# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/621 "2008-11-12T16:16:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Really? Someone voted to take away your right to marriage? Murphy’s Law just bit me. I saw this, thought “outstanding comeback! Nice job, **Miller** ,” and chuckled. Then I wrote the post mostly addressed to **Magellan** that will appear right above this one (or possibly a couple up, if someone posts while I’m composing this), and went over to another Christian-oriented board that I frequent. And found there an argument that, “since the purpose of marriage is procreation, childless marriages should be dissolved.” All of a sudden, this just got **very** personal. It’s not standing alongside you because **your** rights are being infringed on; it’s slapping down some egotistical and self-righteous pricks who think their beliefs have a corner on the laws that affect all of us, because they just got you gays (for the moment) and now they’re after Barb nd me. Move over, Pator Heidegger. You were right, all those years ago. It’s a fight that calls for **all** of us. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/622 "2008-11-12T16:34:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The question is to what degree is marriage a “right”. We disagree on that. And on the value of holding onto the traditional meaning of the word. I don’t think badly of gay people. I think they were born simply being attracted to the same sex. (Most, anyway, I do think some people choose it, as well. But that’s irrelevant.) I think society needed to make accommodation for that reality. We have. I’ve proposed on these boards before that the best thing to do is to demand all the legal benefits of a marriage, but leave the word alone. > [@](#): > > It is important because a represents an institution that has been beneficial to society for hundreds if not thousands of years. It reflects the monogamous nature of man. That institution, called marriage, was a societal recognition of the natural union of a man and woman that is at the very foundation of each of us. I’m not going to bother to find the quote where **magellan** suggested homosexuals have only been around for a few hundred years. You guys know it’s up there somewhere. I have a request to make. Would people who know nothing about history please stop shooting off their mouths about it? The traditional definition of marriage, huh? What’s that? The word is Latin - ‘maritus’ is the noun ‘spouse’, and also the adjective meaning having to do with marriage. As per your argument, the original meaning of the word is the right one, right? Great! So marriages are now primarily financial matters. Unless women go stay at their father’s house for three days out of the year, they come under the complete power of their husbands - otherwise they stay under the complete power of their fathers. Divorce is no big deal at all - divorce your wife and remarry your friend’s ex wife for political purposes, that’s okay. The Judeo-Christian god has absolutely no place in sanctifying it - even the Roman gods aren’t involved in the way you might think (that is, they are no more involved than they are in every other aspect of Roman life). Oh, and don’t forget - a man may be married to a woman, but of course he’s going to have a few slave girls around the house to sleep with on the side. Maybe some slave boys, if he wants. That’s a-okay. He can fuck whoever he wants, as long as no one’s fucking him. There have even been academic arguments for same-sex marriage in the ancient world. What? You want the Judeo-Christian equivalent? Well, I know less about that, but I’m pretty darn sure Jacob married both Rachel and Leah. And I’ll grant you one thing about your last claim. Some academics might agree with you, depending on how you define ‘homosexual’. If, however, you definine ‘homosexual’ as ‘engaging in romantic or sexual attachments to members of the same sex’, you’re sunk. I don’t think this side of the argument needs a cite, but since I have one site I’ve been working with lately on hand, I’ll pass that on to you. If you want more, let me know - I’ve got a whole bibliography lying around somewhere. In fact, the bibliography on this site is impressive. [Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of documents in translation](http://www.laits.utexas.edu/ancienthomosexuality/index.php). So pretty please. If you’re going to drive my blood pressure up by opposing gay marriage, at least do it in a way that won’t make my head explode from ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/623 "2008-11-12T17:34:07Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Oh, and don’t forget - a man may be married to a woman, but of course he’s going to have a few slave girls around the house to sleep with on the side. Maybe some slave boys, if he wants. That’s a-okay. He can fuck whoever he wants, as long as no one’s fucking him. I can get behind that, actually. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/624 "2008-11-12T18:23:39Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I just can’t possibly believe that’s true. This argument can’t possibly be as important to you as it is to a gay couple who wants to get married, but legally can’t. For them, this issue is directly and clearly impacting something which is the most important thing in their life, namely their committed relationship. Now, I suppose it’s possible that you’re someone whose commitment to the ideal of what the word “marriage” means is so fanatical that it is as important to you as your marriage. But I doubt it. Think about this way… there’s a huge national vote to legalize gay marriage which is going to settle the issue once and for all forever. Who’s happier… gay people if it passes or you if it’s defeated? Or who’s unhappier… gay people if it’s defeated or you if it passes? > A lot of what I find frustrating about your position is not so much that I disagree with your beliefs (which I do), but that I disagree with your priorities. You’ve talked at great length about how important the symbolism and meaning of the word “marriage” is to you. Which I don’t agree with, but I’ll go ahead and take your word for it that you honestly hold that belief, while honestly also wishing for full rights for gays in every other possible way. So if there were an election and you got to choose between three possibilities: > (1) no gay marriage or civil unions > (2) gay civil unions exactly legally identical to marriages, no gay marriages > (3) gay marriages > You would choose option (2). Well, like most people on this board, I would say that 3 \> 2 \> 1, but 2 is WAY better than 1. So your position doesn’t, on the surface, seem so hideously horrible. What I find so shocking is that it seems to be the case that if the only two choices on the ballot were (1) and (3), you would choose (1) over (3). In other words, very real discrimination, injustice and suffering happening to your very real fellow Americans right now is less important to you than something which seems to be purely semantic/symbolic. > > But other people have pointed precisely this out to you repeatedly and you just don’t seem to agree, so I’m assuming this will go nowhere. > I do have one other line of argument: If there’s one other word in the English language which has as much weight and importance and tradition behind it as “marriage”, which is absolutely as much a part of the fabric of society and family, and has been as long as language has existed; that word is “parent”. The natural and traditional and ideal and perfect meaning of the word “parent” is an adult who is the direct biological mother or father of a child, and is also one of the people who is involved in directly and lovingly raising that child on a day to day basis. This word has enormous power and symbolism and tradition. > > So I’ve heard recently that there are some people who are engaging in a truly unnatural unbiological act. Namely, they aren’t actually parents, but they are “adopting” children who aren’t really theirs, and raising them. Now, I guess I’m a fair person and want these people to have the same rights when it comes to making decisions for the children they are raising as real parents would have. But “parent” is such an important word that it would damage the very foundations of society to apply it to these people, so I insist that the government continue to describe them as “caretakers” rather than “parents”. After all, we don’t want children to be confused when they’re growing up about what parenting really is… Bumping this in the hopes that **Magellan** will respond to it. ---
**Author:** ![CaerieD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@CaerieD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaerieD)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/625 "2008-11-12T18:38:22Z")
**Helen’s Eidolon** , let us not forget that the _pater familias_ was perfectly within his rights to kill every last person in his household. If a wife was under the control of her husband rather than her father and her husband was the head of his household, this meant the husband had _vitae necisque potesta_ (the power of life or death) over his wife. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/626 "2008-11-12T18:57:28Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Bumping this in the hopes that **Magellan** will respond to it. I’d like to see **Shodan** ’s take on **Max** ’s quoted post, too. Because I know he and his wife have adopted children who needed homes badly and whom they love very much. And, as **Max** points out, by the exact same logic as same-sex couples’ marital commitments aren’t “_real_ marriages” in conservative-speak, it’s clear that Mr. and Mrs. **Shodan** aren’t _really_ “parents”, having no children of their bodies that are really their children, as we are told is the prime purpose of True Marriage. And, **Shodan** , I hope you can see that this post is not an unsolicited attack on you, but an appeal to you to see the logic behind the outrage – because I have a pretty good clue, myself, from my own quasi-parenting episode, what it must be like to be told that the children you adopted and love are not “really” your children the way ones that came from your fucking would be. There’s a whole lot more to marriage than sex. Or than begetting and bearing children. They’re important parts – but must never be mistaken for the whole. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/627 "2008-11-12T21:02:04Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Then I wrote the post mostly addressed to **Magellan** that will appear right above this one (or possibly a couple up, if someone posts while I’m composing this), and went over to another Christian-oriented board that I frequent. > > And found there an argument that, “since the purpose of marriage is procreation, childless marriages should be dissolved.” > > All of a sudden, this just got **very** personal. It’s not standing alongside you because **your** rights are being infringed on; it’s slapping down some egotistical and self-righteous pricks who think their beliefs have a corner on the laws that affect all of us, because they just got you gays (for the moment) and now they’re after Barb nd me. Also, please note that magellan01 believes that people who do not procreate are not having the full human experience and their marriages are neither natural nor idea. How does that make you feel? It makes me feel denigrated, to say the least, as does the idea that my marriage is less meaningful because we have no children. One could also contend that magellan01 is having a less full human experience because he hasn’t experienced being gay. After all, that is a very real and valid part of the human experience… but clearly he does NOT value it as much as the hetero human experience, nor the childless human experience. And he wonders why people get emotional and lose their tempers towards him. No one enjoys hearing their experience as a human is lesser. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/628 "2008-11-12T21:51:01Z")
I would like to propose that if gay marriage dilutes the word “marriage” then we use the unfortunate outlawing of same sex marriage as a precedent and immediately outlaw McDonalds, rap artists and the Fox Reality channel for diluting the words “food”, “music” and “television entertainment”, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/629 "2008-11-12T22:55:43Z")
I’m offended that you compared gay marriage to Fox. I mean, really! ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/630 "2008-11-12T23:30:42Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > I’m offended that you compared gay marriage to Fox. I mean, really! To be fair, it was Fox Reality. I know plenty of gay couples that would get high ratings on there. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/631 "2008-11-13T00:24:51Z")
The art director of a theatre in our state capitol resigned today in the face of criticism and calls to boycott that theatre over his support of Prop 8: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/12/state/n111331S39.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/12/state/n111331S39.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1) He had “…no idea his contribution would generate such controversy”. His own sister is gay. I’m willing to bet that he could have easily discovered the viewpoint of various gay people by talking to a few folks in his immediate circle. This is one of the (many) things that pisses me off about the whole deal - that people voted to write discrimination into our state Constitution and then they seem very surprised when they catch grief over it. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/632 "2008-11-13T00:27:18Z")
It’s not just that he voted for Prop 8. He actually contributed a thousand dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/633 "2008-11-13T00:44:14Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > It’s not just that he voted for Prop 8. He actually contributed a thousand dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign. “Happy birthday, Sis!” ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/634 "2008-11-13T00:59:40Z")
Supporters rally behind Eckern, whining about a “witch hunt” [http://sacbee.com/749/story/1392388.html](http://sacbee.com/749/story/1392388.html) I read some other article stating Eckern was a convert to Mormonism and felt he was just abiding by his religion by voting for and contributing to Yes on 8. He resigned and apologized for any hurt feelings and donated $1000 to the Human Rights Campaign. Here’s his resignation statement (PDF) [http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern\_statement.source.prod\_affiliate.4.pdf](http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf) “I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved.” ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/635 "2008-11-13T01:05:50Z")
How can he work among many openly gay people, have an openly lesbian sister, contribute money to and vote for bigotry as a matter of constitutional law, and not expect people to be pissed off? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/636 "2008-11-13T21:44:40Z")
I would just like to say that I walked by two Mormon missionaries yesterday at my metro stop, and one of them cruised me so hard he just about burned my coat off. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/637 "2008-11-13T21:49:25Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > How can he work among many openly gay people, have an openly lesbian sister, contribute money to and vote for bigotry as a matter of constitutional law, and not expect people to be pissed off? I personally would have added an “and” before “contribute” and ended the question at “law”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/638 "2008-11-13T22:03:25Z")
No one’s conflicted about this? His donation had nothing to do with his job. Yet as a result of that donation, boycotts against his employer were threatened and he had to resign. Suppose he didn’t resign, and his employer fired him – it’s an easy choice, after all, to fire one person and avoid boycotts that could cost dozens of jobs worth of lost revenue. Would that be OK? And now reverse the scenario. In Bigotville, CA, a young man who works for radio station KBGT makes a private donation of $1,000 to the “No on 8” group. When this information is revealed, local businesses threaten to boycott the radio station and withhold their ads because this guy works there, and they won’t support any business with fags, and he’s fired. Does THAT sit well with anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/639 "2008-11-13T22:06:51Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > I would just like to say that I walked by two Mormon missionaries yesterday at my metro stop, and one of them cruised me so hard he just about burned my coat off. > > Carry on. I was at a protest march against prop 8 last Friday, and I saw a couple of Dominican (? I think) monks in the march. I asked him if he was a real monk, and he said, “I don’t think I’d be wearing this robe if I wasn’t.” I told him, “Maybe not, but there’s a couple guys back there wearing habits, and I don’t think they’re real nuns.” ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/640 "2008-11-13T22:08:59Z")
**Bricker** , I happen to agree with you. It’s a little bit hysterical that the artistic director for a musical theatre company, of all people, is against prop 8, but I don’t think his livelihood should have been threatened because of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=33)