We need to be careful about namecalling. I understand how, from the perspective of the gay person, it might make sense to consider conservatives as hateful, discriminatory, and homophobic. But please try and expand your view on this issue and look at it from a global perspective. To this day, there are still over 80 countries in the world in which any type of homosexual behavior is criminalized and in 7 of those countries, the penalty is death. It is terribly unfortunate that this still happens in the world. But you have to realize that the only reason why gay marriage is even being considered in this country in the first place is because Christians in our society have been, for the most part, tolerant towards gay people. If you divide the world up into different regions on the basis of which religions are dominant in those areas you would have 4: Hinduism in the India, Islam and Judaism in the Middle East and some parts of Africa, Budhism, Taoism, and Confucianism in the far East, and Christianity in the West. The first region in which gay marriage began to be considered was the West under predominantly Christian culture. What this means is, historically, Christians in Western society have been the most tolerant people towards gays in the world.

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t people who call themselves Christians who are truly intolerant bigots. These people do exist. I just think that you might want to reconsider labeling as intolerant the very people whose tolerance of you has got you to the point you are at today.

You have to realize that you are trying to change the course of thousands and thousands of years of human history. You can’t honestly expect that to change overnight. History has proven that respect and patience towards others has worked in achieving civil rights. Just look at Gandhi in liberating the British and the African American civil rights movement. If you expect people to respect you, you need to respect them. I know this can be hard to do if you truly believe in your position, but try, just try, to put yourself in other people’s shoes. The only reason why I think I am capable of have such a moderate and reasonable view on this issue is because I have tried to put myself in other people’s shoes. I have seen it from the perspective of the liberals and the homosexuals themselves who see this as unequal and unfair treatment, and I have seen it from the perspective of the conservatives who see traditional family structures as the most healthy for society.

So hears my advice for all of you. Regardless of whether you are conservative or liberal, just at least TRY to consider how you might think if you were raised in the situation that other people were raised in. There is no point in labeling and namecalling. I have learned to respect all people, even those I disagree with. It works. Respect produces rational and reasonable and effective discussion, rather than aggressive argumentation. Nobody ever has been convinced by being labeled a hateful bigot. When you respect people, they will listen to you and consider what you have to say. And it is the only way to change people’s minds. And remember that you can disagree with someone on an issue and still respect their opinion at the same time. Try it. It’s a good thing.

But, you just can’t be this hateful. It’s not Christian. It’s not moral. It’s not right. It’s so ugly I feel like you’re hiding something about yourself by calling so much attention to your homophobia. Hate serves no higher good.

“The word “marriage” was clearly coined to define the legal and religious union of a man and a woman.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage – The definition of marriage, in a general sense, is more broad than just “between a man and a woman”. Marriage is defined in many different ways around the world, varying between religions and countries.

“Those populations were born with certain characteristics that ought not to disallow human rights. The same is not true for homosexuality which is a choice.”

So just because someone has a characteristic that is perhaps a combination of genes and/or environmental influences from their early life (beyond their control, I might add), instead of something that is solely genes, like race, is enough to deny them rights? The “choice” to be gay is not like turning a light switch on and off. It is something that is ingrained in someone. This leads to the counter argument that any desire (such as wanting to kill someone) should be allowed. However, these counter arguments hinge on the use of destructive behavior that infringes on other people’s rights, like their right to life. Same-sex marriages will not impose on other people’s rights, it just allows equality under the law.

You say that by the same argument, someone who smokes should then get free cancer treatments. But this behavior is self destructive, and people should not be rewarded for their self destructive behavior. This is totally different from same-sex marriages.

“And let’s not forget the “pissed off factor”, the voters decided this issue years ago and when some judges decide to overturn it under the table and stab the voters in the back, you better expect a backlash.”

But why did the judges overturn what was voted by the people? Because they determined it was unconstitutional! If 60% of the population voted to ban interracial marriages, it doesn’t justify the inequality it would impose on society. When it comes to rights, the people’s vote only goes so far.

Assume your 6 month old infant has to be placed at an adoption agency, and the agency has two sets of prospective parents to choose from, a heterosexual couple and a gay couple. If you would prefer that the adoption agency give preference to the heterosexual couple to raise your child, then you should vote yes on prop 8.

If your 6 month old infant is placed at an adoption agency, and there are two choices for adopting parents, a gay couple and a heterosexual couple, and if you prefer that the heterosexual couple raise your infant, then you should vote yes on Prop 8.

Lets look at it this way, if modern science could tell if a fetus would grow up to be gay, would the conservative right be okay with aborting them? If not then what right does the conservative right have to impede gay couples lives, i.e. marriage?

The proponents of prop eight are both rude and obnoxious. By their rational it would be possible to outlaw heterosexual marriage too. However, that hypothetical situation would instantly be found unconstitutional and I think that with the passing of prop eight it would be found unconstitutional as well.