1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
This is completely true. In San Francisco children were taken to a same-sex wedding:http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/first-graders-taken-to-san-francisco-city-hall-for-gay-wedding
Children being read books about homosexuality in school. Not matter how others feel about that, I don't feel good about that. Thats why I would desire to take my own kids out of school, hence this proposition failing would nudge my child out of school and I would have to home school her.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081016/pl_usnw/proposition8__who_s_really_lying
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/protect-marriage-yes-on-prop-8-campaign-releases-second-television-commercial-it-s-already-happened-
2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20081019/news_lz1e19limandr.html
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.
6. It will cost ME & YOU money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money - your money, your church contributions - that will have to be spent on legal fees. Not religious? Please take my pleading into account, and respect the thousands of Religious run charity organizations that make this nation great such as the Catholic Adoption agency in Chicago that was force to close rather than disrespect it's own religious beliefs.
And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
It's your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties and mine.
Lets work together to protect them.
33 comments:
Very good logic indeed.
Your logic seems to me to be beyond dispute. This vote is huge. Keep up the good work, maybe you'll help more people use logic.
There is no logic here! Your arguments are weak, deceptive and full of hate. To illustrate how your views are nothing but bigotry... go back and read your arguments, but replace gay marriage with interracial marriage.
Interesting comments. Interesting logic. I respect your opinion, as I know you respect other's. I do find exception with some of your facts and predictions:
1. Churches and religions who do not use public money are allowed to express private opinions and would not be forced to comply. Otherwise, there would be no freedom of religion!
For example, why haven't women sued the Catholic or Mormon churches who will not allow them to hold the priesthood? Why didn't Blacks sue the Mormon church, who only recently allowed Black men to hold leadership positions instead of during the civil rights movement of the 60s? Why don't Blacks sue the KKK?
Now if these agencies (such as adoption agencies) use tax money and get exemptions, they owe it to the people they represent to reflect the majority opinion, do they not?
Dear "WWFSMD?"
Apparently, you didn't read my first argument. I understand, it was long.
And actually there is only one basic argument and it is the entire first post. These (the second post) are not arguments but facts about how this issue affects me personally.
But we'll go ahead with this experiment anyway:
I can no sooner promote "interracial marriage" than an interracial couple can physically reproduce posterity.
Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.
So perhaps "reproductive capability" should become requirement for marriage? Think about how uncaringly you are hurting REAL couples that love each other!! And why do you care? because your children might be exposed to the evil idea of two women loving each other? Or that two men that love each other want to get married in a PUBLIC church?? How many public churches do you know of? Do you attend one?This has almost nothing to do with your daily life but EVERYTHING to do with the lives of gays that want to get married to express their love. Think about it. You are hurting real people because of the nonsense you were indoctrinated with from your book of fairytales.
There is such as thing as churches being "tax exempt." Yes, they are private, but the government has a big hammer hanging over the churches. And if the government feels that the church is discriminating in its speech or its practice, the hammer is to revoke the tax exempt status. Churches have and will lose this tax exempt status because they are trying to hold to their beliefs.
This is not speculation about what will happen. This is not an exaggeration about what will happen. I'm not blowing smoke, this has ALREADY HAPPENED to the Methodist in New Jersey. Here are two links that discuss:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/MaggieGallagher/2007/09/19/can_new_jersey_punish_methodists_for_marriage
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20081019/news_lz1e19limandr.html
So you make a good point about churches not being public. They are private and have every right to worship and believe according to the dictates of their own conscience. I too am shocked that this gay and lesbian cause would dare to infringe on the fundamental right of freedom of religion and try to impose their beliefs onto others.
Sorry, the links didn't post, but they are now under the corresponding idea in the origional post- in RED.
As far as the other argument, it will be addressed. But if I post it now, what would I post tomorrow?
Kidding, actually I just need to get off the computer and pay attention to my daughter.
Thank you for keeping me on my toes!
I thought this blog was very well organized and respectful. After reading wwfsmd's comments I re-read the blog try to find the hateful parts, the weak parts, and the deceptive parts and all I could find were facts, and a mother's desire to be the main influence in her daughter's life.
I've been researching proposition 8 for some time now and I would really like to hear a well thought out, organized, and respectful argument by someone explaining why I should NOT vote for proposition 8. All I can find are people saying, "Everyone who votes yes on proposition 8 is a bigot and is full of hate!" Saying that, to me, seems like sensationalism manipulation. I would like to hear facts delivered in a respectful manner that address the situation in a complete and concise manner.
I've been looking for that logical, respectful counter argument for some time now, but all I can't seem to find it. Maybe there isn't one and that's why every argument for "No on 8" is a hateful attack accusing the "Yes's" of being terrible, awful, scum of the earth bigots who can't seem to think for themselves.
Thank you for reading and commenting on my blog! I'm so happy to see that others are taking a stance on this issue. I love the quote at the end.
I especially love Dan's comment! Thank you Dan, you said it perfectly.
The point here is that a lot of religious people feel that being gay is a sin. That is why we can tolerate gay's, love and care for gay people but we cannot condone (acceptance of wrong behavior at the price of friendship) what they are doing. Marriage is something we do before God. In God's eyes Marriage is between man and woman. And God never changes his law.
As to some of the issues being raised in the comments, let's look at the LDS churches report on this issue:
This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. (Much of what is "off" in the world today stems from children being raised in less than strong family units.)
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.
While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations.
Thank Kelly for your eloquence. In fact, you said it so much better than my argument that I will refrain from putting up my version of that. However I may post my thoughts on how "nature views parenthood"- even though they will seem silly in light of what you've posted.
Dan-
Thank you for your honesty. I too wish that I saw the "other" side as simply desiring justice, but only as long as it's on their terms.
Ironically enough, it is that same God that many "Pro 8" religions that teach against same-sex marriage teaches us to know we are loved and to love one another.
Thank you for all your thoughts. This is an excellent time for everyone to think deeply and logically.
Remeber, God is Reason
After reading Kelly's quotes, I would like to play devil's advocate.
2000 years ago, it was vital for a society to protect child-bearing families, because otherwise it would go extinct. That is no longer the case, so our value system is different today. For example, I doubt proposition 8 supporters would be willing to let gay couples marry if they promised to carry in-vitro children. It seems like the church (and you too Rachel) are concerned about where the children are being raised, not whether and how often they are being procreated.
So can the argument be restated as, "Bringing up children in same-sex households will cause society to unravel?" And if that is correct, then isn't this argument really about gay adoption instead of gay marriage? That's where I get confused. Proposition 8 tracts claim that the amendment won't affect existing gay rights, including right to adopt.
Chad said:
"So can the argument be restated as, "Bringing up children in same-sex households will cause society to unravel?" And if that is correct, then isn't this argument really about gay adoption instead of gay marriage? That's where I get confused. Proposition 8 tracts claim that the amendment won't affect existing gay rights, including right to adopt."
Chad,
The state has an interest in the institution of marriage because it has an interest in the next generation. All rationales connected to the state's interest in marriage always come back to the state's interest in the family. Individual members of the gay community may have interests in the benefits that the state provides to heterosexual couples, but the state has no interest in promoting homosexual relationships. Hence you get California's previous compromise. Allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions, but don't go so far as to call it marriage. By calling it marriage it would be the state encouraging the practice, rather than just imparting the benefits.
Along with the right to adopt.. who will they be adopting from? The Catholic Adoption agency in Boston was forced to close when it would not let a lesbian couple adopt, creating a huge backlog of children.
LDS Services is also prepared to shut down and make the same sacrifice in CA.
Our society is refusing to reconize the good deeds done by these institutions.
Craig, I'm going to dissect your position as best I can. Is it your opinion that changing the name from "marriage" to "civil union" will dissuade some gay couples from adopting? And that more heterosexual couples will adopt the unclaimed orphans? And that the increased number of children in heterosexual families will strengthen society? And that this is the mechanism that prop 8 will serve the state interest you were talking about?
Rachel, you should read about the Catholic Charities case because your comment is not correct. As far as I know, your comment about LDS Services threatening to shut down is not accurate either.
Chad said:
"Craig, I'm going to dissect your position as best I can. Is it your opinion that changing the name from "marriage" to "civil union" will dissuade some gay couples from adopting?
Chad, I am not addressing your adoption issue. I am addressing your argument that this is really about adoption and not marriage. My argument is that it really is about marriage, Californians are not misguided in addressing the marriage issue rather than the adoption issue at this time.
The state has an interest in encouraging and fostering heterosexual relationships because their ultimate purpose is the conceiving and fostering of children. The state may have an interest fostering homosexual relationships in so far as it has an interest in discouraging promiscuity, but that is as far as its interest in homosexual relationships goes.
The reason that the churches are concerned about calling a civil union a marriage is because of the legal consequences of doing so. There will probably be no immediate consequences of doing so, but there will be future litigation on the issue and the churches want to stop that from ever happening by not calling it marriage to begin with. There may be issues of the church losing its license to perform adoptions, or may lose its tax exempt status by violating equal protection. These are just a couple of the possibilities.
Craig, I'm trying to understand the distinction that you are drawing, so I'm going to try to rephrase your comment in my own words. But I'm sorry if I get it wrong again.
You are of the opinion that: There is an archetypal heterosexual relationship (wow that was a lot of syllables), which is the best environment for children. It is in the interest of society to promote this ideal relationship. Therefore the law extends preferential treatment to all heterosexual couples. Many heterosexual couples do not live up to the ideal and do not strengthen society, and meanwhile there are a lot of homosexual couples that would raise good children. But the point of the law is ideological: it aims to support the families that have the same sexual makeup as the archetype and not necessarily the families that in practice avoid vice and do the most to strengthen the society.
Chad,
I see that you are trying, but you are failing to get what I'm saying. I blame myself though, I will try to be clearer.
My argument is not that heterosexual relationships are a better environment for children (although I believe they are). My argument has nothing to do with adoption, or the possibility of homosexuals adopting children. (although I think they should not be able to, for the same reason I think corporations should not be able to).
My argument is, heterosexual relationships almost always (unless there is artificial intervention, or physical inability) end in the birth of children. The state has a significant interest in the birth and rearing of children. A society's stability, longevity, economic well being, peacefulness, etc., etc. depend upon the birth of children, and the raising of those children. Children are naturally born to heterosexual couples, and so the state has an interest in fostering, and encouraging those relationships for the sole purpose of their interest in the children.
As I said before, the state also has an interest in homosexual relationships. Historically they have forbade them, now our Federal Supreme Court has held it unconstitutional to make them illegal. So now the state has an interest in encouraging homosexuals who enter into these relationships from being promiscuous. This is the only interest they have in these types of relationships. So they encourage them to enter into civil unions by offering tax breaks and other benefits.
The two relationships are not the same though. Marriage is a fundamental right. If we follow the California Supreme Court ruling that homosexual's can enter into the marriage relationship, then refusing to perform a marriage for a homosexual couple, or refusing to allow them to adopt, would mean you are violating the equal protection clause of the constitution. The federal government cannot give an institution that violates the equal protection clause tax breaks, nor can they license them to perform adoptions. (at least this is a possible interpretation).
In sum: the argument is, the state does not have the SAME interest in homosexual relationships as it does in heterosexual relationships. Thus, the name of the relationship will be different. And how the state encourages and enforces the relationship will be different.
Chad:
The main reason that I am for prop. 8 (besides my church's obvious support) is because I don't want to see a practice that I and most Americans consider immoral raised to equal the status of marriage.
Once that happens, the government mandates that children should be taught that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are morally equivilant. I would rather my wife and I be in charge of teaching our children instead of the government about morality, since I believe that we have the right and responsibility to do so.
Based on past government performance, though, I'm sure the government would do a bang up job.
Spence, the California schools are already required to avoid bias when talking about homosexual relationships, as confirmed by Prop 8 supporters. So schools could teach about homosexuality already, regardless of Prop 8, although the curricula won't be changed anywhere without the support of local parents. Another thing that won't change is that whether or not Prop 8 passes, parents generally do not have opt-out rights when public schools address controversial subjects.
Hoping that public education will change by supporting Prop 8 sounds like tilting at windmills. What would probably serve you better is specific legislation that gives both notification and opt-out rights back to parents. Prop 8 is not that legislation.
And I agree with you about your main point, that homosexuality is a sin. There are plenty of other causes that I disagree with, such as flag burning, or Scientology, or listening to FOX. ;) Just because I believe something is immoral doesn't automatically mean that it should be against the law though. Does homosexual marriage deserve an exception?
Quick question, Craig. You are saying that the state should foster heterosexual relationships and procreation. But the positive familial environment is not the reason. What is the reason? Surely not just the volume of children that heterosexual couples are more likely to have?
That would make for a good slogan though. "Prop 8: It's not about bigotry, it's about breeding." ;)
Chad said:
What is the reason? Surely not just the volume of children that heterosexual couples are more likely to have?
No Chad, the volume of children isn't the reason. The fact that they have children at all is the reason. The heterosexual relationship is the only relationship that produces children. Any situation to the contrary is artificial and rare. Our norms are not produced according to the exception, but according to the rule. The state's primary interest lies with the relationship that traditionally and naturally produces children.
Chad:
That was a good cheap shot at FOX, but I know you're just joking, because someone with your education and intellect would already know about the Project for Excellence in Journalism's latest findings here that shows FOX news as the most fair media outlet in covering the campaign. You probably turn to FOX just for relief from those nut jobs that have hijacked the Democrat party over at MSNBC. Certainly no candidate his given Bill O'Reilly a 'thrill going up [his] leg'. (I used Google to find that story... keep up the good work.)
About prop 8... It's true that schools could teach about homosexuality already, what prop 8 would do is make homosexuality the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. This is where we disagree. I feel like making homosexual relationships the morally the same in the governments eyes, gives the gay agenda the hammer they need to force changes that regular people don't want to see. There have been several cases of people being sued because they don't want to perform some sort of service that they disagree with. Instead of finding someone else that would, the gay agenda likes to use the hammer of the government to make their point.
If prop 8 fails, I'm afraid that many teachers, like myself, will be forced to recognize and teach that homosexual relationships are morally equal to heterosexual ones, or get out of the business.
So do you think this country should make homosexuality the moral equivalent of heterosexuality? Or am I misrepresenting your position?
Craig, I'm finally starting to feel like I understand your position. Thanks for being patient!
I think I know why ancient societies needed to promote child bearing. Mortality rates were so high that even developed civilizations feared extinction. But why would modern societies feel the same pressure? What is the state interest?
I still am not sure that gays with children can be considered an exception. Google tells me that 49% of childless gays plan on having children. If your argument is based more on biology than on empirical statistics, then that's fine, although I guess it makes me question even more the importance of the state interest.
Spence, your link says that CNN was more fair, and that FOX was more biased in McCain's favor. You'll be happy to know that I like to get my news from a source that has more heart than FOX and CNN combined.
But to your real question: I think that California laws have already put gay relationships on the same footing as heterosexual relationships. Whether or not Prop 8 passes, you still face all the equality threats that you talked about, including lawsuits over medical services and education. That won't change unless the California Family Code is amended.
Chad,
I do not think that the state's interest is in promoting child birth per se. Child birth will happen whether the state has an interest in it or not. The state has an interest in promoting and encouraging those relationships which have a high degree of likelihood of resulting in child birth. It is not encouraging couples to have sex, nature does a really good job of that. It is encouraging couples who do have sex that will result in child birth to commit to one another. Of course there are many reasons for encouraging child rearing couples to commit to one another. Most importantly, it promotes stability not only in the home, but in society. The failure of the family on a mass scale will be a failure of society. The studies are quite conclusive that in societies where the father doesn't stick around, the family suffers and in turn that society suffers.
Your statistics of homosexual couples who wish to have children are irrelevant. There are many single people who wish to adopt as well, but society has no interest in promoting single people to adopt either. A single person's interest in adopting a child is just that, an individual interest. Of course it doesn't follow that we should ban single people from adopting. A homosexuals interest in adopting is just that, that individuals interest. The state has absolutely no interest in promoting such an arrangement.
I for one fall in the camp of those who think that homosexuals shouldn't even be allowed to adopt, because it is an inferior relationship that will ultimately damage the well being of the child. I know this is a unpopular position which I hold, and I do not have scientific statistics upon which to base my opinion. Problem is, the statistics are not reliable at this time, and I do not think that states should be forced to experiment. State's should have the right to let other more "progressive" states to do the experimentation while more traditional states sit it out.
Chad:
Besides not answering my question, and telling me that Colbert is where you get your news (you shouldn't make fun of those that actually do.), you misrepresented the article I linked to. I'm sure Rachel doesn't want us discussing news media, but the article only said CNN was more in line with the press overall, which is in the tank for Barack as a general rule. I was talking about actual fairness.
What I don't understand about your position is you said "There are plenty of other causes that I disagree with, such as flag burning, or Scientology, or listening to FOX. ;) Just because I believe something is immoral doesn't automatically mean that it should be against the law though."
So are you prepared to legalize polygamy as well? How about drugs? If that's your point of view, it sounds like your a libertarian. So, on behalf of the Republican Party, I'd like to welcome you into the fold, since we are much closer in idealogy to Libertarian thinking than the Democrats are.:) (That represents the first every emotocon typed in by me.)
Craig, I'll spend some time to digest what you've said. I still understand your opinion as being that heterosexual relationships are good for society because they are the best environment for child rearing. You've said twice that's not really your reason, but you also said, "Of course there are many reasons for encouraging child rearing couples to commit to one another. Most importantly, it promotes stability not only in the home, but in society." I don't know how else to interpret that quote. (As far as I can tell, having adoptive homosexual couples committed to each other would also encourage stability, but I know you don't agree with that). Thanks for the discussion, and I'll come back if I have more questions for you.
Spence, sorry I was taking swings at FOX! The sad part is, I actually get lots of my news from Colbert or from German daily papers, of which I have about 25% comprehension. :(
I'm fine with laws that prohibit drug use. That's not because I believe drug abuse is immoral. It's because of the consequences of drug use on individuals and communities. I can't say that I've ever been shown similar statistics about the dangers of gay marriage.
Chad,
We have no reliable statistics on the effect of gay marriage on the well being of a child. That was my previous point. Some state's do not want to be the lab that takes on that experiment. Others are more than willing to jump in head first.
Even if statistics do come out, I will be suspect. I am very wary of so called statistics today. They are very much partisan motivated. No one funds these statistics unless they have a dog in the fight.
Great point, Craig. I didn't mean to say that only statistics would convince me that something should be outlawed. I only meant that freedom of religion is important too, so I don't like to support laws against everything I think is immoral.
"...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
Spence, I think quotes like that get to the heart of the matter. People that I respect are saying that homosexual marriages are going to somehow harm my own family. There's also a great quote by Elder Wickman that, "it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated."
But that begs the question--why would a homosexual marriage between another couple cause my family to deteriorate? Would God allow my family to be punished for the actions of another? I hope to keep investigating until I can answer that question.
BTW, Rachel, I have accidentally hijacked the discussion on your blog with my own questions. Would you prefer it if we moved somewhere else?
Post a Comment