I do believe civil unions in California guarantee the same legally binding provisions.

Unfortunately (for you, it will turn out), precedent doesn’t agree that “seperate but equal” is actually equal.

People can’t biologically reproduce with members of the same sex.

No, and heterosexual couples with fertility problems can’t reproduce, and nor can fertile heterosexual couples who are using contraception or engaging in any kind of sexual activity that isn’t vaginally penetrative. Should straight people who can’t or won’t reproduce be prohibited from marriage, too?

It certainly vindicates my opinion.

The curtailing of civil rights should not be based on your opinion, nor that of any bigoted and dogmatic majority.

I would like to ask homosexuals: Why force your perversion on decent society?

And I would like to ask you: whence come your definitions of perversion and decency? Who gave you the power to judge these qualities, and by what right do you impose that judgement on others?

But the answer to your question, minus its transparent and amateurish framing, is to seek the same rights under law enjoyed by everyone else.

Has science discovered the gay gene(s) yet? How does something like that get passed on from generation to generation? So, do you still think you’re born that way?

These are the most telling and damning questions; they indicate a fundamental lack of imagination, understanding, investigative ability and willingness to evaluate the validity of a position before adopting it.

No single cause for homosexuality has been identified, and not every trait or characteristic is expressly genetic in origin. Any cursory research into the matter (into the scientific literature, that is, not emotive dogma) would show you that prevailing expert opinion is that sexual preference is the result of complex interactions between many influences, but no-one with an informed opinion believes that it is voluntary. Much as you might wish to imply otherwise.

If you bothered to read something outside of your usual comfortable prejudice-affirming sources, you could learn about a number of hypotheses about how homosexuality is “inherited”. The one that has caught the public’s imagination lately is the idea that the same conditions which cause homosexuality in males increase fertility in females.

That you couldn’t anticipate the potential for such a connection instead of clinging to the notion that the hateful queers were finding their own sex attractive just to spite society and the religiously conservative speaks volumes about the extent to which you’ve applied objective thought to this subject.

Take religion out of marriage and let them issue faith unions to their own cliques. The state doesn’t need to recognise them.

Its appalling that prop 8 is up for a vote at all. Its clearly unconstitutional because it restricts freedom and prevents equality. Pure and simple.

2. People can’t biologically reproduce with members of the same sex. I’d say to whatever adopted children they may have that they share something in common with their parents: you’re not wanted.

3. You’re perfectly free to collect the signatures required to get such an initiative on the ballot.

4. It doesn’t really change my life per se. It certainly vindicates my opinion.

5. I’m proud for the right to vote, yes.

6. I had two gay friends. My conversations with them regarding this and many more related topics laid the foundations for my opposition.

7. Good point. If homosexuals made up their own religion like everyone else, constitutionally, they wouldn’t have such a difficult time.

8. The truth be told when the question is asked.

9. If i had children: reason.

10. What kind of stupid question is that? Given what the divorce rate is. I’d be happy to see lifelong commitments.

11. Eventually i hope to see an end to frivolous lawsuits and crookedly currying favor with the judicial system which has a more manageable size than the electorate. Religion can be beaten at its own game. That’s what’s great about the US and it’s sad to see they (homo’s) aren’t utilizing what freedoms they have.

12. I don’t know Jesus.

I would like to ask homosexuals: Why force your perversion on decent society? Why sue a specific place of worship when they deny you a marriage ceremony? Can you see you’ve become as bigoted as Christians? Has science discovered the gay gene(s) yet? How does something like that get passed on from generation to generation? So, do you still think you’re born that way? If so, why? Can’t that belief be molded into a doctrine of your own or are you really the passive aggressive agnostics i think you are?

fundie: You’ve offered your Christianity-centric perspective. Here is my real-world-centric perspective. Some of the other people here have taken a much nicer and more respectful tone with you. I will not.

3-Of course you can vote on the legality of my marriage. The question is, do you want to because of the moral issues associated with the institution, or out of revenge and spite?

Out of revenge and spite. It would illustrate to you the sheer irrationality and stupidity of hijacking other peoples’ lives for purely selfish reasons, which is precisely the point the question you responded to was trying to make.

Besides: retribution for a wrong that’s already been committed, is more justification than none at all.

Perhaps, along that line, there should be a referendum that would ban opposite-sex marriage and institute same-sex marriage— both civil and religious— and require only, say, 10% of the vote to pass (to have a similar chance of passing).

Then there’d be a very real chance of other people self-righteously claiming the right to marriage while stripping you of yours— and interfering with your religious freedom— for entirely selfish and generally untenable reasons. It might sober you up a bit.

Granting the fact that I’ll be accused of being brainwashed, I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

Your religious freedom ends where mine begins. If you think you can violate mine (by forcing me, through civil law, to follow a religious aspect of your beliefs) while still expecting me to respect yours, then yes, I will accuse you of being brainwashed, not to mention ignorant:

There is a wall that prevents Church interference in the State. Interfering in civil rights for religious reasons has weakened that wall. But that same wall prevents State interference in the Church.

Which, in turn, means that it weakens the wall protecting your religious beliefs from the State. For example, there’s some tax money the State would like to start collecting from your Church.

it is about doing what I feel to be morally right

It says a lot about you that you think hijacking other peoples’ lives for self-serving reasons counts as “morally right”.

Your morals apply only to yourself. You don’t get to impose them on other people while still demanding their respect. The only thing you can do with this issue is to not marry someone of the same sex. You don’t get to force anyone else to do the same.

I don’t think I’d say anything, really— just listen to them and try to understand how they feel.

That assumes that you regard them as friends, not just as potential points on your religious scoreboard.

I think this will have [...] an emotionally hurtful impact on gay people.

And a legally and fiscally hurtful impact on gay people.

It seems as though we are trying to rationalize our actions through legislation, and yes, even hiding behind the “civil rights” front.

We do not seek legislation to rationalize anything. We seek it to secure our civil rights from people like you who would take them away under the guise of “religious rights”, despite the fact that religious arguments do not apply to civil matters, and civil marriage does not affect religious rights (because it is not a religious institution).

I would say the same to those who cheat on spouses or lie and steal from others.

How about those who claim their religious freedom is being violated because they’re not allowed to violate other peoples’ religious freedom?