Parents of gay children gather in support of new legislation
November 17th, 2008 @ 4:04pm
By Richard Piatt
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
248 messages
Community Comment Board
The messages posted here do not reflect the opinions or views of KSL or related entities. This service and the messages that are posted within the service are provided for public information purposes only. Read about the ksl.com comment guidlines here >>
I see no problem with granting the RIGHTS mentioned in the article to gay couples. I do have a problem, however, with redefining marriage. As long as that is not what these bills are trying to accomplish, then I would, of course, support them. There is no reason they should not be granted these rights and I support equal RIGHTS but the issue of gay marriage is not an issue of rights, but morality.
@lemartin - It's both. It's a question of morality that everyone HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE FOR THEMSELVES.
@Swimmer01 - Even if it is a question of morality, who is anyone to say someone else's life is immoral. If gay people are going to be granted all the same rights, then what is the big deal with being able to be labled married? If anyone has a problem with redifining marriage then I'm curious to see how those people would have reacted when marriage was redefind to allow black's the right to marry each other, and later even being allowed to marry white people. Yeah I sure hate it when they going changing that definition. Gosh, get real.
If I'm in love with someone, and I want to spend the rest of my life with them, I should be able to do that with as much right as anyone else. And if my life is morally wrong, then I'll let God (the one who created me, the one who gave me these thoughts and feelings) judge me later!
If I'm in love with someone, and I want to spend the rest of my life with them, I should be able to do that with as much right as anyone else. And if my life is morally wrong, then I'll let God (the one who created me, the one who gave me these thoughts and feelings) judge me later!
@Hwalla12 - because I would like to debate that with somebody who can't see another side.
Saying gays can't be married is saying that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions, correct? So, this begs the question -- are they equal, or capable of reaching the same potential?
In love? Probably -- depends on the people, but I'm sure that there are gay people just as much in love as straight people. In ability to contribute to society? Possibly, although I would argue that they would contribute in a different way.
But in one important point, there is a difference, and I hope you can realize I'm not bigoted when I say that a heterosexual union can produce children. A homosexual union cannot, unless needles are involved. They are different. This is not some law I put in place, but quite simply the way nature works -- procreation only works between a man and a woman.
Which begins me to question not the morality of calling gays married, but the concept of setting those two unions equal to one another. They're not equal. Period. Nature proves that.
Do they deserve equal rights? I think in many cases they do. But homosexual union is NOT the same as marriage.
Your comparison with blacks being allowed to marry is far different -- a heterosexual union between a black man and a black woman has the same potential to produce as does one of any other race. Homosexual unions do not.
Saying gays can't be married is saying that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions, correct? So, this begs the question -- are they equal, or capable of reaching the same potential?
In love? Probably -- depends on the people, but I'm sure that there are gay people just as much in love as straight people. In ability to contribute to society? Possibly, although I would argue that they would contribute in a different way.
But in one important point, there is a difference, and I hope you can realize I'm not bigoted when I say that a heterosexual union can produce children. A homosexual union cannot, unless needles are involved. They are different. This is not some law I put in place, but quite simply the way nature works -- procreation only works between a man and a woman.
Which begins me to question not the morality of calling gays married, but the concept of setting those two unions equal to one another. They're not equal. Period. Nature proves that.
Do they deserve equal rights? I think in many cases they do. But homosexual union is NOT the same as marriage.
Your comparison with blacks being allowed to marry is far different -- a heterosexual union between a black man and a black woman has the same potential to produce as does one of any other race. Homosexual unions do not.
@piglet1946 - My wife and I can't have kids, so by your definition, our marriage is not equal or the same as someone who can have kids. Get a clue, the ability to have children should not define whether a couple should be able to get married. If two consenting ADULTS want to get married, why should others be allowed to stop that?
@R D. - Here's my point -- I am not saying your marriage is inequal because of this inability. I am saying that the institution itself offers more hope than any other that children will be raised by two biological parents, which has inherent benefits therein. Thus, it makes sense to me that such an institution should be supported by tax benefits, etc.
I think I do have a clue. No one's stopping a union, but incentivizing marriage over a homosexual union means that children are afforded the best chance to be raised by biological parents. Doesn't mean they will be, but it offers that opportunity more than another union.
I think I do have a clue. No one's stopping a union, but incentivizing marriage over a homosexual union means that children are afforded the best chance to be raised by biological parents. Doesn't mean they will be, but it offers that opportunity more than another union.
@piglet1946 - You're saying. But I don't agree with it. You talk about potential. I understand that you're saying only man and women together can creat child, I'm not arguing that. Every person is born with the potential to be a parent. It shouldn't matter how or when you choose to use that potential, as long as you are stable and ready enough for that. I believe the most important thing about raising a child is that it is in a stable enviornment surrounded by people that love it and are there to take care and raise it. It shouldn't matter what two people those are, as long as they are both commiting to it. Wether that be through adoption, or how ever they choose to do it. A gay couple can raise a family just as well as anyone else, and I have many friends who have done that. Their children didn't grow up to be gay, or different.
So I don't think the potential only surrounds the ability to have children, because not every person is able. But the potential to be a good parent is the more important factor. Because everyone has the potential to be a good parent, but not everyone is...
So I don't think the potential only surrounds the ability to have children, because not every person is able. But the potential to be a good parent is the more important factor. Because everyone has the potential to be a good parent, but not everyone is...
@Hwalla12 - And please reply to my question to you above as well, when you have time.
I believe you are absolutely right about what it takes to raise a child in the proper environment. Thank you for your insight on the subject of gays raising children -- I actually know no one who has done so, and I appreciate your viewpoint.
I also appreciate that you don't agree with me. I would ask you to consider the question -- in the subject of raising children, does a child have a better chance of having parents that will work to develop those skills necessary to be a good parent if those parents are directly, biologically related to that child, and if there are two of them joined together as a partnership/union? Does this biological link give the child a greater chance that he or she will be loved and taken care of by his or her parents than if such a link does not exist?
I would suggest that, on the whole, it does. I am NOT saying such links, love, skills CANNOT be developed by another couple. I AM suggesting, however, that the chances of these feelings developing are enhanced when these biological ties exist. I have several experiences in my life and in examining the various unions I have seen to show that a sense of responsibility comes one fathers or gives birth to a child.
I would also suggest that this responsibility inherent with reproduction leads to more people accepting the grueling responsibility of raising children. If the union that reinforces the continuation of these biological ties until the child reaches adulthood -- namely, marriage -- is not incentivized, less people will have children, or take responsibility for them.
I feel this point is proven when one looks at the change in society since WWII -- pre-WWII, churches, society, government, etc. incentivized marriage. Children were generally raised by two biological parents. However, since WWII, marriage has become less and less incentivized by society, churches, etc. This coincides with a climbing abortion rate, children being put up for adoption, single-parent homes, declining birth rate, etc. This trend has further progressed in European countries where marriage has weakened, with negative birth rates in many countries in Europe.
So -- less marriage equals less children, particularly less children being raised by two biological parents, with the inherent sense of responsibility for that child's well-being incipient to fathering/giving birth to a child.
Lastly -- this sense of responsibility incipient to fathering/giving birth to a child is not ALWAYS the case. We all know cases to the contrary. I think, however, that by examining the trends I've highlighted above, one can see the general effects of preserving marriage vs. not preserving marriage on society in regards to both the decision to have children and to raise them with a partner. Less children are born, and less are cared for when marriage is not incentivized by society.
I believe you are absolutely right about what it takes to raise a child in the proper environment. Thank you for your insight on the subject of gays raising children -- I actually know no one who has done so, and I appreciate your viewpoint.
I also appreciate that you don't agree with me. I would ask you to consider the question -- in the subject of raising children, does a child have a better chance of having parents that will work to develop those skills necessary to be a good parent if those parents are directly, biologically related to that child, and if there are two of them joined together as a partnership/union? Does this biological link give the child a greater chance that he or she will be loved and taken care of by his or her parents than if such a link does not exist?
I would suggest that, on the whole, it does. I am NOT saying such links, love, skills CANNOT be developed by another couple. I AM suggesting, however, that the chances of these feelings developing are enhanced when these biological ties exist. I have several experiences in my life and in examining the various unions I have seen to show that a sense of responsibility comes one fathers or gives birth to a child.
I would also suggest that this responsibility inherent with reproduction leads to more people accepting the grueling responsibility of raising children. If the union that reinforces the continuation of these biological ties until the child reaches adulthood -- namely, marriage -- is not incentivized, less people will have children, or take responsibility for them.
I feel this point is proven when one looks at the change in society since WWII -- pre-WWII, churches, society, government, etc. incentivized marriage. Children were generally raised by two biological parents. However, since WWII, marriage has become less and less incentivized by society, churches, etc. This coincides with a climbing abortion rate, children being put up for adoption, single-parent homes, declining birth rate, etc. This trend has further progressed in European countries where marriage has weakened, with negative birth rates in many countries in Europe.
So -- less marriage equals less children, particularly less children being raised by two biological parents, with the inherent sense of responsibility for that child's well-being incipient to fathering/giving birth to a child.
Lastly -- this sense of responsibility incipient to fathering/giving birth to a child is not ALWAYS the case. We all know cases to the contrary. I think, however, that by examining the trends I've highlighted above, one can see the general effects of preserving marriage vs. not preserving marriage on society in regards to both the decision to have children and to raise them with a partner. Less children are born, and less are cared for when marriage is not incentivized by society.
@piglet1946 - But no, I don't believe a child has a better chance of having parents that will work to develop those skills necessary to be a good parent if those parents are directly, biologically related to that child.
If two people (gay or straight) both decide to have a child, then it is something that they are both going to put their hearts fully towards. I think especially for gay couples, or straight couples that don't have the ablility to concieve, because it's more of a process that they have to go through to gain that part of their life. Its going to be something that they are very passionate about if they are going to go so far out of their way to get it.
My opinion on this comes from seeing it first hand. I have freinds who adopted and raised their child. Their child (who is straight) has grown up and started her own family, and I can see the love she has for her child. A love that she learned from her parents, and I don't think the love she has for her child is any different from the love I've seen her parents give her.
I think there are parents that aren't able to help their children develop the skills they need to be good parents. Either because they are too young, or not stable enough, or whatever the reason. But there are people that are able too, but don't have the ability themselves (gay, or biologicaly not able). If they are bringing a child into their lives by choice, they are going to be giving it their all!
In my opinion, growing up with straight parents can be difficult. Sometimes you can't talk to your parents about everything. Sometime you have to fear losing your parents love because of the way you are, its not an easy thing to go through...
If two people (gay or straight) both decide to have a child, then it is something that they are both going to put their hearts fully towards. I think especially for gay couples, or straight couples that don't have the ablility to concieve, because it's more of a process that they have to go through to gain that part of their life. Its going to be something that they are very passionate about if they are going to go so far out of their way to get it.
My opinion on this comes from seeing it first hand. I have freinds who adopted and raised their child. Their child (who is straight) has grown up and started her own family, and I can see the love she has for her child. A love that she learned from her parents, and I don't think the love she has for her child is any different from the love I've seen her parents give her.
I think there are parents that aren't able to help their children develop the skills they need to be good parents. Either because they are too young, or not stable enough, or whatever the reason. But there are people that are able too, but don't have the ability themselves (gay, or biologicaly not able). If they are bringing a child into their lives by choice, they are going to be giving it their all!
In my opinion, growing up with straight parents can be difficult. Sometimes you can't talk to your parents about everything. Sometime you have to fear losing your parents love because of the way you are, its not an easy thing to go through...
@Hwalla12 - Wow your amazing! I agree with you 100%. Let's let God's law and Man's law be seperate.
@Hwalla12 - But, that aside. If you feel you can marry anybody you want because you love them, then if I love a woman and she loves me, then I should be able to marry her even if I'm already married to another woman. The love me and I love them, so why not? Also, if I love my sister and she loves me, then we should have the right to get married, right? WRONG!
We cannot make any exceptions unless we open it to all!!! It's wrong whether you think it is or not! Get over yourselves you homosexuals. My vrother is queer and has been with the same guy for 7 years. My brother and I are good friends. I still don't feel he should have the right to marry his "life partner" unless I also have the right to marry multiple women.
We cannot make any exceptions unless we open it to all!!! It's wrong whether you think it is or not! Get over yourselves you homosexuals. My vrother is queer and has been with the same guy for 7 years. My brother and I are good friends. I still don't feel he should have the right to marry his "life partner" unless I also have the right to marry multiple women.
@lemartin - No one can be discriminated against anymore!! they are asking for special treatment and that is not right!!! Prop 8 need to pass and they need to drop it!! I am tired of hearing about how everyone is so picked on. when is caucasion appreciation month or college scholarships for being white? they need to get off the pitty pot!! they are not picked on, we should be putting our money towards something that is more meaningful!
@Brandi johnson - Read the comment ABOVE THE ONE you commented huh to. lemartin was saying that marriage is only a matter of morality. I disagreed saying it was a matter of rights and morality.
I must also disagree with you. "SPECIAL TREATMENT" are you insane? How is alowing people to make their own decisions considered special treatment. How about you get off of your high chair adn stop judging people and allow them to make their own choices.
I must also disagree with you. "SPECIAL TREATMENT" are you insane? How is alowing people to make their own decisions considered special treatment. How about you get off of your high chair adn stop judging people and allow them to make their own choices.
@Swimmer01 - People can do whatever they want we will in America (as they are already doing whatever they will) and I do not harrass them or tell them they are being inmoral. I actually work with, know and have friend thats are gay. so I am not your high chair and you can climb back into it!
@Swimmer01 - So I don't understand? Are you saying it would be OK for any person to be able to make their own choices and that the the rest just stand by?
@Starman322 - No we need to stand up for what we believe in, but I do not discriminate or harrass people because of the choices that they make even if I do not agree with them.
@Starman322 - I am sorry....let me be more clear. I am only okay with people makeing their own choices as long as they are not harming anyone else.
@lemartin - @ Lemartin.
I agree that gay couples should have these rights. However, how do you legally define a "gay couple" that cannot constitutionally enter into any sort of civil union. [Utah constitutiuon, not USA constitution].
Do you see the problem here? By allowing these rights, we must define them as legal couple, but at the same time we insist on denying them any recognition that resembles a type of marriage, or long term legal relationship as a couple.
So, in otherwords, these are definitely connected issues. You cannot have equal rights without gay marriage (or civil unions), and for many that is as much of a moral issue as it does a legal issue.
I agree that gay couples should have these rights. However, how do you legally define a "gay couple" that cannot constitutionally enter into any sort of civil union. [Utah constitutiuon, not USA constitution].
Do you see the problem here? By allowing these rights, we must define them as legal couple, but at the same time we insist on denying them any recognition that resembles a type of marriage, or long term legal relationship as a couple.
So, in otherwords, these are definitely connected issues. You cannot have equal rights without gay marriage (or civil unions), and for many that is as much of a moral issue as it does a legal issue.
@Yaz - It's just another way for the gays to attempt to elbow their way into redefining marriage.
And, I disagree with gays or anyone else getting the perks that a married man and woman get-- there is and should be a benefit to marriage!
Also, being able to go to the hospital when your partner is sick is a bunch of crap-- you can already go to the hospital to see your loved one. The issue of not being discriminated against by landlords and employers is a bunch of crap-- we already have laws to prevent landlords and employers from discriminating against "anyone". And, the issue that a gay person's partner should be able to probate an estate is a bunch of crap-- it's called "GET A WILL" then you don't have to concern yourself with Probate.
And, I disagree with gays or anyone else getting the perks that a married man and woman get-- there is and should be a benefit to marriage!
Also, being able to go to the hospital when your partner is sick is a bunch of crap-- you can already go to the hospital to see your loved one. The issue of not being discriminated against by landlords and employers is a bunch of crap-- we already have laws to prevent landlords and employers from discriminating against "anyone". And, the issue that a gay person's partner should be able to probate an estate is a bunch of crap-- it's called "GET A WILL" then you don't have to concern yourself with Probate.
@lemartin - Corporate sponsors of the NGLCC -- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (www.nglcc.org) include expected names, who have been leaders in advocating homosexuality, as well as others.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
that within an hour from this minute, there will be nearly 100 posts about this topic. The conversation will probably stray from gays to mormons to blacks and illegal immigrants. :)
@daddys_girl - Guns as well will be discussed.
@Elphaba - and agree that byu sucks?
@QUEST for RELEVANCE!! - Always agree that BYU and UCLA suck.
@Elphaba - that is will be an awesome game!!! As long as BYU doesnt play like they did when they ran into the brick wall of TCU. Interestingly enough, despite how these teams are doing throughout the season, they always dig down to make it a great game. One thing for sure, the best team will win. Cheers!!!
@daddys_girl - find it annoing when people start their post in the subject line, and then let it drift into the comment section.
@Yaz - .
@daddys_girl - Corporate sponsors of the NGLCC -- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (www.nglcc.org) include expected names, who have been leaders in advocating homosexuality, as well as others.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
Connie Stock, who also supports the gay rights bills, said, "People are in support of this. They want to see a change. And our whole nation is showing they do want a change."
What people are in favor of these bills? A small vocal minority. I predict failure on all 5 bills and rightly so, redefining marriage for a few warped individuals is wrong.
What people are in favor of these bills? A small vocal minority. I predict failure on all 5 bills and rightly so, redefining marriage for a few warped individuals is wrong.
@Doug T. - I don't believe these bills are asking to redefine marriage - from what I understand it is simply granting gay couples rights such as healthcare, probate, etc.
I would hope these wouldn't fail - everyone should have these rights. Redefinition of marriage is a whole different topic...which I didn't think was mentioned in this article.
I would hope these wouldn't fail - everyone should have these rights. Redefinition of marriage is a whole different topic...which I didn't think was mentioned in this article.
@lemartin - then they are not a couple in my book so they should not be allowed to have health care and such.
@Ratkin - so if you think gay couples shouldn't have access to health insurance you are going against the mormon church. who are you to question the prophets who communicate with god?
@idkwhy - is one man and one woman
@Ratkin - resides in Mitt's Massachusetts or, more recently, Connecticut....the first two states to recognize same-sex marriage as a right.
@Ratkin - Some horny fraud by the name of Joseph Smith has a "vision" that men can marry as many women or girls( 14 year olds are TOTALLY acceptabe too) as they please and its all 100% OK because Bible GOd told this fraud that it is fine and well and expected. FOr a group of people that practiced and unpopular sexuality it is a best ironic and at worst hypocritical to deny another sexual minority similar rights to marry . Maybe if some queer who is as big of a fraud as Smith has a "vision " it will all be well. All is well , All is well
@Doug T. - You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything, we need to make sure we stand up for what we believe in
without following their example and harrassing innocent places of worship (so discreditable)
without following their example and harrassing innocent places of worship (so discreditable)
20 years ago this wouldn't have been an issue.
20 years from now are we going to be granting rights to sheep loving one eyed redneck anti-nuke whale activists?
Not that I have anything against sheep loving one eyed redneck anti-nuke whale activists mind you - just where are we going when we must grant rights to a specific group of people?
I dunno.
20 years from now are we going to be granting rights to sheep loving one eyed redneck anti-nuke whale activists?
Not that I have anything against sheep loving one eyed redneck anti-nuke whale activists mind you - just where are we going when we must grant rights to a specific group of people?
I dunno.
@Mik P. - Well I think what thy are trying to get is a set of Civil rights! Where this will go is not truly known, but I think its been amde clear that MARRIAGE is not what this group does, as far as a definition. When other couples choose to live togather, they don't ge MARRAIGE either!
@Starman322 - that means they would have to be granted to any live in couples which would take away a lot of benefits of marriage. If normal couples can't have access to healthcare and other rights that a married couple has.. then maybe gay couples should not have that right either.
@monarch82 - So in your mind the biggest benefits to marriage are social security, and healthcare?
You sound like a guy I dated once... he was destined to be sad and lonely his whole life.
You sound like a guy I dated once... he was destined to be sad and lonely his whole life.
@Yaz - Obviously social security and healthcare seem to be the biggest benefits to the gays. (Hey, let's get married so that we can have marital benefits!) They certainly aren't concerned with whether or not they're living in sin!
@Yaz - I am not too sure what world you live in, but there is some one for everyone in America, even if you are a serial killer!
@Starman322 - when people get married, or stay married, it is often because they have CHILDREN, which is something homosexuals cannot naturally do.
Health insurance benefits and the like often support children in these unions -- children of biological parents who do not burden the state by placing their children up for adoption or relying so much upon social services, etc.
It's a tricky issue, but that is the one point that is different between marriage and any other type of union -- marriage is the only institution that leads to children being raised by two biological parents. This is obviously not true in all cases, but it provides the best opportunity for that to occur. No other union even comes close.
Is that beneficial or not? Does that deserve societal, fiscal, etc. benefits or not, more than another form of union? I believe that it does. The benefits to having two biological parents raise a child seem fairly obvious to me, although I would welcome alternative opinions/research stating otherwise.
Health insurance benefits and the like often support children in these unions -- children of biological parents who do not burden the state by placing their children up for adoption or relying so much upon social services, etc.
It's a tricky issue, but that is the one point that is different between marriage and any other type of union -- marriage is the only institution that leads to children being raised by two biological parents. This is obviously not true in all cases, but it provides the best opportunity for that to occur. No other union even comes close.
Is that beneficial or not? Does that deserve societal, fiscal, etc. benefits or not, more than another form of union? I believe that it does. The benefits to having two biological parents raise a child seem fairly obvious to me, although I would welcome alternative opinions/research stating otherwise.
@Mik P. - Corporate sponsors of the NGLCC -- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (www.nglcc.org) include expected names, who have been leaders in advocating homosexuality, as well as others.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
during the political campaign in california the mormon church indicated it supported all of the civil rights measures just not marriage. now we get to find out if the church is trustworthy or if it was merely trying to decieve others and appear moderate to gain votes for its views at all cost.
@idkwhy - While I'm not commenting on the merits of either side's position, I would point out that the "mormon church's" "official" statement was that it "did not oppose" certain protections and rights for gay couples that stop short of marriage.
There is an enormous difference between "supporting" and "not opposing."
There is an enormous difference between "supporting" and "not opposing."
This should be an interesting bill.
I am a landlord, and while "Are you gay?" is not part of my rental application, I am not sure I want the government telling me who I can and cannot accept as renters. If I accepted low housing funds or some other type of tax-payer/public funds, then I could understand it. I don't! So does the government get to regulate my rights as a property owner.?
I have lots more to say on this topic, but I'd need to see the bill first.
I am a landlord, and while "Are you gay?" is not part of my rental application, I am not sure I want the government telling me who I can and cannot accept as renters. If I accepted low housing funds or some other type of tax-payer/public funds, then I could understand it. I don't! So does the government get to regulate my rights as a property owner.?
I have lots more to say on this topic, but I'd need to see the bill first.
@Roger B. - if you think the government shouldn't be able to say one cannot dicriminate in hiring and housing, i wonder does that apply equally to businesses and landlords to have the right to refuse mormons?
@Roger B. - Already tells you that you can't discriminate on the basis of several reasons. Race, creed, religion, etc.
My thought is as long as their money is green, they have good references, jobs, and credit rating why would you NOT want to rent to a homosexual couple?
My thought is as long as their money is green, they have good references, jobs, and credit rating why would you NOT want to rent to a homosexual couple?
I THOUGHT THE CHURCH WAS AGAINST "GAY MARRIAGE," GAYS..ENOUGH SAID !
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
@obummer - when you say , THE CHURCH" which church are you refering too, after all, there are many churches out there, you dont think you have the one and only church do you?
It's both. It's a question of morality that everyone HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE FOR THEMSELVES.
I agree, but to the gay couples out there, of which I have a sister......Good luck making babies!
Your parts don't fit!~
I agree, but to the gay couples out there, of which I have a sister......Good luck making babies!
Your parts don't fit!~
@Joe_Schmoe - Is always adoption.
@Swimmer01 - This is true and as you well know there is still not enough info on how a same sex couple can raise a hetro child?
@Starman322 - right. The research has not really come to a definate conclusion. I believe that the sexual preference has nothing to do with the sexual orientaion of the children. Last time I checked I did not choose my sexual orientation and neithier do gay people. We do not pick and choose our trials.
@Swimmer01 - what about bi-sexuals? they choose both. What about your straight then gay and not gay? you just wanted to try something different
@Brandi johnson - They just happen to be attracted to both. Do you remember choosing who you were sexually attracted to? I don't!
@Swimmer01 - I have never thought of that before!
Maybe I'm Bi? I have never tried, maybe i am and maybe I'm not. Does anyone want to help me?
Maybe I'm Bi? I have never tried, maybe i am and maybe I'm not. Does anyone want to help me?
@Starman322 - if this is implying that a same sex couple can raise a hetero child you are the dumbest person on here
@Swimmer01 - homosexuals and hetrosexuals not married but living together cannot adopt.
Homosexuals also cannot adopt the genetic child of their partner.
Homosexuals also cannot adopt the genetic child of their partner.
@Swimmer01 - would want parents of the same-sex.
Imagine going through school trying to explain your 'parents' to your peers.
It’s like naming your first-born son, Sue.
Can you say child emotional abuse?
Peace out-->libs
Imagine going through school trying to explain your 'parents' to your peers.
It’s like naming your first-born son, Sue.
Can you say child emotional abuse?
Peace out-->libs
@Joe_Schmoe - to all the hetro couples who cant make babies either. marriage is not just in the baby making business r-tard!
@Brian G. - One needn't be married to make babies, nor is the ability to make babies a requirement of marriage.
@Big Love - sad but true
@Brandi johnson - SO if a couple can't have children then they should not get married?! Get real!!! Besides how are they supposed to know wether or not they can before they get married?
@Brian G. - Making babies that are raised by two biological parents is a natural consequence of incentivizing marriage. Prove me wrong. It's not a requirement OF marriage, but a natural consequence of marriage.
This rearing of a child by two biological parents does not ALWAYS occur, but the likelihood of it occurring increases greatly because a couple is married, as a direct result of that couple being married.
Stop thinking in black and white.
This rearing of a child by two biological parents does not ALWAYS occur, but the likelihood of it occurring increases greatly because a couple is married, as a direct result of that couple being married.
Stop thinking in black and white.
I don't know why they need these "bills" it seems to me that gays already have these rights. They just need to form the contracts between the "partners" write the "wills" etc. and get them properly processed already. Marriage gives me so many "rights" as I have heard, but as yet, I have not found a single "right" that I have as a married man that doesn't go along with already having to file all the proper paperwork with the proper authorities. As for health care, my wife still had to fill out and sign a special permission waiver for the medical insurance to talk to me as her husband, when it comes to life insurance policies, I still have to file the paperwork with her as the beneficiary (I could easily put my neighbor as the beneficiary too). When it comes to probate, I still have to have a "Will" written up or all the money goes to the state. Even a marriage license wasn't proof enough to the DMV that my wife lived with me when getting a state ID card, they had to have some financial institution or similar paper statement with billing/mailing address and her name on it to identify she lived there. It seems to me, that Gays already have all these rights, they just need to file the proper paperwork, sign contracts, etc.
@Nathan T. - I think you have hit the nail on the head today! This is all try, but what many times ahppens is when they say they are a gay couple people look away, some hat the same things that happen when Blacks tried to enforce in the 60's.
... then this is okay. It's when they start trying to re-define what marriage really is, that's when it gets ugly.
@Sheri C - ... a gay couple should NOT have the right to adopt or foster a child. If they want the rights described in this story, I have no problem with that. But leave the children out of it! There's enough that kids have to deal with today. Let's not corrupt their minds with gender-confused parents as well!
@Sheri C - My kids are not going to be hangin out with little bobby and his two daddy's..... I dont want them hittin on him or doing anything they shouldnt... its pretty creepy actually
@XR400 - ... I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, my gosh! ... who knows what would happen during "play time"?!
@Sheri C - ... and this jumped out at me:
"Utah lawmakers aren't commenting on the proposed bills yet, but many say the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage cancels out these proposals."
So, this all may just be a waste of time.
"Utah lawmakers aren't commenting on the proposed bills yet, but many say the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage cancels out these proposals."
So, this all may just be a waste of time.
@Sheri C - Corporate sponsors of the NGLCC -- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (www.nglcc.org) include expected names, who have been leaders in advocating homosexuality, as well as others.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
@Sheri C - all homosexuals are sex offenders or something? You have a really warped opinion, and I'm going to thank God tonight that you aren't my mother!
I'm very grateful that my family allows me to see my nieces and nephews without fear of me raping them during play time.
That my be the most offensive thing I've heard on these boards. I fear what you would do to one of your children if one of them came out to you. Lets hope they don't for their emotional well being. Good god
I'm very grateful that my family allows me to see my nieces and nephews without fear of me raping them during play time.
That my be the most offensive thing I've heard on these boards. I fear what you would do to one of your children if one of them came out to you. Lets hope they don't for their emotional well being. Good god
@Hwalla12 - ... but, seriously, if gay people are so messed up in their minds that they don't even know what gender they really are, and who they should and should not be having sex with, who knows what else is going on in those warped brains of theirs. I, for one, am NOT willing to bet the children on it! And if you think I have a warped opinion on this, it's because of what I've seen from the gay community in all of this. They've acted just like my 2-year old. They didn't get their way, and all I've seen is a bunch of whining. Who knows what else they'll do if they don't get their way???
And, don't get me started on "emotional well being". Wow!
And, don't get me started on "emotional well being". Wow!
@Sheri C - Sheri, How are you acting there honey? Again, Climb down of the pedestal that your perched on. You come here day in and day out so that you can ramble on. It's the same old comments from you. You really need a life sister. Go get to homeschooling your 18 kids in the filthy double wide.
@Sheri C - Hey Homo's, This lady needs a few of you to come decorate her filthy double wide. She has no sense of style.
@tooeleboy29 - ... how people who have nothing better to say, come up with these really stupid comments that have nothing to do with the news story?
If he gets his "chairmanship" in the Rules Committee, all this legislation will be killed before it is even read.
A "moral" conservative against gays and pro-segregation. Yes.
We have our very own Strom Thurmond/Trent Lott.
Lovely.
A "moral" conservative against gays and pro-segregation. Yes.
We have our very own Strom Thurmond/Trent Lott.
Lovely.
When my mom when to sell the house (while my dad was living out of state working the new job), she couldn't sign the papers without having already filed paperwork for the "power of attorney" before he moved, so that she could sign on the house sale documents. She couldn't do that just because she was his wife.
At the hospital... I haven't run into this yet, but I highly doubt that I can say, "I am her husband therefore I can watch the surgery." Yet during "visiting hours" I have visited many people who are not my wife, and never been told no because I was not the spouse. Because of the HIPPA laws, the doctors offices we have visited, did not automatically give me information, I still had to have her sign saying she allowed them to share information with me.
I want to know what "rights" I have as a married man, that gays don't already have as non-married persons.
At the hospital... I haven't run into this yet, but I highly doubt that I can say, "I am her husband therefore I can watch the surgery." Yet during "visiting hours" I have visited many people who are not my wife, and never been told no because I was not the spouse. Because of the HIPPA laws, the doctors offices we have visited, did not automatically give me information, I still had to have her sign saying she allowed them to share information with me.
I want to know what "rights" I have as a married man, that gays don't already have as non-married persons.
@Nathan T. - gay people can be fired for being gay. that is why the mormon church and the prophet supports these bills has they indicated in california.
@idkwhy - idkwhy, I hope you're not Scott McCoy or one of the other frontmen for Equality Utah. You're killing your credibility. The "mormon church" has not said they "support" these bills...they "do not oppose" them. It's an enormous difference.
@idkwhy - Maybe you should read up on the Mormon history... think they're not discriminated against?? THINK AGAIN.
@idkwhy - You just said that this is about discrimination not about marriage. The whole article talks about "rights." Discrimination is a different ball of wax. With an "at will" work agreement, you can be fired for anything, really, but discrimination is looked on as bad reason to not hire or not fire someone. While I find it morally wrong to fire someone just because it is learned that they are gay, employers should be allowed to chose who they want to work for them. Currently the laws are already clear that employers CAN NOT discrimination based on sexual orientation, so again, why is there a need to pass another such law.
So, as the law is already written, if an employer fires someone with the sole reason being that they are "gay" the "gay" person already has the right to take them to court over discrimination.
Housing discrimination laws are equally clear that a landlord cannot refuse to house you because [removed]. However, do you will want to rent from someone that has such a hatred against gays that they would want to discriminate. Also, you wont' be discriminated for loans to buy a house because of sexual orientation. It is not even legal for them to ask, that, and if you found out that is why they did refuse a loan, again there are already legal recourse.
So, as the law is already written, if an employer fires someone with the sole reason being that they are "gay" the "gay" person already has the right to take them to court over discrimination.
Housing discrimination laws are equally clear that a landlord cannot refuse to house you because [removed]. However, do you will want to rent from someone that has such a hatred against gays that they would want to discriminate. Also, you wont' be discriminated for loans to buy a house because of sexual orientation. It is not even legal for them to ask, that, and if you found out that is why they did refuse a loan, again there are already legal recourse.
@Nathan T. - if they are in the hospital and are on life support they cannot make the decision for them to continue this way or to have the support stopped...not really the being able to visit part. your mom was well enough to sign those papers but if she wasnt you would get that info
change the MORAL beliefs of the MAJORITY and force us to accept DISGUSTING sexual behavior between people of the same sex. That is what this is about, WE ARE BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, they can do whatever they WISH, but i will NEVER EMBRACE IT AS THE NORM . When two people of the SAME SEX CAN CREATE LIFE as GOD intended and made a MAN AND A WOMAN to do then and only then will I accept them as a NORMAL MARRIAGE.
@MyOpinion4U - Well you do make a point and I have said this before: once this behavior becomes the norm, so will others like; human and beasts, andn etc.
gas is cheap right now so fill up your VW Buses and head to Connecticut where you can be free as lovers and be isolated from the cruel NORMAL society that is so called "picking on you"......Bunch of babies...
You already have the right to designate medical visitation, power-of-attorney, inheritance, etc. Maybe the legislature could streamline the paperwork. And why limit it to couples? Any adult should be able to make legal designations with any number of consenting adults, regardless of marriage or sex.
As to housing discrimination, no one needs to violate their own privacy by announcing their sexual orientation. As to medical benefits, eveyone needs to live a medically responsible lifestyle. If a company won't insure you because of your hazardous lifestyle (such as risk of AIDS), it's time to abandon that chosen lifestyle. Sexual oriantation may not be a choice, but a lifestyle is a choice.
As to housing discrimination, no one needs to violate their own privacy by announcing their sexual orientation. As to medical benefits, eveyone needs to live a medically responsible lifestyle. If a company won't insure you because of your hazardous lifestyle (such as risk of AIDS), it's time to abandon that chosen lifestyle. Sexual oriantation may not be a choice, but a lifestyle is a choice.
@Redrockrider - everyone has risk of aids..not just gays, guess i getter abandon my heterosexual lifestyle fast
@Candice G. - If you lifestyle includes non-monogamous sex (such as heterosexual adultery, fornication, molestation, etc), then it is time to change your lifestyle. It could save you from an incurable disease or a legal catastrophe.
@Candice G. - Lifestyle, not orientation. Difference. Promiscuity leads to aids, regardless of sexual orientation. Stop thinking in black and white, and open your mind to an alternative viewpoint before you spout off your opinion.
Connie Stock, who also supports the gay rights bills, said, "People are in support of this. They want to see a change. And our whole nation is showing they do want a change."
Connie are you saying about .0009 percent of the American people support this dead-end street legislation.
Please do not waste tax money on pipe-dreams to nowhere land.
Peace out-->libs
Connie are you saying about .0009 percent of the American people support this dead-end street legislation.
Please do not waste tax money on pipe-dreams to nowhere land.
Peace out-->libs
Obviously social security and healthcare seem to be the biggest benefits to the gays. (Hey, let's get married so that we can have marital benefits!) They certainly aren't concerned with whether or not they're living in sin!
that are black and white with no gray areas.
This is one of those things. Marriage is not for same gender couples. Domestic partnership, civil unions ARE for same gender couples.
I've read some pretty convincing arguments on this subject which has led me to believe that most couples in a commited partnership actually, in many cases, have access to the same benefits as other couples. I would guess that this doesn't occur in all cases. Not every employer provides benefits as a perc to your employment regardless of your marital status.
As far as I have seen, from reading all the stories and many of the thoughts and feelings posted here, what gays really want is to steal the word "MARRIAGE" and subvert its meaning. Well, I don't want you to do that. I have as much right to protect traditional marriage as you have to try to change it to suit you. You can holler all you want that it is about benefits but it has been proven that many of you already have those benefits available or can get them with a few legal papers. I said before, if you're concerned about the property, deed it in both names. You can get power of attorney, be on bank accounts, be listed as beneficary on insurance documents and about every other thing you want to name. Many employers do, indeed, offer benefits for couples in a commited relationship. Not all, but then not all traditionally married couples have everything either.
I believe in the marriage as God designated it. I won't ever change my attitude about that. By what right do you try to force me to? You are no better than I am. I don't force my lifestyle on you.
As for these parents. I feel badly for them, not because they have offspring who are homosexual but because they are drawn into the middle of this conflict.
The gay/lesbian community, at this point, are no better than the terrorists who bombed the Twin Towers and commited the other horrific acts of 9/11. You have stooped to the caliber of those who will do anything to get their way. You may be able to force the government, someday, to grant you your heart's desire but you will never be able to force those who believe in marriage, what it was meant for and who it was meant for, into accepting you as a "married" couple. You cannot force acceptance.
This is one of those things. Marriage is not for same gender couples. Domestic partnership, civil unions ARE for same gender couples.
I've read some pretty convincing arguments on this subject which has led me to believe that most couples in a commited partnership actually, in many cases, have access to the same benefits as other couples. I would guess that this doesn't occur in all cases. Not every employer provides benefits as a perc to your employment regardless of your marital status.
As far as I have seen, from reading all the stories and many of the thoughts and feelings posted here, what gays really want is to steal the word "MARRIAGE" and subvert its meaning. Well, I don't want you to do that. I have as much right to protect traditional marriage as you have to try to change it to suit you. You can holler all you want that it is about benefits but it has been proven that many of you already have those benefits available or can get them with a few legal papers. I said before, if you're concerned about the property, deed it in both names. You can get power of attorney, be on bank accounts, be listed as beneficary on insurance documents and about every other thing you want to name. Many employers do, indeed, offer benefits for couples in a commited relationship. Not all, but then not all traditionally married couples have everything either.
I believe in the marriage as God designated it. I won't ever change my attitude about that. By what right do you try to force me to? You are no better than I am. I don't force my lifestyle on you.
As for these parents. I feel badly for them, not because they have offspring who are homosexual but because they are drawn into the middle of this conflict.
The gay/lesbian community, at this point, are no better than the terrorists who bombed the Twin Towers and commited the other horrific acts of 9/11. You have stooped to the caliber of those who will do anything to get their way. You may be able to force the government, someday, to grant you your heart's desire but you will never be able to force those who believe in marriage, what it was meant for and who it was meant for, into accepting you as a "married" couple. You cannot force acceptance.
@older but wiser - I think most people on this forum would agree that comparing the desperation of homosexuals to the 9/11 terrorists is a weak analogy. Other than that, you have a strong, well presented argument. Thanks for sharing it.
Homosexuals are gay.
@kodak - Corporate sponsors of the NGLCC -- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (www.nglcc.org) include expected names, who have been leaders in advocating homosexuality, as well as others.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
@B Happy 4 Ever - Time to support the above listed companies for having the courage to stand for human decency, morality and truth.
Thanks for providing a list of corporate sponsors of NGLCC. I'll now let all my civil rights friends to spread the word in the name of equality.
It's time keep church and state separate.
It's time to demand that the LDS Church be taxed.
Thanks for providing a list of corporate sponsors of NGLCC. I'll now let all my civil rights friends to spread the word in the name of equality.
It's time keep church and state separate.
It's time to demand that the LDS Church be taxed.
@Fred charles rayovac - I can think of few institutions in America that have stood for human decency, morality, and truth over the centuries more than Christian churches.
Martin Luther King was a preacher, and many civil rights movements were organized at churches. Churches don't just give to charity -- they often are a refuge for homeless, provide food and clothing, and encourage people to give service to their community.
I'm curious -- at the protest were you the drunk one or the one smoking pot? Your methods of encouraging taxation on a church reflect poorly on the homosexual community as a whole, particularly when you consider that these churches did not enact this legislation. The people did. Fight the people, but leave churches alone. They do a lot more actual good than any "civil rights" activist I've ever met.
Martin Luther King was a preacher, and many civil rights movements were organized at churches. Churches don't just give to charity -- they often are a refuge for homeless, provide food and clothing, and encourage people to give service to their community.
I'm curious -- at the protest were you the drunk one or the one smoking pot? Your methods of encouraging taxation on a church reflect poorly on the homosexual community as a whole, particularly when you consider that these churches did not enact this legislation. The people did. Fight the people, but leave churches alone. They do a lot more actual good than any "civil rights" activist I've ever met.
i still believe god made adam and eve not adam and steve sorry folks
@carrotsnapper - I've never heard that phrase before! You are HILARIOUS! Jesus...can you come up with a new slogan? I just want to mention this...everyone comes back to the Bible. In order for Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve, as referenced above [although I'm not entirely sure Steve is a Biblical name]) to populate the planet, either Eve's sons had to have sex with her, or their sisters. So we have holy, biblical incest. Mother/Son, or Brother/Sister. Sexy....
Just look at these people. Would you like to have been raised by these people? No bloody wonder their kids are messes.
@Diedre J. - you must be an english blok
@carrotsnapper - With the name "Diedre" I would assume she was a "Blok" (bloke) also! Although "Block" would be appropriate. She is fairly dense, and rigid. Perhaps with her friends, as a block, she can spell, "IGNORANT".
just the thought of what gays do believe in makes me want to throw up all over myself
I want to know who are we to judge or state there living in sin if gay people decide to get married.
Which I look at it this way what would happen if god forbid that one of our children came to us stating there gay / lesbian either way we would stand behind them if we truly loved them.
Stop for a second and put your self in there shoes and walk there mile how would you feel ?
Which I look at it this way what would happen if god forbid that one of our children came to us stating there gay / lesbian either way we would stand behind them if we truly loved them.
Stop for a second and put your self in there shoes and walk there mile how would you feel ?
@staymates - I've got news for you... I have 2 cousins who are gay, and I don't support them forcing their values - or lack of - on everyone else. Take out your Bible and read it real carefully-- you'll see that Jesus called the sinners to repentance-- he never said go forth and do whatever you want. I'd rather be a leader for the Lord than a leader for a gay activist group! Regardless of whether or not I share DNA with one of them.
@Augiesmom - Expected "Eve" to have sex with sons, or expected her sons to have sex with their sisters. So I'm not sure where the "holy" part comes into play. The Bible also includes some very horrible, disgusting things. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to imbibe with significance.
@staymates - in otherwords what yu r saying is we should all buy a drunk his next drink or hand a addict his next hit just because they think thats what they wnat and that they percieve to be happy meanwhile the drug eats them from the inside out.
I will support these state constitutional amendments and civil unions if the Gay and Lesbian groups will support a federal constitutional ammendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman.
I don't consider myself a gay hater. But i'm getting sick and tired of this group of society. The constitution gives the same rights to EVERYONE, why do they want more rights than the normal person?
Stop whinning and try to behave like most normal people.
Keep your sexual preference private, most poeple don't care who you love.
Stop whinning and try to behave like most normal people.
Keep your sexual preference private, most poeple don't care who you love.
Wow! You're a hater in denial: "I don't consider myself a gay hater. But I'm getting sick and tired of this group of society."
The point is that gay people are not given the same rights under the constitution. Gays have been fired for their sexual orientation, and yes, gays are not able to see their loved ones in a hospital.
Grow up. If gays keep their sexual orientation private, your asking for a double standard since I'm quite sure you don't ask the same of straight people.
The point is that gay people are not given the same rights under the constitution. Gays have been fired for their sexual orientation, and yes, gays are not able to see their loved ones in a hospital.
Grow up. If gays keep their sexual orientation private, your asking for a double standard since I'm quite sure you don't ask the same of straight people.
@Fred charles rayovac - you consider that a homosexual orientation is not equal to a heterosexual one. No double standard when they're not equal.
And if you think they are equal, let me enlighten you -- boy + girl = baby. Boy + boy or girl + girl equals...pleasure? Not really sure...
At any rate, there already is a law preventing gays from being fired for sexual orientation. The person involved should feel free to sue the company.
Seeing their loved ones in the hospital -- I have no idea, and I'm curious if there are some specific instances where this has occurred. Please enlighten me if you have facts to support your claims.
And if you think they are equal, let me enlighten you -- boy + girl = baby. Boy + boy or girl + girl equals...pleasure? Not really sure...
At any rate, there already is a law preventing gays from being fired for sexual orientation. The person involved should feel free to sue the company.
Seeing their loved ones in the hospital -- I have no idea, and I'm curious if there are some specific instances where this has occurred. Please enlighten me if you have facts to support your claims.
marriage is a religious ceremony turned tradition that has been misconstrewed as a tradition only.
god does not condone homosexuality and has told us that marriage is ordained of god and sanctioned for man and woman to be joined together.
so it seems to me that gays are seeking to appropriate their actions with or to god and society through a government mandate, but the mistake is trying to interpret god and his plan and think you can change what he (god) has planned for us. it is foolish to think you are going to force 80% or so of christian americans to rethink what we already know to be gods law.
besides that you want gov. out of your bedroom and your the same ones to want gov. to pay for the results of your actions in the bedroom. you take away our rights when we pay for through our tax dollars your lifestyle that we find moraly reprehensible, same as abortion.
most religous people including myself are fine with however you want to live as long as you dont force us to be part of it. like having to educate our kids about "alternative couple families", when that dont fit in with what we are teaching at home. thats like how would you like the school system teaching that polygamy is a positive "alternative lifestyle", i think you get the gist. i am all for equal RIGHTS but it says nothing in any constitution about marriage being a right. sorry. and you people that want to holler democracy when its good for you and then appoint libs. to legislate from the bench to the favor of a 14% minority in this country are hypocrites and know nothing of a free republic or democracy, life liberty and the persuit of happiness and how we go about accomplishing that goal IS for the majority to decide ie: pres. elect obama is proof unfortionately i am in the minority in not being happy about that decision but would not if i could ask a judge to overturn that decision of the people for my own indulgence.
the fall of any democracy is when the people find out they can vote themselves gifts, even a democratic REPUBLIC like ours
god does not condone homosexuality and has told us that marriage is ordained of god and sanctioned for man and woman to be joined together.
so it seems to me that gays are seeking to appropriate their actions with or to god and society through a government mandate, but the mistake is trying to interpret god and his plan and think you can change what he (god) has planned for us. it is foolish to think you are going to force 80% or so of christian americans to rethink what we already know to be gods law.
besides that you want gov. out of your bedroom and your the same ones to want gov. to pay for the results of your actions in the bedroom. you take away our rights when we pay for through our tax dollars your lifestyle that we find moraly reprehensible, same as abortion.
most religous people including myself are fine with however you want to live as long as you dont force us to be part of it. like having to educate our kids about "alternative couple families", when that dont fit in with what we are teaching at home. thats like how would you like the school system teaching that polygamy is a positive "alternative lifestyle", i think you get the gist. i am all for equal RIGHTS but it says nothing in any constitution about marriage being a right. sorry. and you people that want to holler democracy when its good for you and then appoint libs. to legislate from the bench to the favor of a 14% minority in this country are hypocrites and know nothing of a free republic or democracy, life liberty and the persuit of happiness and how we go about accomplishing that goal IS for the majority to decide ie: pres. elect obama is proof unfortionately i am in the minority in not being happy about that decision but would not if i could ask a judge to overturn that decision of the people for my own indulgence.
the fall of any democracy is when the people find out they can vote themselves gifts, even a democratic REPUBLIC like ours
@Skyler D. - okay...now that you've stated your religious belief, let's agree to erect a wall of separation between church and state, just as Thomas Jefferson invisioned.
hmmm..you said that marriage is not a right. Then let's be equal about it: no marriage for straight or gays. Is that what you want?
Your views on homosexuality are based on ignorance.
hmmm..you said that marriage is not a right. Then let's be equal about it: no marriage for straight or gays. Is that what you want?
Your views on homosexuality are based on ignorance.
@Fred charles rayovac - i know exactly what gays are about they are lost souls acting out negatively, and if you look at the constitution there is no seperation of church and state, it only states that there would be no official church of the state and furthermore the founding fathers surely believed in a god and respected and feared him as well.
marriage beeing a religious ceremony is also fact not a belief.
also as i stated the foly of a democracy is that it is so mutch like mob rule where the majority wins.
you know nothing of thomas jeferson or his vision which was that of in god we trust.
marriage beeing a religious ceremony is also fact not a belief.
also as i stated the foly of a democracy is that it is so mutch like mob rule where the majority wins.
you know nothing of thomas jeferson or his vision which was that of in god we trust.
and I want to vote others gifts. I want gay people to have the right to marry.
@Fred charles rayovac - MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE LEGAL JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE IS ACTUALLY A CIVIL UNION, IF DONE BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SAME AS GAYS HAVE IN SOME STATES.
MARRIAGE IS UNDER GOD AND IS A CEREMONY PREFORMED LINKING THE SOULS OF A MAN AND WOMAN FOR LIFE AND OR ETERNITY. INSEPERABLE AND UNBREAKABLE BY ANY AND ALL POWERS OF ANY MAN OR GOV. ON THE EARTH. AND WHETHER OR NOT GOVERNMENT SAID IT WAS OK WE (MEN AND WOMEN) WOULD DO IT TAX BREAKS HOSP. RIGHTS OR WHATEVER ELSE IT IS YOU WANT OR NOT. ITS NOT ABOUT THAT ITS PART OF A COMANDMENT/S AND SPIRITUAL PROGRESSION.
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
THE LEGAL JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE IS ACTUALLY A CIVIL UNION, IF DONE BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SAME AS GAYS HAVE IN SOME STATES.
MARRIAGE IS UNDER GOD AND IS A CEREMONY PREFORMED LINKING THE SOULS OF A MAN AND WOMAN FOR LIFE AND OR ETERNITY. INSEPERABLE AND UNBREAKABLE BY ANY AND ALL POWERS OF ANY MAN OR GOV. ON THE EARTH. AND WHETHER OR NOT GOVERNMENT SAID IT WAS OK WE (MEN AND WOMEN) WOULD DO IT TAX BREAKS HOSP. RIGHTS OR WHATEVER ELSE IT IS YOU WANT OR NOT. ITS NOT ABOUT THAT ITS PART OF A COMANDMENT/S AND SPIRITUAL PROGRESSION.
[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]
We might as well ride donkeys to work and keep our cars home, it just sounds like the dumber thing to do. Whats next? Its going to be legal to marry iguanas??????
If the government okays gay marriage, then people that have been practicing polygamy will also want rights to be married too. So all those gays who opposed the practice of Polygamy in the past should also be considered bigots as they accuse many of being so. Another point, people of any circumstance that wants to marry, should have to have the right to marry. If it is equality that one major group wants, it should be equality for the minor groups too (brother to brother, Adult to minor, so on and so forth). It would have to be equality for everyone no matter what they wanted to do. When would the line be drawn?
@chevron001 - What many people fail to realize is that marriage has been redefined a few times...even within the last century.
In 1967 it was illegal in 17 states for a white person to marry a black person.
During slave times, marriage beteen two slaves was not considered equal. It was until "death OR DISTANCE do you part".
Arranged marriages are becoming less and less prevalant than they used to be.
The point I am trying to make is that marriage HAS been redefined through the ages, and it didnt open up some of the moral issues you talked about. (incest, minors).
Let's get real here for a sec.
We are talking about two consenting adults, who love each other and want to share their lives togther. All we want is the same rights as heterosexuals....nothing more, mothing less.
In 1967 it was illegal in 17 states for a white person to marry a black person.
During slave times, marriage beteen two slaves was not considered equal. It was until "death OR DISTANCE do you part".
Arranged marriages are becoming less and less prevalant than they used to be.
The point I am trying to make is that marriage HAS been redefined through the ages, and it didnt open up some of the moral issues you talked about. (incest, minors).
Let's get real here for a sec.
We are talking about two consenting adults, who love each other and want to share their lives togther. All we want is the same rights as heterosexuals....nothing more, mothing less.
"[no swearing please]" these homosexual activists. They are predators to our society and should be treated as such.
Homosexuals, let me give you some advice, okay?
1)Don't expect to be accepted to you push you agenda in our face. If you want to keep quiet about you sex life, that would be preferred.
2)I'm sick about hearing about equality. You are already equal to marry like the rest of us as long as it is the opposited sex.
3)The people voted on this issue, now let it go!!!
4)Hospital visit, I really care who visits who in the hospital, however, if I am a landlord, I reserve the right to screen my tenants, thank you.
5)Homosexuality is sick and wrong and if you have kids to claim they are "gay" then get them a good therapist because they are not going to get along well going against what they know is normal and what is not.
6) To those of you pushing this sick perverted agenda, we are sick and tired of it and don't want to hear it anymore! You are nothing but predators.
Homosexuals, let me give you some advice, okay?
1)Don't expect to be accepted to you push you agenda in our face. If you want to keep quiet about you sex life, that would be preferred.
2)I'm sick about hearing about equality. You are already equal to marry like the rest of us as long as it is the opposited sex.
3)The people voted on this issue, now let it go!!!
4)Hospital visit, I really care who visits who in the hospital, however, if I am a landlord, I reserve the right to screen my tenants, thank you.
5)Homosexuality is sick and wrong and if you have kids to claim they are "gay" then get them a good therapist because they are not going to get along well going against what they know is normal and what is not.
6) To those of you pushing this sick perverted agenda, we are sick and tired of it and don't want to hear it anymore! You are nothing but predators.
@Sambecks C. - As I asked above
If their money is green and they have good references, good jobs and credit rating why would you NOT rent to homosexuals?
If their money is green and they have good references, good jobs and credit rating why would you NOT rent to homosexuals?
@Sambecks C. - 1) Dont push your religious, moral, and conservative views on me, especially when it violates my civil rights.
2)I am sick of not having right to marry the person I love. Like it or not Prop 8 brought this issue to the forefront and it is NOT going away.
3)I dont understand why civil rights for a minorty group was put on a ballot? I dont ever remember getting to vote on another group's civil rights.
4)You reserve the right to screen your tenants, but should not be allowed to discriminate on the sole fact that someone is gay. Just as you would not be allowed to deny housing based on someone's race
5)You should check up on therapy yourself. Seems like you have alot of anger and, dare i say, "suppressed" emotions.
6)As stated before, this is a civil rights movement. The passing of Prop 8 has made us more determined than ever. So, thanks, to all the supporters of prop 8 who have now brought this to the national stage. It definitley is not going away now.
So, Sam. Continue to spew your HATE and intolerance. We have definatley heard it all before. It just makes us more determined. Thanks.
2)I am sick of not having right to marry the person I love. Like it or not Prop 8 brought this issue to the forefront and it is NOT going away.
3)I dont understand why civil rights for a minorty group was put on a ballot? I dont ever remember getting to vote on another group's civil rights.
4)You reserve the right to screen your tenants, but should not be allowed to discriminate on the sole fact that someone is gay. Just as you would not be allowed to deny housing based on someone's race
5)You should check up on therapy yourself. Seems like you have alot of anger and, dare i say, "suppressed" emotions.
6)As stated before, this is a civil rights movement. The passing of Prop 8 has made us more determined than ever. So, thanks, to all the supporters of prop 8 who have now brought this to the national stage. It definitley is not going away now.
So, Sam. Continue to spew your HATE and intolerance. We have definatley heard it all before. It just makes us more determined. Thanks.
@Jared H. - I'm not pushing religion on anyone
You have the right to marry as long as it is done properly to a member of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Gay rights was put on the ballot. Gays lost. This issue is not going away and many of us are dug it for the long haul to defend our religous freedoms and save this country. I reserve the right to disapprove of any unholy an impure practice and I will fight to keep that right.
I would not rent to any unmarried couple shacking up. I don't care how green their money is.
I've had therapy, I'm normal. Homosexuals are not!
This is not a civil rights movement. They are not the same fight. Homosexuality is neither civil nor right.
Hate and disapproval of sin are two different things. I don't hate anyone. I only hate what homosexual activists are trying to do to this country
Homosexual activists are sexual predators and they should be treated as such.
You have the right to marry as long as it is done properly to a member of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Gay rights was put on the ballot. Gays lost. This issue is not going away and many of us are dug it for the long haul to defend our religous freedoms and save this country. I reserve the right to disapprove of any unholy an impure practice and I will fight to keep that right.
I would not rent to any unmarried couple shacking up. I don't care how green their money is.
I've had therapy, I'm normal. Homosexuals are not!
This is not a civil rights movement. They are not the same fight. Homosexuality is neither civil nor right.
Hate and disapproval of sin are two different things. I don't hate anyone. I only hate what homosexual activists are trying to do to this country
Homosexual activists are sexual predators and they should be treated as such.
@Jared H. - Thanks Jared that was well said but.... It is going to take some good ol heteros to stand up to the bigotry and ignorance that still permeates our society in the likes of "Sammy boy" here.
It wasn't the blacks that freed the slaves, it was the majority ....or whites.
It will take the majority of us flaming heteros to help our brothers and sisters in this just cause. Don't be afraid to do the right thing. Let us end this discrimination. This is so obviously the right thing to do that you have to wonder why we are fighting about this at all.
It wasn't the blacks that freed the slaves, it was the majority ....or whites.
It will take the majority of us flaming heteros to help our brothers and sisters in this just cause. Don't be afraid to do the right thing. Let us end this discrimination. This is so obviously the right thing to do that you have to wonder why we are fighting about this at all.
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 m16
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.
4:28pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
4:31pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
4:45pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:12pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Where landlords and employers should have EVERY right to draw a distinction (to "discriminate" and when did THAT become a dirty word?) is in CONDUCT.
There are material differences between an honorably MARRIED couple and a couple who are merely shacking up. Whether the couple shacking up are heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference. If a landlord doesn't care to rent to a couple that is merely shacking up, that should be his right.
Similarly, if an employer does not want to provide benefits to unmarried lovers of employees that should be HIS right.
The State constitution is clear.
Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the legislature to attempt to force Utah's citizens to treat unmarried couples (homosexual or otherwise) in the same or substantially equivalent manner as they treat married couples.
Those who don't like this need to START by convincing the legislature and populace to amend our Constitution.
5:16pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
7:56pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
But having chosen to engage in conduct of which many in larger society disapprove, they should not be surprised if some choose not to provide facilities for them.
Those who would demand respect for their PRIVATE choices should be among the first to show forth similar respect for the choices and property rights of others.
Do as you will on YOUR property. But don't expect me to willingly and knowingly facilitate such conduct on MY property.
Respect. It is INTENDED to be a TWO-way street.
5:42pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:02pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
What the gay activist don't tell you is that a majority of gay men die alone and are usually found dead months after the fact, why? cause they don't have family and the lover that gave them HIV died years ago.
True love that merits marriage rights? Don't think so, this is an issue about money and who is going to pay for the gay "rights" health cost.
Peace out--libs
6:30pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
8:47pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Even if your scenario was true, guess what, YOU WOULD with your ”TAX” dollars (married or not), it’s called medicare/medicaid.
If Gays were allowed to marry or have civil unions, health care from one partner or both would cover any costs, plus a healthy marriage (civil union) actually benefits the health of both (Just like Heterosexual marriage).
Come on Fred open your eyes(if not your mind)
6:09pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:13pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:27pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Peace out-->libs
6:32pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:59pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
If you think all gay people behave like the way you are describing, you full of ignorance and hatred. Wake up!
1:37am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
11:59am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
No, this is not about making a story sound good. It's about the truth of my personal experience. I didn't know this man was gay when I rented to him, nor did I ask. I found out blatantly enough that he was gay. He threw it in my face, and littered my walls with it.
I have never ever had this kind of experience with any heterosexual person. I've had heterosexual tenants that have not paid the rent, and not cleaned the place. But, destroying my property with homosexual filth is a hate crime against ME. I have never in my life aspired to view gay porn, being forced to by my tenant is a violation of my rights to not have to see it. Where are my rights? Who is concerned about my rights? I lost a ton of money, my property was destroyed, and gay porn was shoved in my face....WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS?
6:00pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
American airlines
American Express
Avis
Coldwell Banker
Coors Light
Ernst & Young
IBM
Intel
JPMorgan Chase
Kodak
Lehman Brothers
McDonalds
Motorola
OfficeMax
PepsiCo
Travelport
Wells Fargo
Windham Hotels And Resorts
Your voice can be heard like the news story below. Gays are the minority and not the majority. Boycott these companies let them know they need to stay neutral in this cause!
June 22 2007 NEW YORK (FORTUNE) -- Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval.
6:04pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:09pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Maybe I'll just buy that for myself.
6:10pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Lets boycott anyone who supports equaltity! And then we can put of sign segregating all those homo's, we wouldn't them sitting by us on a bus, or using the same toilets as us.
That's just ridiculous!
2:10am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
One thing that DOES bother me is when I am in the gym locker room, and I don't know who is gay and might be checking me out--but then I remember I am in the gym and not many gay men go to the gym...
12:35am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
10:10pm - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
2:30am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
4:57pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:00pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:02pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:25pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:30pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:31pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Even in evolution, it would've taken the first "man" to meet the first "woman" and reproduce before another "man" came around, so...might want to rethink that.
Which kind of brings me to something that I've always wondered about homosexuality when looking at it in this context -- it literally is physically impossible for the first man or woman to have been gay -- unless he or she was very frustrated, and just decided to shag up with a member of the opposite sex just to sate his or her lust, and they had a baby. It just couldn't happen, or we wouldn't be here.
So as far as "normal" goes, this kind of serves to prove to me, at least, that homosexuality isn't normal behavior -- if "normal" is defined as "original" or "intended". It also kind of leads me to think people couldn't be "born" gay, unless our genetic code has changed that much "since man came to be".
5:38pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:48pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Well read up on it, it was everything goes and then it was gone.
6:00pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Hey guess what, black people didn't exist in the beginning, neither did handicap people, hermaphrodites, little people... should I go on? We're all God's creations. I thank God each night for giving me life, and the ability to love. What do you thank him for?
6:11pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
9:41pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
in other words god dont make mistakes he is the creator of all things including, minds bodies and nature he comands and controls all that is.
it is merely your cross to bear so carry it, we all have em'.
5:19pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:24pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:40pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
DING! That's it.
6:22pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:44pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
12:46pm - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
9:08am - Thu Nov 20th, 2008
5:48pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:59pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Of course, it's probably people that just disagree with your viewpoint, but don't jump to conclusions just because someone feels you've misused the phrase. I'm fairly certain most of us agree that everyone deserves liberty and justice.
BTW I didn't mark anything at all. Just asking you to think more and spout less.
6:13pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:18pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
7:08pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.”
Then, around 1923, it was (minor) changed to:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
1924 saw it changed to:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands: One Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
Yet another change...early 50's, I believe:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: One nation, indivisible, With liberty and justice for all."
And finally, the Knights of Columbus in 1954, (after many years of lobbying), made the most recent addition:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands: One nation, under God, indivisible, With liberty and justice for all."
There 'ya have it!
p.s. The preceding information is from Wikipedia, though you're free to research whatever reliable source you feel is most accurate.
7:12pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:25pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:29pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, and actually I have an honest question. What rights are being denied to you? I am sincerely curious, and I don't want some list from Wikipedia or what-not, I want to know how this affects you. I've tried many times to understand the homosexual position on this, to have somebody tell me what they are missing from their lives.
Honestly asking here. I haven't made up my mind how I feel about most of this legislation being pushed by the "pink activists" (quoting someone else on this board who was homosexual, who disagrees with many of the actions by these groups). Anxiously awaiting your reply -- what rights are you missing? Thanks in advance.
12:22pm - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
9:14am - Thu Nov 20th, 2008
6:24pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
4:49pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
4:51pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
4:53pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
4:58pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes
Look for the paragraph beginning with "Allegations of bigotry..."
Somewhere along the way"does not object" was turned into "supports." I'm not saying who did it, because I don't know. It's unfortunate that misinformation (I'll stop short of calling it dishonesty) will continue to hurt the cause of those who want gay marriage rights. You might as well have Mayor Newsom keep being the spokesman...that's worked out really well so far.~
5:01pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
9:19am - Thu Nov 20th, 2008
5:06pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
5:14pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
And of course, when individual members disagreed with the LDS Church's position on Prop 8 you thought of them as independent and free thinkers.
What will you think of those individual LDS members who disagree with the LDS Church in this particular area?
5:08pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:42pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
"now we will find out if the mormon church keeps its word it supported these basic rights in california in its explanation that gay marriage was something entirely different. now we will see if it was more than pandering and trying to appear moderate to win votes."
I for one am sick of all the gays screaming that others are intolerant and homophobic just because they don't agree with you. Grow up and realize that it's ok for others to feel differently then you do; and as long as a majority feel that way and are willing to vote on the issues you will just have to deal with things the way they are.
And another thing: don't think that being able to consider your perverted union a marriage will in any way make it "ok". Acceptance of something that is wrong and unnatural is NOT justification; it is still wrong.
12:53pm - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
9:21am - Thu Nov 20th, 2008
5:09pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
10:31pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:24pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
5:50pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
Peace out-->libs
10:17am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
5:57pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:23pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:37pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
6:42pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
This is what you are screaming for...this hasn't been done since Nazi Germany.
You people have it all screwed up in your heads. You call evil good and good evil.
You say that homosexuality is freedom, when it really is bondage to a sin. You die alone, you end up with diseases from it and no life but sitting in front of somebody's church and making your cause look bad through your intolerance and tantrums.
You scream for tolerance...yet you have no tolerance for others who don't agree with your sin...You wouldn't know tolerance for others beliefs if it bit you in the rear end!
You are being seen for the hypocrits you are! You are doing it yourselves!
8:48pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
12:10am - Tue Nov 18th, 2008
Do you really think taking away the tax exemption will do anything? Think about it, 10% of what 13million people make, and you think they are going to stop voicing their Christian believes over pocket change. No, they will continue to council and regardless of the threats and violence the protesters may do. Thanks for the publicity though. It sure is nice to see an organization stand against that which is evil with no care for what the world thinks. God is no respecter of men. Interesting that the Prophets of the Bible sure pissed off a lot of people when they were preaching truth, even to the point that they were all murdered. The wicked take truth to be hard...
7:55pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
You cannot deprive them of that "right" if this is available on the outside; it’s their right to be gay and married and gay married. Right?
There would be marriages, divorces, transfers, honeymoons, and custody battles, riots, fights, and more sex crimes all at the expense of the taxpayers and because it is their "right" to marry another man.
Thanks a lot gay community.
10:12pm - Mon Nov 17th, 2008
know I now most conservative should feel conflicted with this dichotomy. On one hand you believe that small government is best, and that any intrusion into your life's is a violation and should be fought with all fervor, Yet you fight and support for extensive government regulation of what is essential a private and/or religious matter.
I am a registered independent, I may personally find Homosexuality distasteful, but to hold true to my beliefs and refrain from cherry picking only the ones i find convenient i find that i must support the Gay/lesbian movement for equal rights, Because I do not believe that it is government place or right to dictate my or anyone elses morality.
If you are a christian than you understand how very distasteful Christ found hypocrites! Be careful where you tread or may find yourself on the other side of argument if the political winds shift.
Has is oft quoted in other boards - A government big enough to give you everything is a government big enough to take it away.