Protecting Marriage...

[rlrose328]

So the religious folks are at it again in California.  I'm one of those atheists who is totally okay with gay marriage.  Heck, if they want to legally be tied to someone for eternity (or however long they wish to be), why stop them.  I also don't think anything they do is a threat to me, my marriage or my son and his well-being.

However, California is trying to pass Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Amendment.   :crazy:

They are hinging their argument on the fact that if this amendment passes, schools will add to their current curriculum about marriage (??) the fact that gay marriage is all right... they want to protect children from...

"being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."

:brick:

Their logic disgusts me.  I guess this all makes me a bad mom because we've taught our son that all marriage is good and the same, regardless the gender of the participants and that gay lifestyles are fine.  What they do behind closed doors has no bearing on what I do.

And calling it the Marriage Protection Amendment, claiming it protects children, is misleading to the majority of voters who don't ever bother to read what the amendments are even about.  I can't TELL you how many people tell me they vote and just read a little bit on the ballot but none of the information that is sent to them beforehand.

Okay... I guess I'm done.  They won't be happy until we are all  

[LARA]

I can't see any argument against gay marriage except for a religious one.  I'm a little uncomfortable around openly gay people I gotta admit, but it's a harmless act of love between two willing adults, so how cruel can they be to limit the rights of people who love each other?  I mean if we allow gay marriage it's not like gayness is going to take over or something.  What are the Wingnuts thinking?  Militant lesbians in bridal gowns and jackboots storming the White House lawn?  Gay men in tuxes and floral corsages attacking the Pentagon with bridal bouquets and booklets of designer paint chips?  Please.  Just let them get married.  Can this really do any harm?  Really?  If anything at all, it will give the economy a little boost with all the new wedding plans and tourism from honeymoons.

[rlrose328]

The harm is that those poor innocent children may actually start to believe that being gay isn't a bad thing and all of that time spent brainwashing them will be for naught.  Those people have spent a lot of time and money at church, indoctrinating their young to believe that they are right, what they do is sanctioned by god himself, and everyone else is evil and wrong.

And masquerading that amendment as a marriage protection act so their kids will remain brainwashed is disgusting and a perversion of the voting process in this country.

[Msblue]

The use of the word "lifestyle" irritates the hell out of me. It's just parroted again and again to imply that gays are different and different by choice. I wonder how many christians stop and think about how long they pondered their choices, before choosing a heterosexual lifestyle. This battle is one they are slowly losing, the laws are starting to come around.

[rlrose328]

There is a No on Prop 8 website and they need help too, so please visit them and add your voice to those who support the right of ANYONE to get married.

No on Proposition 8, California Marriage Protection Amendment


Thanks!

[MommaSquid]

rlrose328, you are not alone.  The same sort of crap is going on in AZ, too.  Stupid propositions!

AZ Prop 102:  "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

http://yesformarriage.com/

http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/index.php

All of this years propositions are bigoted and/or superfluous.  

[rlrose328]

ARGH!  SO frustrating!

I love the "valid or recognized" part.  So if a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts moves to Arizona, does that mean their marriage isn't valid there?  Or here in Oregon?  Or in future California?

So if a hetero couple with an underage bride is married in a state where THAT is legal, but moves to a state where that ISN'T legal, is THEIR marriage not recognized or valid?  Probably not... hetero marriage is okay regardless.

I sat here and watched the videos on the No On Prop 8 site... one with people of the clergy saying how they do support it and why.  I was in tears.  It's so frustrating to see religious people who are aware of real life and real people, not the idealized world that evangelicals and fundies live in.

[SteveS]

Marriage, in a way, is a really strange topic, isn't it?  I mean, to one way of thinking, who could give a crap if the government recognizes your "union", right?  So, you live together, you love each other, the government refuses to acknowledge that you're married, and .... so what?

The issue gets sticky because the same government gives certain legal recognition to married couples.  You have joint property, you automatically have some power of attorney concerning your spouse, etc.  This, I presume, is what all the fuss is about, right?

Okay - so now, what difference does it make if you're in sexual love?  Why shouldn't two perfectly heterosexual men or women, who are great life-long friends, not be able to own a home together, cover one with the other's health care plan, adopt and raise children, or make life-saving medical choices for each other?  Why do two people have to be in a form of sexual love (hetero- or homo- sexual) for all of the above to apply?

I'm not really proposing an answer here, I'm just pointing out that the entire institution of state-recognized-marriage is sort of arbitrary and strange.  Personally, I think it was a just another step down the road of government getting involved in inappropriate areas of people's lives.  Who needs/wants a government to "regulate" family dynamics?  In what way is the construction of the house-next-door's marriage impinging upon my personal rights and/or responsibilities?  Why would I care if it was populated by two heterosexually loving people, two homosexually loving people, or two non-sexually-but-platonically-loving persons who have decided to blend their fortunes together and live in a sort of "collective-a-deux"?

[Martian]

I don't think that the "religious people" (anybody can be against gay marriage, even atheists) are against homosexuals getting together and starting families. They just don't want heterosexual couples to be lumped together with non-heterosexual couples. Basically, marriage was considered to be an intimate union betwen a man and a woman for a long time. Throughout history men and women have been getting together to start families (in western society it was between one man and one woman). Only now do we have people of the same sex coming together and starting families.

Some heterosexual couples don't want to hear homosexual couples say, "you're married, just like us". They would like it to be called something else, like a "union" (or butt-buddies, lol j/k, Southpark anyone?). It's just that they want the line for marriage to be drawn at one man and one woman. They don't want it to spread to incorporate maybe other groups like two men and one woman, or three men, or 5 men and 5 women. The argument basically goes, "marriage has been considered a union between one man and one woman, so let's just keep it that way. Other unions can be called something else, but not marriage."

It's really a semantics issue, because we could call "blargh" a "union between one man and one woman" and "glargh" a "union between two men or two women". I think that this is just an issue of definitions, and I think that's what they mean by "protecting marriage": they mean to maintain the old-held definition of the word "marriage".


Of course, not allowing homosexual couples to get together and start families is a seperate issue entirely.

[rlrose328]

Yes, it's the legal recognition that is the issue, Steve... and it is a matter of semantics, Martian.  Both of you have nailed the two facets of the problem I have with this entire issue.

The relligious folks want to keep the word "marriage" for themselves and let same-sex and non-marrying heteros from using it in any way, shape, or form, leaving them with "domestic partnership" and any number of other colloquialisms.  The problem with that, besides being MONUMENTALLY selfish, is that not all rights available to married folks are afforded to those with domestic unions.  Here is a very good About.com page with the differences.  ONLY marriage is recognized in ALL states and given all benefits by law.

The others don't allow children to be automatically recognized as a child of both without legal adoption.  Not all allow partners in emergency rooms or to make very hard end-of-life decisions for the partner without a passel of paperwork in place.  Only with a marriage can an American sponsor their non-American spouse to enter the country.  

Many of these things can be obtained by same-sex couples... with thousands of dollars of legal costs that I and my husband don't have to pay JUST because we're a hetero MARRIED couple.

Steve, those two life-long friends at least have the OPTION of getting married so they can share a house, yet they can choose not to and still do the legal paperwork thing.  But their same-sex life-partner counterparts do not have any options at all.

But I do agree that it's a farce that the government is even involved... what I do in my bedroom is no one's business but my own, but the Conservatives and, need I say it, the Christians, are hell-bent on stopping any of us from doing anything in our bedrooms that they don't like and if they don't like it, they'll make sure you're legally unable to do it.

Make them ALL "legal unions," eliminate the word "marriage" or "married" altogether, and then everyone can do their own thing.  Won't EVER happen, but it's a dream.  All I know is changing state constitutions to ban gays from marrying is wrong.

[DeathSShead1488]

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

We're the ignorant fucks? Do you have no idea what irony is? Pillock!

Kyu

[jcm]

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

wow, I never thought of that. thanks! I'm going to start killing gay people when I get off work.

Want to join me DeathShithead1488? You keep a look out and I'll hold the gun.

[curiosityandthecat]

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

Wasn't it Quentin Crisp who advanced the view that those who show the kind of level of hatred they do about something (in this case gays) probably are actually closeted whatever they most hate themselves?

I wonder what it is the DeathSh**Head most fears?

Kyu