Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
Convinced More than Ever | 9:59 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I've always had a hunch and reading the (thousands) of posts on this
subject confirms that hunch. Dislike of and Discrimination against Gay People
is the Glue that holds you all together. You should be thankful for them,
without them it seems you and your entire belief system would collapse.
To Convinced More than Ever | 10:50 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
We really couldn't care less what gays choose to do (see that Mormons have
NEVER protested in San Francisco or anywhere else against gays). What we do
care about is maintaining the moral integrity of the family given its integral
role in the success of society. The family's strength comes when there is
a marriage between a father and a mother who work together as equals in a
partnership of love to bring children into the world and bear and care for their
needs. Until the island experiment works, the gay community through their own
choices has given up the chance (it's not a right) to have the same
experience.
Don't bother | 10:52 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
There is no point presenting logic to the militant left wing gay community.
They want to ram their immoral behavior down everyones throat whether we want to
accept it or not. They mistakenly believe that their behavior will legitimized
by calling it marriage. Wrong.
Newsflash. Even if it were legalized, what you are doing is still wrong. You will still live with your guilt. That is what drives all this action--non stop lobbying to assuade your guilt.
They are interested in their own selfish behavior and care about nobody else but themselves. It is all about them 24/7. Do they ever stop talking about their sexual preference and how everyone should agree with them? No way.
That is why they are gay to begin with--they are more interested in their own instant gratification than doing the right thing. Selfish selfish selfish.
Don't waste your breath on this crowd. It is like reasoning with rock.
Newsflash. Even if it were legalized, what you are doing is still wrong. You will still live with your guilt. That is what drives all this action--non stop lobbying to assuade your guilt.
They are interested in their own selfish behavior and care about nobody else but themselves. It is all about them 24/7. Do they ever stop talking about their sexual preference and how everyone should agree with them? No way.
That is why they are gay to begin with--they are more interested in their own instant gratification than doing the right thing. Selfish selfish selfish.
Don't waste your breath on this crowd. It is like reasoning with rock.
Comments continue below
re: Thank You | 10:52 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Your analysis is spot on, IMO. Don't let the attacks make you sick.
The DN article is one of the best I've seen in factually reporting the results of the many elections held on the issue.
Why do the gays continue to act undemocratically, terroristically attack individuals, churches, businesses where employees used thier Constitutional rights? How does such deplorable actions gain support in a democracy?
The DN article is one of the best I've seen in factually reporting the results of the many elections held on the issue.
Why do the gays continue to act undemocratically, terroristically attack individuals, churches, businesses where employees used thier Constitutional rights? How does such deplorable actions gain support in a democracy?
realitycheck | 11:14 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re Again 7:21pm
i don't think the gay population cares about marriage. they care that they have the same rights as everyone else. so your ridiculous analogy is moot.
don't call it marriage. call it sparriage or whatever. but give them the same rights you have in your "union". same tax rate. same insurance rights. same visitation rights. same adoption rights. etc.
you keep repeating that no rights are held back as long as they marry someone of the oposite sex. that's simply stupid.
it doesn't really matter - the supreme court will rule in favor of the gay population and you'll be stuck with it. if you were actually smart, you all would try to submit a proposal that everyone can live with, instead of just trying to shut down the gay movement. because you will lose it all if you go that route. that's pretty naive of you...
i don't think the gay population cares about marriage. they care that they have the same rights as everyone else. so your ridiculous analogy is moot.
don't call it marriage. call it sparriage or whatever. but give them the same rights you have in your "union". same tax rate. same insurance rights. same visitation rights. same adoption rights. etc.
you keep repeating that no rights are held back as long as they marry someone of the oposite sex. that's simply stupid.
it doesn't really matter - the supreme court will rule in favor of the gay population and you'll be stuck with it. if you were actually smart, you all would try to submit a proposal that everyone can live with, instead of just trying to shut down the gay movement. because you will lose it all if you go that route. that's pretty naive of you...
RE: realitycheck | 11:32 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"you will lose". That's a pretty bold statement given Lee
Benson's statistics showing a "blowout" in the overall race for
marriage definition across 30 states so far.
Spot On | 11:37 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
The article and many comments hit the proverbial 'nail on the head' -
especially those involving purported 'rights' taken away by Prop
8's passage...such 'rights' granted only by judicial fiat as 4
activist judges** thumbed their noses at 4.6M Californians (61%) who passed Prop
22.
Many Californians - myself included - believe a similar (or higher) margin of victory would have been repeated on Prop 8, had it not been for the political antics of CA attorney general (and GLTB sell-out) Jerry Brown.
Mr. Brown attempted to single-handedly 'throw the election' by (ab)using the power of his office to re-word Prop 8 in a way to confuse and negatively bias un-informed voters (the first time in CA's history a ballot initiative was so worded.)
**It's a shame (and a sham) that the CA Supreme Court will now countenance several anti-8 arguments in the wake of Prop 8's passage. Beware: 4 of these aspiring judges have a vested (and conflicted) interest to extend their previous '15 minutes of fame'...all the more reason (if the will of the people is denied again) to take this matter to the US Supreme Court NOW (before Mr. Obama seats one or more of them.)
Many Californians - myself included - believe a similar (or higher) margin of victory would have been repeated on Prop 8, had it not been for the political antics of CA attorney general (and GLTB sell-out) Jerry Brown.
Mr. Brown attempted to single-handedly 'throw the election' by (ab)using the power of his office to re-word Prop 8 in a way to confuse and negatively bias un-informed voters (the first time in CA's history a ballot initiative was so worded.)
**It's a shame (and a sham) that the CA Supreme Court will now countenance several anti-8 arguments in the wake of Prop 8's passage. Beware: 4 of these aspiring judges have a vested (and conflicted) interest to extend their previous '15 minutes of fame'...all the more reason (if the will of the people is denied again) to take this matter to the US Supreme Court NOW (before Mr. Obama seats one or more of them.)
streaming live | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To Vote their way...: "Over my dead body tyrants" Seems you have the
same demeanor as those you are chastizing.
To Sarah Nichole: It's the year 2012 - It used to be okay to deny same gender people the right to marry.
To Herby: Put all the gay people on an island and you will find gay people continuing to be born in the non-shunned, non-banished population as a regular and natural part of the procreation process.
To all the survival of the fittest, natural selection folks out there - if homosexual preference were not a part of the regular and natural part of the procreation process don't you think it would have long-since failed to show up among other species? Are they *choosing* it? It must be hardy to keep showing up in the human species despite the obvious hardship it brings in dealing with society.
Is the next target for banishment those who use their intelligence logically? That characteristic, too, is *obviously* not normal.
To Sarah Nichole: It's the year 2012 - It used to be okay to deny same gender people the right to marry.
To Herby: Put all the gay people on an island and you will find gay people continuing to be born in the non-shunned, non-banished population as a regular and natural part of the procreation process.
To all the survival of the fittest, natural selection folks out there - if homosexual preference were not a part of the regular and natural part of the procreation process don't you think it would have long-since failed to show up among other species? Are they *choosing* it? It must be hardy to keep showing up in the human species despite the obvious hardship it brings in dealing with society.
Is the next target for banishment those who use their intelligence logically? That characteristic, too, is *obviously* not normal.
It wasn't just the Judges | 11:49 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Lest you forget, California's State Legislature TWICE passed legislation
allowing same sex marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governor, who said it
should be decided by the State Supreme Court or by Voter initiative.
Angel | 11:57 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Prop 8 did not pass because of the Mormons, it was passed because it was the
right thing to do. Thankfully enough people in Cali agreed
realitycheck | 12:04 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re poster 11:32am
if this goes to the supreme court, you will lose.
I personally oppose letting gays call their union "marriage" but I think they should have the same rights I have as a married person - and it's obvious something has to give.
So if you were smart, you would see that and try to submit proposals that keep everyone happy. otherwise - yes - you will lose.
not sure what you don't get...
and John Pack Lambert - the mormons look and sound just like the uptight preacher and his gang of black-clad women protesting outside the saloon in the old westerns. So I really don't care about timelines - I care about attitudes - and the mormon "holier than thou" attitude is total temperance league... you people are so religious it's scary...
if this goes to the supreme court, you will lose.
I personally oppose letting gays call their union "marriage" but I think they should have the same rights I have as a married person - and it's obvious something has to give.
So if you were smart, you would see that and try to submit proposals that keep everyone happy. otherwise - yes - you will lose.
not sure what you don't get...
and John Pack Lambert - the mormons look and sound just like the uptight preacher and his gang of black-clad women protesting outside the saloon in the old westerns. So I really don't care about timelines - I care about attitudes - and the mormon "holier than thou" attitude is total temperance league... you people are so religious it's scary...
Benson Fan | 12:09 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
FABULOUS ARTICLE!!!! Thanks Lee, for telling it like it is!
Gays just need to change .. | 12:15 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Actually, since being gay is NOT genetic then it must be behavioral. Now there
are two kinds of behavioral issues here 1) the kind you CHOOSE 2) the kind you
don't choose.
1. The kind you choose. This is the "experimental" kind. Gays become involved with the same sex (while still retaining their desire for the opposite sex). This is obviously a very degrading and dangerous road to follow because what was once a vice soon becomes a habit. This kind is obviously curable through a change in lifestyle and rehab.
2. The kind you don't choose. I compare this to those mentally ill patients whose internal wiring is crossed due to chemical imbalances within the brain and body. Some forms of mental illness can be cured today with medication while other more severe forms will have to wait for a future cure. The good news is that because it is a chemical problem it can and will be found and solved eventually.
So, in the mean time gay people need to first seek help and continue with therapy. Rights of society cannot be lowered to fit them anymore than changing the rights of the mentally ill.
1. The kind you choose. This is the "experimental" kind. Gays become involved with the same sex (while still retaining their desire for the opposite sex). This is obviously a very degrading and dangerous road to follow because what was once a vice soon becomes a habit. This kind is obviously curable through a change in lifestyle and rehab.
2. The kind you don't choose. I compare this to those mentally ill patients whose internal wiring is crossed due to chemical imbalances within the brain and body. Some forms of mental illness can be cured today with medication while other more severe forms will have to wait for a future cure. The good news is that because it is a chemical problem it can and will be found and solved eventually.
So, in the mean time gay people need to first seek help and continue with therapy. Rights of society cannot be lowered to fit them anymore than changing the rights of the mentally ill.
Boyd | 12:18 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To Getover it:
I think what's funny is that you mentioned race and gender as protected classes. That's sort of the point, isn't it? What is the difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying another man? Answer: gender. Sexual practices have nothing to do with this argument.
And since you yourself have said that gender is a protected class, you would then have to argue that a man should legally be allowed to marry another man. Being gay or straight does not fall under protected status, which means that sexual orientation should not come into the argument.
Marriage, declared as a man marrying another woman, is inherently gender discriminatory. Until the "majority" understands this, they will continue to claim "judicial activism" when it is anything but.
I think what's funny is that you mentioned race and gender as protected classes. That's sort of the point, isn't it? What is the difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying another man? Answer: gender. Sexual practices have nothing to do with this argument.
And since you yourself have said that gender is a protected class, you would then have to argue that a man should legally be allowed to marry another man. Being gay or straight does not fall under protected status, which means that sexual orientation should not come into the argument.
Marriage, declared as a man marrying another woman, is inherently gender discriminatory. Until the "majority" understands this, they will continue to claim "judicial activism" when it is anything but.
to realitycheck 12:04 | 12:20 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
What don't they get?
The satisfaction of a well-thought thought.
. . .I chose not to resist the urge to share. :)
The satisfaction of a well-thought thought.
. . .I chose not to resist the urge to share. :)
Re: streaming live | 12:21 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"To all the survival of the fittest, natural selection folks out there - if
homosexual preference were not a part of the regular and natural part of the
procreation process don't you think it would have long-since failed to show
up among other species? Are they *choosing* it? It must be hardy to keep showing
up in the human species despite the obvious hardship it brings in dealing with
society."
Homosexual behavior in other species comes in the form of one animal, typically male, showing his dominance over another animal in his herd. It's a way to prove he's the leader of the pack and to keep the others in line. Sometimes this behavior comes out in females, too. The only other times it appears in nature, besides when it's used to subjugate, is when it appears in single-sex environments or captivity, like in zoos.
How does that have any relevance to human homosexuality, unless you're suggesting that homosexuals use their same-sex behavior to subjugate and dominate other humans the way sexual predators do? The other two don't apply, there are two genders in society and human beings aren't in cages on display, so that only leaves the one option.
Homosexual behavior in other species comes in the form of one animal, typically male, showing his dominance over another animal in his herd. It's a way to prove he's the leader of the pack and to keep the others in line. Sometimes this behavior comes out in females, too. The only other times it appears in nature, besides when it's used to subjugate, is when it appears in single-sex environments or captivity, like in zoos.
How does that have any relevance to human homosexuality, unless you're suggesting that homosexuals use their same-sex behavior to subjugate and dominate other humans the way sexual predators do? The other two don't apply, there are two genders in society and human beings aren't in cages on display, so that only leaves the one option.
re: realitycheck | 12:25 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
If you don't care about the LDS Church then why are you wasting so much of
your time on the website of a newspaper OWNED by said church? Why so bitter?
If this is a false religion than why should you worry about it. If it's
false, it would have collapsed by now. Maybe it's not false and that is
what bothers you....................
PROTECT OUR KIDS | 12:25 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Why have over 30 states adopted marriage protection laws? Is it because the
people in those states are just a bunch of dog gone mean folks who want to
punish and take away rights of other people?? Come on ...PLEASE!!! This fight is
all about children. Marriage opens the door to adoption and there is no way on
earth that anyone writing on this comment line can justify placing a little,
innocent boy within the home of two gay men or visa versa with women. For pete
sake people think about it! What sort of life will that little boy have? Will he
be able to develop normal, healthy relationships with other boys or young women?
Nuture is HUGE in how a child will develop and the example of parents is the key
toward how a child is nurtured. So this little boy observes day after day his
two gay care takers having an intimate relationship and that is supposed to have
no effect on the poor little kid? Give me a break!!!!
Bible say's so... | 12:25 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Let's keep it that way.
Also, if No on 8 had won and the Mormon church had protested they would be seen as hate mongers, but it's ok for the Gay/Lesbians to say anything hateful they want at Mormons and it's ok.
Also, if No on 8 had won and the Mormon church had protested they would be seen as hate mongers, but it's ok for the Gay/Lesbians to say anything hateful they want at Mormons and it's ok.
Boycott Utah | 12:33 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I don't agree with Lee Benson, the judgmental, narrow-minded moralists of
Utah should be ashamed for getting involved in California politics. Please stay
behing the Zion curtain and mind your own business. Who are you protecting with
your bigotry?
SELFISHNESS | 12:37 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Why do we always hear about the sacred rights of the gays and NOTHING about the
rights of the poor kids that will be adopted into those twisted home
environments???? It's always all about what rights the gays get but never
have I ever heard about the rights of the children who will be
"forced" into those homes via adoption. It's the same thing with
abortion. It's always about the rights of the mother but never are the
rights of the child (who life is being taken) ever mentioned. These two things
have SELFISHNESS at their heart.
realitycheck | 12:38 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re gays just need to change 12:15pm
well, that's a very logical comment. now, if you would, please explain why most species on the planet have a minority that display gay tendencies. I guess they just "choose" to be that way..
re "re:streaming live" 12:21pm
you are incorrect. most species have a small population of males and females that do not procreate, and yet they have fully functional reproductive organs. It has nothing to do with dominance nor zoos... it's sexual orientation.
I know all you religious zealots would love to consider gays as freaks of nature and unable to hold back their sinful ways, but the fact is homosexuality shows up in almost all species. Perhaps all species have some freaks?
overzealous mormons - get off your high horses and come up with a solution, or one will be forced onto you. You can preach and preach until you're blue in the face, but it won't change a thing in the end... especially given your religious beliefs.
In fact, use your seer stones and read the future - perhaps then you will understand that anything less than an agreeable proposal is simply putting off the inevitable...
well, that's a very logical comment. now, if you would, please explain why most species on the planet have a minority that display gay tendencies. I guess they just "choose" to be that way..
re "re:streaming live" 12:21pm
you are incorrect. most species have a small population of males and females that do not procreate, and yet they have fully functional reproductive organs. It has nothing to do with dominance nor zoos... it's sexual orientation.
I know all you religious zealots would love to consider gays as freaks of nature and unable to hold back their sinful ways, but the fact is homosexuality shows up in almost all species. Perhaps all species have some freaks?
overzealous mormons - get off your high horses and come up with a solution, or one will be forced onto you. You can preach and preach until you're blue in the face, but it won't change a thing in the end... especially given your religious beliefs.
In fact, use your seer stones and read the future - perhaps then you will understand that anything less than an agreeable proposal is simply putting off the inevitable...
realitycheck | 12:47 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re - poster 12:25pm
didn't know this was a mormon newspaper - thought it was a free press newspaper.
and since the moderator enjoys a good debate, I'll hang around and provide my opinion...
and as far as a false religion - many a pyramid scam has gone on for a long time - so the fact that you all are still in the mormon religion is not suprising. and to each his/her own - believe in whatever yu want - seer stones, no dinosaurs, whatever - I don't care. this is america. do your thing..
religion (and God) is in your heart, not some book written by a dude in the 1800 (or even before that). there are many religions - can they all be true, or false? I don't know - but seer stones in a hat is pretty wild, don't you think?
anyway - it's not about religion - it's about God - and no, they aren't even close to the same thing...
didn't know this was a mormon newspaper - thought it was a free press newspaper.
and since the moderator enjoys a good debate, I'll hang around and provide my opinion...
and as far as a false religion - many a pyramid scam has gone on for a long time - so the fact that you all are still in the mormon religion is not suprising. and to each his/her own - believe in whatever yu want - seer stones, no dinosaurs, whatever - I don't care. this is america. do your thing..
religion (and God) is in your heart, not some book written by a dude in the 1800 (or even before that). there are many religions - can they all be true, or false? I don't know - but seer stones in a hat is pretty wild, don't you think?
anyway - it's not about religion - it's about God - and no, they aren't even close to the same thing...
Gays shouldn't have rights | 12:48 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Why should gays have special rights? Let's put it another way. Why
can't the PEOPLE of the state decide whether to grant special rights to
gays? Oh,I forgot they ALREADY DID on Nov 2. Let's move on already.
cantslodown610 | 12:53 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To Boycott Utah
It sounds to me like you are as bigoted as you are claiming Lee to be. His article simply points out that this has been a loosing battle for the gay community and not in small numbers. Huge amounts of Americalns believe that this still isn't the right way or that there is any benefit to society by allowing or altering our traditional marriage view. Until there is a positive lieght on gay marriage people will still believe that this is wrong. And how much worse are the proponents of gay marriage making this by causing such great divides. The religious right altered points of view on abortion by hurting people. The gay community is pushing people away from acceptance by hurting people and saying evil vile things about the people that live next door to them and yet they really aren't the reason prop 8 passed. It passed because enough people aren't convinced that this will be a benefit to society.
It sounds to me like you are as bigoted as you are claiming Lee to be. His article simply points out that this has been a loosing battle for the gay community and not in small numbers. Huge amounts of Americalns believe that this still isn't the right way or that there is any benefit to society by allowing or altering our traditional marriage view. Until there is a positive lieght on gay marriage people will still believe that this is wrong. And how much worse are the proponents of gay marriage making this by causing such great divides. The religious right altered points of view on abortion by hurting people. The gay community is pushing people away from acceptance by hurting people and saying evil vile things about the people that live next door to them and yet they really aren't the reason prop 8 passed. It passed because enough people aren't convinced that this will be a benefit to society.
Are you kidding me | 1:02 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"Protect the children" and "selfishness", You have to be
kidding me (no pun intended) have you both reading any of the other post on this
thread or you really just that out of touch with reality. As has been pointed
out before on this very thread California law already makes it illegal to
discriminate against gay people that want to adopt and as has been detailed by
Kevin all of the major professions that work with children and conduct research
around the issue of adoption all agree there is no harm to the children of gay
couples. Really go back and read it for yourself.
cantslodown610 | 1:03 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
to realitycheck:
Why would you force a proposal on mormons? Why would you force a fundamental change in someones belief? So what you are saying is that if you can't win one way you will force people to change what they believe is right and wrong. But isn't that a 2 way street can't they force you to believe a certain way? And you call momons overzealous? You cannot change the way religion is or the belief of its people. The Catholic church decided to stop adoptions in massachucetts because it will not approve adoptions for gay couples. Are you going to force them to change? If they don't what will you do? Kick the church out of the country? Force the Catholics into hiding until they acquiese to your demands? What will you force the mormons to do? Accept this? Their very mandate is that this is wrong and you cannot force them to change that belief.
Why would you force a proposal on mormons? Why would you force a fundamental change in someones belief? So what you are saying is that if you can't win one way you will force people to change what they believe is right and wrong. But isn't that a 2 way street can't they force you to believe a certain way? And you call momons overzealous? You cannot change the way religion is or the belief of its people. The Catholic church decided to stop adoptions in massachucetts because it will not approve adoptions for gay couples. Are you going to force them to change? If they don't what will you do? Kick the church out of the country? Force the Catholics into hiding until they acquiese to your demands? What will you force the mormons to do? Accept this? Their very mandate is that this is wrong and you cannot force them to change that belief.
a Californian | 1:20 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
As a Californian and a supporter of prop 8, I have watched in disbelief the
actions of those who voted no on 8. The people in my state have spoken twice,
yet the first thing that happens is a law suit, then protests, then vandalism at
churches, then the California Supreme Court agreeing to review the proposition,
then white powder sent to temples and an investigation of the LDS church. You
do not make friends with your behavior. This behavior �win
at all costs and any expense� shows that the No on 8 folks
are trying to shove the gay agenda down everyone's throat. I for one will
not stand for it. There is no discrimination. All men can marry a woman and
all women can marry a man. It is open to all. Please stop the whining, go back
in your closets and come out only when you have something of importance to talk
about like ending the war, fixing the economy or finding jobs for those that do
not have them.
Anonymous | 1:47 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Won't let go? Who is this guy kidding? The reason why it keeps coming up
as an issue is that many MANY Americans consider it to be an issue.
Real Rights | 1:48 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
The only rights a person has are those granted from our Creator. How can a
person claim to have any other rights? Calling bad good, and demanding the right
to do it, against what rights have been given from the beginning of time is
always going to be wrong.
Statistician? | 1:59 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
30 straight wins? what about the loss in Arizona two years ago!?! Does that
not count? I mean, yeah, it won in Arizona in 2008, but if the Giants lose to
the Pats in the regular season but win the Super Bowl, the record is still 1-1.
Get your stats right if you're going to write this very fact-selective
article.
Definitions | 2:03 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
A banana split is created when a banana and icecream are placed together in a
bowl. Putting two bananas in a bowl gives you a bowl of bananas. Putting 2
scoops of icecream in a bowl gives you a bowl of icecream. You can jump up and
down, complain, picket, deface, decried, parade, and pout all you want but it
won't change a bowl of icecream or a bowl of bananas into a banana
split.
Think about it.
Think about it.
Hey Reality Check | 2:05 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Google Maryland Supreme Court and gay marriage. It seems their court ruled
differently than California's.
Kim | 2:20 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Even animals know better.
to Kevin | 2:23 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
You can argue until your last breath that this isn't a moral issue, but
that doesn't change the fact pattern. A moral is a standard of behavior.
Homosexuality is a behavior that is, even you must admit, non-standard.
RE: John Pack Lambert | 9:39 a.m | 2:24 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
JPL, as an LDS Arizona resident, a few points:
* The Arizona initiative defeated in 2006, Prop. 107, was clumsily written, and ultimately few people truly understood what they were voting for. It was just as well Prop. 107 did not pass, because the verbiage could have been construed any number of different ways and might ultimately have led to its own demise.
* This year's Proposition 102 was much more clear and concise, and fortunately passed. Anti-Prop. 102 opponents seemed to trust that the 2006 AZ election results would be repeated; the bulk of the "No" effort was centered in California.
* In all fairness, I wouldn't consider AZ Props. 107/102 an example of compromise as much as clarity in communication. The majority in Arizona would NOT object to LEGAL solutions for same-sex couples that DON'T involve compromising marriage or the health of the traditional family. The church has stated it won't oppose those, either--any future "compromises" should be in those areas.
* In short: Prop. 107 clumsily attempted to tie legal solutions to the definition of marriage. The two needed to be considered separately. That's not a "compromise"--it's simply putting the horse before the cart.
* The Arizona initiative defeated in 2006, Prop. 107, was clumsily written, and ultimately few people truly understood what they were voting for. It was just as well Prop. 107 did not pass, because the verbiage could have been construed any number of different ways and might ultimately have led to its own demise.
* This year's Proposition 102 was much more clear and concise, and fortunately passed. Anti-Prop. 102 opponents seemed to trust that the 2006 AZ election results would be repeated; the bulk of the "No" effort was centered in California.
* In all fairness, I wouldn't consider AZ Props. 107/102 an example of compromise as much as clarity in communication. The majority in Arizona would NOT object to LEGAL solutions for same-sex couples that DON'T involve compromising marriage or the health of the traditional family. The church has stated it won't oppose those, either--any future "compromises" should be in those areas.
* In short: Prop. 107 clumsily attempted to tie legal solutions to the definition of marriage. The two needed to be considered separately. That's not a "compromise"--it's simply putting the horse before the cart.
to Boyd | 2:26 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Read the Maryland Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and you will see how your
argument is grossly flawed. A man may NOT marry another man just as a woman may
NOT marry another woman so the court ruled sex discrimination did not take
place.
Think about this | 2:28 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"A banana split is created when a banana and icecream are placed together
in a bowl. Putting two bananas in a bowl gives you a bowl of bananas. Putting 2
scoops of icecream in a bowl gives you a bowl of icecream. You can jump up and
down, complain, picket, deface, decried, parade, and pout all you want but it
won't change a bowl of icecream or a bowl of bananas into a banana
split."
MARRIAGE: does not mean the joining of one man and one woman. It simply means joining or uniting, as in the marriage of two companies. We have many types of marriage: civil, temple, gay, interracial, of convience, shot gun, etc.
You became too specific in your defination. "Dessert" covers all the types of treats that you named and "marriage" covers all the types of unions that contain rights and privileges granted by the state.
MARRIAGE: does not mean the joining of one man and one woman. It simply means joining or uniting, as in the marriage of two companies. We have many types of marriage: civil, temple, gay, interracial, of convience, shot gun, etc.
You became too specific in your defination. "Dessert" covers all the types of treats that you named and "marriage" covers all the types of unions that contain rights and privileges granted by the state.
realitycheck | 2:31 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re cantslowdown610 1:03pm
perhaps you should re-read my post. no one is saying for you to change your beliefs. My understanding is that you don't want the term "marriage" used in any context except a man and a woman (and probably a man and multiple women).
What I am saying is that the CA supreme court will overturn Prop 8. And if it goes to the US supreme court, they won't have a lot of choice if they are to uphold the constitution's intent...
But if you all were to propose a larger solution, and one that didn't use the term "marriage" but nonetheless allowed the gay community the same rights as any other "committed" couple... especially at the federal level... kind of like a plea bargain for gays...
you all spent a ton of money defeating prop 8. But it's going to show up on the ballot every two years. You really want to spend that kind of change every two years? (Yeah, I know, the church didn't spend it, but the practitioners that contributed it would have given it to you instead, so it's money out of your pyramid scheme..)
otherwise it will be forced on you.
perhaps you should re-read my post. no one is saying for you to change your beliefs. My understanding is that you don't want the term "marriage" used in any context except a man and a woman (and probably a man and multiple women).
What I am saying is that the CA supreme court will overturn Prop 8. And if it goes to the US supreme court, they won't have a lot of choice if they are to uphold the constitution's intent...
But if you all were to propose a larger solution, and one that didn't use the term "marriage" but nonetheless allowed the gay community the same rights as any other "committed" couple... especially at the federal level... kind of like a plea bargain for gays...
you all spent a ton of money defeating prop 8. But it's going to show up on the ballot every two years. You really want to spend that kind of change every two years? (Yeah, I know, the church didn't spend it, but the practitioners that contributed it would have given it to you instead, so it's money out of your pyramid scheme..)
otherwise it will be forced on you.
RealityCheck | 2:34 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Animals that behave homosexually are doing so out of dominance even if you
don't have a basic understanding of zoology. Animals in zoo also behave in
atypical behavior in zoos because their environment is not normal. They also
fall "in love" out of species, again because of atypical environment.
Please compare homosexuals to gays in your argument since you will lose every
single time. Try this one: Animals eat their young, would you suggest this as
an acceptable practice? Animals also eat their feces and urinate on submissive
members of their own group to show dominance. Would you suggest we also
incorporate that as acceptable even positive creating laws to protect such acts?
Clearly you would.
re Real Rights 1:48pm | 2:37 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"The only rights a person has are those granted from our Creator."
I don't even know what to say about such a ridiculous statement... so God said we should have due process? God said we have a right to bear arms?
that's funny - I thought it was Thomas Jefferson and company (who were an extremely smart and brave men, but certainly not God...)
I don't even know what to say about such a ridiculous statement... so God said we should have due process? God said we have a right to bear arms?
that's funny - I thought it was Thomas Jefferson and company (who were an extremely smart and brave men, but certainly not God...)
Bill | 2:41 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To the person who said tell him/her what harm it would do without using a
religious background is the same as I asking the Lord to give me a sign that the
end is near. Both are inconsistent considering the Bible is very explicit in
condeming homosexuality as an abomination before the Lord. Signs are given
every day that the end is near and that the second coming of Jesus Christ is at
hand. The thing is that no one on this earth including the Lord's Prophet
knows for sure when that is. Same Sex marriage is wrong and will lead to many
religious institutions being sued. Yes, it probably will become prevalent
before the coming of Christ, but it still doesn't change the fact it is
wrong.
RE: Convinced@9:59 | 2:41 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"Dislike of and Discrimination against Gay People is the Glue that holds
you all together. You should be thankful for them, without them it seems you and
your entire belief system would collapse."
"Convinced," you've just shown everything you do--and DON'T--understand about the very "belief system" you're critizing. We do NOT go to church and spend the whole time chanting anti-gay slogans. There's SO much more to it than that!
Sadly, there ARE some among us who are reacting more bitterly and fearfully than they should. But they fear what the truly militant among the GLBT are doing, and rightfully so. ANARCHY HAS NO PLACE IN A CIVILIZED, DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
When you can admit that, "Convinced," and be willing to open your mind to the fact that there's more to Mormonism than what you see as homophobia (you'd be surprised at how many Mormons have gay family members), productive dialogue will be possible. The church does NOT oppose LEGAL solutions to the problems same-sex couples face, so long as those don't undermine the health of marriage or the traditional family.
"Convinced," you've just shown everything you do--and DON'T--understand about the very "belief system" you're critizing. We do NOT go to church and spend the whole time chanting anti-gay slogans. There's SO much more to it than that!
Sadly, there ARE some among us who are reacting more bitterly and fearfully than they should. But they fear what the truly militant among the GLBT are doing, and rightfully so. ANARCHY HAS NO PLACE IN A CIVILIZED, DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
When you can admit that, "Convinced," and be willing to open your mind to the fact that there's more to Mormonism than what you see as homophobia (you'd be surprised at how many Mormons have gay family members), productive dialogue will be possible. The church does NOT oppose LEGAL solutions to the problems same-sex couples face, so long as those don't undermine the health of marriage or the traditional family.
Am I going Crazy? | 2:48 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
In school I was brought up to believe that America was the greatest place to
live. The only place with freedom for all to worship and live how they choose.
May I remind the religious people of America that not all people follow your
religion. What is right for you may not be right for others. I cant believe that
in this day and age you can call someone a deviant for loving someone of the
same sex. To me that is not as disgusting as choosing to hate them for something
you cannot understand. That is what it is when you call them deviants and other
names- that is the part that is hate.
Many gay couples are just as loving as straight couples. Yes there is promiscuity in the gay community but there is in the straight community too. Let me remind you that as long as there is male and female genetalia a murderer or child molester may get married under this definition. That is the part that makes me sick.
Many gay couples are just as loving as straight couples. Yes there is promiscuity in the gay community but there is in the straight community too. Let me remind you that as long as there is male and female genetalia a murderer or child molester may get married under this definition. That is the part that makes me sick.
re: reality check | 2:53 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
You obviously either have some deeper issues going here or you just love to feed
the fire. I'm guessing both. I'd tell you I feel sorry for you but
you probably don't want pity. Tell you what, since your now just repeating
yourself, this would probably be time to let go and find something else to do
today. You're not doing yourself any favors and only making yourself look
worse. oh wait! I forgot, you're just trying to fan the flames. You have
no real agenda. This forum gives you the chance to Mormon bash along with
others like you. You know what, I DO feel sorry for you and everyone else that
has jumped on the bandwagon in an effort to critisize peoples religious beleifs.
I pray that someday you too will become as compassionate towards others as you
are asking others to be.
God Bless.
God Bless.
RE: realitycheck@12:04 | 2:55 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"the mormons look and sound just like the uptight preacher and his gang of
black-clad women protesting outside the saloon in the old westerns. So I really
don't care about timelines - I care about attitudes - and the mormon
"holier than thou" attitude is total temperance league... you people
are so religious it's scary..."
realitycheck, since you care so much about attitudes, can you please take a good, hard look at your own? In the LDS context, you sound just like Archie Bunker--except not nearly as funny. Perhaps you'd like to insert the words "orthodox Jews" instead of "Mormons" in your comments above to get the REAL flavor of what you're saying?
I'd also suggest you start caring about FACTS even more than "attitudes." It'd save you a lot of trouble in the long run. This absurd "Temperance Society" metaphor you insist on relentlessly dragging in--despite the fact you've been shown time and again that it has nothing to do with anything--is really making YOU look like the idiot.
Do yourself that favor, will ya?
realitycheck, since you care so much about attitudes, can you please take a good, hard look at your own? In the LDS context, you sound just like Archie Bunker--except not nearly as funny. Perhaps you'd like to insert the words "orthodox Jews" instead of "Mormons" in your comments above to get the REAL flavor of what you're saying?
I'd also suggest you start caring about FACTS even more than "attitudes." It'd save you a lot of trouble in the long run. This absurd "Temperance Society" metaphor you insist on relentlessly dragging in--despite the fact you've been shown time and again that it has nothing to do with anything--is really making YOU look like the idiot.
Do yourself that favor, will ya?
Hey, realitycheck... | 3:08 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
... "overzealous mormons - get off your high horses and come up with a
solution, or one will be forced onto you."
You've GOT to be kidding, pal. You realize thinking like that produced Auschwitz, right? This is America, not Nazi Germany. Here in America, we have something called The First Amendment, which reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Did you happen to catch that FIRST part, realitycheck? THE VERY FIRST WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION forbid the U.S. government to force ANY "solution" on ANY church. We are fully within our rights to speak our minds.
If you are bound and determined to join the gay-rights anarchists in attacking the Constitution--and that is EXACTLY what will have to happen if their proposals as described elsewhere on this board are enacted, for the PRECISE reason I identified above--then that will be your choice. But I hope you will come to your senses well before then.
You've GOT to be kidding, pal. You realize thinking like that produced Auschwitz, right? This is America, not Nazi Germany. Here in America, we have something called The First Amendment, which reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Did you happen to catch that FIRST part, realitycheck? THE VERY FIRST WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION forbid the U.S. government to force ANY "solution" on ANY church. We are fully within our rights to speak our minds.
If you are bound and determined to join the gay-rights anarchists in attacking the Constitution--and that is EXACTLY what will have to happen if their proposals as described elsewhere on this board are enacted, for the PRECISE reason I identified above--then that will be your choice. But I hope you will come to your senses well before then.
realitycheck | 3:20 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
poster at 2:34pm
perhaps you need to do some research before you say things like "Animals that behave homosexually are doing so out of dominance even if you don't have a basic understanding of zoology."
that is an entirely false statement. Most animals in "the wild" have the same traits, and fail to reproduce even though they have fully functional reproductive organs. Do they get with members of the same sex? some do - some don't, simply because the other 98% aren't gay. And the gay animal can't just walk around saying "psst - you gay? want to hang out?".
When fully functional animals do not reproduce, they either don't like the opposite sex, or they prefer the same sex, or they just prefer not to have sex. Just like people...
Nature is strange, huh...
To say that some are NOT gay is an assumption based on what? your wish that gayness is only in humans and can be "bred out"?
you crack me up.... and I'm not even gay...
perhaps you need to do some research before you say things like "Animals that behave homosexually are doing so out of dominance even if you don't have a basic understanding of zoology."
that is an entirely false statement. Most animals in "the wild" have the same traits, and fail to reproduce even though they have fully functional reproductive organs. Do they get with members of the same sex? some do - some don't, simply because the other 98% aren't gay. And the gay animal can't just walk around saying "psst - you gay? want to hang out?".
When fully functional animals do not reproduce, they either don't like the opposite sex, or they prefer the same sex, or they just prefer not to have sex. Just like people...
Nature is strange, huh...
To say that some are NOT gay is an assumption based on what? your wish that gayness is only in humans and can be "bred out"?
you crack me up.... and I'm not even gay...
LEW | 3:43 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I think it is about time that America and the world stop using the word
"gay" and refer to it as homo-sexuality or perhaps even same gender
attraction. There is no getting around the physical make up differences between
men and women. I grew up with gay meeting happy. Hitler sold people on the
concept of work camps, which in reality were death camps. Sell people on the
acceptability of a word, then you have people willingness to accept over a short
people of time the unnatural act. I personally refuse to use the homo-sexual
community word that promotes its acceptability among younger and younger
generations. I do not hate the homosexual that adopts that life style, but
refuse to condone the sin.
re: realitycheck | 3:44 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Again, we ask you to provide the basis for your information. If you cannot
provide verifiable facts than you are just expressing your opinion.
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.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology379
- Hall reprimanded by MWC370
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal316
- Utes won't respond to Hall257
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome110
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.
Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...
Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...
The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...
TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...
could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...
Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...
I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...
quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.
I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...
Advertisements