Ken you NAILED it!!!! And how hypocritical of SF to steal water from Hetch hetchy!!!! ....but I digress

I don't get it. What specifically is hypocritical here?

What's hypocritical is that folks from SF are so damned free to criticize Southern California for "stealing" Northern California's water. Yet they think it's just fine that they stole water from a national park in eastern California.

Actually, I think the "hypocrisy" is supposed to be that instead of donating to oppose Prop 8 because of support for gay people’s rights, PG&E is doing this in hopes of maintaining its profitable situation vis a vis San Francisco. That seems like a stretch to me. Anyway, shouldn’t "politics from the center right" support businesses making decisions for business reasons? The post would also be better if it presented some argument or evidence instead of just asserting that opposing Prop 8 leads to "destroy[ing] traditional marriage." What is it about gay marriage that would cause any tradtional marriage to fail?

Name calling and intimidation is all the left has ever had. Logic is too befuddling to emotional hatemongers.

One argument on how gay marriage IS damaging: Marriage between a man and a woman, and the nuclear family that generally results from it (but not always) is the basis of human civilization. I agree with Aristotle on this one. This is not the only model, but it is clearly the best and therefore the only one that society should embrace.

Any other is a deviation that is not only less valuable, but inherently destructive to moral order. If any other relationship is equal to normal marriage, than any other relationships that you can think of are, including polygamy. If you really think about it logically, even polygamy can be thought of as superior to homosexual marriage.

Children need fathers AND mothers, not two of one or the other, to properly develop. Every single shrink will tell you that the Mother-Father-Child relationship is the best for children.

Children are the basis of society's continuity. One need only look at the liberal bastions in Western Europe that are quickly moving towards collapse and the eventual take over of western culture by our Islamic brothers due to their lack of progeny.

Marriage between Man and Woman must be protected, not diluted or bastardized by equating other relationships as equal just because a fraction of society wants it.

“Bernie said:
“Name calling and intimidation is all the left has ever had. Logic is too befuddling to emotional hatemongers.”
Gosh, Bernie, doesn’t this strike you as a bit of projection on your part?
“Bernie said:
“One argument on how gay marriage IS damaging: Marriage between a man and a woman…is not the only model, but it is clearly the best and therefore the only one that society should embrace…”
Bernie, so far this is an assertion, not an argument. It is also a puzzling assertion. If one “model” is “best” does that really man that society should only “embrace” that model? Only one model of how to live? Which model of car should society “embrace”? SUV or hybrid?
“Bernie said:
“Any other is a deviation that is not only less valuable, but inherently destructive to moral order...”
As Isaac Asimov once had a character observe “A statement like that is all the better for proof.”
“Bernie said:
“Children need fathers AND mothers, not two of one or the other, to properly develop. Every single shrink will tell you that the Mother-Father-Child relationship is the best for children.”
Bernie, you seem to be assuming that “need” and “would be best” are the same thing. They aren’t. And I assume you will acknowledge that “every single shrink” can tell us about times a man woman child relationship has been a spectacular failure in child raising. You put humans into relationships and you are asking for trouble. SOME children raised by just mom, or two moms or two dads will be happier and more emotionally together than some kids raised in the nuclear family, won’t they?
“Bernie said:
Marriage between Man and Woman must be protected, not diluted or bastardized by equating other relationships as equal just because a fraction of society wants it.”

Bernie, what I asked you or someone on your side to explain was HOW allowing gay marriage “dilutes” or “bastardize[s]” traditional marriage, or to explain what you are protecting it FROM. If Susie and Johnny are great people, in love, and want to marry and raise their children in a nuclear family, how is their marriage affected in any way if Adam and Steve or Mary and Mary across town want to have gay marriages?

Jay C.:

You miss the point, as so many proponents of Homosexual marriage (which is an oxymoron) do. By bastardizing marriage, you devalue it more than it already has been, further damaging the INSTITUTION of marriage and inextricably, every marriage itself. As I stated, it is emotion, not logic, that drives the left on this issue.

I responded directly to your question, you just don't like the obvious answer.

My answers are no less direct than your question, which I answered.

As I pointed out, the social chaos occurring in Western Europe and the fact that polygamy is a superior model to homosexual marriage point directly to the ludicrous nature of your proposition. If there are no standards for marriage, than marriage as an institution is useless. Just because there are "many lifestyles" does not require society to place them all on the same level. Nor does it require society to debase an institution to make some people feel better about their lifestyle choices.

Additionally, the fact that normal marriage does not ALWAYS provide the best situation for children is not a logical reason to state that all other "arrangements" are therefore equal. Your argument is a non sequitur.

Case in point, I don't see society taking children away from single parents just because they are not married. That fact does not prevent society from emphatically stating that marriage between a man and a woman is the superior scientific model for raising children and therefore the only one we will recognize through marriage.

Anonymous Bernie said:
“As I pointed out, the social chaos occurring in Western Europe and the fact that polygamy is a superior model to homosexual marriage point directly to the ludicrous nature of your proposition. “
Huh? I’m not clear on how either “the social chaos occurring in Western Europe” (is it worse social chaos than in 1928? 1948? 1968?) or “the fact [fact??!!? Don’t you mean assertion/opinion?] that polygamy is a superior model” are relevant to my question. I had a question, or three, remember, not a “proposition.” I was asking if you could support the proposition that gay marriage will harm traditional marriage. I still haven’t been able to get a clear statement from you as to how that harm will occur, though you have asserted gay marriage will debase or bastardize marriage. I am still asking the simple direct question, HOW?
Anonymous Bernie said:
“If there are no standards for marriage, than marriage as an institution is useless.”
Sure, Bernie, but the fact that we need some standards is not proof that the standards you propose are the ones needed.
Anonymous Bernie said:
“Just because there are "many lifestyles" does not require society to place them all on the same level. Nor does it require society to debase an institution to make some people feel better about their lifestyle choices.
I quite agree. Do you think society needs to restrict an intuition to make some people feel more righteous about their lifestyle choices? (Be careful how you answer: this is a trick question!)
Anonymous Bernie said:
“Additionally, the fact that normal marriage does not ALWAYS provide the best situation for children is not a logical reason to state that all other "arrangements" are therefore equal. Your argument is a non sequitur.”
If that had been my argument, it would have been silly; but that wasn’t my point. My point was that since even the best situation for children doesn’t always work and less perfect situations sometimes do, we should not forbid the less than perfect arrangements. Your argument has to justify forbidding arrangements that sometimes do as well, or better that the “perfect” situation. What is your justification for that ban?

Anonymous Bernie said:
“I responded directly to your question, you just don't like the obvious answer…My answers are no less direct than your question, which I answered.”
I’ll leave it to anyone reading our exchange to judge whether “[your] answers are no less direct than [my] question.” I think it is (logically) clear that an argument that traditional marriage is the best way to raise children is not relevant to Prop 8 unless you have some reason to argue that traditional marriage will be harmed, in some way, by gay marriage. What I asked was HOW allowing gay marriage “dilutes” or “bastardize[s]” traditional marriage, or to explain what you are protecting traditional marriage FROM. If Susie and Johnny are great people, in love, and want to marry and raise their children in a nuclear family, how is their marriage affected in any way if Adam and Steve or Mary and Mary across town want to have gay marriages? Hmmmm?

But Jay:

You have not given a single reason why marriage should be expanded to include homosexuals. Actually, nothing prevents a homosexual from getting married...to a person of the opposite sex. It is not I that is attempting to throw a millenia of history out the window, but you.

If you can read farther than your nose, you will see my arguments. Places such as Western Europe have already evidenced what happens when you liberalize marriage rules. Their social structures are enroute for self-immolation.

You wish to falsely make an argument on individual circumstances, or in the micro, when the whole debate is one of the macro. You cannot limit the argument to Adam and Steve, that is a strawman argument. You are proposing that society alter its well established traditions and mores. I have given you numerous arguments, both philosophical and factual, on the macro impacts of your position. You have yet to present one of your own.

That is not debate, that is a dodge, and all the left is usually left with.

FYI:

There is no ban on homosexuals raising children, i.e. my point. You just couldn't call it marriage before 4 rogue judges said you could.

JC is the perfect example of what is churned out in our government-run education system. You see our children are
taught that right is wrong and wrong is write; everything is whatever you want it to be. Moral relativism is what
is going to destroy this country. And while Republicans do support capitalism, you have to look at how those
companies gain their wealth because it is gained by greed, then we must look at the underlying purpose for them
supporting immorality ... it will always point to their true motive. I am disgusted with PG&E's decision to come
out against the traditional family and will voice my opinion, both to the board and the CPUC. I hope others will
do the same.

If everyone really wants to stick it to PG&E, install solar panels NOW before the rebates disappear under our Governor's ignorant solar initiative.

Good try to get out of the corner by changing the subject, Bernie. Brief reminder: I am not arguing to change the law (or even to sustain the current decision by the California Supreme Court). I just asked: ” What is it about gay marriage that would cause any traditional marriage to fail?” You haven’t answered that. I believe that is because you can’t answer because allowing gay marriage has no affect on marriage. Trying to get me to prove something instead of supporting your own position can be a good debaters trick, but it is not an answer to my question. Also, “straw man argument” does not mean what you used it to mean. You might want to look up “ad hominem attack” as well. It is in lists of logical fallacies.

Jay:

If the destruction of Western Culture by liberalized marriage laws in areas like the Netherlands isn't obvious enough, nothing will be to you.

Marriage is on the decline. Exclusivity is a precursor to something maintaining value. If every rock were a diamond, diamonds would have no value. Same with marriage. When you make any relationship equal to it, you devalue it as a societal norm and a basis for said society. The normalization of any deviancy by default lowers standards.

Homosexual marriage has no purpose other than to define deviancy up to equal with normal human behavior. Period. This damages marriage as an institution and society as a whole.

Anyone who can read understands these arguments, as does the voting public, even in California. I will remind everyone that polls on Prop 22 and other propositions related to the homosexual agenda all showed the conservative side losing going into election day. This is an issue on which voters do not give pollsters honest answers. The left has intimidated people with their venom on this issue.

Voters will make their will known again, in the solitude and privacy of the voting booth.

Bernie says:
“If the destruction of Western Culture by liberalized marriage laws in areas like the Netherlands isn't obvious enough, nothing will be to you.”
Gosh, Bernie, I seem to have driven you over the edge. “destruction of Western Culture…in the Netherlands”???!!!??? Bernie, I’m an old guy. I’ve been hearing about destruction of Western culture in the Netherlands for fifty years now. Socialized medicine, socialism, acceptance of hippies, rejection of Christianity. Now it’s acceptance of gay marriage that’s causing all the “problems”? Western culture is always going down the tubes in the Netherlands or Scandinavia, but year after year it’s a nice place to live. I have a high school friend in Oslo, Norway. It's ok there. Acceptance of gay marriage is a symptom of their general live and let live culture. Its not cause of anything. Get real.
Bernie says:
“Marriage is on the decline.”
Well, that’s sort of true, if you go on divorce statistics, but it’s been on the decline for 210 years, Bernie. The industrial revolution, increasing wealth and 25 other things have been contributing to the decline of marriage. If people have more options they don’t have to put up with as much crap, and you get more divorces.
Bernie says:
“Exclusivity is a precursor to something maintaining value. If every rock were a diamond, diamonds would have no value. Same with marriage. When you make any relationship equal to it, you devalue it as a societal norm and a basis for said society.”
Bernie, sorry to break this to you, but marriage is NOT a thing like a rock or a diamond. When I fell in love with my wife, the other millions getting married that year had no effect on my valuation of the relationship. None. Heck, when I got married it cost me taxes. The so-called “marriage tax’ was high in those days. I paid more in federal taxes as a result of my marriage. Did not care.
Bernie says:
“The normalization of any deviancy by default lowers standards. Homosexual marriage has no purpose other than to define deviancy up to equal with normal human behavior. Period. This damages marriage as an institution and society as a whole.”
OK, now we get to the truth. You don’t oppose gay marriage because it has any affect on traditional marriage; you oppose it because it causes “deviants” to be treated like human beings. News flash, Bernie: gay people ARE human beings. Nurses, doctors, conservative republicans, PEOPLE. Accepting them isn’t “normalizing deviancy;” it is recognizing human beings. Look in the mirror, Bernie; we all have our flaws.

ABC's of Protecting Marriage

ACTIVIST JUDGES We already voted once.
BENEFITS Domestic partners already have every benifit the State of California can provide. Gays should not be allowed to redefine marriage for all society.
CHILDREN Kids grow best with a mom and a dad in the bond of marriage.