Monday, October 13, 2008

PROP 8


This morning when I was finally able to drag myself out of bed, I realized that Tim had forgotten to throw out the trash. So, I left the safety of my house and proceeded to take the trash out--when I saw a "Yes on Prop 8" banner on my neighbor's yard. I was in shock. Not because of the banner, but because this particular neighbor told Tim and I that his brother was gay and that they were best friends. This is so sad.

4 comments:

ms. lee of the lemon drops said...

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not taking away anyone's rights. The definition simply distinguishes a union that is biologically capable of producing its own children. Whether a married couple has children or not, I feel like this deserves a separate name--even the potential is kind of a miracle.

Actually this definition can be seen as the ultimate expression of equality our society has to offer: it takes one man and one woman. One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

Equality is especially important when it comes to raising children. Children deserve/need a father and a mother. Neither parent should be marginalized.

Yes, many children are already growing up in single-parent homes. Prop 8 should be a reminder to everyone that as a society we need to assist and strengthen families as much as possible. Really, as a society we should be most concerned with the success and health of our families.

http://emiliadelmar.blogspot.com/2008/10/legislation-and-social-issues.html

peace out.

Wonder Man said...

Prop 8 is selfish and hateful. Is purely driven by religion and if people were true to their beliefs then Prop 8 would not exist. Love is real, love external. Laws do not bind it.

Christopher said...

I voted NO on Prop 8!

Alex said...

That is such a very simplistic answer to the very idea of marriage. Should marriage only be considered legitimate if the man and woman are fertile and produce children? There are many married couples that cannot have children, and it is a real diservice to use the biological argument, as homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom.
And as far as taking away people's rights?...The sham that is called "domestic partnerships' only provides some rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. What these proponents of this "separate but unequal" policy fails to let gay couples know that there are 1,000 benefits that are automatically given to married couples. So in a sense, "special rights" are accorded to heterosexual couples to exclusion of gay couples.
The only people that are really being 'marginalized' are the gays and lesbians who are being told that they are not 'worthy' of being married because of who they love.