Debunking the Prop 8 Myths of Protecting Children in California

Gay Agenda:

Step 1: Make Gay-Marriage Legal

Step 2: Make Speech Against Gays = Hate Speech

Step 3: Sue Anyone Who Speaks Against Gay Lifestyles...Oh, and Take Away Tax-Exemption if they have it...Government Funding Should Not Support Such Intolerance

Step 4: Push to Have a Harvey Milk Day Holiday

Step 5: Publish Gay-Equality and Same-Gender Marriages Next to Civil Rights in Textbooks and Make Sure Teachers Inform Students That This Is A Normal Part of Society

Step 6: Completely Collapse the Institution of Marriage and Morals in Society.

It's plain and simple, failure of prop 8 will not have immediate consequences, but before long it will permeate every aspect of society. Children WILL be taught this is acceptable behavior and schools. Churches WILL come under fire for their views. Tax-Exemption WILL be reconsidered (I've already heard people attacking churches over this issue!) You Decide.

Vote Yes on 8! I already have!

really? immediate consequences? like what? nothing. who knows, if 8 passes what next? people marring animals or children or inanimate objects? SHUT UP. why stop people from having every right that heterosexuals have. that is called homophobia or the unnatural fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality in case you didn't know the definition.what next. make sure that black people or mexicans or people with physical disabilities can't vote???

I NEVER LEARNED about marriage in school, be it gay or straight. that is nothing but scare tactic BULL saying that marriage will be taught in schools. AND CA school districts and more importantly PARENTS can decide whether to keep their children in class IF this happens. get real. look up the facts and see that it is only fair and just to vote NO on 8.

gay marriage has been legal in CA for a number of months now. think about how you have personally been affected by it? i doubt that unless you yourself or a loved one or friend has has the pleasure and right to marry their loved one, IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU AND IT HASN'T BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS YET. i really doubt that it is a sign of the end of days.

please vote for love,
VOTE NO ON PROP h8
also known as PROP h8.

I was also at the charade of a hearing that the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees held October 3rd. All but a couple of the committee members were openly against Proposition 8, and none gave even the slightest indication that they were for the Proposition. They also stacked the panels called to testify. (The legal panel was one lawyer who made it abundantly clear that he considered same-sex ‘marriage’ to be an absolute right. There was no legal counsel present to offer the opposing view.)

As far as the exchange between Dr. Morse and Assemblyman Jones goes: It’s easy to manipulate the conversation when you control the dialog, and Jones took full advantage of his position as co-chair of the hearing.

But if you would like to offer a more open discussion of the issue on this forum, then let’s consider the likely outcome of institutionalizing same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ in light of the following:

It has been very well established that children reared by a married mother and father (either biological or adoptive) do better as adults by virtually all measures of wellbeing (physical and mental health, educational achievement, professional success, incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse, rate of incarceration...) when compared to kids with one parent, step parents, cohabitating parents, or any other parental arrangement for which there is sufficient data on which to base a definitive conclusion of the probable outcomes. And the results are about the same at all income levels, as well.

The cumulative effect on society of an excess of marriages that are either broken or that never happened in the first place is about what one should expect. There is an extremely strong correlation between the rate of fatherless households in a community and the degree to which the neighborhood will suffer from poverty, drug use, violence, crime, delinquency among young males, early sexual activity and promiscuity among young females - which leads to more fatherless households...

Motherless families have been relatively rare until now (Whenever a baby is born, you can bet there is a mommy very close by.) so we haven’t seen what a lot of those would do to a community - yet. But why should we think that mothers are any less vital to the welfare of children than fathers, or that substantially increasing the number of motherless families will not produce a whole host of new kinds of societal ills in our neighborhoods?

Not a lot of good evidence exists for the results of same-sex parenting because there aren’t any reliable studies yet. Same-sex parenting hasn’t even been legal long enough for a sufficient body of evidence to develop. Any research possible for now will suffer from either an insufficient sampling or inadequate length of time for a dependable conclusion to be made.

But by the time reliable surveys can be completed it will not be possible to go back in time and undo any damage that has been done. (You only get to grow up once.) And since we do know what the results of fatherless parenting is, for both the children involved and the community, I think we can confidently predict that there will indeed be harm caused. (The two best moms in the world don’t add up to any kind of dad, after all – or visa versa.)

Sanctifying same-sex ‘marriage’ in the law will certainly lead not only to a significant increase of fatherless homes, but will also produce (for the first time in history) a significant number of motherless homes in our society as well. And, as has already been pointed out, it would be absurd to think that the effect of significant numbers of motherless families and children would not be as detrimental as what the effect of significant numbers fatherless families and children has proven to be.

In light of the above, how can anyone believe that same-sex ‘marriage’ would not eventually do for our culture what sub-prime mortgages have done for our economy?

I understand that New Jersey doesn't have marriage equality, but can someome enlighten me about how that case is not a problem? I read it to say that it doesn't matter whether you legalize gay marriage, discrimination is discrimination, and a challenge to church property tax exemption may well me on the way, regardless.

This "right to marry a loved one" - it doesn't exist. What exists, and what everyone has, is the right to marry, which until now has been a heterosexual right.

Now, homosexual people don't want that right, they want a different one. But just because you want something, even if you were born wanting it, doesn't automatically mean you should get it. Everyone's free to argue the point, one way or the other.

Make your case for a new, homosexual right if you want to. But please stop suggesting that homosexual people have different rights to heterosexual people, because everyone has exactly the same right.

Leland ignorantly said:
"Sanctifying same-sex ‘marriage’ in the law will certainly lead not only to a significant increase of fatherless homes, but will also produce (for the first time in history) a significant number of motherless homes in our society as well. And, as has already been pointed out, it would be absurd to think that the effect of significant numbers of motherless families and children would not be as detrimental as what the effect of significant numbers fatherless families and children has proven to be."

How can legalizing same-sex marriage possibly "lead" to an increase in fatherless or motherless homes? Do you think that not being able to marry is going to stop people who love each other from settling down and having children? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read and only shows your ignorance and grasping for straws to justify your prejudice. If marriages were arranged and this led to people "arranging" same-sex marriages, then this would be true. But discriminatory laws like Prop 8 do not govern how people fall in love and find their life partners. NOT legalizing same-sex marriages forces children to grow up in homes where their parents must raise them OUT OF WEDLOCK and spend thousands of dollars to have legal documents drawn up to have even a semblance of the legal protections of marriage. This affects THOSE children by depriving THEM of growing up in the best possible environment, and that is, with two loving parents whose relationship is strengthened by the bond and legal protections of marriage.

This argument is not only easily debunked with common sense, but all the major mental health and medical organizations have already, through decades of research, concluded that children fare just as well with same-sex parents as with opposite sex parents, and that children fare better with married heterosexual parents than with unmarried heterosexual parents. Because the conclusion from these studies is that children of same-sex parents will benefit if their parents are married, THIS *IS* ABOUT THE CHILDREN. Furthermore, there are thousands of families that are headed by same-sex couples that are hurting because of the lack of equal protection under the law. If you are so against increasing the number of children in fatherless or motherless households, then ban divorce, force people to marry who are expecting, and outlaw surrogacy and sperm banks. However, you would be infringing on parental rights with that same logic, would you not? Many people are choosing to have children this way (not married and/or single with no partner), and yet you want to BAN couples who want to marry and start a family IN WEDLOCK from doing so. AMAZING.

Finally, 18,000 same-sex couples married before Nov 4, declaring their love and commitment before thousands of family and friends. I assure you that you would get no such celebration with incest, pedophilia and any other ill that the Yes on Prop 8 supporters insist on relating love between two consenting adults to. Have you no respect for the religious and personal beliefs of others when they have no effect on your religious beliefs at all? Just because it is legal to eat pork in California, does this tromp on the religious beliefs of Muslims? Muslims would never be forced to accept eating pork in their churches. Catholic churches would never be forced to marry divorced people in their churches. And likewise, churches that believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman would never be forced to marry same-sex couples. This religious freedom has always been protected by the First Amendment. And yet the people who passed Prop 8 VIOLATED the religious freedom of thousands of people, their families, and their churches, as they are no longer allowed to solemnize the marriages that they see fit.

And to those who believe that everyone has the same right of marrying the opposite sex, remember that 60 years ago, over 90% of the people felt that everyone had the same right... of marrying someone of their own race. Everyone had THE SAME RIGHT, right? Mixing races was an abomination and there were a few Black folks who wanted "special rights". Equal protection then meant that the Black person and the White person they married would get EQUAL punishment for violating bans on interracial marriage. These laws were upheld time and again with that same logic, until an independent judiciary, 60 years ago in California, had the courage to do their job and say NO MORE.

Prop 8 is wrong on so many levels, and it is sad that some people still can't see it. Some day you will look back and hope that in this age of information technology, your grandchildren won't be able to look up your ridiculous comments on the web, just like those people who hope that no one recognizes them in those 60 year-old protest pictures on the web with signs that say "Protect religious freedom! Stop the mixing of races!"

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.