The following is taken from a comment by a biology teacher.
“Under the laws which govern the registered domestic partnerships, same sex couples can enjoy all of the legal rights that are guaranteed to couples who must by law register for their marriage license. The problem is only 5% of the same sex couples have filed for this protection. If they feel so passionate, why do they not take the steps necessary to ensure their rights are protected? Second, having just finished our unit on ecology, which covers such things as populations and genetic diversity, organisms which do not reproduce face extinction. By their choice to remove themselves from the natural order of all living things, does set the same sex couple apart. Third, since marriage is a title which is connected directly with religious commitment, marriage should be the label connected with that commitment. Couples who seek to not have a religious marriage and are “married” by a civic employee such as a city mayor, have selected to
have a civil union/domestic partnership. The same sex community can have any kind of “party” celebrating their relationship, no one is stopping them. The support of prop 8 protects those who choose to practice their religion from same sex couples who will seek to be married religiously even though that life style goes against the religions moral code. Is that discriminating? No, that is religious freedom.”
I think this video says it all.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged equality for all, gay marriage, gay marriage ban, gay rights, no on 8, preserve marriage, protect marriate, same-sex marriage, teaching homosexuality, traditional marriage, where do babies come from?, yes on 8
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!!
This video is worth watching. It discusses the hypocrisy of some gay activists who clamor and demand freedom of speech to espouse and promote their own views and agenda, but are quick to decry those with a different view of morality as homophobic, bigoted, close-minded, or intolerant. It discusses the example of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible, when he didn’t condemn the woman taken in adultery, but asked that she sin no more.
Recent advertisements by the No on 8 campaign purport that fears regarding gay marriage being taught in public schools is unwarranted, and any claims that such will happen are lies. However, one only needs to look at the other state where gay marriage has been legalized for a time, Massachusetts, to see the affects of legalized gay marriage on the educational system and society at large. Once the definition of marriage is legally changed to mean the union of any two individuals regardless of gender, that definition is thrust upon society.
Example 1: In Massachusetts, second grade students were read a book called “King & King” about two princes who marry each other. The parents simply asked for parental notification before such material was presented, but the school refused, and the courts sided with the school. The parents then tried to pull there child from the class, but the courts again said they did not have a legal reason to do so. If this is not an example of homosexuality being thrust upon young children, then what is? Video
Example 2: Just last week, a class of first graders at a San Francisco Public charter school were taken on a school sponsored field trip to…..thats right, a lesbian wedding, where they watched their own teacher get married! Here is a class of impressionable young people, going to an event where one of their most important role models is setting an example of homosexual marriage being morally correct. Even if you feel that such a marriage is morally correct, it goes against the moral views of the MAJORITY of Californians. Shouldn’t California parents trust that their children won’t be taught homosexual values in the classroom? Story in SF Chronicle
Example 3: The California Teachers union just donated 1 million dollars to the “No on 8” campaign. It sure seems like teachers have an agenda here, besides teaching readin’, writin’, and arithmetic. Unless you want to see homosexuality forced upon us in all public institutions, Vote Yes on 8. Tolerance ≠ acceptance.