Who supported Prop. 8?
So, who supported the traditional marriage initiative in California?
Black and Latino Obama voters, according to exit polls.
Here:
California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, provided key support for a state ban on same-sex marriage. Christian, married and older voters also helped give the measure the winning edge, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.
Proposition 8 overturns a May California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay nuptials and rewrites the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Exit poll data showed seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed the ballot initiative, while whites and Asians were split.
Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.
Obama has said he is not in favor of gay marriage but supports civil unions. The president-elect opposed Proposition 8.
Religious voters also were decisive in getting Proposition 8 passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Ninety percent of voters who said they had no religious affiliation opposed the measure, but they were a much smaller portion of the electorate.
Denise Fernandez, a 57-year-old African-American from Sacramento, said she voted for Obama but felt especially compelled to cast a ballot this year to support Proposition 8.
“I came out because of my religious beliefs. I believe a Christian is held accountable, and we have to make a difference,” Fernandez said.
Keep this in mind when you hear liberals ranting about the homophobic, intolerant California voters who oppose gay marriage.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- “He will bring them death…” « Welcome to Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right
- ScoopThis.Org » Who supported Prop 8 in California and Prop 2 in Florida?
- african americans have suffered at the hand of racism and bigotry, and are in turn, bigots? : NO QUARTER
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- How Proposition 8 Banned Gay Marriage In California | Neolibertarian at large
- Michelle Malkin » Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics
- Scroll For Updates..The Gays Are Angry: Unhinged Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics ..”You’re a HomoPhobe, Niggah!!” | Right Voices
- Democrats Have Their Own Issues « The Forum
- The homophobia of being against gay marriage » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Michelle Malkin » Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
- Prop 8 Madness | The Daily Conservative
- Prop 8 Upheld, Libtards Reveal New Strategy To Defeat It. « Rantings of mine
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itWeekly Standard
» GOP Opens up 7-Point Lead on Congressional Ballot, Obama Numbers Dive on Health Care, Gitmo, and KSM
What on Earth are you talking about? You do understand that most gay people are Christians, right? Because they are. They don’t want Christianity to disappear, they only want that their relationships are recognised as being just as loving and as important as that of straight couple’s. It’s not about religion. For crying out loud, right4life, stop injecting these needless red herrings all the time. It’s distracting.
Omu, does the NAMBLA guy across the street then have the ‘right’ to marry a 7-year old boy because they are in love? Does the 80-year old down the block have the ‘right’ to sex with a 9-year old girl, because he has ‘needs?’
What if these were your children? Would that make a difference or could you then be called ‘intolerant’ and ‘bigoted?’
It is a slippery slope when you start giving ‘rights’ that never existed.
Omu said:
You got this part correct.
you really are delusional. lets see a lesbian in CA sues a doctor for refusing to artificially inseminate her..on religious grounds
a gay ‘couple’ sue a photographer in AZ because he refuses to photograph them..on religious grounds.
reading the bible verses on homosexuality land a pastor in jail in canada.
see a trend here???
you’re being disengenuous.
Omu,
You need to understand what I said. God wants us to love everyone so that we will share our belief with them and they too will see the way to salvation. One can be kind and generous and tolerant toward everyone and STILL go to hell because they reject God.
That is the God I know. Maybe you should try to get to know Him a little better!
I’m afraid to find out what dark god he knows…
If Omu is a Christian, then he ought to know that Jesus did not love unconditionally and that he definitely had no tolerance for evil. The problem with today’s society is that we aren’t supposed to be judgmental, – and that will eventually kill any society including the American society.
oh omu, here’s an example of your ‘gay christians’ (theres an oxymoron)
Angry Mob Assaults Peaceful Christians at Chicago ‘Gay Pride’ Parade
link
Listen to yourself! You’re deluded, absolutely. Since when has paedophilia been an exclusively gay thing? Well? By your logic, we should ban heterosexual men from marrying, also, because heterosexual paedophilia exists, right?
Honestly, grow up!
I never said pedophilia was the exclusive domain of homosexuals. I meant that if you allow deviant behavior to be come the norm for some people, then other deviants will want the same ‘right?’
If you think pedophilia is not deviant behavior then you are the one that needs to grow up!
No. If you are hell bound it will be because you have chosen to reject God and his Word. God’s Word is clear on this subject. If you do not know God it is because you do not know his Word.
And it is not some “mentality”… it is God’s Word.
I never said paedophillia was not utterly and completely wrong. It is.
There is, however, no comparision between homosexuality and paedophillia. I know this fact must upset you deeply, because it means you must go on clutching at straws and dreaming up more ways to justify your silly hatred.
I am retired LE and can tell you the majority of sexual offenders are “Gay” homosexuals. Since Law Enforcement has become Politically Correct those statistics are no longer being maintained by the DOJ and FBI.
Gay rights groups have sued and pressured the authorities from keeping factual records about these offenders.
I wonder why?
interesting…notice there is a NAMBLA (north american man/boy love association)
but I know of no comparable heterosexual organization.
OMU, thanks for the response. OBTW, I do not smoke and do not like to be around it either.
Tobacco is legal and people have the right to use it, but the majority of society objects to smoking because the majority considers it harmful.
So the rights of smokers are limited. Majority rules so while smmokers can still smoke their “right to smoke” is limited.
Homosexuals can have relationships, but the majority of the population considers same sex marriage harmful and something they find unpleasant. Just like smokers, you disagree. However, within the “right” to engage in homosexual conduct those rights are “limited” by the majority.
If smokers would act the way gays are over this ban you would consider it rather ludicrous would you not? You would be furious if a smoker ignored a no smoking sign and blew smoke in your face. That is the parallel.
One of the beauties of this country is state’s rights. People like you should actually embrace it. It allows groups to move to a locale, gain a majority and live the way they want to live. Darn clever those Founding Fathers.
Smoking and homosexuality are not like skin color or gender. The latter are traits, the former are matters of conduct. You cannot use a civil rights argument to justify a matter of conduct.
True, one involves adults, the other involves a minor. But, they are both deviant behavior.
Please STOP projecting your hatred on me and the others replying to you. I’ll try it one more time…We Christians love sinners to the point we care enough about them to share our faith with them. However, we hate their sins and won’t tolerate them any more than our God will.
I didn’t elucidate what sin is, God did. As a child of God I am supposed to avoid sin but still love my fellow sinners (I am the first to admit I am NOT sin-free) and work to get them to declare God as their Savior, just as I did some 28 years ago.
Before you say it, as a sinner I DON’T hate myself because I know I am one. Rather, I rejoice that God loves even me and He doesn’t see any sin stains on me because I was ‘Washed by the Blood.”
If you don’t underastand what I am talking about, go to church (a good, fundamental Baptist one at that) this Sunday.
from Flyoverman(#212) Smoking and homosexuality are not like skin color or gender. The latter are traits, the former are matters of conduct. You cannot use a civil rights argument to justify a matter of conduct.
Amen. It is so good to hear from someone who actually gets it.
Time has a way of changing public opinion on issues like this. For example:
It used to be that blacks were kept as slaves.
It used to be that blacks were denied the “right” to vote.
It used to be that women were denied the “right” to vote.
It used to be that interracial couples did not have the “right” to get married.
All of these used to be the “law” of the land.
Most intelligent people now look back on all these things with embarrassment and regret. Please correct me if I am wrong, but popular votes do not make these kinds of changes. They were made at higher levels. The issue of gay marriage/unions/whatever will eventually be looked at the same way. It will just take time.
figetyfiggs said:
Many people confuse two things: being attracted to members of your own gender, and engaging in sexual behavior with members of your own gender.
The Bible no where condemns being attracted to members of your own gender. Rather, the Bible condemns engaging in homosexual behavior.
I am not condemned just because I am attracted to women other than my wife. But I am condemned if I act on those desires (even if I just dwell on them in the mind). Being tempted to sin is not the same thing as actually sinning – after all, Jesus was tempted, yet without sin.
I suspect that people in the gay agenda like to confuse the two things for their own goals. They insist that homosexuals (people who engage in homosexual behavior) are born gay (attracted to their own gender). They don’t have a choice, or so they say.
The hard evidence proves that, at least for some people who claim to be gay, that they were not forced to be gay purely by genetics. For example, you have identical twins, separated at birth, where one turns out gay and the other doesn’t.
Regardless if some people’s sexual attraction actually is purely genetic (I find that highly unlikely), to engage in sexual behavior of any kind, hetero or homo, is a choice. We all have free will. Even gays.
Am I missing something in this debate–honestly–I really want to know where my right to marry is guaranteed by any Constitution–state or federal–in this nation.
The simple fact is this, “gays” and “lesbians” are as protected a segment of American society as any other.
For example:
Perpetrator A attacks Victim A with a bat outside of a bar. Charges: assault and battery (potentially assault with a deadly weapon)
Perpetrator A attacks Victim A with a bat outside of a bar. A witness testifies that he is Victim A’s gay lover.
Charges: assault and battery (potentially assault with a deadly weapon). In addition, sexual orientation is treated under the California penal code (and I suspect it is the same in other states that have enacted so-called “hate crime” statutes) as equal to gender, race, ancestry, disability, religion and/or origin.
So, according to the State of California, “gay” is in your DNA, or it is a church you join, or it is a physical disability you can either be born with–like cerebral palsy–or contract–like polio, or perhaps you could hail from Gaylandia?
If I claim a “right” to marry my gay friend, should I also claim a “right” to be latino, and therefore be afforded special medical entitlements under the law, enabling me to have race-alteration surgery? (No offense, Michael Jackson.)
Where does the entitlement culture stop?
The agenda is this: push your views on others and deprive them of their right to accept or reject them. It has nothing to do with “rights” as the rights which matter in the eyes of the State (i.e. property, etc.) are already guaranteed by California.
FYI: The statute is here:
From: Findlaw
Get a grip, Omu. Then get a copy of the Bible and really, really read it.
God makes it pretty clear that those who willfully, unrepentantly sin (or LEAD others to sin) are going to be punished.
From a theological standpoint, we have an obligation to warn our brothers and sisters of this. This is known as a Spiritual Work of Mercy and it falls under the “love thy neighbor as thyself” commandment – I love myself enough that I want to get to heaven and I darn sure want someone to correct me if I’m sinning.
Exactly right.
Absolutely theologically right, Trollman. The ability or temptation to sin is not damning, acting upon such ability or temptation is.
Which brings it back to the actions and not the person(s). Once again.
Oregon Conservative misread my posting and drew the wrong conclusion. I had said that Bush’s fiscal incompetence contributed to the financial meltdown and that voters had held him responsible. That fiscal incompetence took the form of record budget deficits, as well as being asleep at the switch when the fit hit the shan. Otherwise, Alan Greenspan is a Republican and the genuflection before him was bipartisan. And Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007. But the main point of my posting is that no one should be shocked that Proposition 8 passed because the public did not move left on Election Day, as the MSM would delude itself into thinking.
You need to read the post # 212 where Flyoverman noted:
Homosexual conduct and pedophilia are not currently norms of behavior. One is becoming tolerated and the other may soon follow if we go down the slippery slope of allowing the former to become a ‘norm.’
Note to Omu: I love ALL sinners, even NAMBLA members. God does too!
chiwatcher said:
As, I hope one day, people will look back and wonder how people could have ever accepted abortion on demand.
However, the abolition of slavery and women’s right to vote are Constitutional Amendments. They were voted on.
And there is a real difference between interracial marriage and same sex marriage. Race isn’t a real difference, a black is just as human as a white as an asian, etc. There is a real distinction between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.
Erosion usually does.
I appreciate the analogy. A friend of mine, back in the day when smoking was allowed on flights, sat next to a smoking smoker eating an apple. When he finished his apple, he dropped the core in the smoker’s lap. Interestingly, the smoker got the point and understanding was gained.
I am current DOJ and can corroborate your statement. Interestingly, the quote that caused Omu to opine mentioned the man/boy scenario as well as the 80 year-old/9 year-old girl scenario. The 80 year-old’s gender was not mentioned. It is assumed that this individual would be a man, which would dismiss the “gay-only” argument.
I know of no “NAWBLA” in existence, however, Mary LeTourneau would probably be the Founding Mother if there were one…
Careful correction here.
An interracial marriage – as noted above – is about traits. A black man and a white woman married can fulfill the purpose of marriage: begetting and raising children.
I’ve also noted here and elsewhere that many blacks are offended by the fact the Civil Rights movement of the 60s is being rehashed to fit the case for same-sex marriage. Perhaps this has something to do with it.
All I know is that if I were a Republican candidate, I’d tell the black and Hispanic voters in my district/state/city exactly how their viewed by liberals when they don’t vote according to party lines.
Correction:
How *THEY’RE* viewed.
Since we are are having a religious discussion this afternoon, one of my favorite “Our Gang” moments is the following:
Lady: “Is he a vegetarian?”
Spanky: “No, he’s just like me. He’s a Methodist.”
Thanks, Flyoverman, for the snort!
Spanky was a bigot. He was a member of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club.
But he got ‘religion’ when he figured out “Darla” was a cutie and then he had to compete with Alfalfa for her affections!
“I’m sorry, Spanky, I have to live my own life…”
–Alfalfa
I came to this thread kind of late, but read through the posts – Omu was cracking me UP! All this time I thought Omu was a girl or gay. Turns out HE is married to a woman! Wow! He just sounds so hysterical, I didn’t think there was any way he was a hetero man. It’s just so funny how everything y’all say seems to keep banging up against some liberal filter he has – he just keeps accusing you of being haters, when clearly you’re not! I was truly laughing out loud at my computer screen! What a tool!
You have to keep in mind, EQ1, that the only god many folks “know” is what Scripture cites as the “god of this world”, whom Jesus in the gospel of John chapter 12 named “the ruler of this world”.
And you are quite correct about God’s condemnation of those who encourage shameful behavior. Speaking of homosexual actions in particular Scripture in Romans chapter 1 states, “They know God has said that anyone who acts this way deserves to die. But they keep on doing evil things, and they even encourage others to do them.”.
Jesus issued an especially dire warning to those who would lead his own into a shameful lifestyle : “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke, ch. 17)
The good news (literally, “the “Gospel”) is that no one needs to remain a slave to homosexual sin – or any other sin, for that matter. Man’s only hope is in turning to God and turning away from sin.
And he faced some stiff competition – Alfalfa had that awesome cowlick and the singing voice of a crooning angel. If Spanky had worked out a bit and were up againgy Froggy for Darla’s affections, he coulda been a contender.
Hah, so only gays and women could possibly feel passionately about equality for gay people? Ah, the ignorance in this thread is truly palpable!
Apparently the Almighty Omu is now the Great Decider as to who is ignorant and who is not. Just as you get to decide what constitutes “equality” and what is not.
How very liberal of you, Omu.
“Equality” is starting to be misused as much as “racist” and “bigot” are…and by the same abusers.
Omu said:
My thoughts exactly.
You don’t need a particularly grand moral compass to work out what equality for gays and lesbians is, I regret to inform you.
Omu, Prop 8 – by it’s very nature – also prohibits inter-species marriage. That will anger some people but it wonn’t stop them from pursuing their sexual interests either. Same as with those involved in incest. But they really shouldn’t expect cilization to redefine it’s institutions just to officially approve such behavior.
It require intellectual honesty to debate honestly, Cosmo. Approval of deviant and destrictive behavior cannot be logically justified. Hence the desperate need for such abuse of linguistics and use of euphemisms such as “gay” for those who choose to pursue a certain sexual lifestyle.
Omu said:
We already have equality. Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as the rest of us – they are free to marry any person of their choice, from the other gender.
Yup, TMan. And neither you, I or anyone else has a “right” to marry whomever/whatever we want.( e.g. someone with a shoe fetish can’t marry a pair of high heels – or even just one high heel.)
purplepeep said:
You’re sooooo close-minded. And why do you hate shoes?
By the way, I hear there is a guy in Japan who is petitioning his government for the right to marry a comic book character. Who says we can only marry 3D people? What is wrong with 2D people?!
This isn’t a religious issue, it’s a legal one. I feel that many posters here are confusing them. I say this because of all the Bible quoting and stuff like that. Islam, and other religions, view multiple marriages as acceptable. The legal, U.S., definition is different.
As was previously pointed out (”Flyoverman” in comment 106), there are 2 types of marriages in America – one is legal and the other is religious. I think that a lot of people confuse the two, but they are really separate things. The legal one is the one that formalizes the relationship between the couple and the state. This is the one that atheists and religious people all enter into before the “big wedding”. This is the legally binding one and which gives rights to the couple. The religious one is the one that formalizes a relationship between the couple and God. In terms of legality, you don’t have to enter the religious one at all.
It is a shame that we continue to call the 2 different commitments the same name – they are not. I view it as a separation of Church and State thing.
I get it that you may find homosexuality immoral, bad, against God, whatever. At least recognize the difference between various “marriages”.
Are you really that disgusted by gay people – that you would compare their relationships top bestiality and incest? Or, as many others have in this thrad, polygamy and paedophilia. Hah, you guys actually wonder why I think you are all hateful?
Omu said:
Yeah, since we are against bestiality, what that really means is that we hate animals (don’t tell PETA!).
Being against incest, naturally we are anti-family, too.
Right! That girl in the A-Ha video wanted comic book love and was denied by the race car driver with the wrench!
Oh, you guys really are a hopeless bunch, right?
There’s no reasonable debate to be had when the opposition is actually seriously saying that homosexuality is in any way comparable to bestiality, incest, polygamy, paedophilia or wanting to marry a shoe. With the special inclusion of Trollman, you’re a lost cause. History will not be kind to people who make such hurtful and outrageous ill-informed statements and ridicule the very real desire among gay couples to be married.
I’ve been reading this thread today, carefully.
Normally, i’d have some witty retort. I’d play down Omu for being hysterical, or go after some of the ideological dishonesty that’s on this thread.
But I reached the conclusion that, at the end of it, all I would accomplish is p!$$ing off almost everyone here, for one reason or another.
So I’ll take another road.
The bottom line is, disliking or disapproving of the sexual behavior of someone else is a matter of personal choice. Whether you base it on religion, biology, what that Jesus shaped water stain on your bathroom tile told you…regardless of the reason, if you dont like it, then thats all there is to it.
Now, exclude the obvious. I’m not talking about simple disapproval of things clearly against the laws of man or nature. We’re not comparing beastiality to homosexuality. Doing so is fruitless and infantile.
But Omu, clearly…you’re discussing a point, and trying to defend a point, that simply is a choice. Much as homosexuality (i believe) is more of a choice than a forced product of nature or nurture. People here, for the most part, disagree with you. They have their reasons. I don’t agree with you. And i have my reasons. And anyone regular here can tell you i’m not religious, and dont use it as a basis of my opinions.
But coming in here and trying to paint everyone in the worst possible light, so that you make yourself look better, ergo trying to give your arguments merit…is weak, boring, and intellectually devoid.
Sometimes, sir, its better to agree to disagree. The more you try to paint people as yahoos and crazies…even those who here have posted valid points based on their personal views…the more you ostrasize yourself against those that really, you could get along with otherwise.
I guess thats the nice way for me to say what I was going to, without making people feel bad or resorting to ad hominems. I don’t support the gay community. Why? Because I don’t agree with the lifestyle. I dont need a reason to feel that way, other than thats how I feel. And thus, opinions are made. Voters in Cali decided THIS is what they wanted. The least people could do is peacefully understand and deal with that, rather than causing riots and getting themselves arrested.
I’m curious…was this supposed to be a debate about who was voting for Prop 8, or was it meant to be a bashing session? Omu has already made clear he thinks most people here are hateful, and nobody’s gonna change his mind.
But here’s a question for everyone: if you take your religious beliefs completely out of it, do you really think you have a reason to push for bans on gay marriage? If marriage is supposed to be about procreation, then why do we let people who can’t have children get married? If you can’t do that, what’s the point, according to that logic?
I daresay most here believe marriage is two people committing themselves to each other because they’re in love. I may be free to marry a man, but I’ve never felt anything for men. If I could choose whether to be gay or straight, and this is God’s honest truth, I’d choose to be straight. It’d make my life ten times easier. I don’t want to be a man, but I’ve never had feelings for them, either. Suggesting that I have the same right to marry when I’m actually not allowed to marry the person I love is a little ridiculous.
And Chiwatcher brings up a very good point, too.
fair enough. i’ll take a shot at this.
I can no more explain why it is i dislike the idea of gay marriage anymore than i can explain the reason why people hate the texture of stewed tomatoes and wont eat them.
I simply just…dislike it. Logically, i might not have a reason, which…is sad because usually I have a good reason for everything. This is one where it is simply my gut instinct.
That doesnt explain much, i know. And i wish i had more of an answer. It is, for lack of a better phrase, the way it is with me.
I dont personally believe we should be legislating the bedroom. I believe people should be able to make their own choices. But I’m also upset at the attempts of schools to push a sexual agenda on children as young as 4 and 5. I believe talks about this should be had at home, with parents or guardians. Not the same person teaching my children ABC’s.
I know that doesnt help, but…its the best i have, off the cuff.
AniMEL said:
I once wrote a research paper arguing against allowing same sex marriage wholly apart from religious reasons. In fact, the reasons why the Bible condemns homosexual behavior is because of nature itself, not some arcane, unfathomable religious reason.
AniMEL said:
So you want to make people have a fertility test before getting married? What about those couples who are infertile, and yet end up having children after all? Should couples be forced to divorce once they are past childbearing age?
Even those heterosexual couples that choose not or cannot have children, they reinforce the institution of heterosexual marriage, which ultimately does reinforce the rearing of children. There is a reason why pre-Christian societies often had strenuous laws regarding marriage and family.
AniMEL said:
And why is marriage inherently between 2 people? What is so wrong with group marriages? The (only) reason why the number 2 isn’t arbitrary is because of the heterosexual relationship (which is special in relation to children and the future of the human race).
If you remove the heterosexual component of marriage, then it is purely arbitrary to insist that marriage must be limited to 2.
AniMEL said:
Those things were voted on. If you want to put same sex marriage up to a vote, then fine. If you want to shove it down our throats through the courts, then too bad.
abstractmind said:
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that it is unnatural. Whether one believes in creation or evolution, a man is clearly made for a woman, and vice versa. There is something obviously wrong/backwards/incorrect with such behavior. Even nature imposes the death penalty on homosexuals (they cannot reproduce if they only practice homosexuality).
Some will claim that homosexual behavior is natural – that we see such acts among animals. But humans are different from the other animals – we are rational. Even if we have such desires, we ought to realize that there is something wrong with it, that sex ought to be with the other gender and not our own. What might be acceptable in an animal shouldn’t necessarily be acceptable in a human.
Finally, when considered from a purely utilitarian perspective, SSM (same sex marriage) is inferior to other forms of marriage – such as polygamy. Polygamy, unlike SSM, allows for the birth of children, and provides both a male and a female rolemodel for children growing up.
Where is the genuine need for SSM? People can already cohabitate with whomever they like.
They all make the exact same argument and even the most militant homosexual groups can’t come up with an argument why those who want incest-marriage, polygamy, etc. should be denied their “rights”. Obviously those who push the militant homosexual agenda are “haters”. Why should any American be denied his/her “right” to marry whoever/whatever they want?
And, quite frankly, I think a lot of us here wouldn’t necessarily oppose same-sex marriage if it really was all about a civil union.
It’s not.
Look to Canada, for starters, where it’s a HATE CRIME to remove your child from the classroom when objectionable content (i.e., homosexuality) is taught. Or the arguments used to bully home schoolers. Or the fact that in New Mexico an artist was punished for refusing to violate her conscience and religious beliefs.
Everything that’s come out of the same-sex marriage crowd has been less about equality than about bullying the hell out of anyone who doesn’t think homosexuality is the source and summit of all that’s good and noble.
No – that’s not what we’re saying at all. What we are saying, if you were honest in rehashing our arguments, is that once you re-define marriage to include homosexuals – how in any way can you say we’re going to limit marriage to two human beings?
Isn’t that discriminating – or, to use your words, “hating” – polygamists? Or “hating” people who enjoy getting intimate with animals? I mean, who are we – who are same-sex proponents – to selfishly say marriage is only for them and only between two people?
I mean, using your logic, if it’s “hateful” to deny homosexuals the right to marry (eschewing years of traditional marriage and its benefits to society), isn’t it equally as “hateful” to deny those who define marriage as something other than a contract between two adult human beings as “hateful”?
Man, did I mess up that last paragraph. It should read:
I mean, using your logic, if it’s “hateful” to deny homosexuals the right to marry (eschewing years of traditional marriage and its benefits to society), isn’t it equally as “hateful” to deny those who define marriage as something other than a contract between two adult human beings?
Simple answer to that: no one chooses to be infertile. Infertility is a genetic and/or physical disorder that’s unnatural. And, today, most infertility can be treated (and in morally licit ways, too).
No matter if a same-sex couple doesn’t use birth control, it’s physically impossible and cannot be terated with medication or surgery.
And even if infertility is present, traditional marriage works because men and women are complimentary to one another.
I know the androgynous loving, feminist liberals out there think men and women are exactly the same. We aren’t. We were designed, phyiscally, mentally, and emotionally, to compliment one another with our general strengths and weaknesses.
Which is why traditional marriage is most beneficial to the man and woman.
First off, religious questions are secondary, AniMEL. If someone brings up questions of religious aspects, it’s certainly correct and easy enough to address them.
But second, let’s deconstruct your question: it is a typical propaganda-based question. I don’t mean you intended to deceive, just that you phrased it with the usual “spin”. Examples: “gay”, “gay marriage”, “ban”. When an argument isn’t solid people tend to rely on euphemisms and loaded questions. (e.g. “why deny their right?”
That type of stuff should be dismissed out of hand. Or, the question(s) can be asked of you and you’ll realize the answer: why ban incest-marriage, polygamy, group-marriage (e.g. 5 woman, 7 men)? And so on.
However, even setting aside all the practicalities, some truths are “self-evident” where even the need to explain them is superflous.
Exactly. Bigotry is bigotry, ya can’t have it both ways and exclude how others want to re-define – actually “undefine” is a better term – marriage to meet their particular demands. Why refuse any American his/her “rights”?
Abstractmind–it may seem unnatural to you, but it is perfectly natural to me. Heterosexuality seems unnatural to me; the thought of being with a man actually disgusts me, but I’m not about to call it wrong.
Trollman–I use that question not for propaganda, but because every time I get into the debate with a pro-ban supporter, the phrases “I believe in God” and “the bible says” invariably come up. And simply carrying on the act of heterosexual marriage doesn’t reinforce it any more than continuing any other social act; to say “that’s the way it’s always been done” is simply a tacit refusal to change, and the same can be said about slavery, segregation, and other social “institutions.”
Englishqueen01–just because “that crowd” has done those things doesn’t mean it’s right, nor does it mean that they’re wrong on every little thing they do. I get irritated with people who toss the word “hate” around so cluelessly, too. I’m not willing to use that against them on everything, though. And you mention infertility…what about couples who are married, fertile, and yet desperately trying NOT to conceive because they don’t want children? Is that wrong? Because according to your logic, it is.
Purplepeep–polygamy is not beneficial, in fact it is purely detrimental. If we were to legalize polygamy, it would create a massive open door for any person to marry as many people as they wanted, and the first thing you’d see is people selling extra marriages to those seeking citizenship by marriage. Same with group marriage. Incest? The medical problems that arise with children born of incestuous relationships are considered cruel and avoidable. The same argument was used to try to stop interracial marriage from being allowed. “Next they’ll be marrying sheep!” Um…no. An animal cannot consent in any way, shape or form.
AniMEL said:
But it his right to vote against it. Majority rules. If enough people want to amend the Constitution, then too bad for you. That is called democracy.
AniMEL said:
Actually, the more heterosexual couples that get married, the more it reinforces that such relationships are normal, and it encourages more of the same. Just as the more people decide to have children outside of wedlock, the more “normal” it becomes, and it becomes more common. Our environment influences our views and behaviors.
And when you want to change, tamper with, and redefine an institution that has been at the very heart of human civilization, then the burden is on you who wants to make the change. Why is this needed? How can you prove this won’t have a negative effect on society?
AniMEL said:
Then next time go after Omu instead of EQ.
AniMEL said:
I’ve already addressed that. But even if heterosexual couples do not want to have children, sometimes “oops” happen anyway. So even such unions can lead to children.
AniMEL said:
Garbage. Polygamous relationships produce children, unlike SSM. Societies need children in order to remain healthy and strong. As I have already pointed out, polygamous marriages are superior to SSM in that a child has a rolemodel for both genders.
AniMEL said:
There are laws to prevent such things. We have laws regarding people wanting to marry into citizenship now. Besides, anyone is free to walk into this country uninvited, and will probably be soon given citizenship anyway.
AniMEL said:
That isn’t a problem if the couple is sterile. Really, why couldn’t a brother marry his brother?
AniMEL said:
Sorry, won’t work. Race isn’t a real distinction. We are all members of the same race. Whether you follow evolution or creation, we all come from the same place. We all fall on in different places on the same race continuum. Just as nature tells us that a black man is just as human as a white man, nature also tells us that a man is built for a woman.
AniMEL said:
Why is being able to give consent a necessary part of marriage? Why does my shoe have to give me consent to marry me? It isn’t like my shoe cares anyway.
You see, you and all of the other SSM advocates arbitrarily assign importance to things such as limiting it to 2, and giving consent. To allow SSM and not other forms of “marriage” can only be defended by being completely arbitrary.
Well, I am Hispanic and voted for Prop 8. Sadly, I also voted for Prop 4 as well but that did not pass. I don’t understand what loving parent could possibly vote no for Prop 4.
My reply to that would be a non-snotty “So what?” – esecially if they “love” one another, that’s all that matters. (that the usual line – “you’re banning love!!”)
That reasoning doesn’t make sense, AniMAL, first because it’s nothing more than a personal speculation and second, the same can just as easily be claimed of same of allowing same-sex “marriage”; they will marry illegals seeking citizenship.
See above, same critique applies.
I think you’d want to avoid trying to make arguments from that angle, AniMEL. If the argument is based on health reasons we have to keep in mind that among homosexual men (esp) AIDs (and other STDs) have been epidemic for decades. Society ends up paying the bill of very expensive treatment of such diseases. And, of course, there’s the awful tragedy of so many young people dying horrific deaths that they could have easily avoided.
I would avoid a “only the healthy” based argument altogether.
But your only argument against incest marriage is linked to that premise which presents you with even more problematic questions. If people are allowed to marry if they are only capable of producing healthy children, that, by definition (and reality), would obviously exclude homosexuals from marriage.
Second, the child-bearing populace already produces unhealthy children, even without incest. To be consistent with the “healthy children” criteria for marriage you would have to demand the marriages of couple who bore disabled/deformed children be annulled.
Third, incest-marriage couples could just do as homosexuals are forced by nature to do – adopt or get “outside help” for to concieve.
But, again, I’d drop the the need to be able to produce healthy children as your criteria for marriage.
Now there some underlting interesting questions I think are also worth pondering.
But just one for here and now. I assume you believe that marriage should be bewteen 2 persons only, correct? The question to ponder: “Why two persons in particular?”.
There is an answer and when it hits a person, it’s a truly Zen moment.
And I respect that. Like i said, its a preference to me, just as it is to you. A situation where we agree to disagree.
This is a topic with no easy answers or ways of coming to resolution.
And so we go onward.
Ronald Reagan:
“There are no easy answers’ but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
In my belief, yes, it is. But – in reality – even couples who contracept still can get pregnant. It happens. The pill doesn’t always work (I knew a woman who had 3 kids while on it), condoms break, etc.
And, as I’ve argued above, heterosexual marriage, even without children (which I think is sad), is still more beneficial and natural. Men and women are different and compliment one another.
In a same-sex couple, you don’t get that complimenting. You get the trains of men or women amplified.
And I, very rarely, toss around the term “hate”…but re-read Omu’s comments a good majority of them scramble through any semblance of a logical argument and go right to “hate!” He might as well type “Hater!” sixty times and click “submit.”
I’m just trying to get him to defend and explain his assertion that it’s “hateful” to deny marriage to same sex couples…but would suddenly not be hateful if we limited marriage to two consenting adults, leaving out all of the very small minority groups that have sexual preferences beyond straight/gay, adult, or even from the human species…
You’re also free to try to explain how this wouldn’t work.
Additionally, for years – since the 1960s – we’ve been told by feminists that marriage is an oppressive institution.
And now, what do we have? Lots of women who shack up with losers who end up abusing or killing them…or their children. Really. Browse newspapers. 9 times out of 10, when a young child is abused or murdered, the suspect is the live-in boyfriend.
We’ve just been told that the more “freedom” we have (which means “freedom from constraint”), the happier we’ll be.
People are pretty much free to do whatever they damn well please. We no longer plaster red “As” on the shirts of adulterers, unmarried pregnant women aren’t sent away, etc., etc. But it still isn’t enough.
There’s always some issue of “equality” that needs to be reached, otherwise people won’t be happy.
And, ultimately, no matter how the liberal left attempts to deconstruct or destroy cultural norms and social morals, they will NEVER be happy because the “freedom” they seek is actually making them slaves to sin.
Trollman–I wasn’t “going after” anybody. I was pretty sure I was making a logical and rational response. Chill, dude.
To answer the “healthy children” argument to my incest point, I believe I also used the word “avoidable.”
The point of marriage and/or civil unions, for us, is the benefits. If two people are going to get married and either can’t or won’t have children, then why should they get the benefits of marriage that we cannot have? The tax breaks, the property and intelligence rights, all of it? I think there are a grand total of three states that allow the same benefits under a different name. Most states have no protections at all, and some effectively nullify any legal documentation gay couples draw up.
And I take offense to being told that my logic allows people to “marry” children or animals. Consent is a major issue. Children cannot consent to this sort of thing, which is why we have age of consent laws. Animals can never consent because they don’t have a free will. That is one argument that cannot be torn down.
But you refuse to answer our question directly, so I’ll repeat it:
Where do we draw the line? If you argue it’s discriminatory to maintain traditional marriage between one man and one woman, how can we POSSIBLY argue that it’s not discriminatory to limit marriage to two adult human beings?
And, indeed, our prediction is coming true: In Germany, a couple sued to make their incestuous marriage legal.
Civilization doesn’t die overnight, it bleeds to death with 1,000 cuts.
Omu, as I said earlier, history is merely a recording of what has happened. God is the ultimate judge of everyone for their actions on this earth. At the judgment seat He will reward faithful Christians, although some will get greater reward than others. The believers will enter into Heaven and the non-believers will be cast into the lake of fire. It has nothing to do with what we do on this earth, other than our relationship with God.
I will also repeat that true Christians don’t hate anyone because we are trying to be like God (not be a god, but to be more like Him). He loves all humans (we were, after all, created in His image) and we are to love others, no matter what sin they might have committed. Just because we don’t tolerate the sin doesn’t mean we hate the sinner.
Finally, EQ-01 repeats my earlier point. Once we start down the slippery slope it will be an open floodgate for what even you agree is deviant behavior, pedophilia, incest, or whatever the ‘flavor of the day’ happens to be. But, then how will you justify stopping their ‘rights’ from being imposed upon all of us since, according to you, to do so is hurtful?
AniMEL said:
If we accept your premise that consent is essential to the definition of marriage, and that the number 2 is essential, then you still have no basis for rejecting incest.
Second, why is consent even important? Sure, consent is important when talking about humans, but why should consent matter when talking about marrying shoes? Shoes have no feelings. They cannot be hurt. So who cares if you marry a shoe?
Why should we care if animals aren’t able to give consent? As long as you are not inflicting pain on them, what is that to you? Animals are property.
The more we argue, the clearer it becomes that you are being entirely arbitrary. You are making special exceptions for same sex couples, without good reasons for doing so.
We, as a society, do have good reasons for giving special status to man/woman relationships – they provide more utility to the society than any other form of relationship. SSM just cannot be successfully argued.
More to the point, AniMEL:
What if it’s my lifestyle choice to believe consent isn’t necessary? Or that young children can give consent?
How can the argument be made that it’s okay to discriminate against me and my lifestyle because you think consent is necessary for relationships or marriage?
The gay KKK is showing its true colors by protesting outside the Mormon temple on Westwood. Not a single one has condemned the bigoted TV ad that can be seen on youtube.
Just listened to a discussion about this on a local talk show.
Funny how they’re going after the Mormons, when – as this article shows – the group that put the amendment through were minorities.
The Mormons are just a start. To all my brothers and sisters of faith here: the time has come to lock, load, and pray hard. You’ll be next.
Personally, I hope the Mormons they’re targeting give ‘em hell. I absolutely refuse to tolerate that crap. I’m with you guys on that one, they’re being idiots.
As for consent, the APA will never move from the stance that children cannot consent to romantic relationships. They have, however, along with much of the medical community, admitted that homosexuality (in cases NOT involving lengthy prison terms) in most people is perfectly healthy and likely genetic.
Trollman, if you want to have a little ceremony, then for chrissakes marry your shoe! I think, personally, that the government should preside over civil unions and the church should preside over marriage (though both should be recognized by law). I can’t figure out why you guys keep refusing to accept the consent argument. It is, in fact, quite valid.
AniMEL, I don’t reject consent as part of marriage. I can insist upon consent while maintaining my views on marriage.
Your position, however, negates you from making the consent argument. The heterosexual component is essential to marriage. If you deny that, then how can you claim that anything else about marriage is essential?