Drawing parallels on Proposition 8 | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Drawing parallels on Proposition 8

Monday, December 01, 2008

Comment

Dear editor,

Since folks in California seem quite concerned about the relationships of others, this is an attempt to draw a parallel of what was done when you voted yes on Proposition 8.

Back in the ‘50s, if a black man walked into a restaurant with a white woman, diners would grow silent as people stared. This was true with any person of color; they were shunned. Southern states wouldn’t even allow interracial marriages. Citizens were treated in a lesser manner and marginalized to neighborhoods on the other side of the tracks.

What if today they could only get civil ceremonies? They wouldn’t be real marriages. Marriage could only be between two people of the same color and ethnicity. Marriage would be reserved for the righteous who wouldn’t rock the social boat.

Do you understand that by voting yes it is the same as the black vs. white debate? Isn’t this really a civil rights issue?

What’s the difference between thinking a person of the same sex can’t marry or people of a different ethnicity or particular shade being denied connubial bliss? If you can come up with an unemotional, logical answer without quoting some religious myth, I will listen.

I wonder what Jesus would do?

Jim Hilsabeck

Napa

71 comment(s)

verum wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:56 AM:

" J H...the final paragraph may lead Jesus to recommend English 101 to clarify your point; whatever the case, I would hope he would turn the water into wine. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:42 AM:

" Apples and oranges, and the inadequate comparison is getting old...

Try reviewing biology 101...... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:20 AM:

" 1943 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Board of Education v. Barnette: "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free pass, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." " "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:19 AM:

" dwayne,a civil right is a civil right, so the comparison in the struggle still is a valid analogy.
and verum...criticizing the writing style doesn't answer the question posed. "

Rich wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Same old tired argument .......
How can you compare mixed race marriages with same sex marriages?
The more you folks push this issue the more you annoy the Conservative voters that still are the majority in this state. "

napanana wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:35 AM:

" Dwayne.....no kidding.....What point?
Civil rights my eye! MY point is that if we keep this up and continue to compromise morals.....and yes most importantly....GOD....maybe our kids will think that things like being a sex offender is alright because they were "nice" people.........oh wait! It is already happening with that really great teacher that was just arrested for child molestation........ "

manxkat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:09 AM:

" I voted yes on 8 because it is my right to do so and I don't have to explain or justify my reasons to you or to anyone.

I think my reasons are far clearer to understand than those you have manufactured. "

mike wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Same Sex Marrage is not a cival right and has nothing to do with race. It is a persons right as consenting adults to have what ever relationship as they choose. A marrage is santioned by God as a Man and Woman. This is clear and simple and beyond any point of debate. "

funnyme wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Funny you mention it...Jesus already did!

Prop 8 passed! "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:56 AM:

" God save us from your 'followers'.

I did like the point that Jesus would turn water into wine at a gay wedding reception!

These amateur minders of other people's relationships kind of make me just a little sick to my stomach.

My God doesn't care if gay people get married, and I don't like these folks forcing their religious beliefs down anybody else's throat.

~Ruff "

Paddy wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:57 AM:

" It's obvious what Jesus would have done. He too would have voted YES on 8 just like the rest of us who put morality ahead of vindictive and destructive behavior. "

napanana wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Forcing religious beliefs down peoples throats? Is that like trying to force homosexuality down ours. You all can commit whatever kind of acts you want and try to justify it any way you please. Ya all just have rights and wants a little mixed up.
I guess I'll tell the baby grand kids that it is their right to have M&M's for breakfast.....not just a want. that makes it alright......right? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:45 AM:

" America was set up to protect minority groups including religious groups from laws that restrict their freedom and opportunity to fully participate in society. While you are free to judge a natural sub section of the population as immoral just because of who they are, many people believe it is immoral to restrict the equal rights of gay people. It is vindictive and destructive to use the law to harm people. I believe Jesus would say you should treat everyone equally, and not judge people you don't understand, to be immoral. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:58 AM:

" nana. No one is trying to force you to be gay. Yet you are using the law to force gay people to be straight, or else not have the same legal protections and status. Some gay people are celibate. It isn't about what you do, but who you are. It would be more like telling the grand kids, ok, you can have breakfast with the rest of us as long as you aren't gay. You gay ones will have to wait and have some scraps after we're done. "

Sickothis wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Hey Paddy - can Wiccans get married? How about Jews? Muslims? Budhists? Athiests?

Get your Christianity out of my law. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:15 PM:

" JH, your attempt to draw a parallel between the black civil rights movement and the attempt to redefine marriage fails rather badly.
Gays, for example, were never told to sit in the back of the bus or denied entrance to certain public schools.
Thank God the blacks in California saw through that subterfuge and voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:17 PM:

" Gay marriage is not a civil right, despite the failed attempt of California's Supreme Court to make it so. "

Newview wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:17 PM:

" A hint of late 30's Nationalist Socialist Germany? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Legal minorities are defined by certain obvious characteristics like skin color or ethnicity, not by their sexual habits. "

mikeb wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:16 PM:

" CA already has Civil Union laws on the books granting all the legal benefits to gay couples as their "married" straight counterparts. So what is the issue? The word "marriage". Why is the radical gay agenda so concerned with being able to apply the word "marriage" to their Civil Unions? Well lets look at what is happening in other states that have chosen to allow gay "marriage". Radical gay activists are using the word "marriage" to assault religious institutions resulting the Church's loss of it's tax exempt status. They are intentionally going to religious institutions, asking the priest to perform a ceremony his faith does not allow him to do, then taking that church to court over it. This is about nothing more than the radical lefts' every persistent attempts to attack religious institutions from any and every angle possible. They do not simply want the institution "marriage" applied to the civil unions they already have, they want to use the word "marriage" to attack the institutions of others. They are not a minority seeting equality, they are minority seeking dominion over long established institutions of our society. The People of CA have already spoken on this issue, twice. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:38 PM:

" A self-appointed arbiter of morality has spoken on which sexual habits are acceptable to him.

Therefore gays and lesbians are commanded back into the closet never to challenge their oppression again!

Begone! You who do not have Republican-approved sex habits!

----------

My heterosexual marriage and my faith do not require the oppression of gays and lesbians.

In fact, I am aggravated that gays and lesbians are not treated equally under the law and that some people want to say that their 'Christianity' overrides the rights of other religious views.

In fact the government, by allowing one faith tradition to regulate another faith tradition's marriage practices is violating the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yep, I am OK with poligamy if it is mutually agreed upon by all ADULTs in a formal marriage contract. But I am not OK with anybody else telling others what they can and can not do in their own private lives.

~Ruff "

verum wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:55 PM:

" Two of the four questions in this letter philosophically contradict each other; any answer is therefore moot. I am amused the Register printed this! "

Napagrrl wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:11 PM:

" Mikeb says, "The People of CA have already spoken on this issue, twice. "

Yes, and the people of California previously voted TWICE on Prop 4 which sought to deny teenagers their right to seek an abortion without parental consent.

I suspect that most Yes on 8 voters were also Yes on 4 voters. Did you decide to "get over it" on Prop 4 because the people of California had already stated their position? Or did you vote Yes this time, too? (So sorry that it failed.) "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Immoral behavior is a CHOICE..... "

Rich wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:07 PM:

" Napagrrl, yes most of us did vote yes on 4 but unlike the no on 8 people we quietly regroup and plan our next move without insulting and harassing the opposition.
I fully expect that a modified version of 4 will pass at some point and I expect that Roe v Wade will be overturned in my lifetime. "

pharper wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Uh....what immoral behavior, Dwayne? Only "immorality" I see here is denying people equal civil rights under the law. "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:47 PM:

" Rich, so you're objection is the volume of the fight, not the fight itself.

Dwayne, the behavior under question is marriage.....surely you arent saying marriage is immoral?

mikeb, okay....give us the facts...where and when did lesbian or gay couples in California do any of what you claim?

JR, as far as the pattern of discrimination, they have been denied jobs, housing, medical care, and the right to marry.....guess that doesn't count? and JR, they are also described by sexual orientation and disability. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:00 PM:

" Dwayne. Being gay is not a choice. The science is in. You can still judge it to be immoral, but it is not a choice. (Except for some of the bi-sexual people. If your sexuality is just a choice for you, you are bi. If you have no choice, you are either straight or gay). It's that simple. "

Rich wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:08 PM:

" Raven no, I object to the homosexuals attempting to destroy the meaning of marriage.
The "volume" only strengthens my resolution. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Mikeb..."The radical gay agenda seeking dominion".??? Come on now. All we want is equality. Relax. Wanting to join the party isn't at all like trying to stop it. We want to keep it going and have the same chance at happiness you do.
And this was the first time in the history of the US that a simple majority vote removed a right from a minority. Talk about scary. But then you didn't loose any rights, and wouldn't have even if 8 lost. No one can tell the churches what rituals they have to perform, but now a majority got to tell several minority religions what rituals they cannot perform. In other words, one religious belief got to restrict the right of others to practice their religious beliefs. A majority should never be voting on the rights of a minority. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:59 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:00 PM:
" Dwayne. Being gay is not a choice. The science is in. You can still judge it to be immoral, but it is not a choice. (Except for some of the bi-sexual people. If your sexuality is just a choice for you, you are bi. If you have no choice, you are either straight or gay). It's that simple. "

Too bad that you don't get it...

We all choose not to behave in immoral ways on a daily basis... What you "want" and how you behave toward that end is one's moral character...

Society doesn't need to be diminished by downgrading long standing biological and moral principles... The gay agenda does not recognize the norm of social morality...

Whine all you want, but the tail will not be allowed to wag the dog... Society will not stand for it... "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:57 PM:

" Napanana: Apples and oranges!
Same sex marriage has nothing to do with morals, God, or sex offenders. It is about two people who wish to take marriage vows, live a married life, have a family, and enjoy the same rights and privileges as any married couple.
Same sex marriage has nothing to do with sex offenders or morals. What are you really thinking. Are you confusing homosexuals with sex offenders? Homosexuals like other homosexuals. Sex offenders are rapists, child molesters, peeping toms, pornographers, etc.
Homosexuals are just regular people, earning a living, lawful citizens, wanting the American dream.
If you are a Christian you must believe that God made us all in his image. Homosexuals are God's children too. They are loved by Him. He made them homosexual. They did not make some immoral choice.
Dwayne says it so well.
Let us not forget the legal ramifications. Being married has great legal implications that are beneficial and wanted by same sex couples. If you are married you may go into the emergency room if your spouse is ill or injured. If your spouse dies you automatically inherit...not some long lost cousin. You may enter into legal contracts like trusts as spouses.
Lastly, there is no beauty like that of the pursuit of true happiness. Why is this denied to people because they are "different"? This is unjust.
The immoral, indecent action is that of discrimination. Please don't equate immorality or sexual deviance with homosexuality. That's narrow-minded and ugly.
I'm a nana too. If my grandson is a homosexual I hope he finds a more accepting world than yours.. "

napanana wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:48 PM:

" If you want to know what I am thinking.....read/listen to what I say.
Soooo there is no beauty like that of the persuit of happiness......who ever said that you/he/she/whoever can't be gay if they want? What is being asked is that we compromise and change the constitution. NOT!
It seems that the biggest issue that prop 8 has.....is the almighty dollar! It is bull that Gays can't inherit property. It is called a WILL! Living trust.....etc...
Not a good enough excuse.
Now...who is trying to force what on who? "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:56 PM:

" and then again Rich, how does same sex marriage harm yours?....concrete examples please...

and dwayne...what about heterosexuals that practice the same immorality?..can they marry? and you still haven't sent my a copy of that gay agenda.. "

fmmt47 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:41 PM:

" Why do you keep insulting black people who by a large majority voted for propostion 8. Black people are born black, gays are not born gay. There is no scientific proof that people are born gay, just gay scientists twisting the facts. You better go look up the definition of empirical science in order to determine how a scientific "theory" is proven. If the "gay" lifestyle is so great then why is San Francisco experiencing a pandemic of syphillis and AIDS within the gay community? Will marriage cure them? "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:22 PM:

" btw, napanana, how exactly are they forcing their beliefs on you? are they coming to your door persistantly trying to convert you into a homosexual, such as the mormons try and convert people to their religion? are they recruiting your grandkids into their "deviant lifestyles" after school? are they forcing you to read gay literature to your family in your home every night? please! explain to me how they are forcing themselves upon you in such a horrible, disgusting way!

i fail to see how fighting for their rights is forcing their idealogy upon you. i ESPECIALLY fail to see how you are blind to the fact that the religions are forcing their garbage upon our society, yet you somehow misconstrue a fight for rights to be a force-feeding of ideology!

i do not mean to disrespect my elders.....i have great respect for elders. but when the elders cannot see the error of their ways, i cannot sit back and keep quiet. napanana, open your eyes! you are the equivalent of my great-aunt in cincinnatti, ohio who is openly racist towards blacks. i am sorry if you grew up in a time less accepting of the NATURAL occurence of homosexuality much as my great-aunt grew up in a time much less accepting of black people.....but that is NO excuse! "

hellokitty wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:46 PM:

" does any one know what the court decided?????? so that we can go on with our lives... and stop all these arguements that are being posted......ooh and to "RICH" good point in your first comment " Same old tired argument ...." I agree with that. "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:41 AM:

" hellokitty- as i stated in a post that must not have made it through the filters (not sure why. i did not violate any of the rules. but ok, whatever) the court decided on may 15th that the constitution AS IT WAS did not prohibit gays from marrying. the law did not specify that the two consenting adults must be man and woman. the prop H8 people then decided that they could not stand this outrage and they ILLEGALLY put the prop on the ballot. it was illegal for two reasons:

1. you cannot vote on civil rights. that is a non-negotiable in the constitution. that is why we have a system of checks and balances so the majority cannot oppress a minority.

2. prop H8 makes a distinct revision to the constitution. it changes it to say that ONLY a man and woman may be married in california. which is why napanana's post is completely ridiculous (no offense napanana). GLBT is not trying to CHANGE or COMPROMISE the constitution! PROP H8 IS! GLBT simply wanted to keep the constitution as it was with the intepretation of it by the supreme court which is what we pay the supreme court to do! it is ILLEGAL to change the constitution by voting on a ballot without it first being passed by the legislature! this was NOT done! that is why there are lawsuits and that is why the supreme court will listen to this case. last i heard they won't be hearing it until march or sometime early next year. but i predict they will be voting to overturn prop H8 as they very well should! "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Dwayne. Too bad you don't get it. Gay people are still gay even if they don't have sex. It's about who you love, even if you don't act on it. Your judgement of immorality is in itself immoral because it causes harm. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Kitty. The sooner all people have equal rights under the law, the sooner we can all work together on other problems. But history has shown the fight for rights will continue untill equality is achieved. "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:18 AM:

" fmmt47- there is no PROOF that it is not biological. so how do you know that it is not? the facts remain that science shows more evidence for a biological cause for homosexuality than environment. in some cases, yes, environment is a cause or a one of the factors helping the cause for homosexuality. however there is more evidence that most cases are biological. science is never 100% proven. that is why everything is called "theory". nothing ever has complete proof. just overwhelming evidence. read the research. scientists (and not gay scientists only either) world-wide agree that homosexuality is a biological occurence. why would it occur in animals if it was solely environment? over 1500 species of animals have been documented showing homosexual behavior including intercourse. research it on wikipedia. search "homosexuality in animals". it ranges from insects to mammals. it is a NATURAL occurance. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:41 PM:

" fm. If you won't accept that every major professional scientific medical association agrees being gay is not a choice, think of all of the condemnation of gay people you have heard and then try to imagine why anyone would choose to be gay. While it isn't the same as being black, how many black kids grew up fearing their parents, family, friends, and church would reject them if they found out they were black? Gay people have to worry about that, and while some can pass as straight, many cannot. It is not something anyone would choose if they had a choice. It is a natural state of being for a minority of the population.
And if your are worried about disease transmission, encouraging committed relationships only helps promote stability and fidelity. And if you want them to stop having sex altogether, what better way than to let them get married? :-) "

GrapetownBankerBoi707 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:02 PM:

" hahahahaha! what better way to stop them having sex than to let them get married......wow.....that one got me good haha.....thank you for that.....

in all seriousness, though, i agree. "

alucawanza wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:17 PM:

" I love this discussion. Pro H8 writers are very funny. You think homosexuality is not genetic??? This is not my original quote or thought, but have you ever seen Little Richard? Liberace? Why would someone make a choice to live this lifestyle?

Of course it is biological. It is genetic. A person is born gay! That's why the fundamentalist religion "camps" that have sprung up to "change" gays to "normal" are failures. Anyone who thinks being a homosexual is a result of a choice just wants to use that concept as a reason to discriminate.

Gay adults will tell you that they knew they were gay as children. It wasn't an adult decision. I'm sure I won't wake up tomorrow morning and choose a different sexual lifestyle!

This debate muddies the water of the real issue. Prop H8 discriminates against a segment of our society. It will be fought in the courts and will lose. Justice will eventually reign. "

Vercingetorex wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:38 AM:

" Who is ramming their values down whose throat? There is no "right" to change the definition of marriage and make it whatever you wish.
If gays get to claim their version of marriage is legal today, then who will come tomorrow to claim they get their way too?
Polygamists? Considering the growing clout of Islam I would not be surprised.
And we could not legally challenge their views because if you make special rules for one then you must accommodate all.

It's interesting to note that Elton John feels the gay movement is hung up on the word "marriage" and feels that efforts to change it would be better spent working on domestic partnerships. California already has such a provision. If that weren't so, gay marriage might make more of a point. But it is, and gay marriage doesn't.

It's safe to say that if you couldn't get Prop 8 defeated in the year that Obama came into office, in California yet(!) it isn't likely to pass now.
Not after the gay backlash that's been so much in the news. The political ads showing gays running amok in churches and assaulting grannies would almost write themselves.
So love who you want. No one is stopping you. But it's clear the public has spoken on marriage. "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:23 PM:

" actually V, I would wager the next time it comes to a vote it does pass...each time it has come to the ballot the margin of victory has been smaller....

and I would also say it is the yes on 8 people who have rammed their values down the rest of our throats....by legislating, for the first time, the removal of a basic civil right. No one is asking for special rules...just the same rules. "

Vercingetorex wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Not to get into a long back and forth,
but how long has marriage been in world wide existence?
Several thousand years, easily?

And how long has the push for gay marriage been going on? Twenty years? Tops?

So is trying to impose their values on whom? The institution of marriage as it's existed worldwide for thousands of years? Or a sub set of society that can't even get their ideas passed in blue state California? Who is calling for change here?

This isn't even an argument. It's just absurd and whatever you can say about the merits of gay marriage, to say they aren't trying to make most of society bend to their will is insane.
Otherwise what's the fight about? "

John Richards wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:37 PM:

" Vercingetorex, it is interesting to me how the anti-8 folks denigrate Elton John because he is rich and he is British, so he couldn't possibly understand the Prop 8 issue! "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:28 PM:

" and which form of marriage V.....multiple wives, multiple husbands....the trading of women as property into marriage? the institution of marriage has evolved right alongside society.... and the fight is about merely having the same rights as the rest of the state....not trying to bend anyone to anyone else's will...just to share the rights the we all enjoy... to restore the right the same sex couples had until stripped away by Prop 8

and JR, Elton's stand is mixed, on the one hand he enjoyed having a wedding and marriage his words, not ours, when British law allowed civil unions, and on the other he makes statement as to a problem he see in the fight against Prop 8... "

pharper wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:58 PM:

" I am a huge Elton John fan, but his views on the issue are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with Prop 8. I'm surprised that the same people who cry out constantly about immigrants wanting their share of the American dream would use the views of a non-American to support their own agenda in regard to a California state issue. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:57 PM:

" pharper, who said anything about immigrants in this thread? It's amazing the off-topic stuff you throw on the wall in the hopes that any of it will stick. "

pharper wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:10 PM:

" No one did; I'm pointing out the parallels. The same people who cry out about immigrants use the words of a non-American in order to justify their hateful cause. It's a bit ironic, isn't it?

Just because you don't want to hear it and have no rebuttal doesn't make it off-topic. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:49 PM:

" pharper wrote: "The same people who cry out about immigrants use the words of a non-American in order to justify their hateful cause."

That's a totally specious argument. You have no proof that the ones who protest illegal immigration are the same ones who approved Prop 8. Note that a majority of voters of Hispanic origin voted in favor of Prop 8. Those same voters would probably be in favor of weakening immigration rules so that more of their relatives could join them.

And there is nothing hateful about wanting to keep marriage as it has always been. Accusing Prop 8 supporters of being "hateful" will only drive more moderates over to our side. "

Raven wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:39 PM:

" Actually JR, if you go back thru the archives and look at some of the posters who supported prop 8 and compare that to some of the threads involving illegal immigrants, you will find them there among the most virulent anti-immigrants voices as well.

and if you had a basic right stripped away from you, wouldn't you consider the actions of those who stripped it away as hateful? and when you consider some of the anti-homosexual posts that have been placed in the various Prop 8 threads, some of them are well into hateful territory. "

RDM1 wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:55 AM:

" Our current understanding of biology suggests that all things biological serve one original design criterion (purpose). They either contribute to survival and reproduction, or they don’t. Whatever manages to contribute, is favored by natural selection. Whatever doesn’t contribute, is selected against. Of course, selection ‘for and against’ varies in intensity according to the fit between the species and the environment. Of the three possible gender combinations (male-male, female-female, female-male) only one is likely, of it’s very nature, to lead to reproduction. Unfortunately, there are draw backs to reproducing. Initial stages are dangerous to the life of the female. Later stages involve massive commitments of attention and energy. The whole process takes years. Furthermore, once entered into, this commitment cannot be shirked without risking severe sanctions from the community. If the three possible combinations (female-female, male-male, female-male) were equally endorsed by the community, no rational being would choose the ‘hetero’ option. The community, in an effort to insure its own survival, attempts to compensate for these built-in drawbacks to the ‘hetero’ option, by offering a suite of privileges for those willing to take on its burdens. "

pharper wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:39 PM:

" No rational being? I imagine you're not a parent, because people know the hardships of being a mother or father, and it doesn't stop them from wanting to reproduce. I'm told that despite the difficulties, raising a child is one of the most joyful and rewarding experiences. By recognizing that homosexual AND heterosexuality are normal (and affording them the same benefits) we aren't somehow snuffing out the privilege or the desire of heterosexuals to reproduce. As a matter of fact, we now have the technology to allow homosexual couples to reproduce naturally. Not to mention, we have millions of unwanted children just waiting to be adopted all over the world.

The reproduction argument is a shaky and irrelevant one. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:21 PM:

" pharper wrote: "The reproduction argument is a shaky and irrelevant one."

Apparently not for the U.S. Supreme Court which stated in Loving v. Virginia that marriage was a right BECAUSE it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." an obvious reference to heterosexual procreation. "

pharper wrote on Dec 8, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Maybe obvious to you. And, I hate to break this to you, but homosexual couples CAN reproduce. Allowing them the right to marry won't mean that they'll somehow take over the world and prevent people from reproducing. Trust me, people are still doing that at an alarming rate. And if reproduction has ANYTHING at all to do with marriage, couples that can't or don't intend to reproduce should not be allowed to married. If reproduction is to be brought into the argument AT ALL, then marriages between couples who won't or can't have children should be immediately nullified. "

Raven wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:37 PM:

" but JR, you have told us many a time to not read into the court's decision's what they didn't say....and they didn't say anything about procreation. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:05 AM:

" Raven wrote: "JR, you have told us many a time to not read into the court's decision's what they didn't say....and they didn't say anything about procreation. "

OK, then YOU tell us what their reference to "fundamental to our very existence and survival" means. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:10 AM:

" pharper wrote: "If reproduction is to be brought into the argument AT ALL, then marriages between couples who won't or can't have children should be immediately nullified."

As I have stated before, public policy on something like this is not based on individual capabilities, but on the natural characteristics of the CLASS. "

Raven wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:45 AM:

" no JR....the issue is you show us where it says this does not apply to same sex couples. and I would say marriage is a fundamental right to all people.

Public policy is not based on depriving a class of their rights and as a class, lesbians can reproduce so therefor they should be allowed to marry, and the natural characteristics of the class of heterosexuals includes those who cannot or will not have children, the same natural characteristics as same sex couples, so again..why shouldn't same sex couple be allowed to marry? "

pharper wrote on Dec 11, 2008 5:34 PM:

" Lesbians, AS A CLASS, can reproduce. Gay men, AS A CLASS, can reproduce. Perhaps not by the means you seem to prefer, but they still can reproduce. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Raven, so you have no explanation for what the Court meant by "fundamental to our very existence and survival" ? That's equivalent to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. In other words, if you don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist?
Of course that particular Court decision is not going to mention same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage was not under the scope of consideration. The scope of the decision was the issue of interracial marriage between a man and a woman. It also didn't mention or exclude polygamy, so by your reverse logic that should have legalized polygamy!!! "

John Richards wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:46 PM:

" pharper wrote: "Lesbians, AS A CLASS, can reproduce. Gay men, AS A CLASS, can reproduce. Perhaps not by the means you seem to prefer, but they still can reproduce."

Without a lot of artificial help, they can't. It certainly isn't nature's way. "

pharper wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:12 PM:

" Does it matter? You said that they couldn't reproduce. Clearly, they can, so the argument is invalid. I wasn't aware that the method had anything to do with it. If they as a class can reproduce, they can reproduce. You didn't say it mattered how they did it. "

Raven wrote on Dec 12, 2008 8:30 AM:

" where did anyone say only people who can reproduce a certain way are the only ones entitled to the right to marry?

and again, JR you cite that decision but have yet to show 1) where it says that it does not apply to same sex marriages and 2) that same sex marriages harm the existence and survival of anything.

and JR, who knows, if polygamy were the issue at hand, one may be able to argue that it does apply there ...but the issue here is does it apply to same sex marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:11 AM:

" pharper wrote: "You said that they couldn't reproduce. Clearly, they can, so the argument is invalid. I wasn't aware that the method had anything to do with it. If they as a class can reproduce, they can reproduce. You didn't say it mattered how they did it."

You're being obtuse again. We're talking about innate, God-given abilities, not artificial workarounds. "

John Richards wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Raven, the issue at hand is that you are twisting the plain meaning of that Court decision. If by some stroke of imagination it also sanctions same-sex marriage, then by using your logic it also sanctions polygamy. Clearly, the Court had no such far reaching interpretations in mind. "

Raven wrote on Dec 13, 2008 2:23 PM:

" I am not twisting anything JR...I am looking at the words of the ruling...and no where does it say anything about limiting the decision to heterosexual couples...it will take another court case to do so ...

as for polygamy...who knows...if the issue ever reaches the high court they make make a specific decision, it may open the door but as I recall they may have already done so in decisions regarding marriage and Utah in the 19th century

And then you are saying that couple who cannot reproduce without modern technology have no right to marry since they lack that 'god-given ability.

If your words are being misinterpreted JR, perhaps it is not pharper and myself, and others who are being obtuse? "

pharper wrote on Dec 13, 2008 4:44 PM:

" So then, it matters how people reproduce. How about this - if a couple cannot reproduce without artificial help, they can't get married.

After all, that's what you're saying. Lesbians as a class can reproduce with artificial help. But since that's not good enough for you, and you want to use the reproduction argument, it has to encompass all things. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: