@ SCfan: It has been good talking with you. :)When you think about
the "many" that are not strictly heterosexual or homosexual, they may
also not be bisexual in the "traditional" sense, but a little more
fluid.I consider myself a heterosexual woman - I could never really
switch teams. But there women who I find extremely attractive, even sexually
attractive to a certain extent. On the Kinsey scale this would put me into a
different category from a woman who is purely heterosexual.It is my
understanding that a similar thing occurs with some men.It is more
than likely that similar things occur with homosexual individuals as well.Sexuality is not limited to one of three choices where an individual is
strictly this, that, or the other. Sexuality is more of a continuum where some
fluidity and overlapping of categories occurs.The same is true of
gender. Some men are very masculine. Others, not so much. Some women are
attracted to masculine men, others are not.Attraction, gender, and
sexuality overlap and intersect in a multitude of ways - but very little of it
is purely choice and changeable.
@ Hutterite - American Fork, UT - "Utah and Oklahoma will be remembered as
the states that helped usher in nation wide same sex marriage. I'm loving
the irony."Uhhhh.....Utah and Oklahoma did not "help"
usher in homosexual 'marriage'. The only things moving this disaster
along are:1) pro-homosexual people who push the lawsuits and 2) judges who lack wisdom and common sense
The word "Liberal" sure is being thrown around in here today. Even poor
old Hillary was thrown in the mix. Looks to me like some folks are anticipating
the results of the 2016 election. One poster speaks of equality for
all US citizens and another posts with the threat of "Real Justice".
One poster talks of the Bill of Rights and another poster asks just
how far we are going let the Bill of Rights take us? My answer to that? When
we reach the point of equality for all citizens.For those of you who
are in fear of SSM leading into forcing the Church to preform SSM in the Temple
I would suggest reading the Constitution again. Never going to happen for the
Church or any other religious organization that opposes SSM. It's as lame
an argument as the whole Incest/Relative marriage argument. The
opponents to SSM are running scared and they should be. They can see the writing
on the wall. It's OK though, the Gay's and Lesbians of this Country
have spent the last 300 years learning to live with disappointment and you
Conservatives will too.God Bless Us All.
MaudineAbsolutely not, and I believe that the vast majority, as in
97% of people could not change to the other team either. You say Kinsey in the
'40s found "many". How many? You make it sound like there is a
huge middle group of bi-sexual people in the world. What percentage? Very
small I'm willing to bet. And I personally think there is still a lot of
psychology involved in this whole thing. Last post. Good talking
@ wrzBaccus wrote: "I am glad that Utah and Oklahoma are forcing
the hand of the SCOTUS to visit and rule on this issue."wrz
wrote: "As noted above, SCOTUS has no choice but to rule in favor of
Utah/Oklahoma."Baccus: Dear wrz, I agree with your statement.
The SCOTUS will rule "in favor" of Utah/Oklahoma,The ruling of the
Supreme Court will bring justice and equality to both states and more than that
, probably to all of the United States.I know at this moment you
think that "in favor" means to rule against SSM. Fortunately, I think
you will find that once you see equality in action in Utah, Oklahoma and
the whole nation will be a better place for all of us.
@ wrz@Baccus0902:"Are you saying the LGBT community is not
hearing the polygamists, incests, etc.?"No! that is not what I am
saying. On this issue there two sides pro and against SSM. The people you
mentioned are not part of this discussion....Don't try it. They are not!The other points you mentioned we obviously disagree and that is O.K.@ SCFanI agree with you that for some individuals their
sexuality can show some fluidity. But for most LGBT we knew at a very early age
(in my case 3 or 4)that something was different.You wrote: "I
just wish marriage, which is really a religious principle to begin with, was
kept reserved as a unique male/female relationship"I disagree
with you on this, the state grants licenses and "allows" religious
ministers to perform marriage ceremonies. Also, if you look at Cuba, North
Korea, the ex- USSR, (among others)they all have marriage, even though they
consider(ed) themselves atheist societies.
@wrz"Comes the question: Can SCOTUS renege on its ruling by saying
that Utah and Oklahoma cannot define marriages by excluding SSM? If SCOTUS rules
in favor of SSM it will have ruled against itself. SCOTUS has no option but to
rule in favor of Utah/Oklahoma."The question can be like this:
Can Virginia defines marriages by excluding inter-racial marriage? Loving
v Virginia said NOSCOTUS has no option but to rule in favor of
Utah/Oklahoma? That is wishful thinking.
@ SCfan: Many individuals who are fighting same-sex attraction (you did say
this was a girlfriend from many years ago) get involved in heterosexual
relationships in an effort to live a socially or religiously accepted life.Another possibility is that your ex-girlfriend is actually bisexual and
has attractions for members of both genders and happened to fall in love with a
woman this time around.If you go back to the Kinsey rating scale
from studies conducted in the 1940's, you will note that while there are
many individuals on either side of the scale who are strictly one or the other,
there are also many individuals in the middle who are at varying degrees of
changeability. Although those in the middle have varying levels of flexibility,
those on the ends do not - and for those in the middle, the closer they are to
the ends, the less likely they are to effect a permanent change.How
about you personally? Would you ever be able to switch to the other team?
From the article: "Bill Duncan, a lawyer and founder of the Utah-based
Marriage Law Foundation, ... said courts in Hawaii and Nevada came to the
opposite conclusions the past two years."Yes - before DOMA was
decided. And the Hawaii case is moot since the Legislature passed a law
allowing same-sex marriage.The Nevada case relies on access to
domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, but those partnerships, while
providing many of the benefits of marriage, do not provide all the benefits of
marriage. And you want to talk about a judge making a ruling based
on no evidence? Oral arguments were scheduled, but the judge cancelled them and
decided the case based on the previously submitted briefs. His reason for
deciding against same-sex marriage is because "it is conceivable that a
meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil
institution as highly as they previously had ... leading to an increased
percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, ... or other
unforeseen consequences."So he *thinks* there might be problems
even though no evidence was presented to support that viewpoint.I'm not sure relying on the Nevada case is a good idea.
Baccus0902OK I'll check my life, both public as in Portia de
Rossi and Anne Heche, two actresses who have gone both ways, or privately, in a
girlfriend I once had who absolutely was not lesbian when I knew her, but who I
many years later found her to have changed to that lifestyle. Now I don't
know why those things happened, but I suspect that there is some degree of
choice in some, and I only say some, people regarding sexuality. That's
been my life experience. For what it's worth to you. But you did ask. As for the destruction of our civilization, I personally have never been
one who has claimed homosexual marriage was going to do that. I just wish
marriage, which is really a religious principle to begin with, was kept
reserved as a unique male/female relationship. Legally equal partnerships for
same sex couples are fine with me. All rights included. Your agency gives you
the right to live life as you choose, or have to.
@SCfan:"Of course the Supreme Court has to take up the issue of
whether marriage is a state or federal regulation."SCOTUS has
already made that determination in the DOMA case.Comes the question:
Can SCOTUS renege on its ruling by saying that Utah and Oklahoma cannot define
marriages by excluding SSM? If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM it will have ruled
against itself. SCOTUS has no option but to rule in favor of Utah/Oklahoma.@Baccus0902:"It seems that many of us have decided not to hear
the other side arguments."Are you saying the LGBT community is
not hearing the polygamists, incests, etc.?"The LGBT community
is presenting facts based on real life, studies, years of living a life of lies,
fear, and Mr. Robinson (DN) wrote a few days ago "abuse" from the sexual
majority."Humans are filled with unnatural foibles. Why is it
that the LGBT's are not required to deal with theirs?"I am
glad that Utah and Oklahoma are forcing the hand of the SCOTUS to visit and rule
on this issue."As noted above, SCOTUS has no choice but to rule
in favor of Utah/Oklahoma.
Simple. It is time for States and governments in general to stop defining
marriage and provide a civil union to any couple that wants a civil union.
Couples who want to go beyond a civil union can go to a religion for a marriage
and that religion should be allowed under the law to define marriage as it sees
fit and according to their own doctrine and beliefs.
If one judge after another, one court after another came to the same conclusion
that denying same sex couples' right to marry is against US constitution or
state constitution(MA, CT, IA, NJ, NM), and American people have evolved to a
point that the majority supports marriage equality, then perhaps it is about
time for SSM opponents to think about:Is it because all those
judges, courts are activists? or because my understanding about constitution is
@ SCfan " Baccus0902 You may make some valid points, but
don't use the old propaganda of 10% of people are homosexual. All studies
have shown the number to be around 3 to 4 percent."If only 3% to
4% of the population is homosexual. Why so much concern of total destruction of
our civilization?Talking about "propaganda", Homosexuality
is not a choice - check your life and see if you ever were presented with that
choice- Therefore if 3% to 4% of homosexuals want to live a life as a couple
enjoying all the benefit that all married heterosexuals enjoy, what is the
problem with that? We pay taxes as you do (or more) and receive way
less benefits than you do. Is that fair?Our children need food,
clothes, school, health, many of you have mentioned that 2 parents is better
than one, yet you prevent our children from having two parents. Is that fair? When you retire your spouse will be able to collect some of your
benefits. Our partners don't have that privilege. Is that fair?Giving the same rights that you enjoy to 3% or 4% of the population
shouldn't be a burden to society, specially when this population already
paid for them.
@ Ranch - Here, UT - "Justice may move slowly sometimes, but in the end, it
will prevail."Yep.However, 'Ranch',
I've read enough of your liberal philosophy posts on here to tell you that
when "justice" is fully administered, you're going to be one mighty
Baccus0902You may make some valid points, but don't use the old
propaganda of 10% of people are homosexual. All studies have shown the number
to be around 3 to 4 percent.
It seems that many of us have decided not to hear the other side arguments.The LGBT community is presenting facts based on real life, studies,
years of living a life of lies, fear, and Mr. Robinson (DN) wrote a few days ago
"abuse" from the sexual majority.Those opposed to SSM used
their religious beliefs and fear for what may happen.It seems the
dialogue on this type of forum has become only an outlet to vent
frustrations.I am glad that Utah and Oklahoma are forcing the hand
of the SCOTUS to visit and rule on this issue.I'll borrow
Yorkshire's lines here: ""We invite you to pray...that wisdom will
be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to
society’s future."Yorkshire also wrote:""We
warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand
accountable before God. "Well, if that is the case. Then we need
to legalize monogamous SSM. Otherwise God would be setting about 10% of his
children for failure with an extraordinary burden.Let's pray
for the SCOTUS.
Of course the Supreme Court has to take up the issue of whether marriage is a
state or federal regulation. They would be cowards to not address this issue.
It will end up being a kind of Roe vs Wade decision. All or nothing. Unless of
course, they turn it back to the states. However few judges, especially liberal
ones, will hold with states rights. It's going to be harder to pick the
winner of the Super Bowl than to see where this one is headed.
Somehow, when the case comes that sues the LDS or Catholic churches for
"Violating" gay rights by not bowing down to them, and the plaintiffs
find a gay judge who will agree--Will all you gay rights supporters
be shocked, shocked and appalled? Or will you hail forcing churches to violate
their laws as "freedoms!" and "Justice?" I am
pretty sure that when Hillary orders pastors thrown in jail there will be
cheering from the liberals here. Because you gay rights people are so
predictable. You lied to us when you said civil unions were all you wanted.
And you are lying now when you say that you will never try to force churches to
violate their consciences. You are lying when you say gay rights will never
impact the rest of us--Just ask Phil Robertson if gay rights were all unicorn
and kittens and did nothing to impact him. All of this "non
discrimination" and "Freedoms and civil rights for gays" are really
code for "We win, you lose, and we will do our best to stamp out your
freedoms." Just ask bakers and photographers.
These lines are directed to LDS members in relation to SSM:"We
invite you to pray...that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to
decide issues critical to society’s future. These lines are
directed and addressed to "The World":"We warn that
individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand accountable
before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family
will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by
ancient and modern prophets.We call upon responsible citizens and
officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain
and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
Two of the reddest states in the country racing to see who gets credit for the
Supreme Court case that allows national gay marriage. Sweet!
There was a disturbing article regarding a Missouri father that is outraged over
a sex education poster in his daughter's school. Please do a search on
that. How far do people want to go in the moral decay of our society? I am not
a Mormon, but I am a Christian. We have been cautioned by political figures of
the past about changing and recreating new laws. I do not hate gay people, but
stuck up for them in the past, but I am starting to feel different about them as
a group, I have to admit. We all care about fairness, and adding "sexual
orientation" and "gender identity" to Utah's nondiscrimination
law might sound reasonable and fair, but it's not. The problem is that it
would give special rights to some people at the expense of other people. In
fact, it would give special rightsto some that conflict with the first
freedoms of others." We must protect our first freedoms granted to all
citizens by our constitution!
Justice may move slowly sometimes, but in the end, it will prevail.
I feel that the Supreme court should take this up and make a ruling affecting
the whole country. While I generally believe in states rights, this is an issue
that needs to be decided country wide.The ramifications of getting
married in one state that recognizes SSm and transferring or moving to a
different state that does not would create too many problems.Figure
it out, country wide, one way or another.
@Instereo:"...it's become clearer and clearer that the Bill of
Rights is for all citizens regardless of sex, race, national origin, or gender
orientation."Just how far do you hope the bill of rights will
go? Will it involve polygamy? Will it involve incest? Siblings? children?
group marriages? "I for one am happy that 'We the
People....' is really becoming to me 'We the People....' as in
all of us."All of us? You might not like where this will
eventually take this country.
I don't think you can call it Love. We may have had a great country at one
time. If it were not for the righteous among us, our country would long be gone.
Breaking Gods laws is not Love. Standing firmly to his laws is Love
When "Rights" are involved, I'm glad the heat is being turned up on
the Supreme Court. The bill of rights was passed in the first session of
congress and then by the states shortly after that to be added as amendments to
the constitution. It's taken a long time for the country to truly
understand what these rights mean but since the 1950's with the Brown vs.
Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement it's become clearer and
clearer that the Bill of Rights is for all citizens regardless of sex, race,
national origin, or gender orientation. I for one am happy that "We the
People...." is really becoming to me "We the People...." as in all
Yes folks like it or not LOVE conquers all! I ask you Americans do we have a
great country or not??
Utah and Oklahoma will be remembered as the states that helped usher in nation
wide same sex marriage. I'm loving the irony.
There are probably twenty-five such cases out there in district courts. Judge
Shelby is new to the bench. Judge Kern has been a district court judge for
twenty years. They both came to the same conclusion about the Windsor ruling. I
would guess that you are going to be hearing the same ruling come down from
different district courts this year. The Supreme Court will then pick one of
them, for the 2014-2015 term.I don't agree with Justice Scalia
on a lot of things, but I think he got one thing right. This is exactly what the
majority led by Justice Kennedy wanted.