world

Criticism mounts among gays over California ban

89 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

89 Comments
Login to comment

Try...try again till you get your rights. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People may consider it their "right" to have a certain lifestyle, but it doesn't make it "right".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination."

This just proves that America is basically already a post-racial society and that most of the public, conservatives included, are perfectly okay with civil unions between members of the same sex. But marriage is pushing it too far.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no problem with gay couples and their lifestyles, but I voted for prop.8. I'm not a Christian or a Muslem.

But we are all part of Nature and it means we must not deviate from the law of nature too far. A marriage between a man and a womwan has a sacred significance beyond religion, because it can produce an offspring to carry our civilization into the future. It symbolizes eternal life and hope for humanity.

The meaning of a marriage is more than just an official union of two lovers. Besides, they already have domestic partners law protection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I worry if they reverse this ban, it will open the doors for others such as polygammy, under age marriage (if coming from a different country), family members (including step)...

I really have an issue is NAMBLA as they have been getting bigger.

mtt: Besides, they already have domestic partners law protection." If that is the case, that why such a push for marriage?

additionally, I am not African American, but I am a minority for the most part and I actually don't like how they are using the civil rights marches of the 60's to better their cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong, I guess they have an agenda to promote the gay culture/lifestyle into the mainstream as normal and equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.

Local TV ads against gay marriage said public schools would be forced to teach kids about gay marriage as norm and all other public institution woul be sued if they fail to treat gay marriages the same way as traditional one. That's not what we want for sure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong - I actually don't like how they are using the civil rights marches of the 60's to better their cause.

How pray tell should the gay community go about protesting and get their point across? Maybe 30 second commerials twice a week? Maybe some educational programs given at school during lunch? How about converting the priest first, OOPS they already are converted.

So I'm open minded to seeing your suggestions on how they go about getting across their point. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some of the most bigoted and stupidest arguments I've read on this site in a while.

mtt: "But we are all part of Nature and it means we must not deviate from the law of nature too far. A marriage between a man and a womwan has a sacred significance beyond religion, because it can produce an offspring to carry our civilization into the future."

I've got news for you, bub... while sex between a man and woman is a natural thing, 'marriage' between a man and woman is not. I am not advocating promiscuity, polygamy (polygymy) and anything like that, I'm just point out the hypocrisy of saying one thing is natural while taking a very human-made union, which is really just law these days, and putting it in the same group. I agree that marriage is sacred, but that's another thing that is a concept, not a part of nature. What's sacred to me may mean nothing to you. A drawing my son gave me, for example, might just be a piece of garbage to someone else. Both of these bring me to my next points...

"It symbolizes eternal life and hope for humanity."

So... if I marry a woman because she's loaded and it's also convenient in getting a permanent visa, does that symbolize hope for humanity? Is it a natural thing? By your logic, assuming you said no, why can I still do it by law? If I marry someone and we have a child and decide to give it up or, god forbid, 'get rid of it' (abortion or throw it away, put in baby hatch, etc.), aren't all your justifications for a man and woman being 'naturally' entitled to marriage by law moot? Is tossing away said baby 'eternal life and hope for humanity'?

What's more, I know this is hard for many of you to accept, but homosexuality is not a life-style choice any more than you choosing where you are born. It's a fact that homosexuality is biological. It is therefore, very natural. Skip's concern that this could open the doors to all sorts of other things that people deem 'natural' (like, say, pedophilia or polgamy) are not really a concern, I think. The rationale behind treating gays like criminals or that it should be against the law has been flawed for ages; the other things are against laws that stand on quite a bit of logic that is tried, true, and tested.

Finally, and most important: two people's love for one another, regardless of sexual orientation, is what is truly sacred. The LOVE is what is natural, and what is both perfectly 'right' and should also be a right for all. While marriage, in the legal and/or ceremonial sense, is FAR from natural, it IS a ceremony recognized by many to be a sacred vow of one's love for another (not necessarily a 'man's' love for a 'woman').

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married? If they want to, I say all the power to 'em! The arguments that it's unnatural, particularly when followed by the idea of the human-made union of marriage, is completely bogus and exclusive, where love is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Different strokes for different folks. I have no problems with gay couples having the same rights as other members of society. The lifestyle they engage in has been decriminalized so why don't they have the same rights? Indeed, if we are going to deny their rights, we might as well make them sew pink triangles on their clothes like a certain Austrian corporal did many years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marriage is a legal definition, Love is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan, Very well stated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The government should come out wiv some treat ment to cure them,that'l solve the problem. Don't know why they is arguing wiv each other, i mean it's daft innit!. The good Lord made men and women differnet to hace relationships. people of the same sex , shouldn't get up things like that, it aint right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If gayness is meant to be natural, it should be on DNAs and it should be able to be carried down into the future by the law of nature. Are you here and alive because of a gay union?

Our future totally depends on unions between a man and woman.

In the same way I oppose marriages based on incest or polygamies no matter how much they love each other, I would not call a gay union a marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marriage is a legal definition

Marriage can start as a personal commitment, or it can be recognized via a legal or religious event. For example, common law marriage is well recognized as being legal while the event that started it may have only been co habilitation. Some marriages start as simple registrations and need not have any ceremony attached, religious or otherwise – as is frequently the case here in Japan. I see no reason why California would not want to allow the legal benefits of marriage to be bestowed upon anyone who is willing to make the commitment.

Our future totally depends on unions between a man and woman.

I don't see man/woman relationships ending any time soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr Garnett, you saucy so and so, wash your mouth out with soap and water dear.

gay marriage is a wonderfull commitment. Banning it is horrible. I saw the gays upset on TV, it ws horrid, it made me cry.

Even Jeremy Paxman said "why can't they just leave things be", and i agree! He said it is the influence of American right wing religous people who made thsi stop. Yet Jesus loved us all!!!! Nasty people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtt wrote

I have no problem with gay couples and their lifestyles, but I voted for prop.8. I'm not a Christian or a Muslem.

But we are all part of Nature and it means we must not deviate from the law of nature too far. A marriage between a man and a womwan has a sacred significance beyond religion, because it can produce an offspring to carry our civilization into the future. It symbolizes eternal life and hope for humanity.

The meaning of a marriage is more than just an official union of two lovers. Besides, they already have domestic partners law protection

I'm really offended by this.

First, off, homosexuality is not a life style. It is not a choice. If you can choose, you are bisexual. I am heterosexual. I cannot choose to be gay. Being straight is my nature. For homosexuals, being gay is their nature.

What offends me is the idea that marriage is for people to procreate.

Marriage is about love. That's all.

I'm seeing someone who cannot have have a baby. Does that mean that she should be denied the right of marriage? I have married friends who do not want children. Should their marriage be annulled by the state?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SkiptheSong

I worry if they reverse this ban, it will open the doors for others such as polygammy, under age marriage (if coming from a different country), family members (including step)

Then let me assure you that you have no worries. Marriage will be defined as a legal union between two people of consenting age.

To think that gay marriage = allowing incest just illustrates how much people do not understand gay marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtt: "If gayness is meant to be natural, it should be on DNAs and it should be able to be carried down into the future by the law of nature. Are you here and alive because of a gay union?"

Are you here because of the union of two mentally handicapped people? My guess is no, and if a handicapped couple (I use 'handicapped' in the Japanese katakana sense, since there is nothing else here better) love one another they should be allowed to marry. And yet, ever so many years ago, and not only in Japan, they were sterilized the minute it was found out they were handicapped. Why? because naturally they CAN have children! That was rightly outlawed, as gay discrimination should be.

Again, mtt, your thinking is old-fashioned and soon will be on the receiving end, so to speak, of reverse discrimination. I'm not here because of a gay union, no, but if one of my parents suddenly told me they were gay and wished to marry based on their TRUE and NATURAL orientation, I would be very happy for them.

What's more, if someone is gay it is indeed in their DNA, my friend. it doesn't mean it is inherited at all, but since our DNA determines whom and what we are, that is a part since it is biological.

Here's a fact for all of you who are so scared about preserving the institution of marriage the way it is: if you insist on keeping it to the old Christian man and woman union, you're going to see marriage go the way it's been going for years.... less and less people getting married, more people living and having kids out of wedlock and not caring, etc. In other words, marriage is going to disappear completely. Perhaps that's a good thing; after all, it's nothing but a ceremony these days. Look at Japanese weddings -- a Western style ceremony in a fake church with an English teacher hired to be the priest. None of that matters... what matters is that they love each other, the rest is ceremony and fun. The LEGAL part is all done at City Hall. If that's all that marriage means -- the legal part -- then how on earth is that natural or for the better of humanity? If it's the religious part, then how is marriage even possible for non-believers or people who worship another god/gods/non-gods, etc.?

In other words, it's about the love, man. That's all there is to it. If gays have it, that's all the need to marry one another in my books. Call it what you want, but so long as you think of 'marriage' in the outdated mode you've stated, the whole thing is a farce when you deny each others the same thing you want yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the 'that was rightly outlawed' above, I hope everyone realizes I meant the sterilization of people with mental handicaps, not their having children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MTT

If gayness is meant to be natural, it should be on DNAs and it should be able to be carried down into the future by the law of nature. Are you here and alive because of a gay union?

10% of people are gay. Accept it. It is nature. No one in their right mind would choose to be gay in this still prejudiced world. If you can make a choice, then you are a bi choosing to live a straight lifestyle.

Our future totally depends on unions between a man and woman.

Let me explain to you why I think homosexuality is Nature's plan.

The world is overpopulated by humans. 10% of people are gay. That means that 10% of us will not be procreating. This reduces population growth. This means that we will, as a species, use less natural resources. If anything, we should be celebrating that homosexuality exists.

In the same way I oppose marriages based on incest or polygamies no matter how much they love each other, I would not call a gay union a marriage.

You know, it's really sad that you equate homosexuality to incest. It shows how much you don't understand people born different than you were. I hope that these comments reach you. I hope that you accept people for how nature made them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters

This must present quite a quandary for the libs who believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Here are the blacks, who defined the civil rights movement, voting against gay marriage. It has "prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination." Man, this is getting juicier every day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you are pro-gay marriage.

So what.

Let's say you oppose the war in Iraq (or in Afghanistan) and frequently demand that those who support it go and fight it.

You ridicule those who decline and even those who are too old to join and fight and you insult them with the term 'chickenhawk' - a term which, somehwat ironically, originally meant an older male in search of younger males who enjoy the very lifestyle you profess support for in the apparent belief that it shows proof of your "progressive" views and your tolerance for other lifestyles.

Here is my question: If you support gay marriage but are not living the lifestyle - fighting the fight so to speak - are you not as 'hypocritical' and 'cowardly' as those you impugn elsewhere on this site?

I'm just sayin...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter: "This must present quite a quandary for the libs who believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Here are the blacks, who defined the civil rights movement, voting against gay marriage."

Yeah, because we all know there's only ONE civil rights issue in existance, right? Kind of like military spending is part of a social welfare program. It's not a conundrum for anyone at all, except people who think black people should automatically vote in favour of gays because somehow either they're both 'not natural' or both minorities. Sorry, but as one poster said it actually shows how far race has come in the US... that minorities need not necessary bind together strictly in support, but are also free to express their own opinions against one another. Good thing for you, because you being in the minority (people who voted McCain), it would mean you should automatically support gay marriage simply because you didn't vote with the rest of the majority of the US.

powderfinger: to whom are you addressing your message? no names written into your comment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith

Skip's concern that this could open the doors to all sorts of other things that people deem 'natural' (like, say, pedophilia or polgamy) are not really a concern, I think.

Why wouldn't it be a concern? What about the civil rights of polygamists? If an adult man and two adult women want to get married, why would we discriminate against them? These are consenting adults who just want to get married like everyone else. If marriage can be between and man and a man, why not a man and two women as well?

It is a slippery slope because polygamists will be next in demanding their "civil rights" and there'll be a precedent set.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moonbeams: To think that gay marriage = allowing incest just illustrates how much people do not understand gay marriage."

I did not mean it that way. Go to some other countries and take a look at their marriage laws, some of them are off the wall, unless you want to be a wordy person and accept it. I just can't accept some things.

However, to call people racist, bigots because they don't feel comfortable yet is one of things I think is what is causing the backlash.. I am not against it as much as you would like to think I am. I have gay friends, even one of my best staff is gay (even though he could walk down any street and every girl would drop usually faints for him), I even have a gay cousin - and letting you know that and the type of ethnicity I come from should allow you to give me at least a bit of a handicap.

There is also timing to take into consideration. Now, I don't know how young you and smitty are, but I became an adult in the 80's not the 90's. Give us old guys a bit of breathing room. Before my time, they gays were clearly under cover but these days, we have gay tv shows on prime time (awful show in my opinion and not because its about gays). I think the US has come quite far. When the state supreme court voted to allow the marriages, and it was against the voters wishes I am sure had it been on something else you would feel a bit pissed off too..

Again, I ask this, and without a sarcastic remark, when is the end point? Your little "To think that gay marriage = allowing incest just illustrates how much people do not understand gay marriage." Well, if you came in contact with a culture that approves such a marriage and you are not down with it, can we refer to you and smitty as bigots? Oh, btw, you can have sex with you sibling in many countries, you just can't get married.... is this a violation of human rights as well? You can't possibly be down with that, but I wouldn't call you a bigot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

powderfinger: But let's for a minute assume you were directing your post at me, just to address the question. Let's then assume that in some universe gay marriage can be equated somehow to war, you know... nudge nudge, being that war is actually a biological determiner in our genes, and is a sexual orientation and all that! Okay, even in said universe I would say there's nothing at all hypocritical about not practicing in gay sex but supporting gay marriage, and at the same time not supporting war and not taking part. First and foremost, the only natural thing about war is ABHORING it, and it's only natural that I would not take part in something I don't support.

Okay, I can't fake it anymore... the two issues are just so completely unrelated you cannot possibly compare them. Just for fun, let's look at a few other things I support or don't support and don't take part in, or vice versa!

Abortion: Oh no! There's a sticky one... how can I possibly have an opinion on abortion since I cannot engage in it myself, being a man??? Does that mean I can't have an opinion? Does it mean I'm a hypocrite for being against it AND being for gay marriage even though I don't take part?!

Kids Extra-curricular Activities: Oh no! I'm an adult! How can I possibly have an opinion since I cannot engage in it myself, being an adult???

You catch my drift? It's ridiculous to say you can only be for something if you engage in it, or not if you don't. People do have the right to say they are for war, but to cheer for the deaths of others and chant for war, war, and war and not have a clue in hell what it's actually about, that's just wrong. And trying to tie that into support for gays one when is or is not gay is also just plain wrong, and moronic to boot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion: Oh no! There's a sticky one... how can I possibly have an opinion on abortion since I cannot engage in it myself, being a man???" Yes you can now. They just had a guy who had a baby recently. Give it a try, don't be bigoted about it.

Anyway, why the big push to have first and second graders sign some kind of contract saying they would be kind to gays?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: powderfinger - to whom are you addressing your message? no names written into your comment.

It was addressed to anyone stupid enough to hurl 'chickenhawk' epithets and to compound the idiocy by defending their actions.

Congrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

powderfinger: Show me where I said 'chickenhawk' even once. I can show you where your argument is moronic any time of day, but can you show me what you claim I have said (in your 'congrats')? The answer... NOPE!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moonbeams -

The world is overpopulated by humans. 10% of people are gay. That means that 10% of us will not be procreating. This reduces population growth. This means that we will, as a species, use less natural resources. If anything, we should be celebrating that homosexuality exists.

Are you saying that gays should not be allowed access to AID, IVF treatment, surrogate birth etc, since letting them produce children would be against Nature?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone ever think that homosexuality could be one of "God's" creations? I mean if I were to believe the revised version of the christian storybook, isn't evolution supposed to figure in there?

If "God" existed and he were contemplating the planets problems, one of them being over-population, surely creating homosexuality would be a winner?

Aren't there any religious homosexals making this argument?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo,

Gays and children doesn't sit well with me. At all. Not for the adults, but for the children. This is the only time I will stand in the way of the gay activists....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People may consider it their "right" to have a certain lifestyle, but it doesn't make it "right".

The "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right, as stated by the founding fathers of the United States. When two consenting adults engage in a relationship, and it does nothing to hurt others, they have a right to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If "God" existed and he were contemplating the planets problems, one of them being over-population, surely creating homosexuality would be a winner?"

You got to be kidding me

Lets leave god or gods out of this conversation Have you noticed that people are basically making kids in labs these days.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtt writes: "If gayness is meant to be natural, it should be on DNAs and it should be able to be carried down into the future by the law of nature."

Can you recall the precise moment when you made a personal decision to be heterosexual, if that is, in fact, what you are? If you're a man, do you recall having a time when you were sexually attracted to other men but decided to give them up for the opposite sex?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right, as stated by the founding fathers of the United States. When two consenting adults engage in a relationship, and it does nothing to hurt others, they have a right to do so."

And no one is stopping them.

But people also have the right to defend the institutions of society.

I'm all for civil unions for gays.

But I oppose gay marriage.

And you're being disingenuous in that very liberal way when you cite the Framers of the Constitution and the phrase 'inalienable rights' but exclude the full context - that it was their belief these were granted to us by a Creator.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is my question: If you support gay marriage but are not living the lifestyle - fighting the fight so to speak - are you not as 'hypocritical' and 'cowardly' as those you impugn elsewhere on this site?

Every time I think that statements can't be any dumber, something like this one pops up.

According to your logic, any man who supports the right of a woman to vote must prove themselves by having a sex change operation. On the other hand, being in support of a war, but only as long as other people do the fighting, is certainly a sign of cowardice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip,

"You got to be kidding me"

Nope.

"1. Lets leave god or gods out of this conversation"

Why? People above are ranting and raving about what is "God's" way an all, why can't the argument be used the otherway round? I don't believe in any of the pap that man wrote to better control man, but I have no expalination for nature, and how it adapts. In fact, I think my argument holds water better than the God Squad's.

"2. Have you noticed that people are basically making kids in labs these days."

Yup. Haven't they also identified the gene that makes one homosexual? It's only a matter of time...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts -

The reason I ask is that on previous threads about gay marriage I expressed the view that the point of marriage was to create a stable environment in which to raise children, and that couples with no children had no need for perks such as spousal tax allowances, since there's no reason both partners can't work; and I suggested that marriage as we know it should be reserved for couples with children; childless couples of whatever persuasion could have a legally-recognised civil contract that allowed inheritance rights, insurance rights, economic rights in the event of a split, etc. I was shot down by people who pointed out that these days there are several ways in which a gay couple can have children.

If the argument is that homosexuality is natural because of over-population, that would tend to rule out the gay 'right' to have children.

I'd be interested to see what thoughts others, both pro and anti, have on this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This should have been asked much earlier: Why are pro-gay marriage liberals trying to change conservatives' position on this issue when, as the article points out, a certain bloc of Democrats who supported Obama to the tune of 95 percent are the ones who struck down gay marriage, and in a state that is also overwhelmingly Democrat!

"Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If the argument is that homosexuality is natural because of over-population, that would tend to rule out the gay 'right' to have children."

Cool.

The only "right" gay's should have to children is the kids some already have before they decided they prefered the same-sex. I don't think that gay couples would be bad parents, but I think the children would be tortured by their peers. Also, children generally strive to be like their parents...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, who is gay here? If you are, please tell us hetros why its so important to get married, an institution that was created BY MAN and not a god for the purpose locking a man and a woman into eternal hell.

powderfinger: I would like to pick a try at your question. I think it stems from repubs being overwhelmingly white, straight, and old fashioned men. I said before, far too many libs come from those nice gated communities, where you wouldn't see a non-white living, unless they were super rich. Not having contact with the normal people, they feel they are above all and think they know what is right for everyone and how things should work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is my question: If you support gay marriage but are not living the lifestyle - fighting the fight so to speak - are you not as 'hypocritical' and 'cowardly' as those you impugn elsewhere on this site?

Huh? Are you saying it's cowardly to support gay marriage, but not be gay?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Unless you believe that being homosexual is a conscientious choice we make. However that is untrue. The world is not flat and we do not choose to be gay.

All the arguments against gay marriage are silly at best. At worst they are downright bigotted. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, I ask you to look inside your heart and ask yourself if your position is truly taking away rights of others and how can these rights effect you. What is right and what is wrong? Can you be wrong? Can you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo

If the argument is that homosexuality is natural because of over-population, that would tend to rule out the gay 'right' to have children.

Not at all. Having children is a human right. I believe that homosexuality is nature's way of balancing itself.

If someone is born with a bad heart (no, I don't think that is nature's way of balancing at all), they should have the right for a transplant. We cannot be limited to the way we were created. If so, we would have to deny most medical care.

The underlining problem of this whole debate is the refusal of heterosexuals and possible bisexuals, to admit that homosexuality is natural.

Come to think of it, the percentage of bisexual people choosing a heterosexual lifestyle might be astronomically bigger than people imagine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Huh? Are you saying it's cowardly to support gay marriage, but not be gay?"

No, I wasn't. I was poking fun at liberals who think they are being logical and even clever when making the absurd argument that if you vote yes to defend your country you also have to enlist and go fight, no matter what your age or your physical capacity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

powderfinger -

I was poking fun at liberals who think they are being logical and even clever when making the absurd argument that if you vote yes to defend your country you also have to enlist and go fight, no matter what your age or your physical capacity.

What a looney argument. Voting to give people rights is NOT the same as voting to drop bombs on people.

moonbeams -

Having children is a human right.

I'm not so sure that it is. If a person knows they have some genetic flaw that means there's a good chance any children will be born with some serious disability and may be condemned to a short, tortured life - I don't think that person has a 'right' to have children regardless of the consequences. Same with folks who lack the means or inclination to care properly for a child.

Before I get jumped on, I am NOT saying that gays produce flawed children, I'm simply stating that having children is not a right, but a privilege.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I support gay marriage (Big surprise there I know). I think they need to continually get the signatures for another referendum. I do have a problem with a majority vote being good enough to enact a statute and also the same majority being enough to pass a constitutional amendment. We certainly don't make it that easy to amend the U.S. Constitution. I am quite confident that eventually it will be a non-issue. I am 50 and I have seen the times change. Kids just don't care for the most part. They are less concerned about race and less concerned about sexual preference. Either the courts (California) will decide a higher threshold is needed to amend the state constitution or election after election it will be on the ballot and it will get closer and closer and then pass.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Powderfinger: "This should have been asked much earlier: Why are pro-gay marriage liberals trying to change conservatives' position on this issue when, as the article points out, a certain bloc of Democrats who supported Obama to the tune of 95 percent are the ones who struck down gay marriage, and in a state that is also overwhelmingly Democrat!"

You've got a serious problem with misdirection! Someone arguing their standpoint on something does not necessarily imply they are trying to change those of others! YOU'RE the one who came on here and said if one person supports gay rights they have to support war or they are a hypocrite. Sheesh. We know you're upset, but take it out somewhere else where you'll be taken seriously.

"I was poking fun at liberals who think they are being logical and even clever when making the absurd argument that if you vote yes to defend your country you also have to enlist and go fight, no matter what your age or your physical capacity."

Again, dude... the only person you're really poking fun at here is yourself. This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with war at all.

Now, you DID have one half-decent past about 3 posts ago in which you stated your own beliefs on the subject, and that's fine and dandy, but again; a person stating what he or she believs on the subject of gay rights does not mean they are trying to tell others what to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

powder: And one more thing, my friend... since I just can't drop it, if you think voting for someone's right to marry regardless of sexual orientation is akin to voting to go to war, you're off your rocker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo:

and I suggested that marriage as we know it should be reserved for couples with children;

Yes, I remember your flawed argument from weeks ago. You suggested that gays should not be allowed the right to marry one another because you didn't want them to be a burden on the welfare system, etc.

Well, going by your logic, I would suggest that ALL women refrain from entering politics, because I am sick and tired of male politicians being involved in scandals, and making stupid remarks. We don't need women to make the situation worse.

And yes, having a baby is a privilege. But unfortunately, so many straight girls are having them willy-nilly and then not looking after them as a proper parent should. As far as I know, all the recent child abuse cases centered on parents involved in straight relationships. The whole 'sacredness' of marriage is being screwed up by straight people. You don't need gay people to do that.

I also find it strange that straight people are allowed to marry as often as they like (as often as they take a bath). No offence to the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, but many straight people treat marriage like a game or, in the case of Japan, get married after having a baby (and then getting a divorce a year later).

You know people are getting desperate when they use the polygamy/paedophile argument in trying to justify their disgust at gay people or anyone who leads a different lifestyle. Reminds me of meat-eaters who tell vegetarians that plants have feelings too. As far as I know, polygamy cases have always involved straight people. And studies show that the majority of paedophiles are straight.

Now, my question is, in a civil union, does the partner become the next of kin? For example, if one dies, will his/her property go to the partner or can some long-lost third cousin twice remove appear from thin air and claim the property and kids, if any?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, funny that everyone is shy of the "God" question...

If gay's were causing the planets problems I'd listen to the naysayers...

Civil unions ae legal....mariage, well, if they really want it....

Kids.....definitely not.

Can I get me the extreme right here to start shrieking about polygamy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love to read the post written by homophobes. People who say that all of us are equal on one post then defend not allowing same sex to marry. Sounds like their hypocrits to me. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Can I get me the extreme right here to start shrieking about polygamy?"

Again, I ask: Why are people going after conservatives for the failure of a gay marriage proposition in one of the most liberal states in America and when the article states that it was the black vote that killed the measure?

"Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination."

It looks like we are at one of those embarrassing moments where the left has to decide who is more "oppressed", so they can get on with the tiresome business of blaming conservatives and everyone else (all the "haters") for their largely self-created misery.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pukey -

You suggested that gays should not be allowed the right to marry one another because you didn't want them to be a burden on the welfare system, etc.

No, that is not what I suggested at all. What I suggested (and again on this thread) was that childless couples, whether gay or hetero, could have a legally-recognised civil contract that allowed inheritance rights, insurance rights, economic rights in the event of a split, etc. but did not, in the form of spousal tax allowances, pay an able-bodied adult to sit at home doing nothing.

As you rightly point out, heteros have done quite enough to sully the 'sacredness' of marriage. But I see that as an argument to rethink the whole idea of marriage from the ground up, not a reason to spread the flawed system we now have still further. Ditto with the willy-nilly child-bearers/abandoners. I don't understand the reasoning behind 'It's a problem, so more people should join in'.

I have never used the 'polygamy/paedophile argument' against the idea of gay marriage, because I am not against the idea of gay marriage as such. I just think we need to modify marriage to accommodate the changes in society so that everyone gets out of it what they need, as far as is possible and practical.

Now, my question is, in a civil union, does the partner become the next of kin? For example, if one dies, will his/her property go to the partner

I think that's the general idea, isn't it? Plus pension rights, hospital visiting rights when a partner is in extremis, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Again, I ask: Why are people going after conservatives for the failure of a gay marriage proposition"

I didn't. I simply asked for the "extreme right" to bring up polygamy as they always do to avoid the arguments that offend them. If you feel targeted, you weren't, unless you rhink polygamy has something to do with gay marriage rights....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

powderfinger: Are you saying simply because I go against voting 'aye' for one thing and approve of it in another it's hypocritical, regardless of the content? Is that honestly what you believe? Because I can tell you, voting for gay rights is not at all the same thing as voting for war -- you canNOT ignore the content of what you're arguing. If you honestly believe that you can, then let me ask you this: if you're not Jewish and you support Israel, do you not have to therefore side with gays if you are not gay? I mean, c'mon, by your argument if you don't you are a hypocrite. So... you still against gay marriage and a hypocrite, or does your support of Israel also mean you support gay unions. I mean, here you say if I go against people voting for war (who are not involved) I should therefore be against people voting for gay rights if I'm not gay.

Moderator: Israel is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Someday when someone's mentions their sexual preference, gay will mean nothing more than just a fact. Gays will have the right to marry and raise children.

But until then we have homophobes that will fight against it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "I didn't. I simply asked for the "extreme right" to bring up polygamy as they always do to avoid the arguments that offend them."

I feel like I've been saying this to powderfinger all day. You say your opinion on gay rights and the guy asks you about why you are against war. I say it's a different issue and he starts going on about how I called people chickenhawks when I did not. Oversensitivity issues if you ask me, or just plain guilt. Some people are most defensive when they feel guilty about things.

Thanks for bringing that up again, though. I'm sure people will quickly find another way to avoid your arguments as they do mine, and bring up something completely unrelated and illogical to try and show off their supposed wit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And you're being disingenuous in that very liberal way when you cite the Framers of the Constitution and the phrase 'inalienable rights' but exclude the full context - that it was their belief these were granted to us by a Creator.

LOL!! And it's a "creator" who has given us countless examples of homosexual behavior in the animal world. Who "created" and programmed monkeys, dogs, etcs. to engage in that behavior? You are simply burying your head in the sand in that very conservative way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: Yeah b-b-b-but if you REALLY listen to their logic what they're saying is something like this: "The legal marriage between a man and a woman is natural... it says so in the bible! BUT, feelings of love and the desire to marry between same sex couples is NOT natural! Oh, it happens with animals in nature... welll... errr.... ah ha! Well, got created humans in his image. As humans we must rise up and show we are ABOVE animals instincts and preserve morals and justice. Ha! Counter that! What? What do you mean God created humans in his image and that includes gays?! And what do you mean shouldn't we then allow gays to marry?! That's UNNATURAL!"

How could you be confused at all by such logic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: You did an admirable job of describing their non-logic. They simply have to rationalize everything in the universe to their erroneous belief that it is only their compass that points the true way.

What's most ironic is that they are not even real Christians, but among the deceived that the good book warns against.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just think we need to modify marriage to accommodate the changes in society so that everyone gets out of it what they need...

Hopefully including society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still no takers?

Heh, just the fact my theory this disturbs the homophobic fundies almost makes me want to be religious. :D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I find amusing about this, is that people on the left are always talking about how we need to be tolerant of others. How others should be allowed to be different. How we should embrace the differences... This is all well and good unless you disagree with them. Then its nothing but hate!

Love the hypocrisy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

Which of those on this "left" are spewing hate? And how?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The world is overpopulated by humans. 10% of people are gay. That means that 10% of us will not be procreating. This reduces population growth. This means that we will, as a species, use less natural resources. If anything, we should be celebrating that homosexuality exists"

That made me laugh. My old college room mate who just happened to be gay has children he made, one of the folks at my church that left his wife for another guy has 4 children by her... Any other "proof" you guys wanna try and pass by?

One thing that gets me about the gay couple propaganda is this. People can't tell that you're gay unless you tell them you are. Some folks have efeminate or macho behaviour and they aren't gay either. Being discrimnated against because of your skin color is something that happens just because a person looks at you and they can tell you are or are not their ethnicity.

I don't think they should be descriminated nor harrassed either for what kind of life they lead as long as they don't try to force other people to follow their lifestyle. Acceptance is understood. But when another man comes up to me and hits on me then tells me "if you're straight, I'll make sure you go gay..." I really doubt its genetic. Cos' that means I'm genetically straight, and not bi, or homosexual... They should not be subject to someone harrassing them, attacking them, or telling them they can't work at such and such place just because they're homosexual. Those are basic human rights. Anything beyond that is just asking for needless attention.

Marriage between man and woman is still based on the fact that if they have children, those children are pretty much bound to both parents genetically. If a gay couple are together and o' lets say one of them has a child by a previous hetero relationship, does this give the partner (if they divorce) visitation rights to their ex-partners children because they feel like it? Usually the law states that a person can't be held responsible for the care or guardian rights to another persons child unless their blood parents are considered unfit. With civil unions intact, if they get a divorce best thing that happens is that there is no big deal dividing property.

Most gay couples are both bread-winners and usually have a lot of income so that its hard to say "Partner A should pay support for Partner B for such and such time because Partner B is not making enough income to support themselves." And there is also no maternity leave for male couples. The gist is, there are a lot of laws that would have to be created because someone is always going to find a crazy loop hole and abuse it.

I'm all for the civil unions. Marriage implicates that if and when a couple divorces and they have blood offspring, that they divide things up as evenly as possible under the law including who takes care of the children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually there was an interesting article in the Economist from two weeks ago that went into the idea of "why hasn't being gay gone away as an evolutionary dead end?" It turns out that there are a lot of reasons. The link is here: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295

Of course marriage seems to be a religious issue and the state really gets involved only in the case that the marriage dissolves. Handling the splitting of property, how the children are cared for, etc. The idea of a marriage license seems to be a way that the state meddles in religion. For example, in the days of jim crow interracial marriages were illegal in many states. As was pointed out, polygamy is still illegal. Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or other such places.

The obvious solution is that the state should get out of the marriage license business completely as a part of the separation of church and state. If you can find a church to marry you go marry a sheep for all I care. Just be sure you have a pre-nup!

On the other hand if you want to teach my kids that marrying sheep is OK just because you say it is then you've crossed the line of parental discression.

Unfortunately for normal gay couples most people associate being gay with the wierdness and depravity they see in a lot of the "gay parades" that are held. Most folks don't care for that kind of display, gay or straight. The cluck-clucking that you hear when a hetro couple are making out in public is much the same that you hear when straight people look at the leather freak parades.

So it's no wonder that the average person is going to vote against something that has that type of publicity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea of a marriage license seems to be a way that the state meddles in religion.

Uh, no. Way wrong. There's no meddling in religion here by the state. In fact, you stated the reasons the state has to be involved in your previous sentences: Because marriage almost certainly involves joint property, and often involves children, the state has to know that a marriage contract or "common law relationship" existed in the first place. Otherwise, how would non-religious partners have their union recognized in the legal sense?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What does religion really have to do with marriage.

Is there a marriage test?

Do you have to be religious?

Do you have to go to church.

Do gays who marry have to tithe?

What does religion have to do with it?

Are gays only Christian or are they allowed to be Jewish or even Bhuddist? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which of those on this "left" are spewing hate? And how?

Are you serious? Pretty much every post in this thread is all about hating those who think marriage should be between a man and a woman. Every poster who uses the term "homophobe" is spewing hate. Call it what you will, myself I call it hypocrisy.

People on the left are always saying we need to be tolerant of others. Of their lifestyles, their beliefs etc. This is true of course unless they disagree with you. Then they are as derogatory as possible in condemning them for their heretical, nonsensical beliefs.

And occasionally disagreeing can get you fired. http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1387273.html#comments

The debate on this is turning to McCarthyism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why so much name calling?

The debate on this is turning to McCarthyism." What do you mean by that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was also taken back with the hateful responses here to those who disagree with gay marriages including myself. I am a Bhuddist and my opinion has nothing to do with what the Bible says.

Please make it clear many of us are TOLERANT of the gay lifestyles as a personal choice and are willing to treat their life-long partner with respect. But the gay union will not receive a BLESSING from me or many others, which a marriage between a man and woman usually deserves, for it has nothing to benefit the whole humanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In addition, those silly politicians, the SF Mayor Newsom, Dianne Feinstein and others, who were totally bought by the organized force of gays/lesbians and ignorng the rest of residents, were appalling.

Many in California were afraid to even voice any opposing view, for they would be jumped on with a label of a HOMOPHOBIC. Moreover, most big newspapers utterly failed to put any space for any meaningful disscussions on this. They made it out simply as a fight between gay's civil rights vs. Christianity.

Mayor Newsom, Feinstein and other Cal-Dems are again sadly out of touch with the silent majority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Future historians, in an age where the sham that is multiculturalism is long dead, will look back and point to the irony that America elected its first black president the same day a majority of black voters in the most liberal state on the very liberal west coast voted to deny "equal rights" to homosexuals.

And then they will all have a good laugh at the quaint idea that some in America were 'more oppressed' than others or that gay activists went around saying 'Gay is the new black'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems fashionable to dismiss opponents to gay marriage as religious (especially Christian) nuts who are imposing their morality on others, but as far as I know gay marriage is still off the books in communist countries, countries with low numbers of religious people, and well, just about everywhere I know. I don't think it would pass in Japan either, and you can't blame that on the church people.

I'd be interested in knowing how serious devotees of both traditional and so-called "new" religions in Japan would vote (or be persuaded to vote). Anyone know what position Komeito would take if it ever became an issue here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mitt said:

I was also taken back with the hateful responses here to those who disagree with gay marriages including myself.

But how does mitt view those who he disagrees with?

In addition, those silly politicians, the SF Mayor Newsom, Dianne Feinstein and others, who were totally bought by the organized force of gays/lesbians and ignorng the rest of residents, were appalling.

Sounds to me like he is initially saying people who disagree should not be vilified. But then he makes it clear; only when those people agree with him. If he disagrees with someone he can call them "appalling." They can't have a genuine opinion that he does not share they must be "totally bought by the organized force of gays/lesbians[.]"

How many times have we gone done this path. We recognize that people are being physically abused because of their sexual preference. An attempt is made to identify the perpetrators and we label them. They are called homophobes; some actually murder others based on the victims sexual preference. We, the liberal, later identify people who are discriminating with respect to employment, housing, etc. Then we try to tackle more complex issues like the settlement of an estate of a gay partner, visitation in hospitals of a gay partner, etc. During this time we hear over and over that we are trying to grant special privileges. Of course we are not; we are trying to make things equal. We want everyone to get a fair shake. We stood up for black rights. Now we are told that we are filled with hate because we have learned to label some of these people who were in the opposition. First we labeled the abusers. Then we labeled those who stood against fair housing and employment. Like I said earlier we have gone down this path before. Now we are called "filled with hate." Guess what? It is just a new strategy. It is clear from my example that a poster first wants to say we are filled with hate because many here have gone so far as to label his group homophobes. So I say to myself maybe everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is not homophobic. But alas the vile venom spews forth as he describes people who disagree with him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is just a new strategy. It is clear from my example that a poster first wants to say we are filled with hate because many here have gone so far as to label his group homophobes. So I say to myself maybe everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is not homophobic. But alas the vile venom spews forth as he describes people who disagree with him.

I think there is a serious difference here. You want to equate violence with disagreement, and I'm thats not what this is. The majority of people don't support violence against anyone. Regardless of their religion, race etc. There is a difference between violence against homosexuals, and thinking that gay marriage is not a good thing. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Whats interesting is that people on the left preach about how religious people are trying to force their morality on others. But isn't that what you're trying to do here? Force your morality, your notions of whats right and wrong on me? You are the ones who think gay marriage should be allowed. You are the one trying to change the opinion of society. Quite frankly, you are the one trying to shove your morality onto me. You need to recognize this fact, and understand that people aren't going to necessarily agree with you. Particularly when stuff like this happens...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450884,00.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir

I never told you you have to agree with me. I never said you must have sex with a guy. You said you should be free to have your opinion. I never shoved anything on you. This is not about you. Everything is not about you. This is about them. If two people's gay marriage is effecting you, then that was your choice. What if it happens in another state then the one in which you live? Does that effect you? What about on the other side of the earth? You did not simply disagree. I pointed out that you resorted to name calling. You called people who did not agree with you "appalling." You characterized some people who support gay marriage as "totally bought by the organized force of gays/lesbians ." I am quite sure they would claim you mischaracterized them.

While it is true Democrats in several cities wanted to force people to no longer fire a person who was gay it is not the same with gay marriage. Again, no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. They are simply telling you to mind your own business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

molenir,

So you can't name anyone. I didn't think so.

Despite not being religious, my theory is now the "over-population" one for the followers of organized religion who wish to shriek about how homosexuality is against nature. Heh, if that makes me a hate spewer to the fundemantalists, then good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Without creating any child following the law of nature, I don't think gays have any commitment or concern about the future of this planet or the humanity at all. They have opted to just push their rights for their own pleasure and satisfaction for their life time only. The ability and the possibility of creating another human being to carry on our dream and aspiration into the future has been the most fundamental and magical quality in our civiliztion.

I think gays need some basic humility before the law of nature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Living with another man (I really don´t like the word ¨gay¨) for four years now, I am very happy as is my partner and we really don´t care about marriage - what really matters is the legal aspect and the respect we get from our families and friends, I think. As for the religion aspect, we are Christians, we pray everyday and we are blessed with a good life, and we don´t fancy of walking hand in hand through a church - and most of our hetero friends don´t fancy marrying either. Marriage is more than that, in my opinion. I have some friends who are not even sleeping because of what happened in Calif, and despite respecting them and their opinions, I think they are way too neurotic about this. They are what I once read ¨professional gays¨: they can´t be happy with what they already have. They are those who keep provoking discreet men and women who want to live a quiet life with a partner of the same sex, just like those who can´t accept that Anderson Cooper is married to another man, that he is happy and has a good life - just because he doesn´t want to come out. What these professional gays really want is to abandon discretion, and other people to accept that. They want to overflood. I think that´s the reason why californians said no to the referendum. People, gay, bi and the rest should know that even inside the rainbow movement, there are gays who are not happy with this sort of ¨professionalism¨. In my opinion, the tougher this movement gets, more NOs are coming our way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

good luck to you and yours LostinNagoya, you'll have a tough fight sadly

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtt at 07:07 AM JST - 14th November

¨Without creating any child following the law of nature, I don't think gays have any commitment or concern about the future of this planet or the humanity at all. They have opted to just push their rights for their own pleasure and satisfaction for their life time only. The ability and the possibility of creating another human being to carry on our dream and aspiration into the future has been the most fundamental and magical quality in our civiliztion.

I think gays need some basic humility before the law of nature.¨

mtt, you´re wrong about this. There are nice people out there, gays included, who really care and can do something good to our world. Sure, gays can´t bring a child to this world, but that doesn´t mean that they can´t adopt, and bring up one. There are so many children in orphanages dreaming of a family, a house, and many many couples dreaming of giving a child a chance of a good, happy life. Don´t be so incisive about this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm just shocked. Obama is behind "the hate on 8."

The LA Times reports:

"In the days leading up to the election, some Democrats received "robo-calls" on their cellphones containing an excerpt from such a speech.

"Here is Barack Obama in his own words on the definition of marriage," the call began.

Then the voice of Obama speaking to a crowd comes on: "I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."

A narrator then urged a yes vote on Proposition 8. It looks like Obama has a lot of support in California, particularly among black voters:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayblack8-2008nov08,0,1601616.story

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ooooooooh, Obama you upset me, just when i was having a big crush on you. What is wromg with gay marriage? It is lovely. Gay people are so kind and tender and commoted to each other.

Religion shouldn't be involved, it is old fashioned nonsense and horrid!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's Obama supporters vs Al Gayda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33xbmB2O-r0

This is a video of a report which breaks down the voting in California. Blacks voted 70 percent in favor of that state's proposition 8, essentially defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Latinos, America's largest minority group, were the second largest supporters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Target the Mormon church because you know they aren't going to sink to your level and respond to you. I'd like to see people like Whoopi Goldberg protesting the Black churches that overwhelming supported the California decision. Of course she won't...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Target the Mormon church because you know they aren't going to sink to your level and respond to you. I'd like to see people like Whoopi Goldberg protesting the Black churches that overwhelming supported the California decision. Of course she won't..."

Why no protests in front of mosques?

Ah, yes, that would put them on the same side of patriotic Americans..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites