Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
To Steve | 7:45 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Didn't (s)he originally say "looking at evolution, biology, etc. shows
that homosexuality is aberrant behavior. If a species is homosexual only, then
reproduction has to be asexual"? You seemed to take issue with the
"aberrant" characterization. If you're "not trying to make
the point that because animals do it, people should," I'm not sure I
follow what you are suggesting.
Re: Steve | 7:54 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Gay man here,
I'm not the first person who put the entry about gay animal behavior.
I went in again to post comments about people who deny that gay behavior in animals exist, purely for the sake of showing people who deny, deny, deny.
If gay people and/or biologists want to use gay behavior in animals to justify human behavior is an issue that I, as a non-biologist, will not enter into --- but the evidence is there --- scientific journals and such.
But as a person wholly interested in what it means to be gay and to gain full rights, I am for that, especially overturning Prop 8 in the near future.
I'm not the first person who put the entry about gay animal behavior.
I went in again to post comments about people who deny that gay behavior in animals exist, purely for the sake of showing people who deny, deny, deny.
If gay people and/or biologists want to use gay behavior in animals to justify human behavior is an issue that I, as a non-biologist, will not enter into --- but the evidence is there --- scientific journals and such.
But as a person wholly interested in what it means to be gay and to gain full rights, I am for that, especially overturning Prop 8 in the near future.
Comments continue below
Why? | 8:21 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To "Of One Heart"
Why would I help a cause that is WRONG and is LOSING as this article suggests(30-0) just because there are individuals that I know and care about? I care about people doing the right thing, so why would I help them to do wrong?
Just because my children want to play in the middle of the busy road I don't help them just because I love them.
I like many posters would love to see this issue go away......Forever. It would be great if there was no homosexuality in this world, (it is wrong) and then we would live in a much better place.
Why would I help a cause that is WRONG and is LOSING as this article suggests(30-0) just because there are individuals that I know and care about? I care about people doing the right thing, so why would I help them to do wrong?
Just because my children want to play in the middle of the busy road I don't help them just because I love them.
I like many posters would love to see this issue go away......Forever. It would be great if there was no homosexuality in this world, (it is wrong) and then we would live in a much better place.
Prop 8 the musical | 8:46 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Considering the financial state of our nation, perhaps California's
proposition 8 overlooked one thing: Gay marriage could save the economy.
Google "Prop 8 the musical".
Anonymous | 9:01 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Since when is gay marriage a "right" that has been taken away from
gays? Until Connecticut made gay marriages legal in 2001, it was never allowed
in all of US history!
California defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman by a 52 - 48 percent margin, but 30 states have expressly forbidden it by constitutional amendment or its equivalent. And the remaining 14 states don't have laws to allow it.
As for world history, Netherlands was first to recognize it in 2001. Only 5 others out of 194 countries in the world allow it. Three percent is hardly a strong showing. Before that, 2000 years ago Nero and some of his ilk played around with it, but even then it didn't become the norm of the Roman Empire. It was outlawed later by Constantine.
So I ask again, what "right" do gays think Proposition 8 stole from them?
California defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman by a 52 - 48 percent margin, but 30 states have expressly forbidden it by constitutional amendment or its equivalent. And the remaining 14 states don't have laws to allow it.
As for world history, Netherlands was first to recognize it in 2001. Only 5 others out of 194 countries in the world allow it. Three percent is hardly a strong showing. Before that, 2000 years ago Nero and some of his ilk played around with it, but even then it didn't become the norm of the Roman Empire. It was outlawed later by Constantine.
So I ask again, what "right" do gays think Proposition 8 stole from them?
Orderly and Peaceful | 9:06 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
John Pack Lambert | 9:39 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008 said:
�The Arizona issue brings up a lot of points. No one went protesting in the streets when the measure was defeated.�
There were protests but they were peaceful and there were no incidences of vandalism of Church property At the Arizona Temple they were protesting just across the street but it was singing, candle lights and banners Nothing that could be considered in your face or threatening to others. Maybe it is because Arizona has right to carry laws. Coupled with the fact the Maricopa County has a no nonsense sheriff�s department.
�The Arizona issue brings up a lot of points. No one went protesting in the streets when the measure was defeated.�
There were protests but they were peaceful and there were no incidences of vandalism of Church property At the Arizona Temple they were protesting just across the street but it was singing, candle lights and banners Nothing that could be considered in your face or threatening to others. Maybe it is because Arizona has right to carry laws. Coupled with the fact the Maricopa County has a no nonsense sheriff�s department.
McGriff | 10:39 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
To: Gay father,
I am an advocate of civil unions to secure equal rights for same-sex partners. In California, where I live, the only right that gays are not given by the state (since prop 8), is the right to call their relationship "marriage". I've seen people say it is more expensive to register as domestic partners than to get a marriage license. That, and any other inequalities found with civil unions, can be fixed through legislation.
I believe the traditional definition of marriage (only between a man and a woman) should be left alone, for reasons I have outlined previously.
I am an advocate of civil unions to secure equal rights for same-sex partners. In California, where I live, the only right that gays are not given by the state (since prop 8), is the right to call their relationship "marriage". I've seen people say it is more expensive to register as domestic partners than to get a marriage license. That, and any other inequalities found with civil unions, can be fixed through legislation.
I believe the traditional definition of marriage (only between a man and a woman) should be left alone, for reasons I have outlined previously.
Question? | 11:13 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
So are we getting along yet?
To McGriff | 10:39 p.m | 11:21 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
gay father here
And I applaud your efforts ---
My beef with people who want to want to do away with gay marriage is that in one breath they say --- "we don't hate people" --- and in the next --- they kill legislation that would make civil unions equal.
And I applaud your efforts ---
My beef with people who want to want to do away with gay marriage is that in one breath they say --- "we don't hate people" --- and in the next --- they kill legislation that would make civil unions equal.
Negative laws prohibit, positive | 11:33 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Anonymous,
"Prop 8 supporters, please answer a single question without resorting to some religious text:
How would it hurt *you* if gays were allowed to marry?"
It wouldn't hurt me personally nor is that the crux of the argument. It is what you want to be the crux of the argument though.
"If you can give me an coherent, reasonable answer without invoking religion, you'll have convinced me you're right."
This has nothing to do with religion. The issue is that same-sex marriage doesn't promote the nuclear family respective to biology. The majority seeks to promote the nuclear family for a reason. That's the only legitimate purpose of the government.
It's not because you deserve benefits or because the state is somehow obligated to recognize your love for your best buddy in the whole world whether she is female or male. The majority which controls and enacts positive statutes to promote something does not have the same obligation to offer it to everyone instead they are only obligated to offer it to all on the exact same terms (gays and straights must be able to marry a person of the opposite sex. Why? Because it's not a negative law.
"Prop 8 supporters, please answer a single question without resorting to some religious text:
How would it hurt *you* if gays were allowed to marry?"
It wouldn't hurt me personally nor is that the crux of the argument. It is what you want to be the crux of the argument though.
"If you can give me an coherent, reasonable answer without invoking religion, you'll have convinced me you're right."
This has nothing to do with religion. The issue is that same-sex marriage doesn't promote the nuclear family respective to biology. The majority seeks to promote the nuclear family for a reason. That's the only legitimate purpose of the government.
It's not because you deserve benefits or because the state is somehow obligated to recognize your love for your best buddy in the whole world whether she is female or male. The majority which controls and enacts positive statutes to promote something does not have the same obligation to offer it to everyone instead they are only obligated to offer it to all on the exact same terms (gays and straights must be able to marry a person of the opposite sex. Why? Because it's not a negative law.
Do gays possess potential to... | 11:40 p.m. Dec. 3, 2008
Re: "To McGriff"
procreate?
"My beef with people who want to want to do away with gay marriage is that in one breath they say --- "we don't hate people" --- and in the next --- they kill legislation that would make civil unions equal."
The idea that civil unions should be equal to the marriage of a man and woman negates the purpose of the state to recognize and promote nuclear families by promoting marriage between one man and one woman.
My beef is with people like you who like to say you have a beef with anyone whose willing to stand up to you and call it like it is. This issue comes down to the purpose of marriage. If it's to grant benefits to people who love each other then it is wrong for the government to do so and marriage should be abolished since government has no business in who loves whom.
If it is to create a family unit where a man and a woman can have sexual relations and raise the child that results from such procreation then they have a legitimate reason to promote it even by virtue of potentiality of life.
procreate?
"My beef with people who want to want to do away with gay marriage is that in one breath they say --- "we don't hate people" --- and in the next --- they kill legislation that would make civil unions equal."
The idea that civil unions should be equal to the marriage of a man and woman negates the purpose of the state to recognize and promote nuclear families by promoting marriage between one man and one woman.
My beef is with people like you who like to say you have a beef with anyone whose willing to stand up to you and call it like it is. This issue comes down to the purpose of marriage. If it's to grant benefits to people who love each other then it is wrong for the government to do so and marriage should be abolished since government has no business in who loves whom.
If it is to create a family unit where a man and a woman can have sexual relations and raise the child that results from such procreation then they have a legitimate reason to promote it even by virtue of potentiality of life.
I'm Back!!!!!!!!!!! Dec 4 2008 | 2:00 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Your still at it? WOW! What we need is a good rain storm. Or maybe a FLOOD! Get
it, FLOOD.
Without new recruits, this idea of Gay marriage is only one generation away from extinction.
What are you afraid of? Thats a good smoke screen.
Why is any homosexuality considered improper? Man has always had an poor oppion about this deviant behavior. Going all the way back in recorded time. Why is that? Did some prehistoric guy get jealous and start a church to discriminate aginst this devient behavior?
The conscience is a funny thing. Some cultures have conditioned themselves to the idea of all sorts of absurdities. (Western culture vs Eastern culture).
And the idea that a sex is just biological, has been the biggest lie in the 21 century. This has been a result of modern day conditioning, in our schools and media outlets.
When you look at the real reason for the support of porp 8, it's a lot more about the opposition to homosexuality.
Plain and simple: Even if some people have gotten use to it, if it stinks, its rotten!
Bring on the FLOOD! We all could use a good bath.
Without new recruits, this idea of Gay marriage is only one generation away from extinction.
What are you afraid of? Thats a good smoke screen.
Why is any homosexuality considered improper? Man has always had an poor oppion about this deviant behavior. Going all the way back in recorded time. Why is that? Did some prehistoric guy get jealous and start a church to discriminate aginst this devient behavior?
The conscience is a funny thing. Some cultures have conditioned themselves to the idea of all sorts of absurdities. (Western culture vs Eastern culture).
And the idea that a sex is just biological, has been the biggest lie in the 21 century. This has been a result of modern day conditioning, in our schools and media outlets.
When you look at the real reason for the support of porp 8, it's a lot more about the opposition to homosexuality.
Plain and simple: Even if some people have gotten use to it, if it stinks, its rotten!
Bring on the FLOOD! We all could use a good bath.
I'm BACK!! | 2:14 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
What happened to the last enty?
Sick of the debate | 2:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
If no on 8 had won it would have been the very first time out of 40 states.
Marriage is NOT a right. There is no constitutional basis for it at all.
Pursuit of happiness does not mean or imply the will of the minority be imposed
upon the majority. The danger here is that the yes on 8 talking points are not
lies as the very proponents of no on 8 have so expertly proved. They will force
their will on everyone and sue all in their path eliminating everyones right to
disagree. Lets get something straight here for all the confused out there.
Marriage is not a right it is a privilege, can anyone drive, or fly, drink, or
even vote? They can if they meet the requirements otherwise NO. If i am blind
I am not allowed to drive or pilot a plane. Is that discrimination No unless
you are following the same logic as gay marriage supporters. What does all of
this have in common? The state gives out marriage LICENSES. Yah licenses which
like all others have requirements which society chooses or elects people to
choose. Marriage licenses require a man and a woman.
to re: Steve | 6:14 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I find it disturbing that those supporting gay rights would bring up
"homosexual acting" animals in the argument. It is a terrible
argument since you are equating the behavior of animals to humans. First,
animals exhibit homosexual behaviors to reflect dominance at times even marking
submissive members of the pack. Would you suggest "marking" humans as
normal? Second, animals eat their young, eat their feces and do many other
behaviors that we find vile. Would you also suggest these as normal in the
animal kingdom therefore "good" for humans? Third, I find it ignorant
that people are equating the emotional response humans feel for the very
specific and isolated behavior of certain animals, often in atypical environment
such as zoos and circuses. To suggest such shows unfortunately, that homosexuals
are no more than animals with no self-control. Is that really what you want to
reflect in your argument? Fourth, the only "right" lost in California
was the "right" to use the term marriage since domestic partnership
registry exists. It would have been wiser to use the resources to go to
another state for d/p laws over redundant laws in California.
to McGriff | 6:19 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
It is actually cheaper to register for a d/p in California than it is to marry.
D/p registry has a standard fee $10 for filing fee and $23.00 fee will be used
to develop and support a training curriculum specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender domestic abuse support service providers who serve that
community in regard to domestic violence, and to provide brochures specific to
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse.
In Los Angeles County the marriage fee is $70.
In Los Angeles County the marriage fee is $70.
David | 8:09 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Like Marriage, Driving is a Privilege. We should now protest for the rights of
the visually impaired to have their "right" to drive protected just as
gays should have their "right" to be married.
re..CT Reader | 8:16 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
You say that homosexuality is a behavior. Curious, I'm assuming you are a
heterosexual, can you tell all of us the day and time when you first decided you
were attracted to the opposite sex? As a straight man who has dated many women
and is now married, I cannot remember that inner conversation with myself where
I decided to be attracted to women. Attraction and love is an innate feeling,
and unless you can prove that it is not you're argument is nothing more
than a bigoted rant filled with fear. There are absolutely a small portion of
the homosexual population who might just be "experimenting." But what
about the people, both men and women, who live their lives as a heterosexual in
hiding, only to finally give up the misery and act on their homosexual
attractions. According to your logic that should be enough of a reason to
discount the entire heterosexual movement. Are you so insecure in life that to
allow another human being to live their life in happiness with the same rights
to a legal marriage as you have would somehow change everything your life stands
for? Pathetic is the word I would label you.
To David | 8:09 a.m | 8:29 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Ok, thank you ---
in that case I would like to have the privilege to marry then.
in that case I would like to have the privilege to marry then.
Anonymous | 8:30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
David | 8:09 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
"Like Marriage, Driving is a Privilege. We should now protest for the rights of the visually impaired to have their "right" to drive protected just as gays should have their "right" to be married."
David, how silly can you get? People who cannot see cannot drive because they can HURT someone or something. Gay marriage does neither.
Please give a sane reason for gays not marrying other than the ICK factor or religion.
"Like Marriage, Driving is a Privilege. We should now protest for the rights of the visually impaired to have their "right" to drive protected just as gays should have their "right" to be married."
David, how silly can you get? People who cannot see cannot drive because they can HURT someone or something. Gay marriage does neither.
Please give a sane reason for gays not marrying other than the ICK factor or religion.
David | 8:35 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
People may not think about their heterosexuality, but they also don't think
about their kleptomania another behavior. While homosexuality is no longer a
criminal act and being normalized on the media, marriage is and always has been
for procreation. When homosexual behavior, without a third party, results in
offspring I will gladly validate it as marriage until then, marriage requires at
1 man and 1 woman.
NORMAL | 8:43 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I just hope that same-sex couples are NEVER allowed to adopt children. Children
should have the right to be raised NORMAL!
Kyler | 8:45 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
This isn�t right! I think both the Mormons and gays are in
the wrong. This issue has nothing to do with Utah. So both the gays and Mormons
need to relax! Let California deal with its own mess. The gays need to stop
whining and get more involved with politics and gay organizations. By getting
more involved they will be able to voice louder but civil opinions. As for the
Mormons please step down from your soap box. Stop thinking that you are so high
and mighty. Mormons should be helping people come closer to God. You guys just
made a media skeptical out of this whole California thing. Good Job!
It�s not like the world already has a stigma towards
Mormons but then you had to stick your necks out and do this. The past few weeks
goes to show that The Church of Jesus Christ isn�t as loved
and accepted as Utahn�s thought. From reading most of the
comments it looks like neither side is humbled by this. If this is the true
church, I am having a hard time believing in it. Grow Up! Help people find there
way into Gods arms.
David | 8:54 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I am not religious but agnostic. The point is that marriage is a privilege,
like driving, and not a right since there are specific requirements.
I find it especially poetic that "civil rights" is the battle cry especially regarding the struggles of blacks in recent history yet a complete ignoring of Supreme Court cases that already answered the question regarding marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, marriage between a black woman and white man was deemed valid since their marriage would help the "survival of the species." When homosexuals can produce children without third party intervention, I will be on board with gay marriage. Until then, call full legal rights, as in California's domestic partnership registry, partimony or lesbimony or whatever. Marriage is between a man and a woman as per California family code 301.
I find it especially poetic that "civil rights" is the battle cry especially regarding the struggles of blacks in recent history yet a complete ignoring of Supreme Court cases that already answered the question regarding marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, marriage between a black woman and white man was deemed valid since their marriage would help the "survival of the species." When homosexuals can produce children without third party intervention, I will be on board with gay marriage. Until then, call full legal rights, as in California's domestic partnership registry, partimony or lesbimony or whatever. Marriage is between a man and a woman as per California family code 301.
re..Normal? | 8:59 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
So is it Normal for children in a heterosexual marriage to be molested, beaten,
menatally and emotionally abused, bullied and neglected? I agree with you,
every child born should have the right to live the most normal life possible,
however you define normal. Fact is that this opportunity is no way lessened due
to the childs parents being heterosexual or homosexual. If I turn on the news
tonight, and for the next 100 days, and do not hear about a child facing these
travesties I could start to agree with you. I think the beef you have is with
bad parents in general. Perhaps child bearing should become a priviledge for
those who can successfully apply for that priviledge from the government. Trust
me, there are bads parents, and bad situations for children, all over the world
right now, none of them having anything to do with a homosexual parent. So how
does that change?
NORMAL | 9:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
No, it is not normal, but the Judge would never allow a child to be adopted into
that kind of environment.
to Re: Normal? | 10:01 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Why do you hear about children in heterosexual marriages that have been
molested, beaten, abused, bullies and neglected? Because we have laws against
such as abnormal, since we defined abnormal to include those factors. It does
not change the fact that the vast majority of children in two parent hetero
homes are better off because they are in two parent homes over even 1 parent
homes which does increase liklihood of early pregnancy, incompletion of high
school, dependency on the government for financial aid, drug use and a myriad of
other problems. The point being, we shouldn't contribute to the problem
instead setting a standard for preferred even if not used as it should.
to..to Re: Normal? | 10:17 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
So by your logic I would like to have the 3rd Amendment repealed. Why do we
allow citizens to have deadly weapons in their homes when there is no question
that a home with a gun is more likely to cause serious injury or death not only
to the children and adults in that home, but to any visitors, passerbyes,
neighbors, etc. Why do we contribute to this deadly problem, but you would not
allow a loving couple to teach, raise, mentor and shape the life of a child
because that couple happens to be from the same sex? I think the standard to
set here is that we are putting children in danger, life-threatening danger, by
continuing to allow guns in this country. Please point out the difference in
our theories.
re..NORMAL | 10:30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
You're right, a judge would never allow a child to be adopted into one of
those situations. As soon as the parents looking to adopt told the judge they
planned to abuse the child, he'd call it off. Unfortunately, the situation
that a child is brought into whether through birth or adoption is never 100%
correct and just. My point is that giving a loving couple the opportunity to
raise and shape the life of a child should not be excluded because the couple is
from the same sex. As we all know, and I'm sure you can admit, many
children are handed a tough deal from the get-go, regardless of their parents
sexual orientation. I would hate to waste the opportunity for a child and a
couple to live a meaningfull, happy life because you don't like the fact
that the couple is gay.
David | 10:51 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
When did I ever suggest that same sex couples should not be allowed to have
children? Oh, that's right. I never wrote such. I merely stated that two
parent homes are unquestionably the best environment for children based on data
including early pregnancy, drug use, graduation rates and etc. It is the very
reason why I find ACT 1 of Arkansas far more damaging than Prop 8, but gays seem
to be silent on that issue.
There are already gun laws in place and you cannot legislate good behavior. Adolf Hitler effectively repealed the German version of the right to bear arms (for militia) and it left its citizens without the ability to protect themselves when needed from their own Government. It's about protecting the many for the few.
There are already gun laws in place and you cannot legislate good behavior. Adolf Hitler effectively repealed the German version of the right to bear arms (for militia) and it left its citizens without the ability to protect themselves when needed from their own Government. It's about protecting the many for the few.
re David | 11:15 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Wow, I saw that coming. You don't want to tell an American that they
cannot tote their gun, but you want to tell them they cannot obtain a marriage
license with someone from the same sex. Little hypocritical don't you
think? Of course you don't, you have so elequantly displayed that the
reason Hitler was able to start WWII was because not enough German citizens had
guns! You say you cannot legislate good behavior, I agree, but you are tyring
to do that by not allowing a gay couple to raise a child when they are just as
qualified as a heterosexual couple. As you stated, I am merely saying that a
house without a gun is unquestionably more safe for children, adults, dogs,
neighbors, humans, than a home with guns. Please disagree with that. The world
is not a perfect place with many heterosexual families in shambles, so why would
you discredit the opportunity to introduce happy couples and children, even if
the couple is homosexual.
I think your basic fear is that you need your gun to protect you from the evil, marriage/children seeking homosexuals don't you.
I think your basic fear is that you need your gun to protect you from the evil, marriage/children seeking homosexuals don't you.
Sore Loser? No. | 11:32 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
But as the song says, "I'll pick myself up, dust myself off and start
all over again."
Don't mistake determination with "sore losing."
Don't mistake determination with "sore losing."
To David | 8:54 a.m | 11:53 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I don't get your logic --- by what you're saying, the couple has to be
both heterosexual and be able to produce off-spring so that they can be
married?
This eliminates the rights of infertiles couples to marry and couples who choose not to have children.
= = =
I think what you mean to say is that the potential to have children exists in heterosexual couples where it gay couples it does not --- biological.
My take --- I would place gay couples in the same category as infertile straight couples.
At that, in some cases, through infertilization and surrogacy, the child can be at least 1/2 --- biologically, if we want to put a value on the gene pool and whether that determines having a child.
I personally do not, but the argument has been raised.
This eliminates the rights of infertiles couples to marry and couples who choose not to have children.
= = =
I think what you mean to say is that the potential to have children exists in heterosexual couples where it gay couples it does not --- biological.
My take --- I would place gay couples in the same category as infertile straight couples.
At that, in some cases, through infertilization and surrogacy, the child can be at least 1/2 --- biologically, if we want to put a value on the gene pool and whether that determines having a child.
I personally do not, but the argument has been raised.
To David | 10:51 a.m | 11:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Again, by your own definition
"I merely stated that two parent homes are unquestionably the best environment for children based on data including early pregnancy, drug use, graduation rates and etc"
A gay household with two parents is a "two-parent home."
"I merely stated that two parent homes are unquestionably the best environment for children based on data including early pregnancy, drug use, graduation rates and etc"
A gay household with two parents is a "two-parent home."
To "I'm Back" | 12:01 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
You wrote: "Man has always had an poor oppion about this deviant
behavior."
Sorry, but no.
In some cultures it is accepted. In history it has been accepted at times, even in western culture. At that, even the Medieval Church allowed it.
Sorry, but no.
In some cultures it is accepted. In history it has been accepted at times, even in western culture. At that, even the Medieval Church allowed it.
Misconceptions | 12:06 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
I keep reading the myths that sorround the gay "lifestyle" as some
would call it.
People keep mentioning the fact that it will cause race suicide, essentially.
In fact, gays are not out proselyting other gays --- they don't go out in droves trying to convert heteros to gays.
Either you or you are not.
Hetero "race" rest assured --- the human population is not about to go away because a minority, the gays decide to use the legal term 'marriage.'
If that were so, considering what terms have been thrown in the comments "deviant, unnatural, etc." the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
But the gays were alive way back when and we are still around.
Heteros and gays --- we can get along.
And you can have your families.
And in the 21st century, we can have ours.
People keep mentioning the fact that it will cause race suicide, essentially.
In fact, gays are not out proselyting other gays --- they don't go out in droves trying to convert heteros to gays.
Either you or you are not.
Hetero "race" rest assured --- the human population is not about to go away because a minority, the gays decide to use the legal term 'marriage.'
If that were so, considering what terms have been thrown in the comments "deviant, unnatural, etc." the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
But the gays were alive way back when and we are still around.
Heteros and gays --- we can get along.
And you can have your families.
And in the 21st century, we can have ours.
Crybabies abound | 12:12 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
There is a lot of whining and crying going on about this whole debate...NEWS
FLASH - we live in a democracy where the majority rules. The people voted and
the majority voted against gay marriage. If you don't like it, leave!
Simple as that!!
To: Sore Loser? No. 11:32am | 12:18 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
If you continue the losing game, then I suppose that the battle will continue.
As long as there are people who care about the right and wrongs in this life. I
for one will always oppose things that are abhorent!
David | 12:27 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Oh bother, when discussing a two parent home, I should not have to define one
man and one woman since obviously (again studies and statistics) show us that
this IS the preferred environment for children since both genders are
represented. Sheesh, I didn't think I had to be so specific, no wonder
marriage needs to be defined. Thank you for providing evidence for such.
David | 12:34 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
No, people in a couple do not need to reproduce to be able to be married since
it is assumed that a male and a female can reproduce while it should be assumed
that a male and a male cannot reproduce. Infertile heterosexual couples and
heterosexual couples that chose not to have children are outliers per definition
and can be discarded from argument. Even if a gay couple uses a surrogate, they
are producing an unnatural environment just as zoos are unnatural environments.
Having two moms doesn't teach the role of dad or male within the home.
Having two dads excluded the child's understanding of role of mom. Before
I see the argument, again about single parents, I already stated that such has
been proved to not be ideal environment for children and more likely to produce
outcomes with drug addiction, early pregnancy, low graduation rate etc.
It isn't about "getting along." It is about offering a change in definition that isn't in the best (not okay, not pretty good but not great) interest of society...again, best interest of society.
It isn't about "getting along." It is about offering a change in definition that isn't in the best (not okay, not pretty good but not great) interest of society...again, best interest of society.
Are you kidding? | 12:58 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
David - you are helping disprove your own point. With every word that drips
from your bigot mouth you help prove that the type of people you want to
"discard as outliers" are truly doing a service to humanity. By
"procreating" too many times the result is YOU! A self-rightous,
hypocite, hateful, idealistic, BIGOT. I find it ironic of your use of Hitler
earlier, when you have much in common. He wanted to rid the world of anyone
different from himself. How is that different from your arguments? You want to
"discard" anyone who either chooses to not have children, or cannot
physically have children. Congratulations, you see marriage as a means to
"procreating", nothing more. That must be a really happy existence,
you could just open a day care instead of getting married couldn't you.
Typical hypocrite, anyone who chooses not to live like you do is wrong and
should be "discarded." I think you're even giving bigots a bad
rap here.
in step with truth | 1:39 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
in response to "Are you kidding?".........are you kidding? look up
the latin phrase "ad hominem" my friend. you should take a deep
breath, go back to school and educate yourself on the issues at hand; think
before you speak.
to NORMAL 10:30am | 1:50 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
You said �My point is that giving a loving couple the
opportunity to raise and shape the life of a child should not be excluded
because the couple is from the same sex�
You have not idea how wrong that sounds.
Just because a man and say a sheep are �in love� doesn�t mean that society will allow them to raise a child. These are God�s children we are talking about, and we have to take a stand & vote to keep traditional marriage intact. Which is what we did BTW, and won!
You have not idea how wrong that sounds.
Just because a man and say a sheep are �in love� doesn�t mean that society will allow them to raise a child. These are God�s children we are talking about, and we have to take a stand & vote to keep traditional marriage intact. Which is what we did BTW, and won!
Blah..blah..blah.. | 1:57 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
If this was an english course at BYU I'd waste my time looking up the
definitions and word origins of every term you throw out there to make yourself
sound more intelligent. I don't need to pass a course in Latin to
understand this issue. People of the LDS faith are fearful of anything that
does not match up with their beliefs and faith. Funny that when the mayor of
Salt Lake City talks about loosening liquor laws in Salt Lake City, folks down
south pitch a fit. Mormons, and frankly most religions, love to spread their
beliefs and tell others how they should be living. While out the other side of
their mouth they complain about getting ridiculed for their own beliefs. The
issue at hand is this; you want to tell homosexual couples that their love and
affection is not as great as yours, and thus should not be classified in line
with your beliefs of marriage. That about sum it up professor?
evolutionfish | 2:12 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Here's my take on it. It's sad that it can't happen now but in
five or ten years people will push for same sex marriage and because of the
younger generation we will win. Everyone who opposes same sex marriage will
whine and cry and try to overturn it but we can say, "remember in 2008 when
Prop. 8 passed and you told us "the people have spoken"? Guess what,
the people have spoken, get over it."
Re: Are you kidding? | 2:16 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Another example of how gays react when their point of view is not accepted -
anyone who does not believe in homosexuality must be a bigot. You demonstrate
the exact same behavior that you claim is demonstrated against you. If you one
does not accept your way of life, you claim their a bigot, but what does that
make you if you don't accept a heterosexual way of life. I'll give
you a hint - it makes you a bigot.
Also, to claim this David character is the same as Hitler again demonstrates the typical gay response - it's almost almost more hate-filled, bigot and angry than anything that is demonstrated against them. To claim someone who does not believe in homosexuality is the same as Hitler is far worse than anything this David guy said against you or any other homosexual.
Also, to claim this David character is the same as Hitler again demonstrates the typical gay response - it's almost almost more hate-filled, bigot and angry than anything that is demonstrated against them. To claim someone who does not believe in homosexuality is the same as Hitler is far worse than anything this David guy said against you or any other homosexual.
to NORMAL | 2:35 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Can I ask you seriously what about a homosexual person is so offensive to you?
Try to seriously think about this and give an educated response instead of
talking about a human and a sheep having children, that really is about as
ridiculous of a statement as you could have made.
Are not homosexuals God's children as well? How does a homosexual couple being allowed to obtain a marriage license affect you or your standing with God? It may sound and feel "wrong" to you, but nobody is asking you to live that life. Yet you are asking all homosexuals to live your life? Does a homosexual marriage license somehow diminish the life you live?
As a straight, married man, unlike yourself I do not feel I should have the power to tell another human what love "should" be or who their affection "should" be towards. This issue is solely about one thing, control. Because you are not accepting of another lifestyle you feel awarded the power to dismiss that lifestyle. That doesn't sound very God-fearing does it?
Are not homosexuals God's children as well? How does a homosexual couple being allowed to obtain a marriage license affect you or your standing with God? It may sound and feel "wrong" to you, but nobody is asking you to live that life. Yet you are asking all homosexuals to live your life? Does a homosexual marriage license somehow diminish the life you live?
As a straight, married man, unlike yourself I do not feel I should have the power to tell another human what love "should" be or who their affection "should" be towards. This issue is solely about one thing, control. Because you are not accepting of another lifestyle you feel awarded the power to dismiss that lifestyle. That doesn't sound very God-fearing does it?
Boyd | 2:36 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
My favorite is when people will argue, "This country is the best country in
the world, the best history has ever seen." And follow it up with,
"Other countries don't allow gay marriage, so why should we?"
There's a reason America is one of the greatest nations ever created. The right of the people to petition their government for change. Gay couples will continue to do so until the law has been changed. If the majority continues to believe same-sex marriage should be outlawed, it will remain such. But laws are meant to change, and I will not be surprised when California's amendment is repealed.
There's a reason America is one of the greatest nations ever created. The right of the people to petition their government for change. Gay couples will continue to do so until the law has been changed. If the majority continues to believe same-sex marriage should be outlawed, it will remain such. But laws are meant to change, and I will not be surprised when California's amendment is repealed.
Re: Blah..blah..blah.. | 2:38 p.m. Dec. 4, 2008
Blah..blah..blah..seems like a fitting title for your comments.
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.
- Secret Service admits lapse 10:12 p.m.
- Christian church apologizes to tribe 10:12 p.m.
- Traffic controllers sought explanation 10:11 p.m.
- University of Utah student blogs for... 10:04 p.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside 9:53 p.m.
- World datelines 9:51 p.m.
- Muslims stuggle through hajj 9:51 p.m.
- Aggies host Southern Utah 9:50 p.m.
- U.N. nuclear agency censures Iran 9:50 p.m.
- Britain, France back climate fund 9:49 p.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
263 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings127
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies108
- Letters: Trump card for believers92
- Real Champions87
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
Thank you for very much for sharing this inspirational story...A tribute to...
a rebuilding year. Go Utes!
hey all you cougar fans, this is how its gonna be utah is going to beat byu...
Well, Obabma isn't concerned about the stock market...he and the democrats...
Should be a fun game to watch tomorrow. I'm excited to see Robert Turbin...
I agree with your statement, minus one point. Fresno State isn't good at...
The cave should be sealed..or should have stayed sealed, or these tight spots...
I'm embarrassed by some of our fans. We won last year and we're proud of it...
in the top ten states for bankruptcy because everyone has to keep up with the...
#7 Utah: 2.632 per 100 people #6 Colorado: 3.087 per 100 people # 5...
Advertisements
Personally, I didn't know which way to vote, so I didn't vote on this issue, but after the fact, I saw one side start making personal attacks, going after individuals with a hatred so strong that they were willing to do almost anything to destroy the life of honorable, hard working individuals.
That made up my mind, and if it comes to a vote again, I do know which side I will not support. Say no to hate and vote yes on 8.