The Supreme Court just upheld Proposition 8. I personally had more faith in them. At least in subjects like torture, abortion, etc, it's very easily ethically debated but gay marriage? It's hard to defend without delving into superstition.
Proposition 8 is in no way unusual by world standards.It's conservative and I think unjust,but hardly stupid. It's purpose is to maintain the status quo,which is after all THE goal of conservatives everywhere.
Politicians reflect the societies which create them,they do not create their societies.
It has been said a country gets the government it deserves. This seems especially true of a country in which around 50% of those eligible can't be bothered voting.
If voting for tweedle dee or tweedle dum, aka the Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates, were more exciting, more Americans would vote. But then, voting might be outlawed because the results wouldn't be as predictable for the ruling class as they have been for the last seventy-five years.
Also, I'd like to propose that politicians in the so-called democracies of the world reflect the wishes of a small, elite layer of society who oppress the vast majority by various means. Through smoke and mirror techniques this layer controls public opinion. The slogan "a country gets the government it deserves" is one such tool in the smoke and mirror tool chest.
I agree with Tarquin. Conservatives are about maintaining the status quo, especially when it is in their favor. However, I've heard that a country gets the criminals it deserves, not the governemnt. That phrase is inscribed over the entrace to a school of criminal law in France, I beleive.
Also, I think in part the decision was about whether or not the people had the right to amend their constitution, not whether that amendment was good or bad. But I'm not sure how they can overlook that aspect.
Proper behavior is based on understanding. Morals are based on a holy book. One is fantasy and one is reality. We can't vote on morality, but we can vote for candidates who display knowledge of reality instead of fantasy.
Reality will always be questioned until we have a Constitutional Amendment that protects what we know as reality. The problem with that is that many confuse their perception of reality with actual reality. It would be nice to have the Constitution protect what we do know and not what we believe.
It is always interesting to hear someone say,"well, that is my reality...it is different from yours." Like the world revolves around their perception of it. Such conceit is so very typical today.
When homosexuals "marry" two things get raped. First, the institution of marriage and the word marriage itself. I don't mind them having a civil union or a contract of partnership or whatever you want to call it. Marriage as we have hitherto known it does not need "extending" or its definition redefined.
I concede your first point. "rape" was simply hyperbole. Obviously it is not good to use if false implications are drawn and clarity of language is lost. I'm not scared of homosexuals. I have very good friends who are so oriented and some of them agree with my stance. Your final remark is merely your perception which is false anyway. By the way, ad hominems do nothing to further or refute an argument, neither of which you have done. Since you correct me on my style of language use, allow me to help you, too.
"your scared" should be "you're scared, and "bandeed" should be "bandied".
"Rape" is a terrifying word to anyone who has ever been around it. I'm hearing it thrown around more and more these days. At least you're using it in an intelligent debate and not "Dude you got raped lol!" or "Ima go rape teh fridge".
As for the term "marriage", it has also been defined such that it was not interracial, that the wife was secondary, as merely a means of family ties, or making sex less sinful.
All that has changed. Why not this?
I know the change would be dramatic and probably not taken well, but wouldn't it make more sense, almost, to make civil unions the legal tie all around, except for those "married" religiously?
I think monopolization of the word is almost paramount to segregation. Separate but equal? Well, it's not equal. Segregation is never equal.
Kudos on having a difficult opinion, even if I disagree wholeheartedly.
I totally disagree with everything you said. First how does two people dedicating their lives together "rape" the institution of marriage? For one thing if you look through the bible which is where most of the bigots in America get their motivation, you will see nothing about marriage and no instructions stating that marriage must be only two people or only between a man and a woman. Second if anything is hurting marriage its the 50% divorce rate, that doesnt sound very sacred to me. Why no campaign to outlaw divorce?
Have you ever considered that the same arguments where used to outlaw bi racial marriages just a few decades ago, the argument was nonsense then and it is nonsense now.
Last and most important to me is the fact that the state has no business handing out marriage licenses as it is. If marriage is a institution based in religion then government should definately butt out. For legal purposes the government can issue contracts that give couples the same rights that a marriage certificate does today and it can include all people regardless of sexual preference.
If people want to get married they can still go to a church to have the religous ceremony performed. Likewise "gay friendly" churches (for lack of a better term) can perform their marriages as they seem fit. This option seems to solve the whole problem.