So, a person cannot 'choose' being gay, but people still ask them to 'control'
those urges? Lets be real. Many ask people to not have sexual
relations until marriage. Many of those reasons are sound. Less sexually
transmited disease, less unwanted pregancies, etc. And then some
work to deny marriage to gay people. So, that would be to 'control'
(or not have any) sexual relationships till when? The end of your
life? I don't know many heterosexuals (over 50) that do that. Why ask the gay community to do it?
Just let them marry. We have better things to do.
This wont stop until the gay community can marry. I say let them.
So, during the civil rights era, the argument was made that one cannot condone
a person of color for...being a person of color, right? But we can do that
to gay people? How does that make sense?
'Being gay is not a choice.' So, why punish them for it?
Less and less reason to hate out there.
Hate and intolerance are sins too. How about controlling yourself?
The bible makes many things very clear. Do you want to accept all of them, such
as it being a sin to marry someone who is divorced? You can't pick and choose.
I'm sure you, like all those who believe that being gay is a choice, control
your urges, that why you're probably obese, out of shape and borderline
diabetic. Why is it so easy to point fingers when a good look in the mirror
would be much more appropriate.
Who cares if it's a choice or not. It's no ones business but
theirs. Worry about yourselves and don't worry whats going on in other people's
bedrooms.For those who start quoting the bible keep this in mind. I
don't believe in your bible or your god. Your rules don't apply to me.
This is such a non-issue...America is weary of this topic...Move on the Majority
have spoken....Gays can always choose to live in Europe or Iran...but in Utah?
Gay Marriage is never going to happen!
I'd wondered why all the headlines about this trial were anti-Prop 8, and
thinking there was some bias goingon, but now I see the prosecution has been
conducting its side of the trial. Hopefully there will be balancing headlines as
the defense presents its case.
has developed for many reasons; perhaps the most important of which is to
sustain long-term relationships that are likely to lead to the creation of
children. We should think hard about our priorities before we broaden the
definition to include other sorts of relationships. Is it more important to
comfort a segment of society that feels rejected or to continue to do what we
can to encourage healthy parental situations.
Identical twins are not fully "identical." So, it is possible for "identical
twins" to not both be gay and the gay one is still "born that way." It's a
question of gene expression. Not all twins share "handedness," either. Only
about 60% of twins are both left-handed and it's around the same percentage for
homosexuality in twins. They have identical genes, but not all
genes are expressed. We have one set of genes and a backup set of genes (except
the Y chromosome in males does not have a backup). If one bit of DNA is
damaged, the backup is used, which may have a mutation from the other DNA it is
backing up. Let's say one twin's first bit of DNA could be
expressed fine, but the other twin's first bit of DNA somehow becomes damaged,
so the body goes to the backup set of DNA, which has the variation or mutation
and that gets expressed, which causes him to have some slight variation from his
identical twin, such as being left-handed when his twin is right-handed. So, in
short, "identical" twins are never fully identical.
Wow, so many people here who aren’t personally affected by the Gay issue
think they have it figured out. Just because you explain a theory or quote
another person who hasn’t a clue how it is to be gay, or read some
dogmatic passage from a centuries old book doesn’t make you correct.To really understand what’s its like, talk to people who fight
discrimination every day. People who were afraid of being found out every day
of their lives and exiled from their families. Get to know your neighbors who
are gay. Ask them over for dinner or go to a movie together. Get to know
someone other than middle class white uber religious people…and “I
have a gay nephew in Idaho so I know” doesn’t count.You
don’t have to agree or like what someone else does, but get to know us.
There have always been gay people. There WILL always be gay people. We
won’t ever go away.
The pro-gay-marriage movement is a pro-marriage movement. It is being
championed by and for gay people who WANT to get married, who WANT to be in
committed relationships, and WANT to be in permanent, monogamous, disciplined
relationships.The anti-gay-marriage crowd are against gays getting
married, or at least they are against gays marrying consenting adults with whom
they are sexually compatible.
"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!! I'm not a hater but the facts
are the facts."Facts? Facts?! Uh, you realize that God did not
create Adam and Eve, right? That's a fairy tale, you know, just like the tooth
fairy. Do all conservatives and religious people live in a fantasy
"Adam and Steve"? Gosh, that sure original. It's so funny also. What
brilliant republican minds we have among us.Ah, the true Christian values
of Jesus.Aint it wonderfull?
Who cares if it's a choice or not. Spoken like someone who
has never been fired for who they date... instead of what they do.
'The bible makes many things very clear.' - 12:14 p.m. Dean, many
also consider the book a work of fiction. Have you read the good
works of Harry Potter? Continue to have your faith. Your morals are
not in question. But do not be under the assumption that your morals can
dicatate another person's life.
What no Adam & Steve?I don’t know about your God, but over the
hill from the garden of Eden, God did create Adam & Steve in the valley of
Fabulousity. He also created Eve & Inez on the mountain of Machismo. I think
you're missing some of the chapters in the old book of yours.Don’t worry so much about something that has no direct effect on you or
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win." - Ghandi
Why ask gay people to remain celibate till they die and not straight people?
The people of California voted FOR Prop 8. It is the law, the people have
spoken. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Homosexuals chose who they
have sex with. Homosexuality is perverted. They need to wise up and realize
that. It's not some little game they are playing where they can chose to do any
weird and perverted thing they want. Sounds like one lone homosexual writing
all the pro-homo comments on here. Get a life. No one wants you trying to
convince them that homosexuality is acceptable. It's not and it's not going to
I understand that some may think that "what happens behind bedroom doors" is
nobody's business. Such reasoning is myopic, however. There are few decisions
I make that do not effect others.
I had my suspicions when he was three and knew by the time he was ten that my
son was gay. He didn't acknowledge it until he was 17, but trust me when I say
that this was not a choice. The pain and ridicule he experienced was profound.
He dated girls, "tried" his best to be straight, but the reality is he was born
gay and I've accepted that and love him all the same. We're your neighbors, your
friends...please learn from us and trust us on this perspective. And please,
love and support our gay children so that they can be happy members of Utah
Have you noticed a grand commission? In the talk radio Fox News culture high
school drop outs metamorphize into self proclaimed experts on everything. To
become a doctor you need to have gone to a university then a medical school. You
are required to pass a test to become a professional engineer. Too be a expert
in the culture of talk radio and Fox News lacking qualifications is no barrier
to you. Not one expert has ever explained why someone would choose
to become a homosexual. If being gay is a choose it logically followers that
their a perceived benefit must be attach as a motivation to make that choice.Lets see the reason and the benefits that you experts see that would
make being gay seem more beneficial than to be a heterosexual?I will
be waiting for your answers.
Loss of temper is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish murder?Drug addiction is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish drug dealers?Inappropriate sexual attraction to children is not a choice, so why do
we prosecute child molestors?There are a lot of non-choices in life
when it comes to a person's desires, but the same cannot be said of one's
actions. What this article calls "social stigmas" most of us call morals. Do I
really hate gays for not wanting the government to condone their immoral
relationship with the benefits of marriage? I don't know, do you hate drug
abusers if you support stricter penalties for drug dealers? Do you hate a
criminal if you hold them accountable for their crimes? I don't. I think the
laws are there to prevent drug use and crimes and to help drug abusers and other
criminals recognize the err of their ways and go on to lead a constructive
meaningful life. I feel no different about same gender relationships regardless
of whether same gender attraction is a choice or not.
metamoracoug, what happens behind gay's closed doors does NOT directly affect
you. And by the way gay sex is not illegal. Denying marriage for all will not
make gay people go away. 3-7% of all the people around you are gay. That's a
larger world population than there are Mormons. You may not like it, but get
used to it. It’s not going to change anytime soon — like ever.
There's nothing normal or natural about gay sex. It's a perversion of nature,
whether you believe in a god or not. Is homosexuality a choice? I doubt that
most gays chose to be that way, but I think circumstances of upbringing can
affect a persons attitude about sex. Many of the gays I've known have had some
dysfunction in their youth, such as physical, mental or sexual abuse. Sexual
promiscuity or addiction to pornography at a young age can adversely effect
normal sexual appetites. I believe in a perfect God and I don't believe that
he placed some of us here on earth with same-sex attraction.
@2:35 Nobody will answer your rational question, because no prop 8 supporter
could or would even think about the notion of choosing to be scorned, beaten,
and left alone as a freak.No, they would rather just follow mindless dogma
and quote ancient scripture to make their choice of judging another human. So God-like are these people.
["The people of California voted FOR Prop 8. It is the law, the people have
spoken."]dude, you crack me up. and the websites and fliers that
said "the gay agenda includes legalizing sex with kids" and "homosexuals were 12 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children"
and "If sexual orientation is characterized as a civil right, so
would pedophilia, polygamy and incest"were all legitimate concerns,
right?if you zealots want to have a vote and not use stupid scare
tactics, you would lose by a LOT. The problem is that religious people are VERY
gullible and so they will believe anything you tell them. I mean, it's obvious,
isn't it?if only we could find a group of religious people that
didn't believe everything they are told.... but then they probably wouldn't be
so religious because to be THAT religious means you accepted everything they
told you, without question.["Homosexuality is perverted."]i guess you're right, if you got your morals from an old book, and still live
in the 1800s. but here in the 20th century we understand everyone is equal. (I
said 20th since 21st would freak you out.)
GregL, what you believe has no affect on what is reality. What is you
definition of natural? Found in nature? There goes your justification for
discrimination. Homosexuality has always existed — IN NATURE. You can
believe what you want, but homosexuality is not illegal in this country. Quit
promoting opinion as fact.
Murder, Drug use, child abuse, tell me, when has the gay community advocated
these? They have not. This is about marriage. Not a side
issue like a comparison. Only straight people make that claim.
Marriage to one person, for life. To be monogomys and to put one above all
others. If this is bad, then why to straight people do it? And if they are
'better' at it, why do half of straight marriages end in divorce? I
care what you believe in. You can believe and think what you like. When you
start to dictate my own actions without willing to do so yourself, you are a
hypocrite. Being gay is not a choice. Being unreasonable and
unwilling to listen is.
'The people of California voted FOR Prop 8.' And yet gay marriage
was legal before Prop 8, correct? 'It is the law, the people have
spoken.' Slavery was also a law in America supported by the people.
Should we compare the two?
Taking a line from PFLAG here... (Parents of Lesbian and Gays) 'Someone you know and love is gay.'
Homosexuality is un-natural. What is the purpose. Two men are not "sexually
compatible" with one another. If you argue that they are, then I guess we are
all "sexually compatible" with any number of species and objects as well. I
don't want homosexuals to be persecuted, but I don't condone or agree with it
either. Marriage is between a man and a woman'
I have at least 2 cousins who are gay. I don't care what they are. They're my
cousins and love them.I live in California. How many more times is this
Prop 8 going to be in the voters faces? Majority of California says we don't
agree on same sex marriage at least twice through election. So, how about the
minority of gays and lesbians just accept that?Recently, in a nearby city,
the majority of Christians gave in to an atheist's request to ban all Christmas
decorations in public buildings. The lawmakers like puppy dogs easily gave in.
What is the message here? The bottom line, how about the G&Ls get married
in states that allow same sex marriage? Start there, but don't drag the entire
state of CA into submitting to the same sex marriage, because it isn't accepted
yet by majority of Californians. And, it isn't globally accepted yet by the
people of the PLANET EARTH. Be grown up about it and deal with it.
Involuntary H8er | 2:35 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010 Loss of temper is mostly not a
choice, so why do we punish murder?Drug addiction is mostly not a
choice, so why do we punish drug dealers?Inappropriate sexual
attraction to children is not a choice, so why do we prosecute child
molestors?---------Could it be that all of these
have a victim? It is so simple really. Who is the victim in a homosexual
Who would ever choose to be ostracized by their community and even family?
Few if any would. Attraction is a visceral urge that cannot be denied. Since a
young age, I looked at women and their physical features and had something
inside of me that said yummy! Gay men and gay women feel the same thing when
they look at members of their own gender. Attraction is not something you decide
upon. People are born gay or straight — they may have curiosity or
societal pressure that leads them to experiment with playing for other team
— but they cannot deny what they are. This is not a choice. The religious
right has funded studies hoping to prove that this is a choice and no scientific
study has been able to reach that conclusion.
My deeply religious, Southern Baptist grandmother used to tell me, “we
are all God’s children”. I believe this whole-heartedly. We have had
homosexual people and animals for millions of years. If you believe God made all
of us, you are conceding that God makes homosexuals. I
don’t understand those of you who so passionately fight against gay rights
and support things like counseling them into being straight. What is your
problem? Two men kissing in California don’t affect you in any way. You
are just so arrogant that you want to control their behavior and save them from
themselves. Yes, Leviticus tells us that laying with another man as if with a
woman is an abomination. But the Old Testament also tells us not to eat
shellfish and to execute adulterers — how many of you are skipping the
crabs at the buffet and shooting you neighbor for cheating on his wife?
What is all this ranting? As I understand, Prop 8 was only about gay marriage,
not "you can choose to be gay" or "it's immoral to be gay" etc, etc,. It was
about the definition of Marriage. And the people have spoken. I don't care if
you're gay or what you do at home or in public (well, to a point on public), but
the issue is marriage. Marriage has always been for men and women only and
should always be. This is all about wanting to have about the only "right" they
don't have; and by definition, shouldn't have.
re - --- Involuntary H8er | 2:35 p.m["I think the laws are there to
prevent drug use and crimes and to help drug abusers and other criminals
recognize the err of their ways and go on to lead a constructive meaningful
life."]so to be gay is a "err of their ways"? gays do not "lead a
constructive meaningful life"?you do realize that a drug addiction
and a drug dealer are two different things, right? and that most drug dealers
DON'T do drugs? so your argument is wrong right off the bat. or are you
naive?["Loss of temper is mostly not a choice, so why do we punish
murder?"]because it harms other people. as do drug dealers. gays
harm no one (or at least they don't do it because they are gay - there are gay
criminals though).until someone can give me a REAL reason not to
allow gays to marry, I will support gay marriage. and if you try to give me
reasons like that Tam guy in the article, then you have WAY less sense than I
even thought possible. seek help.
metamoracoug|2:12 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010"I understand that some may think that
"what happens behind bedroom doors" is nobody's business. Such reasoning is
myopic, however. There are few decisions I make that do not effect others."You are right! 100%! And seeing that you are right I want a list, in
detail, of all the acts between you and whoever is behind that closed door with
you, I also want the name of the person with you and that persons preferences. I
want to know the number of times also. I also want a full history of all your
past partners. Go ahead, you can just post them here, remember to
use everybodies real name in your post. Please hurry and get the information
together. We will wait. In fact I think I will just come over tonight and
observe leave the door unlocked, I'm going to bring friends. We will let you
know what we disagree with. And remember, you are right.
Just comparing gay people to murderers and drug dealers tells us all we need to
know about you. Involuntary? Don't think so.
RE: GregLOpen your heart and your mind will follow
Marriage is a religious point it should have never been included in government.
Just to be clear if the courts rule that gay marriage is legal they rule in
favor or polygamy and any form of marriage (seven men and seven women could
marry). Are you ready for that?
["Homosexuality is un-natural"]ok. lets get something straight (no
pun intended). to you it seems unnatural because you are not gay. but come up
with a different word (just like you want gays to come up with a different word
than "marriage").you see, being gay is 100% natural. 3%-4% of the
entire animal kingdom is gay. your statement is the same as saying left-handed
or red-haired is unnatural. it's not. learn something about nature.["Two men are not "sexually compatible" with one another."]Incorrect - I suggest you take an anatomy class.["Many of the gays
I've known have had some dysfunction in their youth, such as physical, mental or
sexual abuse."]yes - from the likes of you. and yet they are still
gay. ask yourself this... if gay is a choice, why would ANYONE choose to be
gay?and then you have the people saying "just don't act on it".
then they go home and sleep with their spouse. can't get much more hypocritical
'Some of these “professional” statements are misleading, and may be
propaganda.' - 3:20 p.m. JM. So, are you upset that BYU supports
that a person's orientation cannot be changed? Or that you have no
facts to present that it CAN be changed? As you have presented no facts
yourself, only tried in vain to cast doubt on the results spanning over 30 years
done by many, many experts. No, no. 850,000 doctors and
psychologists, including those from BYU, spanning over 30 years, are bias in
favor of gay marriage, right? Please present one shred of fact in
your next post.
Anonymous | 3:19 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010 Homosexuality is un-natural. What is
the purpose. Two men are not "sexually compatible" with one another. If you
argue that they are, then I guess we are all "sexually compatible" with any
number of species and objects as well. I don't want homosexuals to be
persecuted, but I don't condone or agree with it either. Marriage is between a
man and a woman'------------Is marriage only about sex?
No, unless you have a very limited and myoptic one.Marriage is about
attachment that you feel towards a certain individual. It has to do with
respect, character, and feeling complete in their presence. Sex is
merely an expression of the love you feel.Gay marriage is no
different. I feel sorry for you if you do not understand this.
"Such as that children raised by gays are more likely to be gay, thus more
likely to have other ills.) "I need a citation for this statement.
It goes against every study that I have read on this. Gay parents
have the same percentage of their children that become gay as straight parents -
about 2-4%.Do you know where you got this information?
I appreciate your beliefs, but disagree with them. I knew I was different at
the age of 8 or 9. I never looked at porn, I never was abused
physically/mentally. I believe that God is perfect as well, and when
He made gay, He knew exactly what he was doing.
all I can say is that anytime you people want to have a REAL vote with no
outside interference and no scare tactic ads and fliers, you let me know. I can
make some money betting the pro-gay-marriage side. vegas, baby!
The conflict and dispute here is all about words, definitions, semantics. The
biggest obstacle is redefining the traditional definition of marriage. Allowing
marriage to mean more or less than the union of a woman and a man changes what
marriage is and has been. People will fight to defend this definition.
Personally, I support civil unions or domestic partnerships, as I suspect the
vast majority of Americans would support as well. Marriage should stand as it
is. The movement to redefine it will always encounter opposition.
Marriage is a religious point.... Uh, no. Marriages can, and
do, happen at any city hall in Ameirca. The 'woulda, shoulda, coulda, argument
about that marriage SHOULD have been kept in religion is moot. As goverment
gives legal benifit to YOUR marriage, correct?
'Just to be clear if the courts rule that gay marriage is legal they rule in
favor or polygamy and any form of marriage...' - 3:38 p.m. Really?
Can you cite the supreme court rulling in the last 30 days that
supports that? Or are you simply making things up?
If any of the homosexuals who are posting on here can answer me sincerly and
honestly about my question I will reconsider my stance. When in Elementary
school and all the kids were going out or realizing their attraction did you
ever honestly feel that you were attracted to the same sex and think that you
wanted to ask little joey out instead of Sally? I have yet been able to get an
answer out of any of the gay people I have asked this too. When do they tell me
they realized they were gay. They say it was in their teenage years or early
adult hood. Don't we always say how confused we are during our teenage and early
adulthood. When are minds are the purest and not confused with all the sexual
propaganda, can you say you were attracted to the same sex? If so I would love
to hear your story.
From an article published in the NY Times on 05 Nov 2009 titled, "What’s
Good for the Kids"“These children do just fine,” says
Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at
Clark University, who concedes there are some who will continue to believe that
gay parents are a danger to their children, in spite of a growing web of
psychological and sociological evidence to the contrary.""In most
ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not
markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased
incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just
as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely
to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than
those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from
gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."
This is how you do it. Get the Government out of the marriage business. From
now on they no longer are allowed to issue Marriage Certificates. Instead if
anyone wants to have LEGAL recognition of their relationship, they would have to
get a Civil Union (gay or straight. Doesn't matter) You would have
to go down to the courthouse to have it officiated over by a Justice of the
Peace or some other Government official. Then if you want to be "married" you
can go to your religious institution and have them preform the marriage
ceremony. (Again Gay or Straight because not all relgions feel homosexuality is
a sin)This would allow Homosexuals to get the rights and benefits
from having their union legally recognized, and it would allow the religious
folks to keep their "traditions" as well.
This is about the definition of marriage and the courts can etablish equal
rights for all without changing the defintion of marriage as something other
than between one man and one woman. The persecution that the gay and lesbian
community feels is very understandable because it has been mean spirited and
offensive which then reciprocates the same. Heterosexuals (my self included)
should be very careful about passing judgement and acting like we know what
someone else is feeling. At the same time we can try to help maintain the
definition of marriage in a manner that we believe is defined by God without
trying to undermine the other rights that 'government' has tied to marriage.
The rights that government has tied to a marriage relationship can be considered
for all without recognizing homosexual relationships as "marriage." This is a
difficult and sensitive topic that needs to be addressed with a perspective of
love and respect for all regardless of sexual orientation.
Anonymous | 12:50 p.m. Gays can't live in Utah???What
the heck are you talking about?
Science does not pick sides in political debates. The technology for preventing
genes from manifesting is developing rapidly now. If this technology can
eliminate obesity it will probably also be able to "cure" children who cannot
easily produce grandchildren. How popular would that vaccine be?
This is probably one of the best solutions I have seen from either side. I
agree. Thank you.
I just don't get the relevence here. I agree that quoting the bible is
hypocritical because no one is perfectly obeying all the laws in the bible, let
people be gay, no problem with that. But if you want marriage on the grounds of
it being natural and not a choice, you better be ok with plural, petifilic and
incestual marriage, who can use the same arguement based on the grounds of their
relationships being extremely prevelent in the animal kingdom. I don't think any
of these natural urges can be classified as a choice for many people out there.
Not that I place gays in the same catagory as incestuals and petifiles, I'm just
saying that I need a much more convincing arguement before I vote for gay
TO --- Want to fix this mess? | 4:40 p.m.["This is how you do it.
Get the Government out of the marriage business. From now on they no longer are
allowed to issue Marriage Certificates. Instead if anyone wants to have LEGAL
recognition of their relationship, they would have to get a Civil Union (gay or
straight. Doesn't matter"]no - here's how you do it. Get churches
out of the marriage business. from now on they are not allowed to issue
marriage certificates. (oh - wait - they can't do it now...)anyone
that wants a ceremony in church, go ahead. do your thing!! just don't call it
marriage. have a nice "religious union" at your church. just stop calling it
marriage. the states issue marriage licenses, not churches. marriage is NOT a
religious institution, it is a civil matter. you want your god to bless it, go
JM | 4:45 p.m,Propaganda? Pot, have you met kettle?
Well, I'm 27, married with two kids, LDS and live in UT, and I honestly don't
really care if people who are gay want to get married. I say let 'em. I don't
agree with it, but then again, I don't agree with a lot of things in this world,
but they will still happen. What I think is sad, is how much hate exists
in most of the comments on here (on both sides of the fence). In my experience,
hate usually drives two sides further apart and escalates the situation.
Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and a woman. Two
guys or two gals hanging out is not the creation of a family. I really believe
that civil unions is the way to go here. It gives same sex friends (or anybody
else) the opportunity to enjoy every tax and estate planning benefit that
married couples enjoy. Let's legalize civil unions and be done with it.
["At the same time we can try to help maintain the definition of marriage in a
manner that we believe is defined by God without trying to undermine the other
rights that 'government' has tied to marriage."]God did not define
marriage. if you mean because it is in the bible, marriage was around a LONG
time before the bible. Man defined marriage. first as a legal contract between
parents for the marriage of their children, often to join different tribes.the meaning of "marriage" has changed a number of times over the course
of history.what makes you think it shouldn't change again? and what
makes you think you know what God wants?
re - We all have a choice | 5:04 p.mwhat does having a choice have
to do with it? marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults.
it's NOT about sex or kids.so... why do you care if two people get
["Pagan and other activists have called for an end to morality. They seem to
feel it is outdated, and that your children should be raised in a society
without it. They also continue to post misinformation and propaganda."]hahaha. JM, you crack me up. Your living under the assumption that acting on
being gay, or just doing gay things, is immoral. THATS YOUR PROBLEM. yes, you
heard it in church and bible study and probably a bunch of other places. your
parents always said it was wrong and nasty and immoral.but it isn't.
it's perfectly natural. it happens CONSISTENTLY in 3%-4% of the ENTIRE ANIMAL
KINGDOM. it doesn't threaten the extinction of the human race, as
you have proported. and it doesn't even matter if it is a choice or not. there
is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.if no one had ever told you
anything about it, the MOST ou would say is that they obviously cannot bear
children that way, which is simply an observation, not a condemnation. Other
than that, you would think it was perfectly normal. and you would be right!!remove your stigma glasses and clear your mind, JM
["but those who promote gayness, mainstream, or seek legal enforcement of the
lifestyle through marriage, etc, are responsible for many tears"]being gay needs to be mainstream, JM. that is the ONLY way the "it is an
abomination" view will ever go away.blacks were considered an
abomination to the LDS church back in the day. we are ALL glad that isn't the
case today. and in 50 years, the same wil be said of gays.sorry to
ruin your day, but the reason gays want to marry is so that being gay will be
socially acceptable, not "an abomination". because it is a totally normal
["There is conclusive evidence that most gays are not genetically forced into
gayness"]so what? nothing wrong with being gay. why are you so
intent in proving it is a choice? it's irrelevant. if there's nothing wrong
with it, and it harms no one, then let them marry.besides, you can
quote all the studies you want. none of them matter. because the fact is, no
one would want purposely take all the ridicule given to gays. no studies
required. simple common sense will answer your question, JM.try
some common sense.
["I get really sick of hearing Gay individuals trying to say they don't have a
choice."]doesn't matter if it is a choice or not, Phil. what's the
difference?you think it's bad and wrong. you learned that in school
and bible study. what if no one had ever told you that? would you still think
the same way?gay marriage hurts no one. why do you people even
care? (and i'm not gay - i'm 52 yr old white guy - and I think you all are
"I have pointed out several times that these statements, by the AAP, Times, etc,
are probably propaganda, and that many professionals, members of the APA, AAP,
do not agree with these statements, and know that studies have been manipulated.
"No, you haven't pointed out anything, you have just said this
without providing any reference or proof, and no, saying that your brother is a
MD and that he agrees with you and so do your buddies is not proof.
to everybody here who is NOT GAY. When did you make the choice to not be gay.
You prlly never chose to not be gay. Same thing with gay people they prolly
didnt choose to be gay. Did you choose to be straight? no it was natural
right? so prolly somebody didnt choose to be gay either.
@metamoracoug | 2:12 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010 "I understand that some may
think that "what happens behind bedroom doors" is nobody's business. Such
reasoning is myopic, however. There are few decisions I make that do not effect
others."It IS nobody's business. But it also does not define
someone. Does it define you? It doesn't define me. And it does not define
this issue regardless that most every opponent views this issue through that
lens.There are few decisions you make that don't affect others?
Like who you married, I'm assuming? Guess what? It affected me and all the
people in my life ZERO %. Not one single iota.
Why should government tell us what is and what is not appropriate marriage?
Government should have no say. No law should treat married, unmarried,
homosexual, polygamist, or whomever, any differently.
@Gene Therapy | 5:06 p.m. Jan. 22, 2010"As a former scientist I can
tell you that scientists usually find the results they are looking for. . ."I love it when people come on here and say "I am a scientist" (or
former, too funny.) So, uh, what kinda scientist, oh excuse me, former scientist
were you? You would think that people, I mean, excuse me, that
scientists would understand how generic a term scientist is. So what
kinda scientist were you? You know, if you really were a scientist
(whatever that means) it is understandable that you are a former with your
strange idea of how science works.
Just wikipedia "gay gene" and see where that takes you. In only a few minutes
you will find several studies that show that homosexuality is due at least
mostly due to genetics and prenatal conditions.
I STRONGLY agree with "clarity for ye fogged". Our sole purpose here on earth is
to replenish life. Why, then, are we so sidetracked by the attraction of
male-male or female-female?? How in ANY WAY is marriage going to justify
anything?? What will be different in the lifes of gays and lesbians if they are
married? One man and one woman. Simply to raise children. If everyone were gay
what would the world be like? How selfish we are to dig our country into a whole
of dept. Now, what are we doing? Trying to stop the reproduction of man ...
For the government and states to get out of the marriage business and leave it
to the churches.Good old fashion separation of Church and State.
"Our sole purpose here on earth is to replenish life."That is your
sole purpose on earth two cents? To replenish life? Really. Well I think it is
plenished now. You can find something else to do.
Being straight isn't a choice either.
For those who profess that being gay is against Christian principles, the issue
here is that the Bible has not been brought into as part of the testimony.This is a legal courtroom, not a church.Having someone be
gay does not lessen your belief in your Christian beliefs.Separation
of church and state anyone?
You might want to inform the defenders of Prop 8. It seems they take a few
angles about homosexuality. If your argument was valid, the entire argument
that they submitted would be in defense of the definition of marriage, not about
discriminating against gays.
To Observer: Why didn't you quote any actual facts, rather than just making up
stories intended as scare-tactics?To JM- glad to see you continue
your "I've posted tons of studies and evidences..." and yet never actually
You have fallen prey to the propaganda that the pro prop 8 put out. All those
examples are exaggerations or not in ANY STATE but countries that do not have
our freedom of religion. Please check the internet on all of these
and your eyes will be opened to how you have been led astray.''
"Homosexuality is un-natural"There is homosexual activity in other
primates. Being left handed isn't natural if nature means in the norm.
@Consider: Actually, *BANNING* gay marriage endangers the freedom of religion.
Many religions want to marry gay couples. Their religious liberty is being
trampled on by Prop 8.As Mormons, you'd think we would have a
better appreciation for the state trampling on religious liberty due to
unorthodox marriage rites.
re: BYU alumHow is banning governmental recognition of gay marriage
inflicting on freedom of religion? Gay people can have all the religious
marriage ceremonies they want. It's called separation of church and state.
NOWHERE does prop 8 say that religious institutions can't perform marriage
ceremonies. It only says that the government won't recognize 2 people of the
same sex as being married.
@M | 5:47 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010 Not sure that the Constitution will
allow states to get in the business of deciding which religious ceremonies are
recognized, and which aren't. Are you proposing that no marriages performed in
churches be recognized?
@ Trowe:Of course not. The states recognize marriages performed by
authorized persons, regardless of where they are performed. What I'm saying is
that there is a difference between religious ceremonies and state sanctioned
marriages. I know several people who have been "married" in churches in SLC.
What I said (and obviously you didn't understand) is that the gov can't and
won't prohibit religious gay marriages, it just won't recognize them as valid
(not because they're in a church, but because they're between 2 people of the
@M | 7:14 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010 I think I did understand you. My point
is that I don't think that the constitution will allow for states to give the
"marriages" performed in one church validity, while denying the "marriages"
performed in others. Perhaps the court will decide that if states want to
remain in the marraige license business, that they will have to also perform the
marriages. After the civil marriage, people can then perform ceremonies in
their various churches. As it currently stands, I think the court will find
that having a state deny some religious marriage ceremonies while accepting
others will violate the constitution's establishment/free exercise clause
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
@MMy point is not that churches are being, or will be, denied the
right to perform ceremonies. My point is that by RECOGNIZING the INDIVIDUALS
being married in one church ceremony, and disregarding the others, the state is
clearly giving preference to one type of church ceremony, while stating that
another is somehow less valid. This recognition can easily seen to be as an
establishment of which religions beliefs are recognized. Sooner or later the
court will most likely rule that this recognition is a violation.
@ Trove,Really? So because the gov't doesn't recognize a church's
marriage of certain individuals, the court would rule this as an infringement of
religious rights? Hmm, last time I checked the gov't doesn't recognize
polygamist marriages, so I guess the courts should step in and allow them to be
recognized? They don't because there isn't any constitutional violation w/
regard to religion.
M | 10:58 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010I think it is unlikely that polygamy
will become legal, due to other issues...however, if the states continue to
allow churches to perform legal ceremonies, I could see it happening. Much more
likely solution is to get churches out of the legal business, and turn it in to
a state thing. States could then decide what types of unions best serve the
state, and churches could perform marriages according to their religious
It's obvious that if the state grants certain benefits (social security, etc) to
straight marriages it should also do the same for gay ones. Anything less is discrimination.
M | 11:46 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010 Yes, that is currently how the
situation is. However, I think you're completely missing the point. At some
point the court is going to ask why it is that some churches' view of marriage
is being given legal standing? (no matter how you spin it, when a minister of
any church performs a religious ceremony the result of which is a legal
marriage, the state is recognizing a religion's marriage view) When the court
does look at that, I think they'll find that giving such legal standing equates
to an establishment of religion, especially when it is denying other churches
ability to perform marriages as they believe.
Yes, I knew at an early age I was different. I tried to deny it, but I knew it.
Don't you see it when there is that one boy who gets along better with girls
than the other boys? How about the boy who sits out the game of kissing tag or
another game when they have to be paired up with a girl? It happens, and it
happens before we truly recognize our sexual identity.
Trowe,Churches can and do follow ecclesiastical protocol as to whom
they will marry. Churches have had this tradition for right and it is in effect
theirs.The churches that do effect same-sex marriages do so on their
own accord - no one compels them to do so. There is no spin here,
there are a great number of examples where churches do deny people the right to
marry.Example:In the Church, bishops can deny a temple
marriage is one or both of the partners is not temple recommend holder.Bishops can and do deny a civil right marriage in a church building.There are other examples with other churches and how they follow their
protocol, but you see my point....No one can turn around and sue a
church because a marriage was denied therein.
"Homosexuality is unnatural"Heterosexuality is unnatural to those
people that are gay and who are, through social, political, family, and
religious pressure are made to conform to something that they are not.I am not saying it is bad.Heterosexuality is good, wholesome and
great for heterosexuals.But for gays.... if it is not meant to be it
is not meant to be.
"anyone that wants a ceremony in church, go ahead. do your thing!! just don't
call it marriage. have a nice "religious union" at your church. just stop
calling it marriage."I don't understand this. WHY NOT call it
marriage? I don't understand what the big deal is. How does it negatively
affect your life, your marriage, if a committed gay couple marries for life?
Marriage isn't about replenishing the earth, because people can and do have
children whether they're married or not. Rather, it's about making a life long
commitment to the one you love, in front of everyone you love, and society
recognizes this commitment.Where's the uproar over people who get married
and divorced, married and divorced, married and divorced, leaving disaster in
their wake? Is that ok, simply because they are 'replenishing' the earth as they
go?? And no, no one's trying to 'stop the reproduction of man'. And can someone tell me what is a 'petifile'??
France has removed the legal term 'marriage' and issues 'civil union licenses'
to any two consenting adults. People are then free to take this license and
have a civil union ceremony or a marriage, whatever there own beliefs are.
Churches are free to dictate who qualifies to be married in their religion. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
All marriages in France are civil marriages and must be performed by a civil
authority.Religious ceremonies are not valid in and of themselves
but are optional for those who want one.Religious ceremonies must be
performed after the civil ceremony. They can be on the same day, but do not
need to be.
"God made all people, therefore he made homosexuals". God does NOT make
homosexuals and if you believe this way then you must accept the notion that God
is setting people up for failure. Why would God make people gay and then make
homosexuality a sin? Not a very merciful and loving God if you ask me. People
are most likely born gay due to whatever genetic or dna explanations. God
loves all people gay and straight and he has asked us to do the same, "As i have
loved you, love one another". Maybe loving one another and not judging is the
only way we as a society will ever coexist in peace.
'Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and a woman.'
(or a 'family') - 5:22 p.m. NY, I'm going to disagree with you. Half
of marriages end in divorce. Of those, 40% of all children in the US are being
raised by a single-parent. Also, children are never a requirement for marriage.
Where is that on yours or anyone else's marraige certificate? I'd like to see
it. 'Let's legalize civil unions and be done with it.'
Civil unions are already leagal in the US. However, the onese that exist do not
offer the same or EQUAL rights of regular marriage. My example? CA domestic
partners. Rights with CA domestic partners - 1100. Rights
with CA marriage - 1138 So this is less than, not equal too
marriage. Also segragation failed in America. (Black and white schools, etc) Why
would civil unions only be ok for gay people and not straight people? However, some think only gay people should settle for less. And that it's ok
to ask something for someone else you wouldn't do yourself.
I just don't see how anyone capable of rational thought can buy into the idea
that leading a gay lifestyle is not a choice. The notion is so absurd that I
can't believe there is a discussion on the subject. Deep down I think most
people can see the lie but just want some way to validate their immoral choices.
Hey laughable - explain to me what you mean by 'gay lifestyle'.
["I just don't see how anyone capable of rational thought can buy into the idea
that leading a gay lifestyle is not a choice."]and I don't see how
any one with rational thought can think it IS a choice. tell me, laughing-boy -
why would anyone want to purposely put themselves in the position of ridicule
and abuse on purpose?and it doesn't matter if it is a choice or not.
explain why that matters?["Deep down I think most people can see
the lie but just want some way to validate their immoral choices."]"immoral choices"? oh, come on, laughing-boy - did you really say "immoral"?
so you're on of those religious zealots that thinks because you read it in a
book that it is "immoral"? where's your indignation with the 3%-4% of the
entire animal kingdom that is gay?you crack me up that you would
think that it is "immoral" when it harms absolutely NO ONE. have you ever
noticed that truly "immoral" things (and ilegal things) always have a victim?who is the victim in gay marriage, laughing-boy? there isn't one. it's
only "immoral" to you.
'Deep down I think most people can see the lie but just want some way to
validate their immoral choices.' - 8:40 a.m. Few problems with this
statement. 1) It is based on zero facts. All opinion. 'I think',
'immoral choices', etc. 2) Laughable, what makes you morally superior to
another? What makes you, or any religion for that matter, superior to others?
Are we all not Gods children? If I followed this logic, it would
sound something like: 'Laughable is immoral. As such, he/she should
have less rights than myself. Everyone with the letter 'p' in their name are an
abomination under god. If we left Laughable on an island he/she could no
pro-create. Therefore it is against nature and against God. It says so in a book
of fiction called Harry Potter.' All faulty logic and opinion. And
your opinion is not enough to deny a person's right to happiness in this
country. If you have the ability to marry, why would you work to
deny that to others? Do not covet something that was given to you
What this is about is forcing others to accept deviancy.If a guy
wants to have the same benefits as a man that marries a woman, he has to marry a
woman. If he marries a man and throws a tantrum that it's "the same" no
reasonable person is going to listen to that any more than someone that claims
that Darwinian theories are hateful because they indicate that heterosexual
behavior is superior to homosexual behavior, therefore hate science! It's
absolutely ridiculous.A compassionate society would provide
counseling for people that struggle with same-sex attraction, not condone and
promote homosexual lifestyles.
re -- gay people can and do marry | 10:10 a.m["What this is about
is forcing others to accept deviancy."]but we DO accept you. even
though you're a deviant religious zealot, we totally accept you. So why
wouldn't you accept non-deviant behavior (like same-sex marriage)?["If a guy wants to have the same benefits as a man that marries a woman, he
has to marry a woman"]wow. so now you make the rules? are you
being even more deviant by telling everyone what to do?["A
compassionate society would provide counseling for people that struggle with
same-sex attraction, not condone and promote homosexual lifestyles."]and a compassionate society will counsel people that believe in fairy tales,
rather than let them make a fool of themselves. We certainly will provide you
counseling to help you with your deviant lifestyle. it's ok, religion-boy["If he marries a man and throws a tantrum that it's "the same" no
reasonable person is going to listen to that"]and if a religious
zealot throws a tantrum because he doesn't understand that it IS the same, then
no reasonable person is going to listen.
re -- gay people can and do marry | 10:10 a.m."What this is about
is forcing others to accept deviancy."did you know that more people
in the world think being mormon is "deviant" than people think gay is "deviant"?
'A compassionate society would provide counseling for people that struggle with
same-sex attraction...' - 10:10 a.m. You are so blind.
Brigham Young University attempted aversion therapy in the 1970's. They
concluded that attempts at re-orientation are harmful. As such the LDS church no
longer encourages people to try and change their orientation. And
yet gay people 'should' marry a straight person to get the rights of
marriage? How is allowing gay marraige promoting homosexuals? I
thought they couldn't pro-create? Your idea of 'compassion' and love is skewed,
if you cannot see that a long-term monogomys commitment to one person should be
the end result of a relationship. Not to the person of YOUR choice,
ignoring they're own. If I am a gay man and I ONLY have an option to
marry a straight woman... then for it to be comparable... if your a straight man you should only be able to marry a gay man. If it is your mission to remove a persons sexuality from their own marriage
begin with your own. Not someone else's.
10:10 a.m. - What this is about is forcing others to accept deviancy. I always find it entertaining when people talk about deviancy or imorallity
while talking about a marriage that they are NOT a part of.
The American Psychological Association has over 15,000 members. A study they
released declared that attempts at ‘re-orientation’ are
‘harmful’ and less than 1% effective. (08/10/09)BYU
'Aversion Therapy' programs (we won't go into specifics) done in the 1970's
coincides with this report.One of these participants was Don
Harryman, who shared his experience in 'Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex
Orientation.'As such, the LDS church's official stance is to NO
LONGER encourage those who are gay to marry a person of the opposite gender in
hopes that it will 'go away.'Aversion therapy fell out of popularity
and in 1994, the American Medical Association issued a report that stated
"aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians."The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from it's list's of
mental disorders in 1978. Even communist China removed it in 2001.Bottom line, if being gay is a 'choice' it is still a better alternative than
to marry someone and ruin both your lives based on the lie that is another
person's idea of what is 'normal.'
"did you know that more people in the world think being mormon is "deviant" than
people think gay is "deviant"?" This reminds me of the line by
Harper in Angels in America:Harper (a Mormon married to a
homosexual) says: "In my church we don't believe in homosexuals.Person to whom she is talking replies: "In my church we don't believe in
"In my church we don't believe in homosexuals." - 12:33 p.m. I
realize this is a quote from Angels in America but did anyone else notice how
creepily this is similar to this quote:'There are no homosexuals in
my country.' - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - leader of Iran.
Vince | 12:57 p.m. Jan. 24, 2010 This is the second time I posted
this, the first time it didn't go through.Vince, my point was not
that people would sue the churches, but that they would sue the goverment to
overthrow the law which prohibits their church from performing marriages in the
way they want to. Certainly churches will continue to practice their religion
however they want, but the state will not be allowed to pick and choose which
beliefs are valid. As I've said, let the churches be in the marriage business
for religious purposes, but have the legal ceremony be performed by the state.
Do not legalize pathological behavior.
'...but that they would sue the goverment to overthrow the law which prohibits
their church from performing marriages in the way they want to.' - 3:43 p.m. Trowe, I'm going to disgree here. My reason? Inter-racial
marriage. After the supreme court rulling that allowed it church's still had the
right to deny black and white couples to marry. Only by a church's allowance
were these marriages allowed. Not the goverment. Also, the gay
communtiy has never, ever, made it clear they want to 'force' religions to
perform gay marriages. Only the goverment the gay community pays taxes into. As there has never been a case before, a claim during, and no evidence
for this claim to be true in the future, I do not think this is a valid reason
to deny someone marriage.
["Do not legalize pathological behavior"]what pathological behavior
do you not want legalized? I believe it would be against the constitution to
make religions illegal.
Even if gays succeed in redefining and thus making civil marriage meaningless
there is some hope. They will never be able to change what is most important,
the sealing ordinance performed in the temple.
["Certainly churches will continue to practice their religion however they want,
but the state will not be allowed to pick and choose which beliefs are
valid."]and the state has no business picking and choosing which
beliefs are valid.["As I've said, let the churches be in the
marriage business for religious purposes, but have the legal ceremony be
performed by the state."]churches can do whatever they want as long
as they don't break any laws and they don't take public funds. I
doubt any gay people care what little rituals churches want to do for weddings.
they want the state and the fed gov't to recognize their marriage so they can
have the same rights as everyone else.
to -- Trowe | 3:43 p.mchurches have no business being in the
mariage business. they should stick to ceremonies and stay out of
To Pagan at 4:04.My point is not the churches will be forced to
perform same-sex marriages against there will, only that those churchces to
desire to perform them would be allowed to. I think that as long as marriages
are performed in churches by ministers, the same-sex marriage community has a
legitimate claim on the first ammendments free-exercise clause. Civil marriages
performed by the state according to how the people of that state feel they
should be performed, religious marriages for those who also want to do that,
however, religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't,
christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?
["religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't,
christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?"]actually,
religious ceremonial "marriages" (and temple "sealings") have no legal standing.
The minister or whoever may sign the marriage certificate stating that he/she
performed the vows, but that is simply as a witness, same as a court clerk.even now, you can get married in city hall without ever going to a
church, but you CANNOT get married in a church without first going to city
hall....bottom line is - marriage is a civil issue. Some people
like to throw in a ritual or ceremony, but it's the civil part that gets you all
the rights and benefits.
to NY:"Marriage is about creating a family by bringing together a man and
a woman. Two guys or two gals hanging out is not the creation of a family."What about an old widow and widower who may be older than 60? Why
should they get married? To have kids? I think not, but to have love,
companionship and possibly death benefits. Now, what do you think?
I say we "let" gays get married. We PREVENT them "getting" any children and the
"problem" is solved!!!! In a few years we wont have anything to worry about.
Ever since I was born, I've had a strong urge to rob a bank. And to kill
puppies. And to tell huge lies. And to steal candy from babies. And to
spraypaint peoples' houses. And to run naked down the street. And to set
buildings on fire. There is no choice. I just have to do it.
Speaking as a licensed Mental Health professional, I can tell you that the
process behind the approval of the "gay" lifestyle, as specified diagnostically
in the DSM-IV and other manuals, is politically and financially motivated.
Homosexuals have lobbied hard and successfully in a carefully orchestrated
campaign over the past few decades to get their "lifestyle" first tolerated,
then accepted, and eventually praised. They've done so in psychological circles
and others (education, politics, the media, etc.). Remember this, the DSM is
just a book of codes used to validate health expenditures by insurance
companies. The APA buy-in to the homosexual movement shows, as some critics of
psychology say, that mental health really is a "pseudo science" after all. What
Re: teacherMost gays come from heterosexual households.You're also sidestepping the issue that gay marriage may not equate same-sex
adoption.Gay parents do and can raise children.How do
you acount for gay parents who marry into heterosexual relationships, divorce,
the gay parent, whether gay or lesbian, has the custody of the children, the gay
custodial parent either marries or at least enters into a gay committed
relationship, and how do you account for the part of same-sex parents where one
of the parents is the bio parent?At that, there is also
surrogacy.It sounds like the discrimination would not only be for
same-sex parents to be married, but from having families as well.
To Teacher,Further, in light of the ongoing case regarding Prop
8,from San Francisco Chronicle, January 16Gays make fine
parents, psychologist testifiesA psychologist took aim at one of the
central justifications for California's ban on same-sex marriage in federal
court Friday, saying researchers overwhelmingly agree that gays and lesbians
make just as good parents as heterosexuals.More than 100
studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are
just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of
social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England,
testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn
Proposition 8. Lamb quoted the American Psychological Association's
2004 policy statement that gays and lesbians are "as likely as heterosexual
parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."
Seven other nationwide professional organizations have taken similar positions,
Re:Vince"A psychologist took aim at one of the central
justifications for California's ban on same-sex marriage in federal court
Friday, saying researchers overwhelmingly agree that gays and lesbians make just
as good parents as heterosexuals."It's good to hear his opinion on
the matter but he can vote like everyone else. It is not the role of the Courts
to decide whether something is good or bad public policy. Their role is to
decide whether something is legal, to punish criminality and to decide whether
something is constitutional or not. Whether gays or lesbians make good parents
doesn't have anything to do with whether a constitutional amendment to a state
constitution violates the U.S. Constitution which in this case doesn't.Those who profess to be liberals and who support a court overturning Prop. 8
aren't real liberals since real liberals would be appalled that anyone would
want to overturn a vote of the majority based on such an irrational argument as
the majority defining marriage as being between a man and woman violates the
equal protection of the laws for gays even though gays are able to marry
according to law
Re: His opinion has no bearingI don't know that I agree what
constitutes a real liberal or not.I can't think of a single instance
in which civil rights were won by the voice of the people.The Bill
of RightsWomen's EmancipationCivil Rights of the 1960sBanning
types of discrimination in regards to race, national origin, ethniticity, etc.
all of the above were won by legislative action, court rulings, or
executive orders.Majority rule or voice of the people can and has
been overturned in the past. Remember Prop 187 in California?Your
other argument defeats the purpose of marriage.You wrote, "gays are
able to marry according to law."It makes as much sense as my saying
that heterosexuals have the right to marry the same gender in Canada or
Massachusetts.They don't want it.But they have the
right.It is a nonsensical argument.However, you are
right in one regard, the basic essence of the argument in the court right now is
whether the ban on same sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.To that, however, are the all very common arguments regarding gays
This is the intended 'compassionate' counseling has provided for gays who
attempted and who continue to attempt to change their sexual orientation through
various forms of therapy. From the available data, four studies
reported a "success" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and
0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during
each study.In the study were included the following organizations
that perpetuate the "fix therapy."Exodus InternationalMasters
& JohnsonNARTHSchroeder & ShidloOCRT pilot studySpitzer
'...religious ceremonies shouldn't have legal standing. Baptisms don't,
christenings don't, sacraments don't...why marriage?' - 4:36 p.m.
Trowe, I think I understand the confusion. Many share this.
Religious marriage does NOT have any legal standing. You can get any religious
ceremony (temple sealing for example) and it will have zero of the over 1,200
legally protected rights of marriage. Now, if you have it done at
any city hall in America (I think it's $75 for a marriage license) it is legal.
The religious ceremony is not. Many do it to support tradition however it has
zero legal benifit. The gay community want's marriage in city halls.
Legal recognition. It has never, ever petitioned to have those marriages in any
religious place of worship. If that religion allows them, fine, but it has never
been an issue to the gay community to force churches to marry gay couples. Until anti-gay marriage deniers brought it up.
Ok. So now the 'choice' of being gay is 'irelivant'. You can 'control' your
actions, just like the straight community. By the way, it is estimated that
someone in the world is engaging in sexual activity every 6 seconds.
If something is inherrent, it is not an option. If something cannot be fought
against, it is inevitible. Many in the religious community chastise
the gay community for not 'controling yourself' and yet ignore the 50% divorce
rate for traditional marriages. Not to mention the continuing escalation of teen
pregnancy and the 40% of US children being raised in single-parent
households. If you want to deny something based on a better example,
fine. However, as we have established, straight people are no better off at
being examples of morality than gay people.
Let's look at some of the "Traditions" of marriage.One tradition of
marriage has been used to solidify treaties and alliances between families and
kingdoms.A tradition of marriage has meant purchasing a wife from
her family and the wife becoming the property of the husband - 'Johnny Lingo and
the 8 Cow Wife' ring any bells? Even yesterday, KSL ran a story about a man
trying to acquire 60+ cows to pay a woman's family so he could marry her (60+
cows! Mahanna would be mortified!). The anchor even referred to Johnny Lingo and
mentioned that 4 other men were trying 'buy' the woman.A tradition
of marriage has meant - and in some place still does - arranged marriages
decided by the parents. Love plays not part in this type of marriage.In Utah, on tradition of marriage has even meant one man with multiple wives.
'The APA buy-in to the homosexual movement shows, as some critics of psychology
say, that mental health really is a "pseudo science" after all.' - 6:48 p.m. DSM, if you were a health care professional you would probably be
willing to use your name and back your claims with some sort of reference.
2nd, if your talking about the American Psychiatric Association, that choice was
done in 1978, the year I was born. Are you talking about the American
Psychological Association? Their research to show re-orientation attempts as
'harmful' was done in Aug of 2009. Or are you trying to claim that Aversion
therapy test's done by Bingham Young University in the 1970's that ALSO confirms
re-orientation does not work is part of the gay agenda? How about
communist china taking homosexuality off the list of mental disorders in '01? So, it's 'DSM' 1 that being gay is wrong, and 815,000, BYU and china
that say otherwise. DSM, please provide one shred of evidence when
you make claims.
The whole problem with the issue of "choice" is that it begs the question of
whether or not same-gender attraction is a good thing to begin with. Personally,
I disagree that something is purposeful or good just because it "is".The purpose of heterosexuality is to propagate a species. What's the purpose
I agree with TheTraditionofMarriage. Marriage is for procreation. Infertile
people should not be allowed to marry.
@Pagan | 7:53 a.m. Jan. 26, 2010 Granted, a temple sealing without a
marriage license would have no legal standing, however, you cant' get a temple
sealing without a license. By accepting marriages that are performed through
religious ceremonies, I think the state is showing preference to those
religions' views of marriage. Showing that preference, in my opinion, is what
violates the establishment clause, even though the state doesn't dictate where
or how a marriage is performed (civil vs religious). However, because churches
are so firmly in the mix, it becomes a religious issue. And so, because there
are churches that do wish to perform gay marriages, but aren't allowed to do so,
while other churches are allowed to perform marriages, I think the courts will
eventually find that this violates the establishment clause. I could be wrong,
but that's what I think. My final point is that legal marriage
should be a civil issue. Religious marriage should be religious issue. The
twain shouldn't meet. Thus, states (aka the people) can choose what they will
allow legally, and churches can do what they wish without giving legal standing
to such ordinances/choices.
'What's the purpose of homosexuality?' With 6 billion
humans on earth and growing, I think we can all see this as a form of population
contorl. What is the purpose of being black? How did you say it?
'Personally, I disagree that something is purposeful or good just because it
"is".' What demographics are you 'Not surprised' woman? Left-handed? We
can use that logic on any minority. And trust me, you are one. This logic
can be used on any number of things. However, bottom line, if you cannot change
something, why bother? Nothing good will come of it.
If marriage is about having babies, you can reward your grandparents by telling
them their marriage is a sham. Why, because they can't continue to have
Trowe, While I understand this line of reasoning, I am going to
disagree with you. I understand in a perfect world religion and goverment
marriages can co-exist however, in this one religion is trying to stay valid. I disagree that states show 'preference' to religious marriage. It is a
non-issue. You simply MUST have a marriage license to be legally married.
Otherwise, when you try and do taxes, inheritence, etc, they will not be
recognized. I admit, I do not know much about the establishment
clause, however, in examples of US history the GOVERMENT led by judicial supreme
courts led the way in Women's Emancipation, Civil Rights of the 1960s, etc and
THEN religion followed of its own choice. Civil marriage IS a civil
issue. Religious marriage is not, and has not, been in question in this debate.
Religion has only tired to make it so. States can choose what rights
to give, however, they must adhere to the federal goverment they are a part
of. Churches have not been able to give legal recognition, since
marriage became state sanctioned. As marriage allows legal and tax
recognition. Again, religion is simply trying to stay valid.
Pagan | 9:37 a.m. Jan. 26, 2010 We'll have to agree to disagree.
Allowing churches to conduct legal marriage ceremonies seems to me to show
preference. Of course, that's a legal issue that hasn't been decided, so maybe
courts will end up seeing it your way. Thus far proponents of gay marriage have
tried solely using the civil discrimination aspect. However, I'm relatively
certain that someone will eventually bring a suit for violation of the
establishment clause. Once they do, the courts will decide, until then, people
will continue to debate the issues.
Trowe, That is fine. Let us agree to disagree. No harm. I do need to
ask, do you have an example of a church conducting a legal marriage? Date, time, etc? I ask because it was my understanding it was not possble.
Perhaps because they had a legally sanctioned priest, etc? I ask
only out of curiosity. No offense is meant. If you do not know or do not want to
give the example for privacy, I understand.
Pagan, Ministers of various religions get certified to perform
marriages. When I was married we went to the county seat, obtained a license,
and then went to our church and had our marriage performed by a church official.
It was an entirely religious ceremony. At the end, the minister signed the
certificate along with two church witnesses, the certificate was filed with the
county, and we were married. By allowing churches to officiate in
marriages like this, the state opens the door to claims that it is allowing
some churches to worship as they see fit (aka perform legal marriages) while
restricting churches that wish to perform gay marriages (and there are examples
of churches that wish to perform gay marriage). I say take legal marriages out
of churches, and have it be a SOLELY civil affair.
Trowe, Thanks for the example. I could say that you had to go to
the county before your marriage, and your minister had to get certified to
perform marriages but that would simply be semantics. I agree that
marriages should be a solely a civil affiar and that any and all rights should
be provided by the goverment, not religion. This 'blurry' line I
guess is by allowing religions to get certified to preform marriges. It confuses
WHO exactly is giving the legal protections. Perhaps if we remove the option for
religious leaders to get certified to 'perform' marriges. And yet
again, I would see religion fighting to 'keep' marriage a religious thing. Regardless, there is the question of why LGBT Americans who pay taxes,
adhere to typical rules of marriage (two consenting adutls, etc) should be
denied all the rights of marriage others have. Thank you for your
example. It helps clear up some misconceptions I have as I cannot get married to
the person of my choice, myself.
would somebody prove it please? aren't we all philosophers here. marriage isn't
based on sexual orientation it is based on providing long term stability for
children. Gay don't make babies. adoption is another issue but what is the long
term benefit to gay marriage. Sorry I don't see it. so take your philosophy I'll
take my law given benefit and we can agree to disagree.
You can talk yourself into just about anything including being a homosexual.
Maybe you can but I cant talk myself into being a homosexual. And two of my
brothers couldnt talk themselves OUT of it, and they tried.
If you can talk yourself into being something your can also talk yourself out.
I tried for several years to talk myself out of it. Didn't work, and rarely
'Gay don't make babies.' - 11:43 a.m. Dribble, neither do some
straight people. My example? Your grandparents. Do they still 'make babies' at
80years old? I doubt it. And if you could show me where
exactly on your marriage license it says you NEED to make babies...?
You can talk yourself into just about anything including being a homosexual. When did you try?
Let's have a pure rational discussion of homosexual behavior. No religion, no
God, no Bible. OK? Let's have an intellectual discussion. Let's
start with one Gay man describing exactly, in detail, what gays do when having
sex. Heterosexuals are ignorant and that causes hate. So, explain gay sex, and
then we can discuss if it is normal, natural, or should be ban. I think
we can come to agreement. No name calling, no hate, no ignorance. ok ?
@Einstein...right, and maybe they could post pictures and videos, just to make
sure people get the point! Most people on here have taken an anatomy
class, just use your imagination.
@teacher | 6:24 p.m. Jan. 25, 2010"I say we "let" gays get married.
We PREVENT them "getting" any children and the "problem" is solved!!!! In a few
years we wont have anything to worry about."Oh.... because you think
that only gays have gay children. LOL
@Bank RobberWay to equate being gay with killing puppies. When you
say such insanely stupid things like that, people stop taking you seriously, ok?
Hey when two men or two women can pro-create, then let them get married, after
all that's what marriage is about, the establishment of a family. And no,
adoption doesn't do the trick because every child, (as every homo) should have a
mother and a father. There is a God in heaven and we are his children, male and
female created He them for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the
earth, thus creating the family. Marriage is the covenant that welds the family
together. Failure by many to adhere to this law does not negate it's virtue and
the majority of Californian made this clear when they voted as they did. Greater
evil will only follow if this is overthrown.
Oh.... because you think that only gays have gay children. - 3:32 p.m. Christy, don't be too hard on them. Many simply use their imagination instead
of looking at the facts of this debate.
CB, Judging others is evil. Claiming you can only be
married only to have children is evil when you are not required to do it
yourself. 40% of all children in the US are raised by single-parent
households. I thought you needed to be married to have children? You can
belive in God. Your morals are fine. But do not think that can justify the life
of others based on that. I believe in God, I also think gay marriage is
fine. What about MY belief's? Why should I follow yours but you shouldn't follow
mine? Why would a life-long, monogomus relationship with one adult a bad
thing? Families, emotional support, etc, all the good things of marriage are
'bad' because they are the same gender?
You just judged someone by stating an absolute ("Judging others is evil"). Ergo,
you are saying you are evil. So what you say is evil. So saying that judging
others is evil... is thus evil. Great philosophy. You're a winner.In
fact, what is evil is judging without the facts, as is judging wrongly when you
have the facts. Judging correctly is not evil, but a necessary part of upholding
civilized society. We all must judge others in order to uphold the Constitution.
Wow. So because I said 'judging is evil' what I said is evil, therefore judging
others is ok because what I said was evil. I'm glad you said it was
a philosophy because nothing there made sense. To judge others, you
must somehow be superior. And calling yourself superior to others, morally or
otherwise does not make you superior to anyone else. I say we can
debate the issue. But many do not use facts in the debate of gay marriage. They
use their faith as fact. I have said this before. You can have your
belief in God. Your morals are sound. However, many fail to take into account
the faith and belief of others. And disregard fact to support such claims. I believe in God. You believe in God. I think gay marriage
is ok. You think it is not. These are not facts but rather
opinions. MA allowed gay marriage in '04. If gay marriage 'hurt'
straight marriage their divorce rate would go up, correct? MA has
the lowest divorce rate in the country 5 years after allowing gay marriage. 'judge not lest....'
" Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not ... but in
drighteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Lev. 19:15"Judge
not unrighteously...." JST Matt. 7:1
Trowe,Your argument makes sense at some level.If we were
to buy into your argument that indeed churches would be taken out of the
marriage business, I don't see as point of argument simply because as the
proponents of defending traditional marriage have said in clear language, when
we take the argument back to its base, it was simply to "define marriage as
between a man and a woman." There was no piece of legislation, written, spoken,
introduced, etc. into any part of Prop 8 that specified such arguments that
indeed churches would be taken out of the business of performing marriages nor
that the government would call a choice as to which church marriages were
legally valid in the state, or for that matter, across states.Now
then, you take an argument such that - churches' marriages would be invalidated
- based on nothing written into the proposition as it is written, hence, it is
an intangigle.Not intangible is the very fact that by definining
marriage as between only one man and one woman does actually interfere with
someone else's life.Someone's fear of the intangigle creates a
tangible loss of marriage for gays.
Moreover,The very logic, at least as advertised by Proponents
of defending traditional marriage is deceptive.The argument that "we
are not against gay people, we just want to define and preserve marriage" runs
contrary to what it perpetuates.The very re-definition of what
constitutes marriage, which was not specified in the California constitution
prior to Prop 8, or for that matter, prior to the states that banned same-sex
marriage, for that matter, does in fact result in denying the rights for gays to
marry the person of the same gender whom they love.
CB | 3:58 p.m. Jan. 26, 2010 You wrote,"Every child,
(as every homo) should have a father and a mother."First, CB, the
improper use of the term for gays devaluates and cheapens your argument. Nonetheless, do you know how many children do not have both a father and
a mother?This argument is taken specifically against gays. Yet, I
know of no legislation to prevent children from being in households where they
lack both a father and a mother.Some statistics about children,"One million children in America are involved in a new divorce annually,
as of 1997, according to divorcemagazine.com, and The Children's Fund reportsthat one in three American children is born to unmarried parents (2004 Key
Facts About American Children).Further,"The number of
children living with both parents declined from 85 to 68 percent between 1970
and 1996. The proportion of children living with one parent has grown from 12
percent to 28 percent during this same time span."Quoted from Census
Bureau's release about its report on MARITAL STATUS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
So, it's ok to judge 'righteously'? Who makes one rightous?
'I say we put all gay people on an island and see how successful they are at
surviving...God's law is Nature's law...' - 8:52 a.m. Hey AB, that's
a great idea! Didn't a certain nazi german leader take all of one group of
minorities and put them in camps too? Would you like other examples
of people who do not follow the 'mother and father' example you claim? Octo-mom. After all of her children hit 1 year old, where is the father? Didn't 'John and Kate plus 8' use tech to get the 8 kids they had? Nature is all well and good. However that is why we have the tools to
survive it when nature is not kind to us. Or have you never used
"Don't gay people come from a man and a woman?? Without a man and a woman they
would not be here. I say we put all gay people on an island and see how
successful they are at surviving...God's law is Nature's law which is Man +Woman
=life and Man + Man = death. How simple is that? "That is an
interesting thought however your logic is flawed and refuted by your own words.
"Don't gay people come from a man and a woman?? "100% of
gay people come from straight parents by your own admission and of course fact
and common sense, so putting them all on an island somewhere current homosexuals
would die out, but straight people will continue to have gay children. Always
NO ONE has yet to explain why being gay is "bad". That's the main (and only)
argument any of you have presented, yet it is just your opinion.Explain why gay = "bad". Don't say "can't have kids" because lots of hetero
marriages can't have kids. Don't say "God said so" because God
purposely makes 3%-4% of the population gay. Are you saying He made a mistake?
and if so, how do you rationalize that when God is perfect? Don't say "it's a
test" because that's just ridiculous.The ONLY reason you all think
being gay is "bad" is because you were raised to believe that, through social
stigma. If no one ever told you that gay was "bad" then you would find it
simply "different" at worst.so... what is wrong with being gay?
and if there's nothing wrong with it, why do you not want them to be able to
marry?and yes, gays want to be able to marry so they can get
benefits, but also to REMOVE the social stigma that makes you consider them
"bad". In 50 years, people will consider gays simply "different".
I'd rather be 'different' than 'discriminated' against. That would mean you can
dislike me but you can't use that as an excuse to hurt me in some way. How is that 'in your face?'
CB,Gays will not go off into some island somewhere so all these
arguments about presenting "what would happen if" are invalid. They have been
invalid for as long as gays have been around. Gays do have
children. The fact that gays have children in hetero relationships does not
make them confused heterosexuals or bisexuals. A great degree of personal
identity and assimilating into the hetero-normative is to a large extent
influenced by socio-religious pressure.
Childless marriageAs to the argument that some have that somehow
having children is a prerequisite for marriage.Evaluate the
trends,The National Center of Health Statistics confirms that the
percentage of women of childbearing age who define themsleves as voluntarily
childless is on the rise: from 2.4 percent in 1982, to 4.3 percent in 1990, to
6.6 percent in 1995 (the most recent available figure). That's 4.1 million women
saying no to motherhood in 1995.Another source suggested by
sociologist Laura Carroll indicates that,"According tostudies and
statistics, childfree couples are on the rise. American Demographics Magazine
projects that the number of married couples without children will rise by 50%,
to more than 31 million, by the year 2010. Several articles have appeared in a
Portland newspaper (The Oregonian) that discloses recent US census figures, and
recent information on the growing numbers of childless women since 1970. "
Finally, as far as preserving the family unit where children have both a mother
and a father, consider the following,About 1.7 million babies were
born to unmarried women in 2007, a 26 percent rise from 1.4 million in 2002 and
more than double the number in 1980, according to the new report. Unmarried
women accounted for 39.7 percent of all U.S. births in 2007 -- up from 34
percent in 2002 and more than double the percentage in 1980. "If you
see 10 babies in the room, four them were born to women who were not marriedSource, The Washington PostMay 14, 2009 "Number of Unwed Mothers
Has Risen Sharply in U.S"
Having been through "reparative therapy" or "change therapy" I agree with the
article that sexual orientation CANNOT be changed. During my 2 years of this
therapy I met so many depressed and abused people (abused by religion!). How
long do gay people have to suffer because of so much ignorance? For
all you straight people, do you think your sexual orientation could change with
therapy? Also, when did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
well, I see no one has an answer to my 10:23am post. It's a shame that you all
want to degrade and badger people, and withhold rights from them, simply because
your parents and your priests told you the people are "bad". I guess you all
haven't changed much from the slave and segregation days. Bunch of white
religious folks wanting to be in charge and tell everyone what to do and what's
right and wrong.good luck with that when answering to the big guy.
You really should stop calling yourselves christians since you act far from it
and don't even seem to understand what it actually means....