Al Pascual

Well, I decided to post this response despite the fact that it is the polar opposite of my beliefs to prove my point: let each person have his or her own opinion.  To not accept this response would mean that I was one-sided.  But sheesh, I have to say that I'm not to keen on the nasty aspect of the last line.  No need to stoop to nastiness.

However, allow me to say this:  go ahead and marry a goat.  Or the cat, whatever your preference may be.  As long as you and the goat (cat?!) are happy and consensual, knock yourself out.  And be sure to lead a productive, enjoyable life together :)  

And truly, marrying a car would depend on what make and model, wouldn't it?  I mean, no one would want to marry a pinto.  But a Ferrari?  Come on - we'd all line up for that, right?

Wayne. People should be able to marry people. If you're personally opposed to gay marriage then don't marry a gay person. It's that simple. Stop complicating the lives of others by forcing your religious beliefs on them.

Dogs, goats, cats and cars are not people. This little subtlety is apparently lost on Wayne. Gay people are, indeed, people and their relationships are real relationships. I agree with you Al and I also think California is doing the right thing by putting it on the ballot. This issue should be handled by the states and not by a constitutional amendment. I would be interested in having Wayne present the "research" that supports his definition. I'm not sure about anyone else's marriage but I know for sure that legalizing gay marriage will have no effect on mine. I can assure you that I still wouldn't leave my wife and run into the arms of another man. Keep in mind that people used to feel the same way about inter-racial marriages and I don't see the fabric of society rending because they are now commonplace. Given the current 50% divorce rate, I'm not sure how much more damage can really be done to the "institution" of marriage. I'm not sure what everyone is so afraid of.

I'm going to ignore Wayne's disgusting comparison of gay and *** relationships to bestiality. It is a tired old argument that was used against interracial marriages in the past. "Let a white man marry a colored gal and the next thing we'll see is white men marrying dogs and cats." Now for this idiotic statement: "Gay people does [sic] not have a place in evolution and by definition wipe themselves out." Sir, gay and *** people are born every minute of every day. They are in no way "wiping themselves out." Straight parents have gay and *** kids. Gay and *** people have always existed. They are your children, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters. Gay and *** people don't come from another planet. They are human beings who almost always have heterosexual parents. Obviously, homosexuality evolved in our species for a reason. Otherwise, it would have disappeared through natural selection a long long time ago. Personally, I believe that gay and lesbain people are naturally more creative and better communicators than their heterosexual peers. It is likely that their existence has contributed to the success of humankind. Now for this comment by wed: "I agree with you Al and I also think California is doing the right thing by putting it on the ballot. This issue should be handled by the states and not by a constitutional amendment." Prop. 8 will amend the California Constitution. It will make discrimination against gay and *** people legal. The big question about this approach is "Who is next?" Which minority group will be singled out next by the majority and have their rights taken away? Women? Senior citizens? Immigrants? Atheists? Meat-eaters? Suppose California makes it illegal to eat animal flesh. Don't laugh. It could happen. Should the states have the right to prohibit the eating of meat? The owning of animals? Two words: SLIPPERY SLOPE!

Well said! Bringing this up as a proposition is ridiculous enough. Equality is for all, not just for straight people but for everyone...even goats and cats.

thanks for leaving the link to your blog and this post.

I think the chilling thing about Prop 8 is that it is a slippery slope.  Once we start legislating away one groups right to marry, where does it end?  Will the same people become emboldened and perhaps take away the rights of another demographic, perhaps blacks or jews.

Regards,

Tengrain

Historically, the fall of any empire (Roman, Egyptian, etc) was preceded by similar acceptances. Perhaps we have evolved enough to understand history repeates itself. How can we claim to know the nuances of such acceptance, other than that historically it has had the effect of increased indulgence, decreased productivity, floundering economy, and destabilization of the family unit.

"Historically, the fall of any empire (Roman, Egyptian, etc) was preceded by similar acceptances." That's BS! The Ancient Egyptian society existed for over 3,000 years! The Roman Empire existed for 500 years. The Egyptians fell to the Romans. The Roman Empire fell as the result of military defeats that spanned about 70 years. The decline of neither was the result of "acceptances" -- whatever that means. Both cultures accepted slavery, incest, idol worship and hundreds of things we consider unacceptable from the beginning of their rises to power. In fact, Rome fell 100 years AFTER Flavius Theodosius made Christianity the official religion. Why don't you just blame the ills of society on witches? That used to be a Christian scapegoat of choice.

BTW: Thanks for taking on this subject, Al. In spite of what some may say, it is an issue that will impact technology. If Prop. 8 passes, there is likely to be a "brain drain" in your field -- tens of thousands of creative technology professionals will leave California. Many of my friends who work for companies like Symantec and Adobe are already talking about leaving for friendlier states.

As long as both people are adult, consenting HUMANS (animals cannot consent to be married, duh) then whatever they do is none of my business! I just don't see any harm done to me or any one else by two people loving and caring for each other. Actually, Mike, the fall of Rome was largely economic, partly caused by an over-extended empire--their military spent too much time and valuable resources occupying territory it had no business invading in the first place. Hmmmmm, that sounds familiar.

I am a straight, happily married mother of two -- and I have to confess that at first I didn't understand what the fuss was about with regard to this prop.

BUT NOW I GET IT.  PROP 8 IS A HATE ACT.  IT IS AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION.  IT'S UGLY AND WRONG AND DO NOT BE PART OF THIS.  

This is the way Nazi's got their propaganda started back in the 1930s.   This is not the way we treat each other in America.  

All people are equal here.  Separation of church and state.

NO on PROP 8!

Louise

I am a straight, happily married mother of two -- and I have to confess that at first I didn't understand what the fuss was about with regard to this prop. At first I thought, it was okay to let people have civil unions. But, now I see how wrong that it is. OFCOURSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED IF THEY WANT TO: THIS IS AMERICA! BUT NOW I GET IT. PROP 8 IS A HATE ACT. IT IS AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION. IT'S UGLY AND WRONG AND DO NOT BE PART OF THIS. This is the way Nazi's got their propaganda started back in the 1930s. This is not the way we treat each other in America. All people are equal here. Separation of church and state. NO on PROP 8! Louise

Al, thanks for posting this.  It saddens me also to see that there are those out there named Wayne that would leave such an ignorant post.  :)

As far as this Wayne (me) is concerned, I believe that we as a specie have become over-populated.  When gay couples are allowed to marry, it not only helps to slow the population growth, but also provides for each one of us, gay or straight, our right to individuality and the freedoms we expect as humans.

Maybe it's natures way of correcting things, maybe it's against God's will.  I don't care either way, I answer to no one but my god and all of you can do whatever you want.  I just think this proposition is quite one sided and ignorantly promoted by those that allow for underage, arranged marriages.

I find it disturbing that funding for this proposition comes from Utah.

Enjoyed the post quite a bit!  I think I'll do something likewise...this one really bothers me.

At first I was unsure of blogging about anything outside of technology; now I’m very glad I did.  It seems that I have started a fantastic thread with great written comments and opinions.  Your comments have enriched my modest post greatly.  It would be nice to see the opposition represented, yet, when I found myself scanning the Internet, I found that most of the blogs are in favor of voting No on Prop 8.  I don’t see many Yes on Prop 8 opinions except for angry people who are scared by misinformation - the same people protesting on the street corners with signs about freedom of speech.  It’s much easier to mislead ignorant people than it is to mislead the informed.  Wayne is a great example of the people found on the street corners - not a lot of substance.  

Instead, he prefers to start an argument, rather than contribute great comments that may add to an intelligent discussion. I must admit, I was expecting hate posts, and I was ready to argue against them. I encourage people who are thinking of voting Yes on prop 8 to argue their point in this open thread.

Cheers

Al

Ah, "Stick to technology and stay out of things you know nothiing of." If all you know is technology, then what kind of human being are you? And how can you apply your knowledge of technology to aid people? I'm glad to see so many technology bloggers talking about politics. This is an important election (honestly, though, aren't they all?). Let's talk. The real evolution that we need to pay attention to is how "web 2.0" is changing how we interact, form groups, and organize for change. And after thousands of years of evolution, if gay people were going to "wipe themselves out" (please explain to me how that works), why haven't the homosexual animals in the wild "wiped themselves out?" Instead, you can find many, many accounts of animal "gay couples" adopting and raising orphaned offspring to become heterosexual adults. As for marrying a Ferrari? That's just silly. A Porche? Yes, of course. Oh, and Al, you just got another subscriber, if that matters.

You're right on about evolution having the final say. I'm very excited to see how fast things have been progressing memetically. But the obvious downside for such fast progress is the incredible cognitive dissonance that our simple minds must attempt to grapple with. Religions have and always will evolve with the zeitgeist, and I am hugely optimistic that now we have the knowledge of how incredibly related we all are (as well as all life on this planet) that whatever eventually takes the place of the three Abrahamic faiths will see all life as it is...equal. Including homosexuals. Think homosexuality is not genetic and has no purpose? Ever heard of bonobos?

I am sure the h8ters would be satisfied if the law were changed to read: "marriage between one person and another person." That way, we would ensure that a person would not marry a non-human. Wayne, I've done the research: there was a time when good Christian people were persecuted for just being Christian. What if there was a measure on the ballot that said Christians organizations are prohibited from receiving public funds? It is ironic that we in the "Vote NO on 8" crowd will protect the right of bigots to believe as they wish and bigots want to tell them they're wrong.

"At first I was unsure of blogging about anything outside of technology; now I’m very glad I did. It seems that I have started a fantastic thread with great written comments and opinions." Funny...would you be so glad if 100 "Waynes" had replied instead of one and the rest agreeing with you? It always strikes me as ironic when the backlash to folks like Wayne are putting him down as much as he does, in the name of diversity and equality (accept for Al who caught it and replied perfectly). Personally, I understand the need for separation of church and state (which was brought about to get government out of the church, not vice versa) and for people to have freedom of choice. That is a God-given right. They can chain you to a prison wall and you still have the freedom to believe whatever you want to; they can't take that from you. That being said, not every choice we make is a good one. That is what freedom of choice is about...there is always the fork in the road at a choice. No one wants to be judged or thought badly of or hated. No one. But just as our children make choices that seem right to them, but are not what the parents want for them, I think we consider ourselves to know everything. Though I have friends that are gay, I know what the Bible says and that we all have the same maker, like it or not. It is just whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. I just choose to follow what my Father in heaven has told us, that we are not to engage in homosexuality. Hate me or not, I don't hate you, and it is like your little brother going "Hey, guys? I don't think Dad wants us to do this." If it is allowed, then we will reap the results, positive or negative. But I don't want to be one that would vote against God. I'd rather take my lumps from you than Him. That is where guys like Wayne come from too, though man I wish the approach was less hateful and condemning. I don't judge, it isn't for us to do (the Bible is clear about removing the plank from your eye before mentioning the speck in someone else's). I just choose to follow the one who does and my choice is to do what I believe he wants me to do and stay away from those things he says aren't for us. I can ask him why later. If you want to be truly diverse and accepting, read the Bible for yourself and see what it says. God is forgiving, and sent His son as the saviour of you and me; it is not Him who walks away, but us that deny Him. Anyway, back to software development! At least we all have that in common!

Prop 8 is about institutionalizing hate, period. And what ever happened to Republicans being about small government? Geez, now they think government has the time and money to pass laws about this kind of nonsense. I wish I lived in California and could vote no.

Certainly the opponents of Prop. 8 with a little open-mindedness of their own can recognize the irony of calling Prop. 8 "hateful" and then resorting to name-calling to belittle its proponents. Marriage between a man and a woman has existed as long as we know and has been successful in perpetuating humankind. It also is the basis for the fundamental unit of society - the family - which when formed by the uniting of a man and a woman, can produce strength in society. Since same-sex marriage has not been widely practiced yet, proponents thereof have little evidence to show that it "won't harm anyone." Since opponents are opposing the traditional definition, the burden of proof to show that no harm will be done to children and society lies with them and I have yet to see any compelling evidence to support their claim. In fact, there are numerous studies that refute the claim, stating that a child raised by a father and mother will have fewer social, emotional, and psychological issues in life. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Arguments_concerning_children_and_the_family) Now if you want to make this an issue of "fundamental rights," couldn't I argue that every child has the fundamental right to the best upbringing possible without being a bigot? Do you see where I'm coming from with this argument? I am grateful I was brought up by a loving father and mother and I have a hard time believing that I am just as likely to be as successful as I am today without such an upbringing. Please note the lack of religious references in my argument as well. It's not just an issue of some people trying to push their "beliefs" on other people. Those trying to parallel gay marriage with inter-racial marriage might find the opinion of the supreme court of New York interesting: "...the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Up here in Canada same-sex marriages have been legal for more than 3 years - our society seems to be doing just fine with them. So far as I'm concerned, the sanctity of my marriage has not been compromised whatsoever by other people (whomever they may be) wanting to get married. Imagine that.

3 years is not a very long time Al. And your opinion doesn't prove that any children adopted or born into such households aren't adversely affected.