No one here is saying anything against you being opposed to homosexuality, Tenoko. And yes, maybe those people in your neighborhood were doing that to 'piss off the mormons' — however, that doesn't represent the LGBT community as a whole. But I will have to say this, in regards to your responses: we would not be having this discussion if equality did not exist. Separate but equal is NOT EQUAL. It's still segregation. If this equality was not guaranteed by the constitution, blacks would still be slaves, interracial marriages would still be against the law, women would still be home-makers, and Asians would still be in internment camps.

It is because of the ruling that 'separate but equal' is unconstitutional that you are able to voice your opinions on this matter; it is because we are guaranteed equality that women were able to step out of the kitchens and into the work place. There is no difference between that constitutional right, and the constitutional right for gays to marry.

In regards to votes - as was already stated; just because majority votes one way does not make it right. Our system is a system of checks and balances. We have the people to vote, we have the government to make sure it doesn't go awry, and vice versa. If 51% of the population voted that eating jam on a Wednesday was to be against the law because their moralities dictated so, and 49% voted against it, does that make eating jam on a Wednesday something you should be fined and/or jailed for? No, it does not.

I don't see how gays being able to marry is going to encroach on YOUR rights, either. No one is forcing you to accept gays into your religion. The overturning of Prop8, while (hopefully) setting a precedence will not force any religious person or organisation to accept gay marriage. ALL THIS IS DOING is allowing gays the same LEGAL rights as a married heterosexual couple (such as filing jointly on taxes, being considered a spouse in a medical emergency, etc).

That's it. What is so harmful in that?
edit;; i just have to add - if this equality weren't allowed to us, your own religion would not exist.

@tenoko - I think you're the only one feeling 'heated' =X... Anyway, I think your point of view all stems from the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice'. Homosexuality is a choice as much as heterosexuality is a choice. You cannot choose who you are attracted to; you either are, or you aren't. What you do with that attraction is a choice, yes - but if you say that homosexuals should choose not to act on their attractions you are infringing on their rights as people to "pursue happiness" which you have already agreed is a fundamental right in this country.

Also, if you want to discuss socioeconomics vs socialism, please create a new thread. =]

I think you're mistaken in regards to the origins of marriage. Its a ceremony older than our country, older than Christianity; its definition was changed in recent history to *specifically* dictate between man & woman.

It originated in biblical times with the spreading of the old testament.

That is completely untrue. Marriage predates the 'spreading of the old testament'. People were getting married before the Torah was written. Marriage is only being 'altered' in its definition if you believe that it is specifically an institution of religion. It's not.

Aug 6, 2010 15:21:27 GMT -6 @hanabi said:

Actually, I was trying to point out how it's all connected and how I don't like the alteration of marriage because it's another cog in the wheel to alter the overall constitution.

You're talking about the 'alteration of marriage' - yet you ignore the fact that the constitution was amended to define marriage as between man and woman. That is (relatively speaking) a *NEW* addition to the constitution. I think you need to read Prop8 before posting about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Voting 'yes' on Prop8 changes the constitution to disallow gay marriage.
Voting 'no' on Prop8 CHANGED NOTHING.

As far as 'opening the way' to change more of the constitution, there have, as Saiki pointed out, been many instances where the constitution was amended to increase rights to extend to all. For example:

1. In the original constitution, whites had supremacy over blacks, and blacks were considered 2/3's the worth of a white.
2. When blacks were allowed to vote (following an amendment to the constitution) one black vote was 1/3 the worth of one white vote (so three black people [MEN] would have to vote before having the same weight as one white man's vote).
3. In the original constitution, women were not included. (Hence the Women's Sufferage movement).

The Bill of Rights (since you mentioned the 'right to bear arms') are the first ten amendments to the constitution. In your argument, the Bill of Rights should not exist because they too are 'opening the way' for further changes to the constitution. With the elimination of the Bill of Rights (the original amendments), the United States would:

1. ALLOW persecution based on religion, and oppression of speech, assembly, press, and petition.
2. DISALLOW firearm ownership.
3. ALLOW the usage of private homes for military occupation during wartime.
4. ALLOW arrests, searches, and seizures of property without probable cause.
5. ALLOW trials without grand jury indictment, double jeopardy, punishment *without* due process, self-incrimination, and the government possession of private property for public use without just compensation.
6. DISALLOW trial by jury, speedy trials, right to legal counsel, ability to face your accuser, right to know the charges against you.
7. DISALLOW trial by jury (civil cases).
8. ALLOWS excessive bails, fines, and cruel/unusual punishment.
9. DISALLOWS rights not specifically mentioned to be retained by the people.
10. DISALLOWS state governments.

Those are only the first ten amendments. These 'rights' you say will be changed were already changed. Without these amendments, you would not have the 'rights' you feel are threatened.

The Federal Marriage Amendment redefines marriage as 'between one man and one woman' — if this were already in the constitution, as you so claim, then why would it need to be amended to include the definition? This was rejected as an unconstitutional amendment in 2006; had Prop8 gone through, it would've violated the federal decision that it was unconstitutional.

The Defense of Marriage Act, also redefining marriage, wasn't passed until 1996 - and section 3 was just deemed unconstitutional.

So, if you notice, these 'definitions of marriage' weren't added until recent history. You cannot argue that Prop8 would infringe on these rights as set forth by our founding fathers when that is not what Prop8 did at all, and the definition of 'marriage' wasn't between man & woman until the 90's.

---

@ Tenoko - with all due respect; considering your religion I have to question how much unbiased information you had prior to formulating your opinion on this subject, as the Church of Latter Day Saints was a forerunner in supporting Prop8, including financially (which, iirc, was deemed illegal and the Church fined).

Aug 6, 2010 17:11:00 GMT -6 @hanabi said:

Okay, you all know way more about politics then I do. I just don't want to see my fine nation burn to dust. So the more change that's happening the more worried I'm becoming. I'm pretty good with the history of single political parties. But I've not studied every change the Constitution has made since it was made. So maybe I should simply study more. This has been rather enlightening. I still have my opinion, but I am open to learning new stuff and altering said opinion should it prove false. I like to make opinions based off what I learn. Not learn to back an opinion that won't change.

I'm a christian myself so a lot of my opinion is based on my spiritual belief as well. But I do like to learn more and actually learn, instead of being one of those 'crazy ones' who won't learn from a good debate they lose.

While I'm glad that you are open to learning (you're right, there are people who refuse to open their minds), I have to question why you'd form an opinion without making sure you're knowledgeable of all the facts. Why would you vote (yes or no) on or support anything without making sure you knew what you were voting for/supporting? You say you don't want this nation to go to hell, but willful ignorance presents more of a threat to that than the actual changes that people are proposing.

As far as spiritual belief goes; you're perfectly entitled to think that homosexuality is immoral. That, too, is a right guaranteed to you by an amendment to the constitution. However, immoral or not (that is a debate for another time), homosexuals are still people. As such, they need to have the same rights as everyone else. Even convicted criminals (people that most think are 'immoral' or have participated in 'immoral' behaviour) have a right to marry -and some do so, even incarcerated. Why can homosexuals not have the same right, just because their chosen partner happens to be the same gender?

As far as your 'fine nation burning to dust', wouldn't sexual inequality (as Prop8 would've enforced) be a cause of this? In regards to this topic, the 'changes' that you fear would've come from voting yes on Prop8, not voting against it.

edit;; while your religion may influence your belief, it should not influence your decision in a matter that will affect other people. In essence you (not just you, but people who use their religious beliefs as a basis) are saying, "I believe homosexuality is wrong as defined by my religion. Therefore, other people must conform to this belief."