Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

[Maxintosh]

Thats a powerful statement you quoted Maxintosh.

Yes, I agree FreakyMac. It puts it all into the correct perspective

[mp3228]

I would never vote yes, for any group of thugs that would attack an elderly woman out of primative rage. I didn't know that the KKK was in California. Why should I respect someone's ideas when they won't respect my freedom of speech? They can go strait to hell.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

 

Until you learn to respect others ideas, then no one will respect your ideas. I, for one, am glad they lost. With that kind of behavior, it was owed to them to lose. If you hate freedom of speech, freedom of press, and our laws, then get out, go to Canada, and don't come back.

[Descalzo]

Yep, sounds bigoted to me. Business as usual for fundies

Do you realize that fundies are pro-polygamy in some religions?

 

Do you want polygamy to be re-legalized in the US?

[Generic George]

Do you realize that fundies are pro-polygamy in some religions?

 

Do you want polygamy to be re-legalized in the US?

 

I actually don't have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. It's difficult enough trying to make things work with just two people. If you can make it work with more, well my hat's off to you.

 

I mean it's hardly illegal to be involved with multiple partners. Why should it be illegal to be married to more than one? Besides with divorce and remarriage, we effectively have polygamy in this country, just not at the same time.

 

Forcing underaged girls into arranged marrage is wrong, but that's sufficiently covered under other laws.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer on how {censored} marriage damages heterosexual marriage.

[FreakyMac]

I do not get that, how {censored} Marriages damages Heterosexual marriages. The United States is too old fashion. Still using the U.S Customary System for measurement, {censored} Marriage is outlawed, Racism is still here but anyway, I agree with Generic George.

[Descalzo]

I'm still waiting for an answer on how {censored} marriage damages heterosexual marriage.

Well, here's something:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

 

Also, it's refreshing to see someone who is at least willing to admit that if you're going to open it up you might as well open it up all the way.

[Maxintosh]

Well, here's something

Gee it's a religious site. No big surprise what their agenda is

 

 

 

 

I would never vote yes, for any group of thugs that would attack an elderly woman out of primative rage.

First of all they didn't look like 'thugs' They were simply concerned and passionate about what they believe in, and there's nothing wrong with that. She was asking for it! Secondly, she knew well ahead of time that she would be antagonizing all of the people there with her cross being pushed in their face. They didn't attack her, they took her cross away from her and threw it on the ground. Look, if someone tries to dismantle a beehive without taking the proper precautions, then they deserve to get stung. Likewise for this woman. I hope you're not religious, because then you'd be a hypocrite bearing false witness against your neighbor

 

Interesting how none of the fundies are explaining how {censored} marriage damages heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't!

[brainbone]

Well, here's something:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

 

And here's something else:

http://watersofmormon.org/archive/2008/05/...y-marriage.aspx

 

And to pick the frc.org "arguments" apart point by point:

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

 

Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. ....

 

This is an argument against IVF and surrogate mothers, not same sex marriage. Hetrosexual couple use IVF and surrogate mothers more often than Homosexual. Cross this off the list.

 

2. Children need fathers.

 

If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be {censored} couples.

 

{censored} couples can still have children without being married. They just need a suitable source of sperm. This is not an argument against {censored} marriage, but rather an argument against lesbians having the right to bear children. Cross it off the list.

 

3. Children need mothers.

 

Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized.

 

Same as the argument above. This is against {censored} men having the right to raise children. Cross it off the list.

 

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

 

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.

 

Lack of evidence doesn't make an argument. Cross it off the list.

 

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

 

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

 

There is zero evidence to back this up. It is based on fear with no research. Cross it off the list.

 

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

 

One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.

 

Again, there is no evidence to back this up. It is based on fear with no research. Cross it off the list.

 

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

 

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.

 

Again, there is no evidence to back this up. It is based on fear with no research. Further, the fear of the impact on what same sex marriage may have on the children produced by same sex marriage speaks to the contrary. First, they fear that same sex marriage will produce messed up children, then they fear that same sex marriage won't produce enough children. Ridiculous. Cross it off the list.

 

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

 

The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children.

 

This is not an argument against same-sex marriage, but rather an argument for social support of marriage. Cross it off the list.

 

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

 

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage.

 

This is not an argument against {censored} marriage, but rather a longing for the time when a woman would "know her role". This is an argument against equal right for women, not {censored} marriage. Cross it off the list.

 

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

 

Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.

 

Again, not an argument against {censored} marriage. Ignored {censored} couples, citing no studies of married {censored} men with children. Baseless fear with no real argument. Cross it off the list.

 

So, I ask again:

What good comes from "preserving the definition of marriage"?

[Generic George]

Well, here's something:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

 

That's a pretty pathetic list. Half of them are how {censored} make bad parents, which even if you accept that, it has nothing to do with hurting heterosexual marriage. Most of the rest consists of basically "It's different from what we think marriage should be".

 

The only one that even vaguely claims that there's some way it hurts heterosexual marriage, is really a howler.

 

It claims it will reduce expectations of marital fidelity! Yeah, that's really down to {censored} marriage and has nothing to do with society at large. It's not like homosexuals are ever faithful to each other or don't get jealous or hurt if their partner is playing around with someone else.

 

You're going to have to do better than that. I've seen stronger arguments in favor of creationism.

 

Also, it's refreshing to see someone who is at least willing to admit that if you're going to open it up you might as well open it up all the way.

 

Basically I am libertarian with regards to private lives. Unless you are hurting someone else (who doesn't enjoy that sort of thing) I don't really regard what you choose to do as anyone else's business. Nor do I see why people should be denied rights based on essentially trivial differences.

[LogicalUser]

"Family Research Council: Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom"

 

i notice their faith comes first, and their freedom is merely an afterthought

[Descalzo]

That's a pretty pathetic list. Half of them are how {censored} make bad parents, which even if you accept that, it has nothing to do with hurting heterosexual marriage. Most of the rest consists of basically "It's different from what we think marriage should be".

 

The only one that even vaguely claims that there's some way it hurts heterosexual marriage, is really a howler.

 

It claims it will reduce expectations of marital fidelity! Yeah, that's really down to {censored} marriage and has nothing to do with society at large. It's not like homosexuals are ever faithful to each other or don't get jealous or hurt if their partner is playing around with someone else.

 

No. You asked me to tell you the harm of homosexual marriage. I did. A weakening of same-sex marriage is a harm to same-sex marriage. You obviously don't think it's enough. That's fine.

 

"Family Research Council: Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom"

 

i notice their faith comes first, and their freedom is merely an afterthought

 

I also noticed they are in alphabetical order. If you have some issue with their findings then speak it, like Generic George.

[brainbone]

You asked me to tell you the harm of homosexual marriage.

 

Yes he did. As did I. However, the link you provided only highlighted unsubstantiated fears of what homosexual marriage may do. I gave a point by point rebuttal. You haven't been able to respond to that.

 

A weakening of same-sex marriage is a harm to same-sex marriage.

 

Yes. I agree. So, you should not weaken same-sex marriage.

[Generic George]

No. You asked me to tell you the harm of homosexual marriage. I did. A weakening of same-sex marriage is a harm to same-sex marriage. You obviously don't think it's enough. That's fine.

 

Actually I asked you to tell me how homosexual marriage hurt heterosexual marriage. Since the claim by you and many other is that somehow it "hurts" the institution of marriage.

 

Even if homosexual couples are bad parents, it does nothing to hurt heterosexual marriage and whether or not homosexuals make good/bad parents is a topic for another thread. I certain that it's far more down to how good people the parents are, than their sexual orientation.

 

Likewise homosexual marriage being different doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage in anyway. If you're married it's highly unlikely that your relationship with your wife is exactly the same as nearly anyone elses. Nobody is either asking or suggesting that you should model your marriages on how homosexual marriages are structured.

 

As far as it "weakening the expectation of sexual fidelity" well I hate to break it to you, but fidelity has never been anything like a hard and fast law. There's a reason why prostitution is referred to as "the oldest profession", the bible has lots of examples of infidelity and if there ever was anything resembling one, it was killed off by the sexual revolution and the '70s.

 

In fact it's probably far more arguable that permitting homosexual marriage would strengthen the expectation of sexual fidelity. Since the whole point of marriage at the moment, is that you are making a commitment to a specific person.

[Descalzo]

The link didn't merely highlight unsubstantiated fears.

 

 

Well 1, 2, 3, and 4 are substantiated. 5 is about how there is not enough substantial evidence. 6 and 7 are substantiated. 8, 9, and 10 are substantiated. If by substantiated you mean that there are studies that back this up, then they're substantiated.

 

 

I accept that you may not think this is cause for alarm, or that you may not think that the government's job has anything to do with marriage.

 

I understand that 'weakening of expectation of sexual fidelity' is a long-standing issue. Why would we want to allow it to weaken further? Do you disagree that it is a problem?

[brainbone]

If by substantiated you mean that there are studies that back this up, then they're substantiated.

 

By unsubstantiated, I mean exactly what I said in my responses. There is either not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or, not enough evidence to draw a conclusion that the fear is related to {censored} marriage.

 

Take #2 "Children need fathers", for example.

 

The fear is that {censored} marriage will produce more {censored} families having children without fathers than there is today.

 

First, there is no evidence that this would happen. Second, there is no evidence that the children from monogamous {censored} families are any less well adjusted than those that are not. The evidence cited comes from single mother families -- a different dynamic altogether than a {censored} couple. The fear has no factual bases. It uses studies from unrelated situations and quotes from others with the same baseless fear as evidence. Third, it uses a "qualification as parents" as a qualification for marriage. If this were the case, there are many more heterosexual couples that shouldn't be married as well, but it is perfectly legal for these hetrosexual "bad parents" to be married -- and as a parent, I run into countless numbers of them every day.

 

The same basic issues are systemic through all ten "reasons" given.

 

So no, they are not "backed up". They are not even well thought trough.

[Descalzo]

By unsubstantiated, I mean exactly what I said in my responses. There is either not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or, not enough evidence to draw a conclusion that the fear is related to {censored} marriage.

 

Take #2 "Children need fathers", for example.

 

The fear is that {censored} marriage will produce more {censored} families having children without fathers than there is today.

First, there is no evidence that this would happen. Second, there is no evidence that the children from monogamous {censored} families are any less well adjusted than those that are not. The evidence cited comes from single mother families -- a different dynamic altogether than a {censored} couple. The fear has no factual bases. It uses studies from unrelated situations and quotes from others with the same baseless fear as evidence. Third, it uses a "qualification as parents" as a qualification for marriage. If this were the case, there are many more heterosexual couples that shouldn't be married as well, but it is perfectly legal for these hetrosexual "bad parents" to be married -- and as a parent, I run into countless numbers of them every day.

 

The same basic issues are systemic through all ten "reasons" given.

 

So no, they are not "backed up". They are not even well thought trough.

 

Same-sex couples would by definition be either fatherless or motherless. It would be impossible to remedy the situation without redefining the relationship as something other than same-sex. Items #4 and 5 admit all that you say further.

 

Item 1 is well substantiated. Children do, in fact, yearn for biological parents. Cause for fear: a marriage relationship which by definition denies the child at least one biological parent would produce more children than relationships with both biological parents. Before we get into adoption or single-parent homes, I understand that sometimes it's impossible. I agree that 2 caring parents are better than one. The fear is that we are going to further a relationship that makes this undesirable situation (not knowing a biological parent) more prevalent.

 

Item 2 and 3 are well substantiated. Children do, in fact, thrive when a father is present. There is no denying this. See above, where I said that you couldn't have both parents unless you have both parents!

 

Item 4 is well substantiated. He quoted an expert witness stating that evidence on same-sex relationships is not well substantiated. So it's well substantiated that the evidence for same-sex parenting is not well substantiated. I don't know that there's a harm here, but maybe there's one that we're hitching our cart to a horse that hasn't been tested before.

 

Item 5 admits that it's not well-substantiated. The harm here is that, obviously, people are afraid that having more gender disorders is a bad thing.

 

Item 6 is well-substantiated, or at least admits that it may not be as well-substantiated. It uses more qualifiers than others. Anyway, I already talked about this in one of my previous posts.

 

Item 7 is well-substantiated. How much substantiation do we need for the idea that same-sex couples cannot procreate? The creation of a new type of family unit in which procreation is impossible would further isolate marriage from procreation. I would think the harm here is obvious. Procreation is one of the main reasons for having a family.

 

Item 8 is not really well-substantiated. It presents an argument about what will probably happen instead of what studies have shown.

 

Item 9 seems to be a combination of 2 and 3.

 

Item 10 is well-substantiated. The harm here is that men will make poorer fathers without a woman to 'domesticate' them.

 

I couldn't find the part where it said "qualification as parents" (quotes yours). I can only assume that you meant the part in #3 where it said that mothers are uniquely able to counsel their daughters through puberty. I admit that single hetero fathers would have this same trouble, but then a single hetero father isn't married. Also, let me add that a parent may become more qualified over time. A father can never become as qualified at mothering as a well-qualified mother, no matter how loving the father.

 

Let me come right out and say that I wasn't as careful about putting qualifiers on my statements as I should have been. For example, when I say things like "...same-sex men will make poorer fathers..." I fully understand that there will be some same-sex couples that make better parents than some traditional parents. These are meant to be general statements.

 

The harm is apparent.

 

You may not think that it is sufficient.

[Maxintosh]

If by substantiated you mean that there are studies that back this up, then they're substantiated.

That's BS! Educated people aren't that gullible. The entire article was nothing more than one homophobics biased opinions.

[brainbone]

Same-sex couples would by definition be either fatherless or motherless. It would be impossible to remedy the situation without redefining the relationship as something other than same-sex. Items #4 and 5 admit all that you say further.

 

All studies that say children suffer from not having a father or mother come from SINGLE PARENT families.

 

There is not enough data to conclude that two parent, same sex families have the same or similar problems to single parent families. No conclusion can be drawn here.

 

Item 1 is well substantiated. Children do, in fact, yearn for biological parents. Cause for fear: a marriage relationship which by definition denies the child at least one biological parent would produce more children than relationships with both biological parents. Before we get into adoption or single-parent homes, I understand that sometimes it's impossible. I agree that 2 caring parents are better than one. The fear is that we are going to further a relationship that makes this undesirable situation (not knowing a biological parent) more prevalent.

 

There is no evidence that {censored} marriage would increase or decrease this situation. {censored} couples adopt now and have children via surrogates now, even when not married. This is an argument for/against surrogates and adoption, not marraige.

 

Item 2 and 3 are well substantiated. Children do, in fact, thrive when a father is present. There is no denying this. See above, where I said that you couldn't have both parents unless you have both parents!

 

Again, based of data from SINGLE PARENT families. You cannot transpose those result to two parent, same sex families.

 

Item 4 is well substantiated. He quoted an expert witness stating that evidence on same-sex relationships is not well substantiated. So it's well substantiated that the evidence for same-sex parenting is not well substantiated. I don't know that there's a harm here, but maybe there's one that we're hitching our cart to a horse that hasn't been tested before.

 

All this does is re-affirm the fact that there is not enough data from same-sex families to draw any conclusions, positive or negative.

 

Item 5 admits that it's not well-substantiated. The harm here is that, obviously, people are afraid that having more gender disorders is a bad thing.

 

If a fear is not yet substantiated, it holds no weight. It must be backed up before presenting it as a proper reason. This unsubstantiated fear also brings up many moral questions. Is it not OK then for Type 1 diabetics to have children because it may increase the risk of the children having diabetes? Should diabetics now not be able to be married? How about <insert disease here>? Also, is homosexuality now to be perceive and classified as a disease? Do you care to solve any of these before trying to go down this road?

 

Again. Homosexual couples are having children now, married or not. Homosexual couples are having ceremonies of marraige, even while not legally recognized, now.

 

Item 6 is well-substantiated, or at least admits that it may not be as well-substantiated. It uses more qualifiers than others. Anyway, I already talked about this in one of my previous posts.

 

No, this is not well-substantiated. It is baseless fear. There has not been enough data collected on same sex families to draw any conclusion, as has already been admitted.

 

Item 7 is well-substantiated. How much substantiation do we need for the idea that same-sex couples cannot procreate? The creation of a new type of family unit in which procreation is impossible would further isolate marriage from procreation. I would think the harm here is obvious. Procreation is one of the main reasons for having a family.

 

Procreation is one of YOUR main reasons for having a family. There are MANY heterosexual married couples without children. There are many heterosexual couples with children that are not married. There are many heterosexual couples that are married and yet are unable to procreate.

 

Nothing as been substantiated here. What data can you cite that shows a direct correlation couples being married that are unable to procreate damaging marriages that do procreate?

 

Item 8 is not really well-substantiated. It presents an argument about what will probably happen instead of what studies have shown.

 

Yes, and as such should not be expressed as a "reason to ban {censored} marriage".

 

Item 10 is well-substantiated. The harm here is that men will make poorer fathers without a woman to 'domesticate' them.

 

{censored} men generally earn more than their heterosexual counterpart. They also seem to self-domesticate.

 

As a landlord, I prefer to rent to {censored} men. They tend leave the apartment in much better condition than their heterosexual counterpart. And, on their rental applications, the average income of {censored} men is certainly higher.

 

I couldn't find the part where it said "qualification as parents" (quotes yours).

 

Nearly every point made implies that {censored} couples are less qualified as parents than heterosexual couples. Be it because the children are not their biological children, or that that the child doesn't have a father, or a mother, or the parent doesn't have enough money or isn't domesticated enough, etc. It ignores the point that the main qualification for being a parent is being a good parent. It cites no studies showing the percentage of {censored} couples raising well adjusted children vs. heterosexual couples.

 

For example, when I say things like "...same-sex men will make poorer fathers..." I fully understand that there will be some same-sex couples that make better parents than some traditional parents.

 

Without any studies to reinforce your claim, you have no leg to stand on.

 

You need to show studies having X same sex couples with children. Y of them produced well adjusted children, Z of them did not. Then compare the percentages with heterosexual couples, using the same criteria. If multiple studies show that in the end, {censored} couples produce less well adjusted children than heterosexual, then we can start a conversation about the percentage of minority families that product less well adjusted children, the legality of their marriage, and how much harm their marriage inflicts on yours.

 

The harm is apparent.

 

No. The harm has not been articulated, only the fear.

[Descalzo]

The entire article was nothing more than one homophobics biased opinions.

Now THAT is unsubstantiated.

 

Did you even read my post? Did you even read the list?

Children yearn for biological parents. This is not a biased opinion.

Children do better with a father. This is not a biased opinion.

Children do better with a mother. This is not a biased opinion.

Evidence on same-sex parenting is inadequate. The term 'Inadequate' MAY be an opinion, but it is certainly not biased, and there is nothing in that website that says the expert witness who said it was inadequate in the case was a homophobic.

And so on.

 

If you have some information about this man's homophobia, give it. If you have evidence that suggests that the facts as stated in the list are not really facts, but "one homophobic's biased opinions," then give it.

 

I find this statement from you:

Educated people aren't that gullible.

the most worrisome. If an educated person is not 'gullible' enough to fall for rational argument and evidence, or to even attempt to discredit it through any other means than discrediting the author through nothing more than name-calling, then heaven help us all. Maybe the people who say that our schools are broken are correct.

[brainbone]

If an educated person is not 'gullible' enough to fall for rational argument and evidence

 

As I pointed out above, the arguments are not rational. They transpose studies from unrelated situations to that of homosexual couples parenting.

 

Further, the flawed arguments imply that being a bad parent disqualifies you from marraige, as does risking your preconceived child's well being through genetic malformation of your own.

[Maxintosh]

If an educated person is not 'gullible' enough to fall for rational argument

Rational? A person would have to be overdosing on meth to think anything in that article was "rational"

 

See post #43 if you want rational.

[aduffbrew]

Ok, people.

 

I think this argument is getting a bit out of hand.... if not completely off course. Defining one's family unit and deciding what is best for it have ALWAYS been a very personal issues. Prop 8 isn't going to change that in the least. The ONLY things that can add value and meaning to a relationship are things no government or intrusive neighbor can ever give... I don't care if you're heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. Who we love and the relationships we choose transcend petty individuals that feel entitled to decide for others. No one is asking your permission and no one is asking for your thoughts on whose relationship stands a better chance at succeeding or who MIGHT be better at rearing children. When speaking of civil liberties, I find the thought HORRIFYING! My God! Have none of you ever read 1984? Where in God's name would you draw the line? You find unfit parents and incompetent spouses in every demographic imaginable! No, this can never be something that Government is allowed to decide for us. This is a divine right that must be protected until our dying breath, if needs be.

 

The extension of marriage rights to all isn't an explicit endorsement for any particular lifestyle. If we are to succeed as a race in overcoming our violent and often petty natures, pluralism is our only hope. We will end up fighting until we annihilate ourselves out of existence if we persist in the notion of forcing others to bend to our will.... we will always think differently, believe differently, and apparently, LOVE differently. We will need to learn to allow for our differences while remaining true to the dictates of our conscience and traditions.

 

To those who think homosexuality is a sin against God, nature, society or what ever else you can think up... fine. That is your belief. I think it to be a rather limiting one since chances are you'll eventually find yourself having to wrestle with the thought of a friend or loved one being {censored} but again, that is your choice to believe the way you do. I don't. I think it is a naturally reoccurring anomaly that can still serve an important role in a greater social context if we but allow it. This is my belief. I don't ask for your permission to think this way and I certainly don't need your permission to conduct myself accordingly.

 

All this said, Prop 8 and all the other similar propositions that have been passed do nothing to "protect" or preserve society. As long as we are indeed a free people, we will conduct ourselves in a manner that honors our beliefs and our traditions.... whatever they may be. Think and say what you will but you have no power over us. All this type of legislation does is restrict the legal protections of those whose only crime is to exercise their right to love and associate freely. Too many take these privileges for granted. Those who argue {censored} are asking for "special" rights clearly have chosen to be ignorant. They only want the same rights that heterosexuals have enjoyed for millennia. If you aren't sure what those rights are exactly, perhaps you should read up on them before just casually checking them off the list for someone else.

 

If you expect others to respect your way of life... to allow you to honor your beliefs and traditions in a manner of your choosing... don't be a small minded hypocrite and still expect to be able to meddle in other peoples lives. California was supposed to be the turning point. They were heralded as the super state of social liberalism. While progress has been made since this vile threat to democracy was first passed in 2000, it clearly hasn't progressed enough. The gauntlet has been thrown down. I think the "moral majority" has severely over estimated their current position. There is a new morality embraced by an ever growing number that promotes tolerance and the strength and peace found in diversity. If the old moral order ever hopes to maintain a relevance, they will need to adapt or perhaps they will find themselves extinct.

[Maxintosh]

Well stated Aduffbrew

[Descalzo]

No. What they want is for me to vote that homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual marriages. There is no evidence that they are. There is some evidence that they are not.

 

Homosexuals are already allowed to marry, they are just not permitted to call non-marriage or marriage-like relationships marriage. They have exactly the same rights as I have. I am not against hospital visitation, property-sharing, inheritance, or any of that stuff. That's not what this is really about. They want my approval of their relationship. I will not give it. They want me to vote that their relationship is just as good as traditional marriage. It is not. No one has produced any evidence that it is. I will not vote that it is just as good. They want me to buy into the 1984 newspeak that these relationships are really marriage. I won't do it.

[Maxintosh]

They want my approval of their relationship.

NO they don't! They couldn't care less for your "approval' Stop being so disingenuous...

 

Allowing prop 8 wouldn't have changed your marriage one iota. All they wanted was what you and every other married couple has, to be recognized. Just a few words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." changed would have done it. Eventually you will lose anyway. The stats bear this out as each time something like this is proposed the number of people for it continues to grow. By acting the way you do it doesn't make them look bad - it makes YOU look bad. Go ahead, act like you're better than everyone else and keep sticking your foot in your mouth in the process. The world is watching