Questions for Anyone Who Voted for Proposition 8

It wasn’t just Christians who voted to ban gay marriage in California, but no doubt the measure would’ve failed without their support. Ditto to the Mormons.

There are so many questions I want to ask those people who voted in favor of Proposition 8 and as a result banned gay marriages in California:

  • How is your marriage any more secure now that homosexual marriages in your state are broken?
  • What do you say to the children of gay parents who question why their mommies or daddies can’t be married?
  • Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?
  • How does this vote change your life?
  • Are you proud of yourself?
  • What did you say to your gay friends (if you have any) when you saw them post-election?
  • Will your actions bring gay people closer to Christ?
  • When gay marriage is finally legalized (it won’t be long), are you going to lie and tell your children your church led the charge for equal rights or will you tell them the truth and say you were the reason for the delay?
  • How do you defend your position to your children?
  • Are you in favor of lifelong commitments between two people or against it?
  • What effect do you think this gay marriage ban will have on gay people? Young people? Non-Christians? Young Christians?
  • Is this what Jesus would do?

Are there any questions you would ask them?

Is there anyone who would care to respond?

  • Kate

    “Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?”

    I AM SO USING THAT!!!!!!!

  • http://magdalune.blogspot.com/ magdalune

    “Didn’t your God tell you not to lie?”

    “What part of separation of church and state do you not understand?”

    “Did your marriage fall apart during the few months gay people married in droves?”

    “Did the world end in the few months gay people married in droves?”

    And to repeat, “What will you tell your children when they end up voting gay marriage back in, as is the prevalent statistic?”

    And this isn’t so much a question as the main thing going through my head every time I think of Prop 8. It’s been going for two days now. “You bastards! You lying bastards!”

  • Rachel

    I was so happy about the election yet this is just so bloody dismaying.
    For the record, here in Canada where gay marriage is legal, when it was legalized the world did not fall apart and last I checked my heterosexual marriage is still fine and dandy thank you very much.
    I really honestly don’t get how this can happen this day and age.
    I seriously hope this fight rages on until there is real equality for all in the US, this is something that seriously needs to be fought for.
    There is no way in hell discrimination should be put in a constitution! This is crazy!

  • BowserTheCat

    Three steps forward, two steps back…

  • Polly

    I just keep thinking: If only these stupid, bigoted motherfuckers would pour this much moeny into fighting the gross (real)immorality of war.
    Tiny-brained little sheep.

  • Yossarian

    I think one of the big issues was the fear that was being used by the Yes side. They made it seem like “gay indoctrination” was going to take place in schools, and that churches would be FORCED to perform gay weddings.

    Well, I am fortunate to live in a place that has legalized gay marriage, and we haven’t seen any of that. Nor will we, I believe.

    I think people bought into the fear, which is why 8 succeeded. It’s too bad with all the funding taking place on the “No” side that the fear arguments couldn’t be effectively rebutted.

  • aggrazel

    Do you think that banning gay marriage is constitutional?

  • http://www.anthroslug.blogspot.com anthroslug

    Living here in California, I know that the scare tactics were the principle tool used to pursuade those who might otherwise have voted “no.”

    I also saw the “yes” side trying to linkt his to non-sectarian conservative ideals. I actually saw protestors holding signs stating that a “yes” vote would mean smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and protection of religious rights. Of course, a “yes” vote actually had no impact of or was directly contrary to each of these things, yet these people were convinced.

    Oh, and as this was an ammendment to the state constitution, yes, it was technically constitutional. Now, whether it will stand up to a hearing on the federal constitution is open to debate.

    I would simply ask them this – Why is your right to not be offended more important than the rights of others who do not share your religious beliefs? Don’t you realize that you are not being oppressed by not being allowed to force others to follow your religion?

  • Becky

    I agree with kate, “Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?” — Best. Response. Ever.

  • aggrazel

    In fact, if I lived in California I might make it a point to gather enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot to ban Heterosexual marriage. It’d never pass, but maybe the point would sink in to some people.

  • Euthyphro

    It also wasn’t just straights that voted against gay marriage on Tuesday. I live in Florida and my employer happens to be a lesbian who I know for a fact voted against legalizing gay marriage here. I do not know exactly her position exactly since that is a bit more personal than we normally go. (She is NOT a conservative.)

    My wife asked me last night if I would be upset if the government invalidated our marriage, and I can honestly say I would be ecstatic. The government should get their fingers out of the marriage business all together. I would still be married to my wife even if they took back the license. No one needs permission from the state to be married. They just can’t file joint taxes. (And in some states now, adopt children. But we’re atheists that’s never stopped us from eating them… why should it stop the gays from adopting them.)

    Peace
    Euthyphro

  • justin jm

    There was this pro-prop 8 guy quoted on the Pam’s House Blend website saying that “tyranny” had been defeated by passing Prop 8.

    So here’s my question:

    Since when did upholding equal rights become “tyranny” and since when did voting away the rights of others become freedom?

    War is Peace, indeed…

  • http://www.gregorywalsh.net Greg

    I was fuming about this all day yesterday. I couldn’t even bring myself to feel happy about Obama’s victory because this just cast a pall over everything.

    Some friends from a local atheist meetup had the idea to stage a demonstration in front of the Mormon Temple in Kensington, MD during their festival of lights this holiday season.

    If anyone in the DC/MD/VA is just as pissed off as I am about this and wants to do something about it, let me know.

  • http://darwinsdagger.blogspot.com Darwin’s Dagger

    Unfortunately the majority of people in this country are not ready for gays to marry. It’s absurd that such a thing should be an issue, but it is. Trying to legislate the issue in the courts has only led to the passage of laws and constitutional amendments that will make it all the harder to legalize gay marriage in the future. The national zeitgeist may shift (maybe already is if the Obama election counts for anything) toward more tolerance, but it will be very difficult, once it has, to overturn some of these laws and amendments. It is an inherently unfair reality, but by pressing for gay marriage a decade before the nation was ready for it, gay couples have ensured that it will remain illegal in most of this country for the next half century.

  • http://www.cognitivedissident.org cognitive dissident

    If second-class citizenship is OK for same-sex couples, who else should have their rights restricted?

    Redheads? Southpaws? Republicans? Mormons?

  • Rachel

    I voted no on Prop 8. There’s a bunch of women in the office that got married to their partners at the same time I got married to my husband. Now my marriage stays and their marriages are just…gone. It’s awful.

    I had a pointless argument with somebody on Facebook. She was crowing about Prop 8 passing because a) the gays already have rights with domestic partnership, so it’s cool and b) OMG teachers would’ve had to teach kids about gay marriage.

    I can’t believe anybody fell for these lies. But apparently there’s a lot more hateful idiots out there than I knew.

  • Jeff Satterley

    What surprises me is that all of the propositions which discriminated against homosexuals passed, but all of the propositions limiting abortion rights were voted down, including the one in California.

    I guess two people promising to love one another for life is a bigger threat to Christianity than “murdering babies”, as they would say. There is at least a rational argument that could be made against late-term abortions (which many of the propositions were placing limits on), at least to me.

  • Pamela

    hope you don’t mind I posted this on my myspace. Here in FL, Amendment 2 passed which also is against civil unions AND affects more than just gay people. It was really disgusting to see so many people so happy about taking away the rights of others. I am really sick of the religious WRONG.

  • http://trainbiggermonkeys.com/blog Yuri Nalarm

    I am not suprised that no one that voted YES has had the balls to comment. Good work putting them in their place Hemant.

  • Steven

    One question that seems to be missing is “What about all the countries that have already legalized gay marriage and everything has stayed exactly the same?”
    It’s been three years since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in Canada. It didn’t affect my nine-year marriage in the slightest – why would it?
    Absolutely nothing happened except that our dollar was more robust than ever and a tiny minority of people got married who couldn’t have done so before.
    Yes, I know those things are not related, but if that’s the kind of divine “punishment” that’s in store for the U.S., I suggest legalization right away!

  • Richard Wade

    I’d ask them two questions:

    “If marriage is so sacred to you, why do you cheat?”
    Then, when they deny that, just shrug and say “Well, statistically I have a 60% chance of being right.”

    Then follow up with “So, now that gay marriage is banned, you won’t be thinking about cheating any more?”

  • http://madmansparadise.blogspot.com Asylum Seeker

    They don’t care about Hemant’s questions, because it presumes the equality of homosexuals to actual human beings, and makes a giant leap in assuming that gay sex doesn’t end society as we know it. All it takes for the kind of people who vote for this to respond is to say “Bible forbids it” and compare homosexual activity to theft and murder, and then stroll along on their merry way. I really wish that I could be so cavalier in my dismissal of the rights of other thinking, breathing human beings.

  • http://1minionsopinion.wordpress.com 1minion

    I suppose a question I’d ask would be “how does what they do hurt you?” I don’t think any naysayers would have a decent enough answer.

  • JSug

    I doubt anyone who would vote yes on 8 is a regular reader of this blog.

    As far as what people will actually believe: One problem I’ve found with the religious righties I know is that the same mindset that allows them to accept the bible as literal truth also allows them to accept other information as truth, no matter how ridiculous, if it comes from a source that they trust (meaning, one that agrees with their world view). Anything that might discredit their trusted sources is simply ignored as the “lies of Satan” or whatever. This is why creationists are still spouting the same tired arguments against evolution that they’ve been using for decades, even though they’ve all been soundly disproved.

    I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir, here (heh, see what I did there?), but just as an example, on election day, I received an email from my mother-in-law describing, in detail, all the horrible things Obama would do to this country on day one of his term, should he be elected. It was pretty much a point-by-point summary of Dobson’s ludicrous fantasy letter from 2012. It isn’t the first piece of trashy anti-Obama propaganda she has forwarded us. Suffice to say, my poor wife has been feeling very embarassed the last few weeks.

  • http://notapottedplant.blogspot.com/ Transplanted Lawyer

    Greg and Darwin’s Dagger — I think a mistaken assumption of a lot of people is that because someone voted for Obama, that they are necessarily socially liberal. A good look in the exit polls shows that the ethnic group most likely to have voted for Prop. 8 were African-Americans, who voted 70-30 in favor (all other ethnic groups were almost evenly split). Now, this wasn’t the whole difference, but it was a big factor. African-American voters were largely mobilized through their churches, and — surprise — people who go to church a lot tend to be more socially conservative than people who don’t.

    I don’t say this to “blame the Blacks,” but rather to point out that there may be a mistaken assumption that because these voters are Democrats, that they are also liberal. For the record, I don’t “blame the Blacks” — I blame the people who ran the “No on 8″ campaign. They made a series of bad decisions about how to defend their position in what they should have known would be a bitter and difficult fight and thanks to their incompetence, my state’s Constitution now contains overt discrimination and I will have to work, very hard and for a long time, to try to make things right again.

    So yeah, I’m kind of bitter.

  • elianara

    “Did you vote for Prop 2?” (Prop 2 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty passed with 63% of the votes)

    “So you can feel compassion for animals and vote for their rights, but not feel empathy with other human beings, and vote against their rights moments later?”

  • Shel

    Marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and one or more women before God. Taking God out of the equation, as what happens when atheists marry, redefines and undermines marriage for society. Let’s try to put a measure on the ballot calling for the banning of all atheist marriages.

    Check out the Facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=34303668909

  • JSug

    I suppose a question I’d ask would be “how does what they do hurt you?” I don’t think any naysayers would have a decent enough answer.

    Recently, someone forwarded me an email trying to get people to call a voter feedback number in CA to tell Gov Schwarzenegger to veto a bill declaring a day to honor Harvey Milk (look it up if you don’t know who he was). Just to see what would happen, I replied all saying that I was surprised they would advocate what is essentially fraud just to voice their bigoted opinion.

    Most of the responses were along the lines of “but OMGZ teh GAY might spread!!!” But one of the responses I got back was actually a coherently worded email. It was still a silly biblical diatribe, but at least it belied a semi-rational mind behind it. I decided to pursue a discussion with the gentleman, and ended up exchanging several emails. I got the chance to ask him the above question, and his response can be summarized thusly:

    They are hurting others by making them think it is okay to be gay. It is not okay, because God said so. If I can’t restrict marriage to a man and a woman, this is a violation of my 1st amendment right to worship freely.

    Yeah, I never got him to explain the logical basis of that last part. I gave up when I couldn’t think of anything else to say that couldn’t be construed as simply insulting him. I can’t say that this guy speaks for all people who are opposed to gay marriage, but I think he’s a pretty good representation of the general attitude. He’s afraid that if they allow gays this one little right, it will start some sort of cascade effect. More people think it’s okay to be gay, and then more people will become gay. Leading to the eventual downfall of civilization. Or something.

  • Pingback: Prop 8 Vote Prompts Protests and Petitions « Culturite

  • noodleguy

    I once had a friend who was a fundie, and against gay marriage. She was actually quite intelligent, just brainwashed by the church, and this was the essence of her response as to why she was opposed to gay marriage:

    1) There is no “right” to marriage.
    2) If you allow gays to marry it means that my children will grow up in an environment where gayness is accepted as normal. I responded that gay people probably would not mind THEIR children growing up in an environment where gayness was normal. She said that it did not matter, it was still restricting HER freedoms. She then said who was I to judge whose freedoms were more important, hers or theirs.

    We had many debates over this and I couldn’t get anything more than this response.

    I think this is the line of thought of many who are opposed to gay marriage. Probably a majority of them aren’t able to express it coherently though, or just don’t have ANY rational argument other then “gayness is EVIL AND SIN!!!”

    Anyway, I didn’t want to go further into it with her because I didn’t want to get in a big fight but my response would be as such.
    1) Of course there is. Our legal code is built on rights. You have the RIGHT not to have your wallet stolen, or have someone assault you.
    2) First of all this argument is invalid unless she really can prove that their marriage is in any way harming her rights, which you can’t do unless you build your argument on intolerance. Second of all the cascade effect argument is invalid. If you want to use that you shouldn’t allow ANY marriages, yes? Because CLEARLY:
    Normal Marriages –> Interracial Marriages –> Gay Marriages –> People Marrying inanimate objects –> People marrying animals –> Adults Marrying Children –> Cats and Dogs living together –> Downfall of Civilization.

    If you apply that logic to any other aspect of society (which you can, like free speech or even *gasp* freedom of religion) then the only logical result is that everyone should be locked in a padded room wearing straight-jackets all day long to prevent them from inadvertently setting off a chain reaction that will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it.

    Of course, you have to go back to the rights paradigm to refute the rest of their argument. In order for ANYONE to get married that means you are giving them a RIGHT to get married. That’s the foundation of our legal system. Read John Locke people, that’s who the constitution is based on.

    Once you accept that there is a RIGHT to get married you cannot deny this right to any one group or it is basically racism.

    And no, this does not lead to allowing adults to marry children or something. You know why? Because of RIGHTS again. A child has a right not to have themselves be taken advantage of or have their innocence taken away. Having an adult marry a child is basically slavery, since the child has no real say.

    Anything between two consenting adults = fair game though, pretty much. As long as it doesn’t hinder someone else’s rights.

    That’s why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. You can’t take away a right from any one sector of society.

  • Polly

    My wife takes the Bible as the Word-of-God. She is quite displeased with the passage of Prop 8. She believes homosexuality is wrong, but she doesn’t think it’s anyone’s business to force other people to agree with her religion. She was mad at the church. They actually passed out Yes on Prop 8 signs. My mother happily took one even though she has nowhere to…stick it.

    My FIL took one, saying he could use some scrap metal. :)

    I voted for Prop 2. I’m glad it passed. It seemed like there wasn’t as much debate behind it. The talk of Salmonella did freak me out a bit; I’m betting it’s just more scare tactics.

  • David D.G.

    JSug wrote:

    He’s afraid that if they allow gays this one little right, it will start some sort of cascade effect. More people think it’s okay to be gay, and then more people will become gay. Leading to the eventual downfall of civilization. Or something.

    Well, sure. After all, just take a look at the devastation where Belgium, Canada, Spain, and The Netherlands used to be. (*eyeroll*)

    ~David D.G.

  • http://www.psyriac.com PS

    In many ways I’m simply glad I don’t belong to this great country of yours. Nothing personal.

    Clearly, getting married by an Elvis impersonator whilst piss drunk in Vegas really only upholds the sanctity of marriage.

  • http://blueollie.wordpress.com ollie

    “How is your marriage any more secure now that homosexual marriages in your state are broken?”

    I’ll give this one a shot: at yoga class, I (a male) kept checking out my (female) yoga teacher’s butt.

    I couldn’t figure out why I did that and then it dawned on me; it must be because gays are getting married.

    /snark

    Seriously, I don’t know what to say other than, while we’ve grown as a society with this election, we still have some growing up to do.

  • http://www.fabulouslyinthecity.com Chris (in Columbus)

    Yeah, this one hurt me. A lot.

    Since I am gay and cannot legally get married nor adopt children, can I opt out of paying for taxes for schools? Can I refrain from having my tax dollars go to pay for heterosexual unions done at the court? What about divorces, can I opt out of any Government subsidy of that? Since I’m not given the right to a family, why should I have to pay for it?

    After my countrymen have time and time again told me, “We don’t want you”, it’s hard to keep coming back and saying, “But I want you.” I would never vote to take away a Christians right to marry, no matter how much I dislike them. Is this what Jesus would do?

  • Euthyphro

    Noodleguy

    Read John Locke people, that’s who the constitution is based on.

    Not to pick a fight here but John Locke isn’t really the best constitutional precursor for an atheist, seeing that, in spite of the fact he was a Deist, his particular worldview was very much founded in Christianity.

    Here is the first few lines from “Of Civil Government:”

    It having been shown in a foregoing discourse:
    1.That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended.
    2.That if he had his heirs had no right to it.

    The “rights” you are referring to, in John Locke’s opinion, come from God. (Or even T. Jefferson from the Dec. of Ind. “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”) He probably would vote for 8.

    By the way. Addison’s play Cato and The Cato Letters had a far greater influence on American ideas and the founding of this country than John Locke ever did. Rome had a bigger influence than John Locke, and Rome was sacked some 1400 years prior.

    Peace
    Euthyphro

  • http://www.banalleakage.com martymankins

    Those are all excellent questions.

    I wonder how well a proposition that would make divorce illegal would go over with the populous? I mean, if their entire argument is about protecting marriage, one can’t argue that outlawing divorce protects a marriage, legally holding it together.

    Now, obviously, that’s flawed, but for the sake of argument, it’s one I’d like to hear an intelligent response to.

  • J Myers

    One silver lining for gay rights this past election day: my state of CT voted “no” for a constitutional convention which the bigots were pushing for, as it represented their best hope to overturn CT’s recent legalization of gay marriage.

    The option to hold a constitutional convention appears on the CT ballot every 20 years, so it won’t be back until 2028. By that time, I doubt any anti-gay marriage amendment would have even the faintest chance (in fact, polls here show an existing opposition to such an amendment, though I suppose the same was true of CA…)

  • noodleguy

    Not to pick a fight here but John Locke isn’t really the best constitutional precursor for an atheist

    I really don’t care what his religious beliefs were. I won’t disown Locke’s philosophy any more then I will disown Newton’s laws of Physics because he was obsessed with theology. Frankly, don’t be absurd, it is in fact possible to be a Christian and have a few working brain cells.

    His politics and economics were brilliant and I’ll accept him for that. Where you think Natural Rights came from doesn’t really matter. I think that every sentiet being has the right to own themself, and that’s where the rights come from. If you believe they cam from God more power to you. My religion (or lack thereof) does not impact my economics, thank you.

    I am going to argue that no, Cato did not have a bigger impact on the founding of this country. Entire sections of the Declaration of Independence are practically plagiarized from Locke. Remember “Life, libery, an the pursuit of happiness”? Yeah, all but one WORD from that is exactly from Locke. He actually said life, liberty, and estate which is less poetic but more accurate, I think. Luckily when they rephrase it in the Constitution they fix it to be exactly from Locke.

    The only person who possibly had more influence then Locke was Montisique.

    Now, you could easily (and very well) argue that Locke based his ideas off of Cato. However, Locke certainly did EXPAND on Cato’s ideas very much. While I don’t doubt that Cato had an influence on the founding fathers Locke was THE primary influence on their works.

    Of course you could apply your arguments to ALL thinking. In fact, by your logic I don’t believe that there has been an original thinker since, oh, Ancient Greece perhaps. Everyone builds off ideas from their predecessors. I don’t think there is any sort of immaculately conceived idea that springs forth from oblivion into existence.

    Would he vote for 8? Well, FSM only knows since it wasn’t even an issue back then. I would seriously doubt it though. Does it really matter though, and is there any way of knowing? No, and no.

    To summarize: DUDE! Don’t mess with mah’ Locke, I’m kind of a big fan!

  • JSug

    @Chris (in Columbus):

    We do want you. We really do.

    The tides are turning. I take heart in looking at the voting breakdown by age. Note that people under the age of 30, regardless of religious belief, voted overwhelmingly in opposition to prop 8. It wasn’t enough, but it was a very close thing. Assuming we don’t discover the key to immortality any time soon, it’s only a matter of time…

  • http://blargen.com/blog/ postsimian

    I would ask the morons who added this to the ballot why it’s there in the first place. This is about protecting the rights of the minority, which is not something the majority should be voting on, period.

  • CybrgnX

    The prop8 is very important to the Fundys.
    If they can get the marriage thing OUT of the governments hands and back to the original religious hands only then women will be back to what it was in the 1500s. No rights to anything!! the men controll all and women can not get devorsed and men keep everything when THEY declare the devorse and kick the women out. Prop8 is the first step. It will not really work and is pretty stupid but what else do you expect from THEM. This type of consperiacy sounds better then they are just hatefull bigots.
    Spelling & grammer is the fault of the keyboard. I take no responsibillity for getting it right or wrong.

  • Stephen

    Please vote for the upcoming satirical Arizona Proposition in 2010: Prop 100, Save Family Values Again. This proposition would elevate adultery to a class 2 felony and add a constitutional amendment banning divorce. As a footnote, cheating spouses and divorce seekers will be exempt from this ruling as long as they legally certify a statement recognizing the Bible (et al) as a completely fictional work and promise never to engage in religious activities. I encourage my California and Florida brethren to pursue similar measures. Save the family! Amen.

  • Euthyprho

    it is in fact possible to be a Christian and have a few working brain cells.

    A)I am not a Christian, but I know plenty with working brains. I have no doubt there are more.

    B)Not what I was saying at all. My point was that Locke’s entire political philosophy is based on Natural Rights bestowed by God. It is the first premise and foundation of the social contract. (By the way I wasn’t saying anything about where “[I] think Natural Rights came from…” and to clarify, as an atheist, it would be hard to imagine my thinking they were bestowed by a Creator).

    C)We have no reason to believe that T. Jefferson was referring to John Locke, it is much more likely that it came second hand through George Mason and the Virginia Bill of Rights.

    D)Cato’s Letter were influenced by John Locke; the forming of the USA was not so much. This is jacked from Wikipedia because I didn’t feel like digging my copy out to peruse the introduction:

    it is estimated that half the private libraries in the American colonies held bound volumes of Cato’s Letters on their shelves.

    You can’t say that about Locke’s “Of Civil Government.”

    By the way it’s not to the Epistulae of Cato the Younger I was referring, but the collection of Enlightenment Letters entitled The Cato Letters. Cato was just a pseudonym.

    E)Addison’s play Cato is prominent in the most well known quotes from the Revolution. Again jacked from Wiki, no need to dig.

    “Give me Liberty or give me death!” – Act II, Scene 4: “It is not now time to talk of aught/But chains or conquest, liberty or death.”

    “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” – Act IV, Scene 4: “What a pity it is/That we can die but once to serve our country.”

    “It is not in the power of any man to command success; but you have done more — you have deserved it.” – Act I, Scene 2: “‘Tis not in mortals to command success; but we’ll do more, Sempronius, we’ll deserve it.”

    Cato was the most acted played in the New World from the time it hopped the pond till a little while after the founding of the Nation. In fact Washington had it put on for the soldiers during their winter at Valley Forge. There are more quotes and tidbits but like I said above I don’t feel like digging.

    F) I never doubted or mention anything that would convey that Locke’s ideas were unoriginal. I just feel he is given credit for ideas that were expanded on and spread by other less well remembered individuals. That, of course, does not make Locke less brilliant, or less influential, his influence just was as direct in the American Revolution as the above.

    G)I dare say that your love affair with Locke is blinded you from being objective about the facts. He was brilliant, but he is only THAT important to philosophy not to the American Revolution.

    H)Montisique? Did you mean Montesquieu (French Guy, Separation of Power)? I promise I am not being a dick here. I just am not sure, if this is who you meant. (If so). Maybe he was an influence on Madison and possibly Jefferson, but not on the people as a whole, as is the case with The Letter’s and Cato.

    Is comment Hi-Jacking wrong?

    @Hemant

    If you would prefer I am sure we could move this discussion else where.

  • Monkey Deathcar

    “Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?” – Hemant Mehta (A response to Proposition 8 in California)

    I’m using this as my facebook status, because it’s brilliant.

  • Catherine

    Thank you for this.

    As a gay person, this felt like a punch in the gut. The fact that so many voters feel that way about people like me just hurts.

  • Jen

    I think the reason the farm animal act passed and this failed was how it was worded. Had Prop 8 been called “The Prevention of Cruelty to Human Beings” I bet it would have failed.

  • Margy

    Chris (in Columbus), Catherine, and everyone:

    As a straight person, this felt like a punch in the gut to me, too–not only because I have gay relatives and friends, but because I officiated at a gay wedding in August. My neighbors did me the honor of asking me to become deputized by Santa Clara County to perform their ceremony, and I did so with great pleasure. I practiced reading the vows aloud every night for two weeks and was thrilled beyond measure when the wedding day arrived. It was a beautiful ceremony and I can truly say I have never seen a couple more in love than the two women who got married that day. I am sick at heart about Prop. 8 and I don’t know what to say to them. I have been out of town and have not seen them since the election. Does anyone have advice for me on what I can say to these wonderful ladies? What can I possibly say?

  • Euthyphro

    @Margy

    What can I possibly say?

    You can tell them, that you knew their marriage was always about love and not a piece of paper from the state. Your friends are still married. That piece of paper is nothing more than a permission slip from a government bureaucracy, and one that his very much in the wrong.

  • Cathy

    On Locke-divine command theory is intensely problematic as a basis for an ethical system. Is an act right because God commands it or does God command an act because it is right? If the former is true, then God could consider that say, eating babies, is moral starting right now and it would be. It the latter is true, then there must be some feature of these acts that leads God to command them so there is no need to bring in the element of divine command to find the feature that makes an act moral.

    Also THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT! Seriously. It is not a part of US law, so no part of the declaration is viable as a basis for law on the grounds of being included in the declaration. What is however, a part of US law is the first and fourteenth amendments as well as supreme court rulings. 1) Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a civil right protected under the fourteenth amendment. 2) Lawrence v. Texas concluded that sodomy laws had no rational basis and therefore violated the fourteenth amendment. 3) Brown v. Board of education ruled that “seperate but equal” was inherantly unequal. The first amendment bans the practice of discrimination based exclusively on failure to adhere to a certain religion’s tenants. Imagine the uproar if I started banning people who fail to uphold the ramadan fast from being foster parents or having legal marriages.

    Here’s probably my best question:

    You say that gay people do not make good parents, so it’s your word against that of the Child Welfare League of America, American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the North American Council on Adoptable Children?

  • penn

    Fuck you.

    It’s not really friendly, or even a question, but it’s all I can really think to say.

  • Rat Bastard

    I voted against prop 8 and for Obama, and I’m a 56-year old middle-aged fatboy (well, I COULD stand to lose 10 pounds, the doctor says). I’m also an atheist, and I gotta tell you even my RC wife admitted the ads were off base with the forced elementary education gambit. I predict the law will fall on challenge when it AGAIN goes to the California Supreme Court. My carpool buddy is a conservative xtian, and I’ve been pretty low-key with my refutation, but it won’t be long before I lay it out further- I’ve already told him it’s a Civil Rights issue, and will be overturned yet again. I’ve even included the idea that it isn’t for a church to decide what constitutes marriage. Superstitious mofos, anyway. Dayamn!

  • http://impoliteconversation.wordpress.com jessa

    As a commenter above alluded, you are working on a faulty assumption when you ask these questions. You are assuming that the kind of fundie that supports gay marriage bans actually cares about the happiness of gay people or their families. Having grown up in a fundie area, I can tell you that they don’t care one iota about anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do.

    To them, it’s very simple – the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin. And they also believe that it’s a sin to tolerate sinful behavior in others. So it’s important to them to outlaw gay marriage, lest God judge them for being complicit. And if that means trampling on others’ happiness or breaking up families, so be it. All that matters is being “right with God”.

    So yes, they are proud of what they have done, and they sincerely believe that it’s what Jesus would do.

  • N

    On the idea of homosexual couples not being good parents:

    My daughter’s best friend is the daughter of a lesbian couple. She is one of the sweetest, most well-adjusted, best behaved kids I have ever had the pleasure of knowing [besides my own, of course :-) ].

    I have said it before, but I still just can’t understand why the fundamentalists fear homosexuality so much. I just really don’t understand it.

  • Pingback: Caught My Eye

  • Beijingrrl

    I’m so embarrassed to be a California resident? What happened to our role as leaders in social progress? This will be overturned, but it’s horrible that it stands for even one minute.

    My husband and I also want to let all of the same-sex couples know that we support you and we will continue to fight for your rights!

  • Siamang

    Darwin’s Dagger wrote:

    It is an inherently unfair reality, but by pressing for gay marriage a decade before the nation was ready for it, gay couples have ensured that it will remain illegal in most of this country for the next half century.

    Tell me, DD. Who wrote these passages?

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

    Who is it that we credit with this passage:

    “… the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

    Are you setting the timetable for another man’s freedom?

    What is time for, if not for the fight for justice?

    Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

  • http://www.notguru.com Urbain

    (1) Is the Vast Homosexual Agenda similar to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

    (2) Since God only created “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” why did Adam and Eve only create Cain and Abel?

    (3) When Cain was kicked out of Eden and moved to the land of “Nod,” who was Cain’s wife? His sister? If so, does this qualify as “one man, one woman.” If not, where did she come from?

    (4) If God created Adam and Eve, is there a different God and a different Bible for the folks who were apparently alive and well over in Nod? If the answer to this question is “yes,” please explain why your religion is better than the other religions. If the answer is “no,” then please explain this conundrum in the context of marriage.

  • http://www.veganculinaryexperience.com Jason Wyrick

    I just asked a prop 8 supporter if I could vote on his marriage, and he said, “No. I’ll let God vote on my marriage!” I asked him why he didn’t do the same on Tuesday? He had no answer. I fully knew that the challenge wouldn’t sway him, but I did take delight in making him feel awfully uncomfortable. Sadly, he’s sort of a friend, but bigots receive no sympathy from me.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    Just want to say thanks, Hemant.

    I’ve been wanting to write an angry atheist screed about this. But I’ve been too busy a) crying, b) emailing frantically in my gay politico email list about what the hell we should do next, and c) trying to distract myself by watching insane marathons of “Entourage.” I’m really, really glad that you did. Thanks, dude.

    Oh, and a question I’d like to ask: “When your preacher said same-sex marriage would make churches lose their tax-exempt status and force homosexuality to be taught in the schools… why did you believe them? As opposed to, say, legal experts and the California Teacher’s Association?”

  • Jacob_dp

    Help fight against the LDS
    The deserve to lose their tax exempt status for urging the sway of legislation. If we file enough complaints they can’t overlook us all.

  • Beowulff

    Since so many Yes-voters on Prop 8 seem to frame it as a religious freedom issue (“legalizing homosexuality means I can’t say it’s wrong anymore even though that is my religious belief”), I would like to ask:

    “Should your right to religious freedom always and automatically trump the rights to equal treatment and the pursuit of happiness of others?”

    Or less nicely: “So you voted yes because you were afraid you wouldn’t be allowed to continue your bigotry otherwise?”

  • noodleguy

    As much as I enjoy debating Locke, and as much as Cathy’s terrible, terrible misrepresentation or misunderstanding of him disturbs me, I have to say two things:

    a) that I feel bad for hijacking a completly unrelated thread.
    b) I’ve had this same argument about property rights / Locke on 6 different occasions in 6 different contexts over the past two weeks or so, and although this is the only one where his religious views came up I am SICK of this debate, mmmkay?
    Sorry to blow you off or whatever but I honestly have work to do…

    ANYWAY I still just feel sick over Prop 8 and its ugly compatriots. My gay friends are horrified, one couple was planning on getting married in California but I guess that won’t be happening.

    I can’t say I like the “Just wait it out” theory, because I doubt the bigotry will be going away any time soon. Maybe once the older generation of fundie dies off the new generation will be more accepting. At least that’s what the polls suggest.

    I don’t think that’s any excuse to stop working at it though. If anything we must push the issue harder now then ever.

  • http://arkonbey.blogspot.com arkonbey

    I know it’s late, but I want to add that my wife and I are now getting a divorce. You see, we had a party last week and a friend and her partner showed up to hang out and watch horror movies. Now, our marriage is destroyed.

    Well, the girl and her partner thing is true (we live in VT, so it’s not exactly marriage, but, you get the picture).

  • http://darwinsdagger.blogspot.com Darwin’s Dagger

    Are you setting the timetable for another man’s freedom?

    I’m not, the nation is. Every time it has been asked this question, it has said “no.” It has not said “no” merely by overturning court cases or enacting laws, but by amending constitutions to specifically enshrine this particular form of discrimination into the highest law of the state. The result will be, even when the nation or a state is ready to accept gay marriage, that those constitutional changes will still be enforced. The Supreme Court could declare these amendments unconstitutional, but good luck with that in the Roberts, Scalia, Alito Court. And given the choice, most Americans would probably choose to amend the national constitution in favor of such discrimination rather than against it.

    It was a tactical error to inspire the creation of so many legal roadblocks by pushing for this before people were ready. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the true and right and just thing to do, but merely that doing the right thing, as is often the case, has vastly complicated the road to justice.

    What is time for, if not for the fight for justice?

    That’s the only thing it is good for.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com hoverFrog

    The right for homosexuals to marry has been removed. What happens to the 18,000 homosexuals who are married? Are their legal marriages going to be annulled? If someone tried to tell me that then I would take them to court and fight it. It is like saying that you aren’t a father any more or that you aren’t an adult. Lets see if the courts can cope with that much legal pressure.

    Now if 18,000 gay people are still legally married then the state recognises gay marriage licences. People can then marry elsewhere in a legal ceremony (perhaps some enterprising person does this online) and the state must recognise it.

    On the positive side the vote was close as hell and the YesToProp8 people spend an inordinate amount to get it that far. Give it a bit of time and attitudes will change or fundy pockets will run dry.

  • noodleguy

    Next time I hope they won’t be able to lie to the public so easily. All their accusations about gay marriages being taught in schools were continued…even after the California School Board came out and vehemently denied these claims.

    If they didn’t have their made up facts I wonder if they still would have won?

  • Polly

    I do not believe any law can be applied retroactively. Those marriages still remain. But, we’ll see.

  • “fundie”

    I disagree that prop 8 was a civil rights issue; this was a moral issue, which is why many churches joined in on the fray. On the basis of what has already happened elsewhere in the nation, I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

    Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right? Where is the line drawn? Can there even be a defining line? If those who support gay marriage avidly attack those who don’t, does that make them a bigot towards supporters of heterosexual marriage?

    You’ll notice that no one that supports prop 8 has posted on this blog, and it may be for two reasons:

    1) From reading the posts, this is clearly not an attempt at discussion, but at attacking people for doing what they felt was right; why post when it will not be discussed, but sworn at and venomously attacked?

    2) Any attempt at discussion is impaired because the two sides operate on fundamentally different frameworks–where is the common ground to build on?

    I could tell you that I have a deep interest in protecting the rights of people, and that each person is a unique and wonderful creation. I can also tell you that this will be immediately dismissed by someone because of the stance I take–which is, supporting marriage as defined in heterosexual terms. I do support all the things I’ve listed, but I feel an obligation and need to take a stance on moral issues such as this.

    I agree that those in heterosexual marriages have their weaknesses, as we see divorces, cheating, etc. That is irrelevant to this discussion, though. The discussion seemingly should be on clarifying whether this is truly a civil rights issue, or a moral issue.

    Regarding the original questions:

    1-irrelevant. Voting yes on the proposition would have had nothing to do with the security of my marriage. Seems to be more of a flailing attack at an imagined reason for voting yes.

    2-I don’t know what I’d say. What would I say to the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t married? Both are sad and unfortunate situations, and both will impair these children in ways that I believe deal with God, our purpose for life, and other beliefs that aren’t associated with the atheistic mindset.

    3-Of course you can vote on the legality of my marriage. The question is, do you want to because of the moral issues associated with the institution, or out of revenge and spite?

    4-It’s hard to say how this vote changes my life. Granting the fact that I’ll be accused of being brainwashed, I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

    5-Again, this seems to be an irrelevant question. It is based on the assumption that voting yes on the proposition truly was based on bigoted hatred. Do you really want to discuss the fundamental reasons for voting yes or no on the proposition? Or are you just trying to air out your frustration and anger? This isn’t about being proud of an action; it is about doing what I feel to be morally right.

    6-I haven’t had a chance to discuss this with my gay friends yet. We have divergent work schedules. I don’t think I’d say anything, really–just listen to them and try and understand how they feel.

    7-Bringing gay friends closer to Christ–what an interesting question. “Coming closer” is something my gay friends would have to do out of their own drive and desire. This amendment itself is not associated with such an action; the consequences, including anger and perhaps hatred towards religious institutions in general may be an impediment. Of course, I’ve known and read of people who have come quite close to God (and Christ) without the aid of institutions. When they’re ready, the organization God has set up will be ready for them.

    8- Why would I lie to my children about a moral issue? Of course I would tell them that I support such a proposition, and teach them (in the context of religion–again, something that fundamentally sets our discussion here at odds) why I did.

    9- I don’t think I’d “defend” my position to my children; rather, I would teach them the principles I’ve learned in my life about marriage, our relationship to God, and their divine potential. What they do with that will again be their choice, as with the homosexual coming closer to Christ.

    10- It depends on what you mean by lifelong commitments. I have lifelong commitments to friends, so I am not against that. That is part of who we are as people. I do not support the nature of commitment that is contrary to what I believe God has dictated regarding marriage and raising children. This, again, is in context of religious belief.

    11- I think this will have (and I read here that it already has) an emotionally hurtful impact on gay people. I don’t know if that is a bad thing, though. It seems as though we are trying to rationalize our actions through legislation, and yes, even hiding behind the “civil rights” front. I would say the same to those who cheat on spouses or lie and steal from others. I am unsure what this amendment will do in affecting young people–I personally hope that it will help them to understand that they can establish a family unit of their own and contribute to society.

    12- I cannot speak for Jesus in this matter. I do believe that the religious beliefs (I call them truths) I have founded my morals on were given from Jesus. He would find a way to let each of us know–no matter our mistakes and faults and erroneous beliefs–how much worth we have, how much he loves us, and especially correct us where we are wrong (this ties back in to 11 where I state I don’t believe hurt emotions is necessarily a bad thing).

    All in all, this has been a long post and I can only imagine the myriad responses I could get from this. If we truly want understanding and to find common ground, then let’s have a real discussion. otherwise, the following posts will follow the usual negative, angry blast as the previous 60-odd ones have. And that takes us nowhere.

    (“fundie”, by the way, is a play on the negative use of the same word previously in the comments–I’ve never identified myself as such before, probably won’t after this)

  • http://www.thegoodatheist.net dulljake

    I wrote something on Proposition 8, which basically boils down to this: The tyranny of the majority has allowed a specific group of individuals to be segregated and who’s civil rights have been repealed. Not since Japanese internment camps has such a flagrant display of bigotry been accepted on such a massive scale. The fact that this was voted on by a slim majority shows that the spirit of democracy is indeed dying, if not dead already. If Americans continue to vote based on their religious convictions, it is only a matter of time before we find ourselves in a theocracy.

  • noodleguy

    I do not believe any law can be applied retroactively. Those marriages still remain. But, we’ll see.

    Indeed, those marriages have to count, its right in the constitution.

    “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    ex post facto law = “Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively.”

  • Pingback: A Short Take on Prop 8 « This is What a Feminist Blogs Like

  • Steven

    “Fundie” wrote a lengthy and thoughtful response to Hemant’s questions to supporters of Proposition 8. It will be interesting to see what sort of responses it generates.
    Is it possible to have a meaningful dialogue with someone who is convinced that homosexuality is immoral, sinful, and condemned by a supreme being?
    It has not been satisfactorily explained to me what makes homosexuality “immoral”.
    “The Bible says so” just isn’t good enough when the same book makes no condemnation of slavery, something most folks agree is truly immoral.
    Yes, I realize that those are completely different things, but what I’m suggesting is that the Bible is not an infallible guide to morality.
    I can’t figure out why any adult would care so much about what other consenting adults do in their spare time. Nor do I see the profit in denying a simple ceremony to any competent adults that wish to participate in it. Fundamentally speaking, if an omnipotent God really didn’t approve of something wouldn’t he simply alter reality to conform to his wishes? Even more telling, why would an omnibenevolent God want anyone to discriminate against any of his creations?

  • http://feministblogproject.wordpress.com Allyson

    It has not been satisfactorily explained to me what makes homosexuality “immoral”.

    Me neither.

    Actually, the reason I didn’t respond to fundie’s comments right off the bat was because the were so personal. I was bordering on off-topic, flame-style rage. For example, when fundie said:
    What would I say to the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t married? Both are sad and unfortunate situations, and both will impair these children in ways that I believe deal with God, our purpose for life, and other beliefs . . .

    I had trouble not taking it personally. I had heterosexual parents who divorced. I resent the idea that I was somehow “impaired” by their decision to divorce. If anything “impaired” me, it was the years before they decided to split up, when there was abuse happening. When my parents divorced, they knew it was better for everyone. I know I can’t take strangers on the internet personally. But it’s also hard for me to hold a meaningful discussion with someone who says single parenting or gay marriage “will impair” children, when I know it’s not true.

  • stephanie

    I’m really disgusted at this proposition and the people who backed it. Most of my friends simply referred to it as prop h8. The pride in the faces of the supporters was so much like those black and white photos of segregationists and I hope that someday they will understand the shame in their bigotry.

    That said, everyone is picking on the Mormons. I don’t disagree with that, but why mentions of the Catholics and Scientologists also strongly involved in getting this Jim Crow law passed?

  • llewelly

    Do you think that banning gay marriage is constitutional?

    Note the anti-gay people insist on amending constitutions to ban gay marriage. They did this even in Utah, which has always had a constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman (in three places, no less). Clearly, the anti-gay people believe state and federal constitutions must be amended in order to prevent gay marriage.

  • Euthyphro

    @Allyson – First and foremost, this is not in defense of Fundie’s position, but from reading what you both wrote it sounds as if Fundie would think you were ‘impaired’ based on your differing opinions and worldviews (ie. you feel homosexuality is not wrong therefore…). I must believe that he would feel Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist or any other non-Judeo-Christian parents would ‘impair’ child as well.

    It has not been satisfactorily explained to me what makes homosexuality “immoral”.

    Now I am no Christian but to be the Devil’s advocate(see what i did there :P ); It could be rationalized in the explicit statement of marriage by Paul in Corinthians. Which would make homosexuality adultery, and hence to the Christian immoral. That is better than Leviticus said so right?

    Peace

  • llewelly

    Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?

    If you feel interracial marriage is immoral, you are a bigot.

  • Polly

    @fundie,
    The only argument we can find common ground on is the one about religious freedom. Since gay-marriage has been legal in Massachussets and in Canada without affecting freedom of speech or religion, is there any reason to believe things would work out differently in CA? Certainly, you have the constitution to protect your freedom of conscience.

    Why does your religious viewpoint have to hold for those who don’t believe in your religion? My wife is a “fundy” who accepts the Bible as Truth. But, she recognizes that California is not her church. It’s a government that exists to serve all citizens.

  • “fundie”

    @Allyson:

    I resent the idea that I was somehow “impaired” by their decision to divorce. If anything “impaired” me, it was the years before they decided to split up, when there was abuse happening.

    Boy, I think there has been a misunderstanding. Thank you for letting me clarify that I don’t espouse abusive relationships to remain as such. And I sympathize with your conclusion about the years before your parents’ divorce. When I speak of impair, that can mean a whole hierarchy of things, such as:

    -impaired emotionally, having to overcome emotional barriers in one’s own relationships in the future, etct.
    -impaired spiritually, not knowing one’s true nature and potential…of course, this one is the meat of the current discussion about for/against such things as prop8. I see this from the perspective of one believing in a God and our existence before/after this life. This is a difficult one to merely discuss–I claim that our nature, as derived from God, defines who we are and gives us a goal of what to become. Therefore, I claim that anything that distracts us from that impairs us. And you will most likely claim something opposite that; where can we converge for discussion?

    If nothing else, I want to convey that I do not denounce someone for lifestyle choices made; I (and many like me) do not gloat over such things as prop8 passing; but that I do attempt to clarify where I believe something is morally wrong (see below). And that is where we fundamentally disagree.

    @Steven:
    Fundamentally speaking, if an omnipotent God really didn’t approve of something wouldn’t he simply alter reality to conform to his wishes? Even more telling, why would an omnibenevolent God want anyone to discriminate against any of his creations?

    Your question raises an issue with core beliefs of at least my religion: God has rules and discipline that he lives by (yes, God has to be disciplined too–just like we, in imitation of him, must discipline ourselves to master higher level skills), and we are here to decide if we want to follow those same rules and discipline. We fall tremendously short, no matter the efforts, but fundamentally speaking we are given the choice between what he wants for us and that which is contrary to the rules he exists by.

    And no, I don’t believe God wants us to discriminate (which is a word that can be turned to mean various things)….but I do believe that he has made clear certain things that are not in agreeance with those rules and discipline. And again, it is our choice to act accordingly or not. With all these things, I have noticed that posters here have apparently derisively asserted that the argument for prop8 is based on “the Bible tells me so”. Well, that is a distortion of their reality: to them, God has told them so, not a dead book.

    I recognize that this is an atheist blog site, but if we are really to gain an understanding of either side of the disagreement then I need to put my position into the broader context of my belief system. You, too, have a belief system by which you operate from day to day (general you, the reader) and defines the value judgments you make; many of us simply have created or adopted systems that differ significantly from each other.

    One last thing: religious freedom is impaired when a religious agency is forced to close its doors because it would not let a gay couple adopt a child; religious freedom is impaired when two doctors are brought to court because they would not artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, though other doctors in the area could have done it for them instead. That absolutely does affect the freedom of religion. My religious viewpoint doesn’t have to hold for those who don’t believe it–now I ask you: why does the viewpoint of those who support homosexuality have to hold for me? When the government starts interceding in ways mentioned above, then the government really isn’t serving all citizens.

    Is this all really a zero-sum game? Must one side always lose?

  • Godwin

    Read carefully.

    I disagree that prop 8 was a civil rights issue; this was a moral issue, which is why many churches joined in on the fray. On the basis of what has already happened elsewhere in the nation, I do believe that legalizing judaism would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

    Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right? Where is the line drawn? Can there even be a defining line? If those who support the jewish religion avidly attack those who don’t, does that make them a bigot towards supporters of good, traditional Christianity?

    You’ll notice that no one that supports disallowing Jews from practising their religion has posted on this blog, and it may be for two reasons:

    1) From reading the posts, this is clearly not an attempt at discussion, but at attacking people for doing what they felt was right; why post when it will not be discussed, but sworn at and venomously attacked?

    2) Any attempt at discussion is impaired because the two sides operate on fundamentally different frameworks–where is the common ground to build on?

    I could tell you that I have a deep interest in protecting the rights of people, and that each person is a unique and wonderful creation. I can also tell you that this will be immediately dismissed by someone because of the stance I take–which is, supporting supporting religion as defined as someone’s relationship with Christ. I do support all the things I’ve listed, but I feel an obligation and need to take a stance on moral issues such as this.

    I agree that those in Christian religions have their weaknesses, as we see divorces, cheating, etc. That is irrelevant to this discussion, though. The discussion seemingly should be on clarifying whether this is truly a civil rights issue, or a moral issue.

    Regarding the original questions:

    1-irrelevant. Voting yes on the proposition would have had nothing to do with the security of my religion. Seems to be more of a flailing attack at an imagined reason for voting yes.

    2-I don’t know what I’d say to the children of Jewish parents. What would I say to the children of Christian parents who aren’t married? Both are sad and unfortunate situations, and both will impair these children in ways that I believe deal with God, our purpose for life, and other beliefs that aren’t associated with the atheistic mindset.

    3-Of course you can vote on the legality of my religion. The question is, do you want to because of the moral issues associated with the institution, or out of revenge and spite?

    4-It’s hard to say how this vote changes my life. Granting the fact that I’ll be accused of being brainwashed, I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

    5-Again, this seems to be an irrelevant question. It is based on the assumption that voting yes on the proposition truly was based on bigoted hatred. Do you really want to discuss the fundamental reasons for voting yes or no on the proposition? Or are you just trying to air out your frustration and anger? This isn’t about being proud of an action; it is about doing what I feel to be morally right.

    6-I haven’t had a chance to discuss this with my Jewish friends yet. We have divergent work schedules. The party only lets them work at night nowadays. I don’t think I’d say anything, really–just listen to them and try and understand how they feel.

    7-Bringing Jew friends closer to Christ–what an interesting question. “Coming closer” is something my Jewish friends would have to do out of their own drive and desire. This amendment itself is not associated with such an action; the consequences, including anger and perhaps hatred towards religious institutions in general may be an impediment. Of course, I’ve known and read of people who have come quite close to the true God (that means Christ) without the aid of institutions. When they’re ready, the organization God has set up will be ready for them.

    8- Why would I lie to my children about a moral issue? Of course I would tell them that I support such a proposition, and teach them (in the context of religion–again, something that fundamentally sets our discussion here at odds) why I did.

    9- I don’t think I’d “defend” my position to my children; rather, I would teach them the principles I’ve learned in my life about the superiority of our Race, our relationship to God, and their divine potential as being superior to all other inferior races. What they do with that will again be their choice, as with the Jewish coming closer to Christ.

    10- It depends on what you mean by lifelong commitments. I have lifelong commitments to friends, so I am not against that. That is part of who we are as people. I do not support the nature of commitment that is contrary to what I believe God has dictated regarding which religions ought to be allowed to be practised. This, again, is in context of religious belief.

    11- I think this will have (and I read here that it already has) an emotionally hurtful impact on Jewish people. I don’t know if that is a bad thing, though. They’ve had it coming to them for a long time. It seems as though we are trying to rationalize our actions through legislation, and yes, even hiding behind the “civil rights” front. I would say the same to those who cheat on spouses or lie and steal from others. I am unsure what this amendment will do in affecting young people–I personally hope that it will help them to understand that they can establish a family unit of their own and contribute to society, instead of being the rotten theives that those Jews usualy are.

    12- I cannot speak for Jesus in this matter. I do believe that the religious beliefs (I call them truths) I have founded my morals on were given from Jesus. He would find a way to let each of us know–no matter our mistakes and faults and erroneous beliefs–how much worth we have, how much he loves us, and especially correct us where we are wrong (this ties back in to 11 where I state I don’t believe hurt emotions is necessarily a bad thing).

    All in all, this has been a long post and I can only imagine the myriad responses I could get from this. If we truly want understanding and to find common ground, then let’s have a real discussion. otherwise, the following posts will follow the usual negative, angry blast as the previous 60-odd ones have. And that takes us nowhere. My hateful, bigoted beliefs deserve just as much respect as anyone elses.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com/ hoverFrog

    “Fundy” said

    One last thing: religious freedom is impaired when a religious agency is forced to close its doors because it would not let a gay couple adopt a child;

    Yes and religious freedom was impaired when they let black and white people marry each other and have children. It was impaired when we stopped putting single pregnant women in mental institutions and pressurizing them into giving up their babies for adoption in a “moral” family. When a “freedom” to do something impairs the right to be treated equally then it should be impaired.

    religious freedom is impaired when two doctors are brought to court because they would not artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, though other doctors in the area could have done it for them instead.

    Is religious freedom similarly impaired if a doctor refuses to treat a homosexual person for a medical condition? Is religious freedom impaired when an atheist is singled out for refusing to engage in school prayer? Surely the school has the freedom to hold to a religious view and impose it on everyone? No?

    That absolutely does affect the freedom of religion. My religious viewpoint doesn’t have to hold for those who don’t believe it–now I ask you: why does the viewpoint of those who support homosexuality have to hold for me? When the government starts interceding in ways mentioned above, then the government really isn’t serving all citizens.

    I support your right to hold a religious view but not to use that view to treat one group differently from any other. Government intervention to enforce equal treatment is not breaching your right to hold a religious view or to practice your faith. Only when your religious practices or views deny the rights of others should the state intervene.

    Prop 8 enforces different rules for gay and straight couples with regard to marriage and denies equality of treatment to one group. Allowing gay marriage in no way changes the status of a heterosexual marriage. It isn’t even a religious issue.

    Religions, as they tend to do, claimed marriage as a holy state. People made commitments before their community long before Christianity came along and added it’s own set of rules. Marriage may well have been part of early pagan beliefs but where does it say that it is monogamous and heterosexual? These rules were added later, much later.

  • noodleguy

    I don’t have a lot of time but I’d like to respond to this.

    @fundie
    Thanks for actually starting a debate, despite the inevitable flaming that is (already) happening. I apologize since I realize I’m probably part of this flaming. I find it difficult to keep my head around certain types of people, however *grumbles*

    1 – Your final paragraph contradicts this. You claim that it is a freedom of religion issue, yet also it is not about your religion being protected. …really?
    Anyway, Hemant added this one because actually this is a common argument for Prop 8, believe it or not…
    2 – Ahhh…so you know better than the massive quantities of research proving that gay couples are no more likely to have an unstable situation for a child than a normal family? I am 90% sure ripping their family apart is much, much more harmful then allowing their parents to stay together. Way to up the divorce rate *half-hearted cheer*
    3 – I want to out of the morality of your beliefs actually. I am entirely serious. If Christianity came up on the ballot I would laugh gleefully, because I think it has cause more injustice, pain, and suffering then any other institution.
    Then I would vote to preserve it, because unlike you I would not take away rights from, in fact I would die for the rights of people who I disagree with and hate.
    4 – Don’t really have much to say to that, but I’m addressing the point you make there later…
    5 – It is based on the belief that gayness is a sin or is wrong. When we make similar stereotypes about African-Americans, or Hindus, or any other group it sounds terrible. When we make these statements about gays we practically get to be vice-president.
    6 – Nothing to comment on here.
    7 – Also, not much to comment here. Irrelevant to the discussion.
    Especially because I know many gay couples who are devoutly Christian. It doesn’t really have any connection to religion.
    If anything I hope you realize that you’ve pushed more gays away from your religion then you possibly could imagine. Not many people enjoy joining groups that attempt to take their rights away.
    8 – Well, good for you. How you raise your kids is none of my business. I would say however, that being raised in a fundamentalist home is a “sad and unfortunate situations, which will impair these children” Still, I would fight to the death once again for your right to have kids nonetheless.
    9 – See above…
    10 – Since when is your religious belief law?
    Last time I checked shellfish are still legal.
    11 – Not even sure how to respond to this. Not even sure. Are you talking about gay “young people” needing to settle down and start families? Because you’re stopping them from doing just that. The fact that you don’t care that this will have a bad impact on gay people really belies the undercurrents in your arguments though. I’m having trouble thinking of a rational response to such an irrational argument. Pi minus the square root of tangerine?
    12 – I could care less about what Jesus thinks. This is also irrelevant to the discussion.

    Now it is in your SECOND post that we get to the juicy stuff.

    I claim that our nature, as derived from God, defines who we are and gives us a goal of what to become. Therefore, I claim that anything that distracts us from that impairs us.

    There’s been a lot of research done on this. Its been proven multiple times in multiple ways that gayness is a genetic trait that people are born with. Way to impair them from their true nature, eh?

    Last paragraph is the most amusing part.

    religious freedom is impaired when a religious agency is forced to close its doors because it would not let a gay couple adopt a child; religious freedom is impaired when two doctors are brought to court because they would not artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, though other doctors in the area could have done it for them instead.

    Who said that any of those things would happen? What kind of an argument is that anyway.

    As for both of those cases, don’t be absurd. First of all, I doubt they would happen with any great frequency, or at all. Second of all, don’t be absurd.

    Say I started up my own restaurant. And I decided that no blacks are allowed in my store (or I set off a special area for them to eat in) I ask you this, is this and should this be legal? What if my religion tells me that blacks are an inferior race, and that they OUGHT not to be served food. Is it legal now?

  • Beijingrrl

    So it seems that the problem is that Prop. H8 supporters don’t understand that we don’t vote on “moral” issues, but on legal issues. It is not the job of the government to issue laws on morality. That’s for each individual to decide. Of course, you are free to cede that right to a god if you choose. You are not free to enact laws that force me to agree with your moral judgement.

    Personally, I think it is immoral to bring up children to be creationists. From a moral standpoint, I would be compelled to see that those children are taught real science. From a legal standpoint, I want everyone to have the freedom to decide how their children are educated. I would never vote to ban anyone’s right to teach their child creationism, but I do think it’s wrong. Immoral, in fact.

    Think about whether you really want the government enacting laws based on morality. Because someday, we will outnumber you and perhaps then your persecution fantasies will have the potential to come true. The problem with that is that, unlike you, we don’t have any desire to tell you what to do with your private life and we don’t believe laws should be based on our morals.

  • Autumnal Harvest

    Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right? Where is the line drawn? Can there even be a defining line? If those who support gay marriage avidly attack those who don’t, does that make them a bigot towards supporters of heterosexual marriage?

    Fundie, I appreciate that you’ve given a respectful, thoughtful, and detailed response to Hemant’s questions, and in forum that’s clearly not friendly to your beliefs. And the passage of Proposition of 8 is a little too fresh for me to want to get into a debate over all your responses. But I have to say, yes, you are a bigot—there’s no way to sugarcoat my response here, and still be honest. I don’t doubt that you consider yourself to be a moral person, and try to do the right thing towards other people, but in this case, what you “feel to be morally right” is bigotry. You want your group (heterosexuals) to have preferential rights under the law to those in another group (homosexuals). That’s pretty much the definition of bigotry; that’s the “dividing line” that you’re looking for. I don’t think this means you’re a bad person in every way—I’ve known decent people, who were caring in many ways, but who though terrible things about Jews, or who didn’t believe in interracial marriage. People are complex. But that you’re supporting what you think is morally right doesn’t somehow prevent it from being bigotry.

    Your last question shows a strange confusion of what it means to be a bigot. I don’t know anyone who’s “a bigot towards supporters of heterosexual marriage,” and I doubt that you do either. I support everyone’s right to be in a heterosexual marriage, and I’m certainly not bigoted against myself. I’ve never heard of anyone saying that heterosexuals shouldn’t have the right to marry, or that heterosexuals should have less rights under the law than homosexuals. So I don’t even understand what you mean. And this goes back to Hemant’s first question, which you said was a “flailing attack at an imagined reason for voting yes.” Hemant’s question resonates perfectly with me. I hear opponents of gay marriage saying all the time that heterosexual marriage is under attack, and that the government is trying to interfere with the sanctity of their marriage. I don’t understand this at all, since no one is trying to do anything to anyone’s heterosexual marriages. They’re just trying to allow homosexuals to marry too.

    I probably won’t come back to this thread—you deserve a civil and calm discussion, but I find the passage of this proposition too horrible to have a friendly discussion about right now.

  • AxeGrrl

    Autumnal Harvest’s above post says everything I wanted to say :)

    And to noodleguy, who said: “the flaming that is (already) happening” What are you referring to? who has already ‘flamed’ fundy? I see nothing but respectful (if _highly_ opposing) responses to his post so far.

  • Pingback: California’s Proposition 8: Freedom and Power | Way of the Mind

  • http://www.wayofthemind.org/ Pedro Timóteo

    I wrote about this — especially “fundie”‘s comment, and that way of thinking — here.

  • noodleguy

    @AxeGrrl

    Well, mostly I was talking about the flaming that was happening in the 60-odd posts previous to “fundy”‘s post. There also was a particularly nasty piece of flame-work that was taken down after I posted. Most of these are pretty civil, you’re right.

  • Awesomesauce

    The passing of prop 8 fills me with such pure rage/animosity that I will not get involved with the main discussion here. Though, I can’t imagine what the unmarried gay couples in California and nationwide are feeling right now (even if some other lucky couples managed to marry before this ridiculous proposition).

    Seriously, if California can’t maintain equal rights as of now, how much longer will it take for the rest of the states?

  • noodleguy

    Seriously, if California can’t maintain equal rights as of now, how much longer will it take for the rest of the states?

    I think the question becomes: If gays are having their rights taken away in the name of supposed religious freedom, who’s next?

  • Awesomesauce

    who’s next?

    Scarey…

    :(

  • lost_in_thought

    It takes a lot of effort to be so ignorant and prejudice in the age of information we live in…do people wake up thinking of all the ways they want to hate and seperate themselves from the world?
    As a proud atheist, I love throwing around “god’s” words. If we were made in his image, then is god not the homosexual? the serial murderer? the convicted drug peddler? If Jesus watches, he must weep over a world with so little love and understanding. I fear in my lifetime, I’ll never see my hometown, let alone the WORLD, united against ignorance and xenophobia.

    Buth then again, I never thought I’d see a president who wasn’t middle aged, white, male and christian. One divide down, several hundred to go…

  • Karen

    Couple of thoughts on this most bittersweet of all political weeks:

    This issue has drawn the brightest of bright lines between biblical literalists and the rest of us (secular people and religious liberals). I don’t know one person who supported this horrific reversal of equal rights who isn’t a fundamentalist. This issue exposes them for the haters and narrow-minded bigots they are – perhaps that will come back to haunt them (I can only hope).

    I worked with the No on 8 campaign and they made several tactical errors, chiefly refusing to put real live gay families in their advertising. Apparently “focus groups” showed that depicting gay people on TV is too scary or something. I think that completely backfired: The early No on 8 ads were vague and confusing at the same time the Yes on 8 campaign was setting its fear-mongering agenda.

    I would have loved to see smiling gay couples (lord knows plenty of celebs would have volunteered) asking Californians to preserve the right to keep their families intact. Tug at the heartstrings a little! Make it the emotional and equal rights issue it seriously is. None of the No on 8 ads did that.

    Ultimately I think that will wind up being a large negative for fundamentalists, and part of a continued self-marginalization into what I can only hope will be political obscurity.

    Here’s my evidence for the above: My city sadly voted about 62% in favor of Prop 8. In the same population’s high school (where my son attends) the mock election came up with a 52% majority voting NO on 8.

    Like any civil rights issue, this is a generational thing. In a few years, when more of the teenagers can vote, this shameful blow to equal rights will be overturned. Until then, we have to work hard and keep fighting. One suggestion: Boycott anything to do with the wealthy and powerful Mormon church. They have contributed millions to anti-gay legislation all over the country and they should feel the hurt. Easy way to start – don’t stay at a Marriott hotel.

  • http://zerosoul.arc-nova.org/ Vystrix Nexoth

    (Sorry for posting a few days after the previous one, but, I’ve just now seen this thread and I felt compelled to reply.)

    fundie: You’ve offered your Christianity-centric perspective. Here is my real-world-centric perspective. Some of the other people here have taken a much nicer and more respectful tone with you. I will not.

    3-Of course you can vote on the legality of my marriage. The question is, do you want to because of the moral issues associated with the institution, or out of revenge and spite?

    Out of revenge and spite. It would illustrate to you the sheer irrationality and stupidity of hijacking other peoples’ lives for purely selfish reasons, which is precisely the point the question you responded to was trying to make.

    Besides: retribution for a wrong that’s already been committed, is more justification than none at all.

    Perhaps, along that line, there should be a referendum that would ban opposite-sex marriage and institute same-sex marriage— both civil and religious— and require only, say, 10% of the vote to pass (to have a similar chance of passing).

    Then there’d be a very real chance of other people self-righteously claiming the right to marriage while stripping you of yours— and interfering with your religious freedom— for entirely selfish and generally untenable reasons. It might sober you up a bit.

    Granting the fact that I’ll be accused of being brainwashed, I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

    Your religious freedom ends where mine begins. If you think you can violate mine (by forcing me, through civil law, to follow a religious aspect of your beliefs) while still expecting me to respect yours, then yes, I will accuse you of being brainwashed, not to mention ignorant:

    There is a wall that prevents Church interference in the State. Interfering in civil rights for religious reasons has weakened that wall. But that same wall prevents State interference in the Church.

    Which, in turn, means that it weakens the wall protecting your religious beliefs from the State. For example, there’s some tax money the State would like to start collecting from your Church.

    it is about doing what I feel to be morally right

    It says a lot about you that you think hijacking other peoples’ lives for self-serving reasons counts as “morally right”.

    Your morals apply only to yourself. You don’t get to impose them on other people while still demanding their respect. The only thing you can do with this issue is to not marry someone of the same sex. You don’t get to force anyone else to do the same.

    I don’t think I’d say anything, really— just listen to them and try to understand how they feel.

    That assumes that you regard them as friends, not just as potential points on your religious scoreboard.

    I think this will have [...] an emotionally hurtful impact on gay people.

    And a legally and fiscally hurtful impact on gay people.

    It seems as though we are trying to rationalize our actions through legislation, and yes, even hiding behind the “civil rights” front.

    We do not seek legislation to rationalize anything. We seek it to secure our civil rights from people like you who would take them away under the guise of “religious rights”, despite the fact that religious arguments do not apply to civil matters, and civil marriage does not affect religious rights (because it is not a religious institution).

    I would say the same to those who cheat on spouses or lie and steal from others.

    How about those who claim their religious freedom is being violated because they’re not allowed to violate other peoples’ religious freedom?

  • Yef Khassem

    1. I’m not married. I do believe civil unions in California guarantee the same legally binding provisions.

    2. People can’t biologically reproduce with members of the same sex. I’d say to whatever adopted children they may have that they share something in common with their parents: you’re not wanted.

    3. You’re perfectly free to collect the signatures required to get such an initiative on the ballot.

    4. It doesn’t really change my life per se. It certainly vindicates my opinion.

    5. I’m proud for the right to vote, yes.

    6. I had two gay friends. My conversations with them regarding this and many more related topics laid the foundations for my opposition.

    7. Good point. If homosexuals made up their own religion like everyone else, constitutionally, they wouldn’t have such a difficult time.

    8. The truth be told when the question is asked.

    9. If i had children: reason.

    10. What kind of stupid question is that? Given what the divorce rate is. I’d be happy to see lifelong commitments.

    11. Eventually i hope to see an end to frivolous lawsuits and crookedly currying favor with the judicial system which has a more manageable size than the electorate. Religion can be beaten at its own game. That’s what’s great about the US and it’s sad to see they (homo’s) aren’t utilizing what freedoms they have.

    12. I don’t know Jesus.

    I would like to ask homosexuals: Why force your perversion on decent society? Why sue a specific place of worship when they deny you a marriage ceremony? Can you see you’ve become as bigoted as Christians? Has science discovered the gay gene(s) yet? How does something like that get passed on from generation to generation? So, do you still think you’re born that way? If so, why? Can’t that belief be molded into a doctrine of your own or are you really the passive aggressive agnostics i think you are?

  • LAnn

    A different, yet relevant question: Why are singles discriminated against — with larger taxes? Whether uncoupled by choice, or by being left at the altar, or a partner dying before our nuptials — why are singles discriminated against? I often hear an argument that civil unions unfairly define same-sex unions as “separate but equal,” followed by intense grievance against the unfairness of society. I ask, “How would you like to be “separate and NOT equal” (under the tax law)? That is what singles face every April 15th. Shall singles begin a movement for equality? Let’s face it: society has placed a value on traditional families. I haven’t seen singles marching against this unbalanced favoritism. But perhaps the ultimate answer to all of this is to remove marriage altogether from governmental concerns and leave it to the individuals, their churches and community leaders to solemnize. Let’s leave it to individual choice, and remove government (taxation & benefits) favoritism in any of those choices.

  • LAnn

    Let all be treated respectfully and equally under the law, couples and singles. If no one is treated special, then all are treated equally under the law. And partnerships shall be regarded as commitments to one another, unfavored by the government in any regard.

  • http://www.popcorngallery.net Max

    The sanctity of marriage is only as sacred as the the individuals who are married because a promise made is only as meaningful as the person who makes it. That, at its core, is what a marriage ceremony is: two people vowing before their family and friends to do right by each other. How can someone say that any two people mean it more than any two others? Being married doesn’t mean that your life will be any better or worse. It doesn’t mean you will be successful providing for your family. It doesn’t mean that your children will be raised well or that they will be happy and fulfilled in their lives. Being married is as related to these things as wearing a suit is related to being successful in business. It gives you the right appearance, but what matters is what you DO when you wear it. Children thrive in environments where they are loved unconditionally. Where they are guided with compassion and intelligence. Does being straight make you a good parent? Just as much as being gay makes you bad parent. That is to say they are unrelated. Because sexual orientation is not your personality. It is not your world view. It is not your sense of humor, your hopes and dreams, your fears. It is not your morality. It is not your humanity.

    Its appalling that prop 8 is up for a vote at all. Its clearly unconstitutional because it restricts freedom and prevents equality. Pure and simple.

  • Jonn

    My thoughts:
    Isn’t marriage supposed to be sacred in the eyes of this ‘God’ guy? And if the supposed ‘God’ is in disagreement with homosexuality then isn’t the idea of gay marriage slightly absurd? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for people no matter what orientation to happily be partnered by law, but why try and seek approval from a God that disapproves?!

    • SPoe

      Marriage was essentially more of a contract between families before it ever had religious connotations. The fight is for legally recognized marriage because gay people should have the same legal rights as straight people when it comes to power of attorney, visitation rights, etc. It’s got nothing to do with seeking approval from God.

  • Lila

    i am an american living in the netherlands where gay marriage is legal. it’s very sad that people’s views are so distorted that they can’t see this as an equality issue. there are so many things people are denied when they aren’t married by law. marriage sanctifies a bond between two people. there are so many gay couples who spend most of their lives together. they deserve the same rights as any “straight” person. i grew up a mormon. the churches views are really skewed here. it’s just a total lack of understanding, and pure fear that’s instilled in their hearts by the leaders. i believe they will change someday.

  • aj

    I don’t understand why the definition of marriage is a rights issue. I guess it’s because the government is involved. I say let’s get the government out of it. Put marriage back where it started: in the religious organizations. Let the government issue civil unions to any group that wants it. A man and women, 2 gays, group of 3 or 10 or whatever.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com/ hoverFrog

    Did marriage start as a religious ceremony? Was marriage around long before religions got their grubby little hands on the idea and put their gods in the place of a personal and private promise between people?

    Take religion out of marriage and let them issue faith unions to their own cliques. The state doesn’t need to recognise them.

  • Thrum

    I came to this blog far too late to respond to this post when it was active, and I don’t suppose there’s really much point in responding to this months-old comment, but on the off-chance that there is:

    I do believe civil unions in California guarantee the same legally binding provisions.

    Unfortunately (for you, it will turn out), precedent doesn’t agree that “seperate but equal” is actually equal.

    People can’t biologically reproduce with members of the same sex.

    No, and heterosexual couples with fertility problems can’t reproduce, and nor can fertile heterosexual couples who are using contraception or engaging in any kind of sexual activity that isn’t vaginally penetrative. Should straight people who can’t or won’t reproduce be prohibited from marriage, too?

    It certainly vindicates my opinion.

    The curtailing of civil rights should not be based on your opinion, nor that of any bigoted and dogmatic majority.

    I would like to ask homosexuals: Why force your perversion on decent society?

    And I would like to ask you: whence come your definitions of perversion and decency? Who gave you the power to judge these qualities, and by what right do you impose that judgement on others?

    But the answer to your question, minus its transparent and amateurish framing, is to seek the same rights under law enjoyed by everyone else.

    Has science discovered the gay gene(s) yet? How does something like that get passed on from generation to generation? So, do you still think you’re born that way?

    These are the most telling and damning questions; they indicate a fundamental lack of imagination, understanding, investigative ability and willingness to evaluate the validity of a position before adopting it.

    No single cause for homosexuality has been identified, and not every trait or characteristic is expressly genetic in origin. Any cursory research into the matter (into the scientific literature, that is, not emotive dogma) would show you that prevailing expert opinion is that sexual preference is the result of complex interactions between many influences, but no-one with an informed opinion believes that it is voluntary. Much as you might wish to imply otherwise.

    If you bothered to read something outside of your usual comfortable prejudice-affirming sources, you could learn about a number of hypotheses about how homosexuality is “inherited”. The one that has caught the public’s imagination lately is the idea that the same conditions which cause homosexuality in males increase fertility in females.

    That you couldn’t anticipate the potential for such a connection instead of clinging to the notion that the hateful queers were finding their own sex attractive just to spite society and the religiously conservative speaks volumes about the extent to which you’ve applied objective thought to this subject.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X