No one took away a gay’s right to marry

This is one of the more basic infallible arguments I can make. Because marriage is the UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, every person of legal age in California has a right to marry. Any gay man has the right to marry a woman, as a gay woman has the right to marry a  man. No one has taken away that right! Just because a group of people defined by their behavior choices decides they don’t want to participate in traditional marriage, doesn’t mean they should have some made-just-for-them right crafted by the court to make them happy. Let’s remember, the people of California decided to keep the definition of marriage the way it has been for generations. It was 4 judges who decided it included any two breathing humans. 3 judges saw the legal problem of overturning the will of the people, so basically it was because 1 judge decided it was too unpopular to side with the majority of Californians. Tradition, history, the perpetuation of the human race itself all support the common sense definition of marriage. And now we are letting a subculture of people defined by their behavior mandate that their definition of marriage be accepted. Wake up California! Would we let drunk drivers determine the legal limit? Would we allow drug addicts the right to determine which drugs are illegal? Why do we allow gay rights activists to define what marriage is? YES ON 8!!


12 responses to “No one took away a gay’s right to marry

  1. Because marriage is the UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, every person of legal age in California has a right to marry. Any gay man has the right to marry a woman, as a gay woman has the right to marry a man.

    According to the California state constitution, the right to marry is not now, nor has it ever been, contingent upon the parties in the marriage being of different genders.

    So yes, Prop 8 would IN FACT impose a new limit on marriages in California to exclude same gender couples, which would in turn limit the right of a gay man or lesbian to marry the adult person of their choice.

  2. I sincerely hope PROP 8 fails miserably.

    BUT – if it DOES passes, is everyone prepared to spend another ba-zillion dollars on PR and possibly wait 20-30 years to “win” equality in CA?

    AND – if it does NOT pass, which state will we focus on next so we can spend another ba-zillion dollars to purchase civil rights?

    I know I am virtually alone here (except for Charles Merrill and his partner), but I think all of you are insane.

    Truly crazy….one step away from writing on the wall with your feces crazy.

    Because if ALL of us truly believed we WERE equal, we would not be so patient as tax-payers and U.S. citizens. We’d simply KNOW we ARE equal, and refuse to pay into a system that not only denies our familes civil marriage but doesn’t even acknowledge our existence (wait for the 2010 census).

    I’m 43, and I will NOT wait until I’m 73 for fair and equal treatment. It’s OK for the country at large to be ignorant, bigoted, mid-guided, and mid-informed. But that’s not my fault. So until people GROW THE F*CK UP and show my family the same “civil” respect heterosexually-identified families are given, I owe this country and the IRS nothing.

    How many times do I need to say this?


  3. The argument is absurd: why should gay men and women marry people to whom they are not attracted? What makes you think that would work? and let’s be honest here, plenty of gay men and women have tried to do just what you propose and it just doesn’t work.

    But in your post, I see that even you don’t believe what you’ve written: you offer what you know is unacceptible and inappropriate for gays and lesbians, then suggest that it is a “behavior” which then indicates a choice. So, based on this, please tell all of us, on which date did you look at the pros and cons of being heterosexual or homosexual? At which point did you decide that being gay was not an option for you? and, presuming you are male, what would it take to persuade you to engage in homosexual “behavior”? What’s your price?

  4. realtolerance

    When did you first feel you were not attracted to the opposite sex, but to the same sex? I’m genuinely interested. If I am completely ignorant, please educate me. When, if ever, have you felt genuine love for a member of your sex, without feeling sexual attraction to them? I really am curious here, because I want to better understand.

  5. It’s more than just “love” at stake here. I think it’s important to recognize the human rights of the children involved. France rejected same sex marriage because it trampled the rights of children.

    MONTREAL, March 20, 2006 ( – In late January, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage.

    DeSerres, told “Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children ‘now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.’”

    In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.” The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.” It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.”

  6. I’ll answer if you do.

  7. To answer your first question, I was probably about 10 years old when Greg Louganis hit the national stage. That’s when I was able to put my finger on what made me different. I knew I was different than most people at least in kindergarten. Probably earlier.

    As keltic pointed out, it wasn’t a choice I made, it was just an innate part of my being, like the fact that I’m right-handed and have bad eyesight.

    I don’t understand your second question. I feel genuine love for lots of people without sexual attraction. I have a feeling that you’re talking about something else.

  8. thanks for the personal email. I’ve replied to it in kind.

    There are plenty of people, male and female, that I love and feel no sexual attraction to them. I think of college professors, and ministers, and wise friends who contributed something valuable to my life and I love them for that. Doesn’t mean that I’d want to bed down with them.

    In the same way, I can love someone of the opposite sex and not want to sleep with them. and of course, the converse idea is just as true: it’s possible to have sex with someone without loving them.

    You wish to define homosexuality as a behavior, but the truth is that so little time is spent in that particular behavior (sigh). However, I’ve heard plenty of straight guys (married or single) complaining about the same thing. They’re attracted, but they aren’t spending much time doing the deed.
    And wouldn’t you find it insulting to be defined by your sexual behaviors?

  9. realtolerance

    Matt A., I find it amazing that you “knew I was different than most people at least in Kindergarten. Probably earlier.” You were aware of sexual feelings at Kindergarten? When you say you felt different, what does that mean? You weren’t included in the group, you didn’t have many friends, or you liked things the other boys didn’t like? Didn’t most of us feel different from others throughout our lives?
    The key here is not determining when someone is gay, or whether they were born gay, etc. The key is whether we should change the definition of an institution that has existed since history has been recorded. The Human family has traditionally been a two-parent, male-female organization. In the past 50 years, we have seen an increase in single-parent households, divorces, and out-of-wedlock births. The majority of these situations arise due to sexual promiscuity, immorality, selfishness..essentially poor choices made by individuals who live for today, and have no guiding principles to live by. If people waited to have sex until they were married, respected each other and stayed married, lived within their means, and made their homes the focal point of their lives, society would be in much better shape. I would posit that if there were more successful heterosexual marriages, there would be less prevalence of homosexual relationships. This is not a cause-and-effect argument, but if more children grew up in a home where they had an example of a successful heterosexual marriage taking place, more children would seek to be in a similar relationship.

  10. I’m not sure that your argument that more successful heterosexual marriages would result in fewer homosexual relationships. My parents will be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary soon. Her brother’s and sisters have never divorced. Both sets of my grandparents enjoyed long successful marriages. I’m still gay.

    I think it can be successfully argued that the institution of marriage has changed significantly throughout history. Marriage as we know it now, is only about 100 years old. Please don’t try to use the Bible as a basis for marriage; it’s clear that God approved of bigamy as well as polygamy.

    Why is it that gay marriages pose such a threat to marriage? If people are so worried about the institution, why not work for declaring divorce illegal? Why not make it a crime to have a child out of wedlock?

    The answer to whether homosexuality is a choice or an inborn trait is central to the argument. It determines what is appropriate behavior for homosexual people. If homosexuality is a choice, then it seems the right thing to do (according to many in our society) would be to choose to be straight. If it’s not a choice, but is inborn, it is NOT appropriate to tell homosexuals to change, and that they should not be allowed to marry the person whom they love.

    Above all this, when is it ever appropriate for the majority to vote about the civil rights of a minority?

  11. You mean, when is it appropriate for the majority to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court, where the court created a right that never existed before, a “right” which contradicted the will of the people? Under your reasoning, many minorities, whether minorities based on behavior, fetishes, food preferences, etc, should be allowed to utilize the courts in order to overturn/subvert the will of the majority. What happens when NMBLA asks for the right to bring about sexual relations between men and boys. Should that minority gain a civil right because NMBLA claims they are born with those feelings, that they are natural, and who are we to determine those feelings to be immoral?

  12. 3 of the 4 supreme court judges who declared that the state constitution NEVER discriminated against gay marriage, were appointed by conservative Republican governors. Your argument about activist judges simply does not stand the test.

    NAMBLA is not only offensive to gays & lesbians because your mention of it indicates that you think being gay is equal to being a pedophile, but also because you don’t have the sense to realize that an adult and a child can not enter into a contract as equals. NO ONE is ever going to side with an adult who thinks children can consent to a sexual relationship. Granting marriage rights, that already exist, is certainly not the same as legalizing child molestation.

    Your accusations become more and more bizarre, and less ethical as our discussion continues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s