How I feel about Proposition 8

Discussion in 'Politics' started by DV8, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. DV8

    DV8
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,071
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm writing this for multiple reasons. The second reason is because a friend of mine told me that he would like to see me blog about this topic. The first reason is because of my frustration with this matter.

    I feel the need to express my thoughts on the matter of Proposition 8 because it really hits home for me in more ways than one. I feel that the ban of gay marriages is unethical, and a decision based on pure prejudice. I say that because the main argument that you always hear in regards to this topic is the "sanctity of marriage". That doesn't work for me by any means. I've taken it upon myself to get a bit friendly with my dictionary, and while doing so, I decided to look up the definition of the word sanctity.

    sanc⋅ti⋅ty
    [sangk-ti-tee] S
    –noun, plural -ties.
    1.holiness, saintliness, or godliness.

    2.sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple.

    3.a sacred thing.

    After reading the definition sanctity, that then took me to the word sacred.

    sa⋅cred
    [sey-krid]
    –adjective
    1.devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

    2.entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.

    3.pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane ): sacred music; sacred books.

    4.reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.

    5.regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.

    6.secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

    7.properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

    And sacred then took me to the word reverence.

    rev⋅er⋅ence
    [rev-er-uhns, rev-ruhns]
    noun, verb, -enced, -enc⋅ing.
    –noun
    1.a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.

    2.the outward manifestation of this feeling: to pay reverence.

    3.a gesture indicative of deep respect; an obeisance, bow, or curtsy.

    4.the state of being revered.

    5.(initial capital letter) a title used in addressing or mentioning a member of the clergy (usually prec. by your or his).
    –verb (used with object)
    6.to regard or treat with reverence; venerate: One should reverence God and His laws.

    So is it being said that gay marriage is against the feeling or attitude of marriage, or am I lost in the translation?

    I can respect the argument that marriage is to be an honored commitment between two individuals in the eyes of God. However, this is America, and it's my right to have a freedom of religion. With that being said, not all of us view God in the same way as others. And my God doesn't discriminate against race, religion, or sexual orientation. You can sum up the words of my God in one beautiful sentence; Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. And when you think about it, every religion that you could think of preaches the same message in the end.

    I think it's ridiculous that this has become such an issue. I don't understand how so many Americans can vote for such a proposal that would limit the civil-rights of others; your loved ones. Yes! Your loved ones, I mean- it's time to get real. It's 2008- everyone has a gay relative. You may not be aware that a relative of yours is gay, but everyone has a gay relative. Deal with it. If your son or daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, cousin, aunt or uncle, told you they were gay, wouldn't you want all the happiness in the world for them?

    Because of religious zealots, we have developed social norms which have concluded that homosexuality is just one the worst things. It's been a lifestyle lived commonly during the times of the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans, and in Africa, Asia, Europe, and even in early America with the Native Americans. It really makes one wonder- has our society tried to save us from sin, or it's own hatred and intolerance? It can't be sin, because we all commit sins daily, even without realizing it. And if it has been the case, we cannot pick and choose which sins are "okay" and which are taboo; because then you're preaching hypocrisy. I was once told by a pastor that there is no big sin, nor little sin. Sin is sin. And with that being true, God will be my judge, not man. And my sins are my business, just like yours are your own.
    To the supporters of Proposition 8, I wish your church would stay away from my civil-rights. I can assure you that a good number of your marriages are fraud, and you'd never know it. Because of your fanatical teachings, more lives than you realize have been damaged because of the intolerance you often preach. If you only knew how many "closeted" gay men and women have lived lies, have married and had children, you'd be astounded. I should know, I'm the product of one. And because of these teachings, we have politicians who allegedly seek same-sex encounters in public restrooms, or engage in same-sex relationships outside of their marriages. What about the pain that causes families? And I'm sure that a good number of you had negative things to say about the movie "Brokeback Mountain"- a love story about two married men with children, who meet up every so often to be together. The damage that was done to the families in that film is the result of your teachings of intolerance. It may have been just a movie to you, but for some that's life, and a sad life it is.
    So instead of trying to protect "the sanctity of marriage", you should focus more of your own. Because I dare each and everyone of you to get online, go to a gay chat room, and sit there. You'll see a good number of men and women seeking long-term relationships, or maybe just one night stands. But the number of married individuals promiscuously seeking same-sex encounters would blow your mind. If you do this, I'll warn you now that the married men and women you see may be your own husbands and wives.
    Whatever happened to separation of church and state? With the existence of that separation, this shouldn't even be an issue. It brings back a memory from about two years ago. I remember discussing with my mother that if gay marriage was going to be banned, then I would like to see a ban on divorce. If you're trying to protect "the sanctity of marriage", then divorce should have never been an issue for your own marriage. This may upset a good number of people, and I don't see why it should. It was your choice to make a promise, a commitment, a vow to another human-being in the eyes of God. The same promise, the same commitment, the same vow you're willing to deny gay Americans the opportunity to make.

    "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -Matthew 19:6

    If you support Proposition 8, I urge you to join the fight against divorce! Because if your reason for being against gay marriage is all under God, then I don't see this being a problem for you. And I for one will not just sit here and let you deny me the right to make a promise to another human-being, while you get the chance to break it.

    Thanks for reading!
    Dante'
     
  2. Domisoldo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,079
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    The greatest threat to traditional marriage is traditional divorce.


     
  3. stratedude

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    I am very torn on this issue. On one hand, I believe that the purpose of marriage in the eyes of the state is to support what is best for children. The initial thought on how this relates with gay people is 'well gays can't have kids' but the poblem is that they increasingly are through adoption and other means.

    So my second thought was - well lets just have a civil union for gays to appease the religious people that don't want gays to be 'married'. But then you are probably admitting that marriage is a law that supports a religion which is a direct violation with the 1st amendment.

    In the end, I believe that it is important that a committed gay couple that may potentially have or raise children have all the rights that a straight couple have, and that giving them "separate but equal" rights under a different name should be a violation of at least one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, there is only two choices: Either let gays get "married" or change the law for straights such that the word "marry" is changed to something else like "civil union" or simply "united" so that the word marriage is then reserved for use by the Christian religion to uphold the "sanctity" of it.

    I should be a supreme court justice...
     
  4. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Strate,
    You are on the right track with this. Presently, marriage serves a legal secular purpose and optionally a religious one. The secular purpose has to do with joint legal rights of ownership, survivorship, and power of attorney. I would call this a civil union and my recommendation is that a Federal law grant this privilege uniformly in all states.

    As for marriage, I would restrict the official definition of that term to the religous one. And as such, the government would simply stay out of making any laws for or against marriage. Each faith community should be able to decide for themselves if they want to sanctify a civil union with marriage or not.
     
  5. HyperHulk

    HyperHulk New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    883
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Oz
    Umm, what about all the millions of straight couples who decide to not have children? Should their marriages be invalidated? Marriage is not about children. The truth of the matter is that same sex marriages have absolutely no negative impact on heterosexual marriages nor any negative consequences in society. The bigots, as usual, have it wrong.
     
  6. stratedude

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    As an experienced amateur geneologist, I will tell you that historically, married people that don't have children are relatively rare, and out of those that don't have children, the ones that are fertile but don't have them because they 'decided' not to have children (at all ever) are extremely rare. Trust me I have seen probably hundreds of thousands of family groups of family trees. It really is rare.

    Anyway if you read the rest of my post you would see that I am supporting it. You need to be a little more open minded and stop calling people names. Your shooting your own allies - or are we the enemy simply because we are straight, or religious? I think it is YOU who is the bigot.
     
  7. HyperHulk

    HyperHulk New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    883
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Oz
    I have no idea what "an experienced amateur genealogist" is. Does that mean you show up at family reunions?

    My point is that you are connecting marriage to a having children and there is no legal requirement of marriage to have children. There are also millions of couples who don't have children, you know, the DINCs of the world (double income no children). Nevertheless, you are the expert amateur in this field. A couple who have committed to each other and don't have children are still a family. Gays, like heterosexuals should have the same choices regarding how big or small they want their family to be.

    I read that you came down on the side of same sex marriage. My point and my apologies if it wasn't clear enough, is that the issue is not predicated on children, either for gays or straights. Also, when I was referring to bigots, I was focusing on the anti-same sex marriage people who use the children argument against gays. Since I knew where you ended up, I wasn't referring to you. My apologies again for the confusion and misunderstanding.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted