Google CEO Eric Schmidt was one of the many Silicon Valley leaders to add his name to the NoOnProp8 advertisement that ran in the San Jose Mercury News a couple of days ago.
But that doesn’t mean the proponents of the embarrassingly discriminatory measure can’t buy a little air time on Google Adsense. California residents who view sites that include Google Adsense ads today are seeing an advertisement that says “Support Marriage Rights – Vote Yes on Prop 8 To Protect Traditional Marriage.”
The ad links to protectmarriage.com (the good domain – yesonprop8.com – redirects to noonprop8.com, which must frustrate the gay-haters to no end).
As far as I’m concerned, we’ll look back on measures like Prop 8 as little different than attempts to stop Women’s Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Denying a fundamental right to a person – such as marriage – is hateful and backwards. Google doesn’t have any obligation to run ads like these, and I believe they would be correct in banning it.
Update: We’re also seeing these ads on TechCrunch, although we can’t tell if they’re coming from our ad partner Federated Media or Google (FM syndicates filler ads from Google). Trying to take them down.
Update 2: they’re coming through Google, and we’re going to try to filter them out now.
“I believe they would be correct in banning it. ”
Right… because that won’t lead to an article decrying the fact that Google is removing ads that disagree with their corporate policy.
We ran into the same crisis with our ads. I’m just glad the management didn’t try to play the “we’re politically neutral” line, and let us change the way our ads were set up.
I agree but I’m sure they have to play the unbiased angle. Also, can’t let their political leanings affect cash flow.
I believe this issue has two sides in the same way that the slavery issue has two sides – right and wrong. There’s no right to free speech on Google, and this is hateful stuff.
Now that’s tolerant of you, Arrington.
You’re a moron, with a closed mind of hatred to those who don’t agree with your limited view!
How about the murder of children? Are there two sides to that one too, or only your view?
I’m in the “murder of children” is bad camp myself, and wouldn’t want to see ads in favor of it on techcrunch.
it isn’t intolerant to take a stand against something you feel is fundamentally evil.
There are plenty of people who feel stronger about abortion that you do about prop 8. Should Google remove pro-choice ads?
Michael,
put your mouth where your money is. Remove Adsense from the site and really show what you believe.
I think that is along the lines of the PBS documentary “The Human Side of The Taliban”
“it isn’t intolerant to take a stand against something you feel is fundamentally evil.”
That’s what the Prop 8 supporters are doing, Michael.
Cue rants from the bigots comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and incest in 3…2…1….
Sigh.
Anyways, keep fighting the good fight Michael!
I’m against Prop 8 and respect your opinion, but while I support gay marriage in principle, I think overriding the right of free speech in this case would be unethical.
If gay marriage is an inalienable right, why isn’t the right to take drugs or polygamy? And isn’t it “evil” to kill unborn humans? Fact is, these things need very lengthy discussion to come to a consensus in our society. (As it is, society has somewhat agreed that, no, killing unborn humans is fine – as distasteful as that might seem to many.)
Fact is, these things are complicated and it rarely pays to take such a strong stance one way or the other. There are always reasons to fall on differing sides in different situations. There’s only so fast we can move as a society. If we could deal with rapid change, polygamy, bestiality, drug use and all sorts of current taboos would be legal – but they’re not, and we need to keep discussing the pros and cons instead of leaping into the abyss.
I think all this arguing is rubbish. Let all the homosexual people marry. Perhaps over time their attempt at same-sex procreation is a viable option will remove the aberrant gene(s) from the gene pool.
Come on… The body is made as it is to do one main thing… Procreate. Any other interpretation of the human body is ludicrous. Which leads to only one conclusion: homosexuals are genetically/mentally impaired. I do honestly feel sorry for them… If it’s a choice, it’s a bad choice I choose not to support in any way. If it’s a medical condition, I feel sorry for them and hope they are cured. But I still choose not to support it in any way. Enough of tolerance, people. Just look at a man and a woman and see the natural order of things…
What about domesticaton of animals? Will we look at the once accepted practice of owning pets as WRONG in the future?
Techcrunch is not the outlet for political opinions. We should all take that someplace else. There are plenty of other forums and blogs for that.
Do you guys agree?
Mike, do not put slavery of the Jews or slavery of the blacks, or any form of slavery with freaks. Sex with who or what you want, has nothing to do with marriage.
“As far as I’m concerned, we’ll look back on measures like Prop 8 as little different than attempts to stop Women’s Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Denying a fundamental right to a person – such as marriage – is hateful and backwards”
Same sex marriage is not natural and serves no function. masters have been known to leave their estates to their dogs/pets. So if a dog can get millions in a will there is no need for same sex marriage.
If so then mike one day you may marry your dog and when you die you will not have to worry about sharing the estate.
Mike, Gay is not cool, but because it is not cool does not mean it has to become pure madness. It is already a form of mental disorder as it is. A form of extreme perversion. But people are free to pervert.
Marriage is between a man and a woman for the past 5,000+ years.
You think you and your pea brain pals in SF can change that
Get real Mike.
I hope you voted Yes on Prop 8 today. You can always pretend to support those losers
oh crap, not you, anti-matter, again….. just for you I”m changing my will and leaving all my money to my dog
Dogs, dogs, dogs!!! — This is clear, blatant discrimination against cats!!!
Where is “PETA” here? Don’t get me started on black or half-black cats either!!!
PS: btw the hal-black Messiah is already talking about raising his daughters in the White House!!! For an incompetent bastard, he is quite cocky… but it does not matter: HE HAS ALREADY LOST THE ELECTION!!!
The Bradley effect has worked again!!
I think my point has been made. This political/worldview discussion is NOT meant for Techcrunch. Hence the reason why Arrington should have NOT introduced it here.
Mike can do what he wants with his blog…When all around its hitting the fan like it is right across the country, and the world as you know it is turning upside down, can you blame him for wanting an extreme diversion? With the Serotonin running on fumes for a lot of people, it seems rational that they might pursue an activity that reignites the ‘crusader’ or ‘warrior’ within. “No on Prop 8″ has replaced what start ups & silicon valley commerce used to be. Mike likes the adrenalin of the fight…Why the psychoanalysis? Techcrunch seems now to want to discuss anything these days and so I thought I’d introduce this into the mix…BTW: Has the domain “PsychCrunch.com” gone yet?
Where is the right in Slavery Ike?
Well its also a can of worms to open if Google starts banning Ads that run contrary to their beliefs (though they have every right to since its paid ads).
What they should do however is to donate those earnings from such Ads to oppose Prop 8.
“What’s really pissing us off is that the ads are also appearing here on TechCrunch, and we have no way of stopping them short of pulling the Adsense code off the site.”
Problem Solved:
You can block ads you don’t want to see in AdSence. Goto “Adwords setup” tab and click “Competitive Ad Filter”
They should call it the “bigoted” ad filter!
Yes you can stop most of them. You can block Adwords ads from a particular URL or IP Address by using site exclusion. Most of these ads are going to one campaign website. That will stop a lot of them.
That said I click on them like mad to make them pay for me having to look at it.
Or you can boycott Google for a few days until things pass. This is what I have done. No matter what political ads get run, roughly 45% of the people will be pissed off (the other 10% being “undecided” or non-voters). Religion and Politics can be lucrative, but are too polarizing when mixed together on Nov 4th!
I support what their trying to accomplish (ins, benefits etc…)
But I don’t support their right to call it “Marriage”
heh…I just negated Schmidt’d vote ://
Absolutely… The tolerance is for them living as they’d like. But don’t water down the sacrament of marriage…
This has nothing to do with the “sacrament” of marriage. This is about legal marriage; not religious marriage.
@Brian,
since marriage is originally an institution of God, even if the people who marry not always take the sacrament, it still has to do with our relationship towards God’s law and principles.
Given that God gave a woman to the man and that He does not tolerate homosexualism, I don’t see why they want something that God created since they reject His law.
It does not make sense…
Why asking for the right of a divine benediction (i.e. marriage), when you are not willing to behave according God’s law?
A little bit of coherence would be very welcome!
@Anne
Can you point me to the part of the New Testament where Jesus discusses His views on gay marriage? You’ll find He was strangely quiet on the subject. Instead, you’ll find out what He really disliked: divorce. Where’s the ban on that? The sacrament of marriage? That’s a joke when divorce rates are so high.
If you want to use Leviticus as your reference, you’d better gear up for an eternity of hellfire b/c I promise you’ll burn according to that scripture.
Don’t selectively quote the Bible to legitimatize your own prejudices. Instead, act a little more like Jesus and exercise some tolerance.
@ Hunter: C’mon, don’t be silly! Do you really need Anne to show you in the New Testament that homosexuality is wrong? Deep down, YOU know it’s wrong.
What next will you need – for her to show you that eating another person’s feces is wrong? Oops, homos already do that!!!
Do you need her to show you in the Bible that fucking an animal is wrong?
Do you need her to tell you that pedophilia is wrong?
Though you know these things are wrong, your DEVIANT nature wants to indulge in them anyway, AND paint them as acceptable to the rest of society. Sorry pal, no one is going to waste time telling you stuff you already know.
@Hunter
*standing ovation*
@Anne
You can’t claim that YOUR God created marriage.
I could use the bible for evidence, but it is clear without that many cultures not descended from the God of Abraham (including the Romans) had marriage. Roman marriage was even mostly secular.
Tribal and Pagan cultures all have marriage rites. It is clear that they do not recognize YOUR God.
And this is the crux of the argument around prop 8. Christians claim marriage as a holy sacrament: if it is, the government cannot recognize or or give it any benefits. If it is a secular contract, no two or more consenting adults may be banned from choosing the contract.
Read the Constitution of the United States of America sometime. It has a much more direct influence on your life than the bible ever will.
@Dennis
“It has a much more direct influence on your life than the bible ever will.”
That’s what you hope for…
” marriage is originally an institution of God ”
Sure. And Christmas was originally a celebration of Jesus’ birth, right?
Marriage has been around far longer than monotheism. It’s only recently (relatively speaking) that people have decided to use their Jesus books to try to justify their ignorance and deeply ingrained intolerance. Say what you want to about your god and his supposed bias against homosexuals — it doesn’t hide the fact that you’re a homophobe.
@rahnercore
“And Christmas was originally a celebration of Jesus’ birth, right?”
Wrong! FYI: http://www.esso...spagan_rece.htm
I noticed the same thing earlier, but didn’t realize it was this widespread!
Google allows Adsense partners to filter ads from a certain domain, so I don’t see why you can’t filter some of those ads.
Google is correct to display all ads that comply with their terms of use. Removing ads supporting prop 8 because of Eric Schmidt’s views is no different from removing Obama or McCain ads, because he won’t be voting for both of them.
I don’t agree that it is the same as the example you reference. Google wouldn’t accept ads that advocated paying women less than men for the same job, discriminating on job candidates based on race or ethnicity, and so on. There’s a difference between believing in free speech and making money from advocates of discrimination.
the only difference is the supreme court making homosexuals a protected class under the constitution. Personally, I don’t make ethical decisions based on what the supreme court tells me is right and wrong.
John McCain supports prop 8: http://www.wash...m?blog_id=21367. So shouldn’t Google ban McCain ads?
You can update the block list on your Google Adsense account to keep ads directing to the URL protectmarriage.com from showing up on your site, should you really feel the need. However, they’re probably spending a lot of money on these ads as a last second push, and the revenue is probably higher than usual.
Considering that this is a measure where everyone is pretty educated on both sides of the issue, I wouldn’t bother blocking the ads. Instead, let a horribly biased measure spend an extra couple dollars on your site only to fail miserably.
Good Call, Jon.
It passed.
Freedom of Speech: 1
Judicial Legislation: Nil
Here’s Google’s guidelines for text ads:
http://adwords....p;subtopic=9279
“Political advertising is allowed.
We permit political advertisements regardless of the political views they represent. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible.
However, political ads must not … advocate against a protected group. ”
The question is whether “Protecting Traditional Marriage” is advocating against a protected group. Personally, I’d say it is, but putting myself in the shoes of an AdSense support person making the call, I can see where they would want to interpret this policy pretty narrowly.
Given the context, the photos in the ad suggest there might be something going on between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Now THAT’S offensive.
Intriguing point. Although old Joe Biden doesn’t know where he is and what he is talking about, sadly, most of time.
“As far as I’m concerned, we’ll look back on measures like Prop 8 as little different than attempts to stop Women’s Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Denying a fundamental right to a person – such as marriage – is hateful and backwards.”
Geez, Mike!! You know, you are absolutely wrong to compare homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement — However, I am starting to see your twisted and sneaky point: just let the homosexuals ‘officially’ marry and then, let them suffer as we heterosexuals do, with money fights, misunderstandings, miscommunication, resentment, cheating, divorces, alimony, child custody, visitation rights, etc.
Although by accident, you are a sneaky genius!!
well, i agree with the funny part of your comment.
My wife has called me six times since I posted my comment [love voice mail] — She doesn’t visit TC, usually. I’m in big trouble…
I bet that Google hates, oh, Microsoft Live even more than they hate Prop 8 – should they get rid of ads for that too?
Why do they want to get married? Marriage is so old-school and conservative. I thought these people were “progressive”. When will I be able to marry my dog? Fido, is loyal, reliable, and loves me unconditionally which is more than I can say for a lot of people out there. That should be a fundamental right also.
I agree. Guess for homosexuals life is a cartoon… just always looking from the outside.
I say, get married — Welcome to the fast lane… in hell.
Not having the right to do something that others do, even if you don’t choose to exercize that right, is still a problem. And your comment that they are progressive is kind of stereotyping. Being gay and a liberal do not HAVE to go together.
I agree with you to a degree, Mike, but I do not like the idea of businesses making those choices for me. I’d rather it all be out in the open and that the platform for discourse be just that–a platform–rather than the gatekeeper.
(Obviously I agree with your opinion regarding the prop, just not entirely that google should cut the ads)
I guess my final feeling is that if enough people get upset, THEN they should pull the ad. Basically, I want google to do what will make money, and if it’s because of an ethical problem, it’s the consumers who should react, not google making the decision for us beforehand.
Ahh the idiots comparing two people of the same sex marrying each other to one person and a dog.
Neither results in a logical physical union. “But dogs shouldn’t have sex with humans” you say? right… thanks for making my point.
There’s more to marriage than “insert tab A into slot B.” Normally I’d argue that only narrow-minded people are against gay marriage but I don’t have to this time… thanks for making my point.
@Jeff
That’s right. Marriage was originally instituted by God. And as He established this arrangement, He decided who might benefit from it.
Just for your information, marriage was established between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women. That’s it. You may disagree. But that’s a fact. You may change the law of your state, but you cannot change God’s law. And this has nothing to do with tolerance but with the natural order of things, which is defined by the One Who created this institution. Not by you, not by me.
That was hilarious. Thanks Anne. FYI, this isn’t a proposition designed to dethrone God so much as to make marriage legal for people of the same sex. And the way you said “change the law of your state” I take it you don’t live in California so, for this discussion, I’m thankful your opinions don’t matter.
@Anne, your God also explicit said only a man and women who believe in him can marry. Do you oppose jews, muslims and atheists getting married? Why or why not?
After all, it goes *directly* against what your god has defined as marriage.
@Markus
For your information, in the religions you quoted, there is a belief that their god created marriage. Regarding atheists, then they are entering an institution created by god without knowing it or simply ignoring it.
You should maybe do your homework before giving an opinion about something you don’t know…
Because they are people. They have the same needs, hopes and dreams and any other person.
Wow. I thought this site was about technology.
Just because I believe in the traditional view of marriage (a bond between a man, a woman, and the children they have) doesn’t mean I discriminate against those who disagree. In fact, I TOLERATE those who disagree with me. That means we agree to disagree, and we get on with our lives. In the event that Prop 8 doesn’t pass, I expect that I will be labeled more and more with wrong and inaccurate labels by people like Arrington, except they’ll use the law to shut me up…. and thus tolerance becomes tyranny.
And with that I delete my techcrunch Gadget.
Tim, is that you???
If it is, you have not changed a bit, always making a brutal effort to be “politically correct” and get along with everybody. It’s actually great, until one day, when you decide to go back to the office and shoot 10 people to death. Hope you don’t work for the post office…
So then you are intolerant of opposing viewpoints. Point made.
Tip: just because you SAY you are tolerant doesn’t make it so.
And just because you say someone is homophobic, hateful, and closeminded doesn’t make them so, either.
This issue has nothing to do with tolerance. If it did, the No on 8 campaign would be the most friendly, less in-your-face of the two, “allowing” the Yes on 8 campaign to state their case while arguing against it.
I’ve personally experienced the ironically, hypocritically fury of No on 8ers. It seems they don’t want you quietly holding a sign saying Yes on 8. Middle fingers and F words shot out at traditional families, including children, wipes out that high ground. Both campaigns have their zealots, but I’ve seen far more angry activity from the Nos.
It’s funny how people who have been oppressed their whole lives are so angry at people who seem to want to continue that oppression.
Not justifying whatever was said, but please try and put it in context.
Yeah, they’re oppressed because they can’t get married…
No they’re oppressed because they regularly face discrimination and violence. Every day of their lives.
Just so you know, allowing them to get married doesn’t fix that problem… Haters will hate.
Yes, it does fix a (small) part of the discrimination problem. That’s the point.
Fixing the violent attitudes will take decades I’m afraid.
No on Prop H8te!
Michael, I agree wholeheartedly. I’d absolutely be okay with Google banning such ads.
so people who are for yes on 8 are “bigots” and “discriminating ” against the rights of people who already have the right to marry ? logically this makes no sense.
I guess something like 40+ percentage of Californian’s are bigots go figure…..
Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt.
The opposition to Prop8 is the most ridiculously biased and outright dishonest I have ever seen in a campaign.
I support Prop8 because of what has happened in Mass. and is starting to happen here in CA. First-grade kids going to a lesbian wedding? Please.
I support gay rights (taxes, visitation, etc) and have gay friends. But that doesn’t mean that I believe that the homosexual lifestyle doesn’t have an impact on society.
For me and everyone else I know who supports Prop8 this isn’t about hating gays (as those on the NO side so preposterously claim), it’s about the impact it has on schools and the adoption process. We don’t just say that publicly and then go home and throw darts at Clay Aiken while chanting “hate hate hate”. Please. We’re people who disagree on the social impact. Trying to paint us as haters is just deceitful. If I were an opponent of Prop8 I would be embarrassed by the campaign making false claims and comparing this to the Japanese camps of World War II.
If there is intolerance it’s on the NO side. My brother had every panel of his car kicked in because of his Yes on 8 bumper sticker.
Please. The irony is so thick it’s embarrassing.
You are trying to rationalize hate.
Until you can cite empirical peer reviewed studies that proves gay rights have a negative impact on society and children then your point is 100% irrational.
See how that works? If you can’t cite any proof of what you say is going to happen then your position is (by definition) irrational.
this comment is so phony. Like those gay “scientists” in San Diego who came up with the [later debunked] “discovery” that there actually is a *gay gene*
PLEEEEEEEASE!!!!
Yeah, these “Scientists” and their so-called “science”. Pffft.
You may hate practices without hating people.
Furthermore, hate is a natural feeling that people have the right to have.
What would not be correct would be to have an aggressive behavior against people who practice things that you hate. But everyone has the right to hate something. Even homosexuality. Or else we would all be homosexuals. You have the right to defend the idea of same sex marriage. Other people have the right to oppose it. Saying that those people are narrow-minded is completely stupid and lacks fundament. That’s typical: when people don’t have arguments, they start with personal attacks.
“everyone has the right to hate something. Even homosexuality. Or else we would all be homosexuals.”
Huh?
Anne Coulter is that you?
@Anne: “But everyone has the right to hate something. Even homosexuality. Or else we would all be homosexuals.”
I think we have found the root of your hate. You seem to feel that the only reason you are not a homosexual is because you hold on to hatred of it. That sounds like you are a closet homosexual.
I’m a heterosexual who has zero hatred of homosexuals and it does not make me attracted to other members of my sex at all. If I had such an attraction I would obviously act on it because there is nothing wrong with it, but I don’t.
Anne I’m pretty sure your god doesn’t exist, but if he did he would know your true nature and hating it wont change it.
@Ryan
You cannot read.
Please go back to school and learn how to read.
It will also improve your reasoning skills.
Please. The irony is so thick it’s embarrassing
So what is new? California has always been at the cutting edge of… weirdness…
Really? Your yes to Prop 8 has to do with schools and the adoption process? Then why not just specific bans against teaching about gay marriage in school, etc. Why a full fledged ban against gay marriage?
The way I see it.. It’s none of my business.
You can’t ban a school from teaching about a constitutional right, thus, vote YES on prop 8.
I think the example of kids being taken to a lesbian wedding are pretty extreme. When I was in school I didn’t take any field trips to weddings (gay or straight).
If you want to legislate something, how about making sure teachers stick to subject matters that are more relevant to kids’ educations. You don’t need to ban gay marriage in order to do that.
Ok – The whole Wedding “field trip” seems to be lacking context for you people.
This was their teacher’s wedding. The PARENTS initiated the field trip. Other parents could opt out (and 2 parents did)
Ahhh! That makes it much clearer. So the lesbian wedding the Yes of Prop 8 folks are talking about was just a wedding that some students and their parents were invited to? WTF?
http://www.sfga.../MNFG13F1VG.DTL For anyone inclined to do a little reading…
this is one high tech can of worms you just opened
Psst, Mike — you might want to check out your own house before running shame-on-you fluff pieces. The banner at the top of this page right now is a big, flashy Yes On 8.
Leftcrunch is at it again. Yeah, why don’t we ban it. Then Obama’s civilian security force http://www.yout...h?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
can put the pro prop 8 perpetrators under arrest because the left wingers say their political ad comments are hateful.
This issue is not like slavery as far as right and wrong. We are a pluralistic society with lots of compassion. Why do I have to believe that marriage is more then between one man and one woman? Why do others say it is only between two humans? The haters are the politically correct police who may eventually fine and put people in jail for “hate-speech” I live in the Bay Area and 95% of the haters I run across are on the left. The amazing thing is when I run across people whothink MSNBC is to moderate and not left enough. With media sources fragmenting and “truth” becoming more relative less and less people are on the same page or have an actual foundation they can stand on. We shall see if the US becomes Balcanized of just elect a strong arm hater someday. We are not that much differnt then the RUssioans and they love being forced to get on the same page…
I feel it is foolish to modify the constitution over such divisive issues. But your post is purely emotional and shows a lack of tech savy.
Also you said, “it isn’t intollerant to take a stand against something you feel is fundamentally evil”. Funny, but that is exactly what the yes on 8 crowd would say. You have become what you seem to hate.
Please stick to tech, this sh@t is getting old.
>>Civil Rights movement
I don’t recall seeing pictures of “Straight Only” drinking fountains. Nor do I remember centuries of bloodshed when gays were stolen from their homeland and forced into servicing heterosexuals. Thus it’s hard for me to equate the civil rights movement with the gay rights movement.
I agree — It is just ignorance,
What about immediate family hospital visitation rights? If you aren’t family you don’t get to see your dying loved one.
As for bloodshed, you might want to read up a bit on a little thing called the holocaust. Or if you prefer to reference only the USA how about looking the number of bashings, murders and firings of gays over the last century.
@Markus
Do you really think the number of gay lynchings is comparable to the number of African-American lynchings? Is it even close? Are you so prejudiced against African-Americans that you would diminish their plight by making such a comparison? Is their suffering just a tool for you to promote your agenda?
The holocaust had something to do with this??? Are you seriously comparing voting YES on prop 8 to the holocaust?
Another point: Hate crimes are inflicted on people of different viewpoint there is – not just gays.
The point is not who is “more” oppressed than the other.
The point is that any oppression is wrong.
@Markus
Wow. Do you realize how far that can go? You might not want to generalize like that.
I guess it depends out how you define “oppression” and what you mean by “wrong.” If you’re content with equating slavery and gay “oppression,” I’m afraid I cannot reason with you.
@joshink: he is referring to the mass killings of homosexuals that occurred during the holocaust; that is there has been significant bloodshed.
Thanks usaar33.
On an American and even on a global scale I think it’s safe to say that homosexuals have had their fair share of suffering. I’d also argue that in today’s world they probably have it as bad or worse than almost any other large minority.
For example, our “allies” in Saudi Arabia regularly put homosexuals to death by public beheading.
Can you imagine the outrage in America, and the world, if they did that to blacks? Imagine it for a second. Picture it in your head. The west and the rest of the world simply wouldn’t allow it. And rightfully so.
So why the double standard? Why is it more or less tolerable because they are gay? It’s because they are mostly treated as second class citizens here at home. The hate and lack of respect is so prevalent we don’t even realize it.
How can you not see it as a human and civil rights issue?
It has nothing to do with the civil rights movements and it wouldn’t be wise to bring up the holocaust. Look back in history farther than that, like founding fathers and principles that America was founded on. There was such a thing as separation of church and state. Well, that left long time ago. People are so scared of gays because “God didn’t create them.” Well, that’s church. What does that have to do with the state? Not everyone believes that way. Not everyone believes in God and they are being overlooked because there is no separation of church and state. Besides Adam and Eve procreated and then their kids did the same thing. It’s called inbreeding and that causes brain tweaks. What do they say homosexuality is? A brain tweak? I guess God unknowingly created the homosexuality gene. Put that in your bible and stuff it.
How about “Family Only” hospital rooms?
Thanks for the free Yes on Prop 8 advertising Mike!
I think everyone should vote Yes on ‘Prop 8′.
Comparing Prop 8 to slavery is laughable. I think you have to ask yourself ‘What is Marriage’, and if you look @ history; and the God given purpose of marriage it has ALWAYS been the union of 1-Man to 1-Woman.
Gay Marriage in my opinion is a complete oxymoron. A ‘Gay’ couple can be married no more than a bachelor. It goes against the very definition and meaning of what it means to be ‘Married’.
And if Prop8 doesn’t pass, whats to stop people from ‘Marrying’ their pets? You can’t deny someone their fundamental right to marry their cocker spaniel! How dare you!
Why should we define marriage based on what your invisible wizard friend says?
You keep him away from me and my life. Thanks.
Invisible Wizard Friend?
Any logic present in your comment has now been discredited. Think before you post.
Why do you want the term “Married” at all? Just because you can’t have it?
Change the laws to give the specific rights without the words… Define Immediate Family to include same-sex partners for life insurance, HIPA, etc. But don’t call it marriage. My “Wizard” laid the groundwork for that institution and sacrament, go get your own word.
Why not fight for the right to “Hook Up”?
Your bible’s definition of marriage also says that the couple must be believers in (your) god.
Yet, I don’t see you complaining about atheists, hindus and jews getting married now do I. Well, at least not in public.
Did you just compare gay people to animals? Are you being sarcastic or do you really believe that a gay person is the same thing as a “cocker spaniel”?
My post was not to compare gay people to ‘Cocker Spaniels’.
My post was meant to represent a point, that ‘Marriage’ already has a definition, and trying to play ‘God’ and alter the definition opens the door for others to claim they have the fundamental right to ‘Marry’ whatever they want. (Such as Dogs; or as another posted commented ‘little boys’)
Uh, the people who “defined marriage” were playing God themselves.
No they weren’t.
Genesis 2:24 :For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”
Genesis was written by people. Not by God. The Bible was written by people who wanted to promote their own agenda. Anyway, you are just picking a citation out of thousands. The Bible is full of contradictory citations. Some defend slavery, others genocide. If you believe this is the word of God, you must believe God is pro slavery and genocide.
please. “the God given purpose of marriage”???
marriage is not a God-given privilege, nor is there a God-given purpose. marriage is a social institution that originated for purely economic reasons.
the equation of marriage with religion is simply another way the “right” has hijacked the Republican party by inserting “morality” and Christianity into politics.
read up a bit:
http://www.pfla...ocacy/hist.html
The History of Marriage as an Institution
Yeah, what do politics need morality for, anyway??
@hillary hartley — It does not matter how many homosexuals there are!
Homosexually is aberrant and unnatural behavior.
Homosexuality is not “right” just because you are a lesbian.
@Hillary
You are ignorant.
Please go back home.
Buy a Bible.
Read it.
Research a little bit about history, for instance.
And learn before you talk about what you don’t know.
What has marriage with the right to do?
Lefters don’t marry?
When was marriage established?
When was the right set up?
Please cultivate yourself. That way you won’t be that harmful.
@hillary hartley — It does not matter how many homosexuals there are!
Homosexually is aberrant and unnatural behavior.
Homosexuality is not “right” just because you are a lesbian.
@Matthew and Mary – Homosexuality is not aberrant just because you are religious freaks.
I didn’t know these “Yes on 8″ people knew how to use computers. Learn something every day.
You see. You are more ignorant than what you think you are.
@Michael Arrington
I don’t understand why you think it’s hateful that people would try to protect marriage. You must not realize it, but you discriminate just like everybody else. We all have an opinion – I don’t like yours and you obviously don’t like mine. But to call people who want to keep marriage between a man and woman “gay-haters” and “backwards” is a bit arrogant.
Like anything, it’s a progression. You allow homosexual marriage and you will one day find yourself fighting for the rights of a men who want to marry little boys. If you let homosexuals get married, why shouldn’t you let a 40 year old man and a 13 year old boy (if it’s consensual).
And you can call me whatever you want. I’m not in favor of making it illegal to be gay, I just believe (Like most other Americans) that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Anyway, I love TechCrunch, so I will continue to read – even though I wish you’d keep you political views to yourself
Because a 13 year old can not give legal consent. We are talking about adults here in case you missed it. Try to keep up.
Well, you obviously missed the point then. It doesn’t matter that it’s not legal now… It matters when you librials make it legal for a 13 year old to give consent.
Got it?
Markus,
Then by your reasoning we are discriminating against people who believe incest is okay and people who believe polygamy is okay.
Why are we discriminating against those two groups of people by not letting them marry?
@joshink: Ah yes, the slippery slope argument. The same one used to try and deny interracial couples the right to marry. 1) Try and be more original and 2) Try and have this debate in the here and now with the rest us.
@Michael
I’m against consensual incest for obvious biological reasons and not against polygamy at all, so long as they are consenting adults who are truly in love. Live and let live.
@Markus
And what was the slippery slope argument for interracial couples? – You’ve definitely got a leg up if you were around when that was being debated.
Oh, and I’ll try to keep up with you. You’re just such a bad-ass.
“I’m against consensual incest for obvious biological reasons”
Are you in favor of prohibition of marriage between adults with genetic propensities towards having developmentally disabled children?
Abbey,
That’s a very good question, and one I will have to give some thought.
I don’t think they should be denied the right to marry.
Whether they should be “allowed” to have kids and how you would enforce such a thing is beyond me. Generally speaking though, I suppose it would depend on the likelihood of a disability occurring and the willingness and ability (emotional/financial) of the parents and extended family to deal with such an outcome.
Ugh. The “it’s a slippery slope” argument is such a red herring.
IT IS NOT A PROGRESSION. Allowing two consenting adults to get married — black, white, straight, gay — WILL NOT lead to a future where people are allowed to marry children, pets, or inanimate objects. How in the world does that argument make sense to any rational person?
All adults deserve the ability to sign a contract with the state agreeing to the rights and duties afforded with marriage.
Just what we all need: a *LESBIAN* expert on sexuality and the progression of society… Please!
Sorry Carly. Hillary is right:
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope
1. “We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”
2. “The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”
3. “You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”
4. “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!”
“Obama’s civilian security force” — WOW!!! That reminds me of the groups of thugs roaming free in many African countries. Just remember Rwanda.
who is this guy “Obama” anyway? What has he done for our country? ==NOTHING. HE MUST NOT BE THE NEXT US PRESIDENT!!!
[spreading the wealth, increase taxes, etc. Oh, puke]
Voting against prop 8 does not mean you are more tollerant and more evolved any more than a vote for prop 8 means you are biggot or hate monger. It simply means you have a different idea of what marriage is about.
If you use equality and tollerance as your argument against prop 8 then there is not logical termination of your argument. If equality is what you are striving for, then you have to allow marriage for all types of relationships, incestual and polygimous included.
Every law discriminates against a group of individuals. Voting against prop 8 is not a vote against discrimination. It is simply redefining who marriage discriminates against.
Michael, I think that was your lunch which Vaughn just handed to you. Oh snap.
You are indulging in extremism. The world doesn’t live by “logical terminations” as much as your T568-B mind might like to believe. The fact is that the redefinition already happened, the pro-8 churches don’t like it, and it is they who are looking to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Polygamy and incestuous relationships are prohibited by other laws already, unlike homosexual ones.
@EH — Sodomy *IS* a crime in many states in the US. Now, please tell us how you ‘intellectually’ separate sodomy from homosexuality…
@Vaughn
In fact, your “no logical terminations” is a fallacy. Please see:
http://www.nizk...pery-slope.html
Well said, Vaughn. Tolerance is far down the list on what this issue is about…
How does incest logically follow homosexuality?
If gays are allowed to marry, then liberals will want dads to be allowed to have sex with their daughters. That’s really interesting logic.
If a Dad and a Daughter love each other, who are you to say they shouldn’t get married. Don’t let some little issue like genetic mutation due to shallow gene pool get in their way!!!
FREEDOM, I Say. FREEDOM!!
See? this is the result of constant onanism (that is ‘masturbation’ for you) = A small and erratic brain. Plus, of course, hairy hands…
As a STRONG opponent of Prop 8, my answer is perfectly simple and logical.
I believe marriage, since it is in fact a right that heterosexual US citizens have, should be extended to all US citizens. Marriage, because it is legal for one type of citizen must be legal to all types of citizens: regardless of race, religion, and gender. There is no other argument to be made.
I believe that marriage is a commitment, sanctioned by the government, between two consenting adult citizens.
If the word “marriage” is the issue, then allow only religious institutions to “marry” as they see fit, while our government only recognizes civil unions for all citizens. (And by the way, there are currently over 1000 civil rights afforded by “marriage” that are not afforded by “domestic partnership.”)
To your other points, polygamous marriages are not legal for any citizens. Beastiality is not even in the same realm, and I can’t believe it’s being brought up. But for the sake of rebuttal, an animal is not an adult citizen and cannot consent.
There is no slippery slope here. Prop 8 writes discrimination into a US Constitution.
You are missing the point.
Currently polygamous marriages are not legal. Currently bestiality is not legal. And currently homosexual marriages are not legal (except in MA). If you can legalize gay marriage, why can you not legalize polygamy, incest, or bestiality?
You do realize that you would be discriminating against those people if you didn’t give them the right to marriage, right?
Replying to joshink -
No, I think you are missing my point.
Neither beastiality NOR incest involves consenting adult citizens at all. It never will.
Polygamy does not involve two consenting adults.
(And the same arguments were made when we “allowed” African Americans to marry whomever they wanted. That if we “let” the blacks marry whites, all hell would break loose and beastiality would follow.)
I — and I’m certain most of the No on Prop 8 folks — agree that marriage has a useful purpose and a need for legal definition. But I fundamentally believe that we cannot have a law for one type of consenting adult citizen that does not apply to all consenting adult citizens.
“I believe that marriage is a commitment, sanctioned by the government, between two consenting adult citizens. ”
That’s clearly what you would like marriage to be; of course, that has never been the definition of marriage.
@kristy/joshink:
Bestiality is irrelevant as the other party (non-human) cannot consent to enter a contract.
However, incest can indeed involve consulting adults. Indeed, I cannot see how someone can believe that there is a right to marry whoever you want and be supportive of any restrictions that currently exist.
Polygamy might not involve two consenting adults, but “two” is ridiculously arbitrary. It is no more arbitrary than one must be married to someone of the oppose sex.
@kristy
Your argument is that we would be discriminating if we voted yes on prop 8.
Why does marriage have to be about two consenting adults? Does that not discriminate or oppress the people who don’t fall into that category?
Also Kristy, I was wondering what rights marriages provide that civil unions do not.
@Abbey – I don’t understand your point. “Never” is a big word. Marriage has held that very definition for me.
@usaar/joshink – “Two” is somewhat arbitrary, yes. But we are seeking a legal definition of marriage, are we not? Isn’t that the point of what’s going on here?
So, how do we do that?
You may believe the definition of marriage begins with the fundamentals of “one man and one woman.” I believe that’s constitutionally unfair; I believe marriage begins with the fundamentals of “two people.”
If you think that MY slippery slope is along the lines of “one man and one dog’” or “any creatures whatsoever” then I think YOUR slippery slope is “one white man of non-Jewish descent and one white woman of non-Jewish descent.”
Because if by your logic, my definition leads to arbitrary, indiscriminate broadening, why wouldn’t yours lead to arbitrary, indiscriminate narrowing?
@usaar – Sure, here is a link to a summary of the federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status, which also includes a link to a 75-page document outlining these in detail:
http://www.reli...rg/mar_bene.htm
@kristy: Actually I don’t believe that marriage begins with “one man, one woman”. I believe marriage is whatever society decides it is; prop 8 is just a poll: “What should marriage be defined as?”.
Also, while joshnik, evokes slippery slope, I am not intending to do. I simply cannot see how you/anyone can be opposed to prop 8 (on the grounds that marriage is between “two people”) but still be opposed to, say, cousin marriages.
That being said, my “ideal” would not have arbitrary narrowing. I personally favor abolishing marriage and all privileges it brings at the civil level. If I make an income of $50,000 a year – and my spouse does as well – why should I have to pay the same amount of taxes as someone who makes $100,000 a year (and is married to someone who is not working)? I agree that in our society people can be dependents on each other – but the tax code, employee benefits, etc. are dated, coming from a time when the husband provided for the entire family.
I personally like the proposed “Adult-Designee” program that the mayor of Salt Lake City proposed (http://findarti...s_/ai_n21105903). This system is far more fair than our current marriage-based system. Why should people entangled financially together (roommates, siblings, etc.) be forced to enter into an agreement that (to society) implies sexual attraction to receive the same benefits as people who are attracted to each other?
@kristy: Thanks for the reference.
That being said, prop 8 being rejected/passed won’t change any of this. Same-sex spousals still will not receive federal benefits , thanks to the lovely “Defense” of Marriage Act.
((http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Individuals+and+Families&L2=Personal+Income+Tax&L3=Current+Year+Tax+Information&L4=Guide+to+Personal+Income+Tax&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dor_help_guides_abate_amend_personal_issues_filingstatus&csid=Ador#SameSex)). In California, any privilege given to married couples is also given to those in a civil union.
Kristy. I want to marry you.
Yeah, I was pretty unhappy to see one of those ads on my blog post today, especially when there’s nothing having to do with it anywhere on the site. I just don’t want to be linked to closedminded assholes, so i’d like to see it go away.
Use the competitive ads filter to get out unwanted ads. I had to do that on my blog when I used to run AdSense.
Listen, TechCrunch, I subscribe to your website to read about TECH, not POLITICS! I’m not a gay hater, I’m a tech lover. You are wasting my time with these posts. I’m serious, one more political post and I’m unsubscribing and getting my tech news solely from engadget, gizmodo, and wired.
Yes, opposing viewpoints should be banned from TechCrunch!
Friggin’ fascists.
@Michael Arrington
I cant’ believe you are trying to filter out the ‘Protect Marriage’ ads. For someone who supports freedom of speech and and is against censorship, you seem to be two sided.
I love techrunch and will continue to read it, but you lost a lot of respect in my book.
My sentiments exactly
So you compare a gay spouse to a cocker spaniel? Well, if that is not discrimination that what is?
You start off with “if you look at history” and “God given”… well, if society always based decisions on what is right or wrong on what was right or wrong in the past we wouldn’t be where we are today, would we?
I do not want to start talking about religion and what you believe “God given” is supposed to mean, although I would have to say a lot about this. I understand and respect though that the USA is a very religious country. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is not only for procreational purposes nowadays is it. Marriage is a bond that shows that two people care about each other and want to be a family. So why shouldn’t two gay men or women be able to do so? Why shouldn’t they be able to adopt a kid and start a family of their own. I believe these kids would be better off than in the average bible belt US family that raises children prepared for a world that doesnt exist beyond US borders (or more so their state borders).
Daniel
A gay couple can still have family and raise kids. It seems your opinion of marriage is very closed minded if one can’t exist without the other.
Gay Couples still get the same benefits as people who are married.
Why not come up with a new word. Call it ‘Garriage’, because the word Marriage is already taken and changing the definition is plain silly.
Your argument is very, very “European” meaning that you have no clue, and go by what you are fed every minute by the media.
I had the opportunity to chat with Swedes, Finns and Germans visiting NY City –They are weird! They were telling me in angry tones that “you Americans” oppress *the gays* and *the negroes* [sic] and, as the movie ‘Vantage Point’ it would be great that something like that happened in Washington DC!!!!!
Incredible idiots… Of course I wished them “bon voyage’ with a premium collection of four letter words [perfect English, mind you]
@Matthew
I am European and I follow you. Don’t worry. And I am not the only one.
This has not to do with nationality but with culture, that is knowing the history about the marriage institution. What it means and what it does not mean. This has nothing to do with a supposed tolerance, but with a fact that some people would like to distort, in order to legitimate their lifestyle.
@Anne — At this point I do not trust anything that *ANY* European is saying: you fools still think that the September 11 2001 tragedy in New York, where 3,000 Americans were murdered, was perpetrated by the Bush administration and the Israeli secret service…
And that it was “OK” –It certainly was NOT OK and you idiots have no clue about the US and the American culture… However, as fools you are, ignorance would not keep you from flapping your fat lips…
@matthew the heterosexual
You need psychiatric support… urgently!
Daniel From Germany-
“if society always based decisions on what is right or wrong on what was right or wrong in the past we wouldn’t be where we are today, would we?”
You aren’t looking far enough back… In the beginning it was not so.
“I understand and respect though that the USA is a very religious country.”
Unfortunately, it isn’t a very religious country. Sure, many say they practice a religion, but from what I see, I disagree…
How can homosexuality be natural if you need to procreate by using people who are heterosexual? Seems like you refuse to admit there’s an elephant in the room.
Presumably, he means natural, meaning, “occurring in nature”. Homosexuality is natural. It occurs in nature. Its not limited to humans, or even elephants in rooms.
slow news day for sure
I am a very strong opponent of Prop 8, and couldn’t agree more with analogies to civil rights and women’s rights.
But I would be concerned if Google blocked ads that disagreed with its CEO’s political positions, regardless of what they were. Google is too powerful to take positions like that.
Mike, slavery would never have ended if there hadn’t been a public debate between between abolitionists and slave-holders. This is not to say that the two positions on 8 have moral equivalency, only that the way that gets sorted out is through free speech.
It sticks in my craw that Google makes money from 8 sponsors, so Google could of course donate the money received from 8 sponsors to a worthy cause, but it shouldn’t prevent 8 sponsors from being heard.
Both sides should be represented. Google is right.
End of story.
scott from http://venturedig.com
“The twitter for VC’s and entrepreneurs”
Google has their self imposed responsibility to not be evil. I assume your argument is that banning ads by “gay-haters” would indeed not be evil, but one must question your understanding of Prop 8.
Not to debate Prop 8 here, but it is definitely not about bashing gay people. It seeks to clarify the spiritual union underlying marriage (it is more than a legal contract). The physical connection is a key part of that union, and I assume we all agree that people of the same gender cannot share in the same physical relationship as people of opposite gender since they cannot produce children. The union between a man and a woman is wholly different than the union between people of the same gender as required by anatomy.
Thus, it should not be classified as evil to seek a clearer definition. Prop 8 does not stop gay people from seeking a legal contract with the same rights as marriage, but it simply seeks to have that contract differentiated from marriage since the underlying union is wholly different.
Right, so let me know when you want to ban impotent people from getting married since their anatomy won’t let them have children.
Next we can ban the people who aren’t impotent but simply don’t like children and refuse to have them.
See the flaw in your “it’s all about the children” argument?
Ha…comments are a hard way to debate! You missed the entire point.
It’s definitely not “all about the children”…it’s far from it. Basic idea is that man and woman can share something different than man and man, and this is true regardless of whether they produce children or not.
Markus, Markus, Markus. Way to go to extreme, there, buddy…
Parts is parts. Occasionally the parts don’t work, but they are still there. Or are you saying a Homosexual is just a transvestite, someone born in the wrong body?
“Basic idea is that man and woman can share something different than man and man, and this is true regardless of whether they produce children or not.”
No, I don’t follow. It’s all about sex then?
If it’s not about the children, and not about love (I’m assuming you agree that two people of the same sex can love each other, correct me if I’m wrong), then marriage between two people is all about sex?
What else is there that two men can’t share that a man and women can?
Again I present the argument regarding two heterosexual individuals who physically can’t have sex each other? Is that marriage different or not?
@Jeppedy I don’t understand what you are trying to say, but for arguments sake what if the parts *weren’t* there? Still a legitimate marriage yes or no?
Good suggestion summary:
-Put your money where your mouth is and cancel adSense
-Google to place money gained from such ads towards those who support the opposite view point
Ease up, if the law allows people to vote either way, it would make sense that they be able to research each side of the argument as well.
I agree with this. Stop using the constitution to legislate discrimination. No matter what you feel about marriage you must agree that this is a scary step for us.
Stick to tech and not politics.
TechCrunch just got pulled from my feeds.
Goodbye.
Smart business move: take a stance on a contentious political issue on your site, deliberately trigger a debate, and collect the ad revenues from the guaranteed pageviews relating to the comment debate all while pretending to be against winning ad dollars from political issues.
Sneaky.
Techcrunch just got added to my feed!
Actually…its not about anything spiritual. Its clearly about legal rights. Inheritance rights or insurance rights or visiting rights. How on earth does this threat people? *sigh* I’m quite happy living straight in MA. My quality of life didn’t suffer one bit.
I am fine with homosexuals of any age or color, married or not, as long as they do not come near my family or me.
True story: I had this difference of opinion with my neighbor — he liked to say that “homosexuals are OK, just live and let live.” Until his sixteen-year-old daughter showed up from school with her black female lover. Then hell broke loose… The daughter is now at a boarding school in Connecticut. So much for political correctness and open mindedness…
I sense many hypocrites on this blog…
“I am fine with homosexuals of any age or color, married or not, as long as they do not come near my family or me.”
Scary.
What is it scary? Now, where is your “open-mindedness” and the freedom and all our rights? What is becoming obvious is that *YOU* are an intolerant homosexual hypocrite…
Despite your juvenile name calling I am going to respond by asking you two questions.
Would you let a disabled war veteran near you or your family if he happened to be gay? Or, would you turn the other way, and tell your family that he is not worthy of your respect?
Next, would you let a gay doctor near your child if he was about to save his/her life?
I’m looking forward to your answer.
Techcrunch was already in my feeds! I am a winner!
Seriously though, Kudos to you Michael — It was my understanding that the purpose of techcrunch as a blog was to deal with “companies that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new web space”. This certainly encompasses the manner in which the most powerful ad company in the universe deals (Google) with cultural issues (prop8). Whoever would remove Techcrunch from their feed for this type of article should review why they found the site so interesting before? Because of all the androit profiles? 3 Cheers for atypical analysis of an issue that is so obviously important.
Marriage is not a right it is an institution that sacralizes the union of two individuals of different sexes for the purpose of creating a family.
One does not have right to an institution, one has the right to be part of it under certain conditions defined by the institution itself, in this case the condition is “BEING HETEROSEXUAL”.
Homosexuality is the consequence of a psychological disorder that
is linked to various possible causes:
Family: absence of the father or rejection of him, over protective mother, typical among male homosexuals.
Environment: absence of the women, this is the case of the homosecuality in jail, at the army, in muslim countries.
Life experience: “Jouisseur” mentality, had already all the women he wanted, wants totry the boys.
In some rare cases the causes are linked to some genetic factors, but this is not clearly established.
What is certain is that homsexuality was removed from the list of psychological disorders following a VOTE of an international psychology congress, not following the results of a scientific study. The subject was obviously too politically controversial.
To address a few points:
1. Comparison to Slavery – No, it is NOT the same. It’s not easy to do worse than what many in this country did to black people. However, one COMPONENT is the same: discrimination – which is always wrong.
2. This allows for marrying animals or kids. – No, because they can’t give consent and have people interested in protecting them.
Can a daughter give consent to her father? Can five women give consent to one man?
1. No. Relatives closer than 2nd cousin, even if legal adults, can’t marry because of medical consideration for the health of any offspring.
2. Yes, if they are legal adults.
“Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples’ physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.”
I think it’s quite fair to say gay rights = civil rights.
Black people do not choose the color of their skin.
Homosexuals do choose to engage on their peculiar and abominable lifestyle.
No equal rights here.
Do you remember the day you “chose” to heterosexual?
So, Alvin from SF — I have a few questions for you.
1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
4. Could it be that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
5. If you’ve never slept with a person of the same sex, how can you be sure you wouldn’t prefer that?
6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
7. Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?
8. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be what you are and keep it quiet?
9. Would you want your children to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they’d face?
10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual male teachers, pediatricians, priests, or scoutmasters?
Please disregard my previous comment == Just from a confused homosexual.
I know, I know! Homosexuality is chosen aberration. Heterosexuality is natural.
@hillary hartley
This is an honest question. Please take it that way.
The general implication of what you’ve written is that homosexuality is biological.
This is something I have always not understood and no one has given me a reasonable answer on it. BIOLOGICALLY sex and sexuality exist for reproduction. Why would a species evolve into a condition where it would not reproduce? Wouldn’t that cause the species extinction?
Would it be possible that it is due to a combination of biological factors but also strongly influenced by environmental factors?
I’m sorry that this conversation has become so hateful (definitely from both directions). It’d be cool if people could disagree without insulting each other…
@honest questioner — Come to think of it, it is not that bad that homosexuals get married or shack up or whatever… if they cannot procreate, their kind would eventually disappear!!!
Good news…
honest questioner — i don’t have an answer for you, i can only speak to personal experience.
i don’t fall into any of the stereotypes that used to define homosexuality as a psychological disorder. i also have family members (on both sides of my family) who are gay.
we all have to draw our own conclusions. here are some links demonstrating that homosexuality is, in fact, a natural phenomenon:
“1,500 animal species practice homosexuality”
“The Gay Animal Kingdom”
Wikipedia: homosexual behavior in animals
thanks for your honest question.
-WOH-. just one simple word. Cause I’m speechless seeing how one would like to call “discrimination”, “going back”, etc etc… to eliminate the channel, the right, for each and everyone to voice their own opinion.
“Stop using the constitution to legislate discrimination.” There was no choice but to make a constitutional amendment (or not).
The appeal-to-the-California-voter approach was attempted already. 61% of the people in California did not want gay marriages to be valid in California a few years ago. That’s not 54%, or 50.3%. That’s 61%. Then four people decided they don’t get to decide how we shape our society. That’s the reason this became a constitutional issue.
As for the term “discrimination,” say what you want from your moral high ground. I find the attempts to shut up, silence, and slap a one-word label on those in favor of Prop 8 to be a perfect example of the hypocrisy here. Discrimination is about behavior, not just laws. There’s plenty of discrimination to go around — no one has a corner on that market.
And as for the ridiculous comments from both sides about marrying animals, the point is, there has been no single definition stating what marriage is. This seeks to put that in writing, to avoid any confusion.
What will be most interesting will be to see how the opponents respond should this proposition fail. How will you treat those who disagreed?