#47600 Proposition 8

[Imogen]

I voted for prop 8. I even drove around with my dad and brother and handed out door hangers this weekend when I was in CA. I feel jipped, though, cause I don't get a sticker... I voted by mail...

Also, an interesting thought... my mom has been doing lots of research for her "yes on 8" website, and she said that she found research that said that the rate of fidelity in homosexual marriages is 0. I still need to see where she got that, but isn't that a sad idea if it's true? They want the word marriage just so they can betray it?

wow...that research sounds totally bogus. and don't act like heterosexual couples NEVER cheat. oy.

[Eponine]

I'm not saying they never cheat. I'm saying they never SHOULD. It's is a legally binding contract that you enter into when you're married, isn't it? I don't understand why there aren't legal ramifications for breaking this contract, as there are with other contracts in the world, but that's a different subject. Adultery is not good. can we agree on that? It is dishonest, unloyal, and just plain stupid (and should be illegal, if you look at it from the contract side). But why do they need to use the word marriage if they're just going to debase it? I don't think that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, should get married if the option to cheat on their spouse is acceptable to them. The statistics here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)(PS, I did say that I didn't know about the foundations of that 0 stastic, but this website does have some good research) just tell me that they don't want marriage: they don't want to be loyal to someone and spend the rest of their life with them, for better or for worse. They just want to force their beliefs on other people. Promiscuity, though it is found in all sexual orientations, is, from my experience with gay family members and friends, accepted in the homosexual community, while cheating on a spouse is seen as scandalous in the heterosexual crowd. I don't care what they do in their bedrooms: I just don't want that belief forced on me or on my marriage.

[Katya]

The statistics here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)(PS, I did say that I didn't know about the foundations of that 0 stastic, but this website does have some good research) just tell me that they don't want marriage: they don't want to be loyal to someone and spend the rest of their life with them, for better or for worse.

In addition to coming from a partisan source, that research is comparing "committed" homosexual relationships with heterosexual marriages, which isn't an equal comparison, since a "committed" homosexual relationship could be the equivalent of a heterosexual couple being in a long-term relationship, or living together, and I suspect that cheating rates in those types of relationships might be higher than in marriages. Ironically, the fact that gays don't have the right to marry (or haven't in many states for very long) means that you can't actually make a proper apples-to-apples comparison of this type.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I'm not saying they never cheat. I'm saying they never SHOULD. It's is a legally binding contract that you enter into when you're married, isn't it? I don't understand why there aren't legal ramifications for breaking this contract, as there are with other contracts in the world, but that's a different subject. Adultery is not good. can we agree on that? It is dishonest, unloyal, and just plain stupid (and should be illegal, if you look at it from the contract side). But why do they need to use the word marriage if they're just going to debase it? I don't think that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, should get married if the option to cheat on their spouse is acceptable to them. The statistics here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)(PS, I did say that I didn't know about the foundations of that 0 stastic, but this website does have some good research) just tell me that they don't want marriage: they don't want to be loyal to someone and spend the rest of their life with them, for better or for worse. They just want to force their beliefs on other people. Promiscuity, though it is found in all sexual orientations, is, from my experience with gay family members and friends, accepted in the homosexual community, while cheating on a spouse is seen as scandalous in the heterosexual crowd. I don't care what they do in their bedrooms: I just don't want that belief forced on me or on my marriage.

So, arguing the other way.... many believe that we are forcing our beliefs on them, for not allowing them to be under the same contractual joining naming convention as them, (ie marriage instead of civil union) because they believe that marriage should be be more than two members of opposite gender, but just a couple in love. From how I see it from their point of view, they are just as entitled to live in the same type of relationship as us because they think love is love and is all that should matter. Not which certain gendered organs go where or our beliefs of the eternalness of the family.

So how do you make the case that they are debasing marriage when they think they are honoring it by being in love as much as we are in love?

[Eponine]

I just don't see that love in homosexual relationships. And even if those statistics are partisan (I agree that some of the numbers are presented in a partisan way), I think they still stand. A member of my family chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, and he recently died in a car accident. His life partner planned the funeral (I think that it's fair to compare a life partner to a spouse in both political rights (i.e. civil unions) and levels of commitment, no?). At the funeral, after the life partner said a few words, the forum was opened to whoever wanted to speak. One man got up and shared how, right before this family member had died, he and the family member had shared a close, physical experience, and how he was so grateful that they were able to enjoy each other in this way. This confession, at a funeral, caused no uproar or cries of scandal because he had betrayed his life partner, but instead invoked smiles. The general feeling was "isn't it nice that they are able to enjoy each other?" Also, in high school, when most of us were practicing committed relationships with boyfriends or girlfriends, a few friends of mine who happened to decide that they were bisexual, were only interested in practicing sexual encounters. Sure, maybe my experience is partisan, but I think that real love cannot happen without commitment. Lust can happen. Infatuation, for sure. But not love. And a problem results in all people when there exists a huge blur between that lust or infatuation, and love. Marriage is not an institution that was created to serve you--you have to serve the relationship. Marriage takes work and commitment, and I don't think that will happen in a homosexual "marriage."

so maybe, to answer your question, anyone who enters into a marriage with the mindset that the relationship exists only to please them, and who will back out at the first minimal sign of conflict, or who believes that sexual encounters outside of that marriage are acceptable, is debasing marriage, no matter of sexual orientation. The first point has more religious grounding, I suppose, and the second two are centered around the contract aspect of the marriage relationship. In relation to homosexuality, I have seen, and my partisan statistics show, that these people tend to show the above traits more often than others.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

But what about same gender couples that commit to each other only and no others?

[Imogen]

I just don't see that love in homosexual relationships. And even if those statistics are partisan (I agree that some of the numbers are presented in a partisan way), I think they still stand. A member of my family chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, and he recently died in a car accident. His life partner planned the funeral (I think that it's fair to compare a life partner to a spouse in both political rights (i.e. civil unions) and levels of commitment, no?). At the funeral, after the life partner said a few words, the forum was opened to whoever wanted to speak. One man got up and shared how, right before this family member had died, he and the family member had shared a close, physical experience, and how he was so grateful that they were able to enjoy each other in this way. This confession, at a funeral, caused no uproar or cries of scandal because he had betrayed his life partner, but instead invoked smiles. The general feeling was "isn't it nice that they are able to enjoy each other?" Also, in high school, when most of us were practicing committed relationships with boyfriends or girlfriends, a few friends of mine who happened to decide that they were bisexual, were only interested in practicing sexual encounters. Sure, maybe my experience is partisan, but I think that real love cannot happen without commitment. Lust can happen. Infatuation, for sure. But not love. And a problem results in all people when there exists a huge blur between that lust or infatuation, and love. Marriage is not an institution that was created to serve you--you have to serve the relationship. Marriage takes work and commitment, and I don't think that will happen in a homosexual "marriage."

so maybe, to answer your question, anyone who enters into a marriage with the mindset that the relationship exists only to please them, and who will back out at the first minimal sign of conflict, or who believes that sexual encounters outside of that marriage are acceptable, is debasing marriage, no matter of sexual orientation. The first point has more religious grounding, I suppose, and the second two are centered around the contract aspect of the marriage relationship. In relation to homosexuality, I have seen, and my partisan statistics show, that these people tend to show the above traits more often than others.

then NO ONE should get married because there's a chance in ANY relationship that there will be cheating. perhaps the answer is to abolish marriage and just have civil unions.

[Katya]

In relation to homosexuality, I have seen, and my partisan statistics show, that these people tend to show the above traits more often than others.

If this is true, there should be unbiased statistics not based on your personal observation to back this up. Show me those and I'll debate the point. Until then, you're basing your opinion on questionable data put forward by other people who share your opinion, which isn't the same thing as actual research.

[Portia]

I'm straight, and have certainly had more experience than I would like with men who "back out at the first minimal sign of conflict."

Your evidence seems anecdotal, at best.

[Portia]

Overall, I wish the LDS church had encouraged its members to spend this boatload of money on humanitarian causes . . . I care more about, say, the wildfire evacuees in CA than whether Ellen DeGeneres can call herself "married."

I don't really like all the arguments from the other side of the aisle (for instance, I am unconvinced that marriage is a "right" any more than a drivers' license is; also, men and women aren't interchangeable--there is a tangible difference between hetero- and homosexual relationships, like it or not), but nor do I like the "we have to make sin illegal!" ridiculousness that comes from the "Yes" side.

It's when my ward starts conducting some bogus "nationwide" (I checked with friends, and I think my stake just made this up) fast for it to pass that I start to get frustrated. Fasting seems intensely personal and spiritual--don't drag your Propimonies to the pulpit, I say. It's perfectly acceptable to have strong feelings on political issues one way or the other, but I hate when the dialogue boils down to one side saying "you're the agent of Satan" and the other responding "you're an unenlightened bigot."

Personally, I wish marriage would be completely privatized; take the state out of it altogether, and we can use our money to go build a new house for someone who lost theirs.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I agree Portia. I don't like the "it is a sin" argument, nor do I like the rights argument either. I think they both lack substantial since we shouldn't have to make something wrong illegal, especially since civil unions in California are the exact same thing except with a different name. As for making it about rights, that is a lie that they are spreading just to gain votes, especially since the California law code in the Family Code, section 297.5 said they had all the same rights before the judges ruled in favour of gay marriage in May.

I think though that it could potentially had adverse affects on religion. I am not sure how credible the Brecket Report is, but it does have a scholarly article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy linked to it arguing that same sex marriage does threaten religious freedom.

So I take it as well that you are upset with all the millions that have been donated to the presidential campaigns?

[NerdGirl]

Overall, I wish the LDS church had encouraged its members to spend this boatload of money on humanitarian causes . . . I care more about, say, the wildfire evacuees in CA than whether Ellen DeGeneres can call herself "married."

I don't really like all the arguments from the other side of the aisle (for instance, I am unconvinced that marriage is a "right" any more than a drivers' license is; also, men and women aren't interchangeable--there is a tangible difference between hetero- and homosexual relationships, like it or not), but nor do I like the "we have to make sin illegal!" ridiculousness that comes from the "Yes" side.

It's when my ward starts conducting some bogus "nationwide" (I checked with friends, and I think my stake just made this up) fast for it to pass that I start to get frustrated. Fasting seems intensely personal and spiritual--don't drag your Propimonies to the pulpit, I say. It's perfectly acceptable to have strong feelings on political issues one way or the other, but I hate when the dialogue boils down to one side saying "you're the agent of Satan" and the other responding "you're an unenlightened bigot."

Personally, I wish marriage would be completely privatized; take the state out of it altogether, and we can use our money to go build a new house for someone who lost theirs.

Amen to all of that. Especially spending all of that money on something that I see as actually helping people.

[Imogen]

I agree Portia. I don't like the "it is a sin" argument, nor do I like the rights argument either. I think they both lack substantial since we shouldn't have to make something wrong illegal, especially since civil unions in California are the exact same thing except with a different name. As for making it about rights, that is a lie that they are spreading just to gain votes, especially since the California law code in the Family Code, section 297.5 said they had all the same rights before the judges ruled in favour of gay marriage in May.

I think though that it could potentially had adverse affects on religion. I am not sure how credible the Brecket Report is, but it does have a scholarly article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy linked to it arguing that same sex marriage does threaten religious freedom.

So I take it as well that you are upset with all the millions that have been donated to the presidential campaigns?

california doesn't have civil unions, they have domestic partnership which is not the same. to claim domestic partnership, both parties have to live together for a certain number of years, which people don't have to do to get married. any children in the relationship must be adopted by the other parent, and only one parent can claim that child on taxes even though both parents presumably share financial responsibility. Also, domestic partnership does not guarantee power of attorney and visitation in the case of a medical emergency. these are some things guaranteed by marriage that gay couples are fighting for. why should they have to spend more money on adoptions and power of attorney documents (which means lawyer fees)? those may seem like small things to you, but they can be a huge deal when the time comes.

if the government MUST be involved in marriages, why not just have EVERYONE get a civil marriage and leave the religious stuff separate and up to the couple?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Oh. I didn't know that. Thanks Imogen for the information.

[bismark]

privatizing marriage will be the ultimate answer to this. if the constitution of the state can be amended so easily by not even a supermajority of voters, then what is stopping the no on prop 8 side from raising more money next time and re-amending the constitution? this battle won't end until we privatize marriage.

[Portia]

So I take it as well that you are upset with all the millions that have been donated to the presidential campaigns?

See, the difference is the Church didn't directly encourage members to donate to either presidential campaign. People can spend their life savings on "Yes"/"No" on Proposition 8 or a truckload of Jimmy Choo shoes, for all I care. It's that I think one issue should not be singled out as being especially "moral," when you can throw moral arguments into just about any political issue you wish . . . tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dying is a moral issue . . . bailing out businessmen who have used dishonest business practices is a moral issue . . .

My beef comes with the "LDS Church encouraging" part and not the "people donated money to something" part.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

See, the difference is the Church didn't directly encourage members to donate to either presidential campaign. People can spend their life savings on "Yes"/"No" on Proposition 8 or a truckload of Jimmy Choo shoes, for all I care. It's that I think one issue should not be singled out as being especially "moral," when you can throw moral arguments into just about any political issue you wish . . . tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dying is a moral issue . . . bailing out businessmen who have used dishonest business practices is a moral issue . . .

My beef comes with the "LDS Church encouraging" part and not the "people donated money to something" part.

Ok, I get that. I think the Church support argument is that marriage is a doctrine that we practice, and that if it passes it could have legal implications for Church, as stated in one the articles I linked too. I think that is why the Church asks us to support Prop 8.

I mean, from how I understand it, for the church; preserving the institution of marriage and the operations of the temple has higher priority than a minority who want the same tax and visitation rights that others have.


I also want to correct myself from what I said earlier, Mexico on a national level doesn't approve same sex marriage. It was only Mexico City. The thing that has puzzled me to a small extent is that I was there when that happened and the Church didn't say anything about it. Of course this may be due to Mexico only legalizing civil marriages and not religious marriage, which means that Members would have to be married civilly first before getting married in the temple, and thus didn't affect the church.

[Portia]

I had a roommate up at BYUI.

He was gay...

Then one day my other roommate woke up with his hand down his sheets...

Yeah... Not cool...

I demand clarification! Your pronoun ambiguity is simultaneously confusing and unsettling! Whose hand is down whose sheets, huh? Because the way you put it, that sentence could just as easily refer to, well, a whole 'nother practice that could spark a debate of its own, but I will just say that I guess roommate #3 should have used more discretion . . . or what you are referring to is sexual harassment (if #2 is giving unwanted advances to #3, I guess?), and has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

[Fredjikrang]

and has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

No offense intended Portia, but what a load of crap. It has everything to do with being straight or gay. In one case, it happened, and in the other it wouldn't have.

I am all for tolerance, and all of this Prop. 8 stuff has been both confusing and annoying to me. In many ways I'm a libertarian at heart, but I also believe that some things are just wrong. My point of confusion has always been over what should the government regulate.

Do I think that homosexuals are doing something wrong if they act on their desires? Yes. Do I think that because of those actions they should be denied rights or be unequal to the rest of us in the eye of the United States? Not at all, and I think that any attempt to do so should be punished. So why the dichotomy? Because I don't think it is the governments job to dictate personal morality.

So where do I stand on Prop. 8? I probably would have voted for it, though I would have to read it to be sure. If it was simply defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, then I definitely would have voted for it. Why? Because that is not a moral decision. It is a linguistic decision, and one that I think would be unnecessary if the government wasn't already regulating "marriage," which I don't understand anyway.

Does anyone know why the government regulates marriage? That is what I would like to know.

[Katya]

I mean, from how I understand it, for the church; preserving the institution of marriage and the operations of the temple has higher priority than a minority who want the same tax and visitation rights that others have.

How would the temple operations be affected? We already discriminate against non-Mormons (and non-temple-worthy Mormons) and there's no problem, plus the California constitution includes a provision that says that churches don't have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to.