Protest the passage of Prop 8

[sistermagpie]

> Tonks:
> Are you saying that 99.9% of Homosexuals are Atheist? I don't think 
so. 
> Many are members of a religion and would want to be married in that 
> religion. I do not have a problem with a church wedding for 
> homesexuals. I do have a problem with a civil marriage.
> 
> Why would you, if you are not religion and therefor not concerned 
with, 
> as they say, 'living in sin', even feel that it was necessary to 
> be 'married' by the state? (this might be a trick question)

Magpie:
Are you asking that seriously? I assume you don't think that the 
reason a non-religious person wants to get married is that they 
fear "living in sin"?

Tonks:
> 
> As to if same sex civil unions were going to affect religious 
people, 
> it will have a major impact on everyone because it will have a 
major 
> impact on our culture and the way that our government functions.
> 
> The purpose of 'marriage' in the eyes of the government is to 
santify a 
> union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and 
> raising children (more citizens for the state). And the civil law 
that 
> provides for this marriage is in place to protect those children 
and by 
> extention the mother. It is not there to provide for health care 
and 
> Social Security benifits for same sex couples, it is there to 
provide 
> and protect the children of a hetrosexual union.

Magpie:
It does provide these things for the heterosexual couple so I don't 
see why you think you can see that its purpose is something else. You 
don't have to have children, be able to biologically have children or 
even plan to have children to get married, and anyway gay couples 
often have children. 

Tonks:> 
> Also same sex marriage has the effect of 'normalizing' a union that 
> will cause children to become confused. This is what concerns me 
the 
> most. Young child go though a phase, which most of you know, where 
they 
> form thier idenity as male or female and their sexual orientation. 
When 
> it becomes 'normal' in society to marry either the opposite or the 
same 
> sex, I think that children will become confused and it is possible 
for 
> this to result in more homosexuality than we currently have, which 
in 
> turn means a lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. 

Magpie:
Why do you think there being accepted gay couples in the world (as 
there already are) would cause a child to become 'confused?' Children 
figure out they are gay despite having straight parents (sometimes 
even with lots of people telling them they are straight or better be 
so), and children of gay parents are not any more likely to be gay 
than the children of straight parents. The idea that gay marriage is 
a danger because it will cause a rash of faux gay people (who are not 
really gay but just think they are) and therefore birth rates will 
drop is a huge stretch imo, especially in a society that is still 
predominantly heterosexual and reflects that in its media. I see no 
evidence for this idea whatsoever, and that's even leaving aside the 
fact that gay couples quite often want to raise families just as 
straight couples do, so gay does not equal childless.

Tonks:
> 
> Also making same sex marriage legal as a civil union make for more 
> potential abuse of the system that was orginally put in place to 
> protect children. I am not gay, I am not married. I do not have 
heath 
> care or a good retirement program. I could marry my best friend to 
get 
> those things. The fact that we do not have sex with each other is 
no 
> ones business. I would be using the system for other than what the 
> system was set up for, and at a time when the system is already 
> strained beyond its limits.

Magpie:
You can do the same thing now, obviously. There are heterosexual 
marriages of convenience, or friendship, for money, for show, for 
cover. Even celibate marriages. You can have a best friend who's not 
the same sex as you are. This particular abuse of the system is not 
created by allowing same-sex marriage.

Tonks: 
> I don't think that we need to label homosexuals as bad, or sick or 
> immoral or as having a 'choice' of behaviors. People should be 
accepted 
> as they are in society, in the workplace, in the churches. But this 
> doesn't mean that the definition of 'marriage' in the eyes of the 
state 
> has to be changed. This is more than just the 'right' of one group 
of 
> people. It has far rangeing consquences that many people who only 
see 
> a 'rights' issue are not considering.

Magpie:
Yes, it does have far reaching consequences. I think the rights 
they're considering are just more real than the speculation here. Gay 
families are dealing already with having fewer protections than 
straight families. The problems you're suggesting here seem to be 
more what one person might imagine could happen than a real 
consequence of gay marriage since there have been many children 
already raised by gay couples or who know gay couples and don't show 
any of the behaviors you're talking about here. 

-m