Prop 8, the highly controversial California proposition which will ban same-sex marriage, was passed by voters months ago. Today, lawsuits have failed to overturn it as the California Supreme Court has upheld the proposition.
OF VOTES. I don't care if their black, white, gay, straight, green, blue whatever. The minority of votes should not hold sway over the majority of votes. If the majority of votes want one thing, the minority should not be off saying this or that. Happens every single time people don't get their way. Individuals don't matter, only the overall vote.
Yes, but the 'minority' is the gay population, and the majority is the 'non-gay' population. So in this sense, the non-gay population who want to keep marriage to themselves, pass a law opressing the gay population who want to get married. It's still oppression.
No it does not make it right. But what the vote is, the vote stays. Just because the majority of votes are for it, does not make it right. Besides, that's going beyond not liking them, that's ethnic cleansing.
So you're saying it's not morally right, but we have to respect the law if that's how people voted? Do you know how crazy that sounds?
Maybe it infringes on other peoples views of happiness. Don't forget peoples views of happiness may be true happiness, or not liking people makes them happy.
That's fine though (and also responding to Strop here) - they can not like gays as much as they want; and they can talk about it in public - that's a first amendment right. In self-admission however, you are saying that it impacts gays rights to be happy/get married & violates one of the most important documents ever written in the United States of American. That's a travesty.
You also ignored my argument for a better alternative.
Yes, I did - I didn't think it was worth commenting on because it was so ridiculous. How is it equality to make them use a different label? That's like saying "black people still get to use water fountains in the park, they just have to use the water fountains with 'for blacks' written on them."
Also - your argument that it *is* constitutional now... I think you're making a huge misconception that any law passed into effect is constitutional law. They're not.
Your argument fails, because the population also put in place:
Hitler Kim Jong Il Bush
they had reasons to put in hitler and bush (not so much kim jong)
for hitler he was clean shaven and always followed a strict set of rules, being a war hero and taking advantage of the devastations caused by the Versailles treaty, He was put into power. Anyone would have jumped the gun and done so.
The same is with bush. After the clinton regime putting America into a surplus meant that he had raised taxes to increase government revenue. Therefore when the next candidate comes, who promises huge tax relief many of the people will vote for him.
I don't see how it's being debated though. It's unconstitutional. Therefore it's wrong. There isn't room for oppinion it's just fact.
did you know that the constitution can be amended? Like it has many a time already, giving blacks, and women the right to vote and own property?
So, in your opinion, should we also have a law making it illegal to have sex before marriage?
there is also a law that says you cannot view pornographic materials until you are over the age of 18. I don't think that is enforced too well.
======= Being somewhat of a homophobe myself (due to early church influence), I really can't say this is the right thing to do. Because I think of homosexuals as a minority and we all know how america has treated the minority in the past, Blacks, Asians, Irish.. ect. Watching this kind of thing in modern society really makes me sick, because America is supposed to support the individual freedoms of people in the pursuit of happiness. As long as their pursuit does not entail hindering others to their goals.
I will simply repeat this question that others have asked until someone actually answers it.
What harm, what oppression, or what damage is done to you as a heterosexual if two homosexuals come together in a marriage?
Regardless of the answer, I believe that it is blatantly clear that it is the homosexual community that is harmed much more by this decision than the religious heterosexuals were when gay marriage was allowed.
Regardless of the answer, I believe that it is blatantly clear that it is the homosexual community that is harmed much more by this decision than the religious heterosexuals were when gay marriage was allowed.
One could argue, however, that when heterosexual and homosexual communities aren't regarded as a single 'entity' so to speak, but rather as a group of people, it could be different. The harm done to the few homosexuals would in total not outweigh the minor harm done to heterosexuals, thus making it quite the opposite. And I think there are quite a few people out there who might reason like this.
Now I do feel exactly like you, don't get me wrong! I think people should be free to fill in their personal lives as they see fit - including friends and/or partner(s), and have the rights that go with it as well. If there's someone you want to spend the rest of your life with, you should be able to get married - regardless of the partner's gender.
And I think there are quite a few people out there who might reason like this.
That's the thing though. The people who feel like this obviously aren't homosexial, and really aren't affected by the decision anyway, even if they feel it is wrong. I feel that bull fighting is wrong. Does it directly affect me if it takes place? No.
[quote]And I think there are quite a few people out there who might reason like this.
That's the thing though. The people who feel like this obviously aren't homosexial, and really aren't affected by the decision anyway, even if they feel it is wrong. I feel that bull fighting is wrong. Does it directly affect me if it takes place? No.[/quote] Exactly. I do feel it's man's nature to impose the rules of one to another. To a certain extent, this is not at all bad - anarchy is not really workable, or desirable - but where we should draw a line from a moral standpoint is really hard. One's morals might not be the same as the other, so which one should you choose?
Vox populi is not really a valid argument. All you have to do is consider black's rights or indeed th elegalisation of homosexuality itself in the first place and the vox populi principle goes out the window.
This is not about morality. Disregarding religion (as it should be-separation of the church and state), there are zero logical, valid arguments regarding the prohibition of homosexual marriage. Laws are not based on subjective morals, indeed, often legality does not equate to morality. It is just an agreement between the individual and the state.
That is why when there are referenda regarding the rights of a minority group, the only people who should be able to partake are the minority group itself.
Due to prop 8, it would be perfectly legal for the state of California to create a law preventing blacks from living there. Is that moral? No. Would it be legal? Yes.
Um, indisputible, you mean, but yes, never heard a specific reason to be against. Just post that link every time someone argues against it. Post it on a smiley next time, though.
Who cares? Swishes were never a majority in the US anyway. Plus, the concept of homosexuality is just gross. I'm fine with it. If your straight, you shouldn't even care. Express tour joy (as I am doing) and get on with your life (which I'm sure isn't half as awesome as my own).
Who cares? Swishes were never a majority in the US anyway.
Yeah, and people are starving in Africa too, but who gives a $%&@, it's not like we have to say 'hi' awkwardly to them in the morning on the way to get our espresso latte.
If your straight, you shouldn't even care.
And I'm not handicapped either, but somehow, I think it's important to have accessibility to buildings.
Part of a democracy is voicing political outrage & speaking to your member of parliament/congress and making sure that they are aware of the views of their constituents. I look at it as a civic duty, and responsibility.
It should not matter, what your beliefs are. Wether you're for or against. Denying homosexuals the right to marrying, just because religion says its wrong, is unconstitutional. Because we have the freedom of religion. How would you people like it if normal straight marriage was outlawed, just because there are more gays then straight people. Also, if you don't like gay marriage, then why do you have to force your beliefs unto the rest of society, just don't marry a gay person. I don't even believe in any kind of marriage, but I don't care if someone else marries.
