exit polls and polls before the election say it will fail i think ksl has its hope set way too high based on 6% of precincts reporting and ALL largely from conservative areas in california. that fact that it was only 55% in favor in these areas should be a sure sign of the coming defeat once the bay area and urban areas start reporting.
Don't worry... @idkwhy - Don't worry, your savior Obama will make it a federal law that gay marriage be accepted or else all traditional Christians who believe in 1 man 1 woman marriage will be rounded up and put into a concentration camp.
I'd be willing to predict it will pass @AI - AZ, and FL both passed their measures to ban gay marriage. AK even passed a measure to ban gay couples from adopting children.
arizona rejected banning gay marriage in 2006 @Sinder - arizona rejected banning gay marriage in 2006 but this time it passed. but now there it talk it will be on the ballot in 2010 too.
so arizona said no to banning gay marriage in 2006 only to say yes in 2008 and perhaps say no again in 2010? lol
Utah would be a great state if not for the ignorance of its bigots. @patty71 - I get sad every time I see how hard the religious right of Utah feels like they need to force their pious holier than than thou agenda on everyone else. This would be one of the greatest places to live in the country if not for the unhappy bigots who's opinions and agendas we have to constantly try and overcome. Coming form a place of such persecution for their flexible interpretations on marriage you would think there would be more tolerance for a piece of paper. Thats all it is. A piece of paper. Or are you people really dense enough to believe that if you ban them from getting married people will stop being gay?
Then MOVE!!! @Patrick C. - I for one am one of those "religious right of Utah". I'm sorry, but it's MORE than just a piece of paper! It's the infringement on my core belief of what marriage is, has been, and what always will be...between a man and woman. Throughout ALL history, marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between man and woman. Do you honestly think it should change now just because there are more openly gay people in the world? God didn't approve of the idea of homosexuality thousands of years ago, and He won't change his mind now!
And how bigoted for YOU to think that the "religious right of Utah" would think that if gay marriage is banned that it will stop them from being gay! YOU sir, are sad! I don't care if they are gay. Give them civil unions, fine, but NOT marriage! Sorry, too sacred.
No, 0u812, I won't @0u812 - move....I like it here.
If Mormons, and others, didn't like gays having the right to marry in California, why didn't the Mormons, and others, MOVE?
Because, 0u812, they instead chose to alter their Constitution/enact laws/change the status quo/eliminate rights to better suit the desires of the majority.....it happens all the time, and it's even happened right here in Utah.
patrick @Patrick C. - it's what is on the piece of paper. I could care less if 2 people live together, what they do, or what state they live in. but the term marriage has been and should continue to be reserved for the union between man and union. if it's just a piece of paper to you, then what different does it make if it is called a joint union rather than marriage? and don't blame the mormons for this one. they are only a small part of the opposition.
Your comments prove that @Patrick C. - you have no children. It is not just a piece of paper.
The structure of the family is setup and enforced in our genetic makeup. Little Johnny needs a mother AND a father to become a complete human male. Little Sara needs a mother AND a father. They DO NOT need the confusion.
Furthermore, from an anthropological standpoint, religious lore and tradition is deeply embedded in our society and will never be rooted out. This lore and tradition consists of certain ideas about the makeup of a traditional family... including the mythological-religious feelings that people have about moving to a Sodom and Gomorrah existence, in which the next WELL DOCUMENTED STEP is that civilization falls, the people are all enslaved, and God punishes society as a whole. History and stories such as these, rooted into our cultural fabric, protect society, protect children, and can't be argued away.
Gay and Lesbians will NEVER understand the anthropology.
Hey, I have an idea!! Why don't you get married, have some kids, sign up for a few anthropology classes, and chill?
Gay people WILL NOT stop being gay.
Religious people WILL NOT stop thinking that gay's are perverse.
@Patrick C. - Well, tolerance should be a two-way street. You can't demand tolerance and acceptance of your lifestyle at the expense of others' religious lifestyles and beliefs.
Last I checked, the Constitution allowed churches to worship free from government interference. Churches are fighting for their beliefs, but they are also fighting for their constitutional rights. If churches lose their tax-exempt status for not permitting homosexuality, or gays are allowed to sue churches for not being allowed to marry in a particular church or temple, that constitutional protection is violated. You can't really demand that the "unhappy bigots" keep their "opinions and agendas" out of politics, and then turn around and demand that the government dictate what practices a church may or may not adhere to. You can't demand that churches accommodate you while arguing that the public sphere should not acommodate religion.
Do homosexuals really want to belong to the LDS church? Is that what this is about? But what person who genuinely desired to be a member of a church would try and force that church to allow practices outside of its doctrine?
The fact is, there are MANY churches--and adoption agencies, etc.--that are perfectly willing to accommodate homosexuals, so I don't really think this is about a genuine need for acceptance. And if the statistic is correct that only 2% of gay couples have married after the court's ruling, this isn't really about marriage either. It's about making EVERYONE accommodate a particular standard favored by one group of individuals. Now what was that group of individuals saying about religion imposing ITS standards on the rest of us?
Marriage is FAR more than just a piece of paper. If it were not, why would churches fight so hard to protect it? Why would homosexuals fight so hard to earn the privilege?
if it is just a piece of paper @Patrick C. - then what is the big deal, why are they fighting so hard for it.
it is because it is not just a piece of paper. it is because if it is okay then it must be taught that it is okay and so on. you are the ignorant one PATRICK C.
This one is better. @idkwhy - I am from AZ and remember that the last one had some other provisions in it that mandated other things concerning same-sex partners. The proposition on the ballot this time only stated that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman. It is an amendment that consists of about 25 words that only states that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That might clear things up for you
Clueless Al @AI - Obama has openly said he does not support Gay marriage. He has stated that he supports benefits for same sex couples and that should be a no brainer for everyone. McCain had the exact same stance. Oh and by the way Obama is not our savior, he is our new president.
@Steelbender - "He has stated that he supports benefits for same sex couples"
Which will, ultimately be exactly the same as supporting same sex marriage.
It scares me that my children might grow up in a world where it's completely normal for their friends to have 2 dads and no moms, or 2 moms and no dads. I dont want my children to think that's normal and ok.
I bet that the percentage of gay people will increase dramatically in the near future, as more states allow gay marriage and once it's the 'norm' to be gay.
What scares me... @Razberrysnapple - ... is that you could be a parent of one of my kids friends and they would have to listen to this absolute nonsense that you're spewing out.
If you seriously believe that "the percentage of gay people will increase dramatically" because the benefits are better now - then you only show what an idiot you truly are.
WOW!! @AintNoWay - You don't think that there will be more gay people when more people start tp think of it as normal? If you ask me sir or mam you are the idiot.
Gaint @gaint - So, let me make sure I have this straight (no pun intended)... You and Razberrysnapple honestly believe that, if Prop 8 were to fail and gay marraige would remain legal in California, that more people would BECOME gay simply because they could have medical benefits and tax breaks?
Is that why you're heterosexual? For the medical benefits and tax breaks? I know I married my wife because I love her and the thought of us being able to share medical coverage, make medical decisions for each other and take advantage of tax breaks was never really a consideration I had when I was buying her ring 16 years ago. Please explain to me why you think the thought process would be any different for a gay person...
for me personally @AintNoWay - I don't think I'd want my kids thinking gay marriages are exactly the same as a traditional marriage. I just think things like that are too confusing for some children. And maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but for some people, being gay or bi is a learned behavior or a choice, in my opinion.
for me personally @AintNoWay - I don't think I'd want my kids thinking gay marriages are exactly the same as a traditional marriage. I just think things like that are too confusing for some children. And maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but for some people, being gay or bi is a learned behavior or a choice, in my opinion.
Bone Yard @Bone Yard - Interesting comment from a man who in another story said "Every one of us is a sex offender in one way or another". Yes, I supported Prop 8. Those who apposed the proposition seem somewhat subdued.
@AintNoWay - I think what raz and giant meant to say but didnt was that the agenda will move on now to include educating children about how normal same sex relationships are. Once they start teaching about homosexuality in our schools the number of these relationships will increase. I dont mind if adults find this lifestyle ok but dont ram it down my kids throats.
Marc @Marc H. - That's a concern that I can understand and appreciate. Thanks for making your point in a reasonable manner. I agree with what you've stated.
Nooooo........ Um do you have your reading glasses on? @AintNoWay - I said when people become more accepting of gays then more people will become gay and it will spread.
It's not possible to argue... @gaint - ... with a person who believes that homosexuality can be "spread" like the flu.
Is being gay a choice? I don't know... I only know that I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual. I will concede that some people likely do make a choice to practice a gay lifestyle. However, I would argue that there are many who didn't choose to be gay - they just were.
mbugs... diversity in all things? @mbugs - If your statement in true, does that include incest, child molestation, bestiality, etc.?... You did write, "diversity in all things". I know people who honestly love their animals as much as others love their children or spouse. Shouldn't someone be then allowed to marry their pet?... diversity in all things.... Be sure to include this in your next lessons of diversity to your children.
good point Mbugs @mbugs - I want my children to see diversity to. so I am going to show them farmanimalsandme.com, child prostitution, teenage sex, drug use, violence, and so on all in the name of diversity. just because the world is changing it does not mean it is a good thing. you are an idiot and should not be allowed to care for kids!!!
Jerk @Razberrysnapple - So what exactly is wrong with having two moms or two dads? I'm really confused. Why wouldn't you want your children to grow into open-minded adults who accept other people even if they don't agree with their RELIGION, sex, race, and gender.
they have proven time and time again @milla13 - it is better for children to grow up with a MOM & DAD not just one, or two of one kind. also do not equate "RELIGION, sex, race, and gender" (sex and gender are the same thing incase you did not know that) to whom someone chooses to sleep with. there are many social and medical problems with homosexuality!! I do not want my kids to think that it is okay to be gay because it is not!!!
Sex and gender not the same @Lance T. - FYI, "sex" refers to the biological attributes that make a person male or female. "Gender" is the societal standards and "rules" that are associated with being a man/woman (i.e. boys play with blocks and fire trucks, girls play with dolls and tea sets). Gender is a subjective creation of humans created from generations of traditional roles played by the sexes. Your comment about diversity education, while of course based in reason and logic, because logic tells us that teaching of same sex couples naturaly leads to teaching kids about sex with animals, just like teaching kids chemistry leads to teaching them how to make thier own meth lab. Your children would best be served by an open minded parent (and by "open minded" I dont mean a crack smoking pedophile, as you might interperet "open minded" to mean) rather than a parent who projects thier own insecurities and fears onto thier children, your narrow minded fears are not a childs problem.
fyi nafadden @nafadden - sex and gender do have the same definition. Look it up gender 1: sex Webster's seventh new collegiate dictionary. also they have down studies to show that sex, violence, and etc on tv have a negative effect on people. it increases teen sex and so on. so for you to say that your "open mindedness" will not have a negative effect is ridiculous. teaching that homosexuality is normal and okay is going to have a more detrimental effect, and increase the chances of moral turpitude in society. in comparison to teaching that it is wrong. But I guess if it is only a little bad then it is okay, collateral damage worth allowing gays their pretended extra rights.
Its beside the point but... @Lance T. - FROM: www.dictionary.com
Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of "masculine," "feminine," and "neuter," but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.
To the point @Lance T. - I suppose in your day that gender was synonymous with sex, and gay meant happy back then too; so why so scared of it? You have proved your opinion to be invalid in that you stubbornly preserve your ingnorance to facts, and yes there have been studies linking TV violence and sex to socialy unacceptable behavior, but I cant seem to find where TV was brought up, can you? We were discussing the teaching, in schools, of homosexuality, no where is there talk of teaching of the mechanics of homosexual practices (I would like to know how you foresee the hypothetical teaching of homosexuality to be carried out in public schools) I dont recall in my junior high health classes of any talk of positions or foreplay. Are you afraid your kids are going to become gay if they are taught about it? By that same logic all kids educated about homelessness or rape will become homeless rapists, right?
Open-Minded, Adults... @milla13 - In utah?!? Forreal? They don't wanna think for themselves.. It's much easier to take a xanax, put thier mind on cruise control, and follow the rest of the flock.
Thinking for themselves..... @JPinUT - So you are only thinking for yourself if are thinking just like the rest of the world?????? If you ask me I think you think for yourself when you go against the world.
"Obama has openly said he does not support Gay marriage"... @Steelbender - give me a break--Obama only says this because that is what public opinion says.
This guy will say and do anything to be popular--unfortunately, at some point all the talking points of McCain, Palin, Schwarzenager, etc. will come to pass and we will wake up and say--"President Obama? What were we thinking?"
Steelbender @Steelbender - Obama also said he was for only taxes those making over 250K, then changed to 200K, then changed to 150K. The fact is Obama cannot be taken at this word because he voted for every single proposal to support gay marraige in Illinois. He also said that he supported the 2nd ammendment regarding the right to bare arms but then voted on every single bill put forth to limit gun ownership or even disolve it.
So who knows what Barack really believes, you dont and neither do I.
I am going to go out and buy as many guns as I can @ramadi05 - before obama tries to take away my right to have guns. All I have to say is he can try to take my guns, but he will have to come and take them out of my cold dead hands!!! I think you are 100 % right ramadi05 no one knows what obama stands for. I am worried about were this country is headed.
mott @Mott - all you have to say is some piss poor insult. that really shows your intelligence. Worried about where I am headed. Why, Because I have morals, or because I support what the constitutions stands for. Why mott Please tell me why? try to bring up a real reason I know it is hard for you but take your medication and try to focus.
@Lance T. - so your saying mccain would have been a better choice cuz he's white or wat? Did either one of you do all that research on mccain or was it just wat you heard on the tv and radio so it must be true.
Your "cold dead hands," don't break that saying its an antique @Lance T. - The fact that you are worried about where this country is headed tells me that this country is headed in the right direction. Those who were loyal to King George III were worried when thier fellow colonists wanted revolution.
I'm Thankful @AI - I am so Happy Obama won.Now we can get a couple of LIBERAL Supreme Court Justices in to keep the wacky right in line. Gay marriage will pass in our lifetime. The sooner the rightwing Christians get used to it the better. It only lost by 4 % We are not going to stop. Put your shoulder to the wheel push along.......
Why is it such a big deal? @Barbara C. - Sorry you were born into a judeo-christian based society. The word marriage implies a moral contract--to the shagrin of many married folks. In judeo christian tradition, there is nothing moral about homosexuality, which is unfortunate. The old testament even portrays it as the epitomy of a wicked society. But that's where we come from. That's part of our tradition. That's why people want to stop gay marriage: it's a contradiction, and I think a lot of non-agenda-pushing gays don't give a flying f one way or the other.
b-99 @b-99 - Because when gay people can legally marry, we can't deny the same right to those that consent to incestious, bigamist, or polygamist relationships.
Yawn ZZZZZZ @Stormy4 - Are you serious with that tired "slippery slope" argument? Do you really believe what you write here or can you not find anything original or intelligible to say that supports your agenda. I believe in Oregon a bill legalizing assisted suicide to terminally ill patients passed, so by your logic if I take my perfectly healthy child to a doctor in Oregon to get a check up, the doctor could knowingly kill my child and I will have no legal reprise because terminaly ill patients can be assisted in killing themselves. Im sorry that does make complete sense, I apologize for questioning your sound sober logic (that was me being facetious if you didnt catch it).
Guess what? @b-99 - Change is not always good. The world is changing, but not for the better- that is why its important to stand up to these changes and preserve what is good.
Hey Barbie C. @NATTIE - While reading your soliloquy I felt like humming "America the Beautiful" or "My Country 'tis of Thee." Not to put a damper on your thunder, but I believe you will find sooner, rather than later, just how much over his head Obama is. I belive one political analyst said it best last night, "The best thing that Obama had throughout the campaign was George W. Bush." In other words, Obama was elected out of desperation. That's OK because he will be exposed for what he really is. 'nuff said.
Barbra C. @Barbara C. - In essence you are saying that you are thankful that Obama and his future appointed Supreme Court Justices will make sodomy a legal and accepted practice in our lifetime. You and others of your thinking have sick and demented minds.
For those of you who... @Weston P. - ...voted my comment inappropriate, huh, and disagree, pull your heads out of the sand and look reality in the face. Here is Webster's definitions of sodomy:
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11 Date: 13th century
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex ; also : copulation with an animal.
I'm just calling a spade a spade. You may vote my comment "inappropriate" but homosexual acts are what are inappropriate.
Who deems them inapproriate? @Weston P. - Why are homosexual acts inappropriate? I mean besides the fact that the "Bible says so" because you know that's not a real historical account of a whole lot of things.
inappropriate @milla13 - Who deems that murder, stealing and lying are inappropriate? Some chunk of rock written on by a burning bush? The morals that are dictated by the Bible are the same foundation of morals for all major religions and essentially society. Whether the accounts are historically accurate or just symbolic the ancient morals of the Old Testement need to be upheld today.
All of societies ills can be traced back to disobeying the Ten Commandments and other "thou shalt nots" of the Old Testiment.
You are probably right... @Barbara C. - It's time.
It is time for mankind to accept the fact that the majority of people are choosing evil over good. It was foretold to happen. No sense belaboring the inevitable.
How did Paul put it: "Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."
I guess it is time for the "wacky right" to abandon the truth - that is, that man was created with a divine purpose; and jump on board the "good is evil, and evil is good" train.
And to think I have dedicated my life to fighting to protect this great land.
Fighting to protect this great land . . . @Hueydriver - I'm reminded of the time I and a group of others were slinging sandbags to protect someone's property from a rising flood. We stacked those bags higher and higher all day as the flood waters rose. The dike began to spring leaks, and finally the muddy, filthy waters crested over the top, and washed our sandbags away while we scrambled to safety on some higher ground.
We spent all day fighting that flood, to loose in the end.
Was it worth it? Yes. The tears of gratitude from the couple whose home we were unable to save still haunt me.
Thank you for your service in protecting this land. It was worth protecting.
Find your higher ground, and wait for your rescue. The flood waters will recede eventually. Then comes the cleanup.
Thank you. @MisterRockets - Times are tough right now; and it is really tough for soldiers. Sometimes just knowing there are a few good people left for us to protect makes it worth while.
Great example.
Thanks for your support.
MisterRockets @MisterRockets - Great analogy!! Very well put!! I'm so glad to see that there continues to be upright persons in the world today, who stand by beliefs and find the positive in things. It sure is getting scary...
I Disagree completely! @Hueydriver - While I appreciate your sacrifice for this country my significant other is in the AirForce currently. How do you know man was created with a divine purpose? Has anyone ever asked you that before? Have you ever thought about it? I know I would never grow in faith if I didn't question it. I know my boyfriend's worried is pay will decrease but you know what, to me it's worth it. It's worth being able to solve the immediate problems affecting our own country rather than what is happening abroad.
Al your an idiot @AI - Obama does not support same sex marriage. Most blacks in
Calif also voted against it. You are the kind of bigot that almost lost this prop. You are an embarrassment to those of us who support prop 8.
I do not hate gays @AI - but I hate how they are trying to SHOVE their twisted lifestyle down everyone else's throat. Do what you do in the privacy of your own home and quit trying to make everyone else accept it as right!
@idkwhy - Check this website out from the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0
It's 54% for the ban and 45% against it, and that's with most of the precincts reporting! Way to go California for protecting marriage and families!!
Prop 8 is not a BAN @idkwhy - Prop 8 is a California Constitutional Amendment that defines Marriage as being between 1 Man and 1 Woman.
Prop 8 bans nothing, but rather holds fast to the natural order of the perpetuation of the human family.
This issue was decided a few years ago by the voice of the people of California but the California Supreme Court ruled that there was some kind of problem legally and overturned the voice of the people, so they went back to work and here we are today.
denial of a right ??????? @Big Love - Why is it a right for two men or two women to marry since when did that become a right? Oh about the same time it became a right for everone to have health insurance, an income, a car. and a house without haveing to work hard to obtain it!!!!
Apparently, Unbelievable, it @Unbelievable - was a right, because Prop. 8 "Eliminates Rights...".
What portion of that are you having difficulty understanding?
I'm neither for nor against Prop. 8, because it affects residents of California...which I'm not...but it (Prop. 8), clearly states that it eliminates rights.
What other rights would you like to see eliminated?
Eliminating rights @Big Love - Just because the state of California has it worded as "Eliminates Rights" does not mean they are taking away a right people always have enjoyed. It has never been a right. therefore the wording is to eliminate it from become a right!
This is unbelievable, Unbelievable..... @Unbelievable - ...so....basically what you're saying is that "Eliminate" does NOT mean "take away"....is that about it?
What were those stupid Californians thinking to start their proposition with ELIMINATES RIGHTS when it's obvious that they meant ELIMINATE FROM BECOMING A RIGHT.
Actually, @mamacitarica - what they are trying to get are "special rights."
As Thomas Sowell put it, "The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"
BIG LOVE @Big Love - marriage is not a protected right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET ME SAY IT ANOTHER WAY SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!
These kids that are against prop 8 have know idea what the constitution says, or what they are voting for. go look on you tube and watch the interviews with the children that do not support prop 8 they have no idea what they are saying. The spout off that the constitution protects gay marriage and sight the 14 amendment that talks about due process of the law. they say it is not constitutional to support prop 8 because it takes away for the (pretended rights) of homosexuals. What rights? as far as I know you get no rights for whom you choose to sleep with. (I want a I sleep with a fat girl, skinny girl, red head, and etc right. it is just as ridiculous.)
yet the whole time they preach about the constitution and rights they forget the 1st amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;" now if prop 8 does not pass, religions will be forced to preform gay marriages or not preform marriages. That is wrong, what about religious freedom.
I get sick and tired of people using a perverted twist of the 14th amendment to try to support some pretended idea of equality and homosexual right to GAY marriage. Their are human rights but not homosexual rights. Homosexuals deserve human rights but nothing more. What about the rights of the people who do not want their kids to be taught that homosexuality is okay in school, what about the religions being told who they can marry by the government, what about the social repercussion of allowing this decadent idea, what about the heath risks, what about the increased cost to health care because of this. I see no reason to support gay marriage. it does nothing for gays when it is only on the state level. it only gives them a state tax break that is it.
Marriage is not a right, Lance? @Lance T. - Then explain why the writers/founders/framers/proponents of Prop. 8 entitled their initiative with "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".
@idkwhy - Thats because CNN has a huge delay in their political news. Last night in the elections they were reporting about 2 hours behind other news sites. Go grab your tissue box!!
Then legalize Polygamy! @Tyler A. - I am not a supporter of polygamy, but come on!
If you want equal rights for everyone no matter what the society thinks, then legalize Polygamy. If you really look at it, in my opinion polygamy is no worse then gay marriage or someone who plays around and has three or four girl friends with kids from each one without being married.
@Bryan A. - You cant ttrust the numbers until its over!!!! Just look at teh early numbers for the election , It was looking good for McCain, yet Obama won.
I hate to say it (not really) but, Prop 8 will have a NO majority vote! Better get use to gays getting married!
Bone Yard - You Still Have Hope @Bone Yard - With 98% of the precincts counted Prop 8 is only ahead 4 percentage points. It is way too early for those who support same sex marriage to give up. I'll hold off on my anger until the final votes have been counted.
idkwhy - Sorry But No Cigar For You @idkwhy - You are either confused or else you have a bad case of wishful thinking. The most current results show 52% in favor of Prop 8 and 48% against Prop 8.
Gay marriage does not win anything @idkwhy - If Prop 8 fails, we all fail. There is not any good that can come from the public execution of the natural perpetuation of the human family.
Compassion? @Nadja - Please define compassion in this context. Just like beauty - compassion is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Some would say that it's not compassionate to keep children from having both father and mother figures. Obviously there are many that say that it's not compassionate to keep two who love each other from being married. Compassion goes both ways. Some would say that they have no desire for their young children to be exposed to the gay life style through the public education system. Some would say that the gay life style does nothing to perpetuate the human race. Clearly gay couples can not pro-create. The social ramifications of such a life style, if perpetuated, has the potential of causing considerable harm to society.
bad info @idkwhy - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory
this county by county map demonstrates that Orange, san Bern, riverside counties are hugely in favor of Prop 8 and are way behind the bay area in report.
as LA county goes so will probably go the state and LA and San Diego counties are both around 30% in tops and are leaning in favor of prop 8 at 55%/45%.
the current numbers are actually, probably, skewed high. In-as-much as bay area is about done reporting, I think prop 8 will pass with about 55% in favor.
idkwhy........ exactly idkwhy we want to support gay marriage @idkwhy - Think again chaps.... Looks like you have been flappin your gums a little too early
its true, the mormons said they DO LOVE GAYS! @I Want The Truth behind Utah - They just dont love the sin! I heard them say it myself!!! And yet they all voted you a troll or offensive, not sure why?
I hope your right @idkwhy - I was reading in the NY Times (you know that liberal paper from the East Coast) that a lot of gay people were getting married quick just in case the ban does pass. And unfortunately the wording of the proposal was very confusing making it difficult for many people to vote the way they might have wanted to. But it's good to hear the bay area has not yet come in.
@idkwhy - To demonstrate the divisiveness of the issue, let me first point out that I could only call it "Proposition 8." If I'd called it by its original name, "Proposition 8: California Marriage Protection Act," you would think that I want you to vote "Yes on 8." After all, who wouldn't want to protect marriage? If I'd called it by its new name, as determined by California's attorney general and legislative analyst in July, "Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry," you
would think that I want you to vote "No on 8." After all, who would want to eliminate someone's rights?
And, to demonstrate how far-reaching its effects, I didn't even need to call it "California' s Proposition 8." No matter where this email goes, to any of the 50 states that may have propositions up for vote, I'm confident people will know which state's "Proposition 8" I'm talking
about.
Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times describes the Proposition with poetic imagery: "it is raging like a wind-whipped wildfire in California." More poetic still...from an article in Monday's San Francisco Chronicle:
"Michelle Sundstrom and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words 'Bigots live here' painted on the windshield. Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain-and that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or lesbians is wrong, she said.
"There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
Wow. Perhaps all this craziness and hate-slinging is actually getting us somewhere. A heterosexual Mormon couple has a "Bigots live here" sign parked in front of their house, and what's their response? "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
And she didn't just say "deep hurt." She said "deep, deep, deep hurt." I know the depth of that pain. I grew up Mormon and gay back in the 1970s. That was when we were shunned, ridiculed, bruised, battered, and discriminated against by nearly everyone, religious or otherwise. We hid in the closets because it hurt too much to come out. People who did come out were called perverts, child molesters, predators, queer, sick, you name it. For those of us who were Mormon, it was even worse. We were attracted to the same sex, yet Mormon doctrine stated we were supposed to get married only to a member of the opposite sex. It is a direct conflict between the two strongest, most significant desires in life.
When I was in college, I met a woman with whom I thought I'd spend the rest of my life. But after a couple of years, we broke up. That was when I had this feeling, an impression, to talk to my bishop. I had no idea who he was because I hadn't gone to church in years.
That bishop used the power of the priesthood in my behalf, just as the divine plan had been laid out. He met with me for almost three years as I struggled and faltered. Suicide was a very real threat. I feel blessed, or lucky, or both, not to be among the many who have already pulled the trigger. I wasn't suicidal because of the Church's unwavering stance on marriage, however. I hadn't been forced to believe, or guilted into it. I had not been brainwashed. My testimony came from the heart.
In time, my spiritual identity began to gain strength over my sexual identity. I was finally able to choose the right. But it was a troubling choice. I had no desire, whatsoever, to spend a lifetime with a man - much less an eternity. So that left me with celibacy. To this day, sacrificing same-sex relationships is the greatest sacrifice I have made.
Years ago, a friend said: "The sacrifice of a loved one for an attempt to live righteously cannot go unnoticed. The loss is real, the sadness is real, in a world where so few things are real." Now, the loss and pain are being publicly recognized by Church leaders. In a fireside for Latter-day Saints in California, Elder Quentin L. Cook said, "There are faithful temple-worthy members of the Church who struggle with this great challenge, often in silence, fear, and great pain. Our hearts go out to these good brothers and sisters even as we uphold the divine truths the Lord has revealed about marriage."
Back when I was struggling with same-sex attraction, I couldn't find any LDS resources that dealt specifically with the issue. I'd insist, "The Church doesn't understand. They don't even care enough to help." Finally I realized the Church I was critizing was not just "they", it was also "I". And perhaps "I" should quit complaining and start writing. So I did. The title of my book sums it up: Born That Way? A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction. Few people were offering hope back then for people who wanted to overcome same-sex attraction. I felt compelled by the spirit to provide hope for others with struggles similar to mine.
The secular resources did more harm than good. Back then, the only claims you heard from the "experts" were: "Sexual attractions are a permanent part of who you are. They're indelible, unchangeable, and unavoidable. " Fortunately, the "experts" are now realizing that, just like other aspects of who we are, sexual attractions are influenced by genetics, environment, upbringing, experiences - all of it. Nature and nurture are no longer pitted against each other.
I've had the unique opportunity to witness the journey of many people who struggle with same-sex attractions. In 1990, I volunteered as a phone counselor - originally referred through Evergreen, an organization established to help Mormons who face this trial. Over the span of almost 20 years, I've seen some Latter-day Saints get married in the temple, and others work to remain celibate - either because they have not found a spouse yet, or because they have not developed attractions toward the opposite sex. I also have friends, who once had very strong testimonies, who tried desperately to bring their lives into accordance with gospel principles, but finally gave up. At least for now.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT:
Some people, no matter what they do or how hard they try, will never find themselves attracted to the opposite sex, in this life. They deserve our utmost respect. So do those who identify as gay or straight or bisexual or none of the above. They all deserve our respect.
It's not difficult for me to understand how the body of the Church in California has become divided over this issue. I have felt divided, too. Our family lived in California in 2000, when the Defense of Marriage Act came up for vote the first time. My husband and I were sealed together for time and all eternity, and our children were born under the new and everlasting covenant. We, as an eternal family, were and are the direct beneficiaries of the Church's unwavering stance on marriage. What once created angst so severe I considered suicide has led me to a life I never thought possible. One in which I have been happily married - to a man - for 15 years.
However, I know all too well what it's like to be discriminated against. "Eliminating" someone else's rights seems wrong. And up until this past week, it seemed to go against my sense of fairness, democracy and justice as a citizen of the United States. It also seemed to run contrary to the core of my faith - the second greatest commandment - to love one another.
Despite my apprehensions in 2000, my husband and I acted in faith and supported Proposition 22 because the prophet asked us to. I hate to admit this, but it wasn't until this week that I was finally able to reconcile the opposing viewpoints I continued to debate with myself. I finally realized why the leaders of the Mormon Church have been taking such an active role in all this. It happened when I read a National Public Radio report entitled "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash". It says, "In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon."
I was astonished when I read: "So far, the religious groups are losing." They listed examples such as Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. They had to pull out of the adoption business because they refused to adopt to same-sex couples. Even individuals' religious rights are being revoked. A woman declined to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. She was found guilty of discrimination.
When I read that article, it was like a light bulb went on. More importantly, I also felt a spiritual confirmation that the prophet truly is prophetic. Here is the impression that came to me as I read:
It's not that the Mormon Church is trying to get into politics. It's that politics is trying to get into the Church. And not just our church. Any church or congregation or individual who believes that only a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
I'm sorry I couldn't see what the prophet could see-until this week. I'm sorry I'm not sending this letter out till now. And I'm sorry for my apathy - for being "lukewarm". Why, just last week I thought it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriages became legal everywhere. How wrong I was.
Unfortunately, someone has to lose with Proposition 8. Somebody's right to something will be limited at the end of the day on Tuesday. I, for one, do not want it to be my right to worship as I please.
Sincerely,
Erin Eldridge
P.S. For those who would like to respond to this letter - whether in anger or frustration or support - I will do my best to respond to every email I receive. But please, be patient. All our kids are still at home and I work part time. Email riverwalk8@gmail.com
Erin Eldridge @Razberrysnapple - I was abused by a gay teenager when I was young. One of the things I did to heal was to learn of the incredible struggles that gay/lesbians have. I certainly don't condone that lifestyle, and wish that I had never met that gay teenager when I was a child. But I needed to heal, and I read Erin Eldridge's book "Born That Way?" and appreciated the monumental struggle that she went through on her way to a new life and repentance.
I am glad that Yes on Prop. 8 appears to be the case. Gay marriage is wrong. But we all could do a lot more to truly understand the awful struggle that those who suffer from same-sex attraction must go through - especially those who are LDS.
I would recommend "Born That Way?" by Erin Eldridge to find insight on repentance, even if you are not gay yourself.
Utah would be a great state if not for the ignorance of its bigots. @idkwhy - I get sad every time I see how hard the religious right of Utah feels like they need to force their pious holier than than thou agenda on everyone else. This would be one of the greatest places to live in the country if not for the unhappy bigots who's opinions and agendas we have to constantly try and overcome. Coming form a place of such persecution for their flexible interpretations on marriage you would think there would be more tolerance for a piece of paper. Thats all it is. A piece of paper. Or are you people really dense enough to believe that if you ban them from getting married people will stop being gay?
Patrick, it is much more then just a piece of paper..... @Patrick C. - Erin Eldridge brought up a few of these points in here post above.
From the post above; "I was astonished when I read: "So far, the religious groups are losing." They listed examples such as Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. They had to pull out of the adoption business because they refused to adopt to same-sex couples. Even individuals' religious rights are being revoked. A woman declined to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. She was found guilty of discrimination."
Lets look at the non-profit tax exempt status that most churches enjoy, so they can run their homeless shelters and other humanitarian aid programs. If Gay marriage continued to be legal in California the tax exempt status would be in jepordy for all non-profit organizations or churches because of a discrimination law suite threat that anyone could file once a member of a clergy, wheather it be mormon or not refused to marry a gay couple. This of course is my opinion, but there is a lot more at stake here then I think most people realize.
@idkwhy - This is such a hot issue here in Utah. You would almost think it had something to do with us.
Or should i say this is such a hot issue with straight people. You would almost think it has something to do with us.
The institution of marriage is a joke. 60% of marriages end in divorce. Divorce is a much larger threat to the institution of marriage than gays are. This law in essence takes freedoms away from people and segregates them. I am not gay but I am an American and Americans should be strongly against any law that is created to take rights away from another person.
Why just end it with gays why not say black people can't get married? It is after all in origin a white institution isn't it? Just because it is more acceptable to hate certain groups doesn't make it any more fair to those groups that are being repressed.
With marriage comes equal rights. Yeah they can have a civil union and Rosa Parks could have sat in the back of the bus it's not like they weren't letting her ride the bus...right?
Obama effect We may well be able to thank Obama for this. His candidacy has turned out record numbers of first time black voters. And while they have voted overwhelmingly for Obama and democrats generally, they also tend to be socially conservative and religiously active.
I note that the press is calling a win on the protection of marriage ConAmd in Arizona and with over 60% of the precincts reporting in Florida the ConAmd to ban gay marriage there is pulling 62% of the vote, with, I believe, 60% needed to win.
Exit Polls @Charles h - They actually showed that more white people supported proposition 8 and black people did not. I don't know why it should matter though.
it ends... @zigtig - when all the types of desires are legalized....eeeww animals...like that stupid goat commercial...the media seems to be getting a head start on that one. just wrong in everyway!!!!!!
Respect @L C. - Tonight I lost a lot of hope for American people by seeing Obama win but have gained a lot of hope for the California people as they vote yes for Proposition 8. Thanks to the people of California and for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and for God!
what @bubbles456 - Does this have to do with mormons...its not just mormons who are against gay marriage...im pretty sure all those people in caifornia that voted for prop. 8 are not all mormons...get a life...
Respect @Spencer F. - Spencer you obviuosly have no respect for anyone but yourself and your church.People like you need to get off your moral high horse and realize that not all people see the world as you do.I hope that someday you and the rest of your kind pull your heads out and realize that your discrimination of minorities is wrong.
scooterbob listen to YOURSELF... @scooterbob - Your post above "I hope that someday you and the rest of your kind pull your heads out and realize that your discrimination of minorities is wrong".
This statement in itself is self righteous, hypocrtical self serving in every word written.
Respect? @Spencer F. - Spencer, the mormon church has no respect for anyone other that itself and it own best interest. Since when does a religion have the right to donate millions of dollars to a campaign? That is really Godlike!! I'm glad I didn't donate to that little boy in the 3-piece suit that came to my door last Sunday, because it would of went straight to California for political purposes, not "Gods Work".
They have no choice @MiddleLinebacker - By claiming the Bible, they have an obligation to support moral issues. The good book aint exactly gray on this issue. Blame the Bible...and guttenburg's press
MiddleLinebacker- @MiddleLinebacker - Unless you are completely Atheist and don't believe in God at all I would ask you, if God doesn't look to people living on earth to get something accomplished, then how else is it going to get accomplished? Should he come down here and do it on his own? So if a church believes that they are doing Gods will in supporting something why would that be wrong?
It's obvious that you are very upset that this did not go the way that you wanted. So that leads me to this question, did God tell you that the coalition of churches supporting prop 8 were all wrong in supporting that prop? Again if you are Atheist this logic obviously doesn't apply. If you are Atheist then you ridiculing a group of people for their beliefs in God and their attempts to use the democratic system to accomplish a goal would obviously be racist of you and by the definition of the word would make you a bigot.
Get your facts straight before you down our beliefs! @MiddleLinebacker - The LDS church isn't the only church that considers homosexuality to be a sin. If you feel that people for Prop 8 are bigots...fine. Say that. I'd disagree with you, but that's your opinion. Don't blame a church and all of its members! The church encouraged members all over to support the saints in California and allowed us to donate to the cause. That doesn't mean that the church was tossing money to them. It means that individual people stood up and fought for what they believe in! Welcome to America. That's kind of how things work around here! Sorry you missed that memo.
Actually...... @MiddleLinebacker - that money would have gone to feed the Hungry of the world. The money spent on proposition 8 came straight from the tithe payers. It's fast offerings that supply aid to those who are victims of catastrophe's and hard times. I hope you never need those services. I'm quite sure when the Bay area gets hit hard by nature, the church will be there to feed those afftected. It's not if, but when.
are you serious? @MiddleLinebacker - Fast offerings do not go towards political campaining you imbasul.What sad world you must live in when mormons are seen as evil and Obama is the good guy...
I wouldn't say that... @Annie B. - I wouldn't say it's a sad world. Obama is a good guy I hope and I hope he'll change things. And Mormons aren't evil, just incredibly close-minded from my experiences.
Discrimination @L C. - So your view is the only view and that makes it discrimination?? Because I believe that a child should have both a man and woman raise them, because both a man and woman is needed in a childs life that makes me pro-discrimination?? Are you not understanding we need boundaries and we need to get this country back on what is right for our Country? Do you not read the paper, we are seriously sick in our country, and someone has to have a voice that says enough is enough. Men get back to the home and raise your children, women take your role next to him and lets get our country back to where you can feel safe again and for heavens sake quit thinking we should give into everyones request.
Women take your role next to him... @AGreatLifeNow - I'm not a feminist but I am pretty offended by that comment. So basically everyone should live the American Dream right? In an ideal world we'd all get married, raise children, and us "women" would stay in our rightful place? Well the reality is a lot worse than that. There are people starving and suffering from disease across the world. I for one will not be content to sit at home raising my husband's children in my rightful role.
You might want to check the true facts first @L C. - LC says "Thanks California for making discrimination legal... "
Why don't you take a look at the discrimination in Massachesetts where gay marraige is legal. Look how badly the husband/wife/family is now being discriminated against! They can no longer teach their children that alternate sex styles are a sin. Even though their religious back grounds have trained how wrong it is for years, if they teach their children how wrong it is, they can be put in jail for "discrimination against gay people" and also prosecuted with the support of "hate crimes" as well.
Yes, you go tell a dad how evil he is for saying that gay life style is a sin. Do it while he is in jail for openning his mouth about the subject!
This isn't about rights for gay people. They have rights just like you and I. They don't need additional rights.
If you recieve tax benifits for being a husband wife team, consider that a reward for doing what is morally right. If you don't get it for being gay, well, need I say more?
Gay is not normal. Gay is wrong. Throw me in jail for declaring how wrong that type of lifestyle is. Throw me in jail for trying to protect society against the degenration of allowing such things to be entertained in society. Go ahead, because I'm not changing my mind from facts and truths that hold ample amounts of evidence.
Californians! I salute you who voted to support Prop 8!
Sorry, but you don't deserve a break... @L C. - Your comment is nothing but mindless gibberish. Referring to divorce rates among heterosexuals as a way to justify a vile practice like gay marriage, makes about as much sense as asking someone if it is colder in the mountains, or in the winter.
Senseless ramblings from low IQ individuals don't qualify for "breaks."
L C - Laws Prohibit Marriage Between Cousins @L C. - No one seems to consider that a form of discrimination? Heck sakes, L C, I've heard tell that in some states they prohibit marriage between a mother and her son, or brother to a sister. Some people might even call it discrimination when a father is prohibited from marrying his 8-year old daugher.
Personally, L C, I support traditional marriage which is defined a marriage between one man and one woman. Let's not dumb down marriage like we have the public education system.
Define bad. @L C. - What is bad is the tide of vile evil spreading across the world. And what makes it worse, is the fact that so many people close their eyes to things, which although evil, they view as common place.
Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on our modern world.
I think that the decision should have been made by a vote in the first place, not a select few on the supreme court. This will show what the majority of California really believes.
Bad decision @Mark H. - The language of any constitution must be viewed with regard to original intent. And nobody in his right mind can claim the crafters of Cali's Constitution EVER intended for non-discrimination clauses to require the State to sanction same sex unions as legal marriages.
If a distinction cannot be made between heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions then how do you justify prohibiting polygamous or incestuous marriages between consenting adults?
Besides, there is no actual discrimination in California. The voters have previously overwhelmingly support a ban on calling gay unions "marriages" while also supporting a civil union law that is equal to marriage in every legal regard other than name.
So where is the discrimination? A word? That is NOT discrimination. Social acceptance, maybe. Ability to easily file a federal lawsuit to force Utah and other States to recognize those unions as marriages because Cali does? Perhaps. But what rights within California do a gay couple not enjoy under civil union law that they would gain by winning the title "marriage?"
@Charles h - By not allowing a group of people do to what many others are allowed is discrimination, and adding that to a state constitution is legalized discrimination. The crafters of the Californian constitution may not have thought that gay marriage would ever be an issue but to think that would exclude fellow Americans from what the U.S. Constitution entitled is asinine.
How far do you take it @L C. - Can you make a rational argument for allowing homosexual marriage while still banning polygamous marriages, polyamorous marriages, and incestuous marriages among consenting adults?
Or do you actually support giving the full approval and sanction of the state and community to such relationships as well?
@Charles h - Is that the argument you have? It been something like four months since the Californian supreme court allowed gays to marry: Has California have a mad rush of brothers and sisters trying to marry? How about the polygamous and the polyamorous?? The fact is nothing has or will change.
Matter of time @L C. - 20 years ago who would have predicted legalized gay marriage. If the only rebuttal you can make to polygamous marriages is that nobody has yet filed a suit in Cali to allow it you are on pretty weak grounds.
Should Prop 8 fail I predict suits to allow polygamous marriages within the decade.
But that is not the point. The point is you make an intellectual sounding argument and then are unable to provide any intellectual support for the logical conclusion of your position.
Simple question: Do you support legalizing polygamous and other non-traditional "marriages" OR, do you support "discriminating" against those who desire to be in such marriages?
@Charles h - Over 40 years ago it was said that interracial couple were going to be the ruin of nation... Over 150 years ago, a group of people were kick out of several states because of their practice of plural marriage was an abomination... Has our country been destroyed yet?
L.C. @L C. - Last I checked most interracial couples were one man one woman, not the same thing. And hello read your newspaper or the net, which ever our Nation is in turmoil. Kids killing kids, kids killing parents, most kids have no idea what is right or wrong anymore. You think your Country is healthy? Destroyed yea, almost there, that is why people like us are standing up and speaking out we are sick and tired of it.
Still dodging @L C. - It is a simple question, L.C.
Do you support legalizing polygamous and other non-traditional "marriages" OR, do you support "discriminating" against those who desire to be in such marriages?
Hahah L C. @L C. - So your saying that the only reason that the gay community is justified is because of the number of gay's "rushing"to get married? Hahah oh that's great. So if a large number of polygamists or pedophiles, or people wantint incest to be legalized came forward, it would be okay? Because of their numbers? Wow, I am kind of at a loss for words.
far left discriminates against God @L C. - our God gives us commandments - codes of conduct - because he knows all the ramifications of behaving opposite. Rather than put His name out for vilification, I'll call Him the God of the Bible.
The left want only their god to reign in their world. I'll call Him "the changing god." He is actually a manifestation of the left's need to worship themselves, so they invent a god that isn't offended by it.
The changing god is allowed to speak in your world. The God of the Bible already spoke, so you work feverishly to change His word or deny He spoke it. His policies on sodomy as found in the Old and New Testiments must drive you crazy. Why would He be so unfair to people? And capital punishment??? The God of the Bible must be shut up in prison before He puts ideas in anyone's heads.
One god allowed - only the one that agree with you - at least for the time being/ The opposition's God is not. Resulting in discrimination against God's that you disagree with.
This country is not moving towards equality after all.
p.s. L C, your argument is incestuous - forgive the pun. Just because polyg's and incestual people have not been willing to come out of the closet yet hardly means that the logic presented by Charles doesn't carry through.
Well ... @Charles h - Why not use the same argument most supporters of Prop 8 are using right now against gay marriage: Think of the children!
All the marriages you cited, except gay marriage, can potentially create children.
But you're right on one thing: Why are state and communities giving sanction and benefits to marriages? If anything, the LDS Church has now opened up a can of worms that may lead us to the U.S. Supreme Court and either a divorce that leads to the nullification of civil marriage in the U.S. in favor of rights for all or rights for none.
Then families can pay lawyers to enjoin their finances, procure rights for their children, and ensure spousal right to any host of privileges.
Why benefits @sidekick - No, not all of the marriages I cited can create children. As your side says so often, there are a lot of such couples who could not or would not have children.
As to why government gives sanction and benefits to marriage, THAT is the key question. And once properly answered the rational for NOT giving equal sanction and benefits to gay unions, incestuous unions, and other relationships become very clear.
Simply put, real marriage between man and woman provides real and demonstrable benefit to society. It is the ideal situation for raising the next generation of citizens. It civilizes, stabilizes, and decriminalizes men in ways no other relationship does. It provides security for women and children the way no other relationship does. It provides for a built in "safety net" to care for many of society's elderly, disabled, ill, and injured that no other relationship does.
There is no "right" to have government grant benefits to marriage. And government could decide to stop doing so. But it is in the best interest of government to encourage and reward honorable marriage.
It is not unlike society's decision to grant tax benefits to home ownership while not granting similar benefits for buying a car or taking a vacation. Home ownership benefits society so we encourage and reward it. Buying a car or taking a vacation may well benefit the individual and he is free to do so. But such do not benefit society at large so there is no reason society should encourage or reward doing so.
Gays and polygamists and other consenting adults are (or ought to be) free to live their private lives as they see fit. But those relationships do not benefit society the way real marriage does and so society rightfully declines to encourage, sanction, or reward such relationships.
You mean like affirmative action for whites??? @L C. - Is that discrimination too? Are you discriminating aginst whites by not giving them free jobs and money? Or do they just have to keep earning their way in life.
why is the church for prop 8 when.. @Charles h - they believe in multiple wifes for men in heaven...are the women in that union essentially then married to eachother too.
Discrimination is absolutely constitutional @Mark H. - What do you think affirmative action is?
Although we're dealing with the CA Constitution here, even the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution does not require that people are treated the same--only that there be a legitimate reason for treating people differently.
And, when the right involved is not fundamental, a law teating people differently will be upheld against an equal protection challenge unless it is irrational. "Irrationality" is a low standard to meet, and defense of marriage laws meet it. Therefore, I believe the CA Supreme Court's decision was incorrect.
Much better for the court to have left the issue to the people in the first place.
We're not taught that. @BB452 - But it's true non-the-less.
Consider murder, you wouldn't discriminate against murderer would you? He was born that way, he has anger issues, he can't help it. Should we leave him free? Or do we "discriminate" against such activities?
You can see that lack of discrimination would be the destruction of our society.
Should we be careful and selective where and when we discriminate? Certainly. But discrimination is a right of the people in order to preserve freedom of association and their desire to create their own institutions with rules of conduct and membership.
@cgb - Affirmative Action was never written or even proposed in any constitution, federal or state. Nor has it been used as a tool to exclude a segment of the population from what the majority of that population has the luxury to do.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Equal Protection Clause but from what I just read your argument of the defense of marriage meeting the low standard of the clause doesn't fit. Even Justice O'Connor said that excluding homosexuals from what heterosexuals enjoy is unconstitutional.
whatever @Mark H. - Yah ... except it's NOT discrimination. Gays can marry all they want, just like straight people do. THere's nothing saying that a gay man can't marry a woman, is there? they have that right just as much as a straight man or woman does. So don't throw this BS out there that "they're SOOOO discriminated against." They're not. They CHOOSE not to marry someone of the opposite gender. They CHOOSE to not take on that legal act.
I too applaud the states of California, Arizona, and Florida for taking a stand on normalcy. If you want to be different, go ahead. Just don't expect the majority of the country to bend to your every whine and complaint about how life's so unfair. Give it a rest.
To Csiny @csiny - May I add the negative to your comment?
You are correct 1 man 1 woman = marraige
1 man 1 man or 1 woman 1 woman = downfall of society, even to the destruction of this nation, the greatest nation in all the world.
Save marraige, respect it for what it is intended and we can save this great country. Call judgement of gay partnerships "discrimination" (and convince people it is) and we are in big troubles.
But hey, don't anyone take my word for it. Go read your history books and see what made other great nations fall. Why do we bother to print books if we can't learn from others mistakes?
Protecting marriage Contrary to what many media sources say, prop 8 isn't about "marriage equality" or "taking away same-sex couples' right to marry". It's not a ban on gay marriage. It's protecting the fundamental institution that has kept civilization more or less intact for thousands of years. The very definition of marriage is a man and a woman becoming one in order to create stable families and a stable society. Sure, many marriages fail, but that doesn't mean the institution itself is flawed. I think that the fact that the definintion of marriage is being debated is not necessarily the result of the gay movement, it's the result of people devaluing marriage and forgetting how important it is. I don't want my kids growing up in a society that changes the definition of what's right in order to validate the sins of a minority.
So why don't we nullify civil marriage privileges and benefits and stop tethering religious marriage to the federal government?
I'd also like to encourage everyone concerned with the role of marriage in the foundation of our society to aggressively lobby for tougher divorce laws, including a complete repeal of them altogether. Think of the children, please.
Marriage is a sacred, ancient institution. Divorce runs contrary to this sacred, traditional institution that has "kept civilization more or less intact for thousands of years."
No more divorce after November 2009! Ever. The push for a statewide referendum begins here.
Again... I fail to see what the big deal is about gay marriage. I mean wow! When people in this country are losing their jobs, their homes and everything else this gay marriage thing has a life of its own.
Personally I don't care I just wish it would go away.
Me too. @Billy_Jack - I really wish the whole thing would go away.
I wish gay activists would stop filing lawsuits trying to change the definition of marriage.
I wish activist judges would stop presuming to make fundamental changes to society based on what they think should be, rather than strictly abiding the language AND intent of binding constitution and democratically enacted laws.
Gay activists have spent some $35 MILLION trying to get the word "marriage" in California. They have long enjoyed FULL legal equality via Cali's civil union law. But with all the problems you mention, they spent $35 MILLION over a word. ONE blasted word. WHY?
what else would they do with that money??? @Charles h - do they have any charities that actually assist anyone in the world to better themselves (besides aids). I mean really? Why don't they start doing something a little more positive other than sitting on each others thumbs and wanting everyone else to "accept" them?
Billy_Jack @Billy_Jack - I think legalizing gay marriage would be more devastating to the American people then losing jobs, homes and everything else. Some may ask why? Because it would bring the calamities of God upon us as foretold by ancient and modern day prophets. Tolerance and acceptance for these kind of things is not pleasing in the eyes of the Lord.
So God doesn't want us to be tolerant? @Spencer F. - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I wonder if those words are familiar to you, Spencer. Your Gospel Doctrine class focuses way too much on Leviticus and not nearly enough on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, brother.
Maybe God doesn't like homosexuality. Maybe He doesn't really care. I don't pretend to know the answer to that and it defies all logic for you to insist that laws ought to be created based on YOUR absolute, meta-physical certitude of God's will.
I will agree, traditional marriage has served our species well. I can understand and even agree with much of the arguement to protect the institution. I do not, however, agree that "because God said so" can ever, and I mean ever, be the basis for law in a multi-cultural society.
Fact: consenting homosexual adults who want their relationship to be recognized as legally binding have ZERO effect on me, you, or any one else.
Fiction: we'll all burn in hell if we permit them to do so.
Get real, Spencer. If you want prop 8 to pass, that's fine. I am somewhat sympathetic to the cause myself. But if you're going to take a stance, back it with some substance.
You miss the point @thrills50 - It's not all about biblical implications. It's about NOT having some educated idiot tell my kids what they think they need to know because gay activists have changed definitions to suit their agenda. I could care less what they do behind closed doors (as I suspect they feel the same about me). I do care when they try to influence my children's values and beliefs under the guise of bigotry. Why can't they accept other's beliefs?
Therein is the grievance (and the backlash) that is now starting to sweep the country. Most of us are fine letting them go be gay all day with their partner. What we do not want is to reshape our entire society and culture to placate their deviant beliefs and practices... do you understand that? This BS approach of claiming discrimination is just not working and folks are getting tired of this always being pushed in their face because what they have is not enough somehow. What exactly do they expect to gain by entering into a gay marriage (particularly when they already have the ability to enter into civil unions)? Think about that issue long and hard and you will get why so many folks are reacting.
Nothing In The Scriptures That I've Read - thrills50 ....... @thrills50 - ...... suggests that God tolerates evil. Are you suggesting that same sex marriage is sin and that we shouldn't throw rocks at it?
Decent people have every right to stand up for what they believe to be right.
Sorry I just don't get it. @Billy_Jack - Would someone please explain why it's so important that it be banned? I just don't understand how it could possibly affect someones heterosexual marriage. How could someone who is gay and married affect someone who is heterosexual and married in Utah?
Sorry I just don't get it @Billy_Jack - Sorry Billy but we get it. We want our children to be whole and healthy and that comes from being raised in a family with a mom and dad. My dad could not teach me what my mom could and vice versa, what part of that is so hard to understand??
The answer is multifaceted and I'm not sure you are really interested in understanding nearly so much as using simple sound bites to make your point.
First and foremost the argument against gay marriage is NOT limited to JUST that it will damage real marriage. But I will address that point first.
Certainly, on a micro level what a single gay couple calls their relationship will have no effect on any individual real marriage. Indeed, if every gay relationship were called "marriage" it would have zero direct effect on any individual real marriage.
But we don't (or shouldn't) write laws or set public policy based on such micro level analysis. We do so based on macro analysis.
And at the macro level a LOT of things start to effect not only marriage but also society as a whole.
There can no doubt that easy, no-fault divorce laws have had negative effects on marriage and on society. Ditto for easy welfare that replaces a husband and father with a check. The degradation of basic morality in pop culture damages marriage and sends the message to society that marriage is optional, perhaps even undesirable; that sex can be easily had without personal stigma outside of marriage. And so on and so forth.
Now, a person can find individual circumstances were every one of those things can be justified as good or helpful: the couple in a loveless married who need to get divorced, the single mom in dire need of help, the pregnant teenager who no longer feels so much shame she kills herself. But at the macro level, such official policies and laws have damaged society. They have led to ever growing numbers of children born out of wedlock and without the benefit of fathers. Among some demographics well over half of all children born this year will be born out of wedlock. The crime and welfare load among these groups are killing the nation.
Further degrading marriage by equating it with every other relationship out there will further erode the importance of marriage. Evidence from nations that have granted official legal sanction to gay relationships demonstrate at least a correlation with dropping rates of marriage and rising rates of unwed heterosexual coupling and unwed births.
Now to the non-marriage concerns:
By further normalizing homosexual conduct more young people will feel free or even obliged to experiment with it. And contrary to the lie from the gay activists about not "recruiting" anyone who has spent time in a girls' dorm on campus KNOWS that there is quite a bit of pressure to at least give it a try.
There may well be a genetic component to homosexual desires. But lack of such a gene will not prevent a person from developing a taste for such conduct if experimentation is going on. As an analogy, I'm pretty sure there is no gene for bestiality, S&M, bondage, pedophilia, or any other sexual deviancy. Yet exposure and experimentation, coupled with positive reinforcement can certainly create appetites for all these things. I see no reason to think homosexual conduct is any different.
To increase the number of persons with a taste for homosexual conduct is not only damaging to those individuals (as evidenced by the higher suicide rates and higher rates of domestic violence among homosexuals), but at the macro level also damaging to society if such persons are not choosing to settle down, marry, and raise the next generation of responsible citizens.
There are also very legitimate concerns about parental rights and having such subject matter presented to public school children as normal and proper. This is routinely happening in Mass and has occurred sporadically in various Cali schools already.
Various other concerns can be articulated. But as is usually the case with complex social issues, a 5 second sound bite can take a LOT to refute and correct.
@dave o - haha did you seriously just call me a bubble brain?
"I'm I ignorant"...learn how proof read before you start calling other people names. Thanks.
And back to your question, it was your comment that was ignorant.
Sure gay's like to touch parts. But so do straight people.
Now, obviously, I understand you aren't man enough yet (judging by your comment) and I doubt anybody has ever let you touch their parts, or the other way around, I doubt anyone would ever want to touch you.
But yeah for future reference, any person, gay or straight, likes to touch parts.
Maybe one day, when you grow up, you'll experience it and know, but probably not anytime soon ;)
but heterosexuals don't define their very existance thru sex @bubbles456 - Do you hear us straight people running around demanding people recognize that we have attraction to the opposit sex?
No. Why? Because we don't think that sex is the the sole purpose of our existance as seems to be indicated by gay's demand for attention in the media. Not that gays don't have jobs and hobbies, but give me a break
If the goal is to get homosexuality so normalized in society that the lack of attention will say we've arrived at a non-discriminatory place, that scares me more. Are you going to throw me in prison because I won't let my kids watch spongebob?
what's next - telling singles (maybe that's too specific) shopping on dating websites that they can't put down man looking for woman because that would exclude men who haven't been able to get a date lately?
The demand for attention belies the lack of normalcy - and I, for one, am grateful that normalcy doesn't exist yet. The very demand is anti-social, and it's practice leads to society-destroying results.
hey now rockstar......................... @bubbles456 - As far as touching goes............. I'd like to touch my red neck boot up yer .............j/k
Actually, If you read down a little farther I comment about my son . So, you see I have been "touched" and have done some "touching" myself. I was just trying to be a little bit funny to the gay people. They do have a sense of humor(ask my son). Anyway, I have four children and also a son-in-law and a grand baby.......so lighten up a little.Now everyone go have some touching done and have a great day!!!
Thank Heavens! Gay marriage will be illegal in California. This just goes to show that the majority of Californians believe that gay marriage is sick and wrong! Thank you LDS Church for promoting morality to the masses.
if you look at the numbers....... @Scott N. - this is hardly an LDS thing. The people are voting and the people have spoken. We need to quit dividing us into religions , races, sexes and perverts. Lets stick with Democracy. (and when the perverts lose????.....quit whining!!!)
if you look at the numbers.... @dave o - Its not only LDS people its people who understand truth. Lets not make this an LDS issue but rather an issue for those who understand what is right.
One thing remains the same... @Scott N. - One thing remains the same here in good ole Utah tonight, the majority of the people within this state are scared, racist, close-minded and full of absolute hate. I am disgusted by the hatred that has been spewed on these message boards within the last few hours, it is unbelievable.
Cry baby LIB @MARYGIRL25 - Typical liberal after a loss at the polls. Always trying to blame your problems on others. I hate Obama, but you don't see me crying and blaming others do you? Obama won and good for him. I hope he does a good job.
@Mike U. - It isnt a matter of torturing me, I just cant comprehend putting ones personal values and morals onto someone else. Why should anyone have the right to impose their morality on anyone else?
Marygirl @MARYGIRL25 - Do you understand that the gay lifestyle is now being introduced to children kindergarten age in Massachussets? Let's talk about putting ones personal values and morals onto someone else. Are you aware that a father there was arrested because he wanted the school to notify the parents if this was to be taught so they could opt out. The school told him that because the lifestyle is legal they didn't have to notify the parents. He told them he was willing to sit there all night until they were willing to accomodate parents who did not want this taught to their children. The school then had him arrested. It just seems like they want to throw those values and morals at everyone else. I don't hate them, I just don't agree with their decision. I'm sure you don't agree with everyone's decisions all the time either but, I am sure you don't hate them because of it. I am not trying to put my values and morals on them. I am just for defending marriage and it being defined as being a man and woman.
Exactly.... @MARYGIRL25 - Why should those who are homosexual have the right to impose their personal values and morals (or lack thereof) onto someone else? Why should judges be allowed to legislate from the bench when Californians thought this issue was put to rest years ago? Why should my kids be forced to think that there is NOTHING wrong with a homosexual relationship?
Civilized society @MARYGIRL25 - We do that all the time. And somebody WILL do it, it is just a question of who and which morals will be imposed.
When we ban sex between adults and minors we are imposing Judeo-Christian morals on NAMBLA, those muslim sects that believe in underage marriages, those polygamists who believe in having old men sleep with young girls, and other such groups.
When we ban public nudity and public sex we are imposing majority morals on the exhibitionists. The alternative would be for the exhibitionists to impose their "morals" on us as they engage in their favored activities in public parks and playgrounds as has happened in the Netherlands.
When the gay activists sued to overturn the will of the voters despite having full legal equality they attempted to impose their morals on the populace of California. Tonight, the majority of Californians may just decide to push back and instead impose their view of marriage on those minorities that would hijack it.
so by your own standards @MARYGIRL25 - you hate the gay community too. They continually trample on the beliefs and rights of others for their own beliefs. Thats what a lawsuit against someone who refuses to marry you because of his/her own beliefs is doing; trampling on their rights so yours can be respected. It's hypocritical but yet the gay community always has to play the victim, even though they are doing the EXACT same thing. They are imposing their standards of immorality on everyone else.
I am glad that homosexuals have the same benefits and privileges as the rest of us. I believe they should have those same rights as citizens of our wonderful country(which is soon to be just another terrible socialist country. Why did they feel the need to "redefine marriage" for the rest of society? What are they trying to prove? Isn't being recognized as a civil union good enough? It is for the government, why can't it be for them?
EXACTLY @MARYGIRL25 - That is the whole point. The homosexual activists have been inflicting their views upon the rest of society for years now. At what point does the majority get to say enough? Go live your life, be happy, be gay all day, do whatever you want but don't expect the rest of us to be legally forced to accept your view of the world.
WOW @MARYGIRL25 - Are you serious? You can't understand putting ones' personal values and morals on someone else. I beg to differ. you're asking the MAJORITY to put their morals and values aside for the minority who want US to indulge in their morals and values.
Give me one good reason why I should put my morals and personal values aside to placate a tiny minority. One reason. That's all I'm asking for.
MARYGIRL25 - Why Impose Your Morality On Us? @MARYGIRL25 - That's a two way street. Why do homosexuals want to impose their definition on morality on the the moral majority?
please elaborate @MARYGIRL25 - I agree that the quality of comments and attitudes is low on these boards, but please explain...
Is wanting to protect what we feel is a God-commanded, sacred institution close-minded, racist and full of absolute hate? Is that your point? The 'touching parts' comments deserve your condemnation.
Just Move to Canada then @MARYGIRL25 - Wow... what does that say about you blaming us for what Cali decided? We are close-minded because Californians decided to ban Gay Marriage (something we applaud) and somehow we are scared, racist, etc? What does that say about one of the most liberal states in America?
It appears that no one really likes your opinion in these United States... so maybe you should go somewhere where your view will find a more receptive audience.
well... @MARYGIRL25 - apparently California feels the same way we do. I guess you'll have to move to eastern Canada or France to get that liberal on ppls values.
MARYGIRL25 - There Is Nothing Hateful About Having An Opinion ..... @MARYGIRL25 - ...... on the sanctity of marriage. Additionally, I fail to see why support for Prop 8 could be even remotely linked to racism.
The hate here, MARYGIRL25, appears to be coming from those who were on the losing side of Prop 8. Some good folks might even find it close-minded to prohibit marriage between a father and his 10-year old daughter. Call me old fashioned but I like the traditional definition of marriage.
Hate? @MARYGIRL25 - So not ascribing to the soul stifling evil infecting the human race is Hate? Interesting perspective. Does that mean Isiah hated the Children of Israel when he excoriated them for their departure from the core truths and values, which basically defined the conduct expected of mankind. No. He did not hate them, nor did the Lord hate them. In fact, He said: "How often have I gathered you, as a hen gatherth her chickens under her wings".
Throwing out the word "hate" is as much a distraction from truth as the over use of the word "discrimination". Both are nothing more than a smoke-screen put up in a foolish attempt to cover evil.
So in 4 years... So this is great! If dudes can marry dudes then in 4 years Utah can put an initiative on the ballot to simply pick up the slack and marry MULTIPLE WOMEN! Into Polygamy we delve in 2012! That'll be our motto. And of course the rest of the country will support polygamist rights and fight along side us against those who discriminate against guys who just aren't satisfied with one wife... Sound ridiculous? Yes...yes it does.
What will really be fun..... @Chief Mcloud - is when 2 dudes wanna marry 3 dudes and one of them is a quadraplegic, transvestite, jew! And they want the wedding performed bi two fat lesbians that are both Lds bishops!!!
@AGreatLifeNow - and you get to decide what is right? are you the ruling authority on what is right and wrong? it is a hate issue, any idiot can see that.
Actually... @Ben lurkin - Tyranny is defined as oppressive power exerted by goverment. Or, government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.
The words majority or minority don't even show up in the definition.
Exactly @Mott - just like the four CA supreme court justices did on this very topic. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough since that statement was a few posts up. So thanks for making my point.
Interesting.... @MARYGIRL25 - It is interesting to me, and somewhat telling I think, that those of you who accuse others of hate and bigotry are generally the first to toss out insults like "idiot."
As far as who gets to decide what is right or wrong, how do you make the case that 4 judges (who outvoted the 3 judges who ruled the other way) should be the ruling authority on what is right and wrong rather than the people themselves?
Marygirl @MARYGIRL25 - No I don't decide what is right the facts decide that is right, tell me when was sex in the hole meant to release waste normal and decent? Why is it hate to have a view point other than yours, hate? You are hate and you don't even know it. When was the last time your respected our view point on Gay marriage and you call us haters? Idiot? Not a hate word? You are hate because you think everyone should believe what you say is decent, its time we have a voice to without being told we are hateful. Do you not understand AIDS and how it will and is destroying our nation, there is a right way to have sex and a wrong way, disease is real honey own it but don't call it hate.
34% .... @AGreatLifeNow - 34% of new HIV cases diagnosed last year were heterosexual men and woman. This isn't the 80's. HIV isn't the gay man's disease anymore.
34% @BB452 - Most gay men have sex with heterosexual men and woman hello!! Come on you can't be that blind. So in one sense I agree its not a gay man's disease but it started from putting things in very unclean places and then spreading it around.
So..... @BB452 - Are you saying that the estimated 1% of the population that is gay is responsible for 34% of HIV cases. Doesn't sound like a good argument to me. Sounds like they are spreading way more than would be going around if they were not having sexual relations with eachother. It seems to me that 1% of the population should account for about 1% of HIV cases. Statistically speaking that is.
@MARYGIRL25 - Right? Wrong? I've read enough about what homosexuals do to "bond" and I don't care who you are...it is wrong. Those of us who support traditional marriage are not claiming authority on what is right and wrong. We just know who that authority belongs to and that is God. The acts of gays and lesbians IS perverse. Do I hate those who are gay? NO. I had a pleasant conversation with a gay "couple" just a few days ago. Just because I stand for traditional marriage and family does not mean I am a hater. Those of us who would like to stand up for what we believe have the right to do so. Hate issue? Stop being such cry babies because someone is standing up for what they believe in.
Really? @AGreatLifeNow - Polygamy=strange marriage practice
Homosexuality=strange marriage practice
Not hate, it was just a political move by the LDS.
The real LDS rally behind the gay marriage issue is only because the LDS were/are in a bind over being connected to the FLDS and polygamy. Church authorities could not make a statement about polygamy to the contrary due to it being taught as an everlasting covenant by a founding key figure of mormonism, and it could not take a stand in favor of polygamy due to modern taboo.
My children play this game all the time to try to divert attention away from their own misgivings by finger pointing at a seemingly greater misgivings of their siblings.
You see, the LDS believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, if they did not, then why would they fight so hard to keep "traditional marriage" between two people of the opposite sex? DUH!!
You cannot claim that your beliefs about marriage are founded on 1 man 1 woman, when your very founding fathers taught that marriage was between 1 man and multiple women.
And somehow Revelation prepared the Church's way @my own direction - Check the date on the proclamation to the world about a family because somehow the church’s position was outline more than 10 years before the FLDS became an issue. So either there really is revelation from God and we should pay attention or your entire argument is a waste of digital space.
Okay then why @Are_You_Kidding_Me? - Did the LDS not make any statement that affirmed or denied their stance on polygamy when the true branch (FLDS) of Mormonism was exposed?
LIke it or not the FLDS are the ones who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, read your own texts if you disagree with this statement.
The LDS proclamation is a joke, as if human beings ran around mating and reproducing like wild animals, and families were non existent before your leaders stated the obvious, and called it revelation.
I'm glad prop 8 passed, and LDS authorities are glad they had an excuse to rally the members in a cause that helped relieve some of the pressure they faced regarding their own past non traditional marriage practices.
Discrimination Why is it that if religious people don't condone the acts of the immoral its discrimination, but if the immoral don't condone the acts of the religous its just a really dumb commercial on comedy central?
Gay Marriage Why does everyone say this is a hate issue? My Aunt is a Lesbian and has been for 20 years. She is considered a pioneer in gay rights. Do I hate her? No. Do I support her life-style? NO.
Do I have to make a legal argument to not support her, or is it okay to just say I don't feel like it should be allowed?
Gays would say that because I don't make a legal or logical argument, that my decision is hateful.
Okay, here's a logical argument for you:
If everyone in the world turned gay, the human race would DIE.
Homosexuality is by definition anti-social behavior. How can anyone honestly support the decision to legally be allowed to even engage in this behavior? I for one cannot.
all of the people who think banning gay marriage is the right thing to do, I hope someone who is close to you and who you love tells you they are gay so you can change your mind on this issue.
If your child tells you they are gay, any GOOD parent, regardless of what your religion and beliefs are, would want their child to be happy and if marrying the same sex is what makes them happy, then you will support them.
But obviously there aren't many GOOD people in Utah, most of you think you are perfect and listen to everything the church tells you to do or feel.
No subject @bubbles456 - I love my child so if they want to kill others should I love them enough to tell them yes go ahead?? What!! If its wrong its wrong, our race is dependant on man and woman having children not making it okay to do anything we want to just because we love them. IF you love them steer them in the right direction.
Killing does something to somebody who doesn't want it.
Relationships, believe it or not, take two people to enter into mutually. If your kid is gay and wants to go be gay with somebody else who wants the same thing, it's not the same as your kid killing somebody who doesn't want to be killed.
bubbles @bubbles456 - Some one close to me is gay. Guess what? I still haven't changed my mind on the issue. It is still wrong. I have never treated this person badly after I found out, however I still do not support that lifestyle. What if drugs make my child happy? Should I support that because after all I just want them to be happy.
By the way, I am far from perfect, I am sure most of us are but since when do you have to support a gay lifestyle to be defined as a "GOOD Parent"?
Too late , my bubblicious friend.... @bubbles456 - My 19 year old son (who I love very much)has told me about himself being gay. I still love him. He still lives in my house. I still pay his insurance.
And I still believe that it's best to leave marriage "traditional".
PS, I"m also a MORMON eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.
@bubbles456 - I would support my kids in a gay relationship but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. I will teach them traditional marriage and hope that is what they choose. Just like I will teach them other good morals, but if they make a wrong choice I will not kick them out of my life.
bubbles.... @bubbles456 - my best friend is a member of the LDS church. He has homosexual tendencies. He was in Cali all day campaigning so ppl would vote YES. I support my friend and try to help in all I can. We aren't stupid. I've seen a gay person before bubbly.
You're approach here is the problem @bubbles456 - Did you feel that way before your kid revealed their deviant sexual desires? I suspect no from the tone of your comment. You see, just because someone you know or love decides to do something bad does not mean that we redefine what "bad" is. That is at least one problem running rampant in our society today. It begs of lack of personal responsibility. In yonder generations at least they had the moral courage to say something was bad/wrong and stick by it. Our generation just wants to change the wording a little and get it to become legally acceptable... so that we can feel better about it and sleep better at night.
ENOUGH! If it was bad before you had this realization it is bad after your realization... just because you and your kid want to rationalize this corruptible behavior does not mean that you get to force the rest of us into the same boat as you. You can call us names, pull on our heart strings and just about anything else you want... but some of us have said ENOUGH of this. What is bad/wrong to us and the law is really bad. You can either correct your behavior or live with the privileges that you enjoy (because no one is really enforcing the sodomy laws, etc.).
BTW, I do have friends that are gay and family in mixed relationships. It is odd that they do not come crying and screaming to me or anyone else about these issues. In fact, some have expressed opinions that are opposite of what you might think because they just want to live their life without all of the attention (imagine that). What does that make them? Honest about the problem? Haters as well because they do not agree with the majority of gay activists?
IF... @bubbles456 - One of my children would tell me they were gay, I would still love them, But I would never approve of thier lifestyle. I have had this conversation with ALL my children. They know my feelings on this topic. I hate very few people...Personally I think Gays should have stayed in the closet. It was easier for them and they would not have to try to drag all of society down to their level. They must accept the fact that they are the minority and that the majority makes the rules. Quit trying to make everyon accept something they don't believe in. Call me what you want. God knows how I really am...You are just judging me on what you think I am...Remember We are not to judge our fellow man...I do not judge you...I just do not accept your lifestyle...two different things...
This is only the beginning... Wake up folks! You think the homosexual community is going to stop here? They will stop at NOTHING to get their way of life legalized! If you do think this will be the end of it, you don't have a clue. This is only the beginning of their assault on the family. Wait until the same CA supreme court that legalized homosexuality nullifies or does away with this Constitutional amendment, if it passes. CO courts overturned a statewide ballot several years ago... The people has spoken, the activist courts just threw it out, stating what the people had decided was "unconstitutional". Just you wait...this is only the beginning!
Your right Georgie @Georgie Porgie - .....homosexuals aren't going anywhere, no matter if gay marriage is legal or not. But if a homosexual couple legally getting married can destroy your family values then something is wrong.
I agree @Georgie Porgie - Obama will do his best to overturn it as well. The American people have just elected one of the most radical presidents ever.
It's a constitutional amendment @Georgie Porgie - Written and approved to be viable with only a simple majority win.
The CA Supreme court can't rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, the amendment made it constitutional.
The only way the CA Sup court could rule on this is if sufficient fraud is found in the vote to make the outcome questionable. A rather unlikely outcome.
Assault on the family... @Georgie Porgie - My cousins were raised by two women and these two women are happier together than most of the heterosexual couples I have seen. So they aren't a real family by our definition? They are totally assaulting the family by being so happy together and by raising two happy, smart kids who are both heterosexual. Oh but they live in Portland, Oregon. My Bad.
ksl counting its chickens before they hatch http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
exit polls predict 52% against banning gay marriage.
and 48% in favor.
for ksl to make this prediction that california will ban it based on only 18% of precincts reporting and all from conservative areas should say something.
already since ksl posted it its gone down from 57% in favor of the ban to its now at 52%.
and the exit polls were 100% right on this issue in arizona right down to the percentage point with all votes counted. california will not ban gay marriage. the ban will fail. and according to exit polls the ban will fail with 52% against it and 48% in favor.
Typical @idkwhy - You are living in a delusional world. Your numbers are wrong. It's already lost. But hey keep dreaming maybe McCain still has a chance... No better, I think Romney still may pull this election out.
dude @idkwhy - Its not gonna fail. Check out San Fran county (gay capital of the world), where 98.4% of the precincts have reported. So your claim that only the conservatives have been reported is obviously quite opposite.
Idiot @idkwhy - You are - and have been from the begining - looking at the numbers wrong! It is 52% for banning gay marriage and 48% against! You are just demonstrating the typical inteligence level of those who support gay marriage.
Just another comment So much hate on this issue! I am for proposition 8, but I do not see it as a chance to attach homosexuals, nor take away their rights. It is all about protecting marriage.
I do not believe same-sex marriage has a purpose. I do know that marriage itself has a purpose, and that marriage between a man and a woman has a purpose. Hypothetically speaking, if same-sex marriage is adopted into our culture and over time people decided to pursue only same-sex marriage, versus traditional marriage, wouldn’t that create an extinction of the human race? I know that may be a far-fetched theory, but to me it points out the void in a same-sex marriage. Some may now say, “Marriage is not just about procreation, but it is about love and commitment”. True, but to that I ask, why would those wanting to enter into a same-sex marriage want to actively pursue a bond originated by God, who has clearly forbidden such relationships. Whether you believe in God or not, the only claimed historic source of marriage is from God. It’s like a Voodoo doctor petitioning for a PHD. It is simply contradicting.
I see this whole thing as those voting for proposition 8 are wanting to protect marriage, and those against wanting acceptance in society. There are too many other emotions and issues hidden in this topic.
Having said all this, I do want to say I recognize the hurt homosexuals may feel by loosing this proposition, and I hope they do not see it as an attack.
nice to see @SixShot - It was nice to see someone here acknowledge the hurt homosexuals may feel by losing the proposition - because that is real. Our discourse needs more of this.
The only quibble I have with the above, however, is with the part that you admit is a far fetched theory. (people deciding to pursue only same-sex marriage & extinction)
This all depends on where homosexuality comes from - i.e. can heterosexual people choose to change orientation? I certainly can't. And I've never met a gay person who said they chose it. If orientation isn't a choice, then your theory doesn't hold, because we wouldn't choose to practice same-sex marriage, i.e. stop having heterosexual relations.
RE: nice to see @how about - My sympathy is sincere and I am glad it was well received.
The theory is far fetched and its reality is not my concern. It was simply an example to illustrate that same-sex relations and marriage do not mix.
I am not going to tell you your feelings are wrong, but I also cannot say that it is not a choice. Regardless of which view is correct, I recognize that some may have a strong attraction to the same sex. For me, it is simply a matter of marriage having no part in a same-sex relationship.
It is a choice @how about - I actually have had both friends and family members who have been at various different times in their lives gay and/or straight--multiple people (unrelated to each other, mind you) who have changed their orientation once or even twice. That tells me a few things: 1. You can choose. 2. Even if a person thinks they are naturally gay, that doesn't mean that they have to act upon the urges or that they can't change or overcome it. 3. IF there is anything genetic about being gay, it is still possible to do the RIGHT thing and be straight.
One friend I had experimented with homosexuality as a teenager and got hooked on it; he realized it was not what he should be doing, and with a lot of prayer and help from God and church leaders, he was able to gradually overcome it. A relative of mine was married and years after a very messy divorce was practicing a homosexual lifestyle and still is. Another relative of mine was married, left spouse and children for a same-sex relationship, and years later repented and is now straight and MUCH HAPPIER!!! This person would love to marry again if he/she ever finds the right person... of the opposite sex. I have also known other gays.
My personal feeling is (emphasis on personal feeling; I'm not claiming this to be a scientifically proven fact) that homosexuality may be likened unto alcoholism for some people. A person may be genetically disposed toward alcoholism, but if that person never tastes alcohol, he/she will never become an alcoholic. Similarly, I believe it is possible that in some cases (not all, because I do believe some people choose it without any biological connection) a person may have homosexual tendencies, but if that person never experiments with homosexuality they will never be a homosexual. And even if they do try it, just as an alcoholic can overcome their problem, a homosexual can also overcome it and become straight. Just because an alcoholic may have been born with it, doesn't mean it's okay for them to be an alcoholic; it's still not right. Whether homosexuality is something a person is born with or not does not justify a person acting upon it.
I do not have to condone a person's actions in order to still love them as a person.
What's to get? It's amazing how some of you are so blinded by your ideology. Prop 8 does not disqualify gays from getting married. The person, however, has to be of the opposite sex to qualify. If it was truly discrimination, the law would have to ban them from marrying altogether. Please, please, please, take a class on reasoning and logic!
Marriage is (or maybe was) a protected class reserved for a man and a woman. Why would a government have an interest in such an arrangement? Because it allows society to prophagate itsself; ensuring long-term stability for the country, society, government, etc.
Now, take gay marriage to it's logical conclusion: society fails to exist in one generation under this arrangement. Gays, in a monogamous relationship, can't reproduce and hence, don't qualify for classification as 'married'.
Recognize this for what it really is - an attempt to destroy America from within. And given enough time, it will work. Ever heard of Rome?
For sure, dude. @Ben lurkin - I'm all for those repressed homos out there spreading their tendencies into the population by marrying your daughters and granddaughters and creating lots of children they'll later abandon.
your reasoning and logic is flawed @Ben lurkin - Since when is a marriage necessary for the human species to propagate itself? We just need heterosexual sex for that. Nothing to do with a "protected class" or whatever...
If the government was truly interested in keeping traditional families in tact, adultery would be illegal and enforced by some punishment, and divorce would be outlawed.
"Society fails to exist in one generation" is the conclusion of all people ceasing to have heterosexual relations for one generation or more.
Is all people ceasing to have heterosexual relations the logical conclusion of gay marriage? Only if gay marriage causes heterosexuals to stop having sex. Do you think heterosexuals can be convinced of this? I can't be convinced of this. Can you?
how about - Marriage Is One Thing That Separates Humans ...... @how about - ..... from the animal kingdom. There is much much more to families that simple propagraton. Some parents actually thing they have a responsiblity to train and educate the children they bring into this world. Looks like you were on the losing side of this issue.
seperate from animals @Rifleman - If you had said the knowledge of death separates humans from the animal kingdom, you would have been right.
Animals actually do train and educate their children. You don't even need to study it in school to know this... you can watch the nature channel. Momma bear teaches baby bear how to fish, etc.
Oh, and if you had said that the creation of art separates humans from animals, you would have been right. Animals don't create art in the sense that humans do.
I agree that there is much more to families than simple propagation. My question for you: Is a marriage necessary for a family?
Thanks for playing - try again. @how about - I'm probably wasting my time, but here goes:
Marriage is a protected class because it encourages the raising of children. Homosexuality, by its own definition, cannot. Come on, this is Biology 101 stuff here.
Adultry was indeed illegal until recently. Thanks for making my point.
Your last paragraph is a poor attempt at a straw man agrument (and a good example of poor grammar). Look it up.
since you asked... @Ben lurkin - I agree that homosexual acts cannot produce children. And don't worry, I understand the biology of the birds and the bees.
What I don't understand is how marriage is necessary to raise children. Is this what you're saying? Can children not be raised by a mother and a father who are not married, but cohabitate? Or who are divorced? Or widows or widowers?
I get it that it is a protected institution for this reason. I just wasn't clear on your use of the word "class." Gotcha. The married class.
What I really don't understand, is how you reach the "logical conclusion" of gay marriage (extinction). Does gay marriage cause heterosexuals to stop having sex and producing children? It seems that this would be required - again, to your Biology 101.
Really - How does gay marriage cause extinction? Does homosexuality spread like some disease to all heterosexuals, and cause them to stop procreating?
It is simply this @how about - The difference between gay couples and married heterosexual couples is the latter can produce offspring. In other words, the continuation of the human race is worthy of special special status among those willing to do so.
IFF all the human race were gay, we would become extinct because there would be no children from such relationships. I can't be any clearer than that.
For these reasons, marriage is generally afforded a special 'protected' status in societies.
Opposition You know, we're never going to reach an agreement. No matter what there are always going to be people who are unhappy or angry with the way things go. It's ridiculous to sit and argue about it. There will always be an opposition and we just have to make sure we are doing what we feel is right and hope that God takes care of the rest...
It just goes to show that the majority of the public do not approve of your sick perverse lifestyle You can go back in the closet. Infact, I wished you would go back into the closet and stay there. Stop pushing it into our faces. The people have spoken.
Since Gays cannot produce offspring... Then they have WAY to much free time to stir-up all this kind of Ka-rap! If they would just do it the RIGHT WAY, and then have a real family, with children, and grandchildren, they would not have time to be messing with such non-sense.
I am afraid this NOT going to just go away, like so many have expressed. I think it just going to continue to get worse. In fact, I am quite positive many things are going to get worse... before they get better. But that is a prophecy for another day.
Just me... @Zwise Cracker - But I would much rather let a homosexual man marry another homosexual man than have one marry my daughter and pretend to be straight.
Yes, how about, Some People Do Choose Their Sexual Preference ....... @how about - ..... while others just arn't particular at all. Heck sakes, one man was recently arrested over his intimate relationship with a picnic table in a park.
Call if discrimination if you like but I appose marriage between a mother and son, father and daughter, and man with man.
Let me be more clear @Rifleman - Let my question be more clear:
Do you think all gay people choose to be gay?
I agree that there is a schmorgasboard of sexual perversion out there, including people attracted to animals, relatives, and picnic tables.
Do you consider all homosexuals to be in this category. Born with normal heterosexual feelings (or brain wiring), but for some reason have chosen the perversion of homosexuality?
I was just chiding Zwise Cracker about all the gloom and doom. If we really are God's blessed, do we have to be this afraid?
how about - Various Studies Indicate That As Many As 10% Of Males ...... @how about - ....... are homosexual. I have no idea what percentage of the population chose that life style. I suspect that there are studies on that subject. The fact of the matter is that a percentage of homosexuals have indeed chosen that life style for any one of a number of reasons.
God wants us to be happy Some comments have said they just want their kids to be happy in what they do... well so does God. He knows there is only one way for us to be happy and that's by us doing things His way and making babies... Since when is it right for us to decide what's right and wrong? That's why I'm so glad we have a living prophet!
Right and Wrong? @skippertje - I'm glad I have my morals from my religion as well, but what about those who don't share my view? What about those who don't believe in the same God as me, or in any God at all? What about those without a living prophet? Is it our job to make sure they do or don't do as we do?
Morality is relative. What is right or wrong for me, may not be right or wrong for another. I don't support the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't believe I have to right to prevent others from living it.
BB452 - Morality Is Not Relative @BB452 - That is why we have laws against marriage between mother and son or father and daughter. Call me old fashioned if you want but I agree with those laws.
And you know God's will because @skippertje - So we are only happy if we make babies? pardon me but that is not my definition of living a fulfilled life. And it is up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong in my religion we call it "God's gift of Free Will." I know it's a really complicated concept for someone who believes that a living prophet should tell you how to live your life but the truth is, only you can decide how to live it.
LOL I think idkwhy left. I think he FINALLY realized he lost. And that just cuz CNN predicted the opposite result based on EXIT POLLS doesn't mean its gonna happen. Now he can go tell his husband (soon to be boyfriend again) the news.
LDSpencer - idkwhy Is Confused @LDSpencer - At some point I assume that he will figure it out. Gosh, I hope he doesn't live in California and has discovered that he actually voted FOR Prop 8!!
Marriage was once called Holy Matrimony Marriage was intended to keep a man and a woman faithful to each other and to help prevent extra marital affairs and children from adultery. It was to prevent adultery according to Gods description not man's. Marriage was once the moral and up right thing to do before God and Man for the greater good of society and not to merely to celebrate a social status or show that you have love.
Today it has lost its original meaning; somehow it has come to mean that a gay marriage by law must be recognized and celebrates by others who disagree with living that life style. Why must a law be created that puts its a stamp of approval on something others have disagreed with. Rejected using it in their own life style and has been deemed sacred for 6,000 years?
Why have we lost its original meaning so much that we are confused? Heterosexuals have used marriage for thousands of years and now a few wishes redefine it, not as what God wants, but as they want the law to do for them only, and force other men to accept. To change the very reason God put man and woman and together is a perversion of the law.
It shouldn’t be changed for fad or fancy. It should be used with the intent of what it was originally meant for. To glorify God and prevent adultery.
Holly matrimomy my ...s @Ambiguous brother - People in this contry were just from one big orgy to another.just look tv shows we replace the bradys for desperate housewife "IS THAT FAITHFULL" is that AMERICA NEW MORAL STANDARDS, honestly i dont see a moral diference about what and straigh couple does insted a gay one, actualy the gay cuoples are more faithfull than staighs one, that wihtout take in consideration "straigt couples that wan to keep the virginity (physicaly but not mentally)until marry and mean while do all the MOST HORRIBLES ACT THE HUMANITY COULD IMAGINE IN THIS WORDl, that without all child that are killed every day just because people do not are prepare to be a father, STOP talking other and do your own home work.
Hollywood is not an example @MisterT - If anything, Hollywood needs a morality makeover. That is why I refuse to watch network TV or most new movies anymore. Almost 90% garbage. Very sad time because back in the 1960's and 1970's, TV was for the most part good clean entertainment. Now it is just mind pollution.
E.J. @E.J. - First of all, read what you write before you paste it because your paragraph makes no sense....And please, we are in the United States of America...We speak ENGLISH not spanish. . . . . .
BUT from what i got out of it you seem to think that morals don't exist anymore. Wake up! There are many married couples that stay together and are faithful to eachother...it's something called LOVE...You are just compairing with the world of hollywood fantasy and for some reason every show has to have crude humor, sex, or adultery to be good?? That is not how it always is. There are still good people in this world.
E.J. - Just A Little Constructive Criticism @E.J. - Based on your spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and phrasing it would appear that you had the misfortune of missing school the day they taught English. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate your comment but it does tend to make people wonder about your level of education.
Now if you are a recent immigrant from another country and English is your second language please forgive my critique. If, however, you were born in the USA there is absolutely no zero excuse for your illiteracy.
E.J. - No Call For Hateful Comments Here @E.J. - There is no reason to respond with hate when LDSpenser offers an opinion. Your side of the issue was defeated. Take your loss like a man.
how about making... How about making marriage a purely religious institution?
Any 2 people can get a civil union, and any 2 people can be married by their church (according to their church rules). So, our church obviously won't have any gay marriages in it, and we won't recognize them. And neither will the State (government). But our marriages will be recognized by what is most important: our faith and our Heavenly Father.
If gay people find a church who will marry them, then fine. But most won't, and most gay people don't want to have much to do with churches anyway.
Not a bad idea @how about - But that's very close minded of you to say that most gay people don't want to have much to do with churches anyway. That's a pretty strong statement which I hope you can back up with facts other than "the Heavenly Father told me it was so."
good point I didn't back that up with facts @milla13 - That was purely conjecture based only on the handful of gay friends I have. I should have said that I believe it is unlikely that homosexuals would be beating down the door of churches that condemn homosexual acts as a sin. And I believe it is more likely that gay people would be attracted to churches that are more open to their lifestyles.
Of course, I admit there are gay LDS people who believe in the LDS faith and wish the Churches stance on homosexuality would soften.
I can say, at least, that I have NEVER tried to back up any thing I have said with "Heavenly Father told me it was so."
Ray's Daddy - Sounds Like A Red Herring Comment @Ray's Daddy - Your sarcastic comment is designed to stir up controversy and hate. I take it that you were on the losing side of Prop 8.
what's so "sacred" about marriage two people meet, have sex and decide to get married, then someone rattles some babble about nothing, they sign papers and call it legal, I guess that means they have the right to live with each other, as iff they didn't or couldn't before, in other words it's all pure nonsense.
Thankfully @gardenofwrath - that's not my situation.
In my case, it means something. Actually, it means everything - my whole life. I'm 100% committed to making my family as successful as it can be.
So far, so good. We're not perfect people, but the marriage is the foundation of everything I've got going for me.
It sounds like your life experience has not met with the same expectations. I'm so sorry for you. Perhaps it will mean something to you one day. I'm not sure a common law marriage can ever really mean as much. Maybe, but maybe not.
To all you homosexual activists. The people have voted on this issue. You are sexual predators and should be treated as such. Homosexuality is just plain sick and wrong!!!! Do not ask us to accept your sinful perverse lifestyle. The people have spoken on this issue. Now PLEASE go back into your closets and leave the rest of us alone and stay out of our faces. Thank you.
?? @Sambecks C. - While I am pleased the proposition to ban same sex marriage passed, I think going as far as to say the are "sexual predators" is unacceptable. As "sinful" of a lifestyle as homosexuality may be, to classify all who fit into this category as you have is not a very Christlike thing to do...
Sam @Sambecks C. - Why are you still so hateful, you got what you wanted (on Prop 8), that doesn’t mean the Gays instantly disappear or become religious Freaks like yourself. The World is diverse.
well at least something good came from these elections.
Im not sorry about it either.
California is pretty much liberal, and an anything goes state and they still voted for one man and one woman! Glad to see it happen.
That is such good news....... Thank you to all out there in Cal who voted for the ban on gay marriage .... At least something good has come out of yesterday
Wait a few years... There is an interesting age related trend in the exit polls. 63% of the 18 to 29 age group voted against it, while 59% of the over 65 group voted for it. In the 30 to 64 group, it was 53% for and 47% against. (The gender based vote was nearly split 50/50.)
There are about 36.5 million people in California. 17.3 million were registered to vote. The votes of 9.6 million had been counted as of 7AM Wednesday. With 92% of the vote in, the difference was only about 364,000. As of 2000, there were about 500,000 Latter-Day Saints in California. Whether or not you think California's definition of marriage should have been changed, the votes of the Latter-Day Saints in California could have swung the outcome of this.
In a democracy, your vote, and the votes of your friends, make a difference.
This issue really isn't about marriage. It's about whether or not a small percent of the population can get the same legal and financial protections as the rest of the population, primarily regarding taxes and insurance. That's where the "equal protection" clause applies. "Marriage" already has a meaning and from the looks of it, will continue to do so, at least until the next generation takes the reigns of power.
Those figures are true... @dwmfrancis - If marriage is already defined as pertaining between a man and a woman, rather than try to have it redefined and cause this type of an issue, why not seek for a change in the taxation laws and insurance laws that would permit domestic partners the opportunity to have protection based on their relationship status? Why seek to have the definition of marriage changed? Why not fight to have a new category in those areas be created so that equal protection can be achieved? Given that it is not a traditional marriage, it should carry a unique title. No less important, or significant in terms of dedication or commitment, but parallel to that of a traditional marriage.
Kinda like @anothercomment - A white water fountain and a colored water fountain... Right next to each other. "Seperate but equal". Great idea I love it.
I like how someone disagreed with you @dwmfrancis - What was the verdict last time??? 56 - 44??? Now it's less than 2% and creeping closer with every passing minute. I will bet there is a re-count.
None the less... The majority rules.
How long is it before an amendment can be made to the constitution? I would be willing to bet A gay marriage bill would pass in the (Near) Future.
Do the Math @littleloomy - Yes, smaller margin, but with a 4% to 5% margin. Go ahead and keep fighting, and so will we. It is not about winning or losing. We did what we did because it is right and we needed to set an example for our children.And many not of the LDS faith agreed.
littleloomy - Sorry To Burst Your Bubble ..... @littleloomy - ..... but at 9:00 am EST it was 52 - 48 (403572 votes) and the gap is expanding. It would appear that folks in favor of same sex marriage ..... lost.
dwmfrancis - You Are Wrong About The Issue Behind Prop 8 @dwmfrancis - This issue was was about the santity of marriage, and the moral majority won. Hopefully there is hope that the future generation will follow in the footsteps of their parents.
Do some research! @dwmfrancis - There was absolutely NO guarantee that gay couples would be able to file taxes jointly! In fact, at a Santa Monica polling place yesterday a few gay couples were lamenting that fact to my friend who was there voting. Yes, they were voting against the prop, but they were actually frustrated with the fact that it would not offer them any type of financial benefits. The change in the wording of the constitution would allow for homosexual unions to be considered marriage while preventing discrimination through educational indoctrination.
Not surprising Californians voted on this once before with the same result, but the courts claimed that the people didn't know what they were voting on. I read about 50 pages of that ruling and it was clear that the judges involved were grasping at straws to overturn that vote. It may still be unclear to the judges what the people really want, and they will perform their legal voodoo, and overturn this vote as well. If that is the case I would kindly suggest to the good people of California that those judges should not be retained.
Done Deal Thanks to the African American Born Again Christians that came out in overwhelming numbers to sweep Obama into office. Mixed blessing, but I'll take it!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Take that gays, looks like your lifestyle is NASTY and gross and makes your family look like fools for trying to support the ban.
Homosexuality is just plain sick and wrong. To those of you struggling with it and trying to over come it, you have my support as long as you are trying to repent. To those of you who are organizing "gay pride" and other related events. You are societal sexual predators and should be treated as such. I do not hate homosexuals, only the homosexual agenda and it's pollution to society. The people have spoken. Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Why not pass another type of union for gays? I appreciate Anothercomment's comment a few posts above. I think it's sad that gays can't have some sort of legal union, but I understand the issues at stake by calling it "marriage". If our government has a specific purpose in giving tax benefits to gay people, then they should do it, just like they have for one man and one woman getting married. Likewise, if insurance companies see a profit in insuring gay couples, and understand that is what they are doing, then they should do it. After all, isn't a gay monogamus couple safer and less inclined to disease and serious illness just like heterosexual couples?
I think the problem with allowing gays into the the current system of marriage is because the current system of marriage was not created or designed for gay people to be in it. It is an additional drain on an already compromised and depleated system. Why can't we as a nation redefine a definition of union that is designed for gay people?
They have civil unions already @Teresa B. - In California. This was just redefining the definition of marriage in the California constitution. From what I have heard from my associates living in CA, there were a number of voters upset with two things - 1) the CA court overturning the last vote & 2) the number of ads bashing the Mormons. The ad that came out yesterday was really what pushed some voters out of the undecided camp and into the Yes for Prop 8 camp.
From what I heard @Anyhoo - That commercial actually swayed voters the other direction. My father is very conservative... although not religious. I sent it to him. He voted against.
And if I followed the polls correctly it was up 56% for prop 8 before the commercial came out.
Lucky for proponents that commercial didn't come out sooner.
littleloomy - Prop 8 Was Down 17 Points ....... @littleloomy - ...... earlier this year befor the Mayor of San Franciso said same sex marriage was here to stay "whether you like it or not". That was the wake up call for those who support the santity of marriage.
why is it that if anyone post's their opinion against gay marriages, that they are considered wrong for having that opinion? Those that are in favor, that is your opinion, and those against it have their opinion as well. However, I DO believe that it is wrong and I am tired of the squeeky wheel of gay rights always getting the grease. I am so glad that the squeeky wheel that is against gay marriage was heard this time. I always ask my children when they are trying to convince me that something is right when they know it is wrong, just who are you trying to convince? Me or you? You can try all you want to try and convince me that it is right, but it is NOT. Things are either black or white, right or wrong. This world and many of you on this message board live in shades of grey. It is time that those of us who know what is right stand up for it regardless of what others think. To many times we do not want to make waves with others, but gay marriages are not right and I personally will NEVER support it. Regardless of my religion. As pointed out in several other posts, it wasn't just the LDS church that opposes gay marriage.
homosexuality is a choice There isn't much point in quoting biblical scripture to the gay community. They already know what they have chosen is wrong, and they could really give a "blank". If gay marriage is allowed, and they "say" that it is their right, then the "gloves" will come off all across the country. To uphold peoples rights, people will say that 1 man should be able to have 20 wives, and one woman should be able to have 20 husbands. "It's their right" -they will say. Today, many people in this country abuse the term "it's my right". They use it to justify perversion and to make themselves feel as if they are fine in commiting acts that have caused our creator to destroy entire civilizations. But, they dont care. Homosexuality is wrong, but they dont seem to care about right and wrong. To bad.
@littleloomy - I'm still stuck on the part where people can take a book so literally that says that one man actually rounded up every species 2 at at time and got them all on one boat with relatively no problems.
Decency and Respect for all sides of the issue Regardless of which side of issue of gay marriage that you are on everyone who is name-calling should remember what would Christ have done.
Is this how he would have treated people with name-calling? He would love the sinner and condemn the sin.
There does need to be some civility and respect for everyone involved. Everyone please be decent to each other as we are all citizens of a community.
This is why I am opposed to gay marriage. It troubles me that there is homosexuality in the world, but it has been going on for years and I have accepted the fact that it happens. I do not want to force my moral beliefs on others. I simply do not want it to affect me or my family. This video shows my thoughts behind the ban on gay marriage. It is not simply because I wish to keep same-sex couples apart. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319
That video @skier354 - Is such propaganda. It is absolutely NOT TRUE!!!
Please... Give me cold hard evidence of grade schoolers learning about homosexuality in school. Not from some propaganda video. But actual proof. Also, Please show me where there were plans to teach it. It doesn't exist!
That video of the students at the gay wedding... Yeah it was true. Guess what. All the parents of the students in the video were trying to sue the proponents of prop 8 because they were the ones that sent their children to the wedding. The Parents were very much against prop 8.
Do a little research on your own... not just what the Bishop gives you.
I am simply stating my opinion on why I do not want gay marriage legalized. I do not care what people do on their own behind closed doors. I just don't want it taught as normal to my children. I have several gay friends and I have nothing against them. They choose to live their life the way they want. What I don't want is someone making homosexuality a morally equal alternative, which is they way it would be presented in schools.
As a matter of fact, IT IS TRUE!!! @littleloomy - It really wouldn't matter what kind of "proof" anyone gave you, you would still argue the point. You've given us no proof or "cold hard evidence" either as to your explanation of the kids at the wedding. Regardless of what you may choose to believe, the story in the video is true. I remember hearing about it back when it originally happened, and I have seen them on multiple things since. Believe it or not, these things truly are happening, and from what I understand they are beginning to do the same kinds of things in CA since those judges chose to go against the vote of the people. It is wrong, and it is scary that a parent's rights are overruled by a minority's agenda being pushed. I hope that now that Prop 8 has passed that such things will stop in CA schools.
Frankly, whether gay "marriage" is legal in a state or not, it absolutely should NOT be taught in the schools, especially in Kindergarten, and ESPECIALLY without parental consent; school is not the proper place to teach such things, even if a parent believed homosexuality was okay. As a child, I remember having to have parental consent to even be a part of the "talk" about boy's/girl's bodies and what to expect as we got older and whatnot, and that wasn't until around 4th or 5th grade. Why they now think it's okay to teach a younger child about other alternative lifestyles makes no sense to me whatsoever.
And why it is that people keep trying to "blame" the LDS church for Prop 8 passing, I really can't understand. There were many, many churches and people ALL OVER the country who were fighting for Prop 8, not just the LDS church. Similarly, those against Prop 8 received funds from all over as well, so I don't see any reason why members of the LDS church shouldn't be able to fight for it if they believe strongly in it, as so many do. Those of us for marriage being only between a man and a woman have just as much right to fight for our cause as those of you against it do. Stop trying to "blame" anyone for your loss; just accept it graciously and carry on in life. There are much better causes to be fighting for than to spend your time dwelling on your loss and arguing about why the majority of voters said yes on Prop 8.
Utah is a geat state. Its too bad its people are so bigoted. I get sad every time I see how hard the religious right of Utah feels like they need to force their pious holier than than thou agenda on everyone else. This would be one of the greatest places to live in the country if not for the unhappy bigots who's opinions and agendas we have to constantly try and overcome. Coming form a place of such persecution for their flexible interpretations on marriage you would think there would be more tolerance for a piece of paper. Thats all it is. A piece of paper. Or are you people really dense enough to believe that if you ban them from getting married people will stop being gay?
Patrick C - You Tend To Repeat Yourself @Patrick C. - I believe you made the identical comment above. I get the impression you did not agree with the outcome of Prop 8.
EVERYTHING IS NOT OK! BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!! Everything is not o.k. Gay marriage is not, higher taxes aren't, and not respecting what the founding father's of this country based everything on.... God and country!!! So I'm actually happy that the dems got what they wanted, President Obama and a democratic House and Senate. Good Luck!!! You thought Pres. Bush messed things up for the Republicans for the next 10 years, I think it will take 2 and we will have forgotten about Bush and realized what a huge mistake we made in Pres. Obama!! ( Let's all pray that's not the case )
Is that you G.W? @Esther R. - Yeah and the The Patriot act is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind...? I love the Rush Limbaugh "Founding Fathers" argument. No One has more blindly ignored the constitution or our founding fathers than G.W Bush. But keep your head in the sand... In 4 more years you will be able to dust it off and try again.
Believe it or not, marriage has ALWAYS been a religious activity, bond, union or whatever you'd like to call it.
If you go way back in time, you'd find that marriages were held in, at or around religious grounds. They were married by priests' or bishops. It was a bond between them and God. No ONE signed marriage certificates, or as I call them "contracts".
If we really go back to the "traditional" marriage, and NOT this crap that claims "traditional" as between a man and woman, but to the actual tradition, I think most everyone would get past the discrimination.
Face it - you ARE discriminating if you're not allowing a man/man or woman/woman share the same rights as would a man/woman marriage have.
Where is the Love? Being from Utah its really sad to see the hatred and misunderstanding that the LDS church has towards gay people. Gay people only want equal rights; not special rights. Its not like we want 27 husbands or wives like thats "normal". The fact that the church spends its money to fight for discrimination is very disappointing. And makes me embarassed to ever say I was a Mormon. Makes me very happy to be living in a blue state, and makes me never want to live in Utah again!
Wagner P - Hate And Misunderstanding Appears to be Coming ...... @Wagner P. - ...... from those who have been pushing their same sex marriage agenda. There is nothing hateful about having an opinion and expressing that opinion at the ballot box. The people in California who respect the santity of marriage prevailed. Your attempt to confuse this issue by bringing up the bogus charge of hatred just isn't going to fly.
I rather suspect, Wagner P, that you are not quite as happy as you profess to be.
Notice how sanctity and sanctimonius have the same root? @Rifleman - Every time I hear the term "Protect the Sanctity of Marriage".. It makes me laugh... Because all you really are doing is being sanctimonious... The sanctimonious like to project that their way is the only way... The ridiculous thing is who is "Protecting the Sanctity" of poor heterosexual marriages? 50% end in divorce and something like 60% cheat... How does that equal monogamy in any way? Some of you "Sanctimonious Bigots should look inside heterosexual marriages which make up the vast majority before you turn to the gays. For the record... I am not.
Wagner P @Wagner P. - Please keep it to yourself that you were a Mormon. We really don't need to have people like you in the church. I am also very happy that you have moved from Utah...we are better off without you! The Church is spending money on morality and truth. The fact that people are accepting of sin and error does not make them correct. Morality needs no excuses!
Anthony, your comments are crass and rude. @Anthony B. - You have become exactly like the hysterical drag queens from "Act UP" whose shrill cries of
injustice and bigotry ring hollow.
The truth never needs defense, while I disagree with Wagner's comments, and his/her stand, I find your comments to be as shrill as those of the hysterical thugs on the other side of this issue.
Yes, Anthony, you are indeed as shrill and inconsequential as those you seem to be so afraid of.
Personally, I support marraige as being defined as being ONLY between a man and a (one) woman.
However, I take great offense at your own sanctimonious out burst of mediocrity and disingenious comments. You sir are not repsentative of anything other than a typical "Utah Mormon". Something the rest of(us) the LDS worldwide eschew and revile.
If you are against gay marriage, Don't have one. Easy as pie, to each his own. There are bigger fish to fry in the world of politics. How about health care and education? If Bob and Ted want to live happily ever after, good for them, It is none of my business.
No, mamacitarica, It Is Not Each To Their Own @mamacitarica - Those who want to protect the santity of marriage won. You could also make the same faulty argument allowing marriage between mother and son.
Score one for the condescending religious right @Rifleman - Thats what we are talking about right? You believe your religious beliefs and your interpretation of a 2000 year old book are right so it is your duty to try and force that opinion on others? Wow.. how do you fit any food in there when you are s full of yourself... The funny thing is how these tables get turned when someone brings up something like say... The Joseph Smith Papyri... Yeah now exact interpretation of the facts becomes very sketchy... Push your agenda all you want. It doesn't make you right and someone else wrong.. It just makes you full of yourself.
Patrick C - You Are Calling Those Who Voted For Prop 8 ......... @Patrick C. - ...... condescending? Why is it that the hateful and bigoted responses are coming from those who lost the debate?
I once worked with a fellow named Patrick who lived the alternative lifestyle. His companion had some severe health problems associated with that lifesyte. His nickname was "patty cake".
Ignorance abounds... @Rifleman - Nice one rifleman, but just because you make it up, it does not mean its true... Apparently you have trouble retaining what you read... This board is full of hateful bigotry including your last comment... Very little comes from the people for gay marriage. Sorry to disappoint you. I m not gay. And there is no way someone of your colossal ignorance ever worked for me.
yeah but I didn't. @Rifleman - I said it's none of my business. How does it directly affect you? Besides on a moral level? Who's job is it to decide if gay marriage is right or wrong?
Men and women shun the "sanctity of marriage" every day, why is it such a big deal if two dudes want to live together, and reap the benefits of a marriage? What is the big deal?
nice try, homo go cry yourself a river that your 'alternative' lifestyle is NOT socially acceptable, though you like to try and convince yourself it is.
Reasoning Among those that oppose gay marriage, I have yet to hear an argument that doesn't boil down to:
1. The Bible says so
2. It's icky
As a firm believer in the separation of church and state (which, admittedly, is a foreign concept to many people in Utah), I can't see how either of these reasons is enough to warrant writing discrimination into law. If you have a problem with preserving the "sanctity of marriage", then do something about the 50% divorce rate in this country. If the fact that two guys can get married threatens your marriage that much, then you've got much bigger issues to begin with.
That fact that the government is mandating that two consenting adults who are in love and committed to each other can't get married boggles my mind. I assume you are all Republican, right? Isn't that the party of "get big government out of my personal life"? Or is that only when it conveniently fits your narrow and bigoted viewpoint? I can only hope I will see this sort of intolerance and ignorance disappear in my lifetime, and we can get to a point where we recognize ALL people - black, white, gay, straight, purple, blue, whatever - as equals. Last night was a great first step in that direction.
skinypupy - Apparently 52% Of The Citizens In California ....... @skinypupy - ...... do not share your views on the subject of traditional marriage. The losing side on Prop 8 can thank San Franciso Mayor Gavin Newsom for your loss. Prop 8 was down 17 points earlier this year before he said same sex marriage was here whether you "like it or not". Apparently the good folks in California didn't like have homosexual marriage rammed down their throats.
Marriage is one of the building blocks of decent society and when you destroy the santity of marriage it weakens that society. Children who grow up without a moral compass are deprived of the relationship that can only come from having a mother and father.
Looks like your side of the issue lost. I can't say that I'm sorry.
Notice how sanctity and sanctimonius have the same root? @Rifleman - Every time I hear the term "Protect the Sanctity of Marriage".. It makes me laugh... Because all you really are doing is being sanctimonious... The sanctimonious like to project that their way is the only way... The ridiculous thing is who is "Protecting the Sanctity" of poor heterosexual marriages? 50% end in divorce and something like 60% cheat... How does that equal monogamy in any way? Some of you "Sanctimonious Bigots should look inside heterosexual marriages which make up the vast majority before you turn to the gays. For the record... I am not.
Not sure @Rifleman - Suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "moral compass" bit, as I personally think that's painting with WAY too broad of a brush. There are just as many stable, loving, committed gay couples who would provide just as good of a social environment for a child as any heterosexual couple could. Your argument also seems to discount single parent homes as somehow being vastly inferior, which I would certainly take issue with.
While I'm saddened that Prop 8 will lose, I'm encouraged by the narrow margin. It'll happen eventually, and will be a major step forward in striving for equality in this country.
Thank You @skinypupy - I have felt the same thing. The Bible tells us so or it's icky. I have not heard one logical argument against gay marriage. And your right, it does boil down to the fact that we are all people and we all have a right to marry whoever we want.
Yes @the1chad - I don't believe in your Bible, which is absolutely within my rights as a citizen. In fact, it's one of the founding principles of this nation (freedom to worship - or not worship - as I wish). For obvious reasons, I don't want the governmental decisions of this country to be based solely around that book.
skinypupy @skinypupy - It's not that it threatens any ones marriage it's the plain and simple fact that it's so wrong in so many ways. Marriage is for a man and a woman that have fallen in love with one another and for procreation. How can a man and a man or a woman and woman do that? They can't. I don't care if you're gay brah just keep it in the closet... Oh and by the way it's kind of impossible to keep total seperation of church and state seeing that our country was founded on religion... Hence all of the currency saying "in god we trust" right on it.
Just because @DIESEL488 - Our nation was founded on religion does not mean we cannot separate church and state. Skinypupy is right, Utahns don't know how to separate church and state. I guarantee over half of the state voted the way they did solely because their religion told them to. Many are perfectly content not looking beyond their bubble.
Just so I'm clear @DIESEL488 - Your argument is that we should ban gay marriage because they can't procreate. Then I assume you're fully in favor of banning infertile heterosexual couples from marrying as well?
Oh, and it's OK if you're a bigot brah, which apparently you don't need to keep in the closet.
Skinypupy @skinypupy - No you ar tard. My sister and her husband had to go to a fertility clinic so she could get pregnant with their child... Can homos do that? Nope sorry so why should they have the same rights?
Can't have babies @DIESEL488 - What about me DIESEL? I can't have children with my husband - ever - period - end of report .. I'm physically unable to do so - by your reckoning I should not have been able to marry him because we can't procreate.
This isn't about 'procreation' this is about what you, and others, believe is morally wrong. This is based on antiquated ideas of morality based on religious ideals that should never have crept into a country that believes in the separation of church and state.
I realize that you might get angry at this, and it's not my intent. I also realize that any amount of calm reasoning won't work when people are up in arms over what they believe is morally right and are up in arms over it. I only ask that you stop and really think about your reasoning - because if you saying it's because they can't procreate then you ARE against all of us who are heterosexual and also can not procreate - you are telling ME that I should not be allowed to marry my husband because we can not create a child together. Instead, you should take a stand and say that it's because you think that it's 'icky' or 'gross' for a man to be with another man. Because your argument just don't work unless it encompass all people who can not procreate.
If you're going to believe in something .. then please stand up for it .. don't try to sugar coat it with reasons that simply won't fly.
prude2beMe @proud2beME - The reason you can't procreate is because of a medical disorder i would assume... The reason why homos can't procreate is because they don't have the proper plumbing which makes it wrong it produces diseases like aids but i guess you think everyone should be equal on this aspect of human life... just like syphollis and sheep. You are way off the mark by thinking i'm talking about people like yourself who can't have children because of a physical malfuncton. My sisters kid cost her and her husband $20,000 just for the fertility treatment. Look what i'm saying is that i am sorry for you and your husband that can't be easy to deal with. But you both have the basic proper components to procreate where homos don't. Have you ever tried to connect the two male ends of a hose? Or put to hot dogs laying side by side on a bun? it just don't worh
It's a homosexuals dream.
so arizona said no to banning gay marriage in 2006 only to say yes in 2008 and perhaps say no again in 2010? lol
The vote was weather or not to change the language in the state constitution, defining marriage.
check your facts!
Like I said. Sad.
And how bigoted for YOU to think that the "religious right of Utah" would think that if gay marriage is banned that it will stop them from being gay! YOU sir, are sad! I don't care if they are gay. Give them civil unions, fine, but NOT marriage! Sorry, too sacred.
If Mormons, and others, didn't like gays having the right to marry in California, why didn't the Mormons, and others, MOVE?
Because, 0u812, they instead chose to alter their Constitution/enact laws/change the status quo/eliminate rights to better suit the desires of the majority.....it happens all the time, and it's even happened right here in Utah.
Mormons won't always be the majority here.
The structure of the family is setup and enforced in our genetic makeup. Little Johnny needs a mother AND a father to become a complete human male. Little Sara needs a mother AND a father. They DO NOT need the confusion.
Furthermore, from an anthropological standpoint, religious lore and tradition is deeply embedded in our society and will never be rooted out. This lore and tradition consists of certain ideas about the makeup of a traditional family... including the mythological-religious feelings that people have about moving to a Sodom and Gomorrah existence, in which the next WELL DOCUMENTED STEP is that civilization falls, the people are all enslaved, and God punishes society as a whole. History and stories such as these, rooted into our cultural fabric, protect society, protect children, and can't be argued away.
Gay and Lesbians will NEVER understand the anthropology.
Hey, I have an idea!! Why don't you get married, have some kids, sign up for a few anthropology classes, and chill?
Gay people WILL NOT stop being gay.
Religious people WILL NOT stop thinking that gay's are perverse.
both genders
every color
every race
every age
every orentation
AND EVERY RELIGION.
Last I checked, the Constitution allowed churches to worship free from government interference. Churches are fighting for their beliefs, but they are also fighting for their constitutional rights. If churches lose their tax-exempt status for not permitting homosexuality, or gays are allowed to sue churches for not being allowed to marry in a particular church or temple, that constitutional protection is violated. You can't really demand that the "unhappy bigots" keep their "opinions and agendas" out of politics, and then turn around and demand that the government dictate what practices a church may or may not adhere to. You can't demand that churches accommodate you while arguing that the public sphere should not acommodate religion.
Do homosexuals really want to belong to the LDS church? Is that what this is about? But what person who genuinely desired to be a member of a church would try and force that church to allow practices outside of its doctrine?
The fact is, there are MANY churches--and adoption agencies, etc.--that are perfectly willing to accommodate homosexuals, so I don't really think this is about a genuine need for acceptance. And if the statistic is correct that only 2% of gay couples have married after the court's ruling, this isn't really about marriage either. It's about making EVERYONE accommodate a particular standard favored by one group of individuals. Now what was that group of individuals saying about religion imposing ITS standards on the rest of us?
Marriage is FAR more than just a piece of paper. If it were not, why would churches fight so hard to protect it? Why would homosexuals fight so hard to earn the privilege?
Proposition 8 begins with the words: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".
Right?
it is because it is not just a piece of paper. it is because if it is okay then it must be taught that it is okay and so on. you are the ignorant one PATRICK C.
Which will, ultimately be exactly the same as supporting same sex marriage.
It scares me that my children might grow up in a world where it's completely normal for their friends to have 2 dads and no moms, or 2 moms and no dads. I dont want my children to think that's normal and ok.
I bet that the percentage of gay people will increase dramatically in the near future, as more states allow gay marriage and once it's the 'norm' to be gay.
Sad.
If you seriously believe that "the percentage of gay people will increase dramatically" because the benefits are better now - then you only show what an idiot you truly are.
Now THAT'S sad...
Is that why you're heterosexual? For the medical benefits and tax breaks? I know I married my wife because I love her and the thought of us being able to share medical coverage, make medical decisions for each other and take advantage of tax breaks was never really a consideration I had when I was buying her ring 16 years ago. Please explain to me why you think the thought process would be any different for a gay person...
It's nice to see that when you're presented with a legitimate argument that your response is to "take it like a man"
Intelligent response... Try acting like a man.
HAHAHAHA!
Let me refresh your memory:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4693102&comments=true
Is being gay a choice? I don't know... I only know that I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual. I will concede that some people likely do make a choice to practice a gay lifestyle. However, I would argue that there are many who didn't choose to be gay - they just were.
We certainly could use some population control.
I am a straight person with three young children, it's important to see diversity everywhere.
Get a clue, the world is changing.
Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of "masculine," "feminine," and "neuter," but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.
I feel sorry your children will grow up to be as judgemental as you.
This guy will say and do anything to be popular--unfortunately, at some point all the talking points of McCain, Palin, Schwarzenager, etc. will come to pass and we will wake up and say--"President Obama? What were we thinking?"
So who knows what Barack really believes, you dont and neither do I.
I am Al, but I am not Al.
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11 Date: 13th century
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex ; also : copulation with an animal.
I'm just calling a spade a spade. You may vote my comment "inappropriate" but homosexual acts are what are inappropriate.
All of societies ills can be traced back to disobeying the Ten Commandments and other "thou shalt nots" of the Old Testiment.
It is time for mankind to accept the fact that the majority of people are choosing evil over good. It was foretold to happen. No sense belaboring the inevitable.
How did Paul put it: "Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."
I guess it is time for the "wacky right" to abandon the truth - that is, that man was created with a divine purpose; and jump on board the "good is evil, and evil is good" train.
And to think I have dedicated my life to fighting to protect this great land.
We spent all day fighting that flood, to loose in the end.
Was it worth it? Yes. The tears of gratitude from the couple whose home we were unable to save still haunt me.
Thank you for your service in protecting this land. It was worth protecting.
Find your higher ground, and wait for your rescue. The flood waters will recede eventually. Then comes the cleanup.
Great example.
Thanks for your support.
"put into concentration camps" lol, you really are in a state of panic arent you?
Calif also voted against it. You are the kind of bigot that almost lost this prop. You are an embarrassment to those of us who support prop 8.
Isn't he a traditional Christian?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0
It's 54% for the ban and 45% against it, and that's with most of the precincts reporting! Way to go California for protecting marriage and families!!
cnn ONLY has 18% reporting and ALL from conservative areas. hope you have your tissue box ready.
Prop 8 bans nothing, but rather holds fast to the natural order of the perpetuation of the human family.
This issue was decided a few years ago by the voice of the people of California but the California Supreme Court ruled that there was some kind of problem legally and overturned the voice of the people, so they went back to work and here we are today.
(Read the text of the proposition....specifically the title).
The framers of Prop. 8 used the word "Eliminates Right..."
Is that better?
What portion of that are you having difficulty understanding?
I'm neither for nor against Prop. 8, because it affects residents of California...which I'm not...but it (Prop. 8), clearly states that it eliminates rights.
What other rights would you like to see eliminated?
What were those stupid Californians thinking to start their proposition with ELIMINATES RIGHTS when it's obvious that they meant ELIMINATE FROM BECOMING A RIGHT.
Is that right?
Good!
Glad we could clear that up...
As Thomas Sowell put it, "The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"
Here's a link:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
and here's a copy of Prop. 8's title:
"ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT."
Look close, Lee, and you'll see the word "right".
If you disagree, perhaps you should contact those who framed the proposition and have them reword it.
LET ME SAY IT ANOTHER WAY SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!
These kids that are against prop 8 have know idea what the constitution says, or what they are voting for. go look on you tube and watch the interviews with the children that do not support prop 8 they have no idea what they are saying. The spout off that the constitution protects gay marriage and sight the 14 amendment that talks about due process of the law. they say it is not constitutional to support prop 8 because it takes away for the (pretended rights) of homosexuals. What rights? as far as I know you get no rights for whom you choose to sleep with. (I want a I sleep with a fat girl, skinny girl, red head, and etc right. it is just as ridiculous.)
yet the whole time they preach about the constitution and rights they forget the 1st amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;" now if prop 8 does not pass, religions will be forced to preform gay marriages or not preform marriages. That is wrong, what about religious freedom.
I get sick and tired of people using a perverted twist of the 14th amendment to try to support some pretended idea of equality and homosexual right to GAY marriage. Their are human rights but not homosexual rights. Homosexuals deserve human rights but nothing more. What about the rights of the people who do not want their kids to be taught that homosexuality is okay in school, what about the religions being told who they can marry by the government, what about the social repercussion of allowing this decadent idea, what about the heath risks, what about the increased cost to health care because of this. I see no reason to support gay marriage. it does nothing for gays when it is only on the state level. it only gives them a state tax break that is it.
I'll wait.....
If you want equal rights for everyone no matter what the society thinks, then legalize Polygamy. If you really look at it, in my opinion polygamy is no worse then gay marriage or someone who plays around and has three or four girl friends with kids from each one without being married.
Just a thought.
Joper
It's the old adage: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
exit polls predict 52% against banning gay marriage.
and 48% against.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
exit polls predict 52% against banning gay marriage.
and 48% in favor.
If you think the Proposition will fail, then I still think McCain will win.
47% for keeping gay marriage (no votes)
I hate to say it (not really) but, Prop 8 will have a NO majority vote! Better get use to gays getting married!
this county by county map demonstrates that Orange, san Bern, riverside counties are hugely in favor of Prop 8 and are way behind the bay area in report.
as LA county goes so will probably go the state and LA and San Diego counties are both around 30% in tops and are leaning in favor of prop 8 at 55%/45%.
the current numbers are actually, probably, skewed high. In-as-much as bay area is about done reporting, I think prop 8 will pass with about 55% in favor.
that the church loves all people?
wow... the church is AWESOME!
What else should the Mormon Church throw it's money at?
Maybe they should work to ban interacial marrage now.
Or they can work to force everyone to live the life style they think is right.
Truly amazing to me.
would think that I want you to vote "No on 8." After all, who would want to eliminate someone's rights?
And, to demonstrate how far-reaching its effects, I didn't even need to call it "California' s Proposition 8." No matter where this email goes, to any of the 50 states that may have propositions up for vote, I'm confident people will know which state's "Proposition 8" I'm talking
about.
Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times describes the Proposition with poetic imagery: "it is raging like a wind-whipped wildfire in California." More poetic still...from an article in Monday's San Francisco Chronicle:
"Michelle Sundstrom and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words 'Bigots live here' painted on the windshield. Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain-and that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or lesbians is wrong, she said.
"There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
Wow. Perhaps all this craziness and hate-slinging is actually getting us somewhere. A heterosexual Mormon couple has a "Bigots live here" sign parked in front of their house, and what's their response? "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
And she didn't just say "deep hurt." She said "deep, deep, deep hurt." I know the depth of that pain. I grew up Mormon and gay back in the 1970s. That was when we were shunned, ridiculed, bruised, battered, and discriminated against by nearly everyone, religious or otherwise. We hid in the closets because it hurt too much to come out. People who did come out were called perverts, child molesters, predators, queer, sick, you name it. For those of us who were Mormon, it was even worse. We were attracted to the same sex, yet Mormon doctrine stated we were supposed to get married only to a member of the opposite sex. It is a direct conflict between the two strongest, most significant desires in life.
When I was in college, I met a woman with whom I thought I'd spend the rest of my life. But after a couple of years, we broke up. That was when I had this feeling, an impression, to talk to my bishop. I had no idea who he was because I hadn't gone to church in years.
That bishop used the power of the priesthood in my behalf, just as the divine plan had been laid out. He met with me for almost three years as I struggled and faltered. Suicide was a very real threat. I feel blessed, or lucky, or both, not to be among the many who have already pulled the trigger. I wasn't suicidal because of the Church's unwavering stance on marriage, however. I hadn't been forced to believe, or guilted into it. I had not been brainwashed. My testimony came from the heart.
In time, my spiritual identity began to gain strength over my sexual identity. I was finally able to choose the right. But it was a troubling choice. I had no desire, whatsoever, to spend a lifetime with a man - much less an eternity. So that left me with celibacy. To this day, sacrificing same-sex relationships is the greatest sacrifice I have made.
Years ago, a friend said: "The sacrifice of a loved one for an attempt to live righteously cannot go unnoticed. The loss is real, the sadness is real, in a world where so few things are real." Now, the loss and pain are being publicly recognized by Church leaders. In a fireside for Latter-day Saints in California, Elder Quentin L. Cook said, "There are faithful temple-worthy members of the Church who struggle with this great challenge, often in silence, fear, and great pain. Our hearts go out to these good brothers and sisters even as we uphold the divine truths the Lord has revealed about marriage."
Back when I was struggling with same-sex attraction, I couldn't find any LDS resources that dealt specifically with the issue. I'd insist, "The Church doesn't understand. They don't even care enough to help." Finally I realized the Church I was critizing was not just "they", it was also "I". And perhaps "I" should quit complaining and start writing. So I did. The title of my book sums it up: Born That Way? A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction. Few people were offering hope back then for people who wanted to overcome same-sex attraction. I felt compelled by the spirit to provide hope for others with struggles similar to mine.
The secular resources did more harm than good. Back then, the only claims you heard from the "experts" were: "Sexual attractions are a permanent part of who you are. They're indelible, unchangeable, and unavoidable. " Fortunately, the "experts" are now realizing that, just like other aspects of who we are, sexual attractions are influenced by genetics, environment, upbringing, experiences - all of it. Nature and nurture are no longer pitted against each other.
I've had the unique opportunity to witness the journey of many people who struggle with same-sex attractions. In 1990, I volunteered as a phone counselor - originally referred through Evergreen, an organization established to help Mormons who face this trial. Over the span of almost 20 years, I've seen some Latter-day Saints get married in the temple, and others work to remain celibate - either because they have not found a spouse yet, or because they have not developed attractions toward the opposite sex. I also have friends, who once had very strong testimonies, who tried desperately to bring their lives into accordance with gospel principles, but finally gave up. At least for now.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT:
Some people, no matter what they do or how hard they try, will never find themselves attracted to the opposite sex, in this life. They deserve our utmost respect. So do those who identify as gay or straight or bisexual or none of the above. They all deserve our respect.
It's not difficult for me to understand how the body of the Church in California has become divided over this issue. I have felt divided, too. Our family lived in California in 2000, when the Defense of Marriage Act came up for vote the first time. My husband and I were sealed together for time and all eternity, and our children were born under the new and everlasting covenant. We, as an eternal family, were and are the direct beneficiaries of the Church's unwavering stance on marriage. What once created angst so severe I considered suicide has led me to a life I never thought possible. One in which I have been happily married - to a man - for 15 years.
However, I know all too well what it's like to be discriminated against. "Eliminating" someone else's rights seems wrong. And up until this past week, it seemed to go against my sense of fairness, democracy and justice as a citizen of the United States. It also seemed to run contrary to the core of my faith - the second greatest commandment - to love one another.
Despite my apprehensions in 2000, my husband and I acted in faith and supported Proposition 22 because the prophet asked us to. I hate to admit this, but it wasn't until this week that I was finally able to reconcile the opposing viewpoints I continued to debate with myself. I finally realized why the leaders of the Mormon Church have been taking such an active role in all this. It happened when I read a National Public Radio report entitled "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash". It says, "In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon."
I was astonished when I read: "So far, the religious groups are losing." They listed examples such as Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. They had to pull out of the adoption business because they refused to adopt to same-sex couples. Even individuals' religious rights are being revoked. A woman declined to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. She was found guilty of discrimination.
When I read that article, it was like a light bulb went on. More importantly, I also felt a spiritual confirmation that the prophet truly is prophetic. Here is the impression that came to me as I read:
It's not that the Mormon Church is trying to get into politics. It's that politics is trying to get into the Church. And not just our church. Any church or congregation or individual who believes that only a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
I'm sorry I couldn't see what the prophet could see-until this week. I'm sorry I'm not sending this letter out till now. And I'm sorry for my apathy - for being "lukewarm". Why, just last week I thought it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriages became legal everywhere. How wrong I was.
Unfortunately, someone has to lose with Proposition 8. Somebody's right to something will be limited at the end of the day on Tuesday. I, for one, do not want it to be my right to worship as I please.
Sincerely,
Erin Eldridge
P.S. For those who would like to respond to this letter - whether in anger or frustration or support - I will do my best to respond to every email I receive. But please, be patient. All our kids are still at home and I work part time. Email riverwalk8@gmail.com
I am glad that Yes on Prop. 8 appears to be the case. Gay marriage is wrong. But we all could do a lot more to truly understand the awful struggle that those who suffer from same-sex attraction must go through - especially those who are LDS.
I would recommend "Born That Way?" by Erin Eldridge to find insight on repentance, even if you are not gay yourself.
Thanks for posting that.
Like I said. Sad.
From the post above; "I was astonished when I read: "So far, the religious groups are losing." They listed examples such as Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. They had to pull out of the adoption business because they refused to adopt to same-sex couples. Even individuals' religious rights are being revoked. A woman declined to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. She was found guilty of discrimination."
Lets look at the non-profit tax exempt status that most churches enjoy, so they can run their homeless shelters and other humanitarian aid programs. If Gay marriage continued to be legal in California the tax exempt status would be in jepordy for all non-profit organizations or churches because of a discrimination law suite threat that anyone could file once a member of a clergy, wheather it be mormon or not refused to marry a gay couple. This of course is my opinion, but there is a lot more at stake here then I think most people realize.
Joper
Or should i say this is such a hot issue with straight people. You would almost think it has something to do with us.
The institution of marriage is a joke. 60% of marriages end in divorce. Divorce is a much larger threat to the institution of marriage than gays are. This law in essence takes freedoms away from people and segregates them. I am not gay but I am an American and Americans should be strongly against any law that is created to take rights away from another person.
Why just end it with gays why not say black people can't get married? It is after all in origin a white institution isn't it? Just because it is more acceptable to hate certain groups doesn't make it any more fair to those groups that are being repressed.
With marriage comes equal rights. Yeah they can have a civil union and Rosa Parks could have sat in the back of the bus it's not like they weren't letting her ride the bus...right?
I note that the press is calling a win on the protection of marriage ConAmd in Arizona and with over 60% of the precincts reporting in Florida the ConAmd to ban gay marriage there is pulling 62% of the vote, with, I believe, 60% needed to win.
Sorry,I just wanted you to know what you sound like.
This statement in itself is self righteous, hypocrtical self serving in every word written.
Practice what you preach.
Joper
It's obvious that you are very upset that this did not go the way that you wanted. So that leads me to this question, did God tell you that the coalition of churches supporting prop 8 were all wrong in supporting that prop? Again if you are Atheist this logic obviously doesn't apply. If you are Atheist then you ridiculing a group of people for their beliefs in God and their attempts to use the democratic system to accomplish a goal would obviously be racist of you and by the definition of the word would make you a bigot.
Why don't you take a look at the discrimination in Massachesetts where gay marraige is legal. Look how badly the husband/wife/family is now being discriminated against! They can no longer teach their children that alternate sex styles are a sin. Even though their religious back grounds have trained how wrong it is for years, if they teach their children how wrong it is, they can be put in jail for "discrimination against gay people" and also prosecuted with the support of "hate crimes" as well.
Yes, you go tell a dad how evil he is for saying that gay life style is a sin. Do it while he is in jail for openning his mouth about the subject!
This isn't about rights for gay people. They have rights just like you and I. They don't need additional rights.
If you recieve tax benifits for being a husband wife team, consider that a reward for doing what is morally right. If you don't get it for being gay, well, need I say more?
Gay is not normal. Gay is wrong. Throw me in jail for declaring how wrong that type of lifestyle is. Throw me in jail for trying to protect society against the degenration of allowing such things to be entertained in society. Go ahead, because I'm not changing my mind from facts and truths that hold ample amounts of evidence.
Californians! I salute you who voted to support Prop 8!
Senseless ramblings from low IQ individuals don't qualify for "breaks."
Personally, L C, I support traditional marriage which is defined a marriage between one man and one woman. Let's not dumb down marriage like we have the public education system.
Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on our modern world.
If a distinction cannot be made between heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions then how do you justify prohibiting polygamous or incestuous marriages between consenting adults?
Besides, there is no actual discrimination in California. The voters have previously overwhelmingly support a ban on calling gay unions "marriages" while also supporting a civil union law that is equal to marriage in every legal regard other than name.
So where is the discrimination? A word? That is NOT discrimination. Social acceptance, maybe. Ability to easily file a federal lawsuit to force Utah and other States to recognize those unions as marriages because Cali does? Perhaps. But what rights within California do a gay couple not enjoy under civil union law that they would gain by winning the title "marriage?"
Or do you actually support giving the full approval and sanction of the state and community to such relationships as well?
Should Prop 8 fail I predict suits to allow polygamous marriages within the decade.
But that is not the point. The point is you make an intellectual sounding argument and then are unable to provide any intellectual support for the logical conclusion of your position.
Simple question: Do you support legalizing polygamous and other non-traditional "marriages" OR, do you support "discriminating" against those who desire to be in such marriages?
Do you support legalizing polygamous and other non-traditional "marriages" OR, do you support "discriminating" against those who desire to be in such marriages?
Why won't you just answer it?
The left want only their god to reign in their world. I'll call Him "the changing god." He is actually a manifestation of the left's need to worship themselves, so they invent a god that isn't offended by it.
The changing god is allowed to speak in your world. The God of the Bible already spoke, so you work feverishly to change His word or deny He spoke it. His policies on sodomy as found in the Old and New Testiments must drive you crazy. Why would He be so unfair to people? And capital punishment??? The God of the Bible must be shut up in prison before He puts ideas in anyone's heads.
One god allowed - only the one that agree with you - at least for the time being/ The opposition's God is not. Resulting in discrimination against God's that you disagree with.
This country is not moving towards equality after all.
p.s. L C, your argument is incestuous - forgive the pun. Just because polyg's and incestual people have not been willing to come out of the closet yet hardly means that the logic presented by Charles doesn't carry through.
All the marriages you cited, except gay marriage, can potentially create children.
But you're right on one thing: Why are state and communities giving sanction and benefits to marriages? If anything, the LDS Church has now opened up a can of worms that may lead us to the U.S. Supreme Court and either a divorce that leads to the nullification of civil marriage in the U.S. in favor of rights for all or rights for none.
Then families can pay lawyers to enjoin their finances, procure rights for their children, and ensure spousal right to any host of privileges.
As to why government gives sanction and benefits to marriage, THAT is the key question. And once properly answered the rational for NOT giving equal sanction and benefits to gay unions, incestuous unions, and other relationships become very clear.
Simply put, real marriage between man and woman provides real and demonstrable benefit to society. It is the ideal situation for raising the next generation of citizens. It civilizes, stabilizes, and decriminalizes men in ways no other relationship does. It provides security for women and children the way no other relationship does. It provides for a built in "safety net" to care for many of society's elderly, disabled, ill, and injured that no other relationship does.
There is no "right" to have government grant benefits to marriage. And government could decide to stop doing so. But it is in the best interest of government to encourage and reward honorable marriage.
It is not unlike society's decision to grant tax benefits to home ownership while not granting similar benefits for buying a car or taking a vacation. Home ownership benefits society so we encourage and reward it. Buying a car or taking a vacation may well benefit the individual and he is free to do so. But such do not benefit society at large so there is no reason society should encourage or reward doing so.
Gays and polygamists and other consenting adults are (or ought to be) free to live their private lives as they see fit. But those relationships do not benefit society the way real marriage does and so society rightfully declines to encourage, sanction, or reward such relationships.
Although we're dealing with the CA Constitution here, even the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution does not require that people are treated the same--only that there be a legitimate reason for treating people differently.
And, when the right involved is not fundamental, a law teating people differently will be upheld against an equal protection challenge unless it is irrational. "Irrationality" is a low standard to meet, and defense of marriage laws meet it. Therefore, I believe the CA Supreme Court's decision was incorrect.
Much better for the court to have left the issue to the people in the first place.
Consider murder, you wouldn't discriminate against murderer would you? He was born that way, he has anger issues, he can't help it. Should we leave him free? Or do we "discriminate" against such activities?
You can see that lack of discrimination would be the destruction of our society.
Should we be careful and selective where and when we discriminate? Certainly. But discrimination is a right of the people in order to preserve freedom of association and their desire to create their own institutions with rules of conduct and membership.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Equal Protection Clause but from what I just read your argument of the defense of marriage meeting the low standard of the clause doesn't fit. Even Justice O'Connor said that excluding homosexuals from what heterosexuals enjoy is unconstitutional.
I too applaud the states of California, Arizona, and Florida for taking a stand on normalcy. If you want to be different, go ahead. Just don't expect the majority of the country to bend to your every whine and complaint about how life's so unfair. Give it a rest.
1 man 1 woman = marriage period.
You are correct 1 man 1 woman = marraige
1 man 1 man or 1 woman 1 woman = downfall of society, even to the destruction of this nation, the greatest nation in all the world.
Save marraige, respect it for what it is intended and we can save this great country. Call judgement of gay partnerships "discrimination" (and convince people it is) and we are in big troubles.
But hey, don't anyone take my word for it. Go read your history books and see what made other great nations fall. Why do we bother to print books if we can't learn from others mistakes?
I must have a defective history book....
Why dont we have a BAN on them?
So why don't we nullify civil marriage privileges and benefits and stop tethering religious marriage to the federal government?
I'd also like to encourage everyone concerned with the role of marriage in the foundation of our society to aggressively lobby for tougher divorce laws, including a complete repeal of them altogether. Think of the children, please.
Marriage is a sacred, ancient institution. Divorce runs contrary to this sacred, traditional institution that has "kept civilization more or less intact for thousands of years."
No more divorce after November 2009! Ever. The push for a statewide referendum begins here.
Personally I don't care I just wish it would go away.
I wish gay activists would stop filing lawsuits trying to change the definition of marriage.
I wish activist judges would stop presuming to make fundamental changes to society based on what they think should be, rather than strictly abiding the language AND intent of binding constitution and democratically enacted laws.
Gay activists have spent some $35 MILLION trying to get the word "marriage" in California. They have long enjoyed FULL legal equality via Cali's civil union law. But with all the problems you mention, they spent $35 MILLION over a word. ONE blasted word. WHY?
Maybe God doesn't like homosexuality. Maybe He doesn't really care. I don't pretend to know the answer to that and it defies all logic for you to insist that laws ought to be created based on YOUR absolute, meta-physical certitude of God's will.
I will agree, traditional marriage has served our species well. I can understand and even agree with much of the arguement to protect the institution. I do not, however, agree that "because God said so" can ever, and I mean ever, be the basis for law in a multi-cultural society.
Fact: consenting homosexual adults who want their relationship to be recognized as legally binding have ZERO effect on me, you, or any one else.
Fiction: we'll all burn in hell if we permit them to do so.
Get real, Spencer. If you want prop 8 to pass, that's fine. I am somewhat sympathetic to the cause myself. But if you're going to take a stance, back it with some substance.
Therein is the grievance (and the backlash) that is now starting to sweep the country. Most of us are fine letting them go be gay all day with their partner. What we do not want is to reshape our entire society and culture to placate their deviant beliefs and practices... do you understand that? This BS approach of claiming discrimination is just not working and folks are getting tired of this always being pushed in their face because what they have is not enough somehow. What exactly do they expect to gain by entering into a gay marriage (particularly when they already have the ability to enter into civil unions)? Think about that issue long and hard and you will get why so many folks are reacting.
Oh yeah, and it is a sin in the bible :D
Decent people have every right to stand up for what they believe to be right.
It just seems well oh so illogical is all.
The answer is multifaceted and I'm not sure you are really interested in understanding nearly so much as using simple sound bites to make your point.
First and foremost the argument against gay marriage is NOT limited to JUST that it will damage real marriage. But I will address that point first.
Certainly, on a micro level what a single gay couple calls their relationship will have no effect on any individual real marriage. Indeed, if every gay relationship were called "marriage" it would have zero direct effect on any individual real marriage.
But we don't (or shouldn't) write laws or set public policy based on such micro level analysis. We do so based on macro analysis.
And at the macro level a LOT of things start to effect not only marriage but also society as a whole.
There can no doubt that easy, no-fault divorce laws have had negative effects on marriage and on society. Ditto for easy welfare that replaces a husband and father with a check. The degradation of basic morality in pop culture damages marriage and sends the message to society that marriage is optional, perhaps even undesirable; that sex can be easily had without personal stigma outside of marriage. And so on and so forth.
Now, a person can find individual circumstances were every one of those things can be justified as good or helpful: the couple in a loveless married who need to get divorced, the single mom in dire need of help, the pregnant teenager who no longer feels so much shame she kills herself. But at the macro level, such official policies and laws have damaged society. They have led to ever growing numbers of children born out of wedlock and without the benefit of fathers. Among some demographics well over half of all children born this year will be born out of wedlock. The crime and welfare load among these groups are killing the nation.
Further degrading marriage by equating it with every other relationship out there will further erode the importance of marriage. Evidence from nations that have granted official legal sanction to gay relationships demonstrate at least a correlation with dropping rates of marriage and rising rates of unwed heterosexual coupling and unwed births.
Now to the non-marriage concerns:
By further normalizing homosexual conduct more young people will feel free or even obliged to experiment with it. And contrary to the lie from the gay activists about not "recruiting" anyone who has spent time in a girls' dorm on campus KNOWS that there is quite a bit of pressure to at least give it a try.
There may well be a genetic component to homosexual desires. But lack of such a gene will not prevent a person from developing a taste for such conduct if experimentation is going on. As an analogy, I'm pretty sure there is no gene for bestiality, S&M, bondage, pedophilia, or any other sexual deviancy. Yet exposure and experimentation, coupled with positive reinforcement can certainly create appetites for all these things. I see no reason to think homosexual conduct is any different.
To increase the number of persons with a taste for homosexual conduct is not only damaging to those individuals (as evidenced by the higher suicide rates and higher rates of domestic violence among homosexuals), but at the macro level also damaging to society if such persons are not choosing to settle down, marry, and raise the next generation of responsible citizens.
There are also very legitimate concerns about parental rights and having such subject matter presented to public school children as normal and proper. This is routinely happening in Mass and has occurred sporadically in various Cali schools already.
Various other concerns can be articulated. But as is usually the case with complex social issues, a 5 second sound bite can take a LOT to refute and correct.
Looks like a bad night a the Young house!!!
You're both ignorant.
thanx
"I'm I ignorant"...learn how proof read before you start calling other people names. Thanks.
And back to your question, it was your comment that was ignorant.
Sure gay's like to touch parts. But so do straight people.
Now, obviously, I understand you aren't man enough yet (judging by your comment) and I doubt anybody has ever let you touch their parts, or the other way around, I doubt anyone would ever want to touch you.
But yeah for future reference, any person, gay or straight, likes to touch parts.
Maybe one day, when you grow up, you'll experience it and know, but probably not anytime soon ;)
No. Why? Because we don't think that sex is the the sole purpose of our existance as seems to be indicated by gay's demand for attention in the media. Not that gays don't have jobs and hobbies, but give me a break
If the goal is to get homosexuality so normalized in society that the lack of attention will say we've arrived at a non-discriminatory place, that scares me more. Are you going to throw me in prison because I won't let my kids watch spongebob?
what's next - telling singles (maybe that's too specific) shopping on dating websites that they can't put down man looking for woman because that would exclude men who haven't been able to get a date lately?
The demand for attention belies the lack of normalcy - and I, for one, am grateful that normalcy doesn't exist yet. The very demand is anti-social, and it's practice leads to society-destroying results.
Actually, If you read down a little farther I comment about my son . So, you see I have been "touched" and have done some "touching" myself. I was just trying to be a little bit funny to the gay people. They do have a sense of humor(ask my son). Anyway, I have four children and also a son-in-law and a grand baby.......so lighten up a little.Now everyone go have some touching done and have a great day!!!
Let it die . . . please let it die
:)
I honestly do not hate anyone :)
When we ban sex between adults and minors we are imposing Judeo-Christian morals on NAMBLA, those muslim sects that believe in underage marriages, those polygamists who believe in having old men sleep with young girls, and other such groups.
When we ban public nudity and public sex we are imposing majority morals on the exhibitionists. The alternative would be for the exhibitionists to impose their "morals" on us as they engage in their favored activities in public parks and playgrounds as has happened in the Netherlands.
When the gay activists sued to overturn the will of the voters despite having full legal equality they attempted to impose their morals on the populace of California. Tonight, the majority of Californians may just decide to push back and instead impose their view of marriage on those minorities that would hijack it.
I am glad that homosexuals have the same benefits and privileges as the rest of us. I believe they should have those same rights as citizens of our wonderful country(which is soon to be just another terrible socialist country. Why did they feel the need to "redefine marriage" for the rest of society? What are they trying to prove? Isn't being recognized as a civil union good enough? It is for the government, why can't it be for them?
Give me one good reason why I should put my morals and personal values aside to placate a tiny minority. One reason. That's all I'm asking for.
Don't be a hypocrite. That's unacceptable.
Is wanting to protect what we feel is a God-commanded, sacred institution close-minded, racist and full of absolute hate? Is that your point? The 'touching parts' comments deserve your condemnation.
please be clear.
It appears that no one really likes your opinion in these United States... so maybe you should go somewhere where your view will find a more receptive audience.
The hate here, MARYGIRL25, appears to be coming from those who were on the losing side of Prop 8. Some good folks might even find it close-minded to prohibit marriage between a father and his 10-year old daughter. Call me old fashioned but I like the traditional definition of marriage.
Throwing out the word "hate" is as much a distraction from truth as the over use of the word "discrimination". Both are nothing more than a smoke-screen put up in a foolish attempt to cover evil.
Remember, libs only like democracy when it serves there purpose.
You'll be taken more seriously if you know how to accurately insult others.
The futures lookin good....
:)
The people in California just decided for themselves. You know what it's called when the minority rules over the majority - tyrrany.
The words majority or minority don't even show up in the definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
As far as who gets to decide what is right or wrong, how do you make the case that 4 judges (who outvoted the 3 judges who ruled the other way) should be the ruling authority on what is right and wrong rather than the people themselves?
Yes, even if he is married....... and it only happened that once ;)
Where did you get that BS?
So that would also mean most heterosexual men and women have sex with gay men. How many gay men have you sletp with "AGreatLifeNow"?
Get educated, cause you CLEARLY arent.
http://www.avert.org/educate.htm
Homosexuality=strange marriage practice
Not hate, it was just a political move by the LDS.
The real LDS rally behind the gay marriage issue is only because the LDS were/are in a bind over being connected to the FLDS and polygamy. Church authorities could not make a statement about polygamy to the contrary due to it being taught as an everlasting covenant by a founding key figure of mormonism, and it could not take a stand in favor of polygamy due to modern taboo.
My children play this game all the time to try to divert attention away from their own misgivings by finger pointing at a seemingly greater misgivings of their siblings.
You see, the LDS believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, if they did not, then why would they fight so hard to keep "traditional marriage" between two people of the opposite sex? DUH!!
You cannot claim that your beliefs about marriage are founded on 1 man 1 woman, when your very founding fathers taught that marriage was between 1 man and multiple women.
LIke it or not the FLDS are the ones who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, read your own texts if you disagree with this statement.
The LDS proclamation is a joke, as if human beings ran around mating and reproducing like wild animals, and families were non existent before your leaders stated the obvious, and called it revelation.
I'm glad prop 8 passed, and LDS authorities are glad they had an excuse to rally the members in a cause that helped relieve some of the pressure they faced regarding their own past non traditional marriage practices.
Do I have to make a legal argument to not support her, or is it okay to just say I don't feel like it should be allowed?
Gays would say that because I don't make a legal or logical argument, that my decision is hateful.
Okay, here's a logical argument for you:
If everyone in the world turned gay, the human race would DIE.
Homosexuality is by definition anti-social behavior. How can anyone honestly support the decision to legally be allowed to even engage in this behavior? I for one cannot.
Wouldnt that be hateful?
there. I finally said it, I'm out of the hate closet and I feel so good I'm gonna touch myself.
No I'm gonna have a same gender touch me....
:)
If your child tells you they are gay, any GOOD parent, regardless of what your religion and beliefs are, would want their child to be happy and if marrying the same sex is what makes them happy, then you will support them.
But obviously there aren't many GOOD people in Utah, most of you think you are perfect and listen to everything the church tells you to do or feel.
Killing does something to somebody who doesn't want it.
Relationships, believe it or not, take two people to enter into mutually. If your kid is gay and wants to go be gay with somebody else who wants the same thing, it's not the same as your kid killing somebody who doesn't want to be killed.
Does that even make sense?
Holy cow.
By the way, I am far from perfect, I am sure most of us are but since when do you have to support a gay lifestyle to be defined as a "GOOD Parent"?
And I still believe that it's best to leave marriage "traditional".
PS, I"m also a MORMON eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.
(no wonder I hate myself)
jk :)
I love me,you and my son.
ENOUGH! If it was bad before you had this realization it is bad after your realization... just because you and your kid want to rationalize this corruptible behavior does not mean that you get to force the rest of us into the same boat as you. You can call us names, pull on our heart strings and just about anything else you want... but some of us have said ENOUGH of this. What is bad/wrong to us and the law is really bad. You can either correct your behavior or live with the privileges that you enjoy (because no one is really enforcing the sodomy laws, etc.).
BTW, I do have friends that are gay and family in mixed relationships. It is odd that they do not come crying and screaming to me or anyone else about these issues. In fact, some have expressed opinions that are opposite of what you might think because they just want to live their life without all of the attention (imagine that). What does that make them? Honest about the problem? Haters as well because they do not agree with the majority of gay activists?
The CA Supreme court can't rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, the amendment made it constitutional.
The only way the CA Sup court could rule on this is if sufficient fraud is found in the vote to make the outcome questionable. A rather unlikely outcome.
exit polls predict 52% against banning gay marriage.
and 48% in favor.
for ksl to make this prediction that california will ban it based on only 18% of precincts reporting and all from conservative areas should say something.
already since ksl posted it its gone down from 57% in favor of the ban to its now at 52%.
and the exit polls were 100% right on this issue in arizona right down to the percentage point with all votes counted. california will not ban gay marriage. the ban will fail. and according to exit polls the ban will fail with 52% against it and 48% in favor.
Same sex marriage is a thing of the past in California.
I do not believe same-sex marriage has a purpose. I do know that marriage itself has a purpose, and that marriage between a man and a woman has a purpose. Hypothetically speaking, if same-sex marriage is adopted into our culture and over time people decided to pursue only same-sex marriage, versus traditional marriage, wouldn’t that create an extinction of the human race? I know that may be a far-fetched theory, but to me it points out the void in a same-sex marriage. Some may now say, “Marriage is not just about procreation, but it is about love and commitment”. True, but to that I ask, why would those wanting to enter into a same-sex marriage want to actively pursue a bond originated by God, who has clearly forbidden such relationships. Whether you believe in God or not, the only claimed historic source of marriage is from God. It’s like a Voodoo doctor petitioning for a PHD. It is simply contradicting.
I see this whole thing as those voting for proposition 8 are wanting to protect marriage, and those against wanting acceptance in society. There are too many other emotions and issues hidden in this topic.
Having said all this, I do want to say I recognize the hurt homosexuals may feel by loosing this proposition, and I hope they do not see it as an attack.
Man, that was a long post! Sorry.
The only quibble I have with the above, however, is with the part that you admit is a far fetched theory. (people deciding to pursue only same-sex marriage & extinction)
This all depends on where homosexuality comes from - i.e. can heterosexual people choose to change orientation? I certainly can't. And I've never met a gay person who said they chose it. If orientation isn't a choice, then your theory doesn't hold, because we wouldn't choose to practice same-sex marriage, i.e. stop having heterosexual relations.
The theory is far fetched and its reality is not my concern. It was simply an example to illustrate that same-sex relations and marriage do not mix.
I am not going to tell you your feelings are wrong, but I also cannot say that it is not a choice. Regardless of which view is correct, I recognize that some may have a strong attraction to the same sex. For me, it is simply a matter of marriage having no part in a same-sex relationship.
Respectfully,
SixShot
One friend I had experimented with homosexuality as a teenager and got hooked on it; he realized it was not what he should be doing, and with a lot of prayer and help from God and church leaders, he was able to gradually overcome it. A relative of mine was married and years after a very messy divorce was practicing a homosexual lifestyle and still is. Another relative of mine was married, left spouse and children for a same-sex relationship, and years later repented and is now straight and MUCH HAPPIER!!! This person would love to marry again if he/she ever finds the right person... of the opposite sex. I have also known other gays.
My personal feeling is (emphasis on personal feeling; I'm not claiming this to be a scientifically proven fact) that homosexuality may be likened unto alcoholism for some people. A person may be genetically disposed toward alcoholism, but if that person never tastes alcohol, he/she will never become an alcoholic. Similarly, I believe it is possible that in some cases (not all, because I do believe some people choose it without any biological connection) a person may have homosexual tendencies, but if that person never experiments with homosexuality they will never be a homosexual. And even if they do try it, just as an alcoholic can overcome their problem, a homosexual can also overcome it and become straight. Just because an alcoholic may have been born with it, doesn't mean it's okay for them to be an alcoholic; it's still not right. Whether homosexuality is something a person is born with or not does not justify a person acting upon it.
I do not have to condone a person's actions in order to still love them as a person.
Just my thoughts and experiences. Thanks. :-)
Marriage is (or maybe was) a protected class reserved for a man and a woman. Why would a government have an interest in such an arrangement? Because it allows society to prophagate itsself; ensuring long-term stability for the country, society, government, etc.
Now, take gay marriage to it's logical conclusion: society fails to exist in one generation under this arrangement. Gays, in a monogamous relationship, can't reproduce and hence, don't qualify for classification as 'married'.
Recognize this for what it really is - an attempt to destroy America from within. And given enough time, it will work. Ever heard of Rome?
It sounds like you are, too.
Bravo!
If the government was truly interested in keeping traditional families in tact, adultery would be illegal and enforced by some punishment, and divorce would be outlawed.
"Society fails to exist in one generation" is the conclusion of all people ceasing to have heterosexual relations for one generation or more.
Is all people ceasing to have heterosexual relations the logical conclusion of gay marriage? Only if gay marriage causes heterosexuals to stop having sex. Do you think heterosexuals can be convinced of this? I can't be convinced of this. Can you?
Animals actually do train and educate their children. You don't even need to study it in school to know this... you can watch the nature channel. Momma bear teaches baby bear how to fish, etc.
Oh, and if you had said that the creation of art separates humans from animals, you would have been right. Animals don't create art in the sense that humans do.
I agree that there is much more to families than simple propagation. My question for you: Is a marriage necessary for a family?
Marriage is a protected class because it encourages the raising of children. Homosexuality, by its own definition, cannot. Come on, this is Biology 101 stuff here.
Adultry was indeed illegal until recently. Thanks for making my point.
Your last paragraph is a poor attempt at a straw man agrument (and a good example of poor grammar). Look it up.
What I don't understand is how marriage is necessary to raise children. Is this what you're saying? Can children not be raised by a mother and a father who are not married, but cohabitate? Or who are divorced? Or widows or widowers?
I get it that it is a protected institution for this reason. I just wasn't clear on your use of the word "class." Gotcha. The married class.
What I really don't understand, is how you reach the "logical conclusion" of gay marriage (extinction). Does gay marriage cause heterosexuals to stop having sex and producing children? It seems that this would be required - again, to your Biology 101.
Really - How does gay marriage cause extinction? Does homosexuality spread like some disease to all heterosexuals, and cause them to stop procreating?
IFF all the human race were gay, we would become extinct because there would be no children from such relationships. I can't be any clearer than that.
For these reasons, marriage is generally afforded a special 'protected' status in societies.
I am afraid this NOT going to just go away, like so many have expressed. I think it just going to continue to get worse. In fact, I am quite positive many things are going to get worse... before they get better. But that is a prophecy for another day.
You appear to be afraid, and pessimistic.
"Men are that they might have joy!" 2Nephi 2:25
Call if discrimination if you like but I appose marriage between a mother and son, father and daughter, and man with man.
Do you think all gay people choose to be gay?
I agree that there is a schmorgasboard of sexual perversion out there, including people attracted to animals, relatives, and picnic tables.
Do you consider all homosexuals to be in this category. Born with normal heterosexual feelings (or brain wiring), but for some reason have chosen the perversion of homosexuality?
I was just chiding Zwise Cracker about all the gloom and doom. If we really are God's blessed, do we have to be this afraid?
Morality is relative. What is right or wrong for me, may not be right or wrong for another. I don't support the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't believe I have to right to prevent others from living it.
Today it has lost its original meaning; somehow it has come to mean that a gay marriage by law must be recognized and celebrates by others who disagree with living that life style. Why must a law be created that puts its a stamp of approval on something others have disagreed with. Rejected using it in their own life style and has been deemed sacred for 6,000 years?
Why have we lost its original meaning so much that we are confused? Heterosexuals have used marriage for thousands of years and now a few wishes redefine it, not as what God wants, but as they want the law to do for them only, and force other men to accept. To change the very reason God put man and woman and together is a perversion of the law.
It shouldn’t be changed for fad or fancy. It should be used with the intent of what it was originally meant for. To glorify God and prevent adultery.
El pipi fantasma
Not surprisingly, they're the ones also pushing gay marriage.
Hollywood has nothing whatsoever to do with the real America I live in, nor is it reality for 99.9% of the country.
BUT from what i got out of it you seem to think that morals don't exist anymore. Wake up! There are many married couples that stay together and are faithful to eachother...it's something called LOVE...You are just compairing with the world of hollywood fantasy and for some reason every show has to have crude humor, sex, or adultery to be good?? That is not how it always is. There are still good people in this world.
One of many sources:
http://christiannews.co.nz/2006/faithfulness-in-homosexual-marriages/
If you are going to throw out facts, E.J., you need to get them "straight". Pun intended.
Now if you are a recent immigrant from another country and English is your second language please forgive my critique. If, however, you were born in the USA there is absolutely no zero excuse for your illiteracy.
Looks like it's gonna pass.
Any 2 people can get a civil union, and any 2 people can be married by their church (according to their church rules). So, our church obviously won't have any gay marriages in it, and we won't recognize them. And neither will the State (government). But our marriages will be recognized by what is most important: our faith and our Heavenly Father.
If gay people find a church who will marry them, then fine. But most won't, and most gay people don't want to have much to do with churches anyway.
Of course, I admit there are gay LDS people who believe in the LDS faith and wish the Churches stance on homosexuality would soften.
I can say, at least, that I have NEVER tried to back up any thing I have said with "Heavenly Father told me it was so."
4,325,373 NO on Prop 8 48%
84% of precincts reporting
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
I've tracked the results all night. The spread has hovered around a 300,000 vote spread in favor of Prop. 8.
The NO votes have never been ahead at all.
In my case, it means something. Actually, it means everything - my whole life. I'm 100% committed to making my family as successful as it can be.
So far, so good. We're not perfect people, but the marriage is the foundation of everything I've got going for me.
It sounds like your life experience has not met with the same expectations. I'm so sorry for you. Perhaps it will mean something to you one day. I'm not sure a common law marriage can ever really mean as much. Maybe, but maybe not.
Get use to it!!!
Im not sorry about it either.
California is pretty much liberal, and an anything goes state and they still voted for one man and one woman! Glad to see it happen.
There are about 36.5 million people in California. 17.3 million were registered to vote. The votes of 9.6 million had been counted as of 7AM Wednesday. With 92% of the vote in, the difference was only about 364,000. As of 2000, there were about 500,000 Latter-Day Saints in California. Whether or not you think California's definition of marriage should have been changed, the votes of the Latter-Day Saints in California could have swung the outcome of this.
In a democracy, your vote, and the votes of your friends, make a difference.
This issue really isn't about marriage. It's about whether or not a small percent of the population can get the same legal and financial protections as the rest of the population, primarily regarding taxes and insurance. That's where the "equal protection" clause applies. "Marriage" already has a meaning and from the looks of it, will continue to do so, at least until the next generation takes the reigns of power.
None the less... The majority rules.
How long is it before an amendment can be made to the constitution? I would be willing to bet A gay marriage bill would pass in the (Near) Future.
I think the problem with allowing gays into the the current system of marriage is because the current system of marriage was not created or designed for gay people to be in it. It is an additional drain on an already compromised and depleated system. Why can't we as a nation redefine a definition of union that is designed for gay people?
And if I followed the polls correctly it was up 56% for prop 8 before the commercial came out.
Lucky for proponents that commercial didn't come out sooner.
I'm confused... Maybe your bible is missing pages.
Is this how he would have treated people with name-calling? He would love the sinner and condemn the sin.
There does need to be some civility and respect for everyone involved. Everyone please be decent to each other as we are all citizens of a community.
I was reading about it in one of the papers... Can't remember which.
Man and Woman = God's Plan
Man and Man = Confusion
Woman and Woman = Confusion
Don't give me the sob stories about your cousin, brother or whomever. They're just excuses of confusion. (Yes I do know gay people)
God is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever. Forever is a lot longer than 2008 people!
With that said, my bicycle riding goldfish and I are going to celebrate National get a friggin' clue day. November 5, 2008 is Get-A-Friggin-Clue day.
The world isn't having storms and catastrophe's because of Global Warming.
Please... Give me cold hard evidence of grade schoolers learning about homosexuality in school. Not from some propaganda video. But actual proof. Also, Please show me where there were plans to teach it. It doesn't exist!
That video of the students at the gay wedding... Yeah it was true. Guess what. All the parents of the students in the video were trying to sue the proponents of prop 8 because they were the ones that sent their children to the wedding. The Parents were very much against prop 8.
Do a little research on your own... not just what the Bishop gives you.
I am simply stating my opinion on why I do not want gay marriage legalized. I do not care what people do on their own behind closed doors. I just don't want it taught as normal to my children. I have several gay friends and I have nothing against them. They choose to live their life the way they want. What I don't want is someone making homosexuality a morally equal alternative, which is they way it would be presented in schools.
Frankly, whether gay "marriage" is legal in a state or not, it absolutely should NOT be taught in the schools, especially in Kindergarten, and ESPECIALLY without parental consent; school is not the proper place to teach such things, even if a parent believed homosexuality was okay. As a child, I remember having to have parental consent to even be a part of the "talk" about boy's/girl's bodies and what to expect as we got older and whatnot, and that wasn't until around 4th or 5th grade. Why they now think it's okay to teach a younger child about other alternative lifestyles makes no sense to me whatsoever.
And why it is that people keep trying to "blame" the LDS church for Prop 8 passing, I really can't understand. There were many, many churches and people ALL OVER the country who were fighting for Prop 8, not just the LDS church. Similarly, those against Prop 8 received funds from all over as well, so I don't see any reason why members of the LDS church shouldn't be able to fight for it if they believe strongly in it, as so many do. Those of us for marriage being only between a man and a woman have just as much right to fight for our cause as those of you against it do. Stop trying to "blame" anyone for your loss; just accept it graciously and carry on in life. There are much better causes to be fighting for than to spend your time dwelling on your loss and arguing about why the majority of voters said yes on Prop 8.
Like I said. Sad.
You DO realize that this Proposition is in California, right?
I'll even pay for your dolly rental.
Bwahahahaha!!!!
If you go way back in time, you'd find that marriages were held in, at or around religious grounds. They were married by priests' or bishops. It was a bond between them and God. No ONE signed marriage certificates, or as I call them "contracts".
If we really go back to the "traditional" marriage, and NOT this crap that claims "traditional" as between a man and woman, but to the actual tradition, I think most everyone would get past the discrimination.
Face it - you ARE discriminating if you're not allowing a man/man or woman/woman share the same rights as would a man/woman marriage have.
I rather suspect, Wagner P, that you are not quite as happy as you profess to be.
Thanks for moving!
By the way Wagner. I don't hate gay people. I hate everybody. ;0)
injustice and bigotry ring hollow.
The truth never needs defense, while I disagree with Wagner's comments, and his/her stand, I find your comments to be as shrill as those of the hysterical thugs on the other side of this issue.
Yes, Anthony, you are indeed as shrill and inconsequential as those you seem to be so afraid of.
Personally, I support marraige as being defined as being ONLY between a man and a (one) woman.
However, I take great offense at your own sanctimonious out burst of mediocrity and disingenious comments. You sir are not repsentative of anything other than a typical "Utah Mormon". Something the rest of(us) the LDS worldwide eschew and revile.
Ha ha...He picked the ugly one!
I once worked with a fellow named Patrick who lived the alternative lifestyle. His companion had some severe health problems associated with that lifesyte. His nickname was "patty cake".
Men and women shun the "sanctity of marriage" every day, why is it such a big deal if two dudes want to live together, and reap the benefits of a marriage? What is the big deal?
1. The Bible says so
2. It's icky
As a firm believer in the separation of church and state (which, admittedly, is a foreign concept to many people in Utah), I can't see how either of these reasons is enough to warrant writing discrimination into law. If you have a problem with preserving the "sanctity of marriage", then do something about the 50% divorce rate in this country. If the fact that two guys can get married threatens your marriage that much, then you've got much bigger issues to begin with.
That fact that the government is mandating that two consenting adults who are in love and committed to each other can't get married boggles my mind. I assume you are all Republican, right? Isn't that the party of "get big government out of my personal life"? Or is that only when it conveniently fits your narrow and bigoted viewpoint? I can only hope I will see this sort of intolerance and ignorance disappear in my lifetime, and we can get to a point where we recognize ALL people - black, white, gay, straight, purple, blue, whatever - as equals. Last night was a great first step in that direction.
Marriage is one of the building blocks of decent society and when you destroy the santity of marriage it weakens that society. Children who grow up without a moral compass are deprived of the relationship that can only come from having a mother and father.
Looks like your side of the issue lost. I can't say that I'm sorry.
While I'm saddened that Prop 8 will lose, I'm encouraged by the narrow margin. It'll happen eventually, and will be a major step forward in striving for equality in this country.
Oh, and it's OK if you're a bigot brah, which apparently you don't need to keep in the closet.
This isn't about 'procreation' this is about what you, and others, believe is morally wrong. This is based on antiquated ideas of morality based on religious ideals that should never have crept into a country that believes in the separation of church and state.
I realize that you might get angry at this, and it's not my intent. I also realize that any amount of calm reasoning won't work when people are up in arms over what they believe is morally right and are up in arms over it. I only ask that you stop and really think about your reasoning - because if you saying it's because they can't procreate then you ARE against all of us who are heterosexual and also can not procreate - you are telling ME that I should not be allowed to marry my husband because we can not create a child together. Instead, you should take a stand and say that it's because you think that it's 'icky' or 'gross' for a man to be with another man. Because your argument just don't work unless it encompass all people who can not procreate.
If you're going to believe in something .. then please stand up for it .. don't try to sugar coat it with reasons that simply won't fly.