Three Arguments AGAINST Prop 8...and the truth

I just read an article on prop 8 and it had four arguments against prop 8. Here are the first three, the fourth was a waste of my time to even address.

1. "Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples that same dignity and respect."

Key discrepancy: "of any couple" and "lesbian and gay couples" are not the same thing. By making the statement that "marriage ....to any couple" you are encompassing all couples, whether they are legally able to get married or not, this includes couples where one man loves one woman in city A and another woman in city B. Currently, he is known as an adulterer. If he attempts to marry both women, he is a bigamist. Bigamy is illegal.

Tolerance means not imposing criminal penalties. Therefore, we are intolerant of bigamists (and polygamists) but are tolerant of gays, lesbians, monogamists, adulterers, and animal lovers (lifetime commitments do not have to include sex--which with an animal is cruelty and illegal).

By stating that marriage conveys dignity and respect on any couple, you are excluding couples that are legally barred from marriage, and couples that should, under your premise, also be married. However, Justice George said no to polygamy in his decision and implied that humans and animals can't get married either.

Therefore, this argument has nothing to do with respect for any couple, but everything to do with same-sex marriage only. Even though your argument is a good sound bite, it lacks logic and therefore must be thrown out. Sorry.

2. "The freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. The government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives."

Nope. Totally wrong. Go read both the US and California constitutions and the cases that flow from them individually.

First, this is a state issue right now. Federally, we have the right to speak, which you, as the "No" side of the issue do not understand because you have torn down every sign I have put up and silenced me in every debate. YOU have done nothing but censure me and trample mine and my colleagues' rights. Yet, as a true hypocrite, you continue to shout that you are protecting people's rights.

Second, we don't have a freedom of religion, we have a promise that the government will not interfere with our individual exercise of religion and will not establish a government church and will not require any religious test for public office. However, here we have a judge (Justice George), an actor for the government, come in and tell me that I can no longer preach my religion because I believe that marriage is divinely instituted as being between a man and a woman. Furthermore, you don't let me fight to defend my express constitutional right, because if I do fight, you call me a bigot and a hater. The only reason the terms bigot and hater exist is to have them ready to throw at a person in order to censor that person's speech.

Third, nowhere does there exist any right to get married. Loving v. Virginia was about discrimination based on race. The state was denying marriage licenses based on race. The US Constitution expressly protects race as a suspect class and will almost 100% of the time not allow a government to use race as the reason to deny anything to anyone. Limiting the "protections" of sexual orientation to people who are gay, lesbian, or transgendered is violative of equal protection, because there are other sexual orientation categories out there, such as man-boy love, parent-child love, polygamy, beastiality, etc. Again, this has nothing to do with rights for all, but just a small special interest trying to take over government and change the populace to agree with the minority.

Fourth, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government should not be able to tell you that you can't marry more than one person at a time, that you can't marry certain close blood relations, that you can't marry a minor, and that you can enter into and exit marriage agreements whenever you want. Oops, there are laws for all of this already. Marriage is licensed by the state governments. Licenses are not given out for "rights" but for "privileges." Marriage is a privilege reserved for the purpose of uniting man and woman to build society. Marriage has always existed, but when it is abused and morals decline, the society fails. Look at Rome.

Finally, the government does tell us what we can and can't watch on tv, what we can and can't read, and what we can and can't do in our private lives. I can't watch porn on channel 4, the New York Times can't print the blueprints to the Pentagon, and I will go to prison if I build a pipe bomb in my bedroom.

I love your arguments, they sound good, but are worthless.


3. "Domestic partnerships are not marriage."

I agree with you; they are not marriage, they are domestic partnerships. Domestic Partnerships, however, have all the same rights and privileges of marriage under the laws of California.

Apparently you understand at least that marriage is not just some list of rights you receive from a piece of paper, but it is something more. Then again, that special aspect of marriage, which is not legal in any way shape or form, is what makes marriage marriage. The sacredness of marriage is that it is a symbol of the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. It is a unification for the purpose of creating posterity.

Homosexual is not the same as heterosexual either. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE WILL CALL ME A BIGOT--YET I AM ABSOLUTELY TOLERANT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, I AM JUST MAKING A STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS. Homosexuality has no evolutionary purpose. Heterosexuality has a very clear and highly proven purpose to procreate, i.e., further the human race and allow our specie to continue to evolve. Homosexuality removes people from the future gene pool, thus limiting the potential of the human race.

This whole marriage thing has nothing to do with rights, because all the rights are already there under current statutes in California.

You lose on this one as well.