I just learned what Proposition 8 was and...

[_JohnStuartMill]

WOW a thread I started got a promotion.

Well shades, my reasons are as follows...

I don't think allowing gays to marry has any effect on equality. Simply because Gays have equal state benefits and rights being living together partners as married couples and I know that in the Uk Married couples receive less state benefits than couples living together that aren't married. People here separate simply to get more benefits and rights. This is bad for the whole role of family. Children grow up seeing their parents separated just to get more money and it becomes acceptable and normal. In this world, such views are a bit screwed and twisted. One has to look at the purpose of marriage, where it came from.

Early marriage was borne of ancient societies' need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines. Ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

But even in these early times, marriage was much about love and desire as it was social and economic stability. In its roundness, the engagement ring, a custom dating back to the Ancient Rome, is believed to represent eternity and everlasting union. It was once believed a vein or nerve ran directly from the 'ring' finger of the left hand to the heart.

In most ancient cultures, marriage was more about securing men's dominion over women than anything else. It was a system designed to "handle the granting of property rights" -- the "property right" men had over their (often many) wives.

To me homosexuality just seems unnatural.

How can it be unnatural? We don't grow gay people in laboratories. Many species in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexuality, but this isn't because they were recruited by the gay movement.

But I have gay friends and don't have an issue with that. Homosexuals can't procreate. It is dangerous and unhealthy to have anal sex. Thus what is the point? I mean a man can sexually pleasure a woman in the exact same way and more than a woman can sexually pleasure a woman.

What if it were more dangerous to have heterosexual sex than gay sex? Would you switch over to gay sex without complaint? I wouldn't, because I'm strongly attracted to women, and the thought of having sex with men is not appealing to me at all (I'm a dude). The opposite is true of gay people. This is one of the "points" of gay sex.

I think people are gay because they are allowed to be gay. When at a young age, people can often be confused as to who they are. We try to find our identity. If a person lived in an environment where homosexuality was never considered at all plausible then those people are less likely to become homosexual. I will admit there are very camp men in the world and very butch women and perhaps they are naturally gay, but most of it imho is just a fad.

This doesn't explain the existence of Kansan, Nebraskan, or Utahan gay people very well. Gay people exist even in societies where it is considered taboo, or in countries where it is punishable by death.

Allowing same sex marriage can be damaging to the state. I don't think schools should be allowed to openly teach same sex marriage as a good thing. I think it could be mentioned that some people prefer to be gay and perhaps marry but to teach it like it is normal will result in more people thinking it is acceptable. I am not homophobic; I just think it will have a negative impact on the world. Perhaps it is nature’s way of cutting down the population.

Would you prefer that homosexuality be taught as abnormal, and that gays should be treated with contempt?

in my opinion, education is corrupt, government is corrupt, and health care is corrupt. People are corrupt. The world we live is purposely destroying civilisation and the planet. The government know what they are doing. The people that make these decisions must know the implications of what they are doing. Perhaps it's just a thinning out process.

What’s worse is gays have more adoption rights than married couples simply because it would be considered unequal to give a married couple the option before a gay couple.

Huh? Where in the world do gays have more adoption rights than married couples?

There are lots of reasons, but personally I have an opinion of marriage that to me would just be a waste of money for same sex people. For them it’s a tag, it's cosmetic. Allowing gay marriage just destroys the whole meaning of marriage and family.

I thought marriage was about love and commitment, and not just heterosexual sex. Guess I was wrong.

Sorry for any offense I may have caused, what I am saying is not aimed at anyone in particular and it is merely my opinion. I don't intend on proactively trying to change the world and people are free to do as they choose. If I loved in the US or was asked to vote my opinion, I'd either not vote or vote for prop 8. But most likely not vote. I don't have an issue with people being homosexual or marrying, but I wouldn't want any kids I have in the future being subjected to an education that taught that same sex marriage is normal or acceptable.

:/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow (NSFW)

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I have already been proven ignorant today on the same subject. :( Why does the rest of the world know things I don't? I mean, it's all common knowledge apparenly. I can't even write the same way as the people around me. I write with the knowledge and sense of a five y/o.

[_Brackite]

Since there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize gay mariages, there would be no such husband. The irrationality falls entirely upon you.

Hi BCSpace,

Question: Do you also believe that there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize Plural (Polygamous) Marriages???

[Guest]

I am continually amazed by the ignorance displayed when someone claims that preventing LGBT couples from civil marriage has little or no impact on the equality of those couples, usually while asserting an argument along the lines of "civil unions are good enough."

Here is a great article explicitly demonstrating how "civil unions" are NOT equal, and the quantifiable differences (in this case, Financial) between couples who get to choose "civil marriage" and those that are prohibited from it:

Political IQ

I'm not feeling particularly rich these days. Every time the Dow Jones average plunges and new unemployment figures are released, my stomach churns. I go into terror mode as I contemplate my economic future. I suspect I'm not alone. Worry over the crashing economy has got to be darn near universal.

Along with other LGBT Americans, though, I'm particularly vulnerable to economic downturns. Our problems don't come from stupidity, lack of education, or picking the wrong careers. Our problems come from state and federal laws that stack the deck against anyone who isn't heterosexual. The range of economic liabilities facing LGBT folks is breathtaking.

Because I'm a lesbian, it's easier to keep me from getting a job or to boot me out of one, even if I'm the best worker a company ever hired. Today only 20 states and the District of Columbia prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Of those, only 13 prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. Many cities and counties provide protection, but most don't.

In an economy where 651,000 people lost their jobs in February, this lack of protection paints targets on the backs of millions of LGBT workers.

We can't even fall back on the old recession-fighting strategy of joining the military. We're banned from serving openly. Despite his campaign promise to end the ban, President Barack Obama has yet to make any meaningful move to do so.

And then there's the issue of marriage. As financial advisor Suze Orman noted in a Valentine's Day message on her TV show, "You will save thousands, tens of thousands of dollars, all kinds of money, if you are allowed to marry."

That's a right that same-sex couples don't have in 48 states. For us, and our children, that means the more than 1,100 legal and financial benefits that heterosexuals receive are simply out of reach.

Even in Massachusetts and Connecticut, where we can marry, the hideously named Defense of Marriage Act deprives us of, among other things, Social Security spousal benefits, health insurance, tax breaks and disability and death benefits for spouses of federal employees, veterans and public safety officers. When we do get to participate in the benefits offered to spouses at our partners' workplaces, we face taxes heterosexuals never see.

For couples like Dorene and Mary Bowe-Shulman, those taxes literally take money away from their children. Together for 14 years and married in Massachusetts, the couple's kids are Emma Jae, 10, and Olivia, 7. Dorene is a stay-at-home mother and a two-time cancer survivor. After they married in 2004 and added Dorene to Mary's health insurance policy at work, they received a shock. Dorene's portion of the insurance was taxed as if Dorene wasn't part of Mary's family.

Under DOMA, Mary's employer must tax every benefit provided to a same-sex spouse. Today, the couple loses about $140 a month because of that tax. That's money they would have put into their daughters' college funds. Because they can't file federal taxes as a married couple, Mary and Dorene also take a financial hit. In 2006 alone, the family paid $3,332 more in taxes because of DOMA.

Mary and Dorene, by the way, are among the eight same-sex couples and three surviving spouses who just filed suit challenging DOMA in federal court.

Stereotypically, all of us gay folks are supposed to be rich. We're all supposed to have fancy apartments, fast cars and no kids. While some members of our community live the wealthy life, many of us don't.

In a December 2007 study, UCLA's Williams Institute reported that the annual earnings of men in same-sex couples in the United States were $43,117, compared to the $49,777 taken in by married heterosexual men. The median income of same-sex couples with children was $46,200, or 23 percent lower than the $59,600 median income of married heterosexual parents.

We need to pay close attention to the ongoing efforts to stimulate the economy. Crashes hurt everyone, but they cut deeper into our community because we're already hobbled by financial handicaps. We need to push for economic plans that can work, and rail against those that make no sense.

But we also can't back off on our ongoing effort to win equality. Already our families are being left behind.

Because of DOMA, Obama's plans to stimulate the economy through mortgage breaks or tuition tax credits for families can't be extended to our households. Because Congress has yet to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or get rid of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, LGBT workers face a greater likelihood of unemployment.

As frightening as the economy is now, it will rebound. The question is whether LGBT Americans will be part of that recovery or not.

Diane Silver is a former newspaper reporter and magazine editor, whose work has appeared in The Progressive, Salon.com, Ms, and other national publications. She can be reached care of this publication or at PoliticalIQ@qsyndicate.com.

http://www.pridesource.com/print.shtml?article=34325

[Guest]

Here's another example with regards to Finances (in this case, pension benefits):

Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 11:08 PST
A gay cop with six months to live is denied partner benefits

After 23 years of service as an investigator in the Ocean County, N.J., prosecutor's office, Lt. Laurel Hester is dying of lung cancer. She would like her partner, Stacie Andree, to get her pension benefits.

The Ocean County Board of Freeholders would like Hester to get lost. The freeholders, the all-Republican governing body that sounds, and acts, like something out of the "Scarlet Letter," have denied her request for domestic partner benefits. Something about how it would "cost too much." Oh, and something about the "sanctity of marriage."
There's apparently a bit of a loophole in New Jersey's Domestic Partners Act of 2004. According to New Jersey.com, while that law covers state employees, it "also changed state law to permit -- but not require -- counties, cities and other local government entities to provide pension and health care benefits for domestic partners of their employees. More than 100 agencies have since adopted such resolutions, including Bergen and Hudson counties, New Jersey Transit, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and a dozen towns, from Stone Harbor to Jersey City. Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said not requiring local governments to adopt domestic partner benefits was 'the only way to get the bill through. We were well aware of the difficulties; that it was only a small step forward,' she said. 'It is something that we will have to come back and address in future legislative sessions.' For now, it has created a patchwork of law applied inequitably to public employees depending on local politics, according to Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization."

Posted today at the Big Gay Picture: the first in a series of three interviews with Hester, who has otherwise shunned most press. The Republic of T. also has lots more information.

Without the benefits, by the way, Andree stands to lose the couple's house.

Hester has about six months to live.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/ind ... index.html

[Guest]

And here's two recent examples involving problems with Medical Care when it comes to domestic/civil partners:

Gay Rights: Lesbian Sues Hospital Over Denied Access To Dying Partner
Posted on February 8, 2009

As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman’s hospital room.

Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond.

Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital’s visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses — not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized. On Friday, two years after her partner’s death, Langbehn and her attorneys were in federal court, claiming emotional distress and negligence in a suit they filed last June.

Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients’ visitors.

Following a hearing lasting more than an hour Friday, U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan said he would try to decide soon whether the case could proceed to trial. He gave no specific date.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworl ... g-partner/

and

Gay man says he was forced out of partner's room at OHSU

12:03 PM PDT on Thursday, April 23, 2009

By TERESA YUAN, KGW Staff

PORTLAND -- A visit to Oregon Health and Science University hospital turned into a frustrating situation for a gay couple who said their rights as domestic partners were not honored until a lawyer got involved.

This all started with a hospital visit. The patient, who only wanted to go by his first name of Christopher, was having trouble breathing. So his partner, Patrick took him to OHSU.

As Christopher was laying close to death, Patrick was told he had to leave the room and couldn't believe what the nurse was telling him.

"The nurse said, 'Christopher is very ill. There are some life and death decisions that have to be made and now is not the time for friends to be in the room.' I'm like, 'we don't have any friends in the room,'" recalled Patrick.

Under Oregon law, Patrick had the right to stay in the room because the pair had been legal domestic partners for nine months. Patrick found a lawyer who made a call to the hospital and after two and a half hours, he was allowed back inside.

OHSU officials told KGW this may be a case of human error.

"Truly. Every couple is welcome here. It doesn't matter what their relationship is... same sex or not. We understand it. And I'm really very sorry this happened to this particular couple," said Barbara Glidewell, a spokeswoman for OHSU.

The hospital has vowed to put staff members through additional training to make sure this doesn't happen again.

As for Christopher, his condition has improved and he was expected to go home Thursday to continue his recovery there.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/k ... ed9a.html#

[Guest]

And here's one from 2006 involving problems with Inheritance Rights that resulted after a gay man's partner (of 24 years) passed away:

Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:23 PDT
Gay partner loses ranch

In These Times has a moving interview this month with rancher Samuel K. Beaumont, whose five-year legal battle to keep the Bristow, Okla., ranch that he and his late partner, Earl Meadows, shared for 24 years is chronicled in the documentary film "Tying the Knot." After Meadows died in 2000, "a gaggle of his long-lost cousins went to court and evicted Beaumont from the 80-acre ranch, taking at once his home and his livelihood." The case is not unlike Laurel Hester's battle to leave her pension benefits to her gay partner, though where Hester's story led to a change in New Jersey policy Beaumont has encountered much resistance.

Beaumont and Meadows raised five children on the ranch -- three from Beaumont's previous relationship with a woman and two who "we kind of adopted along the way," Beaumont says. Although Meadows left the ranch to Beaumont in his will, which was also signed by a notary public, the judge hearing the case decided that another signature was required.

In the interview, Beaumont, who is 62, speaks candidly about his deep love for Meadows and the life they created on the ranch, and how the legal battle has caused him tremendous heartache and cost him tens of thousands of dollars. Bristow is a town of 4,300 in what is generally thought of as a conservative state, but as tempting as it is to divide the country neatly into red and blue, that dichotomy hardly tells the whole story. Beaumont says that he never felt discriminated against while he and Meadows were raising their sons in Bristow. "There wasn't nothing like that against us. We got along good. Most of the upper crust of town Earl knew well. They didn't care, and we didn't push it on them. Most of them had known Earl most of his life. He was born in Bristow. He'd went to school with them, college with some of them. We never had any problems."

In These Times reminds readers that in November, Defense of Marriage Acts will appear on ballots in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho, Virginia and Wisconsin. Despite the fact that Beaumont and Meadows were accepted in their Oklahoma town, the national political climate is not in their favor. "He didn't have the balls," Beaumont remarked dispiritedly of the judge who ruled against them. One can only imagine the discrimination the marriage acts would legitimate; and it seems like we'll need a lot more than balls to fight it.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/200 ... index.html

[_Daniel2]

The final article I'll quote, for the moment, demonstrates the inequality inherent in the way our country handles LGBT relationships when it comes to possible deportation of one spouse within binational (consisting of an american citizen and a foreign citizen) LGBT couples:

March 31, 2009

Lesbian Mother Faces Deportation
By Julie Bolcer

Advocates for binational same-sex couples say the wrenching predicament of a lesbian mother in California illustrates why Congress needs to pass the Uniting Americans Families Act.

Shirley Tan, 43, will likely be deported this Friday from her home in San Mateo. The deportation would separate Tan from her 12-year-old twin sons, her life partner, Jay Mercado, and her mother-in-law, sending Tan back to the Philippines, where she was a victim of horrific violence.

If Tan and Mercado were heterosexual and married, advocates say, Mercado could sponsor Tan for immigration, but federal law limits the definition of marriage to a man and woman. The discriminatory circumstances illustrate the urgent need to pass the UAFA, which would allow gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their foreign-born partners just as straight citizens can.

UAFA was reintroduced in Congress in February, and currently has 110 cosponsors in addition to chief sponsors Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sen. Patrick Leahy. Proponents are hopeful that a Democrat-controlled Congress and a more supportive administration can move the legislation forward.

“Until the UAFA passes, families like Jay and Shirley’s are at terrible risk,” Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven said in a statement on Monday. “We are hopeful their members of Congress will introduce a private bill that would spare their twin boys and the boys’ grandmother from having the country they love tear their family apart.”

A potential short-term alternative to UAFA, private legislation is introduced on behalf of individuals who demonstrate compelling circumstances, such as Tan's.

Tan applied for political asylum in 1995, and thought her case was still pending, until immigration officials knocked on her door this January. She told the San Jose Mercury News that her former lawyer never told her a deportation order was issued in 2002. Her bid for asylum failed because the threat to her life in the Philippines came from a relative -- who shot her in the head when she was young over an inheritance battle -- instead of from the government.

Now, like 37,000 other couples in the United States, Tan and Mercado face the agonizing choice of either separating their family or going to live in a country their children have never known.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid76918.asp

[_Jersey Girl]

WOW a thread I started got a promotion.

Well shades, my reasons are as follows...

I don't think allowing gays to marry has any effect on equality. Simply because Gays have equal state benefits and rights being living together partners as married couples and I know that in the Uk Married couples receive less state benefits than couples living together that aren't married. People here separate simply to get more benefits and rights. This is bad for the whole role of family. Children grow up seeing their parents separated just to get more money and it becomes acceptable and normal. In this world, such views are a bit screwed and twisted. One has to look at the purpose of marriage, where it came from.

Early marriage was borne of ancient societies' need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines. Ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

But even in these early times, marriage was much about love and desire as it was social and economic stability. In its roundness, the engagement ring, a custom dating back to the Ancient Rome, is believed to represent eternity and everlasting union. It was once believed a vein or nerve ran directly from the 'ring' finger of the left hand to the heart.

I am quite sure gay people never considered marriage when they lived in caves. I once heard of how men would tie a piece of plant thing around the woman’s ring finger to show people that she is taken.

To me homosexuality just seems unnatural. But I have gay friends and don't have an issue with that. Homosexuals can't procreate. It is dangerous and unhealthy to have anal sex. Thus what is the point? I mean a man can sexually pleasure a woman in the exact same way and more than a woman can sexually pleasure a woman.

I think people are gay because they are allowed to be gay. When at a young age, people can often be confused as to who they are. We try to find our identity. If a person lived in an environment where homosexuality was never considered at all plausible then those people are less likely to become homosexual. I will admit there are very camp men in the world and very butch women and perhaps they are naturally gay, but most of it imho is just a fad.

Allowing same sex marriage can be damaging to the state. I don't think schools should be allowed to openly teach same sex marriage as a good thing. I think it could be mentioned that some people prefer to be gay and perhaps marry but to teach it like it is normal will result in more people thinking it is acceptable. I am not homophobic; I just think it will have a negative impact on the world. Perhaps it is nature’s way of cutting down the population.

in my opinion, education is corrupt, government is corrupt, and health care is corrupt. People are corrupt. The world we live is purposely destroying civilisation and the planet. The government know what they are doing. The people that make these decisions must know the implications of what they are doing. Perhaps it's just a thinning out process.

What’s worse is gays have more adoption rights than married couples simply because it would be considered unequal to give a married couple the option before a gay couple. A bit like racism, anyone of a race that isn't white can accuse a white person of racism and that person will get a lot of stick, but I know non white people that have been racist to white people and it has been ok and allowed to let slide. Because of equal rights. But actually equal rights aren't equal at all. I wouldn't be able to do anything if someone of a different race said something racially derogative to me, but those same people will pull the race card on themselves. I have seen it happen. I told a friend once that he was being racist to himself. He was. And the things he was saying were completely off the wall, but it's ok as long as someone else doesn't say anything apolitically correct to or about them.

The same applies.

There are lots of reasons, but personally I have an opinion of marriage that to me would just be a waste of money for same sex people. For them it’s a tag, it's cosmetic. Allowing gay marriage just destroys the whole meaning of marriage and family.

Sorry for any offense I may have caused, what I am saying is not aimed at anyone in particular and it is merely my opinion. I don't intend on proactively trying to change the world and people are free to do as they choose. If I loved in the US or was asked to vote my opinion, I'd either not vote or vote for prop 8. But most likely not vote. I don't have an issue with people being homosexual or marrying, but I wouldn't want any kids I have in the future being subjected to an education that taught that same sex marriage is normal or acceptable.

:/

ETA: Flip lots of typos!

I have a question and you'll know why I'm asking. How long did it take you to write this post?

p.s. If you don't stop cutting yourself down, I won't let you use the beach house in Florida any more!

[_Yoda]

p.s. If you don't stop cutting yourself down, I won't let you use the beach house in Florida any more!

You have a beach house in Florida? You've been holding out on me! When's our next party?