Gay Bowl National Tournament held in Murray Park
Today's bad weather was a fun alternative for athletes who've come to Utah to play in a national flag football competition. This competition is a little different in that all the players are gay. October 12th, 2008 @ 3:34pm
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
Most Popular
Site Index
News |
Weather
Traffic |
TV
Sports
Opinion |
Radio |
Classifieds
Announcements
Events
Movies |
Advertise with KSL
Other Resources
Wireless
Legal
Sister Sites
|
© 2009 ksl.com KSL Television & Radio, Salt Lake City UT A Division of Bonneville International m23
KSL's public inspection files, including the Children's Television Programming Reports and the DTV Quarterly Activity Station Report, are available for viewing during regular office hours at the KSL Broadcast House.
If not that is just a hate crime. It also is sooooooo bigoted!!
Yup. Sounds straight to me.
'Tail.
So there ARE gay Mormons aren't there? There are those gay Mormons who have not had sex and been kicked out, and those who have not been caught yet. Right?
It sounds as if there might be a whole lot of gay Mormons then.
He has sympathy for EVERYONE.
BIGOT!
I guess these guys will all be as straight as arrows by the end of the tournament.
Give it a rest already.
Hiding much?
Funny thing is, I don't say anything more than the truth and they don't like it.
You just might consider that the reason you get kicked off the KSL forum is because of your crude, sometimes pathological, and bigoted comments. Just a thought.
Take the online quiz at the link below Sam. You might score as the most homophobic person to ever take it. I hope my using the word "score" and "homo-" in the same sentence doesn't distract you too much.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
1. Gay people make me nervous.
2. Gay people deserve what they get.
3. Homosexuality is acceptable to me.
4. If I discovered a friend was gay I would end the friendship.
5. I think homosexual people should not work with children.
6. I make derogatory remarks about gay people.
7. I enjoy the company of gay people.
8. Marriage between homosexual individuals is acceptable.
9. I make derogatory remarks like "faggot" or "queer" to people I suspect are gay.
10. It does not matter to me whether my friends are gay or straight.
11. It would upset me if I learned that a close friend was homosexual.
12. Homosexuality is immoral.
13. I tease and make jokes about gay people.
14. I feel that you cannot trust a person who is homosexual.
15. I fear homosexual persons will make sexual advances towards me.
16. Organizations which promote gay rights are not necessary.
17. I have damaged property of a gay person, such as "keying" their car.
18. I would feel uncomfortable having a gay roommate.
19. I would hit a homosexual for coming on to me.
20. Homosexual behavior should not be against the law.
21. I avoid gay individuals.
22. It bothers me to see two homosexual people together in public.
23. When I see a gay person I think, "What a waste."
24. When I meet someone I try to find out if he/she is gay.
25. I have rocky relationships with people that I suspect are gay.
Before you start gloating over your high homophobic score on the quiz, check out this link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm
Those who score as extreme homophobics on this quiz, are significantly more likely to be aroused by homoerotic images (Translation: They are men who are attracted to men Sam).
I suggest you keep a tight lease on your own web browsing Sam. I'd hate to see you give in to the constant temptation you feel to choose the dark side. In your case, your fears are probably understandable Sam, but not for the distracting reasons you usually give.
Why don't you just control your own urges and manage your own desires and beliefs, and leave those who are comfortable with who they are alone? It could be a start to finding some inner peace for your sensitive but neglected inner child Sam.
Are you making a joke about a former SLC politician here?
I guess you could say they Becker and argue.
Many more stories like this, and I'll be turning my viewing loyalty away from channel 5 to a news organization which does not have an agenda of destroying family values.
But I must say, if KSL is going to post all sorts of crap about new LDS temples going up, then why not post somthing about a bunch of gays!
Who says they dont have family values, they play soccer just like us straight folks do!!! Heck, they probably have BETTER family values than half of the people here in Utah!
Youre just a homo-fobe!
Therefore the term DOES actually fit more often than most care to admit.
I also garantee that that dislike and/or hate causes infinitely more problems than the behavior you blame your hate on.
That you don't see the fear underneath your hatred and "disliking" says more about your awareness than it does about your motivations and emotions. Fear is always at the root of hatred. Always.
Just so you don't feel bad about Yoda for pointing out a revealing truth, I add these words from Yoda that you might find more comforting, “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?”
Hang in there Paul. We won't let the bad men get you.
As to perversion out of the media, frankly I'd rather see gays playing flag football on TV than the ignorant, bigoted and hateful comments by people like you on TV.
BYU games
U of U games
NFL games
Not to mention other "straight" affairs like anything LDS (conference, temples, new apostles, etc). Between broadcasts, magazines, and missionaries, I think the church is doing all they can to keep themselves in the spotlight as well. Don't be a hypocrite.
Though....based on the number of gay LDS members I have met, I could see why you might not call news of that nature inherently "straight".
And hopefully, if they were up at 10pm watching the news, they are old enough to make their own judgments on a story like this.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Instead of setting high standards, we need to institutionalize the lowest common denominator so that all enjoy validation in their chosen virtues or vices.
The only real evil in the world is this damnable insistence that there is evil in the world. If we would all just adjust our perceptions of evil things as "OK" and virtuous things as "ok" too. If we just accepted everything as OK and stopped trying to differentiate between abstract ideas of evil and good; then everything would be progressively better. People could do whatever they felt like and be truly free of restraint.
Look at the rest of the animal kingdom. They don't have these exalted ideas about evil and good - they just do whatever comes natural. They, are free to follow their instincts. All of you religious types who think the human race is somehow special need to just shut up and let the rest of us return to our roots and give in to our animal instincts. We are, after all is said and done, just animals and that is all we should want to be.
Lowest Common Denominator Rules!!! It is past time to tear down the towers of virtue that interfere with devolution to our real carnal natures and are the contrasting basis of perceiving evil. It is kind of like those arrogant smart kids who blow the curve for the rest of us. I say kick 'em out of the class if they insist on making the rest of us look bad in comparison!
If Christians really loved us sensual and devilish souls, they would remain silent while we pursue carnal gratification in our own way. That is all we ask - just stop resisting our attempts to be classified as normal.
Anybody who disagrees with Rachael and me is a hateful bigot.
For sarcasm to work, there should be some truth behind it, but you just play the fool. Contrary to saying there is no evil, we are saying that your bigotry and hatred is evil.
Your comment did accomplish one thing--it provided a world-class example of LCD thinking and morality.
Denying equal protection to a select group is immoral and evil FA.
Grow up! You all sound like a bunch of Jr. High kids. Nice to see that hate, intolerance, and other kinds of evil are alive and well in Utah.
Take a Xanax
I'd suggest KSL follow the example of the professional league sportscasters, and stop drawing attention to the sexual preference of participants in a news story.
IT'S ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE!
Will it be too late before they figure it out?
Did you just get it in your email box and couldn't wait to use it?
Also, Microsoft will NOT pay you $100 for every person you forward that message to.
Don't get the civil rights fight twisted with the gay agenda, they are not the same fight.
Why do you think the civil rights movement of the 60's has anything to do with your struggle for normalcy?
The two fights are not the same.
Do not confuse your fight for sexual perversion with the struggle for equality fought for by our forefathers.
You make a mockery of everything WE fought for
Your preference for sexual deviance never warranted attack by dogs and firehoses
You were never forced from lunch counters....
nor have you been relegated to the back of the bus.
You were never kept from voting...
You never had the FBI try to destroy your commununity
There were never any "Straight only" signs
and you were never lynched because of your skin color.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME FIGHT!
"Gay rights are civil rights?"
No, they are not!!!!
If you don't believe in God and the Bible, then don't quote it!
Don't say, "God is Love" Don't say, "Jesus loves everyone" and don't say "When I get to heaven.."
Cause you ain't going because if you don't believe in God, or his word, The Holy Bible...
Then you are an Atheist who is someone who denies the existance of God.
When all of these "queers" that don't judge anyone, love everyone, and follow Christ's example better than you could even think to, are ushered to the front of the line into God's kingdom, you'll be rotting in Hell.
What makes you think you have the right or power to judge others? What makes you think you're God? You're a disgusting person.
I kind of rope him into the same category as Hitler and the Nazis, and for people like that, there is a double standard. ;) I've always kept my thoughts to myself on people like him, but after reading comments on this article coupled with the article about the former Word Perfect exec funding an anti-prop 8 campaign, I couldn't keep quiet. Some of the greatest people I've ever met are gay. Sure, they're a little odd, and the idea of what they do behind closed doors gives me heartburn and I don't agree with it, but that's their choice, not mine.
You were wrong in some of your comments due to your ignorance of history, but denying equal protection is where the fight against racial bigotry and anti-gay bigotry are similar, and that is the only necessary similarity to make the comparison very relevant.
There is another similarity Sam, given your perspective, I can't imagine you would have been a big supporter of civil rights in the 60's either. The LDS Church and the Bible Belt (not coincidentally also the Lynching Belt) weren't supporters either. Have you read Elder Peterson's letter on the topic? It isn't as bad as some "Christian" church leaders' comments in the South, but it is pretty shameful.
Let me get this clear: you, Sam, are an example of the type of loving, meek person who Christ favored and continues to favor? You are the type of loving person who Christ will save at the last day, while he casts into the endless torment of a HeII of fire and brimstonethe the gay couple who has adopted and raised four crack babies? Doesn't that make Heaven a rather legalistic and hateful place? You say you are the God-expert Sam. So are you really so certain that this is what Christ wants? It seems somehow twisted to me Sam. I think I hear sounding brass, or is that a tinkling cymbal? They sound so similar, I have a hard time distinquishing them.
No requested asteriks here.
*I sam, want to marry my boyfriend; we are in love.
I find you repulsive and all others who can not open their eyes to the world as it is and to people how they are! I have alot of gay friends and I was friends with them before they came out and I would never turn my back on them or anyone because of how they choose to live their life! Get over yourself Sam, maybe you need to seek help to get over your issues with your self! (this goes for all the other jerks who cant open their eyes and be accepting)
Keep giving us both sides, KSL. Thats what a legitimate news station does.
Just because you don't agree with someone's lifestyle, doesn't give you the right to judge them. I don't agree with people that teach their kids to be intolerant, but you don't see me picketing and saying that it should be illegal for Sambecks to reproduce.. Wait. That's a lie. I do think and say that. He's a fool. Anyway. I don't agree with people that put pineapple on their pizza, but you don't see me punching everyone in the colon that walks out of Papa Murphy's with a Hawaiian pizza. There are plenty of people (read: most of the world) that disagree with the Mormon religion, but you don't see them trying to ban it.
Both gay and straight people have varied lifestyles. That I am a heterosexual does not mean I share a "lifestyle" with all other heterosexuals. The same is true for gay people. This is also not a "both sides" issue. Some gays are LDS. They will read the temple opening stories with as much interest as a straight member of the LDS Church. You are cutting things up in an us/them way that leads to dehumanization. Of course that is part of the anti-gay agenda, but given your fair-mindedness, I don't think you should fall for it.
Predictable.
I didn't write the nonsense, I just point it out. It is such a perfect word for so many comments on the KSL forum. If people want to start being reasonable, I won't complain.
Homosexual may be kind, unjudgemental, and claim they love Jesus, but their lifestyle is wrong!!!
I certainly can see that your "lifestyle" doesn't involve being kind, loving Jesus, or being nonjudgmental. You obviously don't value these things. Your lifestyle is wrong, evil, and immoral Sam.
Who cares what they do behind close doors.
By the way, it is "straight" not "strait"
Unless you are suggesting a bowl game for people who live in narrow channels joining two larger bodies of water. The Bering Strait Bears vs. the Strait of Hormuz Hamsters?
Gay marriage proponents create a strawman that marriage is nothing more than a binding commitment between loving partners. Then you proceed to shoot at that strawman with your equal protection arrows as if your flawed model of marriage is the only valid model.
You are entitled to believe that marriage should have nothing to do with sanctioned use of procreative power; and should only be about a binding commitment between a loving couple. But your persistence in personally attacking anybody who does so think as 'bigots' is very close-minded and pejorative in itself. To any reasonable observer, your strong emotional and personal attacks comes across as bigotry and hatred that match (and in many cases, exceed) in both quality and quantity anything I could possibly infer from the posts of those you attack.
Ironically, the definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant of, and unwilling to consider differing OPINIONS (emphasis added). In truth, it is bigots who shut down dialogue with name-calling, accusations, non-sequiturs, and a “shoot the messenger” strategy.
You've, in essence, taken a strong, unyielding position that gay marriage is nothing more than an equal protection issue, and that marriage cannot legitimately have anything to do with sanctioning the use of procreative power and that anybody who suggests otherwise is an intolerable bigot. You are rather insistent that any objection to your “equal protection” trump card could only be out of religiously based bias against gays. In doing so, you obstinately refuse to acknowledge either that you've made an a priori assumption about the purpose of marriage, or that marriage could/should have any legitimate purposes other than the narrow one that you presume.
And while you are busy calling others "hateful" and "bigots", you manifest total intolerance of differing opinions and refuse to even acknowledge that a reasonable person might conclude that the principle purpose of marriage, from a societal standpoint, is to institutionalize the perpetuation of civilization through responsible procreation. And it appears that the fact that it is primarily religious (which you've described using the bigoted term "superstitious") adherents who argue this moral position seems to put you off even more.
The fundamental question remains, regardless of your attempts to insist otherwise, "Does society have an interest in preserving sanctioned marriage for the authorized use of procreative power?" A corollary is, "Does society have an interest in ensuring that its future generations are nurtured in a stable, balanced, loving family environment."
If we define marriage as a "procreative institution for the propagation of civilization" as outlined above, your precious equal protection argument is mute, and is as ridiculous as arguing that since the government guarantees student loans to help young people get a college education that the government is obliged to guarantee me a loan to start a business or for some other purpose; otherwise they are "denying me equal protection under the law."
Equal protection pertains only if you strip salient elements from the purposes and intents of the institution of marriage; and recast marriage more narrowly as nothing more than a civil commitment between a loving couple.
You are proposing a change in how we establish public policy with regard to marriage, so the burden of proof is on you to show why we should accept your definition of the purpose of marriage as the ONLY purpose. Remember that you might be excluding barren couples and empty nesters at the same time.
Furthermore it is not unprecedented. The oldest civilizations clearly (but not cynically) viewed marriage and childbearing in families as the elemental basis of civilization. If you care to do a little historical research, you can find ample evidence that mine is the classic, traditional purpose of marriage. It is you and your revisionist who are proposing the unprecendented!
I don't accept your claim that the procreative and perpetuating purpose of marriage is the only valid reason that the state has for sanctioning, encouraging, or incentivizing marriage. Marriage serves many valid purposes in a society, and many of those purposes apply as much to barren couples, Elder Russell Nelson (who remarried and will probably not be doing any procreating or perpetuating given both their ages), or gay couples. Now any one of these couples could raise children and participate in perpetuating the species if they choose, and some of them can even procreate. A lesbian co-worker of mine has a beautiful boy via artificial insemination. Both she and her partner are wonderful parents and the boy is certainly a positive, loving, and stabilizing contributor to the state. A male gay couple I know is raising five wonderful, happy children, three of whom are adopted (each of the adopted children was born addicted to drugs).
To assume that a couple should be denied equal protection under the law relative to marriage because they won't or can't procreate or perpetuate the species is narrow and wrong, and the state certainly has other justifiable and valid reasons to provide equal protection to these couples.
To selectively ignore the other benefits and purposes of marriage is narrowing the considered purposes and it is a cynical attempt to further your anti-gay agenda Paul.
You also have provided me with absolutely no reasons or grounds to accept that your very narrow definition of the procreative purpose of marriage should be the ONLY "valid" purpose considered when determining public policy with regards to marriage, and your definition of the purpose of marriage is clearly custom-built to attempt to exclude gays. Your narrow definition of the purpose of marriage is not currently the ONLY purpose considered and that is where your proposal lacks precedence--in its exclusivity as the ONLY purpose. You are proposing that we narrow the considered purpose to ONLY the ONE you suggest. Currently, policy makers consider marriage in a much broader way than you are suggesting we should. I am not saying the purpose you mention is not A consideration. It just shouldn't be the ONLY consideration.
You seem to be making very little progress here, and seem quite attached to calumny as a rhetorical tool for prejudicially dismissing opinions that contradict your own. This tendency should never be confused as a sincere search for sooth; and is usually little more than sophomoric self-deception.
You indicate that you believe that there are a variety of reasons that the state has an interest in sanctioning marriage, and that equal protection is the most important of these. You seem to believe that raising the next generation in a nuclear, nurturing environment is another valid reason; but that it is secondary when contrasted to equal protection. You allude to “other” purposes for marriage that you appear to believe justify state involvement in the institution; and seem wont to imply that these other reasons have parity (or are superior to) with the one I’ve outlined, yet seem unable to articulate what they might be. You insist that yours is the only valid frame of reference and impugn an anti-gay motive to any who argue that there are other valid frames of reference.
I believe the state’s only COMPELLING interest in sanctioning and authorizing marriage is to encourage men and women to marry, stay married, have children and raise balanced enlightened and self-disciplined children who understand that value of virtue and who are devoted to and capable of carrying civilization on their shoulders. While there are other benefits of marriage, this is the only purpose that gives the state an actionable interest in an otherwise personal institution.
I further assert that “equal protection” is NOT a purpose of marriage; that equal protection is an implementation principle whose scope is entirely dictated by the objective. You keep confusing implementation tactics and tactical contingencies with strategic objectives and strategic frameworks: the where/how vs. the what/why! You cannot divorce equal protection from the objective framework and treat it as though it IS the objective. Go back and read the “student loan vs general purpose loan” analogy that shows how ridiculous it is to apply equal protection without it being constrained by an objective framework, viz., the fact that the state has a strategic interest in fostering advanced education by backing student loans doesn’t mean that it must back loans for anybody that wants one for any purpose.
The argument “you guaranteed a student loan for Jim (so he could attend college), therefore, by equal protection, you have to guarantee a loan for John so he can build a house” is absurd. Likewise, arguing that sponsoring incentives for gay marriage is an equal protection issue without definitively establishing the state’s compelling strategic interest in incentivizing such marriages is equally absurd.
Let me be very clear on this: I do not suggest that the only purpose of marriage is the one I’ve outlined, only that it IS THE compelling interest that justifies state incentives.
Now the part that pains me: I frequently get into discussions with people who are so stuck in their ethnocentric frame of reference that they seemingly cannot even conceive that there could be other valid frames of reference. You may not accept this, but I assert that it is true: usually, these people viscerally sense that they are standing on thin ice and their arrogance is rooted in a deep-need to reassure themselves that they stand on terra firma. These are those who are quick to resort to inflammatory to shut down alternate views that threaten their sense of peace and order. These are those who are quick to project their own motives and arrogance onto the world around them and impugn others with motives designed to demonize their “threatening” perspectives.
You, C.R., continue to insist that your particular view is the only valid/moral one and insist that those who hold an alternate view of the true purpose of marriage must be bigoted and anti-gay. I challenge you to find a bigoted or anti-gay statement in my post.
From my perspective, my purpose and intent are to protect and strengthen the institution of family, which is increasingly under attack. From my perspective, traditional families are elemental and foundational to civilization as we know it, and that I believe the proclamation on the family is a correct statement on both the value of traditional families to society and the consequences to society if efforts to preserve that elemental institution fail. My view is pro-traditional family and pro-traditional marriage. You insist that my articulated purpose for state sponsored marriage is a revision; but offer no other compelling state interest that justifies providing state incentives for marriage. You suggest that the purpose I’ve cited is an innovation cynically designed to discriminate against gays; yet I confidently assert that it is the historical precedent based on a rational compelling state interest and that it is state sponsored gay marriage that is the unprecedented, historical anachronism: lacking any strategic value to the state. In fact, I argue that codifying state sponsored gay marriage constitutes an abandonment of the historical purposes of marriage by the state. You may believe this is a good thing; but I do not.
I have no problem if you want to stand on a different frame of reference and argue that the state has a strategic compelling interest in changing the historical and tradition purpose of marriage; but if you do, it is fair and reasonable to expect you to also explain what the state’s compelling strategic interest is.
Furthermore, and please think carefully on what I’m about to say: Would it be accurate if I took your tact and in my heart decided that any who disagreed with my worldview were “anti-family” and “anti-civilization” and impugned their motive to be a cynical and insidious desire to destroy both the family and society; that their perspective has no merit and could only be based in bigotry against traditional families? Do you believe this would be a truthful rendition? Yet, this is, effectively, exactly what you’ve done in relief!
If you insist that a pro-traditional-family frame of reference is implicitly anti-gay, the converse also must hold: that all those who endorse gay marriage are implicitly anti-traditional-family.
I unequivocally reject your ignorant impugning of motive and intent to those who disagree with you and strongly caution you: we each see the world through the filter of our own heart. The motives you impugn to others is a reflection of your nature, not theirs.
"What we most resists, persists."
Better get use to it buddy.
Perhaps, they should consider playing F(L)AG next year...
The Blog