Reader comments
Readers' forum: Benson had it right
123 comments | Read story
Dear Dick, | 3:15 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
The laws are being obeyed. Others are simply working to change the laws. This
is the way we expect people to handle things in this country, unless,
apparently, we don't appreciate how they'd like the laws changed.
Dicj | 3:52 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Did Richard really say that rights of individuals in our society are determined
by the majority?
If he did, he clearly doesn't understand the constitution. That document declares the rights of the people. A majority cannot pass a law that violates those rights. In order to rescind those rights, the constitution must be ammended to take them away.
Most conservative folks, and the Declaration of Independence, say that rights are granted from our creator, not from a majority of voters.
If he did, he clearly doesn't understand the constitution. That document declares the rights of the people. A majority cannot pass a law that violates those rights. In order to rescind those rights, the constitution must be ammended to take them away.
Most conservative folks, and the Declaration of Independence, say that rights are granted from our creator, not from a majority of voters.
generalizations | 6:13 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
�Demonstrates a clear miss understanding of the issue of
gay marriage as seen by straight people.� I am sorry but as
a �Straight� person you do not speak
for me, why cant some people just take responsibility for their thoughts and
feelings without having to use wide generalizations? Just take responsibility
for your bias and be done with it already, stop trying to use gross
generalizations.
Comments continue below
foxes and hen houses | 6:24 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
We don't allow criminal minorities to decide that their felonies are all
right. Immorality used to be illegal; in a few places it still is.
Homosexuality is not a victimless crime. It kills and it kills non-homosexuals too (spouses and unborn children to homosexual and bisexual men who have AIDS). Yes, there ARE many homosexual men who are married - to women.
Additionally homosexual couples now compete in adoptions. Where they succeed they teach, by example, their perverse and dangerous lifestyle to their charges, and perpetuate their filthy practices. How many millions have to die before we face this issue squarely?
Homosexuality is not a victimless crime. It kills and it kills non-homosexuals too (spouses and unborn children to homosexual and bisexual men who have AIDS). Yes, there ARE many homosexual men who are married - to women.
Additionally homosexual couples now compete in adoptions. Where they succeed they teach, by example, their perverse and dangerous lifestyle to their charges, and perpetuate their filthy practices. How many millions have to die before we face this issue squarely?
uncannygunman | 7:08 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Silly me, I thought that rights are designed to protect people from the whims of
the majority.
herehere | 7:38 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
uncannygunman - spot on... guess if the "majority rules", blacks might
still be worth 2/3rd of a person, women couldn't vote and so on. if only
all these hetero holy rollers would focus on themselves (cast not...) and the
50%+ divorce rate --- now that's where Focus on the Family should start
Mike Richards | 7:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Some rights were enumerated in the Bill of Rights to guarantee that they would
be known to all and not simply implied.
The right to uphold traditional marriage has been added to that list, at least to the people of California.
Does anyone think that the Hand of God came down and wrote the Bill of Rights? Those who have ever cracked open a book on our Nation's history may never realize how fierce the debates were pertaining to what was included in the Constitution and what was left out.
The debate in California was similar to the debate held in each of the thirteen original colonies. The people of those colonies decided, by vote, whether they desired to join the Union. Not everyone got what they wanted. Compromises were made. Some of those compromises have been "adjusted" by the vote of the states, meaning the vote of the citizens of those states.
We live in a Republic where we seldom directly vote on issues. Normally we vote for a representative who then votes for us. However, when the people vote directly on an issue, the outcome of that vote becomes the mind and will of the people.
The right to uphold traditional marriage has been added to that list, at least to the people of California.
Does anyone think that the Hand of God came down and wrote the Bill of Rights? Those who have ever cracked open a book on our Nation's history may never realize how fierce the debates were pertaining to what was included in the Constitution and what was left out.
The debate in California was similar to the debate held in each of the thirteen original colonies. The people of those colonies decided, by vote, whether they desired to join the Union. Not everyone got what they wanted. Compromises were made. Some of those compromises have been "adjusted" by the vote of the states, meaning the vote of the citizens of those states.
We live in a Republic where we seldom directly vote on issues. Normally we vote for a representative who then votes for us. However, when the people vote directly on an issue, the outcome of that vote becomes the mind and will of the people.
Kevin | 7:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
@Richard Ewing Davis
"Gays seem only to accept our system when it favors their biased agenda. Otherwise it's constant whining, as Benson wrote."
You reject the validity of courts. One could say you are the sore loser over court decisions. Gays will continue to work within the courts, and they'll continue to work to win votes for our rights for marriage. But you are implying that rights via the courts are antithetical to our system of governance, and that only simple majority referenda are valid. You are dead wrong.
So I'll regurgitate your boorish comment with a twist: Anti-gays seem only to accept our system when it favors their biased agenda. Otherwise it's constant whining.
"Gays seem only to accept our system when it favors their biased agenda. Otherwise it's constant whining, as Benson wrote."
You reject the validity of courts. One could say you are the sore loser over court decisions. Gays will continue to work within the courts, and they'll continue to work to win votes for our rights for marriage. But you are implying that rights via the courts are antithetical to our system of governance, and that only simple majority referenda are valid. You are dead wrong.
So I'll regurgitate your boorish comment with a twist: Anti-gays seem only to accept our system when it favors their biased agenda. Otherwise it's constant whining.
Sally in England | 7:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I can't believe that there are still people who think like The 'foxes
and hen houses' comment. Next you will be saying that AIDS is a punishment
from God! I am a not gay and have been married for 25 years, I have a happy and
stable family. I want others to have that, be they gay or straight. I know two
gay couples who would make better parents than a lot of hetrosexual couples that
I meet in my job as a teacher, trust me, bad parenting doesn't even cover
it! If gay couples want to marry, let them. If they want to adopt, let them.
Judge each couple on their kind nature, their resources and their ability to
love and care for a child, not what they do in the privacy of their own bed
room! Your narrow minded attitude is dangerous and you should hang you head in
shame!!! Who knows what anyone gets up to in their bedroom!
Anonymous | 8:13 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Sally in England:Problem with gays is...they don't keep it in the
bedroom...we are forced to see it infiltrating all media. Also, when gays are
allowed to legally marry, then my heterosexual marriage is pulled down into the
gutter, down to their level, that is the real right that is taken from me.
Donovan | 8:22 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
The problem with Warren Jeffs french kissing a 12 year old is inflitrating all
the media, and we are forced to see it.
Nobody wants to do anything about it.
Nobody wants to do anything about it.
Roland Kayser | 8:41 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Fifty years ago it was illegal in most states, including Utah, for a balck
person and a white person to marry one another. If it had been put to a popular
vote, I'm sure the majority would have approved of the law. That
didn't make it constitutional, and it didn't make it right.
Mike Richards | 8:49 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Kevin,
I believe that it is you who misunderstands the courts.
The supreme law of a State is its Constitution. The Supreme Court of that State cannot rule against its supreme law. All laws hang on the laws explicitly defined in the Constitution. Laws may be added, but no law can contradict the Constitution. If a law is found to contradict the Constitution, then the Supreme Court is bound, by law, to remove the law that contradicts the Constitution.
In California, traditional marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is part of the California Constitution. It is the supreme law of California. No judge in California can overturn that law unless he wishes to abolish all laws mandated by the California Constitution.
I believe that it is you who misunderstands the courts.
The supreme law of a State is its Constitution. The Supreme Court of that State cannot rule against its supreme law. All laws hang on the laws explicitly defined in the Constitution. Laws may be added, but no law can contradict the Constitution. If a law is found to contradict the Constitution, then the Supreme Court is bound, by law, to remove the law that contradicts the Constitution.
In California, traditional marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is part of the California Constitution. It is the supreme law of California. No judge in California can overturn that law unless he wishes to abolish all laws mandated by the California Constitution.
@fox and hen houses | 9:07 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Fox in hen house your ignorance is truly frightening as well as dangerous.
Really you need to get help! There is no way you could truly be that ignorant of
reality at this point in the debate other then willfully. Every part of your
erroneous rant has been addressed hundreds of times on other threads. If you
don�t want to listen to people on these threads then tat
least go to the CDC website and educate yourself about the reality of AIDS. When
you spread your ignorance it does kill because when people acting in uninformed
it allows diseases like AIDS to continue to spread.
@Anon 8:13 AM | 9:11 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
how is your marriage pulled down into the gutter? If someone else being allowed
to marry drags your marriage into the gutter it speaks more to the poor state of
your marriage then anything else? I cant believe we are going to have another
day of these same inane comments.
RedShirt | 9:20 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
To "Mike Richards | 8:49 a.m." I would also like to add that rights
not listed in the US constitution are left up to the states. Just like when the
US constitution was ratified, if a majority decide that they want their state
constitution to limit certain behaviors that is a matter for the state.
If you don't like a law or a portion of the state or US constitution, there is a process to get thoes laws changed. Prohibition is a prime example of government setting up a constitutional law and then recinding it.
If you don't like a law or a portion of the state or US constitution, there is a process to get thoes laws changed. Prohibition is a prime example of government setting up a constitutional law and then recinding it.
peperlake | 9:30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
the author of the letter got one thing very wrong. society does not choose what
is right or wrong. they just choose the rule. it doesn't make it right.
nihilist | 9:32 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I find the mormons whining as much or more than the other side. Mormons cry too
much. See Larry H. Miller!
Sally in England | 9:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
My marriage is not weakend or compromised if gay people are allowed to marry. I
am confident in my love for my husband and his love me, to understand that
nothing can weaken that. It doesn't matter if you are hetrosexual or
homosexual,if you love someone and they love you and you want to marry that
person, then you should be allowed to do that. If people are threatened by two
men or women loving each other and wanted to commmit to each other, then they
are sad, insecure individuals, who need to live their lives and let others live
theirs. Gay people do flirt in public, but who cares, so do hetrosexual people.
I have two sons and a daughter and if either one was gay, I wouldn't give
a hoot!
You advocate a form of rape | 9:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Dicj,
"A majority cannot pass a law that violates those rights. In order to rescind those rights, the constitution must be ammended to take them away."
If your argument is true then the majority never had a right to create legal marriage in the first place and we needed a constitutional amendment to enact legal marriage. You are confusing rights with what the majority creates. The right to drive doesn't exist, the right to marry doesn't exist, etc. Rights aren't granted by the state. They are inherent and fundamental and MUST exist independent of the actions of others (no right for state or individual to marry you).
"Most conservative folks, and the Declaration of Independence, say that rights are granted from our creator, not from a majority of voters."
You are right but who exactly do you believe created the legal institution of marriage? Was it "God" who enacted the statute creating and defining the legal institution of marriage or was it the majority and our representatives who created legal marriage?
Our rights cannot be granted or taken away by the majority (or anyone) therefore legal marriage cannot be a right since it wouldn't exist if it weren't for the
"A majority cannot pass a law that violates those rights. In order to rescind those rights, the constitution must be ammended to take them away."
If your argument is true then the majority never had a right to create legal marriage in the first place and we needed a constitutional amendment to enact legal marriage. You are confusing rights with what the majority creates. The right to drive doesn't exist, the right to marry doesn't exist, etc. Rights aren't granted by the state. They are inherent and fundamental and MUST exist independent of the actions of others (no right for state or individual to marry you).
"Most conservative folks, and the Declaration of Independence, say that rights are granted from our creator, not from a majority of voters."
You are right but who exactly do you believe created the legal institution of marriage? Was it "God" who enacted the statute creating and defining the legal institution of marriage or was it the majority and our representatives who created legal marriage?
Our rights cannot be granted or taken away by the majority (or anyone) therefore legal marriage cannot be a right since it wouldn't exist if it weren't for the
vegas jeff | 9:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
fox and hen,did't know being gay is crime? you do know that aids is also
carried by straight people.most men who bring aids home to wives and etc. have
been trolling for prostitutes who tend to be substance abusers,maybe hubby is a
drug user himself.you need to get out a little more,try reading a book,( not
just BOM)get out talk to someone whos different than you,educate yourself,good
god man do something good for humanity.You just might learn not to hate so much.
Silly? No, just a moron | 10:02 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
uncannygunman,
"Silly me, I thought that rights are designed to protect people from the whims of the majority."
Let's be clear that it was the whim of the majority that created legal marriage and now you imply that they don't have the right to define it because God or nature gave you a right to a "marriage license" issued by elected representatives of the majority. What's next? Will you say that nature or God gave you the right to a driver's license on your terms and not those set by the majority.
If you are willing to meet the terms set under the law it would be discrimination to deny you marriage to a person of the opposite sex but it isn't a form of discrimination or a violation of rights when the majority equally applies the law to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
A heterosexual can no more marry a person of the same sex than a heterosexual nor are heterosexuals allowed to marry while homosexuals aren't. Nor are homosexuals required to ONLY marry homosexuals (i.e., blacks were denied the right to marry a white person because one was right and another black). You have equal protection under the law.
"Silly me, I thought that rights are designed to protect people from the whims of the majority."
Let's be clear that it was the whim of the majority that created legal marriage and now you imply that they don't have the right to define it because God or nature gave you a right to a "marriage license" issued by elected representatives of the majority. What's next? Will you say that nature or God gave you the right to a driver's license on your terms and not those set by the majority.
If you are willing to meet the terms set under the law it would be discrimination to deny you marriage to a person of the opposite sex but it isn't a form of discrimination or a violation of rights when the majority equally applies the law to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
A heterosexual can no more marry a person of the same sex than a heterosexual nor are heterosexuals allowed to marry while homosexuals aren't. Nor are homosexuals required to ONLY marry homosexuals (i.e., blacks were denied the right to marry a white person because one was right and another black). You have equal protection under the law.
foxes and hen houses | 10:13 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I am back and will continue to oppose homosexuals and apologists with your
predictable sophistries and slanders.
What I said is true; homosexual men DO pass on their disease to their wives (and there
ARE homosexual men married to straight women) and indirectly infect children in the womb in many cases. Well over a million homosexual men have died already in this nation alone, and they have often infected straight familiy members in this way. PROVE ME WRONG IF YOU CAN.
I have hardly begun to enumerate the acts and practices of homosexuals and their effects.
It is the homosexual population that ought to be ashamed but they are past shame; how many literally parade their perversity openly and demand recognition? It is a shame to even speak of the act of male homosexuality. I think it would not get past the censors of this or any other reputable newspaper, though I think it would be revealing to some.
The teacher apologist for homosexuals hopefully does not teach her agenda in the school in which she works. I believe a clear majority of parents with children in school would seek the resignation of such a propagandist in education.
What I said is true; homosexual men DO pass on their disease to their wives (and there
ARE homosexual men married to straight women) and indirectly infect children in the womb in many cases. Well over a million homosexual men have died already in this nation alone, and they have often infected straight familiy members in this way. PROVE ME WRONG IF YOU CAN.
I have hardly begun to enumerate the acts and practices of homosexuals and their effects.
It is the homosexual population that ought to be ashamed but they are past shame; how many literally parade their perversity openly and demand recognition? It is a shame to even speak of the act of male homosexuality. I think it would not get past the censors of this or any other reputable newspaper, though I think it would be revealing to some.
The teacher apologist for homosexuals hopefully does not teach her agenda in the school in which she works. I believe a clear majority of parents with children in school would seek the resignation of such a propagandist in education.
undereducated | 10:15 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
A recent poll showed that the prop 8 measure got strong backing from less
educated voters. Of the voters who did not attend college 69 percent voted for
prop 8, this group was only out passed by evangelical zealots at 86 percent, of
course the two are not mutually exclusive.
gays already have rights | 10:22 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I'm sick and tired of people saying "I don't understand how gay
marriage will affect your marriage." Well, it doesn't. But the point
is being missed. It is a blatant attack on the family, it is degrading, yet
people refuse to see this. People can spin this all they want. Everyone is
affected by gay marriage...everyone. The questions to ask is "In what way
is gay marriage going to benefit society?". "What society do you know
of, that has enforced the gay marriage law, is thriving and doing better because
of it?"
Nathan | 10:31 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
@Sally in England
I don't think anyone feels threatened by two men or women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other. They are already free to do that. We simply don't want the state to sanction an act we consider immoral.
I don't think anyone feels threatened by two men or women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other. They are already free to do that. We simply don't want the state to sanction an act we consider immoral.
less educated? | 10:38 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
How much "education" do you need to know right from wrong? Men and
women are naturally attracted to one another, and naturally repulsed by the
thought of homosexuality.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of attenuated argument and skill to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". In that sense I would agree that there may, at least sometimes, be some correlation between "education" and the ability to defend the indefensible.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of attenuated argument and skill to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". In that sense I would agree that there may, at least sometimes, be some correlation between "education" and the ability to defend the indefensible.
I would have to legally divorce | 10:42 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
gays already have rights,
"I'm sick and tired of people saying "I don't understand how gay marriage will affect your marriage."
They are trying to build a straw man argument and then tear it down. They want people to argue that gay marriage affects their individual marriage as opposed to marriage as an institution being under threat and hence our specific marriages. Does this mean that straight people will get divorced? No one has argued this but think of it this way.
The LDS Church is placed in a situation where they will be forced to participate in legal marriage as an institution while it recognizes same sex unions which in fact forces the Church to recognize those unions by virtue of participating in legal marriage or choosing to advise Mormons to not enter into a legal marriage.
"Well, it doesn't. But the point is being missed. It is a blatant attack on the family, it is degrading, yet people refuse to see this...Everyone is affected by gay marriage...everyone."
It affects everyone because everyone participates in it. You can't argue that you are against to something and then participate (i.e., if you are against democracy you don't vote).
"I'm sick and tired of people saying "I don't understand how gay marriage will affect your marriage."
They are trying to build a straw man argument and then tear it down. They want people to argue that gay marriage affects their individual marriage as opposed to marriage as an institution being under threat and hence our specific marriages. Does this mean that straight people will get divorced? No one has argued this but think of it this way.
The LDS Church is placed in a situation where they will be forced to participate in legal marriage as an institution while it recognizes same sex unions which in fact forces the Church to recognize those unions by virtue of participating in legal marriage or choosing to advise Mormons to not enter into a legal marriage.
"Well, it doesn't. But the point is being missed. It is a blatant attack on the family, it is degrading, yet people refuse to see this...Everyone is affected by gay marriage...everyone."
It affects everyone because everyone participates in it. You can't argue that you are against to something and then participate (i.e., if you are against democracy you don't vote).
@fox and hen house | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
wow fox and hen house keep talking you only show your own ignorance. Only pink
elephants can fly �PROVE ME WRONG IF YOU
CAN,� oh by the way typing in ALL CAPTIAL LETTERS does not
make your statement any more valid it just shows how juvenile you are. Just one
tid but for you from the center for disease control for you though. The number
of gay men you claim have died from AIDS is more then twice the actual number.
Don�t believe me check it out for
yourself��. ya
didn�t think you would
Kevin | 10:48 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
@foxes and hen houses | 10:13 a.m
I believe the number of AIDS-related deaths in the U.S. is under 600,000 as of 2006, and a rate of about 15k per year. Still, that's a lot. According to the CDC, 1/2 of AIDS cases are from male-to-male homosexual contact. The other half is from heterosexual sex, needle sharing, and other means of transmission. But I concur, it's a problem. Not to diminish this problem, though, compare these rates to smoking-related deaths, some 480,000 per YEAR.
Yes, promiscuous bisexual men married to women is problem. But it's promiscuity that is the problem.
If you want to minimize these rates, become a supporter of homosexual marriage, be pro-marriage for everyone, speak out against anyone who can't stay with one partner at a time, and speak out against promiscuity in general.
I believe the number of AIDS-related deaths in the U.S. is under 600,000 as of 2006, and a rate of about 15k per year. Still, that's a lot. According to the CDC, 1/2 of AIDS cases are from male-to-male homosexual contact. The other half is from heterosexual sex, needle sharing, and other means of transmission. But I concur, it's a problem. Not to diminish this problem, though, compare these rates to smoking-related deaths, some 480,000 per YEAR.
Yes, promiscuous bisexual men married to women is problem. But it's promiscuity that is the problem.
If you want to minimize these rates, become a supporter of homosexual marriage, be pro-marriage for everyone, speak out against anyone who can't stay with one partner at a time, and speak out against promiscuity in general.
Sally in England | 10:52 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Gay marriage is a positive on society, if gay people or straight people commit
to a loving relationship through marriage, then they will be more commited to
one person, that is better for every relationship, gay or straight. Those
opposed to gay marriage will say that gay people don't need marriage to
commit to one person, but then nobody does. Marriage is a ceremony to show
others how much you love a person. I would just like to say to 'Foxes and
Hen Houses', that most of the people I work with, think how I think, we
have gay students in our school and we are tolerant, maybe it's because we
work in education and are therefore educated. There are no homophobic attitudes
in our school.
Gus Talwynd | 10:54 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
As the debate rages on in certain parts of America (apparently this may be the
most important issue to confront Utah citizens since the anti-polygamy assault
in the late 19th century), is seems to come down to the use of a word.
Gay people can officially "marry" in several Western countries and a few states. They were able to legally marry in California until Prop. 8 passed by a narrow majority. The California Supreme Court has yet to rule on this law, however. Certainly, the next time the issue comes up in California, it will probably result in gay marriage becoming protected under law.
Nonetheless, if two people, gay or straight, want to enter into a covenent of shared love and commitment, they do not need the "authority" of the state to determine what they call it. If the issue is one of legal rights, then if those rights are granted under the state for any and all couples (married or not), then use of the word "married" becomes insignificant.
If a gay couple wants to say they are "married" and the anti-gay-marriage crowd say they are not, it becomes moot since people believe what they want. It's that simple.
Gay people can officially "marry" in several Western countries and a few states. They were able to legally marry in California until Prop. 8 passed by a narrow majority. The California Supreme Court has yet to rule on this law, however. Certainly, the next time the issue comes up in California, it will probably result in gay marriage becoming protected under law.
Nonetheless, if two people, gay or straight, want to enter into a covenent of shared love and commitment, they do not need the "authority" of the state to determine what they call it. If the issue is one of legal rights, then if those rights are granted under the state for any and all couples (married or not), then use of the word "married" becomes insignificant.
If a gay couple wants to say they are "married" and the anti-gay-marriage crowd say they are not, it becomes moot since people believe what they want. It's that simple.
@ fox and hen house | 10:54 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
A few more facts from the Center for Disease Control.
�People infected through high-risk heterosexual contact2 accounted for more than one-quarter of all people living with HIV� (Source CDC website)
�People infected through injection drug use accounted for 19% of all people living with HIV�
(Source CDC website)
�HIV takes a disproportionate toll on communities of color, with the most severe impact among African Americans, followed by Hispanics/Latinos. While blacks make up only 12% of the U.S. population, they represented nearly half of all people living with HIV in the U.S. in 2006� (Source CDC website)
So what my point?
�Ensuring everyone infected with HIV knows their status is a critical part of the solution. While the new HIV prevalence estimates indicate that more infected individuals know their status, far too many HIV-infected people in the U.S. are still diagnosed late in the course of infection� (Source CDC website)
The effects of ignorance are to high to be ignored , that the point.
If people want to appose gay marriage based on their religion that is their business but the cost of your lies is to high.
�People infected through high-risk heterosexual contact2 accounted for more than one-quarter of all people living with HIV� (Source CDC website)
�People infected through injection drug use accounted for 19% of all people living with HIV�
(Source CDC website)
�HIV takes a disproportionate toll on communities of color, with the most severe impact among African Americans, followed by Hispanics/Latinos. While blacks make up only 12% of the U.S. population, they represented nearly half of all people living with HIV in the U.S. in 2006� (Source CDC website)
So what my point?
�Ensuring everyone infected with HIV knows their status is a critical part of the solution. While the new HIV prevalence estimates indicate that more infected individuals know their status, far too many HIV-infected people in the U.S. are still diagnosed late in the course of infection� (Source CDC website)
The effects of ignorance are to high to be ignored , that the point.
If people want to appose gay marriage based on their religion that is their business but the cost of your lies is to high.
College graduate | 10:57 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Well, I "attended" university (and graduated). I witnessed for myself
the vast concourses of airheads that "attended college". There are
those who "attend", those who graduate, and those who actually learn
something worthwhile.
Then again knowledge is not to be confused with either wisdom, intelligence, morality or common sense. Knowledge has a tendency to inflate the simple with false pride.
Then again knowledge is not to be confused with either wisdom, intelligence, morality or common sense. Knowledge has a tendency to inflate the simple with false pride.
You keep talking of "lies" | 11:07 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Waht exactly are the "lies" you speak of?
Gay bigots will never understand | 11:12 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Nathan,
"I don't think anyone feels threatened by two men or women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other. They are already free to do that. We simply don't want the state to sanction an act we consider immoral."
Because that means we sanction it as well or choose to not participate in it. If the U.S. government was a monarchy we would be within our right to refuse to participate in institutions promoting monarchy.
Would we be wrong to do whatever we can to oppose a monarchy and promote a constitutional republic? If we were asked to change the structure of government from what it is to include monarchist ideals would we be wrong to say "sorry we do not agree" and also refuse to do so. Does this mean that we discriminate against monarchists by refusing to change government to reflect their opinions? Do we deny them a right to vote if they choose not to vote because they don't agree with voting for a President and Congress instead of a parliament and King in an elective monarchy?
No we don't anymore than we discriminate by defining marriage and applying it equally to all.
"I don't think anyone feels threatened by two men or women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other. They are already free to do that. We simply don't want the state to sanction an act we consider immoral."
Because that means we sanction it as well or choose to not participate in it. If the U.S. government was a monarchy we would be within our right to refuse to participate in institutions promoting monarchy.
Would we be wrong to do whatever we can to oppose a monarchy and promote a constitutional republic? If we were asked to change the structure of government from what it is to include monarchist ideals would we be wrong to say "sorry we do not agree" and also refuse to do so. Does this mean that we discriminate against monarchists by refusing to change government to reflect their opinions? Do we deny them a right to vote if they choose not to vote because they don't agree with voting for a President and Congress instead of a parliament and King in an elective monarchy?
No we don't anymore than we discriminate by defining marriage and applying it equally to all.
@fox and hen house | 11:15 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Kevin is right if your concern really is the spread of AIDS (which I doubt it
is) you should be advocating everyone stay in committed relationships regardless
of sexual orientation since it is promiscuity not sexuality that determines the
transmission rate of diseases such as AIDS. Further the best way to reduce the
small number of gay men that pass the disease onto the unsuspecting spouses is
it to remove the shame they feel over being gay so they do not feel the need to
live a lie and encourage them to seek long term honest and stable relationships.
Just as an aside the actual number of gay men that have died form AIDS is actually estimated to be 300,000 less then a third your original claim.
Anyway, I will leave you alone now to continue to show your true colors.
Just as an aside the actual number of gay men that have died form AIDS is actually estimated to be 300,000 less then a third your original claim.
Anyway, I will leave you alone now to continue to show your true colors.
@college graduate | 11:17 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
your right you are a great example of knowledge inflating the simple with false
pride.
Cambridge | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
@ uncannygunman,
But rights cannot exist in the first place (in a democracy) unless the majority votes them into the Constitution. So unavoidably, rights are determined by popular vote. Period.
But rights cannot exist in the first place (in a democracy) unless the majority votes them into the Constitution. So unavoidably, rights are determined by popular vote. Period.
Sally, sally sally! | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I fear that many apologists and propagandists are in our schools deliberately
inculcating teaching their harmful minority opinions instead of academic
subjects. Are these 'tolerant' faculties "in England" like
yourself? I would be sad for England, that once had an honorable history of
opposing homosexual perversion in its society - until such great
"luminaries" as Oscar Wilde became fashionably idolised.
I would add that, in the developed world, England is only second to the United States in the low standards of basic literacy and numeracy attained in its state institutions of education through "High School".
I would add that, in the developed world, England is only second to the United States in the low standards of basic literacy and numeracy attained in its state institutions of education through "High School".
@you keep talking of "lies" | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
who are you talking to?
Sally proves that she's stupid | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Sally in England,
"Gay marriage is a positive on society, if gay people or straight people commit to a loving relationship through marriage, then they will be more commited to one person, that is better for every relationship, gay or straight."
Government has no business promoting commitment to a loving relationship anymore than they have business promoting hatred. The only role government has in marriage is to promote the nuclear family through an institution that promotes marriage of one man and one woman who have the potential of procreating with each other.
"Those opposed to gay marriage will say that gay people don't need marriage to commit to one person, but then nobody does."
That's true. No one needs it to commit including heterosexuals. Your point?
"Marriage is a ceremony to show others how much you love a person."
No one is stopping them from holding any ceremonies they choose and no one who agrees is prevented from attending those ceremonies. Legal marriage doesn't have anything to do with love. You can hate your spouse, and sleep in separate bedrooms and it's none of our business yet we apply it equally. Anyone with potentiality to procreate can marry.
"Gay marriage is a positive on society, if gay people or straight people commit to a loving relationship through marriage, then they will be more commited to one person, that is better for every relationship, gay or straight."
Government has no business promoting commitment to a loving relationship anymore than they have business promoting hatred. The only role government has in marriage is to promote the nuclear family through an institution that promotes marriage of one man and one woman who have the potential of procreating with each other.
"Those opposed to gay marriage will say that gay people don't need marriage to commit to one person, but then nobody does."
That's true. No one needs it to commit including heterosexuals. Your point?
"Marriage is a ceremony to show others how much you love a person."
No one is stopping them from holding any ceremonies they choose and no one who agrees is prevented from attending those ceremonies. Legal marriage doesn't have anything to do with love. You can hate your spouse, and sleep in separate bedrooms and it's none of our business yet we apply it equally. Anyone with potentiality to procreate can marry.
Voter Demographics | 11:30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
The majority of voters voting Yes on Prop 8 had high school educations or less
and were in the lower economic strata, while the majority voting No had College
or Advanced Degree Educations and were in the upper economic strata. Could it
be that the better educated and more well-off are aware that homosexuality is a
naturally occurring human trait in a minority of the population and always has
been?
jce0609 | 11:38 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic,
executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches
and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for
individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.
Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of
mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the
tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the
population. Looks like the mob won in California.
Anonymous | 12:02 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
The writer seems unaware that the reason there are implied consent laws is that
the Supreme Court ruled that driving was a privilege and not a right. The court
differentiated rights and privileges. Government can remove privileges, not
rights.
The state can remove driving privileges for breaking laws. The state can't exclude any group from equality access to the privileges the state can grant. This would be an infringement of a citizens rights.
The state can remove driving privileges for breaking laws. The state can't exclude any group from equality access to the privileges the state can grant. This would be an infringement of a citizens rights.
Darin | 12:04 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Richard Ewing Davis,
You totally missed the point of Mr. Bartholomew's letter. His point was that columnist Lee Benson's recent article was unbelievably flip, insensitive, and uninformed. And that it was!
Bartholomew's issue wasn't so much about whether gay marriage is right or wrong; it's about the fact that Benson (like most of my fellow posters here) can't begin to understand why the "losers" in the Prop 8 vote can't just "get over it and move on." What Benson and many others don't understand is that same-sex marriage - to those who advocate for it, mostly - is a question of basic human rights (to a family) and dignity. The fight for same-sex marriage is not going away just because Prop 8 passed in California (by a slim margin), or because anyone says "it's wrong" or "you lost, get over it, move on."
Whether you like it or not, the fight for same-sex marriage rights will go on, and I dare say here in the public forum that those rights will be won, and then it is we (who like or not) who will just "get over it and move on." When that happens, will you remember your statements today?
You totally missed the point of Mr. Bartholomew's letter. His point was that columnist Lee Benson's recent article was unbelievably flip, insensitive, and uninformed. And that it was!
Bartholomew's issue wasn't so much about whether gay marriage is right or wrong; it's about the fact that Benson (like most of my fellow posters here) can't begin to understand why the "losers" in the Prop 8 vote can't just "get over it and move on." What Benson and many others don't understand is that same-sex marriage - to those who advocate for it, mostly - is a question of basic human rights (to a family) and dignity. The fight for same-sex marriage is not going away just because Prop 8 passed in California (by a slim margin), or because anyone says "it's wrong" or "you lost, get over it, move on."
Whether you like it or not, the fight for same-sex marriage rights will go on, and I dare say here in the public forum that those rights will be won, and then it is we (who like or not) who will just "get over it and move on." When that happens, will you remember your statements today?
@sally proves she's stupid | 12:10 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
so you use a lot of rhetoric to try to prove that sally is stupid but I see no
facts to back up your claim. Insults without facts ring pretty hollow. Where is
your proof that the purpose of marriage is procreation and the protection of the
nuclear family? State or federal laws not religious rhetoric showing this is the
case please. Provide that and I will leave you alone to call sally any
derogatory thing you think makes you look smart.
Lionheart | 12:32 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
The purpose of marriage for a society is the protection of women and children
and the domesticating and maturing of men. All else is extraneous. Homosexual
marriage neither prtects women and children nor domesticates and matures men.
Of what good is homosexual marriage to society?
Boyd | 12:43 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
This is almost exhausting how many letters we've seen recently concerning
same-sex marriage. At least one a day it seems.
I stand by my assertion: same-sex marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. As long as government is in the marital business, same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It will take "activist" judicial fiat to make it reality, but that's the simple truth. There is no legal argument against same-sex marriage, only moral and religious ones, both of which bear no weight in the legal arena.
I stand by my assertion: same-sex marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. As long as government is in the marital business, same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It will take "activist" judicial fiat to make it reality, but that's the simple truth. There is no legal argument against same-sex marriage, only moral and religious ones, both of which bear no weight in the legal arena.
Cambridge | 1:08 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Boyd,
To the contrary, nothing but moral and religious arguments hold weight in the legal arena, we just give them other names. If you are not arguing for gay marriage on moral grounds, then on what grounds do you claim they should be legal?
Law is the codification of public morality. If you do not legislate morality, you do not legislate.
To the contrary, nothing but moral and religious arguments hold weight in the legal arena, we just give them other names. If you are not arguing for gay marriage on moral grounds, then on what grounds do you claim they should be legal?
Law is the codification of public morality. If you do not legislate morality, you do not legislate.
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.
- Niemann pitches Rays past the A's 1:08 a.m.
- Giants' Sanchez tosses no-hitter 1:07 a.m.
- Orlando signs Bass; Hill stays a Sun 1:06 a.m.
- Jazz rookies quiet Thunder youngsters 1:05 a.m.
- Jazz finances not quite so bleak 1:05 a.m.
- Tweeters with Utah ties 12:50 a.m.
- Twitter lets fans communicate, interact 12:49 a.m.
- Jazz brass debate Millsap match 12:17 a.m.
- Teacher faces new sex charges 12:09 a.m.
- BYU professor to work on Hebrew Bible 12:08 a.m.
- LDS seminary principal arrested
- Jazz brass debate Millsap match
- Reactions on Boozer speculation
- Teacher faces new sex charges
- Jazz talking Boozer trade?
- Jazz down Oklahoma City
- 2 Tooele police officers fired
- BYU professor to work on Hebrew Bible
- Dems: tax the rich for health care
- Baseball teams fear 'haunted' hotel
- LDS seminary principal arrested
142 - Bronco collecting a galaxy of recruits141
- Jazz talking Boozer trade?136
- Blazers may offer Millsap a contract123
- Stadium of Fire flag burning was fake94
- Jazz brass debate Millsap match88
- Fairness of BCS debated81
- Chaffetz eyes challenging Bennett74
- Letters: Single-payer system best72
- Services bids farewell to Jackson70
By now you've probably read about the investigation that showed just how...
Sen. Scott Jenkins was name-checked by Jay Leno Monday night during his...
Latest comments
Didn't Obama and Biden just admit to the fact that the stimilus programs were...
The last part of the article about Cowherd is classic!!! I normally like the...
This man was my teacher in high school. He is my friend, he was like a father...
I like millsap, but portland just burried themselves. They made themselves...
It's amazing how quickly society is willing to vaccinate it's children with...
The first income tax was introduced during the Civil War, that's only 70...
If he really did what the evidence seems to show, I don't think he should be...
Utah needs Portland too much. It's much harder than you think to find good...
stacy, have you ever eaten there ??
I had Brother Pratt at Viewmont High School my sophomore year... I was really...
Advertisements