Reader comments
Becker, Buhler to face off
107 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
John Lambert | 12:30 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Happy days are here again. No more Rocky. Yeah!
Economic Sense | 12:30 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
From a business standpoint I'd rather see a republican ( BUHLER) get in
office than a democrat.
Right now on the state and Federal level we are seeing quite a bit of surplus revenue pouring in. There's some great truth to trinkle down economics( reagonomics).
When the rich and everyone else down at the bottom have more money we invest more, we spend more etc and suprisingly enough the GOVT gets more in the end then if they HIKE the taxes way up.
Lets vote the guy who belongs to the party of economic sense, not economic misery.
Right now on the state and Federal level we are seeing quite a bit of surplus revenue pouring in. There's some great truth to trinkle down economics( reagonomics).
When the rich and everyone else down at the bottom have more money we invest more, we spend more etc and suprisingly enough the GOVT gets more in the end then if they HIKE the taxes way up.
Lets vote the guy who belongs to the party of economic sense, not economic misery.
jackhp | 12:35 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Hey M,
If it's obvious who the D-news is supporting, why did you have to tell us? ;)
I didn't see any "dissing" of Christensen or Wilson in an article last night. Could you provide an example?
If it's obvious who the D-news is supporting, why did you have to tell us? ;)
I didn't see any "dissing" of Christensen or Wilson in an article last night. Could you provide an example?
Comments continue below
John Lambert | 12:35 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jefferson's wall is a bunch of hogwash.
Religion has a right to be in politics. Same gender marriage is an abomination that weakens and destroys the real institution.
I will vote for a person no matter what their religion is, however I have no problem in knowing what religion someone follows.
Remeber, Utah was the second state to elect a Jew as governor. New York never has. I still here his words in 1916 echoing down today "I am not a Gentile, I am a member of the house of Israel."
Give people respect. Say what religion they are, not just religion they are not. I want to know what religion Becker is. Does anyone even know?
Religion has a right to be in politics. Same gender marriage is an abomination that weakens and destroys the real institution.
I will vote for a person no matter what their religion is, however I have no problem in knowing what religion someone follows.
Remeber, Utah was the second state to elect a Jew as governor. New York never has. I still here his words in 1916 echoing down today "I am not a Gentile, I am a member of the house of Israel."
Give people respect. Say what religion they are, not just religion they are not. I want to know what religion Becker is. Does anyone even know?
John Lambert | 12:44 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
It should be remebered that a lot of the people who vote in the general election
did not vote in the primary.
In 2005 in Detroit the chalenger got a majority of the votes in the primary but lost in the general election.
On the other hand the Christensen supporters could just sit at home and not vote in November, so nothing is for certain.
In 2005 in Detroit the chalenger got a majority of the votes in the primary but lost in the general election.
On the other hand the Christensen supporters could just sit at home and not vote in November, so nothing is for certain.
Politico | 12:53 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
So? What's your point? If the law recognizes other unions that don't
create children, then what's the point of excluding homosexual unions?
They would be just one more small minority of unions within the "vast
majority" that do create children.
You really rambled on there for awhile to say absolutely nothing.
And BTW, you didn't address the fact that gay people CAN have children. Should those children be denied the same legal protections granted by civil marriage to children of heterosexual couples?
You really rambled on there for awhile to say absolutely nothing.
And BTW, you didn't address the fact that gay people CAN have children. Should those children be denied the same legal protections granted by civil marriage to children of heterosexual couples?
jackhp | 12:59 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Economic sense?
Are you kidding? Federal revenues are in a surplus? Wow! I had no idea. You'd think it would be front-page news . . . *rolls eyes*
If trickle down economics is so great, maybe we should just cut taxes to zero. The increase in revenue would be amazing, don't you think?
Are you kidding? Federal revenues are in a surplus? Wow! I had no idea. You'd think it would be front-page news . . . *rolls eyes*
If trickle down economics is so great, maybe we should just cut taxes to zero. The increase in revenue would be amazing, don't you think?
jackhp | 1:03 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Sorry, the comment marked "Politco" at 12:53 is from me.
Embarassment?? | 1:27 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Rocky often times goes overboard...but the only thing that is embarassing is
that Bush still has a high approval rating in this state.
Isn't it interesting that Buhler has distanced himself from the republican party - he tries to down play his party affiliation because he knows that a repulican can't win in Salt Lake.
Go Ralph!!!
Isn't it interesting that Buhler has distanced himself from the republican party - he tries to down play his party affiliation because he knows that a repulican can't win in Salt Lake.
Go Ralph!!!
Politico | 2:09 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jackhp, The point of excluding gay unions from the institution of marriage, is
that the institution of marriage regulates and protects that which gay unions
are incapable of producing: offspring. Biological fact trumps your self-styled
political correctness. The union of two males does not produce children, plain
and simple. Neither does the union of two females. It takes a mommy and a
daddy, you know like your mommy and daddy. Since children are produced only by
heterosexual unions, society's interest in protecting children by the
institutionalization of marriage, extends only to heterosexual unions.
What's so difficult about that? Let gays do what gays do, which is
anything but procreate children. Let marriages be marriages are, havens for
heterosexual couples - the vast majority of which are capable and willing to
procreate.
To jackhp | 2:32 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
No need to apologize for having to correct the name under which your previous
comment was posted.
I don't care what you have to say anyway. Let the people vote if they want to have our government (at any level) sanction this UNNATURAL behavior called "gay marriage" and let that be the end of it. Isn't that how it works anyway in this great representative republic of ours?
I don't care what you have to say anyway. Let the people vote if they want to have our government (at any level) sanction this UNNATURAL behavior called "gay marriage" and let that be the end of it. Isn't that how it works anyway in this great representative republic of ours?
John | 3:04 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
As an owner of a business in salt lake, my support if I were a resident of this
fair city, my vote would go to Mr. Buhler. He represents the mainstream of this
city very well. Let's hope he can get the voters of the city off their
nickel and out to vote, turn out will determine this election. Have a good day!
Pedro G | 3:24 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jackhp,
From the number of comments attributed to you, I will infer (most likely incorrectly) that you don�t have much better to do today but respond to comments posted on this forum. And as we are discussing the extension of additional rights (marriage) to groups of people (that have been denied (?) these rights in the past) I have a question for you:
If either of the candidates were to come out and actively support for extending rights and allowing the civil recognition of polygamous or polyandrous relationships (defined as consenting adults of legal age), how would this change/strengthen your current stance (if any) on either of the candidates?
From the number of comments attributed to you, I will infer (most likely incorrectly) that you don�t have much better to do today but respond to comments posted on this forum. And as we are discussing the extension of additional rights (marriage) to groups of people (that have been denied (?) these rights in the past) I have a question for you:
If either of the candidates were to come out and actively support for extending rights and allowing the civil recognition of polygamous or polyandrous relationships (defined as consenting adults of legal age), how would this change/strengthen your current stance (if any) on either of the candidates?
jackhp | 3:35 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Politico, thanks for clarifying once again that you have no point. Who cares if
some unions don't create children? Civil law apparently doesn't so
why should gay people be excluded?
BTW, where does this idea come from that marriage is primarily an institution to regulate and protect children born of said marriage? If this were true, it would be a lot harder to get married and a lot harder to get divorced. It might also be illegal to have children outside of marriage. As it stands, I don't remember the county clerk asking me ANYTHING about my plans to have children or not when I got married.
Methinks you've made yourself a strawman. Unfortunately for you, you've created one that you cannot beat down. If society really has such an interest in regulating child rearing, it's certainly not doing so through marriage. Maybe we should institute a "license to parent"? Of course, (true) conservatives would say that's just crazy.
To the anonymous poster who doesn't care, I wasn't apologizing to you. I was apologizing to Politico. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was trying to assume his or her identity in this forum. As for your point that the people should get to vote about issues of equality . . . no, that's not how it works in this great representative republic of ours. Do you have an understanding of the concepts of "minority rights" and "tyranny of the majority"?
BTW, where does this idea come from that marriage is primarily an institution to regulate and protect children born of said marriage? If this were true, it would be a lot harder to get married and a lot harder to get divorced. It might also be illegal to have children outside of marriage. As it stands, I don't remember the county clerk asking me ANYTHING about my plans to have children or not when I got married.
Methinks you've made yourself a strawman. Unfortunately for you, you've created one that you cannot beat down. If society really has such an interest in regulating child rearing, it's certainly not doing so through marriage. Maybe we should institute a "license to parent"? Of course, (true) conservatives would say that's just crazy.
To the anonymous poster who doesn't care, I wasn't apologizing to you. I was apologizing to Politico. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was trying to assume his or her identity in this forum. As for your point that the people should get to vote about issues of equality . . . no, that's not how it works in this great representative republic of ours. Do you have an understanding of the concepts of "minority rights" and "tyranny of the majority"?
Cabot | 3:42 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
With all the bigots against mormons in Salt Lake Buhler does'nt stand a
chance of winning this election.
jackhp | 3:57 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Pedro G,
What are you doing? You seem to have found the time to read all of the comments in this thread, so what's your point?
As for polygamy/polyandry, I think it should be decriminalized between consenting adults. Other than that, I don't see how it relates to the issue of marriage equality. I don't think civil sanctioning of plural marriages, beyond the first one mind you, is necessary for marriage eqality.
What are you doing? You seem to have found the time to read all of the comments in this thread, so what's your point?
As for polygamy/polyandry, I think it should be decriminalized between consenting adults. Other than that, I don't see how it relates to the issue of marriage equality. I don't think civil sanctioning of plural marriages, beyond the first one mind you, is necessary for marriage eqality.
Politico | 4:25 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
The increasingly shrill and acid tone of your messages, jackhp, only underscores
the importance of protecting children in the hetero-sexual marriage covenant.
Militant gays are foaming and storming to try to knock down the very institution
that will protect children. Society's definition of marriage and
society's making it a goal to protect and nurture children in a
hetero-sexual mommy-daddy environment, is precisely the kind of question that
should be left to the majority for decision - it is such a fundamental question
that affects the very preservation of civilization.
Most importantly, however, your attacks on the effectiveness of marriage only reveal further your seething hostitly toward it. Marriage, family and children need protecting from the sophistries that you have spewed throughout the day. Your last email reveals what I suspected all along - that your fair complaints about equality for the poor gay couple - are really a front for your obsessive desire to destroy marriage and leave procreation and the rearing of our young on the same level as the animal kingdom. You are unmasked.
Most importantly, however, your attacks on the effectiveness of marriage only reveal further your seething hostitly toward it. Marriage, family and children need protecting from the sophistries that you have spewed throughout the day. Your last email reveals what I suspected all along - that your fair complaints about equality for the poor gay couple - are really a front for your obsessive desire to destroy marriage and leave procreation and the rearing of our young on the same level as the animal kingdom. You are unmasked.
jackhp | 4:40 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Politico,
Wow! My shrill and acid tone? You sir (or madam) would do well to calm down. I'm still wondering when you'll answer the most basic questions that I have posted. Instead you create strawmen and now are attacking me personally by saying I have a "seething hostility" toward marriage.
Please, do tell, where have I shown any contempt for the institution? I simply would like you to explain your own arguments. How is marriage PRIMARILY an institution for protecting the act of procreating? I'm telling you that civil marriage has very little, if anything, to do with child-rearing. Can you prove to me otherwise?
I have a couple more questions, that I'm sure you won't answer, since you seem to have such a fear of gay people "foaming and storming to try to knock down the very institution that will protect children." How will allowing gay people to marry HURT children? How will it affect heterosexual marriages in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?
Wow! My shrill and acid tone? You sir (or madam) would do well to calm down. I'm still wondering when you'll answer the most basic questions that I have posted. Instead you create strawmen and now are attacking me personally by saying I have a "seething hostility" toward marriage.
Please, do tell, where have I shown any contempt for the institution? I simply would like you to explain your own arguments. How is marriage PRIMARILY an institution for protecting the act of procreating? I'm telling you that civil marriage has very little, if anything, to do with child-rearing. Can you prove to me otherwise?
I have a couple more questions, that I'm sure you won't answer, since you seem to have such a fear of gay people "foaming and storming to try to knock down the very institution that will protect children." How will allowing gay people to marry HURT children? How will it affect heterosexual marriages in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?
Jim | 5:20 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jackhp
In ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?--you asked, so here goes. I was talking to a member of the legal counsel of a major religious institution. He says why churches like the Catholic and Mormon faiths are fighting gay marriage is because when "the state" ratifies and makes legal gay marriage, the next step is to tell those churches to recognize gay marriage as well. Once something is recognized as the law of the land, it is much easier to tell those "renegade" religious groups that disagree with the law of the land, that they musy "obey the law"--meaning, you must allow gay couples to be married in your synigogues, temples, and cathedrals. This obviously would destroy the whole point of those religions, whose whole moral code relies on being able to reject actions which they consider wrong. Don't think it's possible? Just look at the fact that the state forces every religion to conform to their idea of marriage right now--One man, one woman. The Feds shut the mormon church down when they tried something different 150 years ago. It is conceivable, 20 years down the road, that the state, if gay marriage is the law, would require religions to not discriminate on who applies for a marriage cerenomy. That, for an active religious Mormon, is chilling to think about (gay marriage in the Salt Lake Temple!), and is a reason to actively oppose gay marriage.
In ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?--you asked, so here goes. I was talking to a member of the legal counsel of a major religious institution. He says why churches like the Catholic and Mormon faiths are fighting gay marriage is because when "the state" ratifies and makes legal gay marriage, the next step is to tell those churches to recognize gay marriage as well. Once something is recognized as the law of the land, it is much easier to tell those "renegade" religious groups that disagree with the law of the land, that they musy "obey the law"--meaning, you must allow gay couples to be married in your synigogues, temples, and cathedrals. This obviously would destroy the whole point of those religions, whose whole moral code relies on being able to reject actions which they consider wrong. Don't think it's possible? Just look at the fact that the state forces every religion to conform to their idea of marriage right now--One man, one woman. The Feds shut the mormon church down when they tried something different 150 years ago. It is conceivable, 20 years down the road, that the state, if gay marriage is the law, would require religions to not discriminate on who applies for a marriage cerenomy. That, for an active religious Mormon, is chilling to think about (gay marriage in the Salt Lake Temple!), and is a reason to actively oppose gay marriage.
shocked | 5:37 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
politico...from the sounds of it you are part of the same right winged
conservative nut jobs that elected the current bafoon as president. You are so
scared of the unknown. Labeling gay people as "foaming bla bla bla trying
to knock the institution of marriage" are you seriously this iggnorant? or
are you just plain stupid??
You talk about protecting children - do you even know that over 90% of child molesters are heterosexual males?
Please don't post any more you are giving humanity a bad name.
You talk about protecting children - do you even know that over 90% of child molesters are heterosexual males?
Please don't post any more you are giving humanity a bad name.
Rich | 6:08 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I was not aware the government "shut the mormon church down". I
believe the church agreed to ban polygamy, (which by the way is more like
"leaving procreation and the rearing of young exactly on the level of the
animal kingdom" than gay marriage/adoption would ever be), in exchange for
statehood. I think Jim is just afraid that the next so-called Revelation about
gays, like the one that gave the blacks (previously known as "mud
people") honorary human being status in the LDS Church, will come in his
lifetime. Perish the thought, Jim! This Revelation will come sometime, when it
is profitable and public-relations-effective to the Church for it to come. And
then magically, what is considered wrong will change just like that...
jackhp | 7:20 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Gee Jim, nice try, but I call BS.
No church is now or ever will be required to sanction any marriage against their wishes. You are making a very obvious mistake of confusing the terms civil marriage and religious marriage. Even now, religions are more than welcome to sanction marriages that aren't sanctioned by the state. There are plenty of religions out there that will perform marriages for gay people right now. The difference lies in the fact that gay people can't get their marriage sanctioned by the state as well.
Hmmm . . . that seems a little like religious discrimination to me.
I'll tell you what Jim. You allow gay marriages to be sanctioned and if the big, bad guvmint tries to tell the LDS Church that they have to allow same-sex marriages in their Temples, I will fight just as hard for your Church's right NOT to sanction said marriages. Why? Because I believe in marriage equality and religious freedom . . . for EVERYONE!
No church is now or ever will be required to sanction any marriage against their wishes. You are making a very obvious mistake of confusing the terms civil marriage and religious marriage. Even now, religions are more than welcome to sanction marriages that aren't sanctioned by the state. There are plenty of religions out there that will perform marriages for gay people right now. The difference lies in the fact that gay people can't get their marriage sanctioned by the state as well.
Hmmm . . . that seems a little like religious discrimination to me.
I'll tell you what Jim. You allow gay marriages to be sanctioned and if the big, bad guvmint tries to tell the LDS Church that they have to allow same-sex marriages in their Temples, I will fight just as hard for your Church's right NOT to sanction said marriages. Why? Because I believe in marriage equality and religious freedom . . . for EVERYONE!
Lucy | 8:11 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
There is little chance SLC will have a Republican mayor at least until the party
can wipe itself of the Bush stain.
Salt Lake belongs to the world, not Utah. Bughler is a classic small town Utahn.
Salt Lake belongs to the world, not Utah. Bughler is a classic small town Utahn.
Politico | 8:18 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
As the name calling increases from the self-supposed enlightened ones, I'll
just repeat it again: Gays can't procreate children. So marriage make no
sense for gays. Let the gays carry on - it won't produce a child.
There's nothing to regulate, nothing to protect. Marriage is for those
unions that can procreate and progress into families. Calling names, sneering,
congratulating yourselves for your sophistry, won't change theses
fundamental differences.
Politico | 8:24 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
It is better for a child to grow up in a family where the parents are a mom and
a dad who are married. It is okay for the state to have this as a policy goal
and encourage it by upholding marriage as a union between a man and a woman,
bound together for the protection of their offspring.
Anybody foaming at the mouth over that statement?
Anybody foaming at the mouth over that statement?
Lucy | 8:46 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
There is little chance SLC will have a Republican mayor at least until the party
can wipe itself of the Bush stain.
Salt Lake belongs to the world, not Utah. Bughler is a classic small town Utahn.
Salt Lake belongs to the world, not Utah. Bughler is a classic small town Utahn.
Lucy | 8:50 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Sounds like Politico is our self-anointed manners police and sociologist at
least in the mind of Lord Politico.
...or maybe just a bigot in religious garb.
...or maybe just a bigot in religious garb.
Jane | 9:24 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Gee I guess the Deseret News and Dan Jones really missed the mark on the
polling. You guys were way off! Try darts it might be more accurate at getting
your results. But, please stop playing with the elections with your bias and
poor polls.
Anyone want to trade? | 9:31 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Hey what is that thing that Rocky supports? Trading your vote with someone out
of state? Boy I wish I could trade my vote with someone living in Salt Lake so I
can give BUHLER more vote
jackhp | 9:30 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Jane,
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Dan Jones was way off. The Trib had similar results in its polling. If you take a look at my comment in this thread from 11:50am this morning, I think you see a fairly reasonable explanation of the way things played out in this race.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Dan Jones was way off. The Trib had similar results in its polling. If you take a look at my comment in this thread from 11:50am this morning, I think you see a fairly reasonable explanation of the way things played out in this race.
Visitor | 9:33 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I am surprised that at least one woman has been mayor of Salt Lake City, though
Ms. Wilson did not fare well. Who would've thunk it?
I agree with the persons who've said that there is no ignoring the Mormon religion when discussing politics in Utah. It amazes me that some folks think the issue is not relevant.
I agree with the persons who've said that there is no ignoring the Mormon religion when discussing politics in Utah. It amazes me that some folks think the issue is not relevant.
jackhp | 9:41 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Poor, poor Politico; can't stand the heat so he has to resort to whining.
Well, repeating yourself isn't going to do any good. You have failed to
show how civil marriage has anything at all to do with regulating procreation.
If you want your religious marriage to promote and regulate procreation and
families with a "mommy and a daddy" then be my guest. But the
government doesn't do it so your argument is invalid when applied to CIVIL
marriage. (I wish HTML tags worked on this site. I really hate using CAPS to
show emphasis.)
jackhp | 9:42 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Ahhh, Politico, spouting off Sutherland Institute rhetoric now are we? Your
name isn't Paul Mero, is it?
The truth | 9:47 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Rocky will be out! That is all I really care about. I can't imagine anyone
being more worthless as a mayor than Rocky has been. His inability to be fair
and objective and to learn the fine art of compromise has stifled this city for
the last 8 years. I wish both candidates the best and hope that the winner will
represent the "people" of Salt Lake City well.
CDWJAX | 10:05 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Dave Buhler is the real deal and much more than any media interest could attempt
to explain or decry. He's the type of guy you have to meet, shake his
hand, share a thought to trully understand how he'll help, why he cares,
and why he will make the best Mayor for SLC. Salt Lake needs a leader who is
totally and undividedly focused on the issues of the City. There is too much
work to be done, too many kids to educate, too many crimes to stop, too much
hatred to heel, and too few leaders who are willing to dedicate their lives in
the local effort. Dave Buhler is committed to Utah, to SLC, and to your
neighborhood. Lets elect the right guy this time, SLC needs a boost.
Just another point of view | 10:39 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Politico
I don't know why you're arguing with jackhp? "Gay marriage" has nothing to do with equal rights. It is merely a rip-off of the civil right movement in an effort to "normalize" immoral behavior in the eyes of society!
That's what happens when your "enlightened" and "progressive", you get to sidestep the issue and attack anyone who disagrees.
I don't know why you're arguing with jackhp? "Gay marriage" has nothing to do with equal rights. It is merely a rip-off of the civil right movement in an effort to "normalize" immoral behavior in the eyes of society!
That's what happens when your "enlightened" and "progressive", you get to sidestep the issue and attack anyone who disagrees.
Bright eyes | 10:55 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I think it's unfortunate that so many people use the comment board to be
rude to and critical of other writers. If this kind of verbal jabbing is
representative of our city, we're in trouble. Whoever wins the election,
let's support them in helping to make this a great city, which it should
be! I think either candidate will do a good job. the important thing is that
people do get out and exercise their right to vote. I love Salt Lake.
Let's learn to live together in peace, no matter how we differ in opinions!
Just Wondering | 11:21 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Truthfully, how many here are actually voting for Mr. Buhler because he happens
to be LDS and will represent the faithful?
Great! | 9:31 a.m. Sept. 13, 2007
"Just wondering":same question...how many DID NOT vote for Buhler
because he's LDS? I bet there are plenty on both sides of this issue,
unfortunately.
"jackhp" & "politico": I wasn't trying to spur a debate with my early post about Buhler not being anti-gay, simply that Buhler may not believe in gay marriage, but he has supported bills that allow for equal rights in every household in regards to employee benefits. I think this goes to show how interested he is in being fair to all despite his belief system...? Besides, as a mayor, this would be about the extent of his power. Making gay marriage legal is not within the realm of mayors.
"Rich"- your comment is filled with anger, ignorance and leans towards bigotry. Do some research. The Mormon church was one of the first (if not first) that welcomed blacks into its congregations without segregation. There were reasons why (again, research!) there were limits placed upon certain groups in the church at that time. Secondly, you are being much too literate. Jim was obviously saying that the government shut down the church's practice of polygamy. We all know the church itself was not "shut down" so let's not nit-pick here. Further, who used the term "mud-people"? You seem to imply (by tacking the term on where you did) that this was an official and/or common term used by the church in those days in reference to blacks. I think not. Deal with the issues at hand; don't resort to demeaning whole groups to make your point more substantial.
jackhp- your comments are thought-provoking and concise. I'm sorry that some commentors here resort to harsh descriptive words to demean others (foaming & seething- yikes!).
We must remember to respect others opinions- and to respectfully state our own.
"jackhp" & "politico": I wasn't trying to spur a debate with my early post about Buhler not being anti-gay, simply that Buhler may not believe in gay marriage, but he has supported bills that allow for equal rights in every household in regards to employee benefits. I think this goes to show how interested he is in being fair to all despite his belief system...? Besides, as a mayor, this would be about the extent of his power. Making gay marriage legal is not within the realm of mayors.
"Rich"- your comment is filled with anger, ignorance and leans towards bigotry. Do some research. The Mormon church was one of the first (if not first) that welcomed blacks into its congregations without segregation. There were reasons why (again, research!) there were limits placed upon certain groups in the church at that time. Secondly, you are being much too literate. Jim was obviously saying that the government shut down the church's practice of polygamy. We all know the church itself was not "shut down" so let's not nit-pick here. Further, who used the term "mud-people"? You seem to imply (by tacking the term on where you did) that this was an official and/or common term used by the church in those days in reference to blacks. I think not. Deal with the issues at hand; don't resort to demeaning whole groups to make your point more substantial.
jackhp- your comments are thought-provoking and concise. I'm sorry that some commentors here resort to harsh descriptive words to demean others (foaming & seething- yikes!).
We must remember to respect others opinions- and to respectfully state our own.
jackhp | 11:00 a.m. Sept. 13, 2007
Great!,
Thank you for your comment. It is nice to see that someone can be CIVIL in their discussions, even while disagreeing.
I understand that the mayor has no real power over marriage and I agree with you that Buhler's support for the city policy of extending benefits to all adult dependent relationships is a good thing.
However, there was some subtle bigotry, IMHO, in that Buhler and others on the council overturned the mayor's executive order since it specifically gave benefits to same-sex life partners.
My point in wondering whether or not he supports marriage equality (can you tell I don't like the term "gay marriage" ;) ) or even civil unions for gay people is that it leads to a deeper understanding, one might say a core belief, regarding issues of equality. In my opinion, if you do not support marriage equality, or at the very least civil unions (although I have problems with this as well), then you don't truly support equality under the law.
Now, as for my original question, do you, or anyone else, know if Buhler supports marriage equality or civil unions? If he doesn't, then I'm sticking to my original opinion that he IS anti-gay.
Thanks again for bringing some civility and reasonableness back to this thread (even it is more than likely dead.) :)
Thank you for your comment. It is nice to see that someone can be CIVIL in their discussions, even while disagreeing.
I understand that the mayor has no real power over marriage and I agree with you that Buhler's support for the city policy of extending benefits to all adult dependent relationships is a good thing.
However, there was some subtle bigotry, IMHO, in that Buhler and others on the council overturned the mayor's executive order since it specifically gave benefits to same-sex life partners.
My point in wondering whether or not he supports marriage equality (can you tell I don't like the term "gay marriage" ;) ) or even civil unions for gay people is that it leads to a deeper understanding, one might say a core belief, regarding issues of equality. In my opinion, if you do not support marriage equality, or at the very least civil unions (although I have problems with this as well), then you don't truly support equality under the law.
Now, as for my original question, do you, or anyone else, know if Buhler supports marriage equality or civil unions? If he doesn't, then I'm sticking to my original opinion that he IS anti-gay.
Thanks again for bringing some civility and reasonableness back to this thread (even it is more than likely dead.) :)
Politico | 2:03 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
The term "marriage equality" does not have meaning when comparing a
gay couple to a straight couple, because the two types of couples are not
equally situated. Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman.
It binds the two together, so that when they procreate there will be some
measure of protection for the offspring. Therefore, IMHO, any distinction that
Buhler may have made between straight and gay couples does not signify that he
is anti-gay.
Politico | 2:39 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
The vast majority of child and family nurturing experts agree it is in a
child�s best interest to grow up in a home environment that
is (a) stable and (b) provides role modeling from both genders. Marriage
� that is heterosexual marriage - is the institution that
fosters these two ideals. It is fitting and right for society through its laws
to restrict the marriage institution to heterosexual unions in order to foster
these ideals. In that sense marriage is the institution that primarily
protects � not the act of procreating (you misconstrued my
words jackhp) - but the offspring of procreation. No one disagrees that it is
better for a child to be born into a legally established marriage relationship,
than to a single mother, or to a single father, or to two moms, or to two dads.
There�s a pile of scientific child and family psychology
research that says as much.
Thus civil marriage has everything to do with providing the best environment for raising children. That, jackhp, is what marriage has to do with child rearing. Not that all man-woman unions will procreate, but that if and when they do then the children will be provided for. That answers one of your questions.
Thus civil marriage has everything to do with providing the best environment for raising children. That, jackhp, is what marriage has to do with child rearing. Not that all man-woman unions will procreate, but that if and when they do then the children will be provided for. That answers one of your questions.
Politico | 2:59 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
Jackhp asked how allowing gay people to marry would hurt children. It would
hurt if allowing gays to marry makes it easier for them to adopt children.
Child and family psychological and sociological research overwhelmingly
concludes that a child is better off being raised by role models from both
genders, as opposed to a single mom, or a single dad, or two moms, or two dads.
The adoption demand by married heterosexual couples far outpaces the
availability of children for adoption. To protect children, public policy
should restrict adoption to heterosexual married couples. But once the gays get
their toe in the door by expanding the marriage institution to include them,
then they�ll turn around and make the same
�unequal treatment� argument for
adoption that they are currently making to get their toe in the marriage door.
That is one way gay marriage would hurt children. There are others, but time
and space don't allow addressing them here.
JB | 3:39 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
Granted, there are obvious inequalities between a relationship between a
heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple based strictly on gender and its tie
with reproduction.
While considering that obvious difference, why isn't it agreeable to more people to allow the same/equal rights to form legal unions to homosexual couples? I don't see how granting civil unions or marriage equality to homosexuals hurts heterosexuals or hurts children.
The current definition of marriage could be updated to reflect a more encompassing outlook on unions. Definitions of words can change with time. Why can't we let this word evolve to benefit more people than strictly limiting its social and legal benefits to heterosexual couples?
I think the concern for some here, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that one candidate may do more to prevent discrimination against homosexuals or even take actions that benefit homosexuals. That would likely be important issue to consider when voting for anyone that considered themselves homosexual.
Maybe the question should be which candidate is more gay-friendly instead of which is least gay friendly?
It seems that some get caught up in semantics to avoid discussing the real subject. We can all work together to help prevent people from getting pissy. =)
This really has been an interesting, and somewhat heated thread to read. Let's not let this discussion end now.
While considering that obvious difference, why isn't it agreeable to more people to allow the same/equal rights to form legal unions to homosexual couples? I don't see how granting civil unions or marriage equality to homosexuals hurts heterosexuals or hurts children.
The current definition of marriage could be updated to reflect a more encompassing outlook on unions. Definitions of words can change with time. Why can't we let this word evolve to benefit more people than strictly limiting its social and legal benefits to heterosexual couples?
I think the concern for some here, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that one candidate may do more to prevent discrimination against homosexuals or even take actions that benefit homosexuals. That would likely be important issue to consider when voting for anyone that considered themselves homosexual.
Maybe the question should be which candidate is more gay-friendly instead of which is least gay friendly?
It seems that some get caught up in semantics to avoid discussing the real subject. We can all work together to help prevent people from getting pissy. =)
This really has been an interesting, and somewhat heated thread to read. Let's not let this discussion end now.
Politico | 3:51 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
Finally, jackhp asked how allowing gay people to marry will affect heterosexual
marriages. There�s the undeniable intuitive sense that
re-defining the marriage institution to include gay couples will only add one
more blow to the already beleaguered marriage institution. With all the gang
problems and other social ills resulting from the swelling demographic of
children who don�t grow up in traditional marriages, we
need to restore the relevance and popularity of traditional marriage, not pass
laws that increase its perceived irrelevance. IMHO the sadly all too prevalent
societal perception that marriage is neither relevant nor necessary when it
comes to having children (which results in more out of wedlock births and the
above-mentioned social ills of gangs, teen addictions, etc.), will only increase
if you redefine marriage to include something that has nothing to do with having
children, namely: gay unions. It's sort of like the last knock, the last
joke, the last straw against having a reason to get married before having
children. At one point yesterday, jackhp posed the rhetorical question
(perhaps unwittingly - perhaps not - who knows) "what does marriage have to
do with rearing children anyway?" Well, the force of that question would
be even greater and pose even more of a discouragement to get married before
having children, were marriage seen as just something that even gays can do - so
I mean what's the point of getting married to have children, if gays can
get married who can't have children.
So in conclusion, widening the scope of marriage to include gays - who can't procreate, renders it more irrelevant as a worthy pre-procreation step for straights - who can.
So in conclusion, widening the scope of marriage to include gays - who can't procreate, renders it more irrelevant as a worthy pre-procreation step for straights - who can.
jackhp | 4:51 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
Politico,
All of your tired rhetoric is fine if you want to apply it to your religious marriage. But civil marriage does not do and is not meant to do any of the things you've said. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp this one simple point: your religious marriage is not the same as civil marriage. In this entire thread, I have been discussing CIVIL marriage. You continue to conflate my comments with your opinions of religious marriage. It's a dishonest debate coming from your side, and frankly, I'm done discussing it with you.
I must add one thing however, since the moderator for some reason didn't like my comment from an hour ago or so. Your comments concerning gay parents being worse for children than heterosexual parents are a bunch of malarkey (I said something different earlier; maybe that's why it was censored.)
It's simply not true that "No one disagrees that it is better for a child to be born into a legally established marriage relationship, than to a single mother, or to a single father, or to two moms, or to two dads." There may well be "a pile of scientific child and family psychology research" that says differently, but most of it comes from front-groups for religious zealots such as yourself. Most, if not all, mainstream scientific data concludes that children raised by "two moms" or "two dads" are no better or worse off than those raised by a "mom and a dad".
Buh-bye, buddy. Don't get lost in the Dark Ages . . .
All of your tired rhetoric is fine if you want to apply it to your religious marriage. But civil marriage does not do and is not meant to do any of the things you've said. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp this one simple point: your religious marriage is not the same as civil marriage. In this entire thread, I have been discussing CIVIL marriage. You continue to conflate my comments with your opinions of religious marriage. It's a dishonest debate coming from your side, and frankly, I'm done discussing it with you.
I must add one thing however, since the moderator for some reason didn't like my comment from an hour ago or so. Your comments concerning gay parents being worse for children than heterosexual parents are a bunch of malarkey (I said something different earlier; maybe that's why it was censored.)
It's simply not true that "No one disagrees that it is better for a child to be born into a legally established marriage relationship, than to a single mother, or to a single father, or to two moms, or to two dads." There may well be "a pile of scientific child and family psychology research" that says differently, but most of it comes from front-groups for religious zealots such as yourself. Most, if not all, mainstream scientific data concludes that children raised by "two moms" or "two dads" are no better or worse off than those raised by a "mom and a dad".
Buh-bye, buddy. Don't get lost in the Dark Ages . . .
Politico | 6:31 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
I looked for civility and politeness, and I looked in vain.
Politico | 6:41 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
jackhp,
All along I have been talking about civil marriage. I repeat, all along I have been talking about civil marriage. Anyone familiar with American family and domestic law knows that the aims and policies and goals for protecting children, stability, best environment, etc. that I have been discussing, are all hallmarks of our civil family law and statutes, and all have to do with civil marriages and civil family law. With all respect, jachhp, you are simply incorrect when you say these things do not apply to civil marriage.
You acknowledge the existence of the pile of scientific child and family psychology research that says kids are better off with parents of both genders committed in marriage. But you are incorrect when you characterize such research as coming from front-groups for religious zealots. That is simply not true, jackhp. This research comes from reputable, creditable, non-religious institutions of research. It is the accepted consensus, the conventional wisdom, in the scientific community. Note, I said the scientific community - meaning the secular scientific community. Not some religious think tank. You are simply mis-informed on this point.
All along I have been talking about civil marriage. I repeat, all along I have been talking about civil marriage. Anyone familiar with American family and domestic law knows that the aims and policies and goals for protecting children, stability, best environment, etc. that I have been discussing, are all hallmarks of our civil family law and statutes, and all have to do with civil marriages and civil family law. With all respect, jachhp, you are simply incorrect when you say these things do not apply to civil marriage.
You acknowledge the existence of the pile of scientific child and family psychology research that says kids are better off with parents of both genders committed in marriage. But you are incorrect when you characterize such research as coming from front-groups for religious zealots. That is simply not true, jackhp. This research comes from reputable, creditable, non-religious institutions of research. It is the accepted consensus, the conventional wisdom, in the scientific community. Note, I said the scientific community - meaning the secular scientific community. Not some religious think tank. You are simply mis-informed on this point.
jackhp | 11:02 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
prove it . . .
jackhp | 11:47 p.m. Sept. 13, 2007
BTW, I most certainly did not "acknowledge the existence of the pile of
scientific . . . research that says kids are better off with parents of both
genders . . . "
I said, "There MAY well be . . . " such research.
Please provide the sources for this "pile" of research so that we may all determine for ourselves the veracity of such claims.
I said, "There MAY well be . . . " such research.
Please provide the sources for this "pile" of research so that we may all determine for ourselves the veracity of such claims.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
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.
Related content
- Wolinsky named editor of Daily Variety 1:50 p.m.
- Ansel Adams print sold for $360K 1:49 p.m.
- Barker settles suit over plane crash 1:48 p.m.
- Hepburn's dress goes for $97,700 1:45 p.m.
- WWII veteran had Hitler's art book 1:43 p.m.
- Lehi looking for best holiday displays 1:35 p.m.
- Bees, Angels extend agreement 1:35 p.m.
- Residents protest Elk Ridge ordinance 1:26 p.m.
- South S.L. to give more to chamber 1:25 p.m.
- Tank explosion in Houston-area 1:25 p.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Snow brings big chill
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Expert calls Mitchell delusional
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Five players miss Jazz practice
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
283 - Letters: Global warming a lie222
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall175
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil144
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax125
- George lost in rivalry hatefest120
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Revive full food tax?97
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
To "to: RedShirt | 12:31 p.m. | 12:56 p.m." since when does endorsement of an...
It wouldnt matter who syracuse played.... they would win. syracuse could of...
average to above average coach. The only reason he is HOF is Miller refused...
Apparently this Doctor does not understand arrogant people. They feel they...
I can see how LDS at BYU feel a little snubbed and unable to benefit like the...
I'm so worried about her. I'm trying to give Josh the benefit of the doubt,...
Former Gov. Palin scares me because there are enough "know-nothings" in the...
Do you have any idea where the Baseball farm clubs get their players ? Ill...
Wonder why most outsiders think we're geeks? Because we find fault and...
Funny how you think they are better than provo or lone peak I watched them...
Advertisements