Part 1: Brian's perspective on prop 8
Part 2: My criticism of his bad perspective

PART 1

All right then, Proposition 8. Where to begin?

First of all let's think about the history of marriage. I had a discussion with the debate team about this, no it was not a debate. Anyway, marriage was originally created as a way to ensure that a child would be taken care of. Back when marriage first came about, there were no laws forcing people to pay child support, so inevitably many soon to be fathers would, for lack of a better phrase, get the hell out of there. With women not being able to hold many jobs back then, there was no income for the family to be. Many times the mother would abandon the child shortly after it was born in these cases. Marriage and strict divorce codes were put in place to ensure that a child would not be abandoned, and thereby a burden of the state. So, in short, marriage is not some sacred thing that was always clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Second, on the topic of "sacred marriage," can we really call marriage "sacred?" Just look at the divorce rates in this country for crying out loud! What kind of message does that send?

Third, the government does not guarantee the right to marry to anyone, including heterosexuals. That being said, why should it have the right to take away what is not there without any real cause, which brings me to my fourth point.

Fourth, there is no real reason for banning gay marriage. Now for some couples there is a reason for them not to marry. For example, first cousins and family members are not allowed to marry? Why? Just look at the offspring they produce! All of you people from AP Euro will get this one: look at the old Spanish monarchy! Anyway, there is not real reason for gay couples not to be allowed to marry, other than the one that religious extremists continue to put forth, which brings me to my fifth point.

Religious extremists continue to put forth the argument that they derived from the Bible. Now, I'm not writing to debate religion, but I was a pretty devout Catholic for the first fourteen years of my life and that's not the way I was taught. You'll notice I used the word extremist, because I do understand that these people tend to be non-denominational Christian radicals. Anyway, because the only real reason (if you can call it that) put forth for this proposal is a religious one, it should be struck down. I for one want to see Separation of Church and State work in favor of the State for once, because not all people are Christians and they don't necessarily believe what Christians believe.

Anyway, I'll leave you with a piece from the L.A. Times....

"Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status."
Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 8, 2008

So have a heart, and if you can't vote then spread the word!"



PART 2


Hi Brian,

There are a couple problems with your prop8 blog.

**NOTE: Be conscious of the moment that you stop thinking about what I am saying, and start simply FEELING indignant... just like the behavior of your strawman "illogical religious extremist" **

So...

The divorce-rate is as high as it is because marriages which stay together count as one marriage, while those who divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry - they count as... however many marriages the people choose to have. Your statistics argument is fallacious, because give-or-take %70 of first marriages stay together.

"Now for some couples there is a reason for them not to marry. For example, first cousins and family members are not allowed to marry? Why? Just look at the offspring they produce!"

I doubt that you have ever SEEN the results of first-cousin offspring.  I will confidently assume that you are simply taking someone else's word for it... which makes you quite like a your "illogical religious extremist" strawmen: you are devoutly sure of your vicarious, unverified knowledge.  So you are a hypocrite when you presume to know, based on nothing but propaganda, that the offspring of first-cousin-marriage are certain to turn out bad; because you hate those who presume to know, based on nothing but propaganda, that gay marriages are doomed institutions.

Lastly,
This will show you how little you know about first-cousin marriage in our country:
First-cousin-marriage is legal in only ONE of the following states:

1) Arkansas
2) Kentucky
3) California

Choose your answer; then compare you answer to the correct answer on the official website for the national conference of state legislatures (www.ncsl.org)

~Russ

P.S.:
I know that you "no on 8-ers" are TOTALLY lazy, philosophically speaking. Therefore, I assume that you labeled me as the same caricature that you pretend you are up against: conservative, Christian, etc.

So, for my fun and yours, I will now provide, for you, an excerpt of one of several songs that I have which criticize marriage (especially the notion that marriage is "sacred").


(From "THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE")

Prostitution is illegal,
you cannot sell your sex.
But prostitution is perfectly legal,
in the right context...
selling your body is illegal and disgusting,
unless the whore ends-up with a wedding-ring.
If the whore ends-up with a wedding-ring,
then prostitution transforms into a most-beautiful thing?

Prostitution hooray!
Legal prostitution hooray!

Selling your body is okay,
if you set your price at "one wedding day".