comments

1. This is the best argument I have heard against gay marriage.

   Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose

   It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.

   They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

   Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.

   If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

   Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.

   Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. I can just see states or countries legalizing gay marriage and then losing population.

   By Jon Miranda ·  Posted on Apr 1, 07:38 PM

2. kinda pointless to get into the same old back-and-forth on this issue, but since when has marriage been about reproduction? following the “law of nature” logic, we should also ban marriage amongst infertile couples, or couples who simply CHOOSE not to have kids. further, it could be argued just as easily that the “law of nature” is to only breed within the same race. why not put that one on the ballot while we’re at it?

   and if we were to follow the “will of the people” logic, minority groups would still be drinking from different water fountains. the california courts originally overturned the gay marriage ban. the courts are there to protect the rights of minorities when those rights are being trampled by bigots and morons.

   bigots and morons like jon miranda.

   By Jon Miranda Is a Tool ·  Posted on Apr 2, 01:26 AM

3. Gay marriage doesn’t work. So says Elton John. It is an affront to a religious sacrament which has been co-opted by the state.

   By Bob_C ·  Posted on Apr 2, 12:10 PM

4. Listen John M – Not sure where you are coming from on “Life’s Purpose”, but I didn’t realize you had all of the answers, oh Great One!

   Perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps being gay is nature’s way of controlling an already over populated planet? And if nature made someone that way, who are you, or anyone, to say that the people that are gay don’t have the same right as everyone else for happiness with the mate they love and are attracted to – and I don’t know what “rock” you live under, but homosexuality is all throughtout nature and the animal kingdom – penguins, dolphins, primates. I’m sorry, but your argument is WEAK and lacking substance.

   By K Knarr ·  Posted on Apr 2, 02:29 PM

5. Straight marriage doesn’t work either. So says the 50% divorce rate. Like it or not, the state is involved, so denying the right to some is institutional discrimination, period.

   Anti-gay marriage people, I gotta ask: 20 years from now, do you really wanna look back and be on the wrong side of this one? Do you really want to tell your kids and grandkids that you let your own prejudices get the better of you? That you acted to prevent equal rights for your fellow citizens?

   Do you want to go down in history alongside the last people to own slaves? Alongside the people who voted against women’s suffrage?

   Come up with all the supposed justifications you want…it still boils down to simple oppression. Ask yourself if that’s really how you want to be remembered.

   By Seriously, people ·  Posted on Apr 2, 02:33 PM

6. You state “..but they are clouded by their hatred and misunderstanding that it is.” Are you really trying to say that everyone who voted for Prop 8, mind was clouded by their hatred and misunderstanding?

   Maybe they are sick and tired of judges finding “rights” and making new law from the bench.

   Maybe people are tired of the LGBT community tell them that they have to be tolerant of their lifestyle, but refuse to be tolerant of people who disagree with them.

   Maybe they are tired of the constant assault on their values; we have the LGBT community telling the Catholic Church that they HAVE to accept them, even though it goes against the teaching of the church. Look at the protest at the Mormon churches, where’s the tolerance that the LGBT want from others? They don’t seem to have much tolerance.

   Maybe LGBT have a different way of showing tolerance, death threats, defacing churches, forcing people out of their jobs. Image if just one LGBT was forced out of their job for not supporting Prop 8, could you see the lawsuits?

   “It’s never been the government or anyone’s business who a person chooses to be with or even have sex with.” Ah yes it has, it wasn’t even that long ago when in a private club the government could have you arrested for what you said on stage (look up Lenny Bruce). It’s only been fairly recently that the courts have stuck down some of those laws.

   “Say you’re a straight man wanting to marry your high school sweetheart. How would you feel if the government suddenly said you couldn’t marry him/her? What if they said you couldn’t marry…”

   I would find a church that would marry me, hey LGBT have that already. So in the eyes of the church and God I’d be married, and that is what is important to me. I would then give power of attorney to my partner, something that LGBT also have available to them, so my partner could make decisions for me. I would then set my will up so my partner received me estate again something LGBT already have available to them. So now in the eyes the church I’m married, my partner can make decisions for me, that just leave insurance and SSN. Insurance is handled by my employer I would try and get my employer to cover my partner, oh wait many of them do that already, ok that just leaves SSN, and that is a federal not a state problem. Is it as clean as a “marriage” nope but it can be done. Yes there are some other issues that I didn’t deal with, but almost all the “benefits” of marriage could easily be handled.

   And yes I know I’m going to be called a lot of names.

   By richard ·  Posted on Apr 3, 12:55 PM

7. ah yes, the age old complaint that gay people have “enough” rights, and it’s somehow wrong to make them equal in the eyes of the law… very astute.

   i especially like the idea that judges “found” rights and created new laws, as if there was something special about granting EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL CITIZENS.

   i still can’t understand why people shun that notion.

   is this a democracy? are we all supposed to be equal? how can you support “separate-but-equal” conditions and treatment of your fellow citizens?

   are you serious when you say it’s because there’s an “assault” on church values???

   a.) you don’t think members of the LGBT community have been assaulted (figuratively AND literally!!) by various churches and their members? look at the numbers: who are really the victims here? be real for a minute.

   b.) i think the LGBT community was incredibly tolerant of the religious community…UNTIL THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY FUNNELED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOWARDS CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION TO INSTITUTE INEQUALITY!!!!

   c.) the argument of “they protested the mormons, so they don’t deserve equal rights” may as well have been made by a 6-year-old. grow up. we’re either an equal society or we’re a discriminatory one. to disqualify the views of a group based on the fact that they protested their ill-treatment is to shoot down every major advancement this country has ever experienced, going all the way back to the revolutionary war!

   if you’re on the discriminatory side of the fence, you will at some point have to admit to yourself that you are a bigot and live with that label. and at that point you can’t claim that you’re voting for what’s fair, and that everyone ELSE is intolerant.

   what makes me the craziest is this argument that somehow it IS the government’s business who people have sex with because they also censored lenny bruce.

   just because the government takes action against things doesn’t mean they should, or that it’s right. and secondly, don’t you see the parallel??? do you think it was RIGHT for the government to censor lenny bruce?? or do you (accurately) recognize that as an abuse of the freedoms granted to us by the bill of rights?

   it’s the same thing: re-writing the legal (not religious!) definition of marriage in the california constitution is an ABUSE of the freedoms and protections that are supposedly at the foundations of this country.

   if you truly believe in what america stands for, you should support equal rights and freedom for all.

   if you don’t, you probably support prop 8.

   By not richard but dick ·  Posted on Apr 4, 04:17 PM

8. “…them equal in the eyes of the law…”

   Do you even know what prop 8 did? All it really did, was define the word marriage. As far as rights go, if I were to assault a GLBT person and they CLAIMED I knew they were GLBT, I could be charged with a hate crime. But if I’m assaulted no hate crime. My punishment for assaulting a GLBT person is far greater than if I were to assault someone who wasn’t GLBT.

   The equal protection clause that LGBT use doesn’t apply here, anyone is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish, it doesn’t matter if the person is black, white, green, etc the requirement is one man, one woman. If fact, under article IV all LGBT marriages may be illegal, or legal depending on how you interpret it, with the Full Faith and Credit clause, a marriage in another state must be recognized by other states (otherwise you’d have to be married again if you moved to another state), but in some of those states if they were to recognize a LGBT marriage it would violate that state’s constitution, therefore since that state can’t give Full Faith and Credit, so the other state can’t issue marriage certificates because it doesn’t carry the Full faith and Credit, on the other hand can a state through its own constitution limit the ability of another state to perform marriages? That a puzzle for the Federal government to figure out.

   “i especially like the idea that judges “found” rights and created new laws,”

   They have, they also have used foreign laws to intrepid the US Constitution. But you have the same rights as I do, to marry ONE person of the opposite sex. If you allow GLBT marriage you have to allow polygyny and polyandry as well as allowing multiple men “marry” multiple women, after all who are you to define the word marriage. If you allow marriage to mean anything then it means nothing. And if you try and define marriage as between two people, the you are denying marriage to people who want to practice polygyny or polyandry, and how can you tell them how many people they can love or how they can love them?

   “ is this a democracy?”

   yes and the people voted TWICE.

   “ are we all supposed to be equal?”

   Yes you can marry anyone of the opposite sex you wish.

   “how can you support “separate-but-equal” conditions and treatment of your fellow citizens?”

   I don’t you have the SAME rights as I do.

   “are you serious when you say it’s because there’s an “assault” on church values???”

   You didn’t quite quote me right, I didn’t say there was an assault on church values, I said there was an assault on their values, meaning the people who voted for Prop 8, and yes there is. Look at the Boy Scouts, heck look at any Christian group, they have been sued to be FORCED to allow GLBT in, they have been sued over the Boy Scout pledge, there have been lawsuits over the pledge of allegiances, I could go on for a long time about values being assaulted.

   “a.) you don’t think members of the LGBT community have been assaulted…”

   I’m sure they have, just as I’m sure GLBT have assaulted church members too, but who gets special protection under law? Certainly not the church goers.

   “b.) i think the LGBT community was incredibly tolerant of the religious community…UNTIL…”

   LGBT spent even more then the religious community did so should the religious community be even less tolerant now? How many times have you heard of the religious community going to a LGBT church to disrupt their service? LGBT groups have done that.

   “c.) the argument of “they protested the mormons, so they don’t deserve equal rights” …”

   First I NEVER said that, I said “Look at the protest at the Mormon churches, where’s the tolerance that the LGBT want from others?” I was pointing out that the LGBT want others to have tolerance for their lifestyle, even when it clashed with their core beliefs, but some LGBT don’t seem to have the same tolerance. Personally I love it when one side says we want tolerance not acceptance, but then don’t show tolerance to the people who disagree with them. Yes, you have to tolerate us, but we don’t have to tolerate you.

   “….admit to yourself that you are a bigot…”

   Really I’m a bigot, strange, you don’t know me, yet I’m a bigot. (Notice I’ve never labeled anyone with a derogatory remark I used the aberration that the OP used strange that you had to use at least one) OK let’s say it true, then you have made my point, by not having tolerance you want me to show to the LGBT’s. Personally I’ve been called lots of names, racist, even though I’m a minority who happens to look white (well tan really). Who had dated outside my “race” who has a black niece. I worked for and employed gays, women, blacks, Native Americas, etc. and Yes I have been discriminated against many times, sometimes for looking white, sometimes because they’ve found out I’m a minority. No I didn’t sue, I didn’t make a big deal over it, I gotten on with my life. I vote for what I believe in, I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Life isn’t fair, get over it, 29 states now have amendment their constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman so I’m not alone.

   “what makes me the craziest is this argument that somehow it IS the government’s…”

   Again you missed the point, it was in response to the OP stating that government had “It’s never been the government or anyone’s business who a person chooses to be with or even have sex with.”

   I was pointing out that not only had the government was in the business of who you had sex with, but also had and has the power to limit what you say.

   “ it’s the same thing: re-writing the legal (not religious!) definition of marriage…”

   No it not, all words have meaning and sometimes a legal meaning and a general meaning, sometimes, but not always they mean the same thing. If you kill someone for example, you could be charged with murder, or manslaughter, but on the street you’d say he murdered someone, in court it would be called manslaughter or murder, both have a different meaning under law, so all Prop 8 really did was define the legal meaning of marriage. Before Prop 8 there was only the general meaning of marriage and people started using the word marriage to mean different things then what was commonly understood, thus the need to define the word marriage in a legal since.

   “if you truly believe in what america stands for, you should support equal…”

   Why is it that every time someone doesn’t get their way they say that? If you really believe in the Constitution you have to do this, well, I hate to tell you this, I believe in the Constitution, probably more than you do, but have you read the Constitution? I have, and unless the power is granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution then it’s a state issue. That is the state can decide on its own, we have strayed a long ways from the Constitution in many issues, the Federal Government has taken a lot of power away from the state and the states have said nothing. But that’s another story. By richard ·  Posted on Apr 6, 12:22 PM

9. you’re kind of all over the map here, richard… i’ll try to simplify if i can…

   what did prop 8 really do? it changed the state constitution to re-define marriage because the courts declared an earlier same-sex marriage ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

   think about that for a second: the state constitution is there to protect everyone and make sure everything is fair. prop 8 entirely undermined one of the major purposes of that document.

   you don’t repeal hate crime laws by voting against equal rights, richard.

   and the slippery slope argument that soon we’ll all be marrying dogs just doesn’t fly with anyone who has even a lick of sense, so i’m not even bothering with that one.

   “you have the SAME rights…”

   well, you’re assuming here that i’m gay, but the point is that before prop 8 passed a gay person had the right to get married to the person of his or her choosing. SINCE prop 8, that same person does not have that same right. so clearly there’s an imbalance.

   as for the supposed gay assault on christian values, your examples are interesting:
   —the boy scouts were sued because they excluded gays. it’s interesting that, again, you’re defending discrimination. you should also note that in the end the boy scouts won that one, and discrimination has been allowed to reign! hooray! a thought experiment: if the boy scouts had been sued because they were keeping out jews, blacks, or muslims, would that also be considered an “assault” on their “values?”
   —lawsuits over the pledge of allegiance… i don’t see how this one connects to gay people… i’m pretty sure this is an issue of kids being forced to recognize “god” in a public institution… hardy a gay assault on christians going on…

   then we have the idea of gays getting special protection under the law vs. innocent church goers. first of all, be real. you will find that the instances of religiously-motivated assaults on gay people FAR outnumber gay-motivated assaults on religious people. (in fact, during the protests outside the mormon church in LA, it was PRO-prop 8 people assaulting gay people, not the other way around.)

   secondly, you may not have heard, but hate crimes go BOTH WAYS. if a christian can prove that he/she was assaulted due to his/her religion, they can claim the same “special” protection.

   yes, i was paraphrasing your argument about intolerance towards mormons in order to point out that it’s a ridiculous argument. even if you could somehow prove (beyond a one-sided anecdote) that gay people are somehow the most intolerant bunch on the face of the earth, it doesn’t matter! they STILL should be afforded the same rights as everyone else! just because i don’t like the intolerance displayed by neo-nazis i wouldn’t for a moment try to limit their equal access to the freedoms granted to them under the constitution. a group’s (perceived) lack of tolerance doesn’t factor in.

   beyond that, painting the LGBT community as the intolerant ones is really a willfully ignorant act. is it intolerant to protest a group that has acted to change the laws in order to oppress you and hold you to “separate-but-equal” standards? is it intolerant to point out that the mormon church illegally created front groups to funnel more money than they’re allowed to into the yes-on-8 campaign?

   “i was pointing out…the government…has the power to limit what you say.”

   that’s a fair parsing of your words, right? my point stands: yes, the government can send cops to shut down lenny bruce, but that doesn’t make them RIGHT. further, it makes them WRONG, because taking away his freedom of speech goes against the bill of rights. so citing one example of government oppression still doesn’t justify another…

   the paragraph about legal definitions is a little tough to follow…i’m imaging that the drugs were either kicking in or wearing off by this point…

   there was, in fact, an existing legal definition of “marriage” in california before prop 8. it wasn’t just a word people said on the street. prop 8 CHANGED that legal definition to EXCLUDE a certain portion of the population.

   it doesn’t get any more discriminatory than that.

   whether it’s because of religion, because of perceived intolerance, because of a perceived lack of values, or because you just think gays are “icky,” it doesn’t matter:

   voting against equal rights is an action of intolerance and oppression.

   and it doesn’t matter what ethnic group you come from or who you work with or what relationships you’ve been involved with…

   bigotry is still bigotry.

   By not richard but dick ·  Posted on Apr 6, 05:31 PM

10. “as for the supposed gay assault on christian values, your examples are interesting:..,”

    But they have been sued because an atheist wanted to join, they have stated time and time again you have to believe in God to be a boy scout. The Boy Scouts have been barred from hold meeting in schools, because they won’t admit GLBT. You might think that’s just, but it go to show you that tolerance only goes one way.

    And I hate to tell you this but there are many organizations where you have to be Jewish, or a Black, or a Muslim to be a member, and can’t be a member if you’re not, one of the FREEDOMS we have is that we don’t have to associate with people we don’t want too. If you remember right I was talking about the assault on core values when I brought up the pledge. Of course those groups don’t have any problem meeting in schools.

    “and the slippery slope argument that soon we’ll all be marrying dogs just doesn’t fly with anyone who has even a lick of sense, so i’m not even bothering with that one.”

    I never said anything about marrying dogs, I pointed out that if you limit marriage to two people you are stopping PEOPLE from the practice of polygyny and polyandry, who are you to say how many people I can love and marry, if two men can marry why can’t I have two wives? Are you really trying to say a person can only love one other person? Do you hate people who love more than one other person, to the point where you would stop them from getting married? Can you honestly say there is that big of a difference between polygyny, polyandry and GLBT marriage? Yes it is a slippery slope, sometimes it’s a good thing, sometimes it not. But I can just about guarantee that if you have GLBT marriages the next lawsuit will be over of polygyny and polyandry.

    “then we have the idea of gays getting special protection under the law vs. innocent church…”

    Again you are putting words in my mouth I never said the church was innocent, I pointed out that if a church goer was to assault a LGBT person they would face a bigger penalties then a LGBT person assaulting a church goer.

    “secondly, you may not have heard, but hate crimes go BOTH WAYS..”

    Maybe but I’ve NEVER heard of a GLBT being charged with a hate crime, I’m not saying it hasn’t happened but I’ve never heard of it. But I’ve heard of many a person being charge with a hate crime just because the person claimed to be GLBT.

    “yes, i was paraphrasing your argument about intolerance towards mormons..”

    The point I was trying to make was that the VERY people telling others they HAVE to be tolerant, refuse to tolerate people who disagree with them. I can understand that you can disagree with a person, I believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman, but if the state law stated otherwise I would still believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I would follow state and federal law, I wouldn’t be in front of a gay church protesting that I didn’t get my way. That is tolerance, I don’t agree but I will follow the law. I might work to change the law, and if you wish go ahead and change the law, and if the law changes I will accept the change, but don’t go calling people names, and protesting in front of their church.

    It would have been much better if there was a gathering in a neutral place say at night in a park with everyone holding a candle with a spokes person saying, “We are sadden that the people of California today showed fear of the unknown. While I can understand their fear, we can’t agree with them. They have nothing to fear and we will continue to work to change the law, so that everyone can be free to marry who they wish. Let these candles be our happiness and as we put out the candles let those who fear us understand it is the light of our happiness they have extinguished, but one day soon we will light our candles once again and share the joy of our happiness with everyone.”

    Then let the people put out the candles. There no name calling, no protesting in front of churches, no getting people fired from their jobs, just tolerance of other people’s point of view and getting their point across.

    “beyond that, painting the LGBT community as the intolerant ones is really a willfully ignorant act. is it intolerant to protest a group that..”

    Now imagine that Prop 8 failed and there were protest in front of the GLBT headquarters, can you honestly say you would support their stand? Or would you say, “The people have spoken, it’s now the law of the land.” Would you be willing to stand out with the “bigots” and say it’s their right to protest, I think not.

    “that’s a fair parsing of your words, right? my point stands: yes, the government can send cops to shut down lenny bruce,.. one example of government oppression still doesn’t justify another…”

    How many examples do you want, California hate speech law, the law, SB1234, classifies as “hate speech” any public expression that makes certain citizens feels “unwelcome” or “intimidated.” Anyone found guilty of using such expressions could face six months in prison and a $25,000 fine.

    GLBT, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes “hate speech.” It’s all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast—whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it’s hate speech.

    So by law if I just make a GLBT person feel uncomfortable, let’s say by saying marriage should only be between one man and one woman, I could be facing six months in prison and a $25,000 fine. But of course if you attack the Mormons you’re safe. There’s tolerance for you.

    “the paragraph about legal definitions is a little tough to follow…i’m imaging that the drugs were either kicking in or wearing off by this point…”

    Now you assume I’m taking drugs, the only “drugs” I take regulate my blood sugar and blood pressure. What I was point out and perhaps not too clearly ( I was in a hurry and didn’t proof read my statement that closely) was that GLBT marriage may be doomed at the federal and state level no matter what the state of California does. Under article IV, the Full Faith Credit clause, it may be illegal for any state to marry anyone other than one man and one woman.

    Under article IV (US Constitution) “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” Basically for our needs if you are married in one state the other state MUST recognized it. Since we have states where the state Constitution forbids marriage except between one man and one woman, can one state be force to recognize a marriage that by its Constitution it can’t recognize? And can a state by its Constitution stop another state from issuing marriage licenses to people who marriage it can’t recognize? Who trumps who? I hope that was more clear. (I’m willing to bet the court will run away from this one.)

    “there was, in fact, an existing legal definition of “marriage” in california before prop 8..”

    And here it is from 1971 to 1977 the state of California used gender-neutral pronouns California Civil Code § 4100 defined marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” This definition was uniformly interpreted as including only opposite-sex partners, but, because of worries that the language was unclear, Bill No. 67 was proposed and later passed to “prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage.” The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” So the law was unclear and bill 67 cleared it up. It was the California Supreme Court that decided this definition of marriage was too narrow. So really the law read between a man and a woman, but the court thought it was too narrow and overruled it. So the law of the land from 1977 until a judge overturned it was marriage was between a man and a woman.

    “No it didn’t, it defined the word marriage, the JUDGE said that the word marriage..”

    Again when it law was written it was understood that it meant between one man and one woman, and the state was worried that it was unclear defined the word, and the people through Prop 8 told the court that the word marriage meant one man one woman.

    “bigotry is still bigotry.”

    Again with the names, its bigotry if you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. It just can’t be my opinion, can it? I have to intolerant of GLBT, don’t I?

    I’m much more tolerant then you believe, I’ve been to gay weddings, I’ve been to interracial weddings, I’ve been to Native American weddings, I’ve been to gay bars, and was hit on by gay men. My friend is gay and she didn’t feel comfortable going outside her area so I went to a bar in her area, and yes my gay friends know how I feel about marriage, they don’t all agree with me, but they also know I’ll be happy for them if they do get married. My opinion doesn’t mean I’m a bigot, it means I have an opinion, I can see both sides and understand both sides, I may not agree with GLBT getting married, but that doesn’t mean I’m not happy for them.

    But you seem happy to put a label on people who don’t agree with you, bigot, homophobe, perhaps some other name, but that shows how intolerant YOU are, notice I don’t call people names, I accept they have an opinion and it’s their opinion. While I may not agree with it, I don’t call them names, neither you nor I have had their life experiences, they have some very bad experiences with one group, GLBT, Jews, Blacks, Native Americas, or whatever. They may feel they have a good reason to feel the way they feel, they believe the other person lifestyle is a sin, again their opinion. That doesn’t make them a bigot, it make them human with opinions.

    By Richard ·  Posted on Apr 6, 10:12 PM

11. your examples at the top still don’t establish any sort of “assault” perpetrated by gay people on christian values… you seem to have conflated gay people with athiests. so perhaps athiests should be prevented from marrying, too, since their beliefs also go against those of most churches.

    just because you’ve never heard of a case of a christian claiming hate crime protection doesn’t mean they’re not included. regardless of whether it’s utilized, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have the same protection under the law. EQUAL rights.

    and maybe you haven’t heard about gay people beating up christians because it happens so much more rarely than the opposite scenario…? i think we can agree that that is in fact the case. and yet you still paint the LGBT community as the only intolerant ones because they protested a ruling that stripped them of a civil right…?

    not to mention you seem to have such a huge problem with gay people protesting, saying that they should just “get over it” and move on…isn’t there hypocrisy in not “getting over it” when judges overturned the first law and putting prop 8 on the ballot in the first place…?

    but again, we’ve really gotten way off topic…

    you’ve made three big points about why you support a ban on gay marriage (as far as i can tell):

    1.) it’s a slippery slope. if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow polygamy.

    i tried to brush this one off, but since you insist on an explanation of the slippery slope fallacy, (and since others reading this may encounter similar small-mindedness during other debates over this issue in the future) here it is:

    each step taken by society is an independent step. the rules we make are always changing, and just because we take one step does not mean that we will automatically take another. years ago, many argued that interracial marriage would be a similarly slippery slope towards polygamy. but you’ll notice that it hasn’t happened yet, has it? might someone use gay marriage as an argument to promote polygamy? probably. does it mean that society has to allow it? no. there are laws against marrying different people of different ages. does raising or lowering the age of consent suddenly cause a slippery slope to allow marriages to only occur between those who are very old or very young? no. society doesn’t work that way. so be not afraid of the slippery slope. gay marriage is not a gateway drug. it’s just the right thing to do.

    2.) the Full Faith and Credit clause will be a problem.

    obviously NO state would ever be able to make ANY law if this was an issue. again, look at the legal age of marriage consent. look at voting/property rights for women and blacks. don’t worry: we’ll work it out. i doubt that this is really why you’re standing against gay marriage.

    3.) Gays are intolerant and hate crime/hate speech laws are unfair. So they don’t deserve the right to marry!

    clearly there’s some sort of grudge against what you perceive as the actions of the majority of the gay community. the bulk of your posts address perceived one-way intolerance and complaints against “special” rights and privileges that gays get (regardless of the reasons, and regardless of whether or not such inequality even exists).

    you seem coherent enough to recognize that no matter how despicable you find a group to be, their basic civil rights should be protected.

    would i agree that yes-on-8 people have a right to protest? absolutely!! i already mentioned the right of neo-nazis to express their unpopular opinions. (not to conflate nazis and prop 8 supporters…although i’d wager they both voted the same way…..)

    it’s not about whether or not you agree with me that causes me to describe you as a bigot, richard…it’s whether or not you’re voting in the interest of equality or in the interest of oppression. “bigot” is not a label, it’s a word with a very clear definition.

    and if you’re voting against equal rights for the reasons i’ve surmised, then you happen to fit that definition.

    By not richard but dick ·  Posted on Apr 7, 09:31 PM

12. “your examples at the top still don’t establish any sort of “assault” perpetrated by gay people on christian values… “

    OK how many do you want, we’ve covered the Boy Scout who have been banned from holding meeting in many public placed because they won’t admit GLBT’s, while allowing GLBT to hold meeting in the same public places.

    How about teaching kindergartner’s to be GLBT allies and will participate in “Coming Out Day” at a public elementary school of course they didn’t tell the parents.

    How about making kindergartners sign pledges to be an ally of GLBT, again without informing the parents.

    Basically those two are telling children their parents and churches who disagree with the GLBT lifestyle are wrong. How’s that for undermining christen values.

    How about GLBT trying to FORCE, in court, churches to accept them, even when it goes against the teaching of the church.

    How about GLBT trying to FORCE a church in court to marry them.

    How about GLBT changing stories so that they have a GLBT twist, and reading them to kindergartners.

    Do you really want me to go on? Want to try any of that with a non-GLBT bent? How about I have kindergartner’s sign a pledge to uphold the values of being straight? Or a have a “Proud to be a straight day” and not inform the parents ahead of time. I can see the lawsuits now? How about we ban a group from using public places for not allowing straight people in? Can you see the lawsuits?

    Yes, freedom, as long as you do what we say, and if you dare not to let in a GLBT, even if the SUPREME COURT says you don’t have too, you will be punished.

    Like I said there’s tolerance for you.

    “1.) it’s a slippery slope. if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow polygamy.”

    Really, so you’re against rights of people who wish to marry whoever they wish. You are willing to say that two women can’t marry the same man, even though they both love him? Are you willing to deny those two women to RIGHT to marry whoever they wish? So you really don’t want the people to marry whoever they wish, do you?

    “2.) the Full Faith and Credit clause will be a problem.”

    But in those cases it’s the law of the state, each state can make it own laws, and even if one’s states laws differ from another BOTH states HAVE to recognize a marriage, as long as that person was legally married in one state ALL states HAVE to recognize it. So if the legal age to marry in one state say New Hampshire is 13, but in Mississippi they can’t even issue a marriage license to anyone under 15, so a 13 year old girl gets married in New Hampshire and moves to Mississippi when she is 13, she is still married and Mississippi HAS to recognized it, even though she couldn’t even be issued a marriage license in Mississippi, that’s what the Full Faith and Credit clause mean. But we now have states where their constitution forbids them to recognize GLBT marriage, so there can’t be Full Faith and Credit. The problem isn’t the law it’s the state’s constitution. You are confusing state law, with a state’s constitution. That’s why it’s a federal problem.

    “3.) Gays are intolerant and hate crime/hate speech laws are unfair. So they don’t deserve the right to marry!”

    “…their basic civil rights should be protected”

    First I’ve never said that, you seem to like putting word in my mouth, so let me be clear. I have said that my OPINION is that marriage is between one man and one woman, you seem to be of the OPINION that marriage is only between two people, I know people who think that anyone should be able to marry anyone they wish to as many people as they wish. So as long at marriage means what you think it should mean, that is between two people only, then you don’t seem to have a problem discriminating against others who don’t agree with that.

    That was also in responses to you, I was pointing out that, the GLBT have special rights that the rest of the world doesn’t have. You seem to be worried about the basic civil rights, but we’ve seen GLBT and others given special “rights” and protection, even at the expense of the rights of others. I find it funny that those who say GLBT marriage is about basic civil rights don’t seem to have too much of a problem with stepping on the rights of others. It seems GLBT and others really don’t care too much about the rights of others, but get offended if they perceive their rights being violated.

    “bigot” – One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    It is also a derogatory term used to describe a person who is intolerant, ignorant and narrow minded.

    I’m very well informed about the issue of GLBT marriage so I’d say I’m not ignorant, I’m more than willing to listen to arguments of the other side so I’d say I’m open minded (even if you don’t agree with that I’m more than willing to listen to your argument), and I’m more than willing to follow the law if GLBT is legal (so I would and have tolerated a GLBT marriage), so where do I fit the definition? Yes I have strong opinions, but if that all it takes then you are one too, you are intolerant of those who differ with you.

    “and if you’re voting against equal rights for the reasons i’ve surmised, then you happen to fit that definition”

    I vote with way I vote because of my OPINIONS, people can and have changed my OPINION on many issues.

    But I’ve also notice that you ignore a lot of points I’ve made. You stated that definition there was a definition of the word marriage before prop 8, and I point out that there was and it was a union one man and one woman, and it was a judge that decided that that definition too narrow and overruled it. So until recently the word marriage meant one man and one woman. Sorry but that’s what it meant, it was a group of judges who decided that the definition was too narrow, now they have a choice, overrule prop 8 and face a backlash like they’ve never seen before, or uphold Prop 8 and be seen as weak willed by the people who support GLBT marriages.

    By richard ·  Posted on Apr 8, 10:41 AM