Home > Social Sciences Group > Discussion Board

In reply to #2: Being married, gay or straight, does not guarantee living and loving monogamously -- have you seen the divorce rates lately?  I have been married, and although now divorced, from a tax perspective, there are huge benefits and write-offs when married, that are just not available being single. Nevertheless, the issue for me on gay marriage is two fold: We should look at the larger picture in terms of what is best for children and our country. If the whole purpose for getting married was for the purposes of procreation, then are we leaving the future aspect of life to genetic predisposition? My other point is the issue issue of gay marriage being termed a civil rights issue.  I'm sorry, but in my workplace, gay individuals have the right to establish insurance coverage for their "domestic partner." However, if I as a woman am living with a man, this "domestic partner coverage is not available to me.  Living and loving is perfectly fine for all; however, making allowances for some that does not bring equality to all is unfair and upsets the total balance. Here's my win-win solution to the problem: Allow gays to wed, but just don't call it a marriage.

I have been hearing on the radio that Gay groups are targeting people who supported Prop 8, zeroing in on them like a laser beam, making trouble for these people.

I firmly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, however that does not mean that when two same sex individuals love each other that they are not committed to one another and can obtain a civil union.

What strikes me as the most curious is that Gay people demand, demand, that a time honored tradition that is religiously based, and the foundation of society for thousands of years be changed to accommodate their alternate lifestyle choice.

I have to ask, people live together without legal benefits of any kind, they don't believe in marriage or pieces of paper that certify you are joined as one.  Why, if you are so secure in your identity as a gay person and in love, why do you need the sanction of the state to verify your love or union? 

Why must the definition of marriage, which has a certain a particular meaning be erased to encompass a relationship that does not constitute the union of man to woman for the propagation of the species and the continuation of the human race. 

There is a fundamental definition of marriage that should never be altered.  I respect Gay people and their right to have a civil union.  I don't think that their unions should ever be called marriage.  This is more relativism, there are things that should remain unchanged especially when the majority of the people support the traditional definition of marriage.

In reply to #1:The people voted, that my friend is freedom. Majority rule is true freedom, the majority should not inhibit theier values and religion, because it bothers the minority. Free to be you and me... not free to shove me and my ideals down your throat because I want to feel ok with myself.  

Move on, the world is falling apart, children are being sold into slavery, people are starving, going with out medical attention for lack of money, all this right here in America.  And all you are worried about is feeling ok about being Gay. It's ok, it's also ok that others aren't ok with it, you will never get everyone to like you no matter who you are.  That is the way life is.  Move beyond your selfish indulgence, how can you make a difference in the world, not just in your own little life?

In reply to #5:How do you know the voters are religious? Perhaps they just have different values than you do?  I don't remember marking any religious box when I voted.  Wheather religion plays a part as people's personal convictions, morals and values is besides the point.  These very same "relgious" people also voted for a President that believes in womens right to choose.  How religious is that?  Voters come in all shapes and sizes and colors.  The Democrats vote for Obama yet they voted yes on Prop 8.  What statement are they making? Now MALDEF and NAACP are fighting what their very members voted for.  What happened to the democratic process? They mock our constitution and it's system.  Now we as taxpayers get to pay for that as well. 

Let me take the microscope off of California for a moment. Here in Florida, we said yes to Amendment 2, which established marriage as the union of one man to one woman. A majority of our voters believe that the definition of marriage should be worded in such a way.

Those who voted in favor of the amendment came from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, ethnicities, and belief systems, yet they all had a single thing in common: Their civic conscience told them on election day that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage's lifetime commitment should be guarded. I agree.

"What is democracy but the [wishes] of the majority?" Linda-Allen

This is one of the MASSIVE misunderstandings of modern democracy. Liberal Democracy should NOT provide the majority with their desires if those desires impinge upon the freedoms of a minority.

By your argument Linda, if everybody voted in favour of exterminating the Jews, then it's OK because the majority approved. There are some things that are not OK, even if the majority wants them. And squashing the rights of the less powerful is the classic example. Gay people should have access to EXACTLY the same advantages.

The electorate constantly proves itself incapable of understanding the rules of democracy. The elctorate prefers movie-stars to calm people who have all the facts and experience. The electorate re-elected George Bush at the 2004 election despite him creating Guantanamo Bay, a clearly radical and dangerous breach of basic legal practice. The Electorate fails to understand that it may not discard the basic concepts of Liberalism, which extremely clever people have been honing for millenia! Mob rule is not democracy.

If some are allowed a certain freedom, then it must be available to all. All may marry or none may. This is simple and clear.

Claiming your desire for injustice is based on 'religious faith' has never been an acceptable excuse for injustice.

In reply to #16: Mob rule is not democracy.

I concur. One needs only look at events like the Rodney King riots or the looting after 9/11 to realize the contrast between mob rule and true democracy. However, the occasional voice of the outspoken minority is necessary to ensure what we would call democracy. For instance, where would we be without acts like the Boston Tea Party (mob rule), the civil rights movement (mob rule), or union strikes (mob rule)? The homosexual community was not the oppressed minority victim here; the mainstream, modern, American middle-class family was, and Prop 8 and Amendment 2 helped balance the scales, much like a labor strike or the passive resistance used in the sixties. Just because these acts are a bit more "official" than the radical movements of our past doesn't make them any less valid or effective.  

Dissent and protest are not, per se, mob rule. Neither is the majority's opinion. I would describe Mob Rule to be when a group uses their voice to demand something that is illiberal and oppressive.

Ghandi and his movement were not 'mob rule' because they wanted freedom and justice.

Martin Luther King was not 'whipping up the mob' he was struggling for his constitutional rights.

But if you lead a protest march calling for the return of slavery... you're a mob, because you are attempting to deny others freedom and pervert liberal democracy.

Similarly, the majority using the ballot box to deny homosexuals an advantage that the majority awards to itself; this is mob rule.

Let's take an exagerrated example to make the point... If my religion said "it's OK for me to keep sex-slaves as long as they were members of a different religion", then the law would not respect my beliefs, obviously, because they are illegal. The Church MUST respect the law. I would not be able to say, "but my religion says I can..." because when  religion and the law disagree, The Law Wins Everytime. That is one of the absolute bedrock rules of Liberal Democracy. And the Law says you may not oppress minorities, even if your religion wants to.

If non-gays can marry and take certain social and financial advantages from marriage, Gays may not be excluded. "Illiberal Religious Doctrine" is irrelevant. The Law says we are all equal. This is America. 

In reply to #18: I agree to disagree. Your perception of what constitutes mob rule is intriguing, skewed though it may be. And while I'm not exactly certain what has led your views to the drastic conclusion that the US is a "liberal democracy," I do know that we are, in fact, a democratic republic, meaning our elected officials voice our individidual opinions. One person, one vote. In this case, both in Florida and California, the people's voice was heard loud and clear. It is up to us now to respect these decisions.

I may not approve of voters' election of Barack Obama, for instance, but I will still respect his office. Similarly, Americans have the innate obligation to respect the legislative decisions made by our voting body. Without it, we would no longer be the great country we are today. You're right; this is America.   

American is a Liberal Democracy. This is far from a 'drastic conclusion'. The American Public seems terrified of the word 'Liberal', but constantly eulogises about the virtues of their personal 'Liberty', which is synonymus with that most American word, "Freedom". This another example of the electorate failing to make themselves aware of their role in a democracy. Be that as it may, they are fortunate enough to live in a liberal democracy.

And your definition of democracy implies there are no limits to the voters desires. I ask you this... If 51% of the Florida electorate voted in favour of the re-introduction of slavery, would the administration be obliged to proceed with a pro-slavery policy and grant the electorate their wish. If not, why not?