Why Gay Marriage is Illegal by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why Gay Marriage is Illegal

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 8, 2010 07:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 558
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, August 8, 2010 6:33 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.
html?hpt=C2

Hello,

I saw this informative editorial on CNN today. I sometimes had trouble understanding why California voters chose to make gay marriage illegal. This article explains it thoroughly. It outlines, step by step, the reasoning used. I don't know how this understanding didn't come to me before. It's so familiar.

________________________________________________

From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.
html?hpt=C2

"The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples."

From: http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/race06.html

"it became clear to me in my contacts with other races that the other races did not think or act the same as White people. There was a definite difference between us and I later learned that these differences are caused by biological differences."

From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.
html?hpt=C2

"Advocates of making same-sex marriage a legally recognized right claim that this will have no impact on traditional marriage -- that it can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. On the contrary, it will have profound impacts. It will create a conflict for people of faith (and nonreligious people as well) who fervently believe in traditional man-woman marriage and the law.

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. The Scriptures say in Genesis 2:24 that a man is to leave his family and cleave to his wife."

From: http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html

"the judge said: Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix"

From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.
html?hpt=C2

"The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state's black voters, have just had their core civil right -- the right to vote -- stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state's people."

From: http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html

"Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the Court’s decision: “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed upon by the State.”

From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.
html?hpt=C2

__________________________________________________

Yes, the arguments, explanations, and complaints are so familiar, that even the editorial writer recognizes the similarity to the past.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.
html?hpt=C2

"if same-sex marriage becomes legally recognized across the country, our kids will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that those who oppose it are akin to the racists of history who opposed interracial marriage and supported slavery."

**************************************

And finally, the editorial thoughtfully contradicts itself in the space of two breaths.

"In 2003, Adoption.com was sued by two California homosexual men, who claimed illegal discrimination because the agency refused to serve homosexual couples. The agency lost the lawsuit and no longer serves adoptive parents in California."

AND

"if the American family loses the presence of the birth dad in the home, there will be huge consequences to the growth and stability of the next generation of children in that family."

*************************************

The editorial writer can not even decide whether adoption is a good thing or not. He laments the loss of adoption.com and then goes on to say that the birth dad is essential to the stability of children, thus revealing adoption to be as harmful as homosexual marriage.

*************************************

Now I understand fully why Gay Marriage is Illegal.

I just never thought the face of discrimination would look like this:

This just goes to show my own racial bias. I forgot that all men and women, of every race and creed, are equal in their capacity for bias and hatred.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 7:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Very interesting. I saw so many statements and (what I saw as) rationalizations that seemed to me flawed that it angered me. The illogic of some of the of the arguments left me shaking my head.

For one thing, he says

Quote:
If gay marriage is allowed, the nation will soon begin to experience an increased degradation of the nuclear family.

I find that a gross fallacy. First, because the nuclear family has undergone so many changes in the past 50 years or so that it hardly can be called "nuclear" anymore. How many people have multiple marriages/divorced, both parents work and the child is mostly raised by a hired person, divorces cause single-parent families, resistance to abortion having caused even more children who need adoption?

The nuclear family still exists, but it's not what it was, and I don't even know if it's the majority anymore. Gay marriage wouldn’t change that...after all, homosexuals wouldn’t be with others of the opposite sex, whether they could marry or not, so that would have no impact on the number of heterosexual marriages. Homosexuals being married would allow adoption of children needing SOMEONE to love and protect them, which is better than nothing at all.

Secondly, he talks about the influence of fathers in a child's growth. That's also a fallacy, for all the same above reasons. It shouldn't even be necessary to remark on the huge number of single parents there are out there, especially in poorer communities where abortion is less available and husbands just take off and leave the wife to raise the children. To say homosexual marriage would INCREASE this is absurd, to me. If homosexual couples could adopt, again, children who need a home would get one.

I know studies show that monogamy is greater in heterosexual couples than in homosexual couples. I question these surveys. My reason is that adultery is something heterosexual males would be less inclined to admit to, whereas the freer society of homosexuality would lead to greater honesty in that respect; adultery among heterosexuals is condemned by society, while homosexual monogamy gets no attention at all. Marriage gives a couple more feeling of commitment, so we can’t know how monogamy would work out if homosexuals were allowed to marry unless they ARE allowed that right.

When you look at the statistics that 50% of married couples divorce, it doesn’t say much for heterosexuals having the exclusivity to marriage, to me. That says quite clearly that AT LEAST 50% of heterosexual couples aren’t monogamous, officially, and we can’t know how many others have had affairs of some duration or another and yet stay together “for the sake of the children” or for financial reasons, etc. What people will say on a survey doesn’t necessarily reflect the truth. How many Nielsen ratings show a particular show to be of high ratings, while in actuality people SAY they watch something more erudite but actually WATCH trash?

Quote:
...it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples

If you believe that people are naturally homosexual, not that it is a “lifestyle choice”, then biology doesn’t discriminate, SOCIETY does.

The argument for procreation brings up an interesting subject. How can we know if homosexuality might not be part of nature’s way of decreasing procreation, lowering the population as it were? If some portion of society is unable to have children, fewer children will result. If that same portion of society WANTS children, then children who would otherwise have no family get one. Procreation isn’t necessary as it was earlier in history; in fact to a degree it is deleterious to society’s survival.

We’ve been through the “biological differences” between races at length. I don’t think they exist for the most part—certainly there’s some biology inherent, in my belief, between people born in an extremely cold climate and those born in a hot one, etc., but differences of the kind some people propound are, in my opinion, differences caused by culture and society, and have nothing to do with biology.

Quote:
It will create a conflict for people of faith (and nonreligious people as well) who fervently believe in traditional man-woman marriage and the law

In which case, it created GREAT conflict for people who believed Black people were biologically inferior...in some cases believing they are biologically “filthy”, “animals”, etc. We’re getting over that...slowly. The argument is a fallacy.

OF COURSE the bible preaches heterosexuality. Again; it was decided by a bunch of males which sections would be put in the bible and which would not; marriage is something the clergy defends jealously (partly for its control of women); continuity is something the church insists on (note the overwhelming lack of change for decades—centuries?—in the face of society’s changes). All these things represent the church’s power over the people. Yet they practice it behind the scenes while speaking of it as being condemnable, so who are they to be listened to?

As to right to vote here in California, that is totally false. I SAW what happened around Prop. 8; I saw the manipulation, the propaganda indoctrination that went on then...LARGELY AIMED AT HISPANIC AND BLACK VOTERS...BY the church (specifically LDS); it did not reflect the free will of the voters. The problem was that those of us who felt gay marriage was a right underestimated the power of that propaganda, thinking (foolishly) that few people would be swayed by such obvious fallacies. Homosexual marriage was categorized in ways that bore no resemblance to the truth, demonized, and the prejudice against homosexuals was inflamed. It was a shock to see how effective the manipulation was among Black and Hispanic voters, given we believed they should relate to the unfairness, because of prior strictures on interracial marriage.

Take all that away, nonetheless, and the voters of many states were in vast majority against interracial marriages...so where’s the validity of the argument?

Finally, yes, it IS a civil right, and if we’re “all created equal”, it should have been a right a long time ago!

Thank you Anthony, for showing the issue clearly and pointing out the hypocrisy of gay marriage opponents.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE