Comments about ‘Hundreds take to S.L. streets to protest, support Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage’

I am reading the entries about people objecting and using the logic of "I object to the homosexual lifestyle."

Fine, call it a lifestyle if you want.

As a gay man, I suppose I could object to the heterosexual lifestyle.

Does that make any kind of sense?

Of course not.

My "lifestyle" is different than your "lifestyle."

My practices and "Your practices" are different.

I have never tried to push a heterosexual person to "accept my lifestyle."

That's ridiculous.

For a straight person to say that gay people are trying to push their lifestyles onto other people is ridiculous --- and no one has to accept anything.

You don't have to believe anything.

You don't have to accept it anymore than, oh, the lifestyle of Australian aborigines. There's a lifestyle that's different.

LGBT people are not asking any to accept their lifestyle. They are simply asking for people to let them live. So let them. They don't interfere with your lifestyle. Why should you interfere with theirs?

I believe you meant to say "Nostradamus" --- but what's with the French psychic?

And by the way, the quote you mention, from Lincoln, "the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" --- Gettysburgh Address

I believe Pres. Lincoln also had in mind the whole democratic process --- including courts, not just majority rule --- I believe that's what you were referring to when you said "Deal with it"

Good heavens ---

And by, the way, do you know President Lincoln's record on executive privilege, as long as you're quoting Lincoln?

Further, no, we will not deal with it.

Maybe you should deal with it when Prop 8 gets overturned. Then we'll come back and say to you, "Deal with that."

And about Elton John.

As a gay man, He does not speak for me.

So don't make Sir Elton John the posterboy for gay rights.

If he wants to call his union a domestic partnership, let him.

Other straight people also do not get married --- there are many variations. LGBT, like many communities, have their likes and dislikes about how they want to dedicate their unions.

As far as dictionary definition between "a man and a woman" --- reminder, people write dictionaries. Dictionaries do not write dictionaries.

Dictionaries are actualized, edited, socialized, and yes, I will say it, they have biases --- based on the writers' interpretation of the meaning of the word.

If dictionaries were not actualized, what would become of words that have become obsolete, updated, cliched, become offensive, or rather, the opposite?

As societies change, so do dictionaries. Dictionaries are, in large part, a reflection of the society in which we live. Thanks for the lesson in etymology.

As far as the argument of a long-standing "traditional" definition of marriage between one man and one woman, wrong again.

I've been following the terrible situation happening now to the LDS church and my fellow brothers and sisters in the States very closely.
Here in Spain, same sex marraige and adoption is permitted by law, unfortunately, but the law was changed without all these demonstrations and shouting.
The main thing I can see out of all this is the hatred being shown towards those who voted for the law by the "no" voters. Their actions, words etc certainly do not make me think that they are stable, loving or capable enough of adopting and raising children in a loving home with respect for all and everybody.

I have to say, as a result of the vandalism and threats against a church that supported Prop 8, I now have less respect for those who equate "allowing homosexual marriage" with "tolerance".

Of course, the fact that I belong to said church has an impact on that. But still - when demonstrations get violent, a protest has become a mob. And a mob is about as intolerant as anything I can imagine.

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. The homosexuals will never see this. They would rather everyone accept their evil as something good rather than turn to Christ and repent.

The arguments of the opponents of gay marriage are easily turned into the stuff of satire with a simple question. Will the marriage of Jim and Bob of Arbuckle City, California, really lead to the destruction of the United States of America? Answer: Of course, not.

The following countries have legalized same-sex marriage, and straight marriages have continued or increased and divorce rates have not changed: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), South Africa (2005), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), and Norway (2008).

Im a straight male, age 62, married 40 years. Im not a Mormon, but I believe that Mormons are Christians. I also believe that many Mormons now feel that the LDS Churchs involvement in California politics was ill-advised. Its fine to oppose gay marriage, but dont make a law against it. Dont restrict a persons free agency.

The percentage of people who favor gay marriage will continue to rise until gay marriage becomes the subject of a well-deserved yawn. The young straight people will be the yawners as the old fogies of my generations leave the stage.

I suppose the Mormon church was right in denying African-American members the priesthood until 1980 as well? Trust me, they were wrong on that issue and they are wrong here.

This is unconstitutional and oppressive.

Forcing people to "make the right choice" was Satan's plan, was it not? We are supposed to allow all people to make their own choices. We're only suppose to focus on loving others and perfecting ourselves. LET HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS! They are not less of a person than anyone else. If in fact their marriage is "wrong" then let God judge that. Not us.

The church and it's members are COMPLETELY off-base here. HOWEVER, it is their right to vote how they see fit and it needs to be respected. They were not the only ones who contributed money or voted in favor of Prop 8. Leave the Mormon church alone. However, I hope they realize how wrong they are in this matter.

Hundreds, very soporific.

I don't believe that they should put civil rights issues to a vote by the people. If states allowed votes on other civil rights issues then inter-racial marriages and even black people wouldnt be able to marry today. Things progress naturally and protests are one of the venues for those types of changes.

"New Morality" in 60's said marriage unnecessary= forced by religion- free love!
Then-what done in private was nobodies business- what you didn't know, didn't hurt you.
Then they "came out of the closet" -- we should accept them.
Then they demanded civil unions- and in Mass. they GOT civil unions- but it wasn't enough for them- they lied!
Then said it was HATE discrimination if they were not allowed to FORCE churches to marry gays in DEFIANCE to Bible teachings- and threatened to take down any church that refused! So much for tolerance!
ALSO said Gays had the RIGHT to adopt children (which ONLY come from the union of one man and one woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and they FORCED their views using the very legal system that had allowed their "distorted rights"!! They shut down the Catholic Adoption Agency in Mass. so even adoptions to straight couples were foiled!
NOW they continue to get/call it backwards- as they call those who want to protect the very MEANING of the word marriage, and their own marriages as the ones who HATE??? This is unreal!!

Here is the door to marriage.
It takes a lock and a key.

Sandra Rodrigues has a very good understanding of Democracy.
What scares me is she was accused of being hate-filled for holding a sign that said "Support Democracy".
From June to the beganning of November we had to put up with the gloating comments from the anti-8 people about how we would speak against Democracy when Proposition 8 failed. Now it has passed, and the anti-8 people have shown there colors as true believers in mob action.
They have for months been trying to intimadate people into not participating in the democratic process. This is a very scary situation to me, when people are threatened for excercising their rigth to free speech.

Folks, it's a hopeless debate we're engaged in here. Neither side is willing to acknowledge--let alone, understand--the context of the other.

You're all just saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, so anything I do or say is okay and everything you do or say is evil." (...or unconsititutional, or hateful, etc.)

Give it up, folks! Quit playing "My tunnel vision is better than your tunnel vision."

To Kelly,
Women did win the right to vote by the normal Democratic process, not throw court fiat. I suggest you study history some more before telling us about it.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

To Clark,
Since domestic abuse is way, way higher in same-gender relationships and lowest of women who are actually married to the man they live with, there is such a long history of distorting the story that there is no reason to hope that the distortion will end soon.

The 10:35 poster wants us to keep our religion in the closet.

To the 2:24 poster,
I could count the jokes and demening references to people with same gender attraction and would generally come up with zero.
You will never find anything less than a respectful, if clearly stating such behavior is sinful, reference in church magazines and at general conference. To find the source of jokes and demeaning references about sexual orientation you have to look to popular culture not the LDS Church.
The problem is that sexually related jokes are so common in the media and we imbibe them. It has nothing to do with the actions of the church.

Far from showing that Californias Supreme Court was wrong to extend the right of marriage to gay people, the passage of Proposition 8 is a reminder of the crucial role that the courts play in protecting vulnerable groups from unfair treatment. Mormons should remember this, since you yourselves are vulnerable.