From my experience it seems very rare that a measure that is initially trailing to reverse course and pass. The tendency in most proposition is once the ads start flying and the mudslinging begins, people develop more uncertainty and uncertainty in propositions leads to no votes.
I think there are a number of other factors that will also lead this measure to ultimately be defeated. But first, some interesting, if not altogether unpredictable splits in terms of demographics.
There is of course a very strong split between Democrats and Republicans on this. 63% of Democrats oppose Prop. 8 while 68% of Republicans support it. Non-partisans also oppose it by a 66% to 27% margin. Given predictions that this will be a Democratic electorate this fall, that bodes well for it going down to defeat. Another Field Poll showed Obama with a 24 point lead over McCain in California and there was a huge enthusiasm gap of nearly 2:1 with around 56% of Democrats excited to cast their vote for Obama but only 20-something percent of Republicans feeling the same.
The age factor is interesting as well. Not surprising the greatest support is among those voters under 30. I’ve always said that it is just a matter of time because those in my generation, gay marriage is really not an issue. We grew up with gay friends, family members, openly gay people in the community. As such it is just a matter of time before younger generations become a majority. What is interesting is that the baby boomer demographic, those 50-64 for whom gay rights first emerged, is also strongly supportive. It is then somewhat surprising that my demographic would be evenly split being between 30 to 50, although I wonder if there is a break point there.
Ethnically, Latinos are the only group supporting Prop. 8 with whites, African-Americans, and Asians opposing it.
The strongest religious group favoring Prop. 8 are the Protestants at 56-40%, Catholics interestingly enough are evenly divided, but all other religions and those with no religious preference are strongly opposed. Evangelicals favor the amendment by a 66-31 margin while non-evangelicals are opposed 59-34. From these splits, you can basically see where the support is coming from, and that is almost entirely from Evangelical Christians, again not surprisingly.
Here is another reason I think this proposition will lose. Those who personally know or work with gays and lesbians oppose the proposition by 54-40. That group includes three-quarters of the voters statewide. That ties in with my prediction about demographic shifts ultimately rendering this a non-issue. Familiarity tends to neutralize a lot of fears.
And along those lines, I think one of the reasons that this will fail is not captured in the Field Poll analysis. Basically, by the time the election rolls around same-sex couples will have been married nearly six months. The electorate will see that these marriages are not really the threat that they are made out to be. That will help neutralize a lot of the scare-tactics that proponents of the proposition will employ. People will see that same-sex marriages are not a threat to the institution of marriage. They will see that the sky is not falling. Playing into that is that nearly three-quarters of the people in this state know gay people, many will know married gay couples, and this familiarity will lead most likely to people voting against this amendment.
In the end, the best thing that could have happened for this cause for marriages to actually occur. You will have a strong Democratic electorate this fall, enthusiastically coming to polls in huge numbers to vote for Obama, the Republican electorate is not enthusiastic about McCain, they may not come out in huge numbers.
In short, I think this proposition which is already trailing will not pass. Already 62% of likely voters know something about this proposed amendment and I think the trends in propositions are for the no side to gain rather than lose strength.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Fairness. Dignity. Respect. No on 8.
Fairness. Dignity. Respect. No on 8.
Fairness. Dignity. Respect. No on 8.
Fairness. Dignity. Respect. No on 8.
Two points that negate your analysis.
The issue of uncertainty does not necessarily play to a vote against the initiative. The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”. Second,
since a Yes vote on the intiative has been publicly labelled as the vote of bigots and homophobes, the true test will be in the privacy of the voting booth.
Two points that negate your analysis.
The issue of uncertainty does not necessarily play to a vote against the initiative. The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”. Second,
since a Yes vote on the intiative has been publicly labelled as the vote of bigots and homophobes, the true test will be in the privacy of the voting booth.
Two points that negate your analysis.
The issue of uncertainty does not necessarily play to a vote against the initiative. The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”. Second,
since a Yes vote on the intiative has been publicly labelled as the vote of bigots and homophobes, the true test will be in the privacy of the voting booth.
Two points that negate your analysis.
The issue of uncertainty does not necessarily play to a vote against the initiative. The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”. Second,
since a Yes vote on the intiative has been publicly labelled as the vote of bigots and homophobes, the true test will be in the privacy of the voting booth.
There will always be people against equality. This week Massachusetts voted to open gay marriage to out-of-state-couples so gay marriage is far from losing. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
There will always be people against equality. This week Massachusetts voted to open gay marriage to out-of-state-couples so gay marriage is far from losing. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
There will always be people against equality. This week Massachusetts voted to open gay marriage to out-of-state-couples so gay marriage is far from losing. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
There will always be people against equality. This week Massachusetts voted to open gay marriage to out-of-state-couples so gay marriage is far from losing. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
“The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”.”
I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.
Voters are learning that things aren’t falling apart just because gay marriage is now legal.
The result of legalized gay marriage was plenty media photos and videos of happy loving couples at courthouses.
“The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”.”
I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.
Voters are learning that things aren’t falling apart just because gay marriage is now legal.
The result of legalized gay marriage was plenty media photos and videos of happy loving couples at courthouses.
“The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”.”
I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.
Voters are learning that things aren’t falling apart just because gay marriage is now legal.
The result of legalized gay marriage was plenty media photos and videos of happy loving couples at courthouses.
“The initiative itself supports the current status quo,i.e. the usual choice that the voter makes in the face of “uncertainty”.”
I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.
Voters are learning that things aren’t falling apart just because gay marriage is now legal.
The result of legalized gay marriage was plenty media photos and videos of happy loving couples at courthouses.
But will avowed anti-same-sex-marriage bigot Rexroad actively campaign for the initiative?
But will avowed anti-same-sex-marriage bigot Rexroad actively campaign for the initiative?
But will avowed anti-same-sex-marriage bigot Rexroad actively campaign for the initiative?
But will avowed anti-same-sex-marriage bigot Rexroad actively campaign for the initiative?
I will never understand how it supposedly devalues my (hetero) marriage to allow others to marry the same-sex person they love.
I will never understand how it supposedly devalues my (hetero) marriage to allow others to marry the same-sex person they love.
I will never understand how it supposedly devalues my (hetero) marriage to allow others to marry the same-sex person they love.
I will never understand how it supposedly devalues my (hetero) marriage to allow others to marry the same-sex person they love.
You know its amazing to me that gay marriage is even an issue. When people love one another they should be able to marry, whether they are gay or straight. Remember that interracial marriages were not legal either in our country’s recent history. That, too, is absurd. Hopefully, this country will get to the point where gays can love and marry openly without discrimination.
You know its amazing to me that gay marriage is even an issue. When people love one another they should be able to marry, whether they are gay or straight. Remember that interracial marriages were not legal either in our country’s recent history. That, too, is absurd. Hopefully, this country will get to the point where gays can love and marry openly without discrimination.
You know its amazing to me that gay marriage is even an issue. When people love one another they should be able to marry, whether they are gay or straight. Remember that interracial marriages were not legal either in our country’s recent history. That, too, is absurd. Hopefully, this country will get to the point where gays can love and marry openly without discrimination.
You know its amazing to me that gay marriage is even an issue. When people love one another they should be able to marry, whether they are gay or straight. Remember that interracial marriages were not legal either in our country’s recent history. That, too, is absurd. Hopefully, this country will get to the point where gays can love and marry openly without discrimination.
“I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.”
…very weak retort, I’m afraid. The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago. The CA Supreme Court decision must be seen as in legal limbo,not the status quo, until the Constitutional amendment is voted upon in Nov. The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached when it nullified the CA voter’s initiative decision on this issue
will raise the hackles of many a CA voter. My prediction is a close decision with the constitutional amendment prevailing.
“I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.”
…very weak retort, I’m afraid. The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago. The CA Supreme Court decision must be seen as in legal limbo,not the status quo, until the Constitutional amendment is voted upon in Nov. The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached when it nullified the CA voter’s initiative decision on this issue
will raise the hackles of many a CA voter. My prediction is a close decision with the constitutional amendment prevailing.
“I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.”
…very weak retort, I’m afraid. The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago. The CA Supreme Court decision must be seen as in legal limbo,not the status quo, until the Constitutional amendment is voted upon in Nov. The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached when it nullified the CA voter’s initiative decision on this issue
will raise the hackles of many a CA voter. My prediction is a close decision with the constitutional amendment prevailing.
“I’m sorry, but the status quo is legal same-sex marriage.”
…very weak retort, I’m afraid. The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago. The CA Supreme Court decision must be seen as in legal limbo,not the status quo, until the Constitutional amendment is voted upon in Nov. The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached when it nullified the CA voter’s initiative decision on this issue
will raise the hackles of many a CA voter. My prediction is a close decision with the constitutional amendment prevailing.
“The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago.”
So if the proposition to change the Constitution fails, then you would concede that the “cultural status quo” has changed, and that acceptance of gay marriage fits within that new status quo?
It’s unfortunate that you won’t use your real name, as I’d like to call you on that when the time comes.
FWIW, I am surprised how much the cultural acceptance of gays has changed over the last 10-15 years. I had always assumed that the hatred of homosexuals was ingrained in mainstream Christian religion* and it would take far longer to excise that hatred. I don’t think we have disproportionately fewer Christian believers. However, I think younger Christians (and non-Christians) are more willing to accept the obvious: homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is. And it is crazy to hate someone based on a biological trait.
* Of course, fundamentalists of non-Christian faiths are taught to hate gays, too. But those folks are a small minority in America.
I was raised in the Jewish faith, though I suppose it’s fair to say mine was not in any sense a “fundamentalist” upbringing. I don’t recall a rabbi ever mention gays or sodomy or any such topics. And if they were mentioned, it would have been to suggest the obvious: they are our friends and family and neighbors and no more deserve hatred or discrimination than do Jews.
“The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago.”
So if the proposition to change the Constitution fails, then you would concede that the “cultural status quo” has changed, and that acceptance of gay marriage fits within that new status quo?
It’s unfortunate that you won’t use your real name, as I’d like to call you on that when the time comes.
FWIW, I am surprised how much the cultural acceptance of gays has changed over the last 10-15 years. I had always assumed that the hatred of homosexuals was ingrained in mainstream Christian religion* and it would take far longer to excise that hatred. I don’t think we have disproportionately fewer Christian believers. However, I think younger Christians (and non-Christians) are more willing to accept the obvious: homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is. And it is crazy to hate someone based on a biological trait.
* Of course, fundamentalists of non-Christian faiths are taught to hate gays, too. But those folks are a small minority in America.
I was raised in the Jewish faith, though I suppose it’s fair to say mine was not in any sense a “fundamentalist” upbringing. I don’t recall a rabbi ever mention gays or sodomy or any such topics. And if they were mentioned, it would have been to suggest the obvious: they are our friends and family and neighbors and no more deserve hatred or discrimination than do Jews.
“The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago.”
So if the proposition to change the Constitution fails, then you would concede that the “cultural status quo” has changed, and that acceptance of gay marriage fits within that new status quo?
It’s unfortunate that you won’t use your real name, as I’d like to call you on that when the time comes.
FWIW, I am surprised how much the cultural acceptance of gays has changed over the last 10-15 years. I had always assumed that the hatred of homosexuals was ingrained in mainstream Christian religion* and it would take far longer to excise that hatred. I don’t think we have disproportionately fewer Christian believers. However, I think younger Christians (and non-Christians) are more willing to accept the obvious: homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is. And it is crazy to hate someone based on a biological trait.
* Of course, fundamentalists of non-Christian faiths are taught to hate gays, too. But those folks are a small minority in America.
I was raised in the Jewish faith, though I suppose it’s fair to say mine was not in any sense a “fundamentalist” upbringing. I don’t recall a rabbi ever mention gays or sodomy or any such topics. And if they were mentioned, it would have been to suggest the obvious: they are our friends and family and neighbors and no more deserve hatred or discrimination than do Jews.
“The status quo that I am describing is the CULTURAL status quo that was expressed in CA voters passing its intiative several years ago.”
So if the proposition to change the Constitution fails, then you would concede that the “cultural status quo” has changed, and that acceptance of gay marriage fits within that new status quo?
It’s unfortunate that you won’t use your real name, as I’d like to call you on that when the time comes.
FWIW, I am surprised how much the cultural acceptance of gays has changed over the last 10-15 years. I had always assumed that the hatred of homosexuals was ingrained in mainstream Christian religion* and it would take far longer to excise that hatred. I don’t think we have disproportionately fewer Christian believers. However, I think younger Christians (and non-Christians) are more willing to accept the obvious: homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is. And it is crazy to hate someone based on a biological trait.
* Of course, fundamentalists of non-Christian faiths are taught to hate gays, too. But those folks are a small minority in America.
I was raised in the Jewish faith, though I suppose it’s fair to say mine was not in any sense a “fundamentalist” upbringing. I don’t recall a rabbi ever mention gays or sodomy or any such topics. And if they were mentioned, it would have been to suggest the obvious: they are our friends and family and neighbors and no more deserve hatred or discrimination than do Jews.
As unpopular as my view may be on this blog, I dare to be different. My comment to those who are proponents of gay marriage, be careful what you wish for. The rest of the country is not in step with you. I believe at least 26 other states have bans on gay marriage. The only two states openly accepting of it are CA and MA, both out of step with the rest of the country.
Why is that important? It effectively forces gays to remain in two states, CA or MA. What if a gay couple who marry here or in MA decide to move to another state? If the other state does not recognize gay marriage, it will not recognize gay divorce or anything else about a gay marriage.
Now CA and MA become a haven for gays, with disproportionate representation. Suddenly local gov’t is more interested in distraction with a gay agenda then taking care of more important issues, as has happened in San Francisco over and over again. Chris Cabaldon of West Sacramento openly aligns himself with Mayor Newsome of San Francisco – even though West Sacramento is nothing like San Francisco.
Furthermore, at the risk of incurring the wrath of many on this blog, who will now accuse me of being a homophobe – I have a deep seated concern of the direction this country is headed with respect to traditional marriage. It is not respected anymore – with anything goes as the norm. We see a proliferation of “living together”, polygamy, all sorts of family models that do not bode well for children. To allow gay marriage has already fomented the phenomenon of arguments that any def’n of marriage should be allowed under the equal protection clause.
And unfortunately, and sadly, I suspect this latest turn of events in CA will solidify opposition elsewhere in the country to hate gays. It gives them the excuse they need to carry out gay-bashing.
Personally, and I have said this before to the irritation of many on this blog, I think the better approach would have been to argue for equal rights for gays, in a domestic partnership. It would have given gays what they deserve – to have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples – yet allow marriage to remain as it has been traditionally. This position would engender less hostility, yet attain what gays say they want – equal protection under the law.
However, I suspect gays are pushing for gay marriage to legitimize same sex couples as a norm of society, and debunk Christians who believe it is a sin. It is an in-your-face gay protest to say “I’m just as normal as you are, so get used to it!”
I doubt very much that staunch Christians will change their views on gay marriage. Catholics still do not allow divorce, and go through all sorts of machinations such as annulment to avoid its ugly implications. Furthermore, even if we accept that gays are born homosexual(and I believe that to be the case), it is not the norm, but a normal anomaly.
If I were to really analyze why I am opposed to gay marriage, even though I used to be a strong proponent of it, it is because I have seen all our traditional institutions, ethics and morals crumble, one by one. Abortion is used as a method of birth control, and an excuse not to teach abstinence and responsibility. People are not committing to marriage anymore, becoming more and more narcissitic. “We’ll stay together as long as it works out.” Moral relativism has become the order of the day.
Perhaps my feelings have to do with being originally from the East Coast, and a more traditional value system. Or because I am from an older generation. But I believe we are becoming, with the help from money infused into our political system by the likes of George Soros et al, more like the European system. Trust me, we don’t want to go there.
We need to be proud of what we are, an independent nation that believes in being a bit prudish by European standards. I like prudish. We don’t have unisex bathrooms, nor do men pee on the side of the road for all the world to see. We don’t believe in having peep shows in front windows, nor do we condone mistresses – although we are slowly headed in that direction with the proliferation of porn, strip shows, adultery and the like.
I wish gays the best of luck with their choice to push gay marriage, but I think there will be many unintended consequences to that choice, that are not so nice. We will just have to wait and see…
As unpopular as my view may be on this blog, I dare to be different. My comment to those who are proponents of gay marriage, be careful what you wish for. The rest of the country is not in step with you. I believe at least 26 other states have bans on gay marriage. The only two states openly accepting of it are CA and MA, both out of step with the rest of the country.
Why is that important? It effectively forces gays to remain in two states, CA or MA. What if a gay couple who marry here or in MA decide to move to another state? If the other state does not recognize gay marriage, it will not recognize gay divorce or anything else about a gay marriage.
Now CA and MA become a haven for gays, with disproportionate representation. Suddenly local gov’t is more interested in distraction with a gay agenda then taking care of more important issues, as has happened in San Francisco over and over again. Chris Cabaldon of West Sacramento openly aligns himself with Mayor Newsome of San Francisco – even though West Sacramento is nothing like San Francisco.
Furthermore, at the risk of incurring the wrath of many on this blog, who will now accuse me of being a homophobe – I have a deep seated concern of the direction this country is headed with respect to traditional marriage. It is not respected anymore – with anything goes as the norm. We see a proliferation of “living together”, polygamy, all sorts of family models that do not bode well for children. To allow gay marriage has already fomented the phenomenon of arguments that any def’n of marriage should be allowed under the equal protection clause.
And unfortunately, and sadly, I suspect this latest turn of events in CA will solidify opposition elsewhere in the country to hate gays. It gives them the excuse they need to carry out gay-bashing.
Personally, and I have said this before to the irritation of many on this blog, I think the better approach would have been to argue for equal rights for gays, in a domestic partnership. It would have given gays what they deserve – to have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples – yet allow marriage to remain as it has been traditionally. This position would engender less hostility, yet attain what gays say they want – equal protection under the law.
However, I suspect gays are pushing for gay marriage to legitimize same sex couples as a norm of society, and debunk Christians who believe it is a sin. It is an in-your-face gay protest to say “I’m just as normal as you are, so get used to it!”
I doubt very much that staunch Christians will change their views on gay marriage. Catholics still do not allow divorce, and go through all sorts of machinations such as annulment to avoid its ugly implications. Furthermore, even if we accept that gays are born homosexual(and I believe that to be the case), it is not the norm, but a normal anomaly.
If I were to really analyze why I am opposed to gay marriage, even though I used to be a strong proponent of it, it is because I have seen all our traditional institutions, ethics and morals crumble, one by one. Abortion is used as a method of birth control, and an excuse not to teach abstinence and responsibility. People are not committing to marriage anymore, becoming more and more narcissitic. “We’ll stay together as long as it works out.” Moral relativism has become the order of the day.
Perhaps my feelings have to do with being originally from the East Coast, and a more traditional value system. Or because I am from an older generation. But I believe we are becoming, with the help from money infused into our political system by the likes of George Soros et al, more like the European system. Trust me, we don’t want to go there.
We need to be proud of what we are, an independent nation that believes in being a bit prudish by European standards. I like prudish. We don’t have unisex bathrooms, nor do men pee on the side of the road for all the world to see. We don’t believe in having peep shows in front windows, nor do we condone mistresses – although we are slowly headed in that direction with the proliferation of porn, strip shows, adultery and the like.
I wish gays the best of luck with their choice to push gay marriage, but I think there will be many unintended consequences to that choice, that are not so nice. We will just have to wait and see…
As unpopular as my view may be on this blog, I dare to be different. My comment to those who are proponents of gay marriage, be careful what you wish for. The rest of the country is not in step with you. I believe at least 26 other states have bans on gay marriage. The only two states openly accepting of it are CA and MA, both out of step with the rest of the country.
Why is that important? It effectively forces gays to remain in two states, CA or MA. What if a gay couple who marry here or in MA decide to move to another state? If the other state does not recognize gay marriage, it will not recognize gay divorce or anything else about a gay marriage.
Now CA and MA become a haven for gays, with disproportionate representation. Suddenly local gov’t is more interested in distraction with a gay agenda then taking care of more important issues, as has happened in San Francisco over and over again. Chris Cabaldon of West Sacramento openly aligns himself with Mayor Newsome of San Francisco – even though West Sacramento is nothing like San Francisco.
Furthermore, at the risk of incurring the wrath of many on this blog, who will now accuse me of being a homophobe – I have a deep seated concern of the direction this country is headed with respect to traditional marriage. It is not respected anymore – with anything goes as the norm. We see a proliferation of “living together”, polygamy, all sorts of family models that do not bode well for children. To allow gay marriage has already fomented the phenomenon of arguments that any def’n of marriage should be allowed under the equal protection clause.
And unfortunately, and sadly, I suspect this latest turn of events in CA will solidify opposition elsewhere in the country to hate gays. It gives them the excuse they need to carry out gay-bashing.
Personally, and I have said this before to the irritation of many on this blog, I think the better approach would have been to argue for equal rights for gays, in a domestic partnership. It would have given gays what they deserve – to have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples – yet allow marriage to remain as it has been traditionally. This position would engender less hostility, yet attain what gays say they want – equal protection under the law.
However, I suspect gays are pushing for gay marriage to legitimize same sex couples as a norm of society, and debunk Christians who believe it is a sin. It is an in-your-face gay protest to say “I’m just as normal as you are, so get used to it!”
I doubt very much that staunch Christians will change their views on gay marriage. Catholics still do not allow divorce, and go through all sorts of machinations such as annulment to avoid its ugly implications. Furthermore, even if we accept that gays are born homosexual(and I believe that to be the case), it is not the norm, but a normal anomaly.
If I were to really analyze why I am opposed to gay marriage, even though I used to be a strong proponent of it, it is because I have seen all our traditional institutions, ethics and morals crumble, one by one. Abortion is used as a method of birth control, and an excuse not to teach abstinence and responsibility. People are not committing to marriage anymore, becoming more and more narcissitic. “We’ll stay together as long as it works out.” Moral relativism has become the order of the day.
Perhaps my feelings have to do with being originally from the East Coast, and a more traditional value system. Or because I am from an older generation. But I believe we are becoming, with the help from money infused into our political system by the likes of George Soros et al, more like the European system. Trust me, we don’t want to go there.
We need to be proud of what we are, an independent nation that believes in being a bit prudish by European standards. I like prudish. We don’t have unisex bathrooms, nor do men pee on the side of the road for all the world to see. We don’t believe in having peep shows in front windows, nor do we condone mistresses – although we are slowly headed in that direction with the proliferation of porn, strip shows, adultery and the like.
I wish gays the best of luck with their choice to push gay marriage, but I think there will be many unintended consequences to that choice, that are not so nice. We will just have to wait and see…
As unpopular as my view may be on this blog, I dare to be different. My comment to those who are proponents of gay marriage, be careful what you wish for. The rest of the country is not in step with you. I believe at least 26 other states have bans on gay marriage. The only two states openly accepting of it are CA and MA, both out of step with the rest of the country.
Why is that important? It effectively forces gays to remain in two states, CA or MA. What if a gay couple who marry here or in MA decide to move to another state? If the other state does not recognize gay marriage, it will not recognize gay divorce or anything else about a gay marriage.
Now CA and MA become a haven for gays, with disproportionate representation. Suddenly local gov’t is more interested in distraction with a gay agenda then taking care of more important issues, as has happened in San Francisco over and over again. Chris Cabaldon of West Sacramento openly aligns himself with Mayor Newsome of San Francisco – even though West Sacramento is nothing like San Francisco.
Furthermore, at the risk of incurring the wrath of many on this blog, who will now accuse me of being a homophobe – I have a deep seated concern of the direction this country is headed with respect to traditional marriage. It is not respected anymore – with anything goes as the norm. We see a proliferation of “living together”, polygamy, all sorts of family models that do not bode well for children. To allow gay marriage has already fomented the phenomenon of arguments that any def’n of marriage should be allowed under the equal protection clause.
And unfortunately, and sadly, I suspect this latest turn of events in CA will solidify opposition elsewhere in the country to hate gays. It gives them the excuse they need to carry out gay-bashing.
Personally, and I have said this before to the irritation of many on this blog, I think the better approach would have been to argue for equal rights for gays, in a domestic partnership. It would have given gays what they deserve – to have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples – yet allow marriage to remain as it has been traditionally. This position would engender less hostility, yet attain what gays say they want – equal protection under the law.
However, I suspect gays are pushing for gay marriage to legitimize same sex couples as a norm of society, and debunk Christians who believe it is a sin. It is an in-your-face gay protest to say “I’m just as normal as you are, so get used to it!”
I doubt very much that staunch Christians will change their views on gay marriage. Catholics still do not allow divorce, and go through all sorts of machinations such as annulment to avoid its ugly implications. Furthermore, even if we accept that gays are born homosexual(and I believe that to be the case), it is not the norm, but a normal anomaly.
If I were to really analyze why I am opposed to gay marriage, even though I used to be a strong proponent of it, it is because I have seen all our traditional institutions, ethics and morals crumble, one by one. Abortion is used as a method of birth control, and an excuse not to teach abstinence and responsibility. People are not committing to marriage anymore, becoming more and more narcissitic. “We’ll stay together as long as it works out.” Moral relativism has become the order of the day.
Perhaps my feelings have to do with being originally from the East Coast, and a more traditional value system. Or because I am from an older generation. But I believe we are becoming, with the help from money infused into our political system by the likes of George Soros et al, more like the European system. Trust me, we don’t want to go there.
We need to be proud of what we are, an independent nation that believes in being a bit prudish by European standards. I like prudish. We don’t have unisex bathrooms, nor do men pee on the side of the road for all the world to see. We don’t believe in having peep shows in front windows, nor do we condone mistresses – although we are slowly headed in that direction with the proliferation of porn, strip shows, adultery and the like.
I wish gays the best of luck with their choice to push gay marriage, but I think there will be many unintended consequences to that choice, that are not so nice. We will just have to wait and see…
“The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached…..”
This was a 5-4 decision concluded that guaranteeing REAL equal rights to every citizen was not sufficient. Civil unions need to be brought up to speed to guarantee this constitutional requirement to equal rights to all. This does not need or call for redefining the DEFINITION of the institution of marriage in order to protect these rights.
“The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached…..”
This was a 5-4 decision concluded that guaranteeing REAL equal rights to every citizen was not sufficient. Civil unions need to be brought up to speed to guarantee this constitutional requirement to equal rights to all. This does not need or call for redefining the DEFINITION of the institution of marriage in order to protect these rights.
“The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached…..”
This was a 5-4 decision concluded that guaranteeing REAL equal rights to every citizen was not sufficient. Civil unions need to be brought up to speed to guarantee this constitutional requirement to equal rights to all. This does not need or call for redefining the DEFINITION of the institution of marriage in order to protect these rights.
“The argument(not yet widely pressed in any campaign by the amendment supporters) that the CA Supreme Court decision overreached…..”
This was a 5-4 decision concluded that guaranteeing REAL equal rights to every citizen was not sufficient. Civil unions need to be brought up to speed to guarantee this constitutional requirement to equal rights to all. This does not need or call for redefining the DEFINITION of the institution of marriage in order to protect these rights.
wait and see:
If this is a matter of valuing the institution of marriage, then allowing same-sex marriages strenthens that institution.
From my perspective, I see Prop. 8 as an “anti-marriage” initiative.
If you had a gay family member, there’s a very good chance you would change your mind.
wait and see:
If this is a matter of valuing the institution of marriage, then allowing same-sex marriages strenthens that institution.
From my perspective, I see Prop. 8 as an “anti-marriage” initiative.
If you had a gay family member, there’s a very good chance you would change your mind.
wait and see:
If this is a matter of valuing the institution of marriage, then allowing same-sex marriages strenthens that institution.
From my perspective, I see Prop. 8 as an “anti-marriage” initiative.
If you had a gay family member, there’s a very good chance you would change your mind.
wait and see:
If this is a matter of valuing the institution of marriage, then allowing same-sex marriages strenthens that institution.
From my perspective, I see Prop. 8 as an “anti-marriage” initiative.
If you had a gay family member, there’s a very good chance you would change your mind.
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.
“Anonymous said…
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.”
That is absolutely correct, but it is also about how well you *understand* the issues. When you know gay people as family members, then you certainly understand aspects of the issue in a more informed light. Some prior assumptions then do not seem as certain.
Then you can make more informed choices about gay relationships with respect to the larger society.
“Anonymous said…
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.”
That is absolutely correct, but it is also about how well you *understand* the issues. When you know gay people as family members, then you certainly understand aspects of the issue in a more informed light. Some prior assumptions then do not seem as certain.
Then you can make more informed choices about gay relationships with respect to the larger society.
“Anonymous said…
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.”
That is absolutely correct, but it is also about how well you *understand* the issues. When you know gay people as family members, then you certainly understand aspects of the issue in a more informed light. Some prior assumptions then do not seem as certain.
Then you can make more informed choices about gay relationships with respect to the larger society.
“Anonymous said…
“If you had a gay family member…”
This is not about one’s own loved one but rather what position one takes when considering it not as ME and MINE but rather with respect to your greater community/society.”
That is absolutely correct, but it is also about how well you *understand* the issues. When you know gay people as family members, then you certainly understand aspects of the issue in a more informed light. Some prior assumptions then do not seem as certain.
Then you can make more informed choices about gay relationships with respect to the larger society.
“homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is…”
There is no strong evidence to support this statement. Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).
“homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is…”
There is no strong evidence to support this statement. Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).
“homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is…”
There is no strong evidence to support this statement. Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).
“homosexuality is biological, every bit as much as left-handedness is…”
There is no strong evidence to support this statement. Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).
“Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).”
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
“Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).”
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
“Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).”
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
“Homosexuality is most likely the result of a mixture of myriad factors.. a biological aspect as to temperment(not distinctly sexual orientation but rather how it plays out in the individual’s early nurturing and development with societal input and events/situations as they randomly present themselves during an individual’s development(fate).”
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
NO… but not being a conscious choice does not mean that it has a biological basis. Most of us do not make a conscious choice as to our sense of self.
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
NO… but not being a conscious choice does not mean that it has a biological basis. Most of us do not make a conscious choice as to our sense of self.
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
NO… but not being a conscious choice does not mean that it has a biological basis. Most of us do not make a conscious choice as to our sense of self.
Are you arguing that homosexuals are acting on a conscious choice?
NO… but not being a conscious choice does not mean that it has a biological basis. Most of us do not make a conscious choice as to our sense of self.
There is actually some pretty good evidence supporting a biological basis for sexuality…However, it’s pretty simple: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people exist. Period. That’s not going to change. Now, will we choose to treat those humans like they’re human – deserving the same rights and responsibilities as any other human or will we look for some human-created fearfully fabricated reason to treat them as less than human – thereby justifying unequal treatment – just as we have done to other groups of people we want to subjugate or marginalize. It’s much easier to deny someone rights you don’t think of as fully human. But guess what? LGBT people are human. So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.
There is actually some pretty good evidence supporting a biological basis for sexuality…However, it’s pretty simple: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people exist. Period. That’s not going to change. Now, will we choose to treat those humans like they’re human – deserving the same rights and responsibilities as any other human or will we look for some human-created fearfully fabricated reason to treat them as less than human – thereby justifying unequal treatment – just as we have done to other groups of people we want to subjugate or marginalize. It’s much easier to deny someone rights you don’t think of as fully human. But guess what? LGBT people are human. So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.
There is actually some pretty good evidence supporting a biological basis for sexuality…However, it’s pretty simple: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people exist. Period. That’s not going to change. Now, will we choose to treat those humans like they’re human – deserving the same rights and responsibilities as any other human or will we look for some human-created fearfully fabricated reason to treat them as less than human – thereby justifying unequal treatment – just as we have done to other groups of people we want to subjugate or marginalize. It’s much easier to deny someone rights you don’t think of as fully human. But guess what? LGBT people are human. So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.
There is actually some pretty good evidence supporting a biological basis for sexuality…However, it’s pretty simple: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people exist. Period. That’s not going to change. Now, will we choose to treat those humans like they’re human – deserving the same rights and responsibilities as any other human or will we look for some human-created fearfully fabricated reason to treat them as less than human – thereby justifying unequal treatment – just as we have done to other groups of people we want to subjugate or marginalize. It’s much easier to deny someone rights you don’t think of as fully human. But guess what? LGBT people are human. So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
wait and see said…
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
7/22/08 1:18 PM
you obviously haven’t been following the issue very closely
anti gay rights groups unsuccessfully challenged domestic partnership benefits in California on the basis of the Proposition 22 ban on gay marriage, and have adopted this approach in other states as well
they have also, in one of their more distasteful endeavors, resisted efforts to protect gay and lesbians students in the public schools from physically and verbally abusive bullies
the Catholic Church has not only opposed this, but also laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment, with the practical consequence being that it perceives gays and lesbians as a group subject to legitimate ostracism, or to put it differently, the right of the homophobe to discriminate is more important to it than the right of gays and lesbians to find jobs and housing
so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well
–Richard Estes
wait and see said…
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
7/22/08 1:18 PM
you obviously haven’t been following the issue very closely
anti gay rights groups unsuccessfully challenged domestic partnership benefits in California on the basis of the Proposition 22 ban on gay marriage, and have adopted this approach in other states as well
they have also, in one of their more distasteful endeavors, resisted efforts to protect gay and lesbians students in the public schools from physically and verbally abusive bullies
the Catholic Church has not only opposed this, but also laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment, with the practical consequence being that it perceives gays and lesbians as a group subject to legitimate ostracism, or to put it differently, the right of the homophobe to discriminate is more important to it than the right of gays and lesbians to find jobs and housing
so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well
–Richard Estes
wait and see said…
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
7/22/08 1:18 PM
you obviously haven’t been following the issue very closely
anti gay rights groups unsuccessfully challenged domestic partnership benefits in California on the basis of the Proposition 22 ban on gay marriage, and have adopted this approach in other states as well
they have also, in one of their more distasteful endeavors, resisted efforts to protect gay and lesbians students in the public schools from physically and verbally abusive bullies
the Catholic Church has not only opposed this, but also laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment, with the practical consequence being that it perceives gays and lesbians as a group subject to legitimate ostracism, or to put it differently, the right of the homophobe to discriminate is more important to it than the right of gays and lesbians to find jobs and housing
so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well
–Richard Estes
wait and see said…
“So, it doesn’t really matter what the “status quo” is or what your concerns about “traditional marriage” are, or even whether same-sex partnering is biological or not. LGBT people are here. They are going to be here. Same-sex marriage is here. It’s going to be here and it will eventually be everywhere. Get over it. Stop looking for some reason to deny humans their rights. There isn’t a good reason. There won’t ever be.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.
7/22/08 1:18 PM
you obviously haven’t been following the issue very closely
anti gay rights groups unsuccessfully challenged domestic partnership benefits in California on the basis of the Proposition 22 ban on gay marriage, and have adopted this approach in other states as well
they have also, in one of their more distasteful endeavors, resisted efforts to protect gay and lesbians students in the public schools from physically and verbally abusive bullies
the Catholic Church has not only opposed this, but also laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment, with the practical consequence being that it perceives gays and lesbians as a group subject to legitimate ostracism, or to put it differently, the right of the homophobe to discriminate is more important to it than the right of gays and lesbians to find jobs and housing
so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well
–Richard Estes
“I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.”
Right. Just like those slave owners concerned about destroying the “traditional institution” of slavery. Afterall, it was the “status quo”. Gosh, our Constitution came into being upon a foundation of subjugated humans. It was “hip” and “PC” at the time to be an abolitionist. Good thing we didn’t conform to those new ideas… MLK, jr., he sure was PC. Sure is good we didn’t fall for that. Surely all this “gay marriage” stuff will pass and we can go back to not even having to justify inequality – ’cause it’ll just be the status quo.
If our “traditional institutions” perpetuate inequality (and they do), then frak them. Let’s create some that are built on social justice and equality for all.
“I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.”
Right. Just like those slave owners concerned about destroying the “traditional institution” of slavery. Afterall, it was the “status quo”. Gosh, our Constitution came into being upon a foundation of subjugated humans. It was “hip” and “PC” at the time to be an abolitionist. Good thing we didn’t conform to those new ideas… MLK, jr., he sure was PC. Sure is good we didn’t fall for that. Surely all this “gay marriage” stuff will pass and we can go back to not even having to justify inequality – ’cause it’ll just be the status quo.
If our “traditional institutions” perpetuate inequality (and they do), then frak them. Let’s create some that are built on social justice and equality for all.
“I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.”
Right. Just like those slave owners concerned about destroying the “traditional institution” of slavery. Afterall, it was the “status quo”. Gosh, our Constitution came into being upon a foundation of subjugated humans. It was “hip” and “PC” at the time to be an abolitionist. Good thing we didn’t conform to those new ideas… MLK, jr., he sure was PC. Sure is good we didn’t fall for that. Surely all this “gay marriage” stuff will pass and we can go back to not even having to justify inequality – ’cause it’ll just be the status quo.
If our “traditional institutions” perpetuate inequality (and they do), then frak them. Let’s create some that are built on social justice and equality for all.
“I don’t think anyone is arguing against giving gays equal rights. What I am concerned about is destroying our traditional institutions from within to conform to a new, hipper def’n because it is PC at the moment.”
Right. Just like those slave owners concerned about destroying the “traditional institution” of slavery. Afterall, it was the “status quo”. Gosh, our Constitution came into being upon a foundation of subjugated humans. It was “hip” and “PC” at the time to be an abolitionist. Good thing we didn’t conform to those new ideas… MLK, jr., he sure was PC. Sure is good we didn’t fall for that. Surely all this “gay marriage” stuff will pass and we can go back to not even having to justify inequality – ’cause it’ll just be the status quo.
If our “traditional institutions” perpetuate inequality (and they do), then frak them. Let’s create some that are built on social justice and equality for all.
“so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well”
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
“so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well”
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
“so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well”
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
“so, to put it bluntly, there is no distinction between the “tradition” of marriage and equal rights, because the two are inseparably interwined in the law, and the hostility to it, as with gay rights generally, is about retaining the right to consider them socially unacceptable, unworthy of legal defense, with the hope that others will adopt this odious attitude as well”
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
“because the two are inseparably interwined in the law….”
WRONG….civil unions(domestic partnerships) in CA can have the same REAL RIGHTS as marriage offers. If there are areas where this is not so, the legislature can correct it with the stroke of a pen.
“because the two are inseparably interwined in the law….”
WRONG….civil unions(domestic partnerships) in CA can have the same REAL RIGHTS as marriage offers. If there are areas where this is not so, the legislature can correct it with the stroke of a pen.
“because the two are inseparably interwined in the law….”
WRONG….civil unions(domestic partnerships) in CA can have the same REAL RIGHTS as marriage offers. If there are areas where this is not so, the legislature can correct it with the stroke of a pen.
“because the two are inseparably interwined in the law….”
WRONG….civil unions(domestic partnerships) in CA can have the same REAL RIGHTS as marriage offers. If there are areas where this is not so, the legislature can correct it with the stroke of a pen.
“right to consider them socially unacceptable,….”
Our diverse society is based upon equal rights and mutual TOLERANCE for all and this can be fully met with civil-union/domestic partnerships that match the institution of marriage both in rights and responsibilities. The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.
“right to consider them socially unacceptable,….”
Our diverse society is based upon equal rights and mutual TOLERANCE for all and this can be fully met with civil-union/domestic partnerships that match the institution of marriage both in rights and responsibilities. The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.
“right to consider them socially unacceptable,….”
Our diverse society is based upon equal rights and mutual TOLERANCE for all and this can be fully met with civil-union/domestic partnerships that match the institution of marriage both in rights and responsibilities. The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.
“right to consider them socially unacceptable,….”
Our diverse society is based upon equal rights and mutual TOLERANCE for all and this can be fully met with civil-union/domestic partnerships that match the institution of marriage both in rights and responsibilities. The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.
“The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.”
So the courts are also overrreaching to correct racial discrimination if some individuals practiced their value/belief that non-whites were morally and socially inferior?
You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples. If it is a matter of values and beliefs, then churches can be free to deny religious marriage to same sex couples, just as they might deny marriages to inter-denominational couples. But this is a civil (non-religious) issue that we’re talking about.
“The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.”
So the courts are also overrreaching to correct racial discrimination if some individuals practiced their value/belief that non-whites were morally and socially inferior?
You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples. If it is a matter of values and beliefs, then churches can be free to deny religious marriage to same sex couples, just as they might deny marriages to inter-denominational couples. But this is a civil (non-religious) issue that we’re talking about.
“The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.”
So the courts are also overrreaching to correct racial discrimination if some individuals practiced their value/belief that non-whites were morally and socially inferior?
You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples. If it is a matter of values and beliefs, then churches can be free to deny religious marriage to same sex couples, just as they might deny marriages to inter-denominational couples. But this is a civil (non-religious) issue that we’re talking about.
“The courts are overreaching when it steps into the belief/values arena rather than dealing with concrete citizen rights.”
So the courts are also overrreaching to correct racial discrimination if some individuals practiced their value/belief that non-whites were morally and socially inferior?
You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples. If it is a matter of values and beliefs, then churches can be free to deny religious marriage to same sex couples, just as they might deny marriages to inter-denominational couples. But this is a civil (non-religious) issue that we’re talking about.
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.
Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?
And, indeed, you used to hear the fundamentalist opponents of gay marriage say this sort of thing all the time Of course, they stopped when they realized that most people found such bigoted attitudes offensive and that it actually generated support for anti-discrimination laws, civil unions and, as we are now discovering, even gay marriage.
But, of course, this is a digression, one meant to distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them, they have, in fact, fought the social acceptance of them and legal protections for them every step of the way. Now, for reasons of political expediency, opponents of gay marriage are trying to rewrite this history because it has become such an albatross.
–Richard Estes
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.
Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?
And, indeed, you used to hear the fundamentalist opponents of gay marriage say this sort of thing all the time Of course, they stopped when they realized that most people found such bigoted attitudes offensive and that it actually generated support for anti-discrimination laws, civil unions and, as we are now discovering, even gay marriage.
But, of course, this is a digression, one meant to distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them, they have, in fact, fought the social acceptance of them and legal protections for them every step of the way. Now, for reasons of political expediency, opponents of gay marriage are trying to rewrite this history because it has become such an albatross.
–Richard Estes
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.
Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?
And, indeed, you used to hear the fundamentalist opponents of gay marriage say this sort of thing all the time Of course, they stopped when they realized that most people found such bigoted attitudes offensive and that it actually generated support for anti-discrimination laws, civil unions and, as we are now discovering, even gay marriage.
But, of course, this is a digression, one meant to distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them, they have, in fact, fought the social acceptance of them and legal protections for them every step of the way. Now, for reasons of political expediency, opponents of gay marriage are trying to rewrite this history because it has become such an albatross.
–Richard Estes
Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.
Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?
And, indeed, you used to hear the fundamentalist opponents of gay marriage say this sort of thing all the time Of course, they stopped when they realized that most people found such bigoted attitudes offensive and that it actually generated support for anti-discrimination laws, civil unions and, as we are now discovering, even gay marriage.
But, of course, this is a digression, one meant to distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them, they have, in fact, fought the social acceptance of them and legal protections for them every step of the way. Now, for reasons of political expediency, opponents of gay marriage are trying to rewrite this history because it has become such an albatross.
–Richard Estes
“You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples….”
“Separate but equal” has been trotted out here as some plot to deny rights to same-sex couples(or other domestic partner relationships).
If the constitutional amendment is passed, it will affirm the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.
“You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples….”
“Separate but equal” has been trotted out here as some plot to deny rights to same-sex couples(or other domestic partner relationships).
If the constitutional amendment is passed, it will affirm the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.
“You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples….”
“Separate but equal” has been trotted out here as some plot to deny rights to same-sex couples(or other domestic partner relationships).
If the constitutional amendment is passed, it will affirm the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.
“You seem to propose “separate but equal” treatment for same sex couples….”
“Separate but equal” has been trotted out here as some plot to deny rights to same-sex couples(or other domestic partner relationships).
If the constitutional amendment is passed, it will affirm the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.
“A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.”
Which is separate but equal. Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal. And in fact, we also know that some employers recognize domestic partners, others do not. Hence the inherent inequality in that it allows employers, insurance companies, and others granting those rights to make distinctions and deny equality under the law.
“A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.”
Which is separate but equal. Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal. And in fact, we also know that some employers recognize domestic partners, others do not. Hence the inherent inequality in that it allows employers, insurance companies, and others granting those rights to make distinctions and deny equality under the law.
“A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.”
Which is separate but equal. Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal. And in fact, we also know that some employers recognize domestic partners, others do not. Hence the inherent inequality in that it allows employers, insurance companies, and others granting those rights to make distinctions and deny equality under the law.
“A same-sex union is then ,by definition, not a marriage but a different(call it separate, if you like) status with potentially same rights and responsibilities as marriage.”
Which is separate but equal. Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal. And in fact, we also know that some employers recognize domestic partners, others do not. Hence the inherent inequality in that it allows employers, insurance companies, and others granting those rights to make distinctions and deny equality under the law.
“Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal…”
Perhaps there is a constitutional law history buff that can correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember that Brown vs Bd of Education was decided on the FACTS that the educational RIGHTS were not equal in demonstrable CONCRETE ways(funding, facilities,materials, services in segregated schools. When civil-unions offer the full and rights that marriage offers,the issue is then moot. Remember, the majority(5-4) CA Supreme Court decision offered, as an alternative legislative option, removing the word marriage from the legislative vocabulary and offering everyone only a civil-union .
“Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal…”
Perhaps there is a constitutional law history buff that can correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember that Brown vs Bd of Education was decided on the FACTS that the educational RIGHTS were not equal in demonstrable CONCRETE ways(funding, facilities,materials, services in segregated schools. When civil-unions offer the full and rights that marriage offers,the issue is then moot. Remember, the majority(5-4) CA Supreme Court decision offered, as an alternative legislative option, removing the word marriage from the legislative vocabulary and offering everyone only a civil-union .
“Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal…”
Perhaps there is a constitutional law history buff that can correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember that Brown vs Bd of Education was decided on the FACTS that the educational RIGHTS were not equal in demonstrable CONCRETE ways(funding, facilities,materials, services in segregated schools. When civil-unions offer the full and rights that marriage offers,the issue is then moot. Remember, the majority(5-4) CA Supreme Court decision offered, as an alternative legislative option, removing the word marriage from the legislative vocabulary and offering everyone only a civil-union .
“Except that we know from Brown that separate is inherently not equal…”
Perhaps there is a constitutional law history buff that can correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember that Brown vs Bd of Education was decided on the FACTS that the educational RIGHTS were not equal in demonstrable CONCRETE ways(funding, facilities,materials, services in segregated schools. When civil-unions offer the full and rights that marriage offers,the issue is then moot. Remember, the majority(5-4) CA Supreme Court decision offered, as an alternative legislative option, removing the word marriage from the legislative vocabulary and offering everyone only a civil-union .
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
more heat than light said…
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
7/24/08 7:54 AM
talk to people who have been involved in the issue over the years, for example, in Davis itself, the religious community, with some exceptions, opposed anti-discrimination measures in the 1980 and 1990s, or, just call up the local Catholic diocese and ask the Church’s position on protection against discrimination for gays and lesbians, it’s not hard to get the background on this
yet, we still encounter these efforts to construct a revisionist history, as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable, when the documented record is clearly to the contrary
–Richard Estes
more heat than light said…
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
7/24/08 7:54 AM
talk to people who have been involved in the issue over the years, for example, in Davis itself, the religious community, with some exceptions, opposed anti-discrimination measures in the 1980 and 1990s, or, just call up the local Catholic diocese and ask the Church’s position on protection against discrimination for gays and lesbians, it’s not hard to get the background on this
yet, we still encounter these efforts to construct a revisionist history, as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable, when the documented record is clearly to the contrary
–Richard Estes
more heat than light said…
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
7/24/08 7:54 AM
talk to people who have been involved in the issue over the years, for example, in Davis itself, the religious community, with some exceptions, opposed anti-discrimination measures in the 1980 and 1990s, or, just call up the local Catholic diocese and ask the Church’s position on protection against discrimination for gays and lesbians, it’s not hard to get the background on this
yet, we still encounter these efforts to construct a revisionist history, as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable, when the documented record is clearly to the contrary
–Richard Estes
more heat than light said…
“…distract from my unassailable observation that people that oppose gay marriage don’t otherwise support equal treatment for them…”
…a surprisingly outrageous statement from this blogger who, while having strong opinions, attempts to maintain well-reasoned arguments.
7/24/08 7:54 AM
talk to people who have been involved in the issue over the years, for example, in Davis itself, the religious community, with some exceptions, opposed anti-discrimination measures in the 1980 and 1990s, or, just call up the local Catholic diocese and ask the Church’s position on protection against discrimination for gays and lesbians, it’s not hard to get the background on this
yet, we still encounter these efforts to construct a revisionist history, as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable, when the documented record is clearly to the contrary
–Richard Estes
I really don’t understand this argument of marriage = civil unions, except that gays can’t have marriage. This seems like really tortuous and unnecessary semantics.
If marriage = civil union, then why not just call them marriages?
I really don’t understand this argument of marriage = civil unions, except that gays can’t have marriage. This seems like really tortuous and unnecessary semantics.
If marriage = civil union, then why not just call them marriages?
I really don’t understand this argument of marriage = civil unions, except that gays can’t have marriage. This seems like really tortuous and unnecessary semantics.
If marriage = civil union, then why not just call them marriages?
I really don’t understand this argument of marriage = civil unions, except that gays can’t have marriage. This seems like really tortuous and unnecessary semantics.
If marriage = civil union, then why not just call them marriages?
“Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!”
“Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.”
If you think that, then you are living in a fantasy bubble. If anything, gay marriage is going to harden those who will now feel somehow justified to bash gays. This step is too in-your-face, and more than likely will cause a nasty backlash. But only time will tell who is correct in this assessment.
“Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I object to the notion of gay marriage, because I think it undermines our traditional value system of the nuclear family. I am all for promoting civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever, to ensure gay couples have all the same rights as married couples.
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids. Hence you see young girls dressed like 14th street hookers these days, and young couples hooking up to have sex for an hour, then parting company without even a handshake. And people wonder why we have venereal disease, the need for abortions, and a total lack of commitment to marriage and children.
There were good reasons for some of the old fashioned rules that used to be – such as it not being appropriate for boys to be in a girls bedroom and vice versa. We are being destroyed from within.
If you think this doesn’t have an impact on the world stage, think again. The Arab states consider our ways highly immoral, and point to some of these reality shows full of sex as the reason our society has become so degraded. Why give them this ammunition?
I am hardly religious, but I see an absolute intolerance on the part of the extreme left, for anything but their own viewpoint. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then you must be a homophobe. There is no middle ground for them. This absolutism is extremely intolerant, especially because there can be a middle ground that would probably satisfy just about everyone except the politically hardened.
Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.
“Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!”
“Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.”
If you think that, then you are living in a fantasy bubble. If anything, gay marriage is going to harden those who will now feel somehow justified to bash gays. This step is too in-your-face, and more than likely will cause a nasty backlash. But only time will tell who is correct in this assessment.
“Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I object to the notion of gay marriage, because I think it undermines our traditional value system of the nuclear family. I am all for promoting civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever, to ensure gay couples have all the same rights as married couples.
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids. Hence you see young girls dressed like 14th street hookers these days, and young couples hooking up to have sex for an hour, then parting company without even a handshake. And people wonder why we have venereal disease, the need for abortions, and a total lack of commitment to marriage and children.
There were good reasons for some of the old fashioned rules that used to be – such as it not being appropriate for boys to be in a girls bedroom and vice versa. We are being destroyed from within.
If you think this doesn’t have an impact on the world stage, think again. The Arab states consider our ways highly immoral, and point to some of these reality shows full of sex as the reason our society has become so degraded. Why give them this ammunition?
I am hardly religious, but I see an absolute intolerance on the part of the extreme left, for anything but their own viewpoint. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then you must be a homophobe. There is no middle ground for them. This absolutism is extremely intolerant, especially because there can be a middle ground that would probably satisfy just about everyone except the politically hardened.
Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.
“Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!”
“Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.”
If you think that, then you are living in a fantasy bubble. If anything, gay marriage is going to harden those who will now feel somehow justified to bash gays. This step is too in-your-face, and more than likely will cause a nasty backlash. But only time will tell who is correct in this assessment.
“Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I object to the notion of gay marriage, because I think it undermines our traditional value system of the nuclear family. I am all for promoting civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever, to ensure gay couples have all the same rights as married couples.
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids. Hence you see young girls dressed like 14th street hookers these days, and young couples hooking up to have sex for an hour, then parting company without even a handshake. And people wonder why we have venereal disease, the need for abortions, and a total lack of commitment to marriage and children.
There were good reasons for some of the old fashioned rules that used to be – such as it not being appropriate for boys to be in a girls bedroom and vice versa. We are being destroyed from within.
If you think this doesn’t have an impact on the world stage, think again. The Arab states consider our ways highly immoral, and point to some of these reality shows full of sex as the reason our society has become so degraded. Why give them this ammunition?
I am hardly religious, but I see an absolute intolerance on the part of the extreme left, for anything but their own viewpoint. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then you must be a homophobe. There is no middle ground for them. This absolutism is extremely intolerant, especially because there can be a middle ground that would probably satisfy just about everyone except the politically hardened.
Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.
“Do you honestly think gay marriage is going to do anything to end housing discrimination, bullying in our schools, and the like??? You’ve got to be kidding!!!”
“Actually, I do. Anything that makes clear that gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in all respects such as permitting them to marry, like straights do, sends a message that it is unacceptable to discriminate against them in any way.”
If you think that, then you are living in a fantasy bubble. If anything, gay marriage is going to harden those who will now feel somehow justified to bash gays. This step is too in-your-face, and more than likely will cause a nasty backlash. But only time will tell who is correct in this assessment.
“Let’s turn it around. If you think that it is immoral for gays and lesbians to marry, why wouldn’t you believe that it is acceptable for you, based upon your morality, to deny housing and employment opportunities for them?”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I object to the notion of gay marriage, because I think it undermines our traditional value system of the nuclear family. I am all for promoting civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever, to ensure gay couples have all the same rights as married couples.
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids. Hence you see young girls dressed like 14th street hookers these days, and young couples hooking up to have sex for an hour, then parting company without even a handshake. And people wonder why we have venereal disease, the need for abortions, and a total lack of commitment to marriage and children.
There were good reasons for some of the old fashioned rules that used to be – such as it not being appropriate for boys to be in a girls bedroom and vice versa. We are being destroyed from within.
If you think this doesn’t have an impact on the world stage, think again. The Arab states consider our ways highly immoral, and point to some of these reality shows full of sex as the reason our society has become so degraded. Why give them this ammunition?
I am hardly religious, but I see an absolute intolerance on the part of the extreme left, for anything but their own viewpoint. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then you must be a homophobe. There is no middle ground for them. This absolutism is extremely intolerant, especially because there can be a middle ground that would probably satisfy just about everyone except the politically hardened.
Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
So, you oppose gay marriage because of the behaviour of straights?
I guess that’s where you end up going when you can’t admit the obvious.
–Richard Estes
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
So, you oppose gay marriage because of the behaviour of straights?
I guess that’s where you end up going when you can’t admit the obvious.
–Richard Estes
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
So, you oppose gay marriage because of the behaviour of straights?
I guess that’s where you end up going when you can’t admit the obvious.
–Richard Estes
To some, this position may seem like splitting hairs, but our basic institutions are eroding. I’ll give you another example, which will probably draw the ire of many on this blog. There is a reality show on now (I can’t remember the name), that promotes nakedness as beautiful. It talks overweight people and others of less than perfect body size that to take off their clothes in front of the camera for all to see is perfectly healthy – it will boost their self-esteems.
Meanwhile, there is another reality show called “The Girls Next Door”, trying to make the playboy bunnies of Hugh Hefner appear perfectly normal. These sorts of things are nothing more than an attempt to legitimize porn as perfectly mainstream.
So, you oppose gay marriage because of the behaviour of straights?
I guess that’s where you end up going when you can’t admit the obvious.
–Richard Estes
“Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.”
Again tortuous semantics. If civil unions = marriages with respect to rights and responsibilities, why not just call a spade a spade? They’re *all* marriages.
Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.
“Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.”
Again tortuous semantics. If civil unions = marriages with respect to rights and responsibilities, why not just call a spade a spade? They’re *all* marriages.
Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.
“Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.”
Again tortuous semantics. If civil unions = marriages with respect to rights and responsibilities, why not just call a spade a spade? They’re *all* marriages.
Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.
“Have civil unions that give domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple, and leave the institution of marriage alone. Don’t mess with success.”
Again tortuous semantics. If civil unions = marriages with respect to rights and responsibilities, why not just call a spade a spade? They’re *all* marriages.
Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.
“as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable….”
….so now we come down to IT. The CA Supreme Court is to intervene and rule on what is “socially acceptable”; this is the domain of each individual with the courts standing as the guardians of legitimate rights. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the right of social acceptance resides in the court’s domain.
“as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable….”
….so now we come down to IT. The CA Supreme Court is to intervene and rule on what is “socially acceptable”; this is the domain of each individual with the courts standing as the guardians of legitimate rights. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the right of social acceptance resides in the court’s domain.
“as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable….”
….so now we come down to IT. The CA Supreme Court is to intervene and rule on what is “socially acceptable”; this is the domain of each individual with the courts standing as the guardians of legitimate rights. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the right of social acceptance resides in the court’s domain.
“as if the opponents of gay marriage find gays and lesbians otherwise socially acceptable….”
….so now we come down to IT. The CA Supreme Court is to intervene and rule on what is “socially acceptable”; this is the domain of each individual with the courts standing as the guardians of legitimate rights. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the right of social acceptance resides in the court’s domain.
“This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids.”
I find this hesitancy to acknowledge marriage of same sex couples (mentioned prior to the quote above) as a kind of moral ambiguity. Married same-sex couples acknowledge a loving long-term commitment to each other. Many adopt children and raise them as good, loving parents.
I find nothing morally relativistic about same sex marriage.
I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen. It is good for everyone, especially the kids, to have married, committed parents. I don’t understand why there should be any disagreement.
“This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids.”
I find this hesitancy to acknowledge marriage of same sex couples (mentioned prior to the quote above) as a kind of moral ambiguity. Married same-sex couples acknowledge a loving long-term commitment to each other. Many adopt children and raise them as good, loving parents.
I find nothing morally relativistic about same sex marriage.
I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen. It is good for everyone, especially the kids, to have married, committed parents. I don’t understand why there should be any disagreement.
“This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids.”
I find this hesitancy to acknowledge marriage of same sex couples (mentioned prior to the quote above) as a kind of moral ambiguity. Married same-sex couples acknowledge a loving long-term commitment to each other. Many adopt children and raise them as good, loving parents.
I find nothing morally relativistic about same sex marriage.
I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen. It is good for everyone, especially the kids, to have married, committed parents. I don’t understand why there should be any disagreement.
“This sort of moral relativism, in doing away with societal norms of all kinds, is dangerous. It results in very confused kids.”
I find this hesitancy to acknowledge marriage of same sex couples (mentioned prior to the quote above) as a kind of moral ambiguity. Married same-sex couples acknowledge a loving long-term commitment to each other. Many adopt children and raise them as good, loving parents.
I find nothing morally relativistic about same sex marriage.
I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen. It is good for everyone, especially the kids, to have married, committed parents. I don’t understand why there should be any disagreement.
“Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.”
Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?
“I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen.”
I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.
“Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.”
Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?
“I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen.”
I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.
“Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.”
Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?
“I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen.”
I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.
“Your explanation seems a little too clever to make sense.”
Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?
“I prefer to see married same sex couple parenting kids, if parenting is going to happen.”
I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.
“Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?”
Not really. These comments (yours?) critical of gay marriage simply don’t “wring” true to what I have seen in my life. They suggest someone with extremely limited exposure to the humanity of homosexuals.
“I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.”
Very revealing. You equate gay marriage with immorality and label it as an “alternative lifestyle.” Alternative to what? If you were gay, then you would know that there really is no alternative to homosexuality.
That same-sex couples are less fit for parenthood…
“Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?”
Not really. These comments (yours?) critical of gay marriage simply don’t “wring” true to what I have seen in my life. They suggest someone with extremely limited exposure to the humanity of homosexuals.
“I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.”
Very revealing. You equate gay marriage with immorality and label it as an “alternative lifestyle.” Alternative to what? If you were gay, then you would know that there really is no alternative to homosexuality.
That same-sex couples are less fit for parenthood…
“Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?”
Not really. These comments (yours?) critical of gay marriage simply don’t “wring” true to what I have seen in my life. They suggest someone with extremely limited exposure to the humanity of homosexuals.
“I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.”
Very revealing. You equate gay marriage with immorality and label it as an “alternative lifestyle.” Alternative to what? If you were gay, then you would know that there really is no alternative to homosexuality.
That same-sex couples are less fit for parenthood…
“Or perhaps these comments make you uncomfortable because they have the wring of truth and logic?”
Not really. These comments (yours?) critical of gay marriage simply don’t “wring” true to what I have seen in my life. They suggest someone with extremely limited exposure to the humanity of homosexuals.
“I would rather see married heterosexual couples who gave birth to the child parenting their own kids, if parenting is going to happen. That is what society should be promoting, not hooking up, living together, gay marriage, polygamy, or any of the other alternative life styles which are not as ideal for raising kids. It is quite simple really, and perfectly logical.”
Very revealing. You equate gay marriage with immorality and label it as an “alternative lifestyle.” Alternative to what? If you were gay, then you would know that there really is no alternative to homosexuality.
That same-sex couples are less fit for parenthood…