tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post2474393646042742151..comments2014-12-24T11:27:59.834-05:00Comments on Ramblings of a Mad Scientist: Proposition 8: Calling it what it isMikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07677335847963753566noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post-86973415035010330392008-10-28T15:58:00.000-04:002008-10-28T15:58:00.000-04:00I'm always surprised when people I don't know leav...I'm always surprised when people I don't know leave comments--I wasn't aware outsiders even knew of my blog. But it's nice to see regardless. To address these comments in order:<BR/> <BR/>Emily says the exact same rights are already granted to domestic partnerships, and that her reasons for voting yes on Proposition 8 are that every child deserves both a mom and a dad. If we accept that the first assertion is true, voting Yes on Prop 8 will do nothing to increase the probability that any given child will have both a mom and a dad. To the extent that the state granting rights and privileges is a sanctioning of a relationship, if civil unions already provide the exact same rights then same sex relationships are already sanctioned by the state. This argument is not logically consistent.<BR/> <BR/>While I appreciate anyone's decision to vote no on prop 8, reuven's first comment is explicitly religious in nature. This post does not address any religious questions, other than in the statement that a rejection of Prop 8 will not require religious organizations to perform these ceremonies if they choose not to. Marriage is not solely a matter for religion; the fact that government classifies people as single or married or divorced, and grants rights and privileges to those who are in a marriage makes it a civil matter as well. Civil matters, in my opinion, are not decided upon by interpretation of what a specific carpenter who lived approximately 2,000 years ago would have thought. <BR/> <BR/>Similarly, I believe that the position of reuven's second comment link is very far-fetched. While there are no doubt some people who would interpret the proposed changes to allow polygamy, I believe the vast majority of judges would interpret "a man and a woman" to mean one of each, given the singular articles.<BR/> <BR/>The anonymous comment is long and has a number of points to be dealt with, so this will be less well-organized.<BR/> <BR/>First, I dispute that there would be any change upon voting no on Prop 8 of marriage "from a protected belief of a small minority". According to the 2006 census estimate, 48.5% of Californians 15 and older are married. It's no longer an absolute majority, but it is almost certainly a plurality, as unmarried people will include those who have never married yet (probably most of the 16-year-olds are in this category), those who are currently divorced, and those who are widows/widowers. In any case, it's clearly not a small minority.<BR/> <BR/>Arguments about what is natural or unnatural are inherently flawed when it comes to discussing what should be. In fact, they comprise the well-established Naturalistic Fallacy, where one tries to argue should from is.<BR/> <BR/>If we are to argue nature, then we need to argue actual nature, not idealized versions thereof. Males provide parental care in somewhere around 10% of mammalian species. Among the great apes, which are the closest living relatives to humans, monogamy of one male and one female is essentially unknown. Chimpanzees and bonobos live in troops with multiple males and females, and in which each female typically mates with each male during her cycle of sexual receptivity. Gorillas live in smaller groups, and predominantly in harems, where one male monopolizes several females. If the dominant male dies, there is a strong chance that a male taking over the group will kill the juveniles in order to bring the adult females into sexual receptivity more quickly. Orangutans live essentially solitary lives, with males and females coming together virtually solely for the sexual act itself, and with the female raising the offspring alone. Male territories typically encompass those of severl females, though turnover in territory is high, so much females encounter more than one male during their reproductive career. In none of these species is there a significant amount of paternal care.<BR/> <BR/>The notion that homosexuality entirely relies upon the modern state and modern science for its existence is, of course, incorrect. From a historical and cultural perspective, exclusive heterosexuality within a mutually monogamous pairing is a relatively recent and rare institution itself. Many societies have engaged in homosexual practices at certain times in life or in circumstance. Even more have included multiple sexual partners. In European history, the state became involved in the marriage business to be able to determine property inheritance rights, with only the children of approved unions being able to inherit. The Christian church wasn't even involved in the officially witnessing or performing marriages until 1545.<BR/> <BR/>The argument about "perfect medical condition" is a red herring. Marriage is, quite simply, not just about reproduction. If it was, we wouldn't allow post menopausal women to get married, whether it would be to another woman or a man. This argument is a distraction.<BR/> <BR/>At the end of the day, if a domestic partnership/civil union has exactly the same legal rights and privileges as a marriage, denying marriage on the basis of the genders involved becomes an issue of Separate But Equal. This is something that has been routinely rejected in this country on the basis of race and of sex. If domestic partnerships and civil unions do not have all the same rights and privileges as marriage (such as that private schools are not required to calculate student aid by considering registered domestic partners as a married couple), then proposition 8 would remove those rights and privileges from those who have legally obtained them in the past several months, since same-sex marriages have been legal in the state of California. That is what this post is about.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677335847963753566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post-79176087734936379252008-10-28T14:59:00.000-04:002008-10-28T14:59:00.000-04:00God our creater has given us all a will, we do hav...God our creater has given us all a will, we do have a freedom to choose how we want to live our lives. We can choose to live for God or we can choose to turn our back on him. Whether we believe it or not, God's judgement will come. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Jesus, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. I have choosen to believe in Jesus, and have given up my rights to live my life as I pleased. And now I live my life for him. His ways are not our ways. But, his ways are best. He knows what is best for us, He created us. So I must say Yes to proposition 8.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post-63451870061863648182008-10-28T14:27:00.000-04:002008-10-28T14:27:00.000-04:00While there are strong similarities between the ga...While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.<BR/><BR/>If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.<BR/><BR/>The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.<BR/><BR/>The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.<BR/><BR/>The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.<BR/><BR/>What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.<BR/><BR/>More here: http://jeffreyharmon.net/2006/11/02/gay-marriage-unequal-rights/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post-46655248525978801222008-10-28T12:39:00.000-04:002008-10-28T12:39:00.000-04:00This may be a true danger! Will Proposition 8 lega...This may be a true danger! Will <A HREF="http://RavagedFaces.com/" REL="nofollow">Proposition 8 legalize Polygamy?"</A> The wording is awfully strange.Reuvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10419471860957530839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post-68733363119285541602008-10-27T19:30:00.000-04:002008-10-27T19:30:00.000-04:00If you pray, you'll know the truth: Jesus says Vo...If you pray, you'll know <A HREF="http://JesusSaysNoOn8.com" REL="nofollow"> the truth: Jesus says Vote NO!</A>. Why don't you try it?Reuvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10419471860957530839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63193143303705107.post-34023258984979033322008-10-27T17:10:00.000-04:002008-10-27T17:10:00.000-04:00In california all civil unions have the same exact...In california all civil unions have the same exact protections and rights as marriages. Prop 8 doesn't change any of these laws. It also won't change the federal laws (which do deny same-gender couples some privileges). <BR/><BR/>The state of California allowing same-gender marriage may seem progressive to some– –but what it says to me is that the state of California sanctions a relationship that does not best serve children.<BR/><BR/>While no heterosexual parents are perfect, and some situations are down right abusive and traumatic, the response is not to eliminate a child’s right to a mom and a dad. The response is to better educate, better encourage, better help parents be better.<BR/><BR/>While a lesbian couple or a gay couple may provide a stable home, love, and support to a child. By definition, a same-gender marriage cannot provide them a mom and a dad. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad.<BR/><BR/>Society should sacrifice for the health and well being of its children.<BR/><BR/>This is why I am voting “yes” on prop 8 (on my absentee ballot).<BR/><BR/>http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/legislation-and-social-issues/emi.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04504837123208426967noreply@blogger.com