Thursday, August 5, 2010

Prop 8 and the Facebook discussion that ensued

Last night and this morning was certainly an interesting day on facebook. I posted my happiness for Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional and when I logged in two hours later, had nearly 50 notifications. The conversation we had was extremely interesting, and I want to share it, its kind of long, sorry. Names have been changed (except for mine)

Sheraya: WHOO HOO!!!!!! PROP 8 WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL! YAY!!!!!!! THIS IS SO GREAT!!!!

Madeline: Yesss!!! There is hope for the world after all! :)
Nate: WOOO HOOO!!!
Ken: WOOT WOOT!!!!! One step closer!
Mark: What is prop 8?
Mark: Oh nvm, anti gay marriage.
Hans: Mark It was the law in california forbidding gay and lesbians to be married
Jessica: What's the point in voting if it just gets thrown out anyway...
Hans: Because people should have the right to vote. but obviously we need someone to say something is wrong dont we
Jessica: I don't believe it was wrong. I think gay and lesbian couples should have all of the same rights as a married couple but I don't consider their union to be a marriage.
Hans: And thats your choice isnt it?
Jessica: Yep.
Hans: Glad we agree....but im pretty sure when they say ok you are now married then i mean...cant argue with fact....:D
Jessica: I'm not sure I understand your comment.
Hans: im not sure i understand your way of thinking
Jessica: That's the beautiful thing about being human is all the differences we have.
Dona: And that's good... why? This shouldn't even be an "issue." What a way to single a group of people out and make them feel different, their gay, not Asian.
Jessica: To me it's like somebody that eats meat wanting to be called a vegetarian. Should we change the definition of vegetarian because that's what someone wants to be called? It's not singling out a group of people.
Dona: Hmm... we aren't going to agree on this. Comparing being gay to eating meat implies its a choice. I don't believe being gay is a choice anymore than I believe I chose to be a girl. A label isn't necessary. We just have this ridiculous object-choice definition of sexuality in this culture. People can call themselves whatever they want.
Jessica: I wasn't talking about the choice part of it I was talking about the definition. I agree that it's not a choice.
Mark: The definition of marriage is the union of two souls, men can have that with other men and women with other women. Gay marriage is just as real as straight marriage and means the same thing...in my opinion.
Anne: just more divorces
Lucy: Why not? They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us don't they? ;)
Issac: The Constitution of our great country, which we should all strive to live by, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. How far we have fallen...
Mark: The Constitution says NOTHING about marriage between anybody, or anything related to marriage, but nice try. Maybe next time, a little more research.
Madeline: To quote the judge who made the ruling: "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." ...in other words, the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So the Constitution hasn't "fallen" in any way; it's just been used, as it always has been, to protect another group of people from discrimination.
Jessica: Although many people believe this is an issue of discrimination it is not. I am not saying straight people are better than gay people. That has nothing to do with this. I am not saying their lifestyle is morally wrong. I get that everybody is born wired a certain way. I do believe in the bible and it says that this lifestyle is a sin, however if you are born that way how does it all work? Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers. I will not love someone any less because they are gay or straight, or purple polka dotted. I am not using my moral beliefs as to why prop 8 should pass. I am saying that marriage is between a man and a woman period.
Issac: Mark, no need to be a complete asshole about it, but i'm just trying to point out whats right in the world. Marriage between two men or two women is their choice, and theirs to make, but isn't it sad that society as a whole has come to accept two men loving on eachother is normal? I am highly opposed to this ruling by this so called judge. I do not share these comments in anger or hate, but merely expressing my opinion for an open minded debate.
Sheraya: Wow. I get home and I have 44 notifications. I have a few things to say.
Dona, honey, its an issue because people aren't being treated equally. If they were, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? It's good that it was declared unconstitutional, because now we can move forward in the quest for equal rights.
Mark, you really said it well right there. :) nicely done.
Anne, were you saying there are more divorces in same sex couples? or that there would be more divorce just because there are more marriages? If you meant the first, I would like to say a few things.
Lets compare Canada to America in divorce rates. Canada legalized gay marriage in 2003. According to this site http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml , which was valid in 2002, (before legal gay marriage in Canada) America had 45.8% marriages end in divorce. Canada had 37%.
Now, looking at an article that is more recent, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate, it says out of 1000 people, 4.95 marriages in America end in divorce. In Canada, out of 1000 people, 2.46 marriages end in divorce. That looks like more than half of the divorce that America has, and the number (while in different formats) has gone down SINCE same sex marriage was legalized. Now you can either argue that same sex marriage was either good for the divorce rate decreasing, or it didn't effect in. In either way, it doesn't look like same sex marriage is a bad thing for the divorce rate. But really, who cares about the divorce rate anyway, so long as your marriage is intact??
Issac, do you know where it says that in the constitution, or are you just regurgitating what others have told you. If you do believe it's there, please let me know where it is.
Madeline, woot woot! You go girl, good job on doing your research on the judge!! Well said, my friend.
Jessica, I totally get that you believe in the bible, and believe that it says that the lifestyle is wrong. So I get why you personally would not want to be in a gay or lesbian marriage. Because that is against your personal beliefs. But why would you tell someone else that THEY can't? Does it affect you? Does it hurt YOUR marriage? (caps for emphasis, not yelling) I don't think it does. It's like if you were LDS and thought that drinking coffee was bad. Does that mean you are going to stop your neighbor from drinking coffee? Does your neighbor drinking coffee do something to ruin the milk you drink in the morning
Sheraya: Oops, Issac posted something that I didn't see, so I didn't add it in...
Issac, he made a good point. I'm sorry, but who are you to set a moral standard for "what's right in the world"? Why would it ever be sad that two people love each other?!? And the "so called judge" you are now making judgments on! What an awful comment! Do you even know the judge's name? What else he has ruled on? What kind of history he has had? And yet, based on one decision you obviously have not researched, you disrespect his title! Shame on you Issac. You say you want an open minded "debate", and yet here you are, proving just the opposite through your blatant ignorance and rudeness.
Mark: What's "right" is purely individual perspective. You incorrectly quoting the Constitution isn't your opinion, just a wrong statement. And your closed minded, Judeo-Christian-Islamic opinion of homosexuality and the marriage of said people, is just ignorant and outdated. I'm sure Jesus would be so proud of how judgmental you are being.
Mark: And I love you Sheraya. I really do. :)
Sheraya: Back at you Mark :) But whats with the random declaration?
Hans: I'm sorry but i cant have an open debate with a close minded person. Not going to work. However i would love for you to put out all your scriptures out that define my homosexuality as being wrong. I love jesus and the bible as much as you do so feel free to say your hate on us is because of god. When people hold up signs that say god hates fags all they are doing is replacing the word god with the letter I. So please bring it on. Use your bible the best way you know how (hate) and i will reinspire you with love.
Anne: nope just as a whole. the divorce rate is high enough why make it higher. Rosie O'donnel went through one she could've avoided. that's one reason many don't get married straight or gay.The whole thing is it was VOTED on as a whole in that s...tate the MAJORITY won deal with it or vote otherwise to appeal again. It's not right that ONE judge overrules the majority whether it's constitutionally right or not. The majority passed the bill live with it or move, there are other states where it's legal. Even other countries. Really I don't care, if your an adult (no children), who can get married or not anymore because marriage as a religous part of life has become a joke to many people and that's why we are voting on who can and who can't. Sheraya, divorce is a big deal because it affects more than just the two individuals involved, but you should know better that I meant more divorces as a whole. I would vote against it, but that is my RIGHT as an AMERICAN citzen but I wouldn't scream and cry if the MAJORITY passed a law for it. It could bring more money to Vegas if a law passed, but we live by MAJORITY and the VOTING process not ONE judge.See More
Hans: Anne your comment is just pathetic.
Anne: Thanks, I wasn't talking to you, but to my cousin. I didn't comment on your opinions, that you have the right to. Just like my opinion on who cares anymore. It's all about money to the judges and lawyers,thus VOTING is involved to take out the MONETARY concerns, more marriages means more divorces which means more divorce lawyers.
Hans: have you been divorced?
Anne: have you? and does it matter? Nope
Hans: lol it must matter to you alot
Anne: no it's just a point. Sheraya wanted clarification on what I meant. She had a legnthy anwser if it was the first thing, which it wasn't. I was trying to lighten the conversation, because it just means there will be more divorces. More marriages=more divorces=more divorce lawyers
Mark: For what you said to Issac. :)
Anne: it's not a reason against it, just a statement
Sheraya: Anne, your statement "the divorce rate is high enough why make it higher" still strikes me as a really weak reason not to allow two people who love each other to be married.
Rosie O'Donnel is an awful example of why gay marriages should be avoided. She is a celebrity. How many celebrities have relationships that last? A handful. So why would her marriage count for a reason against same sex marriages? If that's the way we're going, I guess all marriages should be made illegal, I mean, Sandra Bullock just got divorced, and she was straight. So I guess having heterosexual marriages results in more divorces, so we should just do away with it at all! I mean, look at Brittany Spears. Isn't she a great example of how marriage is as a whole?? (this was all dripping with sarcasm in case that didn't carry through)
We have judges, so they can rule on things like this. If this case was a true representation of all the parties involved, then it wouldn't need to go to court. Unfortunately, enough of the "minority" was still concerned that it needed to go to court. Prop 8 was passed by a vote of 52.24% No 47.76%. Now tell me, is that a clear majority? Or looking at that do you think, “hmm it seems that a lot of people disagree with this.” Barely half of the people in California agreed with this, and fancy that, that’s why it went to court. Because the majority vote didn’t quite cut it, it needed to be looked at by an impartial third party. Guess what, that “ONE” judge was either selected by the governor (who incidentally was voted for by the MAJORITY) or elected by the MAJORITY. So that gave him power BY THE MAJORITY to rule on things like this.
I can’t believe you said it doesn’t matter if it’s constitutionally right or not. If we can’t depend on the constitution (which is amended by more than the majority through the people that the MAJORITY voted for) then what can you depend on to decide on laws?
Even though you said the constitution doesn’t really matter, I am going to bring up a point anyway. The 14 amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause that says that no state will “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it singles out homosexuals by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice, whereas heterosexuals may do so freely. So if you do care about what the constitution says, consider that. As well as one other little thing called the Declaration of Independence, which says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Let’s just jump to the last part…pursuit of happiness. I’m going to get married because I’m in love, and being married to him will make me happy. Therefore, to pursue happiness, I want to get married. How many homosexual couples feel the EXACT SAME WAY?
I don’t really see how religion is part of marriage. I see that religions make marriage a part of them, but I don’t think you have to be religious to be married. If you do, well damn, I guess I can’t be married because I don’t believe in the invisible man in the sky. Which religion exactly gets to choose who gets to be married and who doesn’t? Oh right…none of them…we have the power to worship whomever we please, so no religion could really make the rules for the MAJORITY, could they?
Divorce is a big deal. To the people around it. Do you really care if some random person in Missouri gets divorced? It matters to those involved. It’s not really your business or your concern, is it? So why would you care if divorce rates DID go up??
It is your right to vote Anne, through that constitution you don’t care about. Just as it is MY right to practice free speech and fight for equality. It was not the majority’s wish to let women vote. It was not the majority’s wish to let blacks vote, or be able to marry a white woman. It may not be the majority wish right now for all men to be treated equally (yes even the queers), but I would have been there with the women. I would have been there with the blacks. And I am now standing here, with the homosexuals.

Anne: not a reason just a statement. trying to defuse the bomb that exploded. more marriages=more divorces why just fight it in California and not the other states then? publicity, that's why I mentioned Rosie
Sheraya: Anne, I don't really see how being with the person you love in marriage is really an issue of money...that's not really what I's get married (or divorced) for...
Sheraya: Mark, I just call it how I see it. :)
Anne: fine whatever. I'm over it and don't really care, as long as children aren't being forced to marry perves then what does it matter if you are both consenting adults. The problem is it should never have been a voting matter and it became that way for the civil rights. which includes taxes and HIPPA and wills.
Hans: Are you calling homosexuals perverts?
Anne: nope
Sheraya: I don't see it as a bomb. Merely a discussion. And the statement, I feel is false. Percentage wise, no more divorces, same or less. (Canada). That's just like saying, well I guess you can only have one kid, because more kids means more... people will die. Kind of ridiculous, isn't it?
Why shouldn't we fight it in every state? Are there homosexuals in every state? Does every state follow the US constitution? Does every citizen of the United States of America deserve the same rights???? THAT is why we must fight it in every state.
I can get on the phone 9-5 everyday, call the judge, and be married within a half hour. Every single homosexual in the United States should have that right as well. They should not have to go to Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Washington D.C. . If two homosexuals from Utah wanted to get married tomorrow, they would have to pay over $500 (I just looked) for the two of them. This doesn't include any other travel expenses. How on earth is that fair? I can get married for $55 (this is what my friend paid to elope, included the license, judge's fee, and I threw in 5 dollars in for gas) and a same sex couple would be over $500? Awesome, that's totally fair. Not. And Rosie, as I said was an awful example.
Sheraya: No she was referring to underage children who are forced to marry. Like in the case of polygamy (some times). Am I right, Anne? Wait, why should it have never been a voting matter?
Anne: because it is a personal thing between two people, that's why it shouldn't have been a voting thing for marriage, civil rights yes, marriage is a personal thing we should keep within our own lives (friends and stuff). My view of marriage an...yway, they aren't fighting it in other states, that's what I'm saying. Why are they only fighting it in California and not fighting it in Nevada, or Arizona or Utah, where similar votes were made? Why is there no news about those states. Yes you are right about the underage. See More
Anne: oh and yes more people born will equal more people dying. I never said it was an arguement for them not to be married
Anne: and Canada is not the US
Issac: Ok firstly, I just want to point out how ridiculous this is getting, and/or personal its getting. Secondly I will admit I was wrong in saying that the constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman, however that does not mean i was wrong in implying the beliefs of our founding fathers. Third, Sheraya, the judge was Judge Vaughn R. Walker, you can find all about him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker. And finally Mark, all I have to say to you is, grow up sir!
Jessica: Like I said before my views on the bible are not the basis for my argument I was just making a statement about some of my beliefs. I don't think Jesus hates you because you are gay. I don't hate you because you are gay. It goes back to ...what I think marriage is and I don't believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I don't hate anybody or think less of anybody because they are gay or lesbian. They should have all of the same rights as a married couple because obviously a man can have the same feelings I have for my husband for another man and a woman for another woman. I feel like because of my beliefs I get singled out and attacked. Not by you Sharaya, you were very respectful in your opinion and I appreciate that. It's really frustrating getting told that I am hateful or bad because of what I believe. I feel like the same thing I am being accused of is exactly what is happening to me by others.
Sheraya: Anne, I guess I am a little confused…if it’s a personal thing between two people and shouldn’t be voted on, then why isn’t same sex marriage ok? It’s between two people, and if we’re not going to vote on it, then that means it’s okay, rig...ht? We are voting on civil rights for homosexuals. Every day there are new breakthroughs in every state. Just yesterday 4-1 Taylorsville has just become the 7th city in Utah to pass non-discrimination ordinances. So each state IS fighting it. We’re just not to the same sex marriage battle yet, don’t worry, the time will come.
You did say that divorce was a reason for same sex marriage to not be illegal. That is why I used the extreme example of people dying.
Canada is not the US but we have many important similarities. That is why I chose Canada as my example instead of Sweden or Argentina or somewhere else that allows it. We have similar amounts of land, 1% difference in male to female ratio, we have the same literacy rate, we are each other’s largest trading partner, and the list goes on and on. (http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm). So no, we are not Canada, but I chose them for comparison because of the similarities of the country.
Issac, I don’t feel that discussing what we believe and backing our opinions with fact is ever ridiculous. I don’t feel that I have been personal at all with you. If I said (ridiculous example) “You believe in eating your bread butter side down??? What? That means you are an idiot and you know nothing and you should go bury yourself in a hole because you will never be a good father.” That I feel would be a personal comment. Asking you to bring some facts to the table, I feel is not a personal attack. Thanks for admitting you misspoke. I appreciate that. I believe (this is just my opinion here, backed only by reading the constitution, taking history classes and some research I did for the play 1776) that the beliefs of the founding fathers does not really matter, what does is what they wrote. I am positive our founding fathers had some personal beliefs that they did not put in the constitution, and they didn’t put those in there because they didn’t want to impose their beliefs with others.
Thank you for doing your research on the judge. I did know who he was after doing my own research. I still don’t understand why you would call him a “so called judge” implying that he isn’t really one.
How was Mark being immature? He was merely calling you on your misrepresentation of facts. Your closing comment of telling him to grow up, was just what you said the conversation had become, personal. So it seems to me that if you want it to stay an intellectual discussion, you should probably follow those guidelines yourself.
Jessica, I am glad you feel that I wasn’t attacking you, but I am sorry that you felt attacked by others. I should hope everyone can keep their frustration with the subject under control so that we don't all feel personally attacked. I see that gays must feel personally attacked by the laws, but I think that may go the same way of people of religion. I think sometimes when something you believe to the core is disagreed with it is hard to look at the other side. So I guess we all have to try to be fair to the other side. Why do you feel that marriage is only between a man and a woman?
Jessica: I think that it is a sacred religious rite between a man and a woman. To me that is the definition of marriage. I still feel like a man and a man have the right to be united and a woman and a woman can also. That is their choice but it is still different to me than when a man and a woman unite. I don't really have anything to back it up, that is just what I believe.
Jessica: I'm sorry if people feel offended by this that is not my intention.
Jessica: This has definitely been an enlightening discussion though.
Sheraya: And you are perfectly allowed to have your belief. What if there was a religious marriage and a legal marriage. (I'm going to use the LDS church as an example, since I know the most about them) So churches can choose to let same sex couples get married in their church or temple, or by their officiators. I still feel like this is discrimination, but it seems like a step for legal equality. This way, same sex couples can have the same rights to a union as straight couples, and yet marriage will still be sacred to those who wish it to be.
The conversation has been enlightening hasn't it?
Leah: I agree that if marriage were still a purely religous thing that Gay men and Lesbians would not be able to get "married" however, if people who are not relgious can married, if atheists can get married, instead of having a "civil union" or ...whatever the alternative is, then why can't gay people get married? Marriage is not strictly a religous ceremony anymore, it hasn't been for a long long time. So that argument is mute. If it were a religous thing only catholics would be able to get married or only christians or some other religous group.

2 comments:

  1. knowledge is power, opinion is drama. Sheraya, I applaud you for using facts and quotes to support your points.

    A lot of the other comments on this conversation are opinions, regurgitated from drama propagandists (on both sides of the debate).

    Remaining neutral in opinion while having facts and evidence to support a point will make it so war (anger) is less likely and it doesn't get personal. And eventually the opinion spinners will get frustrated and go watch Fox :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't really feel like I could be neutral in opinion here, because I felt so strongly about the topic. It frustrates me when people resort to name calling when an opinion is shared. I think a lot of people do have opinions about the subject, but have done little or no research about the topic. Its hard to have a discussion with facts when the other person just says "well that's my opinion" as an excuse for not having any research to back up what they're saying.

    ReplyDelete