Student activists come out against Proposition 8

davidnta,

Are you serious when you say that hating the sin and loving the sinner is impossible? Have you never had a family member or close friend do something that was wrong? Did you immediately start hating them? There are parents all over the world whose hearts ache because their children have made choices in life that bring them pain. Do you think those parents do not still love their children?

I would suggest that those who truly know how to love can indeed love the person but still not accept their choices. Those who hate are the ones who want everyone to believe that those two things are mutually exclusive.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by MylesC on November 18, 2008 at 8:38 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

todd1007...

Let's try to keep this discussion civil. We don't want to be like some of the Prop 8 protesters in California who are persecuting certain religions and attacking people who donated time and money towards Prop 8.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Satirical on November 18, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

"At least 150 U.S. cities held protests, according to "Join the Impact,” a Web site dedicated to equal rights for homosexuals"

how is this an equal right? when have non-homosexual individuals demanded the right to practice homosexuality while denying that same right to homosexuals? wouldn't it be more accurate to describe this as a special right that is enacted to placate the small community of individuals who are homosexual? i have no desire to have this right granted to me any more than i would desire to have the right to own slaves. if i desire to own a slave, and a consenting adult agrees to that arrangement, should i then demand that slavery be made legal?

"Same-sex marriage had been legal in California since May 15 before the proposition passed"

-Same sex marriage in California was never passed by the California legislature as a legal act. It took a court order from the California Supreme Court to strike down Prop 22 (an earlier amendmant passed by Californians in 2000 that defined marriage as a union between one adult man and one adult woman). So, in essence, the courts ruled the Prop 22 definition of marriage was illegal, thus nullifying Prop 22, but still not enacting a law that specifically provided legality for homosexual marriages.

• May 15th is an incorrect date. Legal homosexual marriages were not performed in California until June 16th

"Korrie Johnson, Topeka junior and activities coordinator for Queers and Allies, said the group in Kansas City had a lot of fun for a good cause"

-Gay marriage is a good cause?

If this topic is so important, why are there so many basic factual errors being reported by the Kansan? Shouldn't a newspaper that promotes this cause so heavily at least report the basic facts?

How come the Kansan doesn't make mention that same sex civil unions are legal in California, which give participants all the same legal rights as married couples. The only rights that same sex civil unions don't provide are the Federal Rights that are granted to individuals who are legally married under the laws of their residing state. So basically, this push for same sex marriage is for a few minor tax breaks and the right to adopt children (which I disagree with). It seems that this would have been mentioned somewhere in the article, but the Kansan has decided not to include this piece of information. It seems like most readers would want to know this information.

How does the Kansan expect to change popular opinion if so many basic facts are not given to their readers?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 17, 2008 at 3:59 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

The Kansan didn't report most of that information because it's wrong. Civil Unions don't equal marriage. Over a hundred rights are specifically reserved for married couples that people in civil unions do not have access to. The same-sex marriages that occurred in California are completely legal even though their wasn't "a law that specifically provided legality for homosexual marriages." There didn't have to be. Gay couples can already adopt children. They can't adopt a child as a couple everywhere, but there are thousands of wonderful children being raised by loving gay and lesbian parents.

Your logic in saying same-sex marriage is a special right is extremely flawed. If you can get married to someone you love as a heterosexual, why can't I get married to someone I love as a homosexual? You can get married, and I can't. It's that simple. It's not equality.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by juniper08 on November 17, 2008 at 6:59 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

Oh, they voted, so it must be right... Tyranny of the majority anyone? it's a pretty known concept.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by oliveira on November 17, 2008 at 4:44 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

"Over a hundred rights are specifically reserved for married couples that people in civil unions do not have access to"

-Really? This should be very interesting. please list the 20 or 30 rights, that in your opinion, are the most important rights not extended to civil unions. please confine your list to the laws that apply to California residents only, since that is what this discussion revolves around.

"The same-sex marriages that occurred in California are completely legal"

-yes, the marriages that were performed during after June 15th were legal, but there is no guarantee that the California supreme court will not retroactively nullify those marriages in light of the passage of prop 8 (though unlikely).

"even though their wasn't "a law that specifically provided legality for homosexual marriages." There didn't have to be."

no. to be married, you MUST follow the laws of the state where you obtain your marriage liscence. the legal wording of the california law was ambiguous as to the legality of homosexual marriage. there was no clause in the law that provided for homosexual marriage. why? because it was always assumed that each marriage was constituted of one man and one woman. it was only in the early 1990's, when homosexuals began applying for marriage licences, that California took action to to redefine the wording to make the legal meaning of the law less ambiguous.

In 1994, prop 67 passed, which specifically made a marriage only legal between a male and a female. in 2000, the California constitution was amended, making it illegal for homosexuals to be married. prop 8 was passed nov 5, overturning the California Supreme Court ruling of may 15th, 2008.

so yes, there HAS to be a law giving individuals the right to be married and to be recognized by the state. no amount of wishful thinking is going to change this.

"You can get married, and I can't. It's that simple. It's not equality."

no. you have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex, just as i do. just because you have the desire to engage in homosexuality does not make it legal. homosexual marriage IS a right that is different from heterosexual marriage. you could make an argument that it is very similar (much like the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 20), but it is NOT the same.

the condition of being homosexual is NOT the same as heterosexual. moreover, it is not fully understood (e.g. what causes homosexuality, how does the behaviour of homosexuals differ, how is it the same, ect. ect.)
if you are so adamant about legalizing homosexual marriage, why is your attitude so belligerent? do you really think that others want to grant the right to practice an act that many think is absolutely nauseating?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 17, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

"The condition of being homosexual is NOT the same as heterosexual. moreover, it is not fully understood"

Actually it has. There have been at least 10 academic articles citing a highly probably causation to the condition of homosexuality, although those articles are badly written because they take on biases. One major study was just published in a medical journal citing a genetic link to transgender people. Go to the database at KU and search for them. They're readily available for you to read.

It would be a mistake for the California Surpreme Court to take away since it clearly states that you can't take away rights once you give them away (ipso facto). Then you have the dillema of other same-sex couples being treated differently. In any case, it is my hope that Prop 8 be nullified on the ground of civil rights.

To address you obviously disgust of same-sex people, at one point people thought interracial marriage was "absolutely nauseating" as you would have put it, and yes it is the same (metaphorically) no matter how you want to put this todd1007. You have been conditioned/sociallized to believe that being gay is wrong. We are only doing what we believe is right for us just as heterosexual people believe what's write for them.

"no. you have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex, just as i do. just because you have the desire to engage in homosexuality does not make it legal."

So does this mean that a gay person can marry someone for immigration purposes? Because there are plenty of gay people getting prosecuted by the government because they view this type of marriage as fraud. I can say that I love the person I want to bring to this country, but the government starts pouncing on you as soon as they find out you're gay. Geeze, I wonder why... could it be because they know that being gay isn't a choice?

Would you, todd1007, want to marry an Ex-gay? When asked this question to a lot of people who don't like gay men or lesbians, about them or their children, you'll be suprised at how quickly they shy away.

Quit calling me a homosexual. I'm a person who just happens to be a gay. It's just like I happen to be an Asian male. Being gay is no different from being Asian, one is an internal characteristic and the other is an external characteristic. One can be better hidden than the other.

Quit calling it a homosexual marriage. It sounds like we want speical rights when all we want are the same rights. That's why it's called marriage equality.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

vladisav - yes the people of California voted in favor of Prop 8, does that mean that's it is necessarily right?

Again, it's not gay marriage. There are no special rights that we want. We just want the same legal civil rights that everyone else have and to do it that goes in accordance to our orientation. Why do you think we should/shouldn't be legally entitled to be whoever we want? We pay taxes. We contribute to society. We pay for the benefits for mixed-sex marriages, why can't we pay for our own?

If Republicans want to protest Obama's election, go right ahead. No one is stopping you from doing it. Just because one group isn't protesting doesn't mean that another group shouldn't.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on November 17, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

All laws discriminate. Marriage is not a fundamental right which means the state government can legislate who can get married.

The logic for allowing same-sex marriage is the same for allowing polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage. Of course one can make an arbitrary distinction between same sex marriage and the latter ones, but the arguments for them are essentially the same. So advocating for one is advocating for them all

Anti-homosexuality isn’t the issue (for many). This is about society being able to determine which relationships it should encourage, and the social implications of changing the traditional definition. Marriage is a social institution. No one is telling homosexuals who they can love, or whether they can love. Government is not interfering in their private lives. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.

Marriage is more than a contract between two consenting adults, it is a status which has social ramifications.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Satirical on November 17, 2008 at 2:55 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

Satirical summed up the argument that I was about to make, so that saved my fingers alot of work =)

A few additional comments: davidnta, it has always been referred to as "gay marriage", but I can see why you would want to re-label it "marriage equality". It makes your cause sound more noble. It would be more correct to say that it is "genderless marriage". To say that you want to allow homosexuals to marry but yet not re-define marriage is impossible. The law cannot recognize two types of marriage (nor do I think homosexual activists would be satisfied with that). So if there is only one type of marriage, then it must be called "genderless marriage". It's OK with me if you want to start using that term (especially since I didn't think of it myself).

Also, homosexual tendencies may or may not be predetermined by DNA, but homosexual activity certainly IS a choice.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by MylesC on November 17, 2008 at 3:27 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

"One major study was just published in a medical journal citing a genetic link to transgender people"

-it is clearly stated that the genetic link in the 112 volunteers is not fully understood. do you understand?

"you can't take away rights once you give them away"

• so residents of missouri should demand the right to own slaves?

"To address you(r) (sic) obviously disgust of same-sex people (homosexual people?)"

why do you assume that i am disgusted by homosexuals? did i ever say that? i said that many consider the ACT OF HOMOSEXUALITY nauseating. everyone possesses the capability to commit the act of homosexuality, just as everyone possesses the capability to commit the act of theft.

"So does this mean that a gay person can marry someone for immigration purposes? Because there are plenty of gay people getting prosecuted by the government because they view this type of marriage as fraud"

heterosexuals are never prosecuted for this? only homosexuals?

"....being gay isn't a choice? Would you, todd1007, want to marry an Ex-gay?"

-how can someone become an ex-gay? you said that the condition of being homosexual was not voluntary.

"Quit calling me a homosexual. I'm a person who just happens to be a gay"

• gay is different from homosexual?

"Quit calling it a homosexual marriage. It sounds like we want speical rights when all we want are the same rights"

no. it is a special right. homosexual marriage is a right that only homosexual individuals will practice.

please explain why civil unions are lacking. do you even know why?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 17, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

"no. it is a special right. homosexual marriage is a right that only homosexual individuals will practice."

So, a traditional marriage - which is only between heterosexual people - is a special right. Seeing that only heterosexual people are practicing it. Now isn't that something we're against? Let's make it an equal right.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by MegVail on November 17, 2008 at 4:21 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

too late

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 18, 2008 at 12:33 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

Yes gay is different form homosexual because homosexual is a pathologized term. Something that psychologist have distanced themselves from and all people should understand and do the same. Most social conservatives will use homosexual because they know it's a pathologized term and people will think less of LBGTQ folk if it's used.

"It is clearly stated that the genetic link in the 112 volunteers is not fully understood. do you understand?"

Of course, you can't really point to something and say that that's the cause of something. You wouldn't be a good scientist if you did that. But it is a causation that should be studied more. Also there was a controlled group of 100 non-transgender people versus the 100 transgender people who volunteered for this study.

"[S]o residents of missouri should demand the right to own slaves?"

No because you're taking away another human's rights away by doing that. How is taking away a marriage hurting another marriage? Are people that narcissistic that their marriage/relationship will dissolute if their marriage was kept intact? Your argument is a fallacy.

"[H]eterosexuals are never prosecuted for this? only homosexuals?"

Both are prosecuted but it's easier to do it to a gay individual than it is to a heterosexual individual. Again you never answer

"[H]ow can someone become an ex-gay? you said that the condition of being homosexual was not voluntary."

I did, but that's what they call themselves and socially conservative people who prey on weak minded individual who convince them that being gay is wrong. There have been plenty of study to disapprove that and that APA came out strongly against such acts. You still didn't answer my question.

"[W]hy do you assume that i am disgusted by homosexuals? did i ever say that? i said that many consider the ACT OF HOMOSEXUALITY nauseating. everyone possesses the capability to commit the act of homosexuality, just as everyone possesses the capability to commit the act of theft"

But in society we discourage acts that we find hurtful and tend to view people different if they know that they're different. So knowing a gay person would make one to assume that they have sex with people of the same sex, which you definitely said you hate. So most often that form of hate can transfer to the individual, and it's very hard to disconnect that. So when you said "love the sinner, hate the sin" that doesn't work. It's still hate.

"[N]o. it is a special right. homosexual marriage is a right that only homosexual individuals will practice."

Here it sounds like you're admitting that being gay is innate.

Civil Unions are lacking because if the federal government decides to recognize same-sex couples, then we would still be missing those rights.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on November 17, 2008 at 6:15 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

It seems like you have a problem with the word marriage. Marriage is one of the few institution left that connects religion and government. I would suggest that we take marriage out all together and put in place civil marriage. If you want your marriage with your religion, you're free to do it at your church and you should feel free to call it whatever you want. If you want rights and a civil marriage, you have to stand in front of a judge in addition. I bet you more than likely, this will be the solution to this.

You know, we can sit here and fight each other back and forth, and I am totally up for that. The fact is that Prop 8 passed with 52% of the popular vote. That's much better than 30% in the past. The reason why Prop 8 passed is because advocates for marriage equality didn't reach out to the Black community and other people of color (except Asians because they voted in majority against it). So blame goes on both side, Blacks for being 70% homophobic, and organizers (mostly white gay men and lesbian) for being racist). Both equally wrong.

By the way, it is marriage equality. We want the same rights. Not special rights. If you heterosexuals want to get married to people of the same-sex by all means go ahead.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on November 17, 2008 at 6:15 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

vladislav - it is majority of the tyranny. It's not the majority that's white. It's the majority that's straight.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on November 17, 2008 at 6:16 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

Caleb.

Your attempt to apply the term "tyranny of the majority" to presidential elections is problematic. Tyranny of the majority refers specifically to laws, which our executive, even though the it is responsible in enforcing them, does not have the privilege (at least for the most part) in creating. There is an intrinsic problem in placing laws that oppresses a minority on a plebiscite: there is a pretty high chance the law will pass even if it's unjust. Why do you think the civil rights movements did so much of its works through the courts? Do you really think if it were up to the majority (maybe not national, but at least in certain states) blacks would have earned equal rights? Hell, I can think of some states where there would probably still be some plantation farms. Electing laws into existence is a problematic process in itself, minorities become extremely vulnerable through it. At least we have the courts to keep things like that in check. Hopefully, this will reach the courts, which, if they have any common sense, will cast it down.

Regarding protests: so what should people do, sit down and wait? accept it? nice attitude... the sooner voices are heard the sooner polemics is created, and with that potential change. If people stay silent nothing will be done.

vladislav,

You say that as if there aren't different minorities that interact differently with each other. Just because the black community has a homophobic tendency doesn't make homophobia (or at least opposition to gay marriage) a minority opinion...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by oliveira on November 17, 2008 at 6:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

Tyranny of the majority is just as common as tyranny of the oligarchs (the courts in this instance). Claiming a law you don't agree with is tyranny of the majority is the oldest tactic in the book. If you don't like our system of government then move somewhere else or try to change it, but this is how it is.

Do those who support same-sex marriage also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage? If you support one but not the others you are a hypocrite. Don't they deserve the same "right"? While we are at it why can't men get maternity (or paternity) leave, I demand that "right". Why can only the elderly and young get medicare and medicaid. I demand that "right." Why is only the legislature entitled to vote on certain issues? I demand that "right". If the government created the "right" then they can decide who is entitled to receive the benefits. I understand why people want this benefit, but it is up to society to grant this benefit since marriage is a social institution created by state governments.

Changing the definition of marriage to be all things to all people dilutes marriage to being essentially nothing.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Satirical on November 17, 2008 at 10:06 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

Also, Proposition 8 didn't oppress homosexuals (or LGBT if you prefer) or polygamists, etc. It defined a word. Claiming Prop 8 is oppressive is like saying defining the word "tree" oppressed the bush because it wasn't included in the definition.

Again, if California doesn't want to extend marriage to include; polygamy, group marriage, same-sex marriage, or incestuous marriage, that is their right.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Satirical on November 17, 2008 at 10:14 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Student activists come out against Proposition 8

this has nothing to do with religion anyway

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 18, 2008 at 12:35 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal