Entry #6
"Voting No on Prop 8"
"Voting Yes on Prop 8"
According to the ever-trusty Wikipedia: Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Basically, voters who vote "Yes" agrees that the proposition should pass, and that in California, only marriages between males and females will be recognised, and same-sex marriages will NOT be recognised.
In short, it is similar to the 377a issue being raised in Singapore, except that now it is being held in California.
We are all inevitably influenced by our culture and experiences. Culture dictates where we should draw the line, separating one thing from another. It is an invisible control mechanism operating in our thoughts which kicks in when we are severely challenged. In this case, when same-sex marriage is being recognised in California in May this year, those who are opposed to it demanded that a proposition be made. Many felt that democracy was not being carried out, and such laws are only made by a few judges who decided to pass the law on a whim. Like the 377a issue, many also felt that the law does not reflect the cultural beliefs in California, so now there are two different groups in the country, with one strongly supporting the proposition, and the other who is strongly against this proposition.
It is safe to say that in Singapore, it is not in our culture to accept homosexuality, even though the idea of homosexuality is slowly being accepted by more and more people. (Sadly, social education can take years, decades and even centuries. ) Likewise, in California, many are still not ready to accept homosexuality yet. Look at the second ad on "Voting Yes to Proposition 8". You can see the horror in the mother's eyes when the girl went, "I CAN MARRY A PRINCESS NEXT TIME! YAY!" A lot of people will faint at the thought of teaching children that princes can marry another prince. It is a lot to take in, I have to admit.
However, this ad missed out a little something. According to California's Education Code, there are parental rights and exemption on education, i.e: "...parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human responsibility to their children." and "...respect the rights of parents and guardians to supervise their children's education on these subjects..." Proposition 8 is only about recognising marriages between a male and a female and not same-sex marriages, and is not about public education.
Why leave that out...?
(An interesting point to note is that Pepperdine University of Law also did not want to be associated with the Professor who appeared on the commercial. Haha.)
I do not know about how anyone else feels about this issue, but I can see why some people are FOR the proposition. I mean, if same-sex marriages are legalised and accepted, the idea of the traditional marriages will be threatened. The sacredness of marriages will be tainted, and, oh dear, people will be wanting to marry their beloved chickens next! Pedophiles will be requesting to marry children! If not, they will be complaining about their civil rights. Rapes will be legalised! Bestiality will be legalised! (By the way, I am not making these up, people out there do think that way.)
Why do people see homosexuality as a disease that needs to be stamped out? Can't pure love exist between a couple of the same sex? Cases to note: Have you ever seen Lindsay Lohan so happy and blissful before she met Sam Ronson? What about the famous lesbian couple, Ellen and Portia? Homosexuality will not undermine hetrosexuality; in fact, it will just emphasize that (as cheesy as I sound) true love can exist. In this day and age, with divorce cases happening as often as the sun attacking Singapore with its blasted rays, and with Britney Spears getting married to some guy for 55 hours, trust me when I say that legalising same-sex marriages will not undermine the sacredness of marriages.
We live in a collectivist culture, where social behaviour is determined by the views, needs and goals of the group rather than of self. Social norms are defined by the society, and if we do not conform, we could possibly face rejection. In India, a lesbian couple committed suicide because their families tried to prevent them from seeing each other. Instead of thinking about what our culture wants or expects us to do, why don't we determine how we act with our personal feelings and goals?
Frankly, I am not optimistic about how this will turn out in California, but I would definitely have voted "No" to Proposition 8.
"Voting Yes on Prop 8"
According to the ever-trusty Wikipedia: Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Basically, voters who vote "Yes" agrees that the proposition should pass, and that in California, only marriages between males and females will be recognised, and same-sex marriages will NOT be recognised.
In short, it is similar to the 377a issue being raised in Singapore, except that now it is being held in California.
We are all inevitably influenced by our culture and experiences. Culture dictates where we should draw the line, separating one thing from another. It is an invisible control mechanism operating in our thoughts which kicks in when we are severely challenged. In this case, when same-sex marriage is being recognised in California in May this year, those who are opposed to it demanded that a proposition be made. Many felt that democracy was not being carried out, and such laws are only made by a few judges who decided to pass the law on a whim. Like the 377a issue, many also felt that the law does not reflect the cultural beliefs in California, so now there are two different groups in the country, with one strongly supporting the proposition, and the other who is strongly against this proposition.
It is safe to say that in Singapore, it is not in our culture to accept homosexuality, even though the idea of homosexuality is slowly being accepted by more and more people. (Sadly, social education can take years, decades and even centuries. ) Likewise, in California, many are still not ready to accept homosexuality yet. Look at the second ad on "Voting Yes to Proposition 8". You can see the horror in the mother's eyes when the girl went, "I CAN MARRY A PRINCESS NEXT TIME! YAY!" A lot of people will faint at the thought of teaching children that princes can marry another prince. It is a lot to take in, I have to admit.
However, this ad missed out a little something. According to California's Education Code, there are parental rights and exemption on education, i.e: "...parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human responsibility to their children." and "...respect the rights of parents and guardians to supervise their children's education on these subjects..." Proposition 8 is only about recognising marriages between a male and a female and not same-sex marriages, and is not about public education.
Why leave that out...?
(An interesting point to note is that Pepperdine University of Law also did not want to be associated with the Professor who appeared on the commercial. Haha.)
I do not know about how anyone else feels about this issue, but I can see why some people are FOR the proposition. I mean, if same-sex marriages are legalised and accepted, the idea of the traditional marriages will be threatened. The sacredness of marriages will be tainted, and, oh dear, people will be wanting to marry their beloved chickens next! Pedophiles will be requesting to marry children! If not, they will be complaining about their civil rights. Rapes will be legalised! Bestiality will be legalised! (By the way, I am not making these up, people out there do think that way.)
Why do people see homosexuality as a disease that needs to be stamped out? Can't pure love exist between a couple of the same sex? Cases to note: Have you ever seen Lindsay Lohan so happy and blissful before she met Sam Ronson? What about the famous lesbian couple, Ellen and Portia? Homosexuality will not undermine hetrosexuality; in fact, it will just emphasize that (as cheesy as I sound) true love can exist. In this day and age, with divorce cases happening as often as the sun attacking Singapore with its blasted rays, and with Britney Spears getting married to some guy for 55 hours, trust me when I say that legalising same-sex marriages will not undermine the sacredness of marriages.
We live in a collectivist culture, where social behaviour is determined by the views, needs and goals of the group rather than of self. Social norms are defined by the society, and if we do not conform, we could possibly face rejection. In India, a lesbian couple committed suicide because their families tried to prevent them from seeing each other. Instead of thinking about what our culture wants or expects us to do, why don't we determine how we act with our personal feelings and goals?
Frankly, I am not optimistic about how this will turn out in California, but I would definitely have voted "No" to Proposition 8.
posted by kyun at
7:07 AM
7 Comments:
"In short, it is similar to the 377a issue being raised in Singapore, except that now it is being held in California."
Actually, I don't think the two issues are the same. While it's true that they both deal with the rights of homosexuals, Singapore's 377A issue concerns the very legality of homosexuality itself, while California is at least a step ahead in considering the idea of gay marriages.
Homosexuality is not a sin, unless we're talking religion here. I don't see why it should be banned, along with other crimes such as bestiality which hurts the animals, pedophiliac acts which hurt the children, and so on.
Wasn't the point of marriage love? Isn't that why the marriage vows demand that you "love, comfort, honour and keep in sickness and in health and forsaking all others, be faithful"? I don't think your sexual orientation impedes your ability to fulfil any of the conditions stated above, so I do not see how this violates the so-called sanctity of marriage which has already been ruined by the countless divorces, and joke weddings as you mentioned in your post. In order to preserve the sanctity of marriage in light of the vow stated above, is it not ironic that we are denying this very right to people who are fighting to show their love and commitment to each other?
-sy
marriage has been defined as:
1) the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2) the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities
3) the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock
the mistake in all these definitions? the use of 'man' and 'woman'. a definition i find more apt to the cause is: a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife.
yes, the words 'husband' and 'wife' are still used, but only in the context of 'in the manner'. it doesn't specify the different sexes, and that's the subtlety in it's meaning.
hmmm...this is a very controversial topic...
i agree tt we have no right to deny anyone happiness especially if they are paying taxes like anyone else etc.. that's plain discrimination. i dunno if im completely comfortable with same-sex marriages, hell, maybe that's cos of religious and societal expectations. it has been ingrained in us since young that man and woman are made for each other with the story of Adam and Eve. and so it is easy to see why many are still unaccepting of homosexuality as a way of life. in short, i don't have a definite opinion on this. unless scientists can find more concrete evidence that says homosexuality is 100% genetic, i'll say just remain in the closet or embrace your sexuality but don't expect the majority to be understanding.
Peace!
Frankly, I can't decide if legalised marriages should be allowed. I mean, I can accept the idea of homosexuality but I'm not very sure about same-sex marriages. I have this mental image of a married couple being a man and a woman. However, when I look at Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi, I think to myself that these two truly deserve each other and therefore, they should be able to marry.
But I think my religious and cultural beliefs, to a certain extent, transcends my own personal beliefs at times. Which is why I truly cannot decide if same-sex marriages should be allowed because my religion bans it and our conservative Asian culture doesn't exactly embrace that idea as well. All these norms and values have been deeply rooted in us, so it's really hard to change that mindset. Which is why it's really not that surprising that Singapore still upholds 377A. And if you're talking about legalising same-sex marriages here, I highly doubt such marriages will ever be allowed.
TYPO!!
I meant to say that "Frankly, I can't decide if SAME-SEX marriages should be legalised"
There are already civil unions around, so why not just let them get married right! If heterosexuals think that marriage is sacred and what not, why is there even such a high number of divorce cases?
It is true, as said in the video, that young people are more open to homosexuality nowadays... maybe it's time to let the older generation die.
(ok, i don't mean to make it sound so... brutal, but honestly, why can't people just be accepting and live in peace and love!) hahaha
By having proposition 8, the governments are only making homosexual couples speed up their need to get married before the ruling in their state is overturned, and that isn't exactly the best idea for marriage either! people should just live and let live huh..
Honestly, I think alot of homosexuals deserve to be married much more than straight male/female couples. With heterosexual couples [in America anyway], marriage is less sacred and more of like a duty. You get married because you found a person you think you can live with for at least a couple years [divorce rates are through the roof here], and you're "of age", your parents want grandkids, so you say HEY, why not.
Gay couples appreciate marriage and desperately want to show their love and commitment to the other partner. While I myself am bisexual, and I fully support gay relationships and marriage, I almost think that the restrictions on homosexual unions is good, because it strengthens the meaning of marriage for the couples that it affects.
My sincere hope is that someday, it won't matter if your gay or straight, what color or religion you are, or if you like Crocs sandals or not; if you're truly in love, you'll be able to join your partner in a sacred union.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home