Reader comments
California court backs gay marriages
150 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Kevin | 11:38 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is a great day. Even though I don't live in California, I feel great.
For once I can read the obnoxious blogs and not be bothered by them one bit.
These immoral people who call themselves moralists are losing power. It is a
great day.
Anonymous | 11:39 a.m. May 16, 2008
I think that at this point everyone is sick to death of the moralyzing,
judgemental conservatives.
Re: Archaea | 11:43 a.m. May 16, 2008
You may be a practicing family law attorney in Henderson, NV, but you are not
God.
God defined marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Man is free to change his laws as he chooses, but he does so at his own peril when they contradict the laws of God.
God defined marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Man is free to change his laws as he chooses, but he does so at his own peril when they contradict the laws of God.
Comments continue below
Re: CHOICES | 11:22 a.m. | 11:45 a.m. May 16, 2008
Spoken like a true liberal. Always trying to frame the debate into a corner.
SF Mormon | 11:57 a.m. May 16, 2008
The Majority cannot impose on the Minority sanctions against, the prohibit them
from the concept in the U.S. Constitution that all men are created equal with
inalienable rights! The Majority therefore cannot write Bigotry into State Law
without it being challenged by the Judiciary which is the third Arm of
Government; for checks and balances for all the masses in a Republic-Democracy.
G | 11:59 a.m. May 16, 2008
"God defined marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman."
The government of the United States is an institution of man, not God. And since none of us can agree on which God is the right one, we'll just have to live with compromise and leave each other alone to live as they please.
Someday maybe God will clarify the issue, until then, the judges have spoken.
The government of the United States is an institution of man, not God. And since none of us can agree on which God is the right one, we'll just have to live with compromise and leave each other alone to live as they please.
Someday maybe God will clarify the issue, until then, the judges have spoken.
secular law | 12:00 p.m. May 16, 2008
Numerous comments referring to the Lord�s definition of
marriage.
Religion has no place in a legal debate. You are free to practice your religion and exercise your one vote as you see fit, but you are not free to impose what you assume are God�s laws on the rest of society. The courts are in place to protect the rights of minority groups from the judgmental moralyzing majorities, who believe that a higher power gives them permission to trample the constitutional rights of others.
Religion has no place in a legal debate. You are free to practice your religion and exercise your one vote as you see fit, but you are not free to impose what you assume are God�s laws on the rest of society. The courts are in place to protect the rights of minority groups from the judgmental moralyzing majorities, who believe that a higher power gives them permission to trample the constitutional rights of others.
Immoral Values | 12:13 p.m. May 16, 2008
It's sad how often some people, who don't agree with someone
else's moral values, try to minimize the values of others by accusing them
of moralizing.
Do these people really have NO moral values of their own?
Or, is this just a juvenile response toward anyone who disagrees their personal values?
Their live and let live attitude and castigating others for being "intollerant" and moralizing, only applies until it involves something that violates "their" personal values.
Do these people really have NO moral values of their own?
Or, is this just a juvenile response toward anyone who disagrees their personal values?
Their live and let live attitude and castigating others for being "intollerant" and moralizing, only applies until it involves something that violates "their" personal values.
Really? | 12:16 p.m. May 16, 2008
All you so-called Mormon Christians are so self-righteous. Don't forget,
you are also a minority, and what goes around comes back around again.
Re: Re: AWKWARD! @11:25 a.m. | 12:25 p.m. May 16, 2008
>>�Did it ever occur to you that the world's
definition of "traditional marriage" is not the Lord's
definition? Even in plurarl marriages, it's still "one man, one
woman". The women are not married to each other, they're married to
the man.�<<
Way to distort our country�s definition of traditional marriage into a sick perversion. �The Lord�s will� has been used as an excuse for countless atrocities over thousands of years. I�m LDS and even I�m not buying it. Some prefer to have the bretheren approve every thought and deed, but a little bit of individual reason goes a long way.
Way to distort our country�s definition of traditional marriage into a sick perversion. �The Lord�s will� has been used as an excuse for countless atrocities over thousands of years. I�m LDS and even I�m not buying it. Some prefer to have the bretheren approve every thought and deed, but a little bit of individual reason goes a long way.
Detrimental | 12:27 p.m. May 16, 2008
All those who argue that gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else are
ignoring the obvious. We might as well legalize drugs, prostitution, and
abolish many good laws. Clearly defining right from wrong is imperative to
maintaining a successful society. As things get increasingly murky, it will
become increasing difficult to distinguish right from wrong. The false
philosophy is everyone should be able to do anything they want. If someone
tells me they want me to kill them and I do, should I be prosecuted? Why should
the government take away the person's right to choose death? Just because
somebody wants something doesn't make it right.
Umm... G | 12:29 p.m. May 16, 2008
God has clarified it. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't make
it go away.
Re: secular law | 12:29 p.m. May 16, 2008
"Religion has no place in a legal debate."
Laws are nothing but a codification of the values of society, which includes EVERYONE living in that society.
Citizens of a society whose values are based on religious beliefs have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to voice their opinions and to influence changes in the law as people whose values are based on secular beliefs.
Laws are nothing but a codification of the values of society, which includes EVERYONE living in that society.
Citizens of a society whose values are based on religious beliefs have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to voice their opinions and to influence changes in the law as people whose values are based on secular beliefs.
Let's panic | 1:01 p.m. May 16, 2008
The panic-stricken comments that assume the entire country is falling into
lawlessness and moral decline are hilarious. I wonder if the racists were this
panicked when civil rights were extended to blacks? The teachings of the church
back then were very definitive and clear as a bell. Who knows? Maybe 30 years
from now, you will have a gay bishop in your ward and think nothing of it. Are
you panicking yet?
Judicial Activism | 1:02 p.m. May 16, 2008
This idea that judges simply read and follow the state or federal constitutions
in making their judgements is an ABSOLUTE LIE.
Anyone in this country who actually believes that is a fool.
Liberals and conservatives alike fight long and hard to get judges appointed whose values and beliefs are similar to their own values and beliefs.
Anyone with any brains at all KNOWS that judges are no different than anyone else. They make rulings every day based on their own beliefs and values, including Supreme Court Justices.
If the laws and constitutions were so clear and unambiguous, every judge would rule exactly the same in every similar case. We know that's not the case, because we have appeals courts.
Even judgements made by Supreme Courts can and are overturned by later Supreme Courts.
Those who claim that judicial activism isn't involved in changing/reinterpreting laws and constitutions only say that when the change is in line with their own values and beliefs.
Reverse Roe v. Wade and watch the liberal outcry!!!
The California Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage is nothing more than a reflection of the moral values of the 4 justices who ruled in favor of the change.
Anyone in this country who actually believes that is a fool.
Liberals and conservatives alike fight long and hard to get judges appointed whose values and beliefs are similar to their own values and beliefs.
Anyone with any brains at all KNOWS that judges are no different than anyone else. They make rulings every day based on their own beliefs and values, including Supreme Court Justices.
If the laws and constitutions were so clear and unambiguous, every judge would rule exactly the same in every similar case. We know that's not the case, because we have appeals courts.
Even judgements made by Supreme Courts can and are overturned by later Supreme Courts.
Those who claim that judicial activism isn't involved in changing/reinterpreting laws and constitutions only say that when the change is in line with their own values and beliefs.
Reverse Roe v. Wade and watch the liberal outcry!!!
The California Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage is nothing more than a reflection of the moral values of the 4 justices who ruled in favor of the change.
Come on... | 1:15 p.m. May 16, 2008
Yeah, it's all well and good to play the, "they're changing our
language!" card but in reality this is a civil rights issue. Sorry but
pious don't own righteousness. The only thing scripture quoters leave out
here are the unicorns. You do not know what God (if there is such a being)
would have to say on this issue. I'm straight and my marriage is in no way
affected by others loving one another and marrying. What's the problem?
G | 1:18 p.m. May 16, 2008
"
Citizens of a society whose values are based on religious beliefs have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to voice their opinions and to influence changes in the law as people whose values are based on secular beliefs."
Except for when that impinges upon the rights of a minority. Democracies have a tendency to do that, so a Constitution was added to the US government to make it more difficult.
Citizens of a society whose values are based on religious beliefs have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to voice their opinions and to influence changes in the law as people whose values are based on secular beliefs."
Except for when that impinges upon the rights of a minority. Democracies have a tendency to do that, so a Constitution was added to the US government to make it more difficult.
WARNING!!!!!!! | 1:19 p.m. May 16, 2008
Be careful who you hate, it could be someone you love.
RE:re Choices | 1:22 p.m. May 16, 2008
Spoken like a true Conservative. Cry and don't disprove anything when your
backed into a corner, just deflect away and hope nobody notices.
Coming up...... | 1:38 p.m. May 16, 2008
The powers that be won�t "openly" tell you how to
vote, but...watch for the stiff reminder from the LDS church that marriage is an
institution between a man and a woman, along with a plea from the pulpit to
California members to exercise their right to vote and right to assemble prior
to the constitutional amendment issue on the November ballot. And, here we go
again...
Re: G | 1:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
There is no exception.
G | 1:56 p.m. May 16, 2008
"
God has clarified it. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't make it go away. "
You are entitled to religious beliefs, but you don't have a right to force your beliefs on others.
God has clarified it. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't make it go away. "
You are entitled to religious beliefs, but you don't have a right to force your beliefs on others.
Re: WARNING!!!!!!! | 1:58 p.m. May 16, 2008
"Be careful who you hate, it could be someone you love."
Just because you disagree with someone's beliefs, values, or lifestyle, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to hate that person or group.
I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco, has a partner, is gay.
He comes to family gatherings here in Utah. Most of the family are active LDS, with former bishops, stake presidents and mission presidents in the group.
There is no animosity. There is no hatred. We talk cordially, laugh, tell jokes. He's just another member of the family.
He knows we don't approve of his lifestyle, but he also knows that we love him and respect his right to make his own choices in life.
He's even invited us to stay at his home when we visit San Francisco.
I still wouldn't support him marrying his partner and he knows that.
That lack of support has nothing to do with him personally.
It is based solely on my own core religious beliefs.
Just because you disagree with someone's beliefs, values, or lifestyle, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to hate that person or group.
I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco, has a partner, is gay.
He comes to family gatherings here in Utah. Most of the family are active LDS, with former bishops, stake presidents and mission presidents in the group.
There is no animosity. There is no hatred. We talk cordially, laugh, tell jokes. He's just another member of the family.
He knows we don't approve of his lifestyle, but he also knows that we love him and respect his right to make his own choices in life.
He's even invited us to stay at his home when we visit San Francisco.
I still wouldn't support him marrying his partner and he knows that.
That lack of support has nothing to do with him personally.
It is based solely on my own core religious beliefs.
"I" not "We" | 2:09 p.m. May 16, 2008
Interesting that The bigots rationalize their hatred with belief in an imaginary
friend that lives in the sky.
Re: Coming up...... | 2:10 p.m. May 16, 2008
The LDS church has moral obligation and a legal right to do exactly as you said.
G | 2:13 p.m. May 16, 2008
"There is no exception."
Look. This comes down to basic civics. The government is set up so that there are limits to the power of the majority. If that weren't the case, the millions of Americans that make <$50,000 a year would vote to confiscate the assets of the smaller groups of Americans that make $500,000 a year or more.
It's set up so that when the majority of Mississippians wanted to have separate facilities for blacks and whites, the overwhelming majority of whites couldn't vote the black minority back into slavery.
It's set up so that the government of Connecticut couldn't pass laws banning the sale of contraceptives in their state, even though the majority wanted.
Gay marriage is inevitable. You may as well as well learn to tolerate it now.
Look. This comes down to basic civics. The government is set up so that there are limits to the power of the majority. If that weren't the case, the millions of Americans that make <$50,000 a year would vote to confiscate the assets of the smaller groups of Americans that make $500,000 a year or more.
It's set up so that when the majority of Mississippians wanted to have separate facilities for blacks and whites, the overwhelming majority of whites couldn't vote the black minority back into slavery.
It's set up so that the government of Connecticut couldn't pass laws banning the sale of contraceptives in their state, even though the majority wanted.
Gay marriage is inevitable. You may as well as well learn to tolerate it now.
VOR | 2:20 p.m. May 16, 2008
I recently moved from Utah to California. I'm glad I did. I'm
strait, a family man, upstanding citizen, tax payer, and proud to be back in my
home State where I can vote this silly initiative down. Even Arnold says
he's not going to support the measure. Live and let live folks. Most of
you should be happy, if a lot of California Gays get married they won't
"living in sin"... oh wait, you'd think that no matter what? Yea
I forgot, the sky god gets mad when Gay guys mock him. So you must speak for him
and tell these heathens NO! I guess the sky god must be insecure himself, or
his followers wouldn't be out there preaching his will.
Equality For All | 2:23 p.m. May 16, 2008
Good! Chalk one up for gay rights. Now we just need to demand that gender-based
roles be eliminated in all organizations, or face the wrath of terminating that
non-exempt status!
Sacred???? | 3:36 p.m. May 16, 2008
If the Mormon church considers marriage to be sooooo sacred, why aren't
they banning divorces?
More news... | 3:42 p.m. May 16, 2008
Gov. Schwarzenegger says he respects the court's decision and will not
support an amendment to the CA constitution over-turing the State Supreme Court
ruling.
Ellen is getting married.
Ellen is getting married.
Anonymous | 4:37 p.m. May 16, 2008
If a male teacher is molesting boys how does that NOT make him gay? Being gay is
defined as being attracted to your own sex. Your teacher was a closet
homosexual.
Why do you homosexuals continue live with your head in the sand about your behavior and how destructive it is to yourself, and others, and society.
You don't see heterosexuals having parades and glorifying and showing ther body parts and lifestyle in front of children. That alone shows you the decadence of these people.
Why do you homosexuals continue live with your head in the sand about your behavior and how destructive it is to yourself, and others, and society.
You don't see heterosexuals having parades and glorifying and showing ther body parts and lifestyle in front of children. That alone shows you the decadence of these people.
To Anonymous 4:37 | 5:22 p.m. May 16, 2008
I've never actually been to Mardi Gras, but from what I've read,
I'd say a lot of Mardi Gras parades do indeed have straight people showing
body parts and the straight "lifestyle" in front of children.
Decadence is hardly limited to the homosexual community. And morality is not
limited ot the heterosexual community, either.
Hen | 7:19 p.m. May 16, 2008
These are the last days.
Truth | 11:14 p.m. May 16, 2008
The "Enlightened" ones are making their voices heard and the religions
of the world are shaking in their boots. It is a great day to wake up the world
to the prejudices that are being practiced in our great country. Bravo
California, for taking a stand against injustice and allowing "human
beings" to be treated equally no matter what their ual orientation
is....what a great day.
Bernadette | 10:50 p.m. May 17, 2008
God is the Ultimate Judge; God's word never changed and will always remain
the same. The prophecy went forth that man would destroy himself; well they are
well down the road to destruction. The word of God also speaks of wickness in
high places. The decision to approve of gay marriage certain portrays the
thoughts of Men in high places that just approve of certain immoral things so
that they can practice them. Man's sick twisted thoughts and opinions that
are used to conduct and run this world today is just the imaginary thoughts of
strongholds that need to be brought down. These thoughts are the ones that
attempts to exalt man above the most High. God never intended for man to marry
man and woman to marry woman. Man has always disobeyed God and there are
consequences, keep thinking that God doesn't see and take note. All this is
a test of the Christian's faith. Christians we have work to do, we must
demonstrate the true meaning of love and the true family values that were passed
down to us from our ancestors, those who loved and truly followed God.
CHL | 4:19 a.m. May 18, 2008
To Truth:
This is not a great day. Immorality, the break down of the most fundamental family unit, is not a cause to be rejoice. The more we legalize drugs, alchohol, immorality, usurping presidential powers and attacking countries for no cause killing over 4,000 of our own, and wounding over 30,000 more, and other vile practices - the more our society suffers. Christ teaches that when we follow his ways and teach peace we will prosper, when we do not and condone wars we will suffer, and our country is suffering. This is indeed a sad day.
This is not a great day. Immorality, the break down of the most fundamental family unit, is not a cause to be rejoice. The more we legalize drugs, alchohol, immorality, usurping presidential powers and attacking countries for no cause killing over 4,000 of our own, and wounding over 30,000 more, and other vile practices - the more our society suffers. Christ teaches that when we follow his ways and teach peace we will prosper, when we do not and condone wars we will suffer, and our country is suffering. This is indeed a sad day.
"gay" teacher | 8:06 a.m. May 18, 2008
While you might want to believe that a pedophile that is attracted to boys is
gay/homosexual, the fact is he is interested not in the gender but the age since
that pedophile would NOT be interested in an adult MALE.
Linguist | 10:09 a.m. May 18, 2008
First, this is a constitutional issue, not a religious one. It is the proper
role of judges to decide constitutional issues, and a majority of a
conservative, GOP-appointed court found this prohibition to be unconstitutional
on very specific grounds. We are not in a position to second guess them.
Second, this is decidedly good for society. People living in longterm, stable, monogamous relationships really IS the ideal. Would you prefer that gay people pretend they AREN'T gay and marry your daughter or sister? That, after all, is what happens when we remove the choice of honesty from gay people's lives.
Third, this is a supremely moral decision. Treating individuals unfairly is immoral. Recognizing that morality resides in the heart and not between the legs may require more than a sound bite, but it is far more defensible and FAR more moral and principled.
Sometimes it's necessary to put yourselves in the shoes of the other person. Would you want the state to tell you YOUR marriage was invalid? And would you really want ME and others who may disagree with your "lifestyle" to VOTE on the validity of YOUR marriage? Treat everyone fairly, and we all win.
Second, this is decidedly good for society. People living in longterm, stable, monogamous relationships really IS the ideal. Would you prefer that gay people pretend they AREN'T gay and marry your daughter or sister? That, after all, is what happens when we remove the choice of honesty from gay people's lives.
Third, this is a supremely moral decision. Treating individuals unfairly is immoral. Recognizing that morality resides in the heart and not between the legs may require more than a sound bite, but it is far more defensible and FAR more moral and principled.
Sometimes it's necessary to put yourselves in the shoes of the other person. Would you want the state to tell you YOUR marriage was invalid? And would you really want ME and others who may disagree with your "lifestyle" to VOTE on the validity of YOUR marriage? Treat everyone fairly, and we all win.
Otis Spurlock | 7:36 p.m. May 18, 2008
Psychiatrist Dr. Robert L. Spitzer was the psychiatrist who led the
politcally-charged effort (sans scientific proof) to remove homosexuality from
the list of psychiatric disorders in 1973.
Since that time, Spitzer has done his homework. In 2001 he was asked "What would you do if your adolescent boy tells you he is homosexual? Dr. Spitzer responded, "The honest answer would be, I guess, I would hope that they (he) would be interested in changing. And if they would be, that they would get some help." See Spitzer, Robert L. (2001). "Psychiatry and Homosexuality." Wall Street Journal, May 23.
Dr. Spitzer has reported his observations about successful treatment of same-gender attraction in spite of the threats and roadblocks hoisted at him by the gay lobby (his former allies). See "Some Gays Can Change." May 9, 2001. News Release, NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), Encino, California.
Why would we want to sanction a lifestyle based on a potentially correctible disorder?
Since that time, Spitzer has done his homework. In 2001 he was asked "What would you do if your adolescent boy tells you he is homosexual? Dr. Spitzer responded, "The honest answer would be, I guess, I would hope that they (he) would be interested in changing. And if they would be, that they would get some help." See Spitzer, Robert L. (2001). "Psychiatry and Homosexuality." Wall Street Journal, May 23.
Dr. Spitzer has reported his observations about successful treatment of same-gender attraction in spite of the threats and roadblocks hoisted at him by the gay lobby (his former allies). See "Some Gays Can Change." May 9, 2001. News Release, NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), Encino, California.
Why would we want to sanction a lifestyle based on a potentially correctible disorder?
David the Ex-mo | 8:26 a.m. May 19, 2008
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer had a failure rate of 99.98%, not exactly a success by any
standard.
Fritz | 10:29 a.m. May 19, 2008
Do you mean like the U.S. Supreme Court in Dread Scott? The judicial branch
sometimes makes a mistake. It is the beauty of the three branches.
I don't agree with the decision here, but I do believe it went through the right process. This has been supported by legislature and judicial branch. If the people really don't like this, Californians need to vote out the people who represent them.
By the way, opposition to gay marriage is not the same as hate. It is childish and disingenuous to argue that it is.
I don't agree with the decision here, but I do believe it went through the right process. This has been supported by legislature and judicial branch. If the people really don't like this, Californians need to vote out the people who represent them.
By the way, opposition to gay marriage is not the same as hate. It is childish and disingenuous to argue that it is.
Re: CHL | 11:24 a.m. May 19, 2008
JUDGEMENT is the problem, nothing else. Gays don't make up any part of a
family unit, they choose not to. There is no break up of a family unit for
them. For some reason you then decided to link drugs, alcohol, the war in Irag
and other junk into this conversation. I am married with three children and I
feel excited that discrimination if not on this blog at least in California is
lessoning. You mentioned Christ....in my opinion it is a big mistake to pretend
like you speak for anyone except yourself. It is not fair to quote a scripture
written years after Christ died as absolute truth. This is a major problem
humanity has at this very moment. You mentioned the war in Iraq. How much of
this war is being fought over different interpretations of what GOD truly wants
His people to do or be? Think about it.
To David the Ex-mo | 1:23 p.m. May 19, 2008
Spitzer was not commenting on his own counseling success and it is irrelevant to
my comment, although it would be nice to state your source.
In my reference, it states that he studied 200 individuals that had gone through counseling that considered their orientation reversed. He concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had arrived at what he called good heterosexual functioning. In addition, 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women said they were bothered slightly, or not at all, by unwanted homosexual feelings.
The point is that Spitzer was the biggest advocate of removing homosexuality from the APA disorders manual in 1973, and now he is a believer in successful treatment of it. He'd even counsel his son to seek it. He's been threatened and maligned for saying so by the so-called "tolerant" gay lobby.
Successful treatments exist and do occur. I personally know of a few myself.
Again, why set up an institution based on a very recent interpretation of human sexuality origins that is looking shakier every day?
Otis Spurlock
In my reference, it states that he studied 200 individuals that had gone through counseling that considered their orientation reversed. He concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had arrived at what he called good heterosexual functioning. In addition, 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women said they were bothered slightly, or not at all, by unwanted homosexual feelings.
The point is that Spitzer was the biggest advocate of removing homosexuality from the APA disorders manual in 1973, and now he is a believer in successful treatment of it. He'd even counsel his son to seek it. He's been threatened and maligned for saying so by the so-called "tolerant" gay lobby.
Successful treatments exist and do occur. I personally know of a few myself.
Again, why set up an institution based on a very recent interpretation of human sexuality origins that is looking shakier every day?
Otis Spurlock
To David - more | 2:42 p.m. May 19, 2008
Actually, I apologize. Your comment about Spitzer's failures IS relevant to
my position.
His failures (according to you) more than likely contributed to his former viewpoint that same-sex attraction was immutable. Fortunately, there are others who have since developed more successful and fundamental approaches to treatment. Thankfully, Spitzer was fair enough to examine the more recent evidence and change his viewpoint; that is - homosexual orientation can indeed be reversed (although, it is not simple or quick, in my associations).
I cannot deny the change it has had in the lives of my own family and friends. I am grateful for the vision and energy of those who perservered.
Otis
His failures (according to you) more than likely contributed to his former viewpoint that same-sex attraction was immutable. Fortunately, there are others who have since developed more successful and fundamental approaches to treatment. Thankfully, Spitzer was fair enough to examine the more recent evidence and change his viewpoint; that is - homosexual orientation can indeed be reversed (although, it is not simple or quick, in my associations).
I cannot deny the change it has had in the lives of my own family and friends. I am grateful for the vision and energy of those who perservered.
Otis
Linguist | 3:52 p.m. May 19, 2008
Not one of the gay people I have known in my life, including myself, was able to
change his sexual orientation. I spent many years, many hours and lots of
money. I shed many, many, many tears over the years trying to change my sexual
orientation. If there were ever a human being who has lived on this earth who
did not want to be gay, that would have been me.
Nonetheless, my sexual orientation did not change one iota.
I cannot say, categorically, that no one has ever willfully changed who he was, but I can say, categorically, that I could not.
What I have concluded is that my sexual orientation, while immutable, is something I can not only live with, but that it is part of who I am--not something to hide or be ashamed of. It is God's gift that I am in love with someone who loves me. We live a good, moral and meaningful life. God loves us and understands.
It is time that people stop telling gay people that they know better, and start listening. Sometimes, the truth really can be discerned just by listening to those who have experienced it.
Peace,
Linguist
Nonetheless, my sexual orientation did not change one iota.
I cannot say, categorically, that no one has ever willfully changed who he was, but I can say, categorically, that I could not.
What I have concluded is that my sexual orientation, while immutable, is something I can not only live with, but that it is part of who I am--not something to hide or be ashamed of. It is God's gift that I am in love with someone who loves me. We live a good, moral and meaningful life. God loves us and understands.
It is time that people stop telling gay people that they know better, and start listening. Sometimes, the truth really can be discerned just by listening to those who have experienced it.
Peace,
Linguist
To Linguist | 6:22 a.m. May 20, 2008
I have also sat in tears with those who were struggling. It is not easy and I
did not intend to minimize or trivialize what your and others have both endured
and attempted. I am not one of those who say that same-sex attraction is a
choice - it most clearly is not. I hear what you are saying; it is like your
"testimony" I suppose.
The truth, however, is also found in the scientific research, in the nature around us, and in the therapeutic results. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex attraction is genetic or in-born. The research is quite clear even if frequently misinterpreted. There are many people, mostly anonymous by choice, who have made the transistion. You may even know some without realizing it.
The mean time to make the transition varies, but is a process of years. In one extreme, I know of a man who has been at it for 15 years with some fundamental successes.
I am no therapist. I just know who I know and what they've been through. I respect your opinion, cannot fully explain your outcomes, but refuse to deny what I have witnessed in the lives of my loved-ones.
The truth, however, is also found in the scientific research, in the nature around us, and in the therapeutic results. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex attraction is genetic or in-born. The research is quite clear even if frequently misinterpreted. There are many people, mostly anonymous by choice, who have made the transistion. You may even know some without realizing it.
The mean time to make the transition varies, but is a process of years. In one extreme, I know of a man who has been at it for 15 years with some fundamental successes.
I am no therapist. I just know who I know and what they've been through. I respect your opinion, cannot fully explain your outcomes, but refuse to deny what I have witnessed in the lives of my loved-ones.
This Attraction... | 11:32 a.m. May 20, 2008
I struggle with this attraction. I've tried for years to keep it in check
and even tried changing, but to no avail. I will always struggle with this
attraction. I'll never be free of it.
The prophets and the scriptures all denounce it as being wrong. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do? It's not right. I was born this way and there is nothing I can do about it, so why try? Why would god make me this way if he didn't expect me to enjoy the pleasure that comes from expressing it?
Oh.. by the way, my attraction is heterosexual.
The prophets and the scriptures all denounce it as being wrong. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do? It's not right. I was born this way and there is nothing I can do about it, so why try? Why would god make me this way if he didn't expect me to enjoy the pleasure that comes from expressing it?
Oh.. by the way, my attraction is heterosexual.
WHH | 4:01 p.m. May 20, 2008
It was only a 5-4 decision. What happens if another court overturns that 5-4
decision or a constitutional ammendment happens? Then all those so-called
marriages may just go by the wayside.
Devin | 7:08 p.m. May 30, 2008
How can the State or allow the voters to deny a fundamental right, something is
really wrong with this.
K. Reid Barlow | 10:41 a.m. July 16, 2008
In the United States the government has the right to decide what rights deserve
exceptional or additional protection. This may mean that some person or people
will be denied "equal rights." For example, setting an age limit on
drinking or driving discrinates against those who are younger. In the case of
marriage, the state, must decide the rules, rights and restrictions. Some
countries in the world are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child. And as signatories they have chosen to not allow gay marriage because it
takes away rights of equality that are due to a child. The Convention states:
"Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the
natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and
particularly childrn, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance
so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community," and
"recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his
or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of
happiness, love and understanding," Shouldn't the rights of children
be taken into account when deciding matters of marriage and the establishment of
families?
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
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.
Paul Sakuma, Associated Press
Gay rights supporters wear a California state flag and a gay pride flag outside of the California State Supreme Court building after the court struck down a state law that banned same-sex marriages.
Related content
- Stocks turn higher 3:03 p.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 3:02 p.m.
- Notre Dame fires Weis 2:52 p.m.
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet 2:51 p.m.
- Mansion tours begin Tuesday 2:48 p.m.
- Chaffetz: Leave Afghanistan 2:37 p.m.
- Mitchell's 'books' are coherent 2:24 p.m.
- Mexican consulate in SLC dies 1:47 p.m.
- eBay fined for selling perfumes 1:46 p.m.
- Debate opens on health care bill 1:44 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
890 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology361
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal242
- Hall reprimanded by MWC173
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Utes won't respond to Hall122
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside118
- Rivalry Week is highly profane91
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
You hit the nail right on its head Roberta T. Dempsey of Sandy, BYU is an...
What a hypocritical Ute fan. Complaining about how big, mean Max Hall beat...
This is ridiculous. Once a consumer owns an item, they should have the right...
Don't they have some undies at D.I. you can pick up? Stop going into...
A loss is a loss Utah. It dosen't matter what Max said. You lost and this is...
Hahaha, the self righteous are having a field day with this one.
I took my 8 year old son to RES 3 years ago and sat amongst Ute fans - like I...
Hall just all but guaranteed a slaughter in RES next year. Enjoy Vegas and...
I agree with you completely. You forgot one. Nothing wrong with...
"Those writing about Whittingham's wife and son's experience Saturday, check...
Advertisements