Originally posted by

CRR

Wow, what a whirlwind of garbage has this article has spat out. Hey Guerrero, over 52% of voters supported marriage between a man and a woman. That makes them Hitler? What a stupid and irrational comparison. U.S. law, and most peoples morals, "discriminates" against plural marriage, underage marriage, marriage to a close blood relative, and now gay "marriage". That is what the law is because that is how most people feel. So don't attack the Bible, religion or organizations that try to protect traditional families with ignorant, close-minded and hateful words. Try and think outside the radically liberal box that CSUS is and try and understand how the majority of California and United States voter feel. Who edits this garbage from the school paper anyway?
CRR

Hitler used a democratic election as a means of taking over Germany. It's a relevent item, because it was common in Deutschland to hate Jews. One even cited religious reasons for the hatred, and people looked in their Bibles... which ironically had been written by Jews to begin with.

Originally posted by

John

"Every person holds a right to freedom of choice and desires without infringing on the lives of others." Last time I checked, gays were not denied the right to be gay, nor were they denied the ability to get married. Gays have the ability to marry outside of church much as heterosexual couples have the ability to marry outside church. The only difference is that they do not have the privilege of receiving a marriage license from the government, thus receiving special benefits. The reason why heterosexually married couples receive licenses is because the state has a vested interest in the ability which only a heterosexual couple possesses, reproduction. Gays should, and do, have the "right" to get married; however, gays should not have the right to any benefits from the union.

You're right: Unless the government counted on there being enough single women willing to have an in-vitro fertilization for the purpose of gays adopting their babies and for a paycheck, no new babies will be made by gay couples. And YES! I totally realize that's a stretch...so we both agree: gay couples will not be the cause of new children.

However...merely increasing the population is not beneficial for the state or any Nation: that population has to have support in order to thrive.

Currently, there are 1.2 million homeless children at any given time in the U.S. (http://www.familyhomelessness.org/pdf/fact_outcasts.pdf, it's on the first page of the PDF document, fact #2.) The marriage tax isn't exactly saving the children of those families, as married couples continue to break-up before they have raised their children. We all know the numbers, 1/2 of marriages end in divorce. The marriage tax is not much of an incentive to keep couples raising their kids together. And you know? If a marriage isn't working, a divorce isn't a bad thing.

We can all agree that caring for children is an important thing for our society. More money from the state goes to education and supporting our children than for any other endeavor. Well, we have a gay population that lives mostly in urban areas, and many of those folks are capable of financially supporting a family...why not? We have a demand, they have a supply.

Are gay couples incapable of raising adopted children? It's possible that a young boy may not cope well without a father figure in a two-woman household...it's quite possible. But a lot of the stress that boys without father figures have is caused by not being able to see either of their parents for long periods of time (as a single mom tirelessly works to pay off their living expenses.) If gay couples can raise children successfully, we have plenty of children in the foster family system and, as cited above, homeless, who could use assistance.

And if gay couples are capable of raising healthy, productive children, can we not say that they are filling a niche worthy of their tax break? By raising children who otherwise would find it hard to be cared for, aren't they doing what some heterosexual couples can't in caring for their children?

By the way: I'm not saying that the fact some biological parents aren't capable of raising their children is a positive thing. It absolutely sucks, and sometimes, good people find themselves in horrible situations...but it's a reality we're dealing with in these times, and homosexual couples might be able to enter the pool of people willing to alleviate the stresses on these unfortunate children.


Now, addressing some other rights tied to marriage other than taxes and adoption rights:

Should gay couples be allowed to see their significant other at the hospital? Um, why not? People are closest to their partners.

Should a gay partner have rights to inheritance? Yes, this is tax-related, but I think that EVERYONE should have the right to pass on their inheritance tax-free to their whomever they choose...gay, straight or whatever. Most all of an estate's income and assets have already gone through income tax...Death taxes/inheritance taxes shouldn't exist period.


Finally...let's have the state call it a legal civil union, for everybody, with equal rights for all.

Let individual churches govern their definitions of marriage. If people want to view other folks' marriages as illegitimate, that's their right as free thinking individual allowed to have their religious beliefs.

I think the better way to say it is this... gay people have the same rights to marry as straight people. Everyone, gay or straight, can only marry a person of the opposite sex.

The more discriminatory act is that ONLY gay people can form domestic partnerships (unless people are over 65). Now that is a special right!

Originally posted by

John

"Every person holds a right to freedom of choice and desires without infringing on the lives of others." Last time I checked, gays were not denied the right to be gay, nor were they denied the ability to get married. Gays have the ability to marry outside of church much as heterosexual couples have the ability to marry outside church. The only difference is that they do not have the privilege of receiving a marriage license from the government, thus receiving special benefits. The reason why heterosexually married couples receive licenses is because the state has a vested interest in the ability which only a heterosexual couple possesses, reproduction. Gays should, and do, have the "right" to get married; however, gays should not have the right to any benefits from the union.

Originally posted by

John

"Every person holds a right to freedom of choice and desires without infringing on the lives of others." Last time I checked, gays were not denied the right to be gay, nor were they denied the ability to get married. Gays have the ability to marry outside of church much as heterosexual couples have the ability to marry outside church. The only difference is that they do not have the privilege of receiving a marriage license from the government, thus receiving special benefits. The reason why heterosexually married couples receive licenses is because the state has a vested interest in the ability which only a heterosexual couple possesses, reproduction. Gays should, and do, have the "right" to get married; however, gays should not have the right to any benefits from the union.

I love it when someone can't defend their opinion but jump onto other peoples' bandwagon instead.

But for fun: We used to have it where interracial marriage was illegal. And everyone had the same rights: men of their own race could marry women of their own race.

It sure is fun playing games with words to displace the bigotry inherent in current political practice, isn't it?

Originally posted by

ARC_Student

Is this article a joke? I have a hard time believing the author attends an institution of "higher education." Perhaps she failed logic class? Perhaps logic is not offered at Sac State? Well, please come to ARC, we teach logic and we also endorsed reason, otherwise known as Proposition 8. Our country is diverse, and our country was founded upon the existence of the Creator and our laws are based upon "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (see Declaration of Independence). Likewise, the Constitution of the State of California reads: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.preamble
Check out Article 1 section 7.5 of our state Constitution too. Thankfully it reads, under "Declaration of Rights": "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So Vanessa, please stop attacking the Constitution. Your nation and your state were founded upon the existence of "the Almighty God" which granted you your rights (same-sex "marriage", isn't a right given to you by God, sorry). According to our Constitution, the state of California's job is simply to protect the rights granted by your Creator.

You're the joke here, LOL. Our country wasn't formed because of Christianity -- are you crazy, or are you just deficient in US history knowledge? Do they not have that over at ARC? We sure do at CSUS.

Proposition 8 is an illegal attack on the right of minorities. A simple majority should NOT be enough to overturn rights of any minority citizens. It's plain ridiculous and discriminatory, and the whole campaign was fueled on misinformation, lies and scare tactics.

Originally posted by

ARC_Student

Is this article a joke? I have a hard time believing the author attends an institution of "higher education." Perhaps she failed logic class? Perhaps logic is not offered at Sac State? Well, please come to ARC, we teach logic and we also endorsed reason, otherwise known as Proposition 8. Our country is diverse, and our country was founded upon the existence of the Creator and our laws are based upon "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (see Declaration of Independence). Likewise, the Constitution of the State of California reads: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.preamble
Check out Article 1 section 7.5 of our state Constitution too. Thankfully it reads, under "Declaration of Rights": "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So Vanessa, please stop attacking the Constitution. Your nation and your state were founded upon the existence of "the Almighty God" which granted you your rights (same-sex "marriage", isn't a right given to you by God, sorry). According to our Constitution, the state of California's job is simply to protect the rights granted by your Creator.

I don't know what they teach you up there at Bigot State (A.R.C.), but we do NOT live in a Christian Nation. We actually live in a secular nation where no religion is given superiority over any other religion. No laws are founded upon religious beliefs: Christian or otherwise.
And, for your information, the "creator" used in our founder's writings was a generic idea of God which could be applied to any religion. And many of the founder's were Diest's, not Christians.
And you really can't use the text of Prop. H8 to argue the constitutionality of Prop. H8.
Seriously... it is clear why you are at ARC.

Originally posted by

ARC_Student

Is this article a joke? I have a hard time believing the author attends an institution of "higher education." Perhaps she failed logic class? Perhaps logic is not offered at Sac State? Well, please come to ARC, we teach logic and we also endorsed reason, otherwise known as Proposition 8. Our country is diverse, and our country was founded upon the existence of the Creator and our laws are based upon "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (see Declaration of Independence). Likewise, the Constitution of the State of California reads: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.preamble
Check out Article 1 section 7.5 of our state Constitution too. Thankfully it reads, under "Declaration of Rights": "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So Vanessa, please stop attacking the Constitution. Your nation and your state were founded upon the existence of "the Almighty God" which granted you your rights (same-sex "marriage", isn't a right given to you by God, sorry). According to our Constitution, the state of California's job is simply to protect the rights granted by your Creator.

Do you think you're President Bush? Did you call God personally and did He tell you that gay marriage isn't a right given by Him?

And by the way, the god mentioned in the DoI is Deist, not Christian. The Founding Fathers came out of the Enlightenment, a period where organized religion was disdained by many of the philosophes. The Founding Fathers knew well the problems that came out of intermingling church and state. That is why the Constitution is a secular document (and don't pull that it says "In the year of our Lord" because that is just the English version of Anno Domini, which we still use today in dating).

Please stop using your bigoted religious arguments to suppress liberties. I don't appreciate that people are using God to strip people of their rights. People like you have a religious agenda to impose on the general populace. A democratic theocracy, if you will.

I enjoy my religious freedom, and it shames me that people are using God's name to spread hate. They are no better than Fred Phelps.

And for now, I leave you with a quote. You may recognize it, you may not. It's food for thought.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."