
There are priveleges afforded to minorities and other groups in this country that I do not have access to.

Yes.. I would argue that rights for homosexuals are not needed because they are not a special group as much as the liberal media and certain Hollywood stars would insinuate. There maybe no laws against homosexuality, but to give them rights, then suddenly they are a special group with certain rights..

More here..
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... ality.html
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ality.html
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/drosman.html