Proposition 8 / Same *** marriage

[diatabz]

I am amused with number 1. Though religion can be used to counter this same *** marriage proposal, it need not be. If you are a parent, would you allow your children to see casually two men doing PDA? Its really just common sense. Simbako, ma impluwensiyahan inyong anak tungod sa iyang mga nakit-an. The fact is, its not about religion, but society itself. Majority(believer or athiest) in the society doesn't accept this kind of relationship so this issue shouldn't be forced on the majority.

Back then, having a black man and a white woman going out was unacceptable. Black people going to school with white people was also "wrong". Not having a slave was against "common sense". Now, I'm not putting both histories on the same page, I am only pointing out the common factor of both, hate.

Yeah, equality under the law, but in democracy, the vote that count most, is the winner.

The winner, but not necessarily what is right. An amendment to the Constitution that infringes upon the fundamental right of equality is wrong. Precisely why the California SC will send Proposition 8 to the crapper.

[mannyamador]

@diatabz

The argument that other types of marriage should then be legalized is flawed. Beastiality brings about a ridiculous number of diseases. Same thing goes for incest, the genetic problems that could arise as a result is something the state won't ignore. But then again, our society is an evolving one, who knows right?

There is no flaw in the argument. The same things you use to discriminate against bestiality, pedophilia, incest, etc. could be said for homosexuality. The AIDS and general STD rate, for example, among homosexuals is unbelievabvly higher than the rest of the general population. So is the incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals (only around 2% of the male population is homosexual, but over 30% of male pedophiles are homosexual).

Take note that the very same arguments used against pedophilia, incest, and polygamy (disease, psychological harm, etc.) were once used against homosexuality. They are also now being challenged in favor of those groups as well. Likewise, the same justifications used for "normalizing" homosexuality in the past are now being used to "normalize" polygamy, incest and pedophilia.

So the argument stands: the logic used to justify same-*** marriage can be used to justify other "marriages" as well. If you can redefine marriage to accommodate the sexual inclinations/orientation of homosexuals, then you must do the same for other groups as well, including pedophiles, incesdtuous persons, polygamous persons, etc.

Now, I'm not putting both histories on the same page, I am only pointing out the common factor of both, hate.

It is extremely stupid to attribute opposition to same-*** marriage to hate. That is essentially an ad hominem argument and is an indication that the one using it has no real arguments. That;s just like saying being pro-same-*** marriage is based on plain depravity. This is an intellectually lazy attitude that does not wish to examine the good rational arguments of the other side and refute them. Instead, it dismisses them as based on personal faults of persons on the other side. It's the easy way out but is essentially irrational. Real arguments would serve your cause better. But so far you haven't given any.

The California Supreme Court may now make the silly blunder of declaring something that is now part the California State Constitution as "unconstitutional". I would like to see that since that will throw the issue into the US Supreme Court, which the pro-same-*** marriage camp definitely does NOT want and has judiciously avoided so far. It is quite likely that the US Supreme Court will throw out the "right" same-*** marriage out the window, or (just as bad for them), it could be put to a vote in the US Congress, where same-*** marriage has little support. An amendment to the US Constitution itself is even likely. Already 30 US States have refused to unfairly redefine marriage to accommodate gays with such a privilege (it is not a right). Taking the issue to the US Supreme Court or the US Congress is something the gay lobby does NOT want to do.

@rodsky

You don't get it--the reason why they TEND to have MORE problems is because SOCIETY and the CHURCH tells them they are the product of EVIL deeds.

That's a silly theory with no proof whatsoever. The facts show otherwise: it is the lack of family stability in a broken family that causes those problems. And even though some might argue that it is theoretically possible to raise good children in a non-traditional environment, this does not happen anywhere often enough for it to be comparable. Furthermore, societal pressure exists even against traditional families of minorities, but they do not produce persons with the same frequency of problems. Finally, there are some societies where there is much less moral opprobrium, but the problems and their much higher frequency remain. These effectively sink the entire self-serving theory that it is "society's fault".

[diatabz]

@ mannyamador

You're using a strawman argument. You make it sound as if AIDS is inherent in gay people. Also, who's to say heterosexuals aren't guilty of the same perversions? Using the same logic, I could for example, say black students should be segregated from whites in school, since more black kids tend to be troublemakers. For example, does the legalization of pot mean more people will use crack and meth?

In beastiality, one of the parties involved isn't even included in the Bill of Rights, so we can just drop that. In pedophilia, a child can't give competent consent, thus any sexual act that happens between both parties infringes on his/her rights. As for incest, there are two main issues which are addressed in the marjoity of state incest laws, which are a restriction on consanguineous relationships (which elevate the risk for birth defects) and abusive relationships which are a specialized category of child abuse. I suggest you look up the incest laws of different states, you'll see that they differ widely from state to state. Utah for example permits first cousins to marry provided both spouses are over 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. Legalizing gay marriage isn't a stepping stone to ban incest. Incestual marriage and polygamy already exists. Bigamy was legal and normal in Utah. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusettes since 2004, and yet incest, beastiality and polygamy have hardly been issues there.

Again, *** between two consenting adults is not illegal. *** with a horse is not two consenting adults. *** with a little boy or girl is not two consenting adults.

Gay marriage is not a precedence to "other types of marriage". In any case, the way to ban incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages is not by passing a constitutional amendment that bans same-*** marriages. It's by passing a constitutional amendment banning incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages.

[diatabz]

It is extremely stupid to attribute opposition to same-*** marriage to hate. That is essentially an ad hominem argument and is an indication that the one using it has no real arguments. That;s just like saying being pro-same-*** marriage is based on plain depravity. This is an intellectually lazy attitude that does not wish to examine the good rational arguments of the other side and refute them. Instead, it dismisses them as based on personal faults of persons on the other side. It's the easy way out but is essentially irrational. Real arguments would serve your cause better. But so far you haven't given any.

Oh? Don't play dumb. I'd have more respect for people who disseminate crap if they just come out, admit their bigotry, and say "I don't like gay people, I don't want them getting married, and that's it, that's me". Just plain, unadorned anti-gay bigotry, without the sugar coating. Having a problem with gay marriage, but not gay people and everything about them, including what they do, their parenting skills etc. doesn't make sense. Why else are gay people going through all this? They want respect and social standing for a lifestyle others think is wrong.

The California Supreme Court may now make the silly blunder of declaring something that is now part the California State Constitution as "unconstitutional". I would like to see that since that will throw the issue into the US Supreme Court, which the pro-same-*** marriage camp definitely does NOT want and has judiciously avoided so far. It is quite likely that the US Supreme Court will throw out the "right" same-*** marriage out the window, or (just as bad for them), it could be put to a vote in the US Congress, where same-*** marriage has little support. An amendment to the US Constitution itself is even likely. Already 30 US States have refused to unfairly redefine marriage to accommodate gays with such a privilege (it is not a right). Taking the issue to the US Supreme Court or the US Congress is something the gay lobby does NOT want to do.

Firstly, look up Loving v. Virginia. I'm an American, this is the Constitution and Bill of Rights of my country, do some research before crossing swords with me about the law. Secondly, I hope you don't want to bet on that, with Barack Obama being the new President and the Democrats expecting to take a hold of Congress and all. Ask lawyers who are well versed in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the majority of them will tell you it is unconstitutional to disallow gay couples the right to marry.

[erwin_rommel]

sunod ani, acceptable na ang mag jer2x ang managsuon

[mannyamador]

You're using a strawman argument. You make it sound as if AIDS is inherent in gay people.

Now THAT is a strawman argument. What was said is that the "disease" argument which you use against incestuous persons and other groups can also be applied to gays. Try to understand what's being said before making a spectacle of yourself.

In pedophilia, a child can't give competent consent, thus any sexual act that happens between both parties infringes on his/her rights.

Sure. I agree. But that's what WE would say. However, those who practice pedophilia question the very necessity of competent consent or the need for two consenting adults, especially when the pedophile is a relative or even a parent -- just as gays questioned the need for complementary gender. Some even claim that children can give consent! And in an even more disturbing development, many psychologists have made studies that claim to show that there is no harm in many cases of pedophilia, and even claim that it can be beneficial! This opens the door to a form of "normal" pedophilia, just as decades ago similar studies opened the door to "normal" homosexuality.

Check out a summary of the situation in “The Problem of Pedophilia“ The Problem of Pedophilia

The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.

This latest article appears in the A.P.A.’s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

The authors’ conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm–and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.

You should read the rest of it. The report is very disturbing whether you agree with same-*** marriage or not.

You and I would disagree with those who would normalize pedophilia, incest, etc., of course, but that is exactly the same thing that people once thought about homosexuality. So perhaps it is only a matter of time before the APA declares pedophilia as normal, like it did homosexuality. Right now the majority disagrees with it -- as it disagreed with homosexuality -- but the trend is following the same pattern and soon you will have pedophiles clamoring for the right to "marry" too. And so you have the same problem. If you legalize same-*** marriage, you weaken -- if not obliterate -- the logical case against other types of "marriage". If you redefine marriage to accommodate sexual orientation, then you must accommodate all the different sexual orientations.

Having a problem with gay marriage, but not gay people and everything about them, including what they do, their parenting skills etc. doesn't make sense.

That's just rank prejudice. It seems you cannot respect anyone who disagrees with you. Sounds very hypocritical to me.

I'm an American, this is the Constitution and Bill of Rights of my country, do some research before crossing swords with me about the law.

It's obvious you DON'T have any argument. That's why you try to bully your way with your citizenship. You ought to know won't impress people here.

[seven_segment]

OT: nice one there mannyamador...
----------


lisod jud ni...i do hope Government define marriage as a union of opposite ***...

kung gani ma-open up na sa Pinas...

[goryo13]

... yet the child is fully aware of his/her own heterosexuality, I believe the child will grow up to be a normally heterosexual individual.

makes me wonder why lotsa kids turn out gay or lesbo when they grow up.. cos they happened to lived with one! i've known a few friends since childhood who were bullies in school but ended up "soft" when they decided to have same-*** relationship or when their community had one too many of the gray ones.. meaning, natakdan.

you can say what you wanna say, but my guts says this whole same-*** marriage is downright wrong..

damn these morals! damn this sense of right and wrong!

[diatabz]

Sure. I agree. But that's what WE would say. However, those who practice pedophilia question the very necessity of competent consent or the need for two consenting adults, especially when the pedophile is a relative or even a parent -- just as gays questioned the need for complementary gender.

Then obviously the Constitution and the Bill of Rights renders that question useless. Why are you even comparing adult consent and gender? You still don't have an argument. Why? The same slippery-slope logic you're using now can be also used for interracial marriage.

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.

What's to keep me from saying interracial marriage too will lead to pedophilia, beastiality etc.? The slippery slope started over 40 years ago when the courts overturned the ban on black/white marriages. Interracial marriage too was considered almost evil, unnatural and anti-family as gays getting married. See the pattern? The problem with slippery slope arguments like yours, is that people like you assume that society and the law can't make distinctions between situations that are different from one another. But we know the difference between an ass and a hole in the ground. For example, women having the right to vote doesn't mean toddlers are next.

That's just rank prejudice. It seems you cannot respect anyone who disagrees with you. Sounds very hypocritical to me.

Sue me. Just make sure you have a proper argument, not just one that suits you.

It's obvious you DON'T have any argument. That's why you try to bully your way with your citizenship. You ought to know won't impress people here.

Oh? I don't have an argument? You claimed marriage isn't a right, but a privilege. I asked you to look up Loving v. Virginia, my rebuke to your claim. Yet all you see is me apparently "impressing people" here when I just wanted you to do research on a field I know more about. Does that hurt your feelings? Do you feel bullied? Boo-freaking-hoo, I'll buy you an ice cream cone later.

[rodsky]

@rodsky

That's a silly theory with no proof whatsoever. The facts show otherwise: it is the lack of family stability in a broken family that causes those problems. And even though some might argue that it is theoretically possible to raise good children in a non-traditional environment, this does not happen anywhere often enough for it to be comparable. Furthermore, societal pressure exists even against traditional families of minorities, but they do not produce persons with the same frequency of problems. Finally, there are some societies where there is much less moral opprobrium, but the problems and their much higher frequency remain. These effectively sink the entire self-serving theory that it is "society's fault".

I don't think I'd just randomly write down anything unless I base in on personal observation and experience. Granted, those observations and experiences may have occurred in a a narrow corridor of my own personal experiences, compared to more general observations of the world around us, but my observations have led me to conclude such, and incorrect as they may be, they cannot be automatically be discounted as "silly" or "inconclusive", unless you are an expert in such matters, and have the goal/aim of wanting to make me look ridiculous and naive, of course. Which in turn, will give your argument more bearing and weight and thus convince the readers that your path, is the correct path.

-RODION