attn CA voters: should gay people be allowed the right to marry?

[irenesme]

There has been recent controversy in California over the legalization of gay marriage.

Proposition 8 seeks to rescind the decision to allow gay/lesbian people to marry.

A yes vote on 8 will take away gay marriage.

A no vote on 8 will keep gay marriage as is.

Right now, I am not allowed to vote but I wanted to make sure that all California voters understand what prop 8 means. A lot of people are confused and think that a "yes" vote will keep gay marriage.

It is the other way around.

Personally, if I had the right to vote, I would strongly be a "no" on proposition 8.

Everyone should be given equal rights regardless of their sexual preference. It goes with the opinion that gay people are "different" and we shouldn't support something unnatural.

But wasn't it the same thing to say that women are lower than men because their brains were smaller and because they didn't have a strong physique. Or saying that black people shouldn't vote because they are too dumb to understand what is going on.

People argue that gay marriage is against their religion because specific sections in the bible speak out against homosexuality. Also, they argue that the purpose of all humans is to procreate.

Hmmm... first of all if this is an issue against procreation, why aren't we stopping infertile and sterile couples from marrying. Also, one must consider older couples. And what difference would it make if they were allowed to marry or not. (They still won't be procreating)

How is this not different from interracial marriage. Everyone openly accepts it... now. Before, people were saying that that was unnatural because god put the different races on different continents because he did not mean for them to exist. (This was the argument made in the past)

People say that gay couples should be content with having legal unions.

Now, I am not very informed at what legal unions entail, but I don't think that it would garner all of the same rights that married couples have. Are gay partners allowed to have joint custody of property and bank accounts? If they were to adopt a child, would both be allowed to have custody? If someone were to die suddenly, wouldn't all possesion become repossesed with none given to the partner?

I have recently become very concerned with the issue mostly because my IB calculus teacher has been trying to indoctrinate out class on the opposing viewpoint. He feels that:

The problem with gay people is that they are too flagrant and when they got the right to marry people like rosie o'donnald got the marriage and pushed it in everyone's faces like "haha, screw you."

Gay marriage is not like interracial marriage because think about it... the parts just don't match up.

Gay people should be perfectly content with legal unions because it grants ALL of the same rights as do legal marriages.

He went on and on in this manner..... and the thing is that a lot of people in class tend to beleive him. I got frustrated and walked out. Supposedly, after I left, he segued into the topic of abortion.

[moneyfaery]

I agree with you. I see nothing wrong with gay/lesbian couples, although my parents and many people of the older generations would see differently. Why is such a biased teacher teaching TOK anyway??? Surely, the point is to question BOTH sides, not just push your viewpoint on others...

[irenesme]

I agree with you. I see nothing wrong with gay/lesbian couples, although my parents and many people of the older generations would see differently. Why is such a biased teacher teaching TOK anyway??? Surely, the point is to question BOTH sides, not just push your viewpoint on others...

I agree. There were other people who got offended and left the class. He has talked about other issues from a conservative stance before, such as global warming. However, this time it was too far for many and some students walked out.

I have filed a complaint to my IB coordinator.

The sad thing is that he is a good calculus teacher. The problem is only when were working on our homework assignments when he gets started on this stuff. It is very partisan. It would be a lot better if he left it as a sort of open discussion where students can argue viewpoints with each other while he remains neutral.

[jmshelton]

I see no problem with allowing homosexuals to get married.

Most people who see it as a problem are religious, however isn't our country founded on the belief of separation of church and state?

Thus, let them marry.

[irenesme]

I guess to be fair I will post up some of the viewpoints of people who support prop 8 to get a different perspective.

This first one is from my bio teacher in response to an email from a friend who started a no on prop 8 contribution site:

I haven't contributed because I do not agree that homosexuals have the "right" to marry. Homosexuals had the ability to marry in ancient Rome and Greece. Nero famously married a woman then a young man. It obviously did not last into this modern age for a reason. Do some historical research to find out why. Gay marraige will not provide any benefit to society as a whole, in fact, Gay Marraige will probably be economically detrimental to our society. France chose to not allow Gay Marraige for this very reason. If you can give me any logical arguement for why I should support Gay Marraige I would be willing to "rethink" the issue. Emotional arguements are fleeting and cloud our ability to make an honest analysis of a situation. The arguement "its just wrong" is not a very logical one.

What is logically the best for our society? Have we not destroyed it enough already?

Another bio teacher responded to the same email with:

Sorry - dear marriage has always been between a man and a woman not two random people. And voting no does NOT guarantee that it will be between TWO people. Since homosexual couples can have a civil union and all rights associated with that - ex right of property, next of kin, etc.

there is no reason for "gay" marriage, is there?

For more info on the future look at Holland and Massachusetts.

But thanks for asking

And then here is a long winded argument from one of my classmates:

I am writing this respnse to the bulletins of detractors to Prop. 8. Since I have seen a string of them, I have decided to write a response so that we can see both viewpoints. Remember that my object is not to sensationalize anything, but to give opposing arguments. Try to look at everything here as a reaosned argument, not as a blind attack.

Let's look at some of the arguments that those who do not support Prop 8 use.

#1 "To take away gay marriage is to strip homosexuals of their equal rights."

-This argument is flawed, because it assumes, and exhorts, that heterosexual marriage is, in fact, a right. The only legal foundation for such an argument would be found in Amendment IX, U.S. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, the United States Supreme Court has been loath to use such justification as the basis of any recent decision. Furthermore, marriage has been an issue of the voting bloc ion California, and would be subject to Amendment I, U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law abridging...the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances." By this simple statement, the ability of a State to maintain its concept of right among the voting bloc is retained.

The Simple fact of the matter is that marriage, of any way, shape, or form, is not a guaranteed right to ANYONE by the Constitution, heterosexual or otherwise. It is subject to the will of the people. The people of California voted to define marriage as existing between a man and a woman. That law was overturned. Prop. 8 would restore that law by removing the ability of a judge to negate it. Such an amendment could be repealed later on, so any group's right are not abridged.

#2 "The Constitution does not prohibit gay marriage."

First of all, se above. Second of all, Prop. 8 is a Constitutional amendment, designed to CHANGE the constitution to make it reflect the will of the people. To argue that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional doesn't make sense. If passed, by definition it would be constitutional.

As an addition to the above statements, I offer Amendment XIV of the U.S.

Constitution: "or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Gay marriage has not been regarded by the legal authority to fit into such categories, so the Right's Extention bill of the Constitution does not speak either way. Gay marriage is not defined as an unalienable right.

#3 "America has never passed judgement on anyone based on orientation."

Recent arguments state that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Certain people are predisposed to to homosexuality, to limit them is to go against ther genetics and shouldn't be done.

Consider this: Genetic studies have aslo stated that certain people are predisposed to kleptomania. To pedophilia (a sexual oreinatation!). To habitual rape(likewise!). To murder. Yet the government has no problem with dealing with such 'orientations' under laws of general application. Laws that are brought abaout by the common man. Initiative. Referendum. Recall. The basis of American democracy.

#4 "Homosexuals should be treated like heterosexuals in the law because they are similar except in one matter."

This justification has no legal basis. In fact, the evidence is against it. If such argument was valid, then parochial schools should be be allowed to receive federal and state aid. Christians, Muslims, and other believers all different from each other in one respect, right? As much so as homosexuals are to heterosexuals. In fact, homosexuality as an 'orientation' could be considered as a belief system. Given that tax money would be used to grant licenses, such action could violate the First Amendment regarding the establishment of a religion.

You may say, well, gay marriage is not a religion. I personally agree with you. BUT the thing to consider is that in these last few bulletins on myspace, the posters have quoted Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. More specifically, Shylock. However, remeber that Shylock was a Jew, and referring to Jews. Judaism is a religion. Gay marriage is not.

If it was, and that seems to be what is insinuated, then gay marriage as a function of government is thrown out by the First Amendment.

#5 "Supporters of Prop. 8 are bigots and religious fanatics. They have no understanding of the way things should be and are quite harmful to society."

In some cases Prop. 8 supporters have been labeled as Nazis and fascists. First of all, I would like to remind everyone that fascism is an economic system. Secondly, given how a majority of people voted for the earlier marriage law, I find it hard to believe that they are not in tune with society, considering that they make up much of that society.

To some, strong belief will always be seen as bigotry. There is no black or white, only gray. This is faulty logic. Just because one system is in opposition to another does not mean the answer is in the middle. To state that there are no absolute truths is to, in fact, state an absolute truth. Neither will circular logic apply.

The best thing about America is that people can hold their beliefs and vote according to what they believe is right, for any reason whatsoever. To say that people cannot do something or should not do something becuase it isn't "fair" or "mainstream" is foolish in a country that determines itself.

My beliefs may seem outmoded. Out of line. Not popular. Not fair. But they are what I believe is truly right. By any number of rationales, I urge to not only view Prop. 8 as fair democracy but to support it yourselves. Support marriage, between a man and a woman in a loving relaitionship, as it should be.

[SharkSpider]

Glad to see those viewpoints being shown, proposition 8 has seen quite a bit of unfounded criticism, but I would post some rational arguments that support the ability of homosexuals to marry. I would also like to completely ignore the US constitution, the rights currently held, and the issue of a majority vote, because all of these are debatable topics, as the morality of the current system is not absolute, and it is easy to demonstrate that a majority is not always moral or ethical.

First thing's first, marriage is something that is emotionally dear to many people. As such, to legally deny it to some people would be to imply that the feelings of those people are not as important as those of others. Since sexual orientation is a part of a person's personal life, they have the right to engage with any partner, regardless of gender, of course under the provision that it is consensual activity on both sides. Legal marriage is a term that defines two individuals who have taken a vow to live as a single family unit, which is, in the common opinion, the epitome of a relationship. Since marriage is part of one's personal life, and since all rights of marriage have already been extended to homosexuals, the decision to allow or disallow their marriage is a decision that can only affect the private lives of homosexual couples. By that logic, the only reason that removing their right to marry would be ethical by any standards is if it were to infringe upon the rights of others. If it cannot be shown that banning gay marriage would infringe upon the rights of other citizens, banning it would be an act of minority persecution with about as much justification as an apartheid system. This is because you would be removing their ability to call themselves married, and no matter how many people vote for it, it would still remain immoral and unethical, even by the standards of the people voting against the homosexual community. This would then be an act of immeasurable hypocrisy as well as an act of oppression against a small minority.

So, in order to prove all of those "would" statements, I would have to show that allowing gay marriage does not infringe upon the rights of other people. This places the onus on the people wanting to remove the right to prove that the continuation of gay marriage is a violation of some other right held by the majority. Claiming it violates a religious right is neither rational nor a moral statement, since religious rights apply only to the individuals practicing the religion, and to deny someone a privilege based on the religious affiliation of another would be an act of oppression. The only plausible reason would be that someone is offended by the fact that homosexuals are allowed to marry. I would defy anyone to find any other reason not to allow gay marriage. If we assume that this is the only reason people wish to remove the right to marry from homosexual couples, then we see that this is a case of people imposing a rule that restricts the personal life of another, with a justification that affects the feelings of the people wanting to impose the rule. Since I find it difficult to demonstrate the flaw in doing this, I will state the other things that would be achieved by categorical imperative ethical discourse.

Banning gay marriage is the same thing in an ethical sense as banning BDSM, pornography, violent video games, adult or violent books, pen and paper role playing games and minority religions. It is the act of forbidding an act that the majority of people do not agree with, but that cannot harm those not involved in the act in any way. So, dump the American definition of rights, marriage and morals, and start looking at the situation from a perspective that considers actions and consequences.

[moneyfaery]

Gay marraige will not provide any benefit to society as a whole, in fact, Gay Marraige will probably be economically detrimental to our society. France chose to not allow Gay Marraige for this very reason. If you can give me any logical arguement for why I should support Gay Marraige I would be willing to "rethink" the issue.

Your teacher's email is very pointless. He/she just said that there is the possibility of gay marriage being detrimental to society, but failed to state examples. Then he/she went on to state that France banned gay marriage because of the possibility of gay marriage being detrimental. But doesn't everything have the possibility to be detrimental? Following that thought, nothing would be allowed in France.

[irenesme]

I agree. I don't see how gay marriage will affect others in any way.

By granting them the right, they are not going to all of a sudden start to attack straight people.

Straight people will continue to be straight and homosexual people will continue to be homosexual.

If gay people were given the right to vote, they will not be taking away straight people's right to marry. I also don't really see how it will destroy the "sanctity" of marriage.

So if they will really have no effect on marriage in general, then what is the big deal with the opposition other than the argument that it goes against their religion?

Treat everyone with equality. That means giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

[sAviOr]

Prop 8 passed by close to 51% or something but I dont think it really matters. All California did was change their state constitution to make gay marriage illegal. This issue has been debated for years and even though this prop passed, in a few more years it wont even matter because the gay marriage issue will probably come up again and all they have to do is pass an amendment to legalize it again. So if you voted yes or no on this, it ultimately doesnt make too much of a difference because they can always change it later.

[Sherry]

Prop 8 passed by close to 51% or something but I dont think it really matters. All California did was change their state constitution to make gay marriage illegal. This issue has been debated for years and even though this prop passed, in a few more years it wont even matter because the gay marriage issue will probably come up again and all they have to do is pass an amendment to legalize it again. So if you voted yes or no on this, it ultimately doesnt make too much of a difference because they can always change it later.

Gay marriage is such a detriment to our society. i mean even the economical disaster that might result from allowing gay marriage is completly fallible. Many of our trading partners around the world are religiuos to an extent some might see the passing of gay marriage as some thing detrimental and stop trading with us. Some people might laugh at this but need i remind you all the conflict that has revolved around religion, if someone or even a country feels like another country is commiting a crime against something they believe in, this could lead to many disasters world wide. Now i personally have nothing against someone who is gay, i think that it is their choice of lifestyle but allowing them to marry and adopt children seems a bit to far for me.

[laneolaneo1]

Gay marriage is such a detriment to our society. i mean even the economical disaster that might result from allowing gay marriage is completly fallible. Many of our trading partners around the world are religiuos to an extent some might see the passing of gay marriage as some thing detrimental and stop trading with us.

This is nonsense, and anyone with a basic understanding of economics will tell you so.

BUT- even if what you are saying is right- you do not limit civil rights for trading puporses anyway. That's unthinkable.

Now i personally have nothing against someone who is gay, i think that it is their choice of lifestyle but allowing them to marry and adopt children seems a bit to far for me.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, it is a fact. Until you get your head around the reality that gay people exist, love one another and want to be treated as equal human beings, we won't get anywhere as a society.

Down with Prop 8.

Edited November 15, 2008 by laneolaneo1

[stylusdef]

It's so strange how America portrays itself as the country of freedom and liberty (blablabla) while in reality there is a lot of injustice. In Sweden, even our biggest right-wing Christian party voted for gay marriage. I can't see what the problem is?

[Chesire_Cat]

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, it is a fact. Until you get your head around the reality that gay people exist, love one another and want to be treated as equal human beings, we won't get anywhere as a society.

Down with Prop 8.

This is so true, their love will always exist, so why not let them get married? I have gay friends, and they keep saying that it's not like they chose to be that way, they just are, and they can't do anything to change the way they are any more than straight people can change being straight.

And then again: if they think that civil marriage should be "enough" to them, then how come it's not "enough" for straight people? Some people's way of thinking doesn't make any sense...

[SharkSpider]

It's so strange how America portrays itself as the country of freedom and liberty (blablabla) while in reality there is a lot of injustice. In Sweden, even our biggest right-wing Christian party voted for gay marriage. I can't see what the problem is?

America's right wing makes a Catholic church look like a socialist dinner party.

[Bandev]

In Irenesme's post of someone views agianst gay marriage the person compared homosexuality to murder, and in the beginning of the post they said they were not trying to sensationalise the issue. My ass.

To me, it doesn't make sense to deny people something that isn't harming anyone else, even if it harms them. But I realise that in this world there is someone who always knows better than you or thinks that they do in the obnoxious egotistical manner of thought that is beginning to seem innate to the human race. But I gain hope by the fact that if everyone was like that then the words would exist.

[SharkSpider]

I would completely disagree with your second point, largely because in many cases, there is in fact someone who does know better than you. This occurs when you are about to do something that can do you nothing but harm, like drugs or suicide. Gay marriage is not like this because it does no harm to the homosexual couple, and in fact, it quite obviously does them a world of good, since we can see in our predominantly heterosexual society that marriage is a great way to forge a lasting bond between two people.

This can't be compared to illegalizing drugs. Drugs harm the user and those around them, and they harm the society by forcing medical expenses. This is the illegalization of a passive and generally positive activity that does no harm to anyone, simply because most people in California are homophobic. This is literally just as immoral or moral as banning marriage between two different ethnicities, and I would defy anyone to find a logical argument that would refute that claim, provided the assumption is made that marriage is a mutually positive state of affairs that has no effect on anyone but the couple getting married and those who choose to be involved with that couple.

[laneolaneo1]

SharkSpider, your post borders on perfection

[Mr. Shiver]

I have no idea what y'all are arguing about.

[bbyever]

This first one is from my bio teacher in response to an email from a friend who started a no on prop 8 contribution site:

I haven't contributed because I do not agree that homosexuals have the "right" to marry. Homosexuals had the ability to marry in ancient Rome and Greece. Nero famously married a woman then a young man. It obviously did not last into this modern age for a reason. Do some historical research to find out why. Gay marraige will not provide any benefit to society as a whole, in fact, Gay Marraige will probably be economically detrimental to our society. France chose to not allow Gay Marraige for this very reason. If you can give me any logical arguement for why I should support Gay Marraige I would be willing to "rethink" the issue. Emotional arguements are fleeting and cloud our ability to make an honest analysis of a situation. The arguement "its just wrong" is not a very logical one.

What is logically the best for our society? Have we not destroyed it enough already?

Im sorry, but this is just idiotic. Of course gay marriage is not good for a country's economy, but in that case, nor is heterosexual marriage, or any other type of emotion of love or attachment towards another being or object. In fact, having emotion would be, by itself, prejudicial to an economy Why? because emotions ALWAYS lead to some kind of disappointment (unless you manage to become a Buddha or something) and that disappointment, or 'negative' emotion is reflected in a person's life, including labor.

Not looking at the emotional side of it is like not looking at the human side of the issue, which is illogical. We ARE human, and we DO have emotions and so to think that by removing those emotions we'll be better economically (which according to your teacher should lead to a 'happier' existance for our society) is completely absurd.

Now about something different... i've read that 'legal union' is allowed for gay couples. Is that the same as marriage? or is marriage just a religious union? (i live in mexico, so i dont really know about law in the US) because if it is, then i take back what i've said, and leave it to religious people to decide, since my biblical knowledge is basically null.

[SharkSpider]

Homer wrote about marriage, it's definitely not a religious (or at least a christian) idea.