Here's why not:



Justice is often depicted as a lady with a blindfold over her eyes holding balancing scales. That indicates that, in order to be truly just, one must, when deciding who should prevail in a controversy, balance those scales by objectively determining WHICH party has the greater right, when both sides have merit to their claims, and also WHICH side would suffer the greatest wrong or hardship, if the requested relief was not granted.

On the issue of same-sex couples wanting to be allowed to marry, these things have been overlooked by most folks.

1. "Marriage," as defined, is only between a man and a woman. If not, then it is something other than marriage. I'm an atheist, so I have no religious axe to grind. I seek only truth and fairness tempered with compassion and common sense.

2. This issue is actually NOT about any "right." It is a SEMANTICAL one. Homosexuals want to change the definition of "marriage." And many heterosexuals are resentful of that to the point that backlash surfaces that makes things harder for homosexuals in other areas, often provoking "gay-bashing." In some ways it is counter-productive to the gay-agenda's hope to gain acceptance in society.

3. When it comes to analyzing any right a homosexual could be said to possess to change the definition of "marriage," it needs to be considered that:

A.) Homosexuals already have the right to civil unions with the same legal obligations as marriage.
B.) A homosexual man already has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT as a heterosexual man does to marry a woman, as does a homosexual woman has the exact same right as a heterosexual woman to marry a man. So there is no question that ANY man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual, has the right to marry, as "marriage" is defined.

4. Is it fair to heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to change the definition of marriage between heterosexuals, thereby encroaching upon their domain, so to speak, simply for a semantical reason not essential as a right? I think not. For why should a heterosexual man need to explain himself each time thereafter someone asks if he is married, if he says yes, then a subsequent question would be: "To a woman or to a man?" When, as marriage is currently defined, when a man says he is married, that automatically implies that his spouse is female.

5. Further, when analyzing the impetus for WHY a homosexual feels the need to label his or her relationship as a "marriage," even though marriage, as defined, renders that an impossibility, I have to ponder if that is the symptom of a psychological need by homosexuals to mimic heterosexuals to overcome feelings of inferiority deep within them. Whereas, I believe it would be healthier psychologically for homosexuals to simply ACCEPT THEMSELVES, different as they are.


In summation, I don't see any overriding reason for allowing homosexuals to change the definition of marriage. And it is knee-jerk shallow thinking to accord it more merit than it deserves.


On a related issue, allowing homosexual couples to mimic heterosexuals by adopting young impressionable children, or to have babies "via the wonders of science," that brings into the equation something no "gay-rights" advocate will admit: That the RIGHT OF THE CHILD to become normal has been allowed to become secondary to the LESSER right of a homosexual to adopt or have kids.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier, that justice demands that, when two or more parties are involved, it must be determined WHICH party has the stronger claim to "right." That is also required by the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court has already affirmed that criteria for administering justice.

While I do not suggest that there is anything morally wrong with homosexual behavior, nor do I blame homosexuals for being homosexuals, as do many who believe in God, I attribute it to a blend of genetic disposition, over which a homosexual had no choice in the matter, and learned behavior.

Also, I think that very few people were "stamped" as homosexuals-to-be when they were born. For most homosexuals, or heterosexuals, I believe their sexual orientations did not firmly establish till after puberty. And in many other cases [bisexuals] they remained "sexually undetermined" even as adults

But it has already been established that a young impressionable child indeed can be strongly influenced behaviorably by role models, whether they be parental role models or some other authority figure.

What "gay-rights" advocates are unwilling to admit is the fact that, as even most homosexuals will concede, if one has a choice in the matter, he or she would be better off choosing to be a heterosexual. Added to the fact that the human race would have become extinct millenia ago if everyone had been homosexual, that in itself asserts that homosexuality is NOT the preferred or most optimal choice, if one had that choice. And homosexuality is NOT "normal" from that perspective, but an aberration occurring naturally or by induced behavior.

So why should someone who already has, if only "by fate," become homosexual be allowed to CONTROL the destiny of a young impressionable child, not yet fixed in sexual orientation?

A child HAS THE RIGHT to the best chance he or she can have to become a heterosexual. If he or she ultimately winds up as a homosexual, despite being given the best chance of becoming otherwise, then that's just the way it was destined to be, and the individual must make the best of what fate has bestowed.

No one can blame a child for being a "Mongoloid" [Downs syndrome]. But I am sure that the child, if he or she had been given a choice in the matter, would have opted to be born "normal." But, unlike homosexual behavior, which can be acquired "monkey see monkey do" by young impressionable children, Downs syndrome is "engraved in stone" at the time of birth.

I've seen firsthand the CHILD ABUSE caused by two lesbians having a lovely baby girl via "the wonders of science," who they have been forcing to wear boy clothes and a "butch" haircut. And it seems that they are always yelling at the little girl if she behaves normally.

In this particular case, homosexuals having control over the little girl are trying "force-fed" homosexual behavior on this child. And it's not right or just to allow this little girl to be subjected to "military-like" discipline attempting to indoctrinate her. Unless this little girl has been genetically predisposed very strongly heterosexually, she will acquire homosexual traits. And even if her nature is strongly heterosexual, she may suffer severe psychological trauma impairing her as an adult.

So I think that is one area where the rights of children should supersede any supposed "right" for homosexuals to adopt children or have them by artificial means.

As you may have noted in my foregoing dissertation-analysis, I tried to refrain, as much as possible, from using the term "gay." That was mainly because I am sensitive to the HISTORY of that word, which I think homosexuals should reject as a slur, since it derived from the Victorian Age saying of calling a homosexual "queer or A BIT FUNNY [a word closely related to how "gay" was defined at the time]. So I opted to avoid that conflict by adhering to non-subjective terminology or "homosexual" and "heterosexual."

I ask everyone to try to be MORE OPEN-MINDED on the issues of the rights of children and the still being able to recognize that differences do require different-but-equal considerations. Some times true progressives need to resist the impulse to jump on anyone's bandwagon, without first analyzing the "larger picture." Especially when, by allowing homosexuals to change the definition of something like "marriage," that will pave the way for CHILD ABUSE.

Being advocates for young children is the duty of all who advocate justice and fairness to all.

this is a very interesting issue and one in which i cannot understand why anyone in their right minds would vote yes. iv noticed that a lot of the yes on 8 ads talk about preserving the original meaning of marriage. if thats what ur all aiming to do then think about this.

so what is the original meaning of marriage?

marriage is a religious act made for man and woman to acknowledge that the couple are ready to make a family of their own through procreation.

if marriage is a religious act, then why are atheists allowed to marry? an atheist has no religion, and for marriage to be a religious act, anyone taking part in it should actually have a religion.

the only reason marriage was originally held for man and woman is because only a man and woman together can procreate. the key here is not man and woman, but PROCREATION. just because ONLY man and woman can procreate, doesnt mean ALL man-woman couples can procreate.

in biblical times, everyone assumed if a man and woman came together, they could procreate, they couldnt know someone was infertile unless the person continually tried to procreate and failed every time. and as premarital sex was considered wrong, a man-woman couple couldnt know if they were incapable of procreation without marrying first. but today we hav the knowledge of this.

so if there is a man-woman couple where 1 or both cannot procreate, then they shouldnt get married according to the original definition of marriage. so you might deny this and say man-woman couples can always marry and infertile couplers can always adopt. but then homosexual couples can also adopt. the only reason its alright to say homosexual couples cant marry is because they cant procreate. but denying gay couples their right to marry coz they're obviously not man and woman is discrimination.

so basically what im trying to say is if you say yes to prop 8 simply because you want to protect the original meaning of marriage, then you should start making another proposition to ban atheists and infertile couples from marrying too.

but if u ask me, they wouldnt do this because they know they would totally lose on something like that.