Fallacy #4: "Proposition 8 puts unfairness into the California state constitution."
Unfairness would be for the state
of California to produce conterfeit currency and force it upon all of us,
for counterfeits are, eventually, all found out, leaving
all the final recipients cheated. In like manner,
redefining "marriage" and making
the word include same-gender
sexual relationships--that
is the
ultimate unfairness to all of us,
"gay" and "straight." Two men
cannot equally share in the genetic
makeup of a baby; neither can
two
women. The husband and wife can
equally share in the genetic make-
up of a baby, however. It's natural.
It is four California Supreme
Court
Justices who have overstepped
their bounds, imposing a crude
counterfeit "marriage" on all of us.
Same-gender "marriage" cannot
give
human life, and what is more
important to all societies than the
existence of human life?
What is unfairness? It is neglecting
to
take up any word for the same-
gender relationship and, instead,
to take from the husband and wife
the only word that we have have
for
that relationship. Unfair!
Fallacy #5: "I have a 'gay' daughter (or son or friend), so I'll vote 'no.'"
That voter wrongly
assumes the Proposition is about "gay" versus "straight;" it is not. It is about the traditional marriage, the marriage between husband
and wife. Some persons who have had same-gender feelings have been able to overcome those feelings and later feel good about the prospects
of a traditional marriage. But a counterfeit "gay marriage" will hurt them, not help them. "Gay marriage" is really a
counterfeit,
harmful to any person
who enters into it.
Fallacy #6: "Procreation is . . .
a purely secondary function"
The existence of
human life is of
primary importance to human society, therefore marriage between a man and a woman is essential to society. From the
point of view of society, traditional marriage is immeasurabley more valuable than any same-gender relationship. In addition, the
point of Proposition 8 is that this husband-wife relationship deserves a name for itself. Should it fail to pass, there will no longer
be a word for this relationship.
Fallacy #1: "Marriage used to be
a religious ceremony. Times have changed and it's now just a civil agreement, so any adult should
be able to marry any other adult."
Marriage has always involved civil agreements, recognized in the
community and society. What
has changed, in California, is that the
importance of the relationship between husband and wife has, more recently, been forgotten
by
too many citizens. But marriage between man and woman has given societies human life: It's the ideal, natural way to create human
beings. How important is human life! Thus traditional marriage is also important. And the husband-wife relationship
deserves a name of its own: "marriage."
Fallacy #2: "Why not let a person marry any other person? It's fair."
Probably
most persons ("gay" or
"straight") have wanted, at some
time, a marriage that they could
not at that time have. Is that fair?
Marriage
has always, throughout
history and throughout the world,
been between husband and wife.
The inability of persons to have
the marriage
desired is often a
natural situation, regardless of
the concept of fairness. What is
fair to society as a whole, and to
individuals, is
the preservation of
the husband-wife relationship, for
this is the ideal way to bring the
children into this world. What is
fair to those
with same-gender
attraction (often labeled "gay") is
the right to seek counseling to
change feelings, so that the ideal
of traditional
marriage is possible.
What is unfair? It's for four justices
of the California Supreme Court to
force upon all of us a redefinition
of the word "marriage" so that there
is no longer an English word for the
husband-wife relationship.
Fallacy #3: (reg.
procreation) "if that's the case, why [are] infertile couples . . . allowed to marry[?]"
The point is that the male-female
relationship in marriage provides society with human life (not that every married couple produces children), thus proving that it
is valuable enough to deserve a name and for that name to continue to mean that specific relationship.
At any given time, there
are some airplanes that are not capable of flight. That is no reason for court justices to force all citizens to call automobiles
"airplanes."