Thread: Vote yes on Prop 8

Just want to throw this out there: any homosexual couple in the state of California can enter into a domestic partnership, which is exactly the same as marriage in a legal sense, except for the title of course.

I feel the title "marriage" should be reserved for - as it has been throughout history - couples that are biologically capable of reproduction, which is the basis of society.

Now please don't misunderstand me, I firmly believe that no law should prevent homosexuality from existing, nor do I believe that it should be prejudiced against, only that legislation should not be based on undefinable concepts like "love" or "happiness." Hell, even heterosexual marriage (in a legal sense, mind you) isn't based on love and never has been, only on the undeniable, physical reality that a man and a woman can produce citizens to populate and benefit countries.

I'm voting yes on Prop 8 because I feel that heterosexual marriages provide the framework of society and should be clearly defined to ensure societal stability.

Don't call me a bigot, a hater, a gay-basher, or biased, intolerant, or naive because I'm not.

Though please, do respond. I'm interested to hear any counter-arguments to the reasoning I've given. Just be sure to maintain logical consistency, yeah?

I feel the title "marriage" should be reserved for - as it has been throughout history - couples that are biologically capable of reproduction

So by you're logic, if a person cannot reproduce, say a man had a accident or something. Then if he tries to marry someone, then by you're definition he can't because he can't produce offspring. So anyone who can't produce offspring should not have a marriage?

I'm voting yes on Prop 8 because I feel that heterosexual marriages provide the framework of society and should be clearly defined to ensure societal stability.

No they don't. You're typing on this computer now, because a gay person invented the modern computer i.e. Alan Turing. Hence, the framework of modern society i.e. the computer is the result of homosexual. Also, gay people can adopt.

Seriously, the myth of the family is rubbish. Tell the truth, the arguments against gay people are similar to the arguments against Black people, the idear that they have to be treated differently, as in you're case you're making out that gay people can't reproduce(which, is bogus as there are different ways of getting children like adoption or surrograte mothers or if you're a lesbian then goto the sperm bank), which is similar to the argument that Black people are inferior.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Now please don't misunderstand me, I firmly believe that no law should prevent homosexuality from existing, nor do I believe that it should be prejudiced against, only that legislation should not be based on undefinable concepts like "love" or "happiness."

Instead, you propose that it be based on the "undefinable" concept of societal stability.

Anyway, the well-being of the people is just an undefinable term, so shouldn't we all live in an abusive dictatorship? You would love it of course, since then a dictator would tell you what is best for society and you would have no choice but to do it.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So by you're logic, if a person cannot reproduce, say a man had a accident or something. Then if he tries to marry someone, then by you're definition he can't because he can't produce offspring. So anyone who can't produce offspring should not have a marriage?

Infertility strikes only a small percentage of heterosexual couples and is a comparatively unexpected abnormality. As a whole, heterosexual couples are biologically equipped (disregarding abnormalities) to reproduce.

Originally Posted by wendylove

No they don't. You're typing on this computer now, because a gay person invented the modern computer i.e. Alan Turing. Hence, the framework of modern society i.e. the computer is the result of homosexual. Also, gay people can adopt.

The modern computer has been around for what, 50 years? Hardly indicative of the whole of human society up until this point. Also, what society can exist without people? Heterosexual couples make people. Adoption is not making people. That crosses into child-rearing which is a different subject.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Seriously, the myth of the family is rubbish. Tell the truth, the arguments against gay people are similar to the arguments against Black people, the idear that they have to be treated differently, as in you're case you're making out that gay people can't reproduce(which, is bogus as there are different ways of getting children like adoption or surrograte mothers or if you're a lesbian then goto the sperm bank), which is similar to the argument that Black people are inferior.

Myth of the family? I have a family... a whole lot of people do... please explain.

Sexual orientation and race are worlds apart and no connections should be made between them. Modern technology has shown us that people of all races are genetically identical (except for a few genes that determine color,of course) and that no race is inferior to another. This is an objective realization. Homosexuality however, cannot be explained by any objective means and thus falls into the realm of subjective debate (or until geneticists discover a gene that determines sexuality.)

Racists were just plain wrong and were proven so with physical evidence, but neither homosexuals or their dissenters can be proven wrong or right because both sides are based on personal belief.

And again, when gays adopt, they're raising a child... not producing one.

Originally Posted by hungrymanz

Instead, you propose that it be based on the "undefinable" concept of societal stability.

If a society doesn't have a comparatively steady influx of new citizens, it will eventually become less and less prosperous and crumble. That seems like a pretty definite idea.

Originally Posted by hungrymanz

Anyway, the well-being of the people is just an undefinable term, so shouldn't we all live in an abusive dictatorship? You would love it of course, since then a dictator would tell you what is best for society and you would have no choice but to do it.

I wasn't talking about the well-being of the people. I was talking about the survival of society.

And I fail to understand your logic... under dictators, the population and standards of living decline which is hardly good for the people.

So gays are socially unstable? I don't follow that. I understand the man and woman being required for reproduction; but I don't see how gays getting married will change that. There are so many more heterosexual couples I'm sure that letting gays get married won't make our society's population plummet.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Infertility strikes only a small percentage of heterosexual couples and is a comparatively unexpected abnormality. As a whole, heterosexual couples are biologically equipped (disregarding abnormalities) to reproduce.

That's irrelevant. You saying infertility is slightly less common than homosexuality doesn't change the fact that both conditions stop reproduction. You said marriage should only be between "couples that are biologically capable of reproduction." Infertile men are incapable of reproduction thus they should not be allowed to marry.

If you're not going to include the infertile men into the group of people that cannot marry, then you are discriminating.

Edit: To give you the facts from the NYtimes, "An estimated one of every five American couples are infertile and 40 percent of them are unable to have a baby because of a problem with the man's sperm."

1 in every 5? The couple has an even higher chance of being infertile than being gay.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

So gays are socially unstable? I don't follow that. I understand the man and woman being required for reproduction; but I don't see how gays getting married will change that. There are so many more heterosexual couples I'm sure that letting gays get married won't make our society's population plummet.

If the title of marriage is bestowed on couples that cannot bear child, it detracts from the significance of marriages between those who can. If anyone could marry anyone, it would lessen the focus on heterosexual reproduction.

In the Netherlands, the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, the birth rate has fallen almost every year after. Spain also saw declines in birth rates after legalizing same-sex marriage in 2005, even though it had been booming before the 2004-2005 time period when the issue was brought to the political scene.

Granted, it is not guaranteed that heterosexual couples will definitely react the same way in America, but it is a dangerous choice to lessen the meaning of marriage... one that may have long-term consequences.

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

That's irrelevant. The fact that you say infertility is slightly less common than homosexuality doesn't change the fact that both conditions stop reproduction. You said marriage should only be between "couples that are biologically capable of reproduction." Infertile men are incapable of reproduction thus they should not be allowed to marry.

If you're not going to include the infertile men into the group of people that cannot marry, then you are discriminating.

Edit: To give you the facts from the NYtimes, "An estimated one of every five American couples are infertile and 40 percent of them are unable to have a baby because of a problem with the man's sperm."

1 in every 5? The couple has an even higher chance of being infertile than being gay.

See I'm not comparing the probability of being homosexual and being infertile against each other, I'm comparing the probability of bearing children in hetero and homosexual relationships.

In a heterosexual couple, the probability of producing a child is four out of five, according to your data.

In a homosexual couple, the probability of producing a child is zero out of five.

Also, infertility is a malfunction in heterosexual relationships, while homosexuality is obviously intended in homosexual realtionships. :3 So the infertility is "unintentional" it het-couples and "intentional" in hom-couples.

Originally Posted by bcomp

In the Netherlands, the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, the birth rate has fallen almost every year after. Spain also saw declines in birth rates after legalizing same-sex marriage in 2005, even though it had been booming before the 2004-2005 time period when the issue was brought to the political scene.

Awesome. So by allowing gay marriage, we can support personal freedom, as well as reducing our (exploding) population at the same time. Fucking win for sustainability and the environment.

Wasn't judeochristian values warped into saying inter racial relations were bad too?


The endless ignorance of people makes me laugh. I think the guy is a faggot anyway crying on camera at the end.

This video is pointless anyway...like seriously pointless. It is like saying "it will effect your children." But the only people who would care about what this video has to say are people who are ALREADY going to vote to "protect marriage."

Which is ridiculous anyway, marriage has NOTHING to do with religion anyway and to pretend that it does is to lie. It was around before christianity tried to dig its hands into it, in pagan forms as well, and if you're going to vote to "protect marriage" from gay people you should be voting to "protect" it from atheists and people who aren't of your religion as well.

I mean seriously, I'm confused as to why it even requires a vote.


For those of you unaware there is also the amendment two thing going on.

Here is another horrible video...I'm assuming I haven't watched it.



You know what pisses me off? I already have to deal with the fact that I can never have the life I wanted. I can never find a girl that I can say I actually love and settle down with and have children and grow old and die. I'm FORCED into this alternative lifestyle. I didn't choose to not like women, and I didn't choose to like men. Why should I be forced to not even have a little bit of what I wanted? What is so bad about wanting to get married, and adopt a child while having joint custody with my husband?

Roar. http://www.yes2marriage.org/learn-mo...rriage-videos/ More evil vids.

In the Netherlands, the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, the birth rate has fallen almost every year after. Spain also saw declines in birth rates after legalizing same-sex marriage in 2005, even though it had been booming before the 2004-2005 time period when the issue was brought to the political scene.

You're saying the only factor that effects the birth rate of a country is same sex marriages?

Seriously, don't you see how the above is crap. Because according to wikipedia, it was birth control that decline their population, not making same sex marriages legal.

Homophobia is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by bcomp

See I'm not comparing the probability of being homosexual and being infertile against each other, I'm comparing the probability of bearing children in hetero and homosexual relationships.

In a heterosexual couple, the probability of producing a child is four out of five, according to your data.

In a homosexual couple, the probability of producing a child is zero out of five.

Also, infertility is a malfunction in heterosexual relationships, while homosexuality is obviously intended in homosexual realtionships. :3 So the infertility is "unintentional" it het-couples and "intentional" in hom-couples.

Being gay is mostly geneticly related. If a man is gay enough to not be able to get an erection around a woman, then he is unable to reproduce even if he tried, thus the medical definition of infertile "the inability to conceive and have offspring" fits the gay man.

So it looks like you agree that gay people should be able to get married because they are infertile.

Originally Posted by Jorge

Nature intended man with woman, it's everywhere all animlas are man on women. You can't naturally create another human with man on man or women on women, you have to artificial create one and that's only with women.

Again, nature doesn't intend anything.

Natural selection allows for variation, and homosexual behavior has existed for a long time, both in mankind and other animals.

No I don't need to send my kids anywhere I can just vote.

yes, there will still be gays' and lesbians, but if they were to be allowed to marry, then I believe there will be more gays and lesbians, and it will become like it's no big deal. I don't want that. I don't even have kids yet, but my vote will be count. =)

Gay people will still live together, so your vote just serves to prove your own bigotry and promote xenophobia.

No I don't have proof, but it's obvious, if nature intended or 'natural select' then man on man would make humans and women on women will creat humans, but that's not the case. It's only Man and Women. Period.

Fail, big fail.

It's only obvious if there's proof. If you don't have any proof, the only thing that's obvious is your lack of critical thinking.

You're a self proclaimed "player" right? If you don't have kids yet I can only assume you use condoms or some other form of contraception. But why?

According to you, homosexual relations are wrong because they don't allow for reproduction, which is the point of sex. So by using contraception you're also doing wrong.

Either stop using any kind of contraception or accept homosexual behavior. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite.

I'm done posting here. I've made my point, some of you don't like it and alright that's great, you got something to type about now.

I'm out.

"LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALA", right?



#edit#

Didn't notice there was already a second page in the thread, what I posted was probably already said.


About the homosexual marriages diminishing the population thing...

So gays can't have a kids, is that really a problem? No. The fact they can't bear children just means more chances of orphans getting adopted.

Why give birth to a new kid when there's countless already in existence without a home?

Originally Posted by Sandform

I already have to deal with the fact that I can never have the life I wanted. I can never find a girl that I can say I actually love and settle down with and have children and grow old and die. I'm FORCED into this alternative lifestyle. I didn't choose to not like women, and I didn't choose to like men. Why should I be forced to not even have a little bit of what I wanted? What is so bad about wanting to get married, and adopt a child while having joint custody with my husband?

I wish you weren't just some avatar on a forum. I would invite you and your hubby to go out with me and mine to a gay bar for some drinks! (drag show is on sundays, let me know )

Jorge, You are just a homophobe who tries to disguise yourself with rationality. Get a life.

Bcomp, thankyou for expressing your views in a kind manner even though you know you are outnumbered. But I must say that I disagree with you ridiculously.

You quoted some statistics about the fall of birth rates after the legalization of gay marriage. Did this harm the country? In our world of welfare babies and teenage pregnancy, is this really an issue? I mean... overpopulation? We are not China. Doesn't this also show that many people who prefer the same gender are actually not living happy fulfilled lives because the straight life style is being pushed on them? Which brings the question, do you believe it's a choice?

The amount of unparented children in this country is astounding. When the reproductive couples copulate and don't want their children, where do they go? Possibly the married gay couples can make up for this travesty. We cannot reproduce, so we can take in these children who have no families, no mom or dad, and make them part of something. I find it hard to believe that the amount of gay marriages will outnumber the amount of children in orphanages.

You talk about the word marriage being a traditional value and part of our history that has stemmed from a long time ago. Putting the fact aside that it was invented by the pagans, isn't tradition made to be destroyed? People change with the moral zeitgeist of our time. It was tradition to own slaves, it was tradition to stone whores. This changes over time. Gay marriage is nothing but a new issue of our time. It is not destructive or impeding on anyone. It is all about acceptance of a different lifestyle of two adults.

/maturity

Jorge, fuck you.

Originally Posted by Jorge

You guys are really getting mad? I thought this is a discussion.

Nature intended man with woman, it's everywhere all animlas are man on women. You can't naturally create another human with man on man or women on women, you have to artificial create one and that's only with women.

No I don't need to send my kids anywhere I can just vote.

yes, there will still be gays' and lesbians, but if they were to be allowed to marry, then I believe there will be more gays and lesbians, and it will become like it's no big deal. I don't want that. I don't even have kids yet, but my vote will be count. =)


No I don't have proof, but it's obvious, if nature intended or 'natural select' then man on man would make humans and women on women will creat humans, but that's not the case. It's only Man and Women. Period.


I'm done posting here. I've made my point, some of you don't like it and alright that's great, you got something to type about now.

I'm out.

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."
—Petter Bøckman*

Your single point is invalid.
Your Christian beliefs were not inherent from birth, and not until you were rigorously spoon-fed them.
That being, they are not natural in your sense. Then again, your sense is completely illogical.

I have set up a macro to PM you with a reminder to respond to this thread each time I log-on. It will be turned off once you do, otherwise you'll have to put me on ignore with all the other fags and dykes.


*Citation.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Fail, big fail.

It's only obvious if there's proof. If you don't have any proof, the only thing that's obvious is your lack of critical thinking.

You're a self proclaimed "player" right? If you don't have kids yet I can only assume you use condoms or some other form of contraception. But why?

According to you, homosexual relations are wrong because they don't allow for reproduction, which is the point of sex. So by using contraception you're also doing wrong.

Either stop using any kind of contraception or accept homosexual behavior. Otherwise, you're just another hypocrite.

You forgot to mention that natural selection has nothing to do with what we /should/ do. Natural selection is only how we got here. It has no saying on /proper/ morality or /proper/ social actions.

Social practices and their validity are a type of natural selection in their own right for human beings who are not run on simplistic stimuli response protocol. In essence It makes no sense to say something is wrong or bad simply because it doesn't conform to your (arbitrary) beliefs.

The best response to those who try to hide their discontent towards homosexuals via the "natural selection" argument is to say 1. you have a FAILED understanding of natural selection. It may very well be that species who have a genetic coding to allow for homosexual offspring can cause the species to be capable of surviving better than others. or 2. the best case if the person you are arguing against is not a complete moron, is to say that social darwinism, a concept much like the one they are using, did the same thing by twisting the concept of natural selection into something that doesn't work that way. By using this concept, Hitler was able to justify, in his warped mind, the holocaust. Which by the way did hold the belief that homosexuals were inferior and tried to kill them.

Originally Posted by Sandform

You forgot to mention that natural selection has nothing to do with what we /should/ do. Natural selection is only how we got here. It has no saying on /proper/ morality or /proper/ social actions.

Yes that's true.

I was just making the point that what many people consider normal and acceptable goes in fact against natural selection and what they think of as "natural".

I don't even see why the state can control people's relationships. If you're voting no on proposition 8, does it not hurt you at all that you are taking away a little freedom from a strangers' life? Besides, I doubt this will last long, with the state becoming less of a theocracy and more of a democracy.
i.e. the state isn't supposed to care what you believe in if it contradicts the next person. if there were a place were only christians or maybe judaists or buddhists or confuscianists etc. then you can rule as a theocracy. otherwise, don't even go there!

Originally Posted by marcc

I don't even see why the state can control people's relationships. If you're voting no on proposition 8, does it not hurt you at all that you are taking away a little freedom from a strangers' life? Besides, I doubt this will last long, with the state becoming less of a theocracy and more of a democracy.
i.e. the state isn't supposed to care what you believe in if it contradicts the next person. if there were a place were only christians or maybe judaists or buddhists or confuscianists etc. then you can rule as a theocracy. otherwise, don't even go there!

Yes, religion is meant to have no place in politics, but it can't be helped. I think when voting it is very appropriate to ask that you check your religion at the door...but for a person who is religious they will disagree.

If I could vote, I would vote no. My reasons are pretty much what everyone has said so far. Also, when two people who love each other so much, shouldn't they have the right for a marriage? Marriage is not for those who can reproduce. It is for those who have a bond of great love. If you think about it, when you love someone so dearly, you want them to know how much you care, that a ceremony will bond the two together. Also, I have family members who are gay, and I believe they should have the right as well as anyone else. I think that video is flawed. If schools were going to teach students about marriage, they wouldn't be oh so dumb as to not have to give out some kind of form of parental permission. The fact that the issue is mentioned now, the schools will probably ask the parents before teaching students this. Though, I was never taught anything about marriage when I was little. Maybe some schools do, but the ones that I have been to have not.

Originally Posted by Serenity Dragon

Though, I was never taught anything about marriage when I was little. Maybe some schools do, but the ones that I have been to have not.

Well it is really just silly.

The point of teaching kids about homosexuality in class is because some kids will inevitable have 2 parents of the same gender. This is meant to help keep kids from making fun of those kids who have such parents.

But it isn't like a big deal. What is wrong with a prince and a prince falling in love? Why does it always have to be cinderella? Why not two princesses? Who says fairy tales are meant to be cookie cut?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Well it is really just silly.

The point of teaching kids about homosexuality in class is because some kids will inevitable have 2 parents of the same gender. This is meant to help keep kids from making fun of those kids who have such parents.

But it isn't like a big deal. What is wrong with a prince and a prince falling in love? Why does it always have to be cinderella? Why not two princesses? Who says fairy tales are meant to be cookie cut?

Brokeback Mountain, great movie.

RIP Heath

I know exactly how others may reply to this. I heard this too many times. Though, they are right in some extent. The reason why teaching children at a young age may not be a good idea, is that it could make them confused, and they will probably not understand it that well. That is what they are fearing.

They do not want their child to become confused about gays. In my opinion, it should be taught at an age where they would have a better understanding of it. Children might take it wrong, or start thinking they're gay, bi, or straight. They'd try their best to figure it out, but they are so young, and won't understand. Since there will be religious families floating around, it would be better for the child to have a background of their family history, and then see the views of the world. By then, It would be their choice to whether or not accept it.

I'd say when they are around junior high would be best. Maybe start mentioning it in late elementary school, and later have it be deeper in junior high. It is hard for parents to help a child understand what it means at such a young age. They are innocent, and so young, they just will not understand. Course when hormones start kicking in, I think it'll help the teen to figure out what they are.

I agree wait until the hormones kick in and let them figure it out for themselves.

But we need to stop beating the gays up and all that other bigotry nonsense, and right now there's a stigma against them. Regular sex education should come first, but perhaps included would simply be a mere explanation about the different ways you can "feel" about someone so no one thinks they're weird or different.

My other idea is have all gays register with the government and wear tracking earrings, on their right ear of course.

Originally Posted by queeniediva

Has anyone noticed how the wife in this video doesn' talk...she just sits there and stares at her husband while he talks LOL...does she not have an opinion? LOL

She thinks what Jay-zuz thinks.