<p>By religious institution, I meant it was inextricably bound to religion in modern society, to clarify.</p>
<p>I don't understand how somebody's opinion should dictate my life. </p>
<p>If I want to marry a woman, how EXACTLY is it affecting your life? Homosexuality has always, and will aways, exist. Just because we are giving ALL people the SAME right to marry, doesn't mean that your kids are going to forced to take a homosexual class in school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By religious institution, I meant it was inextricably bound to religion in modern society, to clarify.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Marriage is inextricably bound to the STATE in modern society. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If I want to marry a woman, how EXACTLY is it affecting your life? Homosexuality has always, and will aways, exist. Just because we are giving ALL people the SAME right to marry, doesn't mean that your kids are going to forced to take a homosexual class in school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Everyone needs to shut up about their straight marriages being rendered "less meaningful" if gay marriage is legalized. So your marriage doesn't mean as much because others are happy? The worth and meaning of a marriage are determined by those unified in that marriage.</p>
<p>Only if the people at my school, teachers, and the rest of California can think like Mr. Ford here...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Marriage is inextricably bound to the STATE in modern society.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both, really.</p>
<p>I was brought up Christian, and many of my friends, who are Christian have discussed this, and most of us agree that despite our religous beliefs, or how we're raised to view homosexuality, we have NO RIGHT to deny other people's constitutional rights. Plus, I hate the view that "homosexuality is a choice" which other people have been throwing around. it's not. My friends did not "choose" to be gay --they did not ask for the angry insults and people screaming abuse at them, the harassment and the stigma. </p>
<p>Majority does not mean that they're in the right. The majority of people didn't believe in allowing interracial marriage, that doesn't mean that they were in the right either. </p>
<p>I hope that the Supreme Court overturns this quickly and sees that ALL people, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, retain their rights as human beings.</p>
<p>I saw this, and I couldn't resist posting: </p>
<p>10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (NOT) </p>
<p>1) Being gay is not natural, and real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts.</p>
<p>2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay. In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.</p>
<p>3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior; People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.</p>
<p>4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.</p>
<p>5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.</p>
<p>6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children; So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.</p>
<p>7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children; Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.</p>
<p>8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.</p>
<p>9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.</p>
<p>10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.</p>
<p>let me just say something without everyone attacking me. I'm not for or against prop 8 but california did vote 61% for marriage between a man and a woman then the decision was overturned by the state supreme court. so it wasn't a law for long; it's not like it was always like that-- so some of this is exaggerated that they had the right all along... and not everyone (including gays I know who were FOR prop 8) were for it because of religious reasons.</p>
<p>I'm just giving the other side because I believe no matter which side I think is right both deserve its side stated and not automatically put down.</p>
<p>oh and can I add that for the person that said our country was founded on the idea of freedom of religion:</p>
<p>it was freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. think about how our society is now. And while yes many founding fathers were deist they believed that the people (and themselves) needed and were put here by a god who, in a sense, set a law and defined morals so that argument is actually invalid.</p>
<p>Another problem facing California, and the rest of our nation, is the lack of marriage rights for polygamists. These rights are granted in other countries, but not in ours. The next time California votes on redefining marriage, why not get rid of the discrimination against polygamists too?</p>
<p>illuminar, I was reading that quote and could swear it sounded familiar. Then I hit "zeph" and knew I had seen it before, haha.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don't know why religious people care about gay people getting married. Why do you feel God has to recognize what the state of California says is law? Why can't they be married in the eyes of the government, but not God?</p>
<p>
[quote]
it was freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.</p>
<p>And you can't compare polygamy to gay marriage. Polygamy is lust. Gay marriage is not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another problem facing California, and the rest of our nation, is the lack of marriage rights for polygamists. These rights are granted in other countries, but not in ours. The next time California votes on redefining marriage, why not get rid of the discrimination against polygamists too?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a classic example of a slippery slope logical fallacy. Stopping something from happening to prevent other things from occurring assumes far too much about the process and outcomes of a given situation.</p>
<p>Can you honestly say that you would support gay marriage if there were no danger of polygamists gaining these rights? Marriage is an institution between two legally consenting adults.</p>
<p>In response to Marie,</p>
<p>the vote was much closer than 61%.</p>
<p>I believe Gays lost prop 8 from 52-48%.</p>
<p>Back like 4 or something years ago it was 61%. The supreme court overturned it, now the vote happened, and gays (who were projected to win) lost the battle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I support defining "marriage" to be between a man and a woman, in order to placate people who whine about their "sanctity of marriage" (WAH WAH WAH), and then granting civil unions, with the exact same legal rights as marriage, to any desiring adult couple. :]
[/quote]
^ Me too :]</p>
<p>
[quote]
Polygamy is lust. Gay marriage is not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is polygamy lust?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Freedom from government-sponsored religion, not freedom from religion existing. You should probably clarify that.</p>
<p>Edit: And if you want to get really technical, we could discuss how everything is a religion to some extent.</p>
<p>There are some religions where marriage is defined as between two people, not just man and woman. The followers of those religions cannot practice their religion in regards to marriage because of laws that define marriage as between a man and woman. Is this not in violation of the first amendment? Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the first amendment allowed for people to have the freedom to exercise their religions?</p>
<p>Why in the world is marriage controlled by the government?</p>
<p>What I would like to see is marriage to be taken out of legal context, out of government hands. The government should grant just civil unions, and then marriage would just be a private ceremony, and then if gays want to get married, they can find a church that would marry them.</p>
<p>Then everyone is happy. :)</p>
<p>If redefining marriage to legalize gay marriage, why shouldn't polygamists gain their marriage rights? There seems a lack of compassion for the plight of polygamy in California. I think gay supporters mistakenly bash or ignore polygamy because they associate it with the Mormon church. Tonight's news reports about California gay supporters on the streets protesting against Mormons for their support of the Prop8. Actually, today's polygamy is beyond the Mormon church. Also, it seems unfair to smear that polygamy is lust. There needs to be a better reason for oppressing this group of people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is polygamy lust?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK, I'll admit that arguing that polygamy is lust isn't a great argument against it. But I really don't see the reasons for instituting polygamy or supporting it.</p>