so how do you feel about prop 8? For Prop 8 vs. Against Prop 8
I'll have to admit I like this argument for it:
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."
as far as voting against it this is probably the thing that moves me the most:
"Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. Domestic partnerships are just legal documents. They don't provide the same dignity, respect, and commitment as a marriage. In a marriage, a paramedic doesn't tell you that you cannot get into an ambulance with your spouse. Married couples can automatically make life or death decisions for each other in these crisis situations, no questions asked."
I am for keeping marriage as only between men and women. I would vote yes on 8. I think we just need to make it so that domestic partners get the same rights as marriages.
so how can I vote for 8 even though I have friends who are homosexual? it's probably similar to why people I know and love will vote for McCain even though I am on medicare. We are all hypocrites. Ok so it's not a logical argument, but that is just more power for the core.
7 comments:
I feel the same way.
Interesting. I am opposed to Obama because I think that research programs (like the one for my disease) at NIH will be drastically reduced to pay for runny noses. Two sides to every coin :)
Are you still a CA resident?
Hmmm...
If domestic partners get the same rights as marriages...
Then where's the difference between marriages and domestic partnerships?
(I support this though!)
I have a domestic partnership with Cate, because we feel 'marriage' is not of this time anymore...
We feel that a domestic partnership is actually just the legal face of that whole complex thing that's a relationship.
And as far as I am concerned; I see no difference in being married to Cate or having this 'partnership' beween us...
Who dares to claim there is no dignity, respect and commitment in our relationship? Who has the right to claim that our 'partnership' is of lesser value than a classic 'marriage'?
Well anyway, same-sex partnerships (or marriages), I think, in this perspective, should be perfectly possible!
Someone's sexual orientation has, I think, nothing to do with how respectful, comitted or with how much dignity you handle your relationship....
Hmmm... I have too much to say, and too little time to find the words to express what I think... but an interesting item to write about in blogs it is! :-)
Please don't be offended
in a sense, nothing really; The marriage act to me, however, is of a religious nature as well. It is man's promise to their partner and to God, by a person with religious authority. It is also a commitment I believe lasts through eternity. So domestic partner, temporary (on the eternal scheme), marriage eternal.
Also, I am going to look somewhat badly, but the truth is that I believe that only men and women should be romantically involved. I technically believe that homosexuality is a sin. But then again I also think that people who engage in sexual relations out side of MARRIAGE (religiously or legally) are sinners. So yes, you and your partner are sinners. I also believe that No one is perfect and so we are all sinners. but I digress....
I think there should be a legal term or something where a person becomes legally bound to you, they get the rights that "married" people get. B/c lets say, for example, my husband dies and I want my best friend to be there when I go the hospital or to make decisions for me, I want to be able to have a partner with all the legal rights as a marriage whether or not we are romantically involved or not.
no no no michelle, we just take money away from military spending to fund research for diseases etc.
but then of course military ppl would be out of work right? so what about them?
well it's all a matter of priority right? what is the most important for you is what you must vote for. make your priority known.
then again countries with SOCIALIST medicine actually seems to be doing alright as far as research goes somehow... my dutch teacher's wife is Finnish, when she got breast cancer they wrote how thankful they were to be in finland b/c finnish cancer treatments (at the time who knows about now) were better (new therapies and such). But I don't know maybe it's different with lesser known diseases.
in either event if you believe that Obama being president would stop that kind of funding, you shouldn't vote for him, and I wouldn't think less of you.
Wow. Way to stir up a debate Eddie! I'm with you on all counts, and its kind of sad because I also have gay friends and its awkward to tell them that I love them but I don't think they are doing a good thing for themselves by being gay.
Some of the coolest gay people I know would make awesome mothers and fathers and they miss out on that chance because of their sexual preference. It's sad because having your own biological child is AWESOME and so fulfilling. I also feel sad for gay people who are commited and love each other through this life because they will never be together in the next no matter how much they love each other. They don't know what they are missing.
But, having said that, yes they should have rights, and no, they should not be able to be married because then they gain the privelege of adopting children.
I think gays have the right to be together as long as they don't pretend they are a normal family or deserve normal family rights when it comes to familial relationships outside their commited partnership.
A crucial problem with allowing the definition of marriage to extend to homosexual relationships is a religious one.
If the state of Cali authorizes legal marriage between two men (or women), every person authorized to perform marriage ceremonies in CA would also be required to extend marriages to homosexual unions.
Therefore, a Catholic priest, for example, or a LDS sealer would be given the option of agreeing to perform all marriages (including gay marriage) or not performing marriages at all. For a church to continue to perform marriages, it will be forced to accept unions even if they go against the fundamental teachings of the religion.
This is where the line separating church and state gets blurry because the government is basically asking religions to rethink their basic principles.
Post a Comment