OSNews

It is an issue of equality before the law, and the separation of church and state. We know that relationships are defined by mutual emotion, and that homosexual relationships can be and are equally emotive. It then behoves us to equally respect them. But then I'm posting from the UK, and we are still only on civil unions...

I disagree. Whatever your views on proposition 8, it does not behoove any private company to weigh in on issues that are strictly social-political, if for no other reason than business sense. Google and Apple risk alienating both their customers and their employees. Sure, they might earn some good will from proponents of proposition 8, but not not as much as they would lose from its detractors. It's for the same reason that few companies will openly support a political candidate. Separation of church and state? What about separation of corporation and state?

It's simply not the role of a private business company, nor should it be.

Private companies are not the problem. They are Publicly Traded Corporations that are extending beyond their business models and interests when doing so. Individuals of these corporations have every right to state their positions and fund them, within the boundaries of the law, but to take shareholder investment for a social cause that would require a proxy vote not within their business charter is definitely something that should be addressed by the Courts.

If people of any gender want to marry in misery or bliss [depends on one's personal experience(s)] so be it. To leverage lobbying from corporations to do so is no more responsible then lobbying for oil credits.

There are no `this is for a good cause and therefore inherently good' nor `that is for a bad cause so therefore inherently evil arguments' in this debate.

We keep rehashing basic fundamentals of the US Constitution as if the one millionth time we just might be able to convince ourselves of some hidden intention for this or that action.

The movement to ban gay marriage is equally futile and a waste of resources, time, attention and public policy energy.

Move marriage from the civil arena and let each belief system embrace whatever it may be and we wouldn't be in this mess.

I don't like faceless companies. Offering an opinion makes these companies more "human".

Personally, I am against Prop8. In the past, I just didn't care much about the whole thing, but having since met gay couples that are together for as long as 20 years, it strongly shows that marriage is everyone's right.

If this is like the Michigan proposition, then this change is binding for companies as well... that means that Apple will no longer be allowed to offer it's "gay" workers this benefit when the state changes insurance law to make such coverage illegal. This affects how Apple and Google choose to do business with their employees at the most basic level. This is actually nullifying things that have been changing for 10 years in private companies so that a few moral bigots don't have to play nice.

How ridiculously unnecessary!

The law meant something specific when it was created and accepted. Democratic forms of governments have orderly processes which allow the populace to change the meaning of the laws. The problem here is that, instead of actually building public support to change the laws through due process, the left got some judges to pretend that the law meant something else, and now Californians in favor of the law's meaning actually have to create a proposition to make sure the laws granting marital status actually apply as they did before the judges started pretending otherwise.

Why pretend that the law means something other than what was agreed when it was created and accepted by due process? You on the left do have a legitimate means of changing the law at your disposal, instead of just convincing a few people in one court.



What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.

Why pretend that society can't have boundaries on what is and is not marriage? Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?



You are right about the state and religion not being able to define marriage. But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be. Talk to someone involved in polygamy or incest and see if you *really* believe, as you claimed, that any two people in love ought to be able to alter society's definition of marriage. The whole idea is ridiculous, unless you only consider love you *already* defined legitimate as being the only kinds of relationships you'll accept as determining what you believe marriage is. That's just circular logic.

Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman. Not two men plus a goat, or three women, or two inanimate objects. Fact is, what you would call "heterosexual" marriage is actually just what society established as a necessary construct for dealing with the natural progression, in male + female relationships, of romance -> sex -> pregnancy. Forcing society as a whole to accept an inherently irrational idea like homosexual "marriage" will only work for so long, until it's simply discarded by future generations.

You can try to sell me on the nonsense that homosexual individuals are born that way -- as if this is somehow an equality issue instead of merely being about society's establishing certain boundaries around sex and sexuality -- but it won't work. Fact is, in terms of who's capable of experiencing pleasure with whom, everyone's bisexual; the difference in individuals' sexual preferences is psychological: their past experiences, their beliefs, how they've chosen to respond, what they're willing to accept, etc.

The thing is, marriage and this homosexual "marriage" concept you're requiring everyone to accept are not the same thing, nor are they even on the same level, and forcing everyone who, like me, isn't willing to pretend that they are equal just creates more tension.

People can start the name-calling, the allusions to Hitler, or whatever, now if they really want to get back at me. But the fact is that just a short time ago homosexuality was considered just as bad as incest or bestiality, and I'd appreciate being able to talk to someone who is willing to discuss, on a rational level, why these concepts are different or similar.


From the article:



There's been no proof that people are born with a certain sexual orientation, and I've seen all I need to see to the contrary (e.g. high profile "gay" people changing sexual orientation to "straight" or "bi" and being happy about it), so the premise here is incorrect. It's not a case of being born differently (and therefore locked into a particular lifestyle if one is to be happy); homosexuality, by contrast, is a case of what choices society as a whole will accept.



The mission statement is false on its face. The homosexual rights activists are not seeking existing rights for themselves; they are seeking to have judges grant (1) new rights (2) for everyone. Specifically, prior to the judicial usurpation, the law (2) allowed no one (1) to marry anyone of the same sex. Anyone want to try to deny that hetero Hollywood celebrities won't use same-sex marriage as a publicity stunt? Anyone want to claim that the state allowed incestuous marriages? It's a case of new rights for everyone, not just people who identify as homosexual or bisexual at the time when they obtain "marriage" licenses.

Edited 2008-10-25 23:43 UTC

Yours was a very long post so I'll only address a couple of the points you raised.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.

Secondly every law we have protects a victim. You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.

Edited 2008-10-26 00:16 UTC

"Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman."

That is how it is defined by the worlds oldest cult, known as Christianity. I respect your beliefs. However you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others, especially not those of the courts of law, where religion should not, but sometimes sadly does, have a say. Christianity also supports and has supported the slaughter of innocents, proven by the Spanish Inquisition among many other incidents throughout history. What if others define it differently? They are automatically wrong because it goes against your beliefs? The US is and was founded on a principle of freedom of religion, and tolerance. Lets not keep repeating the mistakes of our forefathers. If you are a US citizen, read our constitution. Understand it and what was meant. That is our biggest problem, is people trying to "interpret" it, rather than read and understand it. The thing is in the english language, so should not be that hard for an english speaker. Forget your religion, read the constitution, and understand the rights that ALL people should have.

Not any two people. Two (or more) consenting adults can do whatever they hell they want in the bedroom, I really don't care. It's none of my business.

And equating homosexuality with paedophilia... I thought the world was past that nonsense by now? I guess I'm just a little too used to being Dutch, and I forgot how backwards most parts of the world still are.

Wow, that is one odious tin of red herrings you've opened up, with a nice dash of the slippery-slope fallacy to garnish.



Ah, a page from the Rick Santorum playbook.

So you equate homosexuality with bestiality? I'm guessing you don't extend that to the figurative abuse of red herrings?



Glad to hear you've made it official. Guess you had better contact and share your discovery with all of those ignorant lexicographers who seem to think that marriage also means "an intimate or close union," or "a blending or matching of different elements or components."

The issue of equality is not the issue for Proposition 8 proponents. They are equally for equality before the law and its funny that Apple says it respects the arguments on both sides without actually having a clue what the arguments are.

The question is, is marriage more than an just a legal arrangement between two people. The historical view of marriage was that a man and a woman, two halves would come together and quite literally join and become a new whole. It is interesting that only in male/female intercourse is an actual whole single organism created which is why marriages always had to be consumated before being legal. It simply not possible for two males or females to take part in such a union.

Marriage under this definition is not discriminatory as it is open to everyone.

Whether or not Civil Unions should receive the same benefits as marriage is of course another question but I really wish companies would stay out of socially divisive issues. Especially when they mispresent or don't even understand the arguments they claim to.