Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
RE: Dave | 7:23 a.m. | 12:49 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Dave, you missed the earlier points made about failed AZ Prop. 107 in 2006. To
save you time: It didn't fail because it established equality of marriage
or whatever. It failed because it was such a convoluted, poorly written measure
that many people honestly couldn't tell what they were voting for. Its own
language could have been used to overturn it. It tried to do too much.
The clearer, simpler, much more straightforward Proposition 102 in AZ just passed. The same issue was at stake, and largely involved the same rhetoric on both sides. BUT--this time around, people got it. There was no clumsy language to stumble over, no legalese to confuse people. THAT was the difference. People just needed to know what they were voting for.
BTW: YES, I live in AZ and observed the process first-hand for both measures.
The clearer, simpler, much more straightforward Proposition 102 in AZ just passed. The same issue was at stake, and largely involved the same rhetoric on both sides. BUT--this time around, people got it. There was no clumsy language to stumble over, no legalese to confuse people. THAT was the difference. People just needed to know what they were voting for.
BTW: YES, I live in AZ and observed the process first-hand for both measures.
realitycheck | 12:53 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
how many times must it be said that gays don't care about the term
"marriage"? just submit a proposal at the federal level that gives
gay couples all the same rights as heterosexual couples and your problems are
solved. Call it something else instead of marriage... but you better do it
soon, before the courts rule and you are stuck with the results....
Comments continue below
Steve D | 12:55 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
"What do homosexuals really want" says: "... looking at
evolution, biology, etc. shows that homosexuality is aberrant behavior."
That's not true. Homosexual activity and behavior occurs naturally within a wide range of the animal kingdom including humans. This includes a wide variety, both within animal and human populations, of non-reproductive sex.
Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are all natural behaviors.
That's not true. Homosexual activity and behavior occurs naturally within a wide range of the animal kingdom including humans. This includes a wide variety, both within animal and human populations, of non-reproductive sex.
Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are all natural behaviors.
re...to winning or losing | 1:20 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
That truly might be the most ridiculous comment on this board, and that is
saying something. Because a group of humans is requesting the same rights as
another group of humans who are similar in 99.9% of every way possible you
believe them to be mimicing heterosexuals? You're absolutly correct. They
are requesting the same right to a licensed marriage. Tell me where the wrong
in that is? Everyone one here who has thrown out their religous definitions or
passages, or their Webster's dictionary definition of marriage is just
masking their true being. They are a bigit! Lets be honest, this issue is
about control. The fact that a homosexual couple is given the right to obtain a
legal marriage license has absolutly ZERO affect on the lives of those who
oppose it. If your God didn't was so opposed to homosexual relationships
then why did he create beings with homosexual feelings. Tell me this all
heterosexuals out there, including myself, at what point in your life did you
sit at your gradeschool desk and say "I really find that girls/guys more
attractive." Simple answer, never. Love is an innate feeling, that should
be rewarded to all human beings.
Boyd | 1:27 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
realitycheck: That would be okay, except that in Utah, our constitution now
precludes any sort of legal recognition of a union which equates to marriage.
The best course of action is for Californians to submit a new proposition repealing the amendment. Get it on the ballot for 2010, and see if voters keep the amendment or repeal it.
This isn't about "sore losing", it's about keeping the fight going. If states had voted for anti-miscegenation laws (and many did), would interracial couples be called "sore losers" if they continued fighting against the law?
The best course of action is for Californians to submit a new proposition repealing the amendment. Get it on the ballot for 2010, and see if voters keep the amendment or repeal it.
This isn't about "sore losing", it's about keeping the fight going. If states had voted for anti-miscegenation laws (and many did), would interracial couples be called "sore losers" if they continued fighting against the law?
A bystander | 1:49 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Boyd wrote-- "If states had voted for anti-miscegenation laws (and many
did), would interracial couples be called "sore losers" if they
continued fighting against the law?"
Good point. If lesbians and gays just go away and "stop whining," no one is going to hand them their rights on a silver platter. No one else is going to fight for them, or join them in their fight, if they don't fight to begin with.
Good point. If lesbians and gays just go away and "stop whining," no one is going to hand them their rights on a silver platter. No one else is going to fight for them, or join them in their fight, if they don't fight to begin with.
It is Discrimination--Here's Why | 1:55 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Not allowing Gay Couples to be legally married is the "backdoor way"
of discriminating against them. Without actually mentioning gay people, states
can pass laws against "Unmarried Couples" knowing full well it
doesn't target heterosexual couples, who have the right to wed, while
targeting the gay ones, who do not.
Bunch of crybabies | 2:00 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
I wasted about a half hour reading all these comments, and pretty much what I
get out of all of them is that the gays in California are in fact just a bunch
of whiners.
The fact is this - the vote went to the people of the Great state of California (not the Queer State of California) and the majority voted to ban marriage between two gay people. Whether you think it's fair not, we live in a democracy and the majority rules (2000 presidential vote notwithstanding), and in this the majority voted against gay marriage. Furthermore, this was NOT the first time California voted against gay marriage - twice has the majority in California voted against gay marriage.
But, the gays just cannot accept what the majority voted for in this election, and so they throw nothing more than a hate-filled, bigoted temper tantrum directed at anyone who does not choose to accept their way of life. Seems somewhat ironic since the gays seem unwilling to accept others way of life who choose to life a non-gay lifestyle. "We just want to be accepted, but we refuse to accept anyone who is not gay."
The fact is this - the vote went to the people of the Great state of California (not the Queer State of California) and the majority voted to ban marriage between two gay people. Whether you think it's fair not, we live in a democracy and the majority rules (2000 presidential vote notwithstanding), and in this the majority voted against gay marriage. Furthermore, this was NOT the first time California voted against gay marriage - twice has the majority in California voted against gay marriage.
But, the gays just cannot accept what the majority voted for in this election, and so they throw nothing more than a hate-filled, bigoted temper tantrum directed at anyone who does not choose to accept their way of life. Seems somewhat ironic since the gays seem unwilling to accept others way of life who choose to life a non-gay lifestyle. "We just want to be accepted, but we refuse to accept anyone who is not gay."
realitycheck | 3:00 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
re Boyd 1:27pm said:
"realitycheck: That would be okay, except that in Utah, our constitution now precludes any sort of legal recognition of a union which equates to marriage."
and
"The best course of action is for Californians to submit a new proposition repealing the amendment. Get it on the ballot for 2010, and see if voters keep the amendment or repeal it."
----------------
what?
California has little to do with it. And your thought that your state's constitutional amendment will keep gay marriages out of Utah carries little weight.
If you fail to act in getting a proposal at the federal level before the end of next year, you will be stuck with the outcome. Because there is very little doubt that the US Supreme Court will hear (and rule on) this issue by then. And we already know how they will rule....
You do understand that Federal Law trumps state statute, right?
Better stop throwing money at a dead horse and start coming up with a solution, or as I said before, a solution will be forced on you... (and I don't mean by me - I mean by the courts - so don't get all defensive....)
"realitycheck: That would be okay, except that in Utah, our constitution now precludes any sort of legal recognition of a union which equates to marriage."
and
"The best course of action is for Californians to submit a new proposition repealing the amendment. Get it on the ballot for 2010, and see if voters keep the amendment or repeal it."
----------------
what?
California has little to do with it. And your thought that your state's constitutional amendment will keep gay marriages out of Utah carries little weight.
If you fail to act in getting a proposal at the federal level before the end of next year, you will be stuck with the outcome. Because there is very little doubt that the US Supreme Court will hear (and rule on) this issue by then. And we already know how they will rule....
You do understand that Federal Law trumps state statute, right?
Better stop throwing money at a dead horse and start coming up with a solution, or as I said before, a solution will be forced on you... (and I don't mean by me - I mean by the courts - so don't get all defensive....)
re Bunch of crybabies 2pm | 3:15 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
look at it the other way:
I wasted about a half hour reading all these comments, and pretty much what I get out of all of them is that the mormons in Utah are in fact just a bunch of bigots and religious zealots.
The fact is this - the vote went to the people of the Great state of California and after the mormon church threw $20mil in deceptive ads, those that believed the ads voted to ban marriage between two gay people. Whether you think it's fair not, we live in a democracy and people have a right to fight for their civil rights.
But, the mormons just cannot accept gays, and so they throw nothing more than a hate-filled, bigoted temper tantrum directed at anyone who does not choose to accept the mormon way of life. Seems somewhat ironic since the mormons seem unwilling to accept others way of life who choose to life a non-mormon lifestyle.
funny how you can just change it from gay to mormon and it still fits....
I wasted about a half hour reading all these comments, and pretty much what I get out of all of them is that the mormons in Utah are in fact just a bunch of bigots and religious zealots.
The fact is this - the vote went to the people of the Great state of California and after the mormon church threw $20mil in deceptive ads, those that believed the ads voted to ban marriage between two gay people. Whether you think it's fair not, we live in a democracy and people have a right to fight for their civil rights.
But, the mormons just cannot accept gays, and so they throw nothing more than a hate-filled, bigoted temper tantrum directed at anyone who does not choose to accept the mormon way of life. Seems somewhat ironic since the mormons seem unwilling to accept others way of life who choose to life a non-mormon lifestyle.
funny how you can just change it from gay to mormon and it still fits....
Anonymous | 3:15 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
This isn�t right! I think both the Mormons and gays are in
the wrong. This issue has nothing to do with Utah. So both the gays and Mormons
need to shut up! Let California deal with its own mess. The gays need to stop
whining and get more involved with politics and gay organizations. By getting
more involved they will be able to voice louder but civil opinions. As for the
Mormons please step down from your soap box. Stop thinking that you are so high
and mighty. Mormons should be helping people come closer to God. You guys just
made a media skeptical out of this whole California thing. Good Job!
It�s not like the world already has a stigma towards
Mormons but then you had to stick your necks out and do this. The past few weeks
goes to show that The Church of Jesus Christ isn�t as loved
and accepted as Utahn�s thought. From reading most of the
comments it looks like neither side is humbled by this. If this is the true
church, I am having a hard time believing in it. Grow Up!!! Help people find
there way into Gods arms.
Ry | 3:27 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Evan Wolfson, a California-based gay-rights lawyer who heads a group called
Freedom to Marry, said, "There's something deeply wrong with putting
the rights of a minority up to a majority vote. If this were being done to
almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is."
APPARANTLY MR. WOLFSON THINKS IT'S JUST HUNKY DOREY FOR A MINORITY TO IMPOSE ITS VALUES ON THE MAJORITY WITHOUT ASKING FOR MAJORITY INPUT (I.E. A MAJORITY VOTE). APPARANTLY ACCORDING TO MR. WOLFSON IT IS AMERICAN TO IGNORE DEMOCRACY. WHAT A GOOFBALL.
APPARANTLY MR. WOLFSON THINKS IT'S JUST HUNKY DOREY FOR A MINORITY TO IMPOSE ITS VALUES ON THE MAJORITY WITHOUT ASKING FOR MAJORITY INPUT (I.E. A MAJORITY VOTE). APPARANTLY ACCORDING TO MR. WOLFSON IT IS AMERICAN TO IGNORE DEMOCRACY. WHAT A GOOFBALL.
To realitycheck | 3:30 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Clearly you haven't spoken to many homosexuals since the word
"marriage" is exactly what is being fought for especially considering
the protections in Domestic Partnership Registry. I have spoken to many
homosexuals who uniformly agree that calling it something different is the civil
right that is lost since every other protection is afforded them at the state
level in California. At least pretend to know what you are talking about.
I voted "no"
I voted "no"
McGriff | 3:37 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
History shows that marriage has had many changes over the centuries. But the one
constant, is that marriage has always been used to produce stable families for
creating and raising the next generation of human beings. Children are most
likely to grow into happy productive adults, if they are raised by a Mother and
Father in a stable loving family. There is no credible study that shows a better
way.
Because children require approximately 20 years to raise, society has always thought it was a good idea to grant special status, privileges and obligations to the married couple - to encourage strong families. Granted, some men and women who marry will never produce children. But they still model the ideal relationship that has the ability to produce children. Unfortunately, same-sex couples cannot produce children. So how can we say their relationship is equal to marriage? Biology can't be changed through legislation or court decisions.
Same-sex couples should be treated fairly, and with love and dignity. But I believe civil unions are the best way to protect the rights of same-sex couples. Don't try to change the definition of marriage to something that ignores the rights of children.
Because children require approximately 20 years to raise, society has always thought it was a good idea to grant special status, privileges and obligations to the married couple - to encourage strong families. Granted, some men and women who marry will never produce children. But they still model the ideal relationship that has the ability to produce children. Unfortunately, same-sex couples cannot produce children. So how can we say their relationship is equal to marriage? Biology can't be changed through legislation or court decisions.
Same-sex couples should be treated fairly, and with love and dignity. But I believe civil unions are the best way to protect the rights of same-sex couples. Don't try to change the definition of marriage to something that ignores the rights of children.
to It is Discrimination--Here's | 3:38 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
You do realize that homosexuals were not the only ones targeted but polygamists
as well? You may want to read about A. Scalia's belief that gay marriage
will allow for polygamy as a slippery slope per Judge Learned Hand.
Why is it that polygamists are deemed immoral, though statistics show they are actually less likely to commit any crime (yes some occurs but again at a much lower rate than our society) but homosexuals are deemed more moral with more support in the population?
I find it particularly amusing that because of polygamy, the government became involved in registering marriages to "protect society from the barbarism of polygamy." Clearly the government overstepped into religion on that issue. The supreme Court in reynolds v. u.s. determined that actions not belief can be adjudicated, so why not the behavior of homosexuality and polygamy? Why only polygamy? Hypocrisy, that's why since it is easily accepting someone more sinful that defending someone more faithful.
Agnostic and amused.
Why is it that polygamists are deemed immoral, though statistics show they are actually less likely to commit any crime (yes some occurs but again at a much lower rate than our society) but homosexuals are deemed more moral with more support in the population?
I find it particularly amusing that because of polygamy, the government became involved in registering marriages to "protect society from the barbarism of polygamy." Clearly the government overstepped into religion on that issue. The supreme Court in reynolds v. u.s. determined that actions not belief can be adjudicated, so why not the behavior of homosexuality and polygamy? Why only polygamy? Hypocrisy, that's why since it is easily accepting someone more sinful that defending someone more faithful.
Agnostic and amused.
Mr. Obama | 3:52 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
What is President Elect Obama's opinion on the matter? He believes that
marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. His only concession,
and a fake one at that, was that there shouldn't be an amendment to such.
He needed only say the word and a number of populations would have voted as
asked. Obama said nothing. The homosexual crowd was under the bus because that
is where they were thrown by the democrats as the Mormons were on the polygamy
issue. Like the Mormons, the Homosexual crowd will be welcomed by the
Republicans...just bring your checkbook as you did with the Democrats.
John Pack Lambert | 4:07 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To the 11:37 commentator,
The fact that those who bother commenting are only those who care is only one issue.
200 words is not enough to fully express ideas. Usually people are responding to specific previous posts, so unless you read their statements in light of what previous people said than you will get a false impression of what they are saying.
I think we also need to bear in mind that people often are goaded in these discussion boards. I have seen people say things on here like "I can't wait for the law to change just so I can have the fun of gloating over you as I marry my gay lover in your temple". It is true such bizarre statements are best answered by one of the methods suggested in general conference by Elder Hales, that is the method of silence.
Lastly I think there is a problem at times where people use terms with an intended meaning that is either obscured by inprecision or misunderstanding. To me a statement "homosexualty is sinful" is true because by definition homosexuality is the action of having sex with a person of the same gender. More.
The fact that those who bother commenting are only those who care is only one issue.
200 words is not enough to fully express ideas. Usually people are responding to specific previous posts, so unless you read their statements in light of what previous people said than you will get a false impression of what they are saying.
I think we also need to bear in mind that people often are goaded in these discussion boards. I have seen people say things on here like "I can't wait for the law to change just so I can have the fun of gloating over you as I marry my gay lover in your temple". It is true such bizarre statements are best answered by one of the methods suggested in general conference by Elder Hales, that is the method of silence.
Lastly I think there is a problem at times where people use terms with an intended meaning that is either obscured by inprecision or misunderstanding. To me a statement "homosexualty is sinful" is true because by definition homosexuality is the action of having sex with a person of the same gender. More.
John Pack Lambert | 4:09 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To continue my previous statement. Since some people have redefined
homosexuality to encompass "sexual orientation" they may object to my
statements.
However, the wording is key to the dialogue. As long as we constantly confront ourselves with the truth that having same-gender attraction does not mean one has to act on it, the whole debate on this issue is different.
However, the wording is key to the dialogue. As long as we constantly confront ourselves with the truth that having same-gender attraction does not mean one has to act on it, the whole debate on this issue is different.
John Pack Lambert | 4:19 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
The 12:49 poster has a good point,
The more complexed a measure the more likely people are to vote against it. Two years ago here in Michigan we passed a proposal severly restricting the taking of property by the government. I knew one person who voted against it because he was afaid it created a precedent in favor of the government taking property, which he did not want at all.
The more complexed a measure the more likely people are to vote against it. Two years ago here in Michigan we passed a proposal severly restricting the taking of property by the government. I knew one person who voted against it because he was afaid it created a precedent in favor of the government taking property, which he did not want at all.
Just Saying | 4:27 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
The difference is they were GIVEN the right by the GOVERNMENT then had that
right taken away by a PUBLIC vote which should have not have been up for vote
in the first place.
Common Sense - You're ridiculous. Your comment utterly disgusted me. But you're right...a child should not grow up in a home where they are treated properly, LOVED, and taught to be TOLERANT and ACCEPTING.
That would be downright disgusting.
Common Sense - You're ridiculous. Your comment utterly disgusted me. But you're right...a child should not grow up in a home where they are treated properly, LOVED, and taught to be TOLERANT and ACCEPTING.
That would be downright disgusting.
Laughable | 4:29 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To even consider the notion that gay marriage is on the same platform as slavery
and the 1960's civil rights movement is flat out laughable. Laugh out loud
laughable! Are you kidding me? Gay marriage is an argument about language and
the definition thereof. They have every right granted to them already. The fact
that they even put themselves in the same category as slaves is evidence of the
absurdity of their argument.
D.M. | 4:48 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To re Steve-O @ 12:28
Your comment is rather interesting because EVERY SINGLE ad that I saw (and I went in search of them) that was for the passing of Prop. 8 was paid for by the Knights of Columbus, a catholic organization. It is true that LDS members in Cali donated several millions of dollars but the ads that played most prominantly were not paid by the LDS members. The church paid nothing directly.
I also have yet to find any lies in those ads. I've seen well over a dozen and I couldn't find any lie
Your comment is rather interesting because EVERY SINGLE ad that I saw (and I went in search of them) that was for the passing of Prop. 8 was paid for by the Knights of Columbus, a catholic organization. It is true that LDS members in Cali donated several millions of dollars but the ads that played most prominantly were not paid by the LDS members. The church paid nothing directly.
I also have yet to find any lies in those ads. I've seen well over a dozen and I couldn't find any lie
realitycheck | 4:50 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
re Ry 3:27pm
no minority is imposing its values on you. you personally, nor your church have to "accept" gay marriage. The fact that you think it does just means you are paranoid and a bigot.
re 3:30pm poster
you are mistaken. the point is RIGHTS, not the specific term "marriage". But given how many things are tied to the term "marriage", and since the fight has been at the state level, they fight for "marriage". But a federal proposal that grants FULL rights of "marriage" to a union called something else, would be acceptable to them.
Perhaps you didn't ask your gay friends the right question....
no minority is imposing its values on you. you personally, nor your church have to "accept" gay marriage. The fact that you think it does just means you are paranoid and a bigot.
re 3:30pm poster
you are mistaken. the point is RIGHTS, not the specific term "marriage". But given how many things are tied to the term "marriage", and since the fight has been at the state level, they fight for "marriage". But a federal proposal that grants FULL rights of "marriage" to a union called something else, would be acceptable to them.
Perhaps you didn't ask your gay friends the right question....
Re: realitycheck | 4:53 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
You seem to have neglected that the federal government has already made
legislation about the "gay marriage" issue. They decided to keep such
decisions at the state level.
Re: re STEVE-O 12:28pm | 12:34 | 5:49 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Wow, apparently you know something even California Secretary of State Debra
Bowen doesn't! She can't even tell us how much LDS church members
donated in support of Prop 8. I guess "do not lie" only goes one way.
to realitycheck | 12:53 | 5:48 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
why should one group own the monopology to the term 'marriage'?
it has been tried --- and in fact --- it is not the same
Do you know what problems LGBT people face when, in courts, hospitals, work, --- they throw the term "domestic partnership" or "civil union" ---
they/we end not getting the same rights.
A rose, by any other word, is not a rose, even if you want to call it a chrysanthemum.
it has been tried --- and in fact --- it is not the same
Do you know what problems LGBT people face when, in courts, hospitals, work, --- they throw the term "domestic partnership" or "civil union" ---
they/we end not getting the same rights.
A rose, by any other word, is not a rose, even if you want to call it a chrysanthemum.
Re: Steve D | 5:54 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
"Homosexual activity and behavior occurs naturally within a wide range of
the animal kingdom including humans."
Really? Then I suppose it should be easy for you to supply us with a wide range of examples.
Really? Then I suppose it should be easy for you to supply us with a wide range of examples.
Bunch of crybabies | 2:00 p.m | 5:57 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
You know, if we in the LGBT had resorted to calling people fundamental LDS
people in Utah and people everywhere "crybabies, whiners" --- etc.
(choose the label) --- between May and November 4, it was the Yes On 8 people
who decided to resurrect the issue.
They took it back to the voting booth.
Chances are --- if it gets overturned, do we in the LGBT have the right the call "Yes on 8" people "whiners and losers?" --- by your own standard?
It was the "Yes on 8" people who took it back to the political arena and took a right away from the people upon whom it had been given.
Do we really want to resort to name calling or can we resolve this logically?
They took it back to the voting booth.
Chances are --- if it gets overturned, do we in the LGBT have the right the call "Yes on 8" people "whiners and losers?" --- by your own standard?
It was the "Yes on 8" people who took it back to the political arena and took a right away from the people upon whom it had been given.
Do we really want to resort to name calling or can we resolve this logically?
To McGriff | 3:37 p.m | 6:00 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Always bringing the equation of children into this ---
If we're going to argue children --- since you brought it up ---
are you advocating we do away with non-nuclear families?
A Mom and a Dad, after all, is the way that "traditional marriages" is being defended.
Are we going to outlaw single-parent households, by the same logic?
If we're going to argue children --- since you brought it up ---
are you advocating we do away with non-nuclear families?
A Mom and a Dad, after all, is the way that "traditional marriages" is being defended.
Are we going to outlaw single-parent households, by the same logic?
Utah Landslide | 6:04 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
I have to ask all of you comment posters in Utah who have repeatedly said
"I agree that gays should have civil protections, but just don't call
it marriage", would you REALLY support a civil union bill? Would you REALLY
call or e-mail your legislative reps and ask them to support it? Would you
REALLY go to bat to repeal the problems in Amendment Three? If all of you did,
then it would be a legislative landslide and the bulk of this problem would
instantly go away.
If you (and in a larger context the LDS Church) really want this issue resolved amicably, the image of the church (and our State) to be improved, and the community to start healing its divisions, then passing basic civil union protections in Utah should be your first and most constructive objective.
The 2009 session is not that far away, so I would ask politely that you put your vote where your mouth is. Thanks.
If you (and in a larger context the LDS Church) really want this issue resolved amicably, the image of the church (and our State) to be improved, and the community to start healing its divisions, then passing basic civil union protections in Utah should be your first and most constructive objective.
The 2009 session is not that far away, so I would ask politely that you put your vote where your mouth is. Thanks.
Re: Re: Steve D | 5:54 p.m. | 6:05 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
You asked, so here you go...
Bonobos, birds, lizards, flatworms, sheep, spotted hyenas, bottlenose dolphins, seahorses, lions,...
Bonobos, birds, lizards, flatworms, sheep, spotted hyenas, bottlenose dolphins, seahorses, lions,...
To realitycheck | 4:50 p.m | 6:08 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Wrong on both counts,
The rights of 'marriage' are not the same --- to LGBT people... when you enumerate them, one by one, they don't add up.
If you want to call 'marriage' something else --- remember --- this was the compromise back then... but after years of living through this...
LGBT couples find out that even the 'rights' are not the same.
They are not.
The rights of 'marriage' are not the same --- to LGBT people... when you enumerate them, one by one, they don't add up.
If you want to call 'marriage' something else --- remember --- this was the compromise back then... but after years of living through this...
LGBT couples find out that even the 'rights' are not the same.
They are not.
Re: Mr. Obama | 3:52 p.m | 6:14 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
The LGBT people are very aware of President Elect Obama's take on the
definition of marriage.
Here is the question ---
Given two choices in the last election ---
1. McCain --- not as favorable to the LGBT community
2. Obama --- wants to extend the same rights to the LGBT community, at the expense of calling it something else.
We're willing to vote for someone in the White House who is more friendly to the gay community than McCain.
Here is the question ---
Given two choices in the last election ---
1. McCain --- not as favorable to the LGBT community
2. Obama --- wants to extend the same rights to the LGBT community, at the expense of calling it something else.
We're willing to vote for someone in the White House who is more friendly to the gay community than McCain.
to Laughable | 4:29 p.m | 6:16 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
We're not completely comparing ourselves to the Black Civil Rights movement
---- at least some of us are not. For purposes of analogies, sometimes the
comparisons help, sometimes not --- different time, different community --- with
all respect to the Black community.
We are saying, however, that is a deep question of rights ---
We are saying, however, that is a deep question of rights ---
Anonymous | 6:28 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
"We're not completely comparing ourselves to the Black Civil Rights
movement ---- at least some of us are not."
And not every LDS person voted yes on 8. Some voted no. Some didn't vote. Did every gay person vote for Obama? No.
The amendment was proposed, society voted, and it passed. If you're so confident that it won't pass again in 2010, then why don't you sit tight and wait until it passes?
And not every LDS person voted yes on 8. Some voted no. Some didn't vote. Did every gay person vote for Obama? No.
The amendment was proposed, society voted, and it passed. If you're so confident that it won't pass again in 2010, then why don't you sit tight and wait until it passes?
to John Pack Lambert | 4:09 p.m | 6:34 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Let's say you define the definition of being gay as nothing more than
"an attraction."
We'll go with that for a minute.
If we were to use the same argument for heterosexuals --- "Opposite gender attraction"
Do you realize how ridiculous this statement would sound, "We, the LGBT community, don't have a problem with heterosexuals and they becoming attracted to the opposite sex, as long as they don't act on it."
That's just plain ridiculous.
If I were to label "my condition" (for the purposes of this argument), as nothing more than 'an attraction' it's ok as long as I don't act on it, it presents a problem.
Am I supposed to go through life unhappy? unfulfilled? uncommitted? unmarried?
Because I don't live to the standards of the LDS theology?
That's a concept I no longer choose to live by.
I do have an attraction, and I want to act on it ---
Just as the government supplies rights and benefits to the committed attraction heteros act on, I want to enjoy those same benefits, liberties, and rights.
We'll go with that for a minute.
If we were to use the same argument for heterosexuals --- "Opposite gender attraction"
Do you realize how ridiculous this statement would sound, "We, the LGBT community, don't have a problem with heterosexuals and they becoming attracted to the opposite sex, as long as they don't act on it."
That's just plain ridiculous.
If I were to label "my condition" (for the purposes of this argument), as nothing more than 'an attraction' it's ok as long as I don't act on it, it presents a problem.
Am I supposed to go through life unhappy? unfulfilled? uncommitted? unmarried?
Because I don't live to the standards of the LDS theology?
That's a concept I no longer choose to live by.
I do have an attraction, and I want to act on it ---
Just as the government supplies rights and benefits to the committed attraction heteros act on, I want to enjoy those same benefits, liberties, and rights.
Re: Re: Steve D | 5:54 p.m. | 6: | 6:36 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Homosexual "Bonobos, birds, lizards, flatworms, sheep, spotted hyenas,
bottlenose dolphins, seahorses, lions..."
Straight from Wikipedia... you've obviously put a great deal of thought into this. Since we're using Wikipedia now to research homosexual behavior in animals, next time feel free to click through to "Parthenogenesis."
Straight from Wikipedia... you've obviously put a great deal of thought into this. Since we're using Wikipedia now to research homosexual behavior in animals, next time feel free to click through to "Parthenogenesis."
To John Pack Lambert | 4:07 p.m | 6:41 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
You know and I know that the LDS Church will never allow gay ceremonies in
temples.
For that matter, I would venture to say that gay weddings in LDS chappels would likewise be forbidden and I would even go as far as saying that LDS bishops or any LDS clergy would likewise be forbidden from performing any kind of gay wedding ceremony in any place under the guise of an eccleastical marriage.
Whoever made that comment comes from sheer immaturity and ignorance.
The LDS Church has the right to marry whom it will --- even if Prop 8 were to be overturned.
For that matter, I would venture to say that gay weddings in LDS chappels would likewise be forbidden and I would even go as far as saying that LDS bishops or any LDS clergy would likewise be forbidden from performing any kind of gay wedding ceremony in any place under the guise of an eccleastical marriage.
Whoever made that comment comes from sheer immaturity and ignorance.
The LDS Church has the right to marry whom it will --- even if Prop 8 were to be overturned.
Anonymous | 6:48 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
"Prop 8 supporters, please answer a single question without resorting to
some religious text:
How would it hurt *you* if gays were allowed to marry?
If you can give me an coherent, reasonable answer without invoking religion, you'll have convinced me you're right."
This has to do with religion, not a religious text. If gays are allowed to marry, inevitably there will be gays who want to marry in the temple. If not for the right reasons, then to cause controversy. If the church doesn't allow that (which it wouldn't) it'd be considered discrimination and it would lose tax exempt status. If I wanted to do as much with my tithing and fast offerings as I do now, I'd be forced to pay extra because it would be taxed.
If this happened, you might say, "No one is forcing you to be LDS." Well hey, no one is forcing you to be married, or gay.
How would it hurt *you* if gays were allowed to marry?
If you can give me an coherent, reasonable answer without invoking religion, you'll have convinced me you're right."
This has to do with religion, not a religious text. If gays are allowed to marry, inevitably there will be gays who want to marry in the temple. If not for the right reasons, then to cause controversy. If the church doesn't allow that (which it wouldn't) it'd be considered discrimination and it would lose tax exempt status. If I wanted to do as much with my tithing and fast offerings as I do now, I'd be forced to pay extra because it would be taxed.
If this happened, you might say, "No one is forcing you to be LDS." Well hey, no one is forcing you to be married, or gay.
Anonymous | 6:54 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
to poster @ 6:34
"Because I don't live to the standards of the LDS theology?"
I, along with plenty of Prop. 8 supporters, am not LDS, and you don't live to my standards either. Who are you to attack them, when there are plenty of other people who voted yes on 8 that are not LDS, even ANTI-LDS.
"Because I don't live to the standards of the LDS theology?"
I, along with plenty of Prop. 8 supporters, am not LDS, and you don't live to my standards either. Who are you to attack them, when there are plenty of other people who voted yes on 8 that are not LDS, even ANTI-LDS.
to Anonymous | 6:48 p.m | 7:03 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
For the sake of argument, let's say that happens...
and that a gay man will want to marry another gay man in a temple...
It will never happen.
Not that a gay will not try, but the LDS Church will never allow.
Moreover, the courts will never allow it, and they will stand behind the LDS Church on this...
Why?
Churches will marry whom they will. It is their right.
--- Can the Catholic Church be sued for not performing a marriage with someone who is divorced?
They can sue --- but will they win? A Catholic priest will marry whom he will, according to the dictates of his theology.
and that a gay man will want to marry another gay man in a temple...
It will never happen.
Not that a gay will not try, but the LDS Church will never allow.
Moreover, the courts will never allow it, and they will stand behind the LDS Church on this...
Why?
Churches will marry whom they will. It is their right.
--- Can the Catholic Church be sued for not performing a marriage with someone who is divorced?
They can sue --- but will they win? A Catholic priest will marry whom he will, according to the dictates of his theology.
Re...Steve | 7:07 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Let me see if I understand your logic Steve... you believe there is evidence of
homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom and if so, it must be natural.
Therefore homosexual behavior in humans must be natural.
Curious the same conclusion can't be drawn when considering the filicide and cannibalism exhibited in parts of the animal kingdom. What's the difference?
Curious the same conclusion can't be drawn when considering the filicide and cannibalism exhibited in parts of the animal kingdom. What's the difference?
CT Reader | 7:10 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To Anonymous: You are ignorant of what is already happening. Children being
taught in schools that homosexuality and gay marriage is fine. Adoption agencies
having to close their doors because they won't place children with gay
couples. E-harmony forced to create a site for gay match-making. Wedding
planners sued because they don't want to cater to gays getting married.
That is just the tip of the iceberg with these radical homosexuals.
Here is the bottom line: Laws legislate behavior. They draw lines. Homosexuality IS DEFINITELY a behavior. It is NOT equivalent to skin color or ethnicity. The line has traditionally been drawn against gay marriage. I and millions of other americans want it to stay that way. We want the law to continue to outlaw the BEHAVIOR. That is NOT discrimination. Should we move the line further? Allow marriage between brothers and sisters? People and animals? Adults and minors? After all, if they "love" each other, or can't "help" their feelings, why should they be stopped? Foolishness. KEEP THE LINE WHERE IT IS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE!
Here is the bottom line: Laws legislate behavior. They draw lines. Homosexuality IS DEFINITELY a behavior. It is NOT equivalent to skin color or ethnicity. The line has traditionally been drawn against gay marriage. I and millions of other americans want it to stay that way. We want the law to continue to outlaw the BEHAVIOR. That is NOT discrimination. Should we move the line further? Allow marriage between brothers and sisters? People and animals? Adults and minors? After all, if they "love" each other, or can't "help" their feelings, why should they be stopped? Foolishness. KEEP THE LINE WHERE IT IS, FOR GOODNESS SAKE!
To Anonymous | 6:54 p.m | 7:11 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Who am I? A disenfranchised voter.
Who are they? They funded to the 'yes on 8' campaign more fiercely than any other group.
Who are you? --- someone who bought into the distorted campaign also.
Now that we know who we all are...
Who are they? They funded to the 'yes on 8' campaign more fiercely than any other group.
Who are you? --- someone who bought into the distorted campaign also.
Now that we know who we all are...
McGriff | 7:15 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To: To McGriff
"If we're going to argue children --- since you brought it up --- are you advocating we do away with non-nuclear families?"
Of course not. There will always be many types of families with possibly unmarried adults raising children. This includes single mothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, adoptive gay parents (which I don't oppose by the way)- and many do a wonderful job raising children. We need to support them. But, in general, it isn't the ideal we should strive for as a society.
My point is, there is no better method to create and raise children than to have them raised by their mother and father who are married and love each other and have the capability to provide a loving, nurturing environment.
This isn't just about gays. I think heterosexuals have done tremendous damage to marriage with divorce, abuse, out-of-wedlock births, etc.
In my opinion, we need to increase the standards for traditional marriage- which would benefit future generations of children if people would only strive for the ideal. I believe re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples is not ideal, and is another step in the wrong direction for generations of children unborn.
"If we're going to argue children --- since you brought it up --- are you advocating we do away with non-nuclear families?"
Of course not. There will always be many types of families with possibly unmarried adults raising children. This includes single mothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, adoptive gay parents (which I don't oppose by the way)- and many do a wonderful job raising children. We need to support them. But, in general, it isn't the ideal we should strive for as a society.
My point is, there is no better method to create and raise children than to have them raised by their mother and father who are married and love each other and have the capability to provide a loving, nurturing environment.
This isn't just about gays. I think heterosexuals have done tremendous damage to marriage with divorce, abuse, out-of-wedlock births, etc.
In my opinion, we need to increase the standards for traditional marriage- which would benefit future generations of children if people would only strive for the ideal. I believe re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples is not ideal, and is another step in the wrong direction for generations of children unborn.
Political Poet | 7:16 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
You tell me
that we can't
legislate morality.
But don't you see
that morality
is nothing more
than behavior?
And what is legislation?
It is simply
behavior regulation.
The bottom line
is that laws define
the line
between acceptable
and immoral.
The people have spoken
again and again
saying gay marriage
is a behavior
we are not for.
that we can't
legislate morality.
But don't you see
that morality
is nothing more
than behavior?
And what is legislation?
It is simply
behavior regulation.
The bottom line
is that laws define
the line
between acceptable
and immoral.
The people have spoken
again and again
saying gay marriage
is a behavior
we are not for.
To McGriff | 7:15 p.m | 7:28 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
As a gay father, should I be given less than rights than as a hetero father?
I am a gay father. I love my children and my children love me. When people tell me that as a gay father I am less likely to raise my children to be competent, true, and good citizens, it strikes a certain nerve.
Speaking more generally, studies show that children who grow up in gay families with two parent gay families grow up no more gay/less than hetero parents.
It is not the sexual orientation of the parents --- it is the environment, exclusive of the orientation.
I am a gay father. I love my children and my children love me. When people tell me that as a gay father I am less likely to raise my children to be competent, true, and good citizens, it strikes a certain nerve.
Speaking more generally, studies show that children who grow up in gay families with two parent gay families grow up no more gay/less than hetero parents.
It is not the sexual orientation of the parents --- it is the environment, exclusive of the orientation.
Re...Steve | 7:07 p.m | 7:32 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Your point is well-taken, about comparing animals to humans.
He asked, so I told him.
Incidentally, National Geographic also has studies on gay animals --- but I am not trying to make the point that because animals do it, people should.
From purely a biological perspective, I don't think I would make that argument, I think humans are better than animals --- but that's another discussion.
From a sociological, political, relationship perspective... it's a different question ---
He asked, so I told him.
Incidentally, National Geographic also has studies on gay animals --- but I am not trying to make the point that because animals do it, people should.
From purely a biological perspective, I don't think I would make that argument, I think humans are better than animals --- but that's another discussion.
From a sociological, political, relationship perspective... it's a different question ---
To Political Poet | 7:16 | 7:35 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
I would halfway agree with you...
Legal behavior is not always moral.
The two are not exactly synonymous.
Many things which are legal are not moral.
Legal behavior is not always moral.
The two are not exactly synonymous.
Many things which are legal are not moral.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Haws playing like a veteran 12:36 a.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers 12:35 a.m.
- Jazz go up against 'the best' 12:33 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:26 a.m.
- Bobcats stun high-flying Nuggets 12:23 a.m.
- Utes finally get to host Michigan 12:18 a.m.
- Flash apologize, offer refund 12:12 a.m.
- Editorial: Leave the economy alone 12:12 a.m.
- Dishonest global warming scientists 12:12 a.m.
- Tensions in Ceuta 12:12 a.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Snow brings big chill
- Cougars in better mood about bowl
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs
- Ranking the bowl games
- $2M error could mean layoffs
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Expert calls Mitchell delusional
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
278 - Letters: Global warming a lie214
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl205
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall165
- Cougars going back to Vegas148
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil143
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax110
- Harpring's NBA career is over99
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony99
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Joyce Gannon offers the following advice...
Latest comments
It will be good to hear "real play by play or even as analyst with Joel...
i hope hot rod gets confused while doing the play by play and thinks he's...
The BCS bowl team match-ups aren't what you think. First, yes the top two...
Even Ed Gein was found competant to stand trial.
So Bronco's okay with the churches "standard bearers" spewing hatred. Wierd....
By putting TCU & Boise together that means that the other 3 BCS games will...
Ticky... Tacky...
The DNews requests the lists from the region coaches. Ask your coaches why...
This story brings back memories of an Ogden base ball team, who promiced if a...
GO UTES!!!
Advertisements
we're talking more than just a dictionary entry ---
We're talking about what constitutes what needs to be done ideally, not what someone wrote in a dictionary --- dictionaries are, after all, a reflection from the society --- not the other way around ---
Will dictionaries contain a different meaning a few years from now?
There are a few entries in the dictionary that I disagree with --- when it comes to meaning and how people use terms --- because societies change, people evolve, and even writers of dictionaries, let's face it, have biases.