Hey Readers!
We would like to extend our blog not only to compile evidence on why we should say No to 8, but also reveal the weak arguments of those who are anti- same sex marriage. I would like to focus specifically on one oppositional blog that is on the social networking site, myspace, and it is called Yes on Proposition 8. This is an interactive blog on a myspace member’s profile that lives in Sacramento, California. Other members of the social network comment on this person’s arguments and add their own opinions. Within the site there are also other blog links listed that are in support of 8. This blog incorporates videos and photos to visually stress their arguments around the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Within this refutation I would like to point out three weak arguments that I have found within this myspace page. The author of this page writes that there are 3 simple things that voting Yes on Proposition 8 does.
The first argument the author makes is that, by voting yes on Prop 8, “It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.” First off, what is this vast majority of voters? This argument ignores the fact that there were thousands of people for same-sex marriage and publicly speaking out for their rights. This is a weak statement because where are their facts? According to Ballot Pedia election results of this ballot show that only 52.3 percent of the votes were for prop 8. This is barely over half, would one consider this a vast majority? It seems like a split down the center decision for me, at lease according to these statistics.
Their second argument is as follows, by voting yes to Prop 8, “It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.” When reading this statement, I am infuriated from the statement “ignored the will of the people” because wait a second, doesn’t this Proposition itself ignore the rights of an entire group of people?
The last argument this myspace blog claims is that by voting yes, “It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.” This is the weakest argument yet. In public schools, exactly what school subject is marriage actually studied in? Out of all my years in my schooling I never once had a section on the legalizations of marriage. That is within the family and it is up the parents to teach children whatever beliefs they choose. Another reason this argument is weak is that people do not have to tolerate anything; it is just letting everyone have the same rights to everything. It would be just the same to say that Californians have to tolerate that African Americans and woman can vote.
The fact is that people who are in support of these arguments made not only by this myspace page, but also other anti-same sex marriage groups are ignoring the rights of people. They want to deny an entire population the benefits of marriage and what is the point of that? We are all the same no matter whom we choose to love, so why discriminate against homosexuals for wanting to share all aspects of life with their partners.
http://www.myspace.com/yesonprop8
Yes on Proposition 8
I agree with you in one way. The arguments you are confronting are terrible and easy to kill. But I think there may be some better ones to confront that are not easily thrown down.
ReplyDeleteMarriage, for all of the history of the word has been a contract between a man and woman. Within this they start and raise a family founded upon their commitment to loving each other and the biological convenience that upon making love, little babies come popping out. Now, I get confused when someone says, why can't you have marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman? Well, it is simple linguistics. The definition of marriage is drawn in a way that makes this not possible. If you start a coffee shop but don't sell coffee but only show pictures of coffee to people, you will be confusing language.
Now, you may say, why is that definition the right one? There is no such debate to have. A word is a word and the reason for its existence is nothing but fun and worthless speculation. The definition of marriage is what makes marriage illegal.
But if you want to have gay marriage, all we need is a new word. If homosexuals would like to have what heterosexuals have had all this time then they can do it. The government doesn't stop them. The church often does, but that is because many religious beliefs are in opposition to gay marriage. You may call them crazy, but I would like to hear your argument for why man-woman is no better than man-man and woman-woman relationships. It is a really tough place to find any sort of rational strongholds. I'm not arguing one way or the other here, but I would like to dare you to try.
All in all, marriage and gay marriage are two different things. Marriage is not gay marriage and gay marriage is not marriage. Why not think of a new word for it? But to ask language to change the lines around the world so someone else can be something they want to be is linguistic scandal. You need to have a damn good reason to reinvent language and I'm not seeing it.
Would love to hear what you think...