Comments on: The faulty logic behind Proposition 8 http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html Premier Dallas LGBT Website Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Reverend Boony http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14836 Reverend Boony Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14836 Hmmmmmm, you have an intresting point here BUT lets take it a bit further. You know that we have other kinds of churches besides christian churches and even within some branches of christianity, same sex marriage is seen as being ok SO why not allow each church to define what the word "marriage" means as according to their own spiritual and/or religious beliefs ? We can take all of the legal benefits and costs associated with marriage and just move it over into the civil union arena thereby giving couples the option of either having a civil union and a marriage or just one or the other depending on what their individual needs are. Hmmmmmm, you have an intresting point here BUT lets take it a bit further.
You know that we have other kinds of churches besides christian churches and even within some branches of christianity, same sex marriage is seen as being ok SO why not allow each church to define what the word “marriage” means as according to their own spiritual and/or religious beliefs ?
We can take all of the legal benefits and costs associated with marriage and just move it over into the civil union arena thereby giving couples the option of either having a civil union and a marriage or just one or the other depending on what their individual needs are.

]]> By: Jerry J http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14838 Jerry J Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14838 Reverend Boony....I think the whole concept here was to separate Church & State. State gives civil unions to any couple wishing to make the commitment. The church can do the marriage thing. Simple and clean. There are massive churches happy to perform same sex marriages and plenty of other churches that do not support same sex marriages. Would it be so wrong just to attend the church where you wish to be. Most people already do. It just seems that the religion really wants to take the tax exempt status...yet....put their arm into the running of the government based on their specific moral views. Can you say "double standard". Reverend Boony….I think the whole concept here was to separate Church & State. State gives civil unions to any couple wishing to make the commitment. The church can do the marriage thing. Simple and clean. There are massive churches happy to perform same sex marriages and plenty of other churches that do not support same sex marriages. Would it be so wrong just to attend the church where you wish to be. Most people already do. It just seems that the religion really wants to take the tax exempt status…yet….put their arm into the running of the government based on their specific moral views. Can you say “double standard”.

]]> By: Enough Now http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14840 Enough Now Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14840 The faulty logic of the Dallas Article - the primary reason for marriage is to provide for procreation and the family unit for raising children. Children do best with a mother and a father. Countless studies prove this fact. Few studies have ever been done on same-sex parenting...as you would expect. It makes perfect sense to extend marriage to heterosexual couples unable to conceive because when the questions is “what is best for the young,” it is proper to extend the general rule (heterosexual marriage) beyond the principle purpose (procreation). The faulty logic of the Dallas Article – the primary reason for marriage is to provide for procreation and the family unit for raising children. Children do best with a mother and a father. Countless studies prove this fact. Few studies have ever been done on same-sex parenting…as you would expect. It makes perfect sense to extend marriage to heterosexual couples unable to conceive because when the questions is “what is best for the young,” it is proper to extend the general rule (heterosexual marriage) beyond the principle purpose (procreation).

]]> By: Gil Flores http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14843 Gil Flores Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14843 Enough Now, I don't know where you found your research. But obviously, you didn't do a lot. More than a few studies have been done on same-sex parenting. The most conclusive study was done out of England (the Golombok study). Children, half raised by straighy parents and half raised by gay parents, were followed for an average of 14 years - from their infancy to their adulthood. The study concluded taht there was no variation in the children with regards to their intelligence, social skills, orientation, abilties, or anything else. In addition, Redbook magazine did a summary of over a hundred studies done on children raised by gay parents. Only one study found that there was a difference in these childred as compared to children raised by heterosexuals. This one study was interviews with teachers. The teachers said that children raised by gay parents tended to be more accepting of other children who were different. Also, the teachers said that children from gay families tended to play the protective role in the playground, standing up for those who were being bullied. The problem I have with those who are against same-sex marriage is that they cannot provide a logical answer. If these zealots truly wanted to "strengthen society and save the sanctity of the sacred institution of marriage," they would fight to outlaw divorce, make adultery a punishable crime, and ban all these shows that make a mockery of their "sacred instiution" (e.g., Wife Swap, The Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire). Also, there would have been an outrage when the article in the Dallas Morning News appeared about the 9-year old girl with leukemia who wanted to get married so her family gave her a wedding. Oh, that's really sacred. No matter how you spin it, it's about discrimination. Enough Now, I don’t know where you found your research. But obviously, you didn’t do a lot. More than a few studies have been done on same-sex parenting. The most conclusive study was done out of England (the Golombok study). Children, half raised by straighy parents and half raised by gay parents, were followed for an average of 14 years – from their infancy to their adulthood. The study concluded taht there was no variation in the children with regards to their intelligence, social skills, orientation, abilties, or anything else. In addition, Redbook magazine did a summary of over a hundred studies done on children raised by gay parents. Only one study found that there was a difference in these childred as compared to children raised by heterosexuals. This one study was interviews with teachers. The teachers said that children raised by gay parents tended to be more accepting of other children who were different. Also, the teachers said that children from gay families tended to play the protective role in the playground, standing up for those who were being bullied.

The problem I have with those who are against same-sex marriage is that they cannot provide a logical answer. If these zealots truly wanted to “strengthen society and save the sanctity of the sacred institution of marriage,” they would fight to outlaw divorce, make adultery a punishable crime, and ban all these shows that make a mockery of their “sacred instiution” (e.g., Wife Swap, The Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire). Also, there would have been an outrage when the article in the Dallas Morning News appeared about the 9-year old girl with leukemia who wanted to get married so her family gave her a wedding. Oh, that’s really sacred.

No matter how you spin it, it’s about discrimination.

]]> By: Sean http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14844 Sean Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14844 I’m a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church which supports same-sex marriage. And I personally believe marriage, both heterosexual unions and same-sex ones, are a sacrament from God. That said, though, I do not believe that marriage “belongs to the church.” This is for a number of obvious reasons – first and foremost that such a statement quickly begs the question, “Which church?” Can only Protestants and Catholics get married? What about Buddhists, Muslims, or Mormons? Whose faith gets to govern American or California law? Moreover, obviously millions of non-religious folks enter into marriages, and for us or anyone to say that they cannot call their unions “marriages” (whether heterosexual or same-sex) is just ridiculous. For a very long time, marriage has been as secular a concept as it is a religious one. We might as well then make a law that says only Christians can celebrate Christmas. Everyone else, well, you’re not allowed to participate. As much as the Church would like to “own” certain concepts, it just can’t. Let religious folk celebrate sacraments the way they desire, and for God’s sake, allow everyone else to do so as well. Equality for all. I’m a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church which supports same-sex marriage. And I personally believe marriage, both heterosexual unions and same-sex ones, are a sacrament from God. That said, though, I do not believe that marriage “belongs to the church.” This is for a number of obvious reasons – first and foremost that such a statement quickly begs the question, “Which church?” Can only Protestants and Catholics get married? What about Buddhists, Muslims, or Mormons? Whose faith gets to govern American or California law? Moreover, obviously millions of non-religious folks enter into marriages, and for us or anyone to say that they cannot call their unions “marriages” (whether heterosexual or same-sex) is just ridiculous. For a very long time, marriage has been as secular a concept as it is a religious one. We might as well then make a law that says only Christians can celebrate Christmas. Everyone else, well, you’re not allowed to participate. As much as the Church would like to “own” certain concepts, it just can’t. Let religious folk celebrate sacraments the way they desire, and for God’s sake, allow everyone else to do so as well. Equality for all.

]]> By: fern http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14847 fern Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14847 The first church was the Roman Catholic church. Christianity as we know it started in AD 325 in Rome, by the fall of the Roman empire they were so powerful they had their say in who was going to be king, the kings had to be converted to Catholicism, with ups and downs they remained in power till 1789 and the French revolution, then everything was turned over to a secular government, each newborn had to be reported to the town hall before been baptized, same for marriage. In France and Belgium one needs a marriage license delivered by the town hall before going to church and I believe it's the same in California. One can also check out Ben Franklin's role in the French revolution, or the role of the church in the marriage business in medieval times as most of the people couldn't get married due to lack of money, most of the marriages were arranged affairs with business contracts also "sanctified" by the church. The churches should be ashamed of spending so much money on a ridiculous subject as men marrying men when everyday God makes decent folks are thrown on the streets and forced to live in tents The first church was the Roman Catholic church. Christianity as we know it started in AD 325 in Rome, by the fall of the Roman empire they were so powerful they had their say in who was going to be king, the kings had to be converted to Catholicism, with ups and downs they remained in power till 1789 and the French revolution, then everything was turned over to a secular government, each newborn had to be reported to the town hall before been baptized, same for marriage. In France and Belgium one needs a marriage license delivered by the town hall before going to church and I believe it’s the same in California. One can also check out Ben Franklin’s role in the French revolution, or the role of the church in the marriage business in medieval times as most of the people couldn’t get married due to lack of money, most of the marriages were arranged affairs with business contracts also “sanctified” by the church.

The churches should be ashamed of spending so much money on a ridiculous subject as men marrying men when everyday God makes decent folks are thrown on the streets and forced to live in tents

]]> By: Jerry J http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14848 Jerry J Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14848 Hello Sean....we are in agreement in that marriage has a religious value. That is exactly why I said that I feel that marriage should be strictly administered by the church of choice and get the government out of the marriage business completely. There is no reason to "govern" what the church does. Every denomination and belief his it's own rules. They govern themselves as it should be..freedom of religion. Let everyone get a civil union/domestic partnership from the government. Then if they wish to marry...find a church of choice and marry. This would be the ultimate equality. No religion should rule the rights of the people through the government and no government should dictate to the church on how they run their church. Hello Sean….we are in agreement in that marriage has a religious value. That is exactly why I said that I feel that marriage should be strictly administered by the church of choice and get the government out of the marriage business completely. There is no reason to “govern” what the church does. Every denomination and belief his it’s own rules. They govern themselves as it should be..freedom of religion. Let everyone get a civil union/domestic partnership from the government. Then if they wish to marry…find a church of choice and marry. This would be the ultimate equality. No religion should rule the rights of the people through the government and no government should dictate to the church on how they run their church.

]]> By: Sean http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14850 Sean Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14850 Jerry, I see your point of view completely, and I can’t say that I disagree with it. Your logic makes perfect sense to me. That said, good luck getting support for this idea from most Californians, let alone Texans or Americans at-large. The fact is, the word “marriage” is entrenched in our culture, both religious and secular. The initiative in the works to strip “marriage” from California law and governance and replace it with “domestic partnership” makes logical sense to me, but will likely face less support than was shown for the pitifully mismanaged No on Prop 8 campaign. I believe this is definitely the wrong way to go. Gays and lesbians are already being falsely accused of destroying or trying to destroy marriage. Taking “marriage” out of the realm of government will only give support to these accusations. To put it another way, if we say, “Since gays can’t have their marriages recognized by the law, then no one should – leave it to the churches,” then we’ve really given fodder for the argument that gays have ruined it for everybody. Politically, I just don’t think this the direction we need to go for mainstream acceptance. Jerry, I see your point of view completely, and I can’t say that I disagree with it. Your logic makes perfect sense to me. That said, good luck getting support for this idea from most Californians, let alone Texans or Americans at-large. The fact is, the word “marriage” is entrenched in our culture, both religious and secular. The initiative in the works to strip “marriage” from California law and governance and replace it with “domestic partnership” makes logical sense to me, but will likely face less support than was shown for the pitifully mismanaged No on Prop 8 campaign. I believe this is definitely the wrong way to go. Gays and lesbians are already being falsely accused of destroying or trying to destroy marriage. Taking “marriage” out of the realm of government will only give support to these accusations. To put it another way, if we say, “Since gays can’t have their marriages recognized by the law, then no one should – leave it to the churches,” then we’ve really given fodder for the argument that gays have ruined it for everybody. Politically, I just don’t think this the direction we need to go for mainstream acceptance.

]]> By: Sean http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14852 Sean Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14852 Also, Jerry, in response to your statement that “we are in agreement in that marriage has a religious value”: This is only partly true. It has a religious value to ME. To many people, both straight and gay, the word marriage has no religious value at all, yet still the word and concept carry with them a tremendous amount of meaning anyway. We should not impose a strict religious value on a word and concept that has inherent secular value as well. Also, Jerry, in response to your statement that “we are in agreement in that marriage has a religious value”: This is only partly true. It has a religious value to ME. To many people, both straight and gay, the word marriage has no religious value at all, yet still the word and concept carry with them a tremendous amount of meaning anyway. We should not impose a strict religious value on a word and concept that has inherent secular value as well.

]]> By: Chris http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8-1018994.html/comment-page-1#comment-14853 Chris Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.dallasvoice.com/viewpoints/the-faulty-logic-behind-proposition-8/#comment-14853 OR... We could stop all of this BULLSHIT and DEMAND equal rights NOW. Enough is ENOUGH. OR…

We could stop all of this BULLSHIT and DEMAND equal rights NOW.

Enough is ENOUGH.

]]>