Proposition 8, if passed, would ban same sex marriages. Here is my argument in support of it.
The word marriage has existed for at least a thousand years, during which, it's meaning has remained unchanged. The definition of a word cannot simply be changed by a small minority of the population that wishes to impose its will on the majority by restructuring society. There was already a vote on this several years ago, and a clear majority of the population still defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This statewide vote was overturned by California's radical liberal supreme court with very vague justification. This is a case of a powerful minority imposing its will on society. A word that has had the same meaning for such a long time cannot simply be redefined by a small amount of people who do clearly do not represent society. Marriage and Civil Unions are different words with different meanings. The only difference in the meaning is that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions can be between two people of the same sex or two people of different sex. As long as the majority of people define marriage as an institution that can only be between a man and a woman, it cannot justifiably be changed. It is not a moral issue. If I was gay, I would still define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is simply its definition to me. We are not discriminating against anyone by maintaining the definition of a word.
If you don't like my first argument:
The issue is not "equal rights". The problem is separation of church and state. Marriage is not a "sacred institution" to me; I'm not a christian. However, it is a religious institution. Any couple can get a civil union, man man, man woman, or woman woman. A marriage is performed in a church, by a pastor, on the bible. The idea that a gay person would marry anyone on a bible is quite simply absurd to me, since they would be essentially desecrating the very book that they are swearing on. In Massachusetts, pastors were fined and even arrested for not marrying gay couples, something that is forbidden by their religion. The government is regulating and interfering with a religion. This is totally in opposition to the separation of church and state.
Now, I would be very pleasantly surprised to have someone prove refute me with some legitimate arguments, since it has not happend yet.
The word marriage has existed for at least a thousand years, during which, it's meaning has remained unchanged. The definition of a word cannot simply be changed by a small minority of the population that wishes to impose its will on the majority by restructuring society. There was already a vote on this several years ago, and a clear majority of the population still defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This statewide vote was overturned by California's radical liberal supreme court with very vague justification. This is a case of a powerful minority imposing its will on society. A word that has had the same meaning for such a long time cannot simply be redefined by a small amount of people who do clearly do not represent society. Marriage and Civil Unions are different words with different meanings. The only difference in the meaning is that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions can be between two people of the same sex or two people of different sex. As long as the majority of people define marriage as an institution that can only be between a man and a woman, it cannot justifiably be changed. It is not a moral issue. If I was gay, I would still define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is simply its definition to me. We are not discriminating against anyone by maintaining the definition of a word.
If you don't like my first argument:
The issue is not "equal rights". The problem is separation of church and state. Marriage is not a "sacred institution" to me; I'm not a christian. However, it is a religious institution. Any couple can get a civil union, man man, man woman, or woman woman. A marriage is performed in a church, by a pastor, on the bible. The idea that a gay person would marry anyone on a bible is quite simply absurd to me, since they would be essentially desecrating the very book that they are swearing on. In Massachusetts, pastors were fined and even arrested for not marrying gay couples, something that is forbidden by their religion. The government is regulating and interfering with a religion. This is totally in opposition to the separation of church and state.
Now, I would be very pleasantly surprised to have someone prove refute me with some legitimate arguments, since it has not happend yet.
