-
Website
http://digijustin.com -
Original page
http://digijustin.com/2008/10/03/what-is-the-deal-with-prop-102/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
digijustin
20 comments · 1 points
-
tdhurst
2 comments · 16 points
-
Godlesswanderer
1 comment · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
Many people who will vote “yes” on 102 believe that if we promote traditional marriage as much as possible, it will make our state better, because of their beliefs about traditional marriage. Now, there are certainly many matters that our government should not be involved in. However, the supporters of 102 understand that it is the role of government to promote and protect a healthy society, and so they will vote for this amendment.
Allowing gays to marry is not the same as disallowing straight people to marry. Traditional marriage would not be marginalized one iota by allowing gays to marry. It would only be broadened to allow gays to marry. Just like we broadened marriage to allow for interracial marriages during the civil rights movement.
"Now, on its face, this amendment to Arizona’s constitution would neither outlaw or legalize anything. It would merely call a spade a spade, and not call a perverse and bizarre union “marriage”."
Do you think the state should dictate who churches allow to marry or should that be up to the church? This constitutional amendment gives government control over who churches allow to marry. This seems wrong to me. I think the church should make that decision.
"Many people who will vote “yes” on 102 believe that if we promote traditional marriage as much as possible, it will make our state better, because of their beliefs about traditional marriage. Now, there are certainly many matters that our government should not be involved in. However, the supporters of 102 understand that it is the role of government to promote and protect a healthy society, and so they will vote for this amendment."
Are you suggesting that by having gay marriages illegal less people will be gay and there will be more straight marriages? I'm not sure how 102 "promote[s] and protect[s] a healthy society."
By and large, the gay community is a community of men and women who live peacefully, pay taxes, obey the laws of the land and even give our lives defending our country. Yet there are those who say we have no right to marry the man or woman we love and no right to raise our own children. We are allowed to give our lives defending our country as long as we keep quiet and don't tell anyone who we really are. It's like we are supposed to be ashamed of who we are. And we have no right to the 1100 other state and federal benefits given automatically to married couples by law.
Some of these laws govern how inheritance, medical and life decision benefits to spouses and children of married couples. If a married man dies, his wife gets everything that was his. If something happens to my spouse of 14 years, his half of our house and other jointly owned property goes to his family, who have not spoken to him in years.
Jared says that our unions are "perverse and bizarre". It truly is sad to hear someone say something so careless and cruel - and again I can't believe that anyone still believes this in the 21st century. How does it in any way hurt Jared or Sarah Copeland that 2 people they don't know and have never met are in love and want to get married? How can it possibly be any of their business? How can they be so cruel to people they have never met? Allowing gay people to marry in no way impacts heterosexual people in any way.
Sarah says "being tolerant doesn’t mean I have to approve or accept it or keep my mouth shut because I don’t agree". No one is asking her to approve of gay marriage. She only has to agree that it is no more her business who I marry than it is for me to tell her who she can marry. Tolerant means "accepting difference", not "approving".