The Boiled Frog Blog

Boil a frog slowly and it fails to appreciate its own peril.

Subscribe to Comments

Comment RSS

 

   Although I speak from my own experience, I feel that no one has the right to impose his or her beliefs on another person.
14th Dalai Lama

 

So Who is Funding Proposition 8?

Submitted by David Hart on Wed, 07/16/2008 - 15:48
Image

California Proposition 8, on the November ballot seeks to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. ImageThis would nullify the recent court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. To date (as of July 16, 2008), ProtectMarriage.com has raised $3,547,548. Here is a list of the donors with total contributions over $1,000. A separate table follows and provides details of contributions to the largest donor, National Organization for Marriage:

We will update the data weekly

Contributor City State Employer Occupation TotalContrib
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA CA 1,617,170
FIELDSTEAD AND CO. IRVINE CA 800,000
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY COLORADO SPRINGS CO 522,355
WILLIAM BOLTHOUSE AVILA BEACH CA N/A NOT EMPLOYED 200,000
ANDREW PUGNO FOLSOM CA LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW PUGNO ATTORNEY 35,000
PROP. 22 LEGAL DEFENSE FUND SACRAMENTO CA 30,000
LAW OFFICE OF CHUCK LIMANDRI RANCHO SANTA FE CA 27,000
SAN DIEGO ROCK CHURCH SAN DIEGO CA 25,679
ALLYSON WEINBERG SANTA ROSA VALLEY CA N/A NOT EMPLOYED 25,000
DALE BROOME REDLANDS CA LOMA LINDA RADIOLOGY MED. GRP. PHYSICIAN 25,000
KENNETH ELDRED PORTOLA VALLEY CA LIVING STONES FDTN. CEO 25,000
ROBERT HURTT ORANGE CA CONTAINER SUPPLY EXECUTIVE 25,000
ROLAND HINZ VALENCIA CA HI-TORQUE PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHER 25,000
EDWARD ATSINGER III CAMARILLO CA SALEM COMMUNICATIONS BROADCASTER 12,500
EDWARD ATSINGER CAMARILLO CA SALEM COMMUNICATIONS BROADCASTER 12,500
STEPHEN RIDINGER CAMARILLO CA EVETS CORPORATION OWNER/PRESIDENT 10,000
GRETCHEN KIEDING SOLVANG CA N/A NOT EMPLOYED 10,000
KENNETH PAYTON GARDEN GROVE CA N/A NOT EMPLOYED 10,000
C. JIM ELAM SANTA YNEZ CA AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INC. CONSULTANT 8,000
DALE BROOME MD REDLANDS CA LOMA LINDA RADIOLOGY MED. GRP. PHYSICIAN 7,600
RICHARD CLEMENTS ELMWOOD NE CLEMENTS & DREVO ATTORNEY 5,000
TAXPAYERS FOR HOLLINGSWORTH SACRAMENTO CA 5,000
RICHARD SPENCER CARMEL CA DICK SPENCER & ASSOC. INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 5,000
STRONGTOWER FINANCIAL, INC. FRESNO CA 5,000
M & D DEVELOPMENT, LLC CORONA CA 5,000
MR. STEPHEN RIDINGER CAMARILLO CA EVETS CORPORATION OWNER/PRESIDENT 5,000
THE FAMILY ACTION PAC NEWPORT BEACH CA 2,000
CALVARY CHAPEL OF CHINO HILLS CHINO CA 2,000
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL HOLLAND MI 1,410
ANNE HOFFMAN SAN DIEGO CA HOMEMAKER 1,116
MR. RICHARD KURTZ CAPE ELIZABETH ME RETIRED 1,000
MR. ROBERT EICHENBERG NEWPORT BEACH CA ELLISON EDUCATIONAL EQUIP. INC. CO-BUSINESS OWNER 1,000
MRS. OLIVIA LEE CHINO CA MICHAEL T. LEE GRADING & PAVING SELF-EMPLOYED 1,000
MR. PAUL MILLER II EAST HANOVER NJ PAUL MILLER AUTO GROUP OWNER 1,000
TAMARA SEYMOUR SAN DIEGO CA FAVRILLE INC CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 1,000
TRADITIONAL FAMILY COALITION SUNNYVALE CA 1,000

 

Here are the $1,000 and more donors to the National Organization for Marriage

 

Contributor City State Employer Occupation TotalContrib
NEW HAVEN CT NONE or N/A N/A 1,000,000
TUPELO MS NONE or N/A N/A 500,000
LA JOLLA CA REISUNG ENTERPRISES REAL ESTATE 500,000
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HEADQUARTERS NEW HAVEN CT 500,000
LA JOLLA CA REISUNG ENTERPRISES REAL ESTATE 500,000
BRYN MAWR PA JOHN TEMPLETON FOUNDATION PRESIDENT 450,000
BRYN MAWR PA JOHN TEMPLETON FOUNDATION PRESIDENT 450,000
TERRY CASTER SAN DIEGO CA CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES CEO 445,000
WASHINGTON DC NONE or N/A N/A 409,000
SAN DIEGO CA 400,000
IRVINE CA NONE or N/A N/A 300,000
PROVO UT 300,000
GARDEN GROVE CA HURTT JR. REAL ESTATE PRESIDENT 250,000
COLORADO SPRINGS CO 250,000
GARDEN GROVE CA 250,000
YORBA LINDA CA J & L CONSULTING, INC. OWNER / SELF-EMPLOYED 250,000
IRVINE CA 250,000
NEW HAVEN CT 250,000
HOLLAND MI NONE or N/A RETIRED 250,000
ALPINE UT 200,000
HOLLAND MI NONE or N/A RETIRED 200,000
ALPINE UT ESNET, LTD. INVESTMENT MANAGER 200,000
WASHINGTON DC 200,000
LA VERNE CA NONE or N/A RETIRED 150,000
NEW HAVEN CT 150,000
IRVINE CA 150,000
SAN DIEGO CA 125,000
MANCHESTER FINANCIAL GROUP SAN DIEGO CA 125,000
DOUG MANCHESTER SAN DIEGO CA MANCHESTER FINANCIAL GROUP CHAIRMAN 125,000
CORONA CA NONE or N/A N/A 125,000
CACHE UT 100,000
SCC UT THE BYRON COMPANY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER 100,000
LAGUNA BEACH CA NO AMERICAN HEALTH CARE DIRECTOR CHAIRMAN 100,000
BRYN MAWR PA NONE or N/A NONE 100,000
REDMOND WA CRYSTAL SPRINGS FOUNDATION PRESIDENT 100,000
IRVINE CA 100,000
IRVINE CA 100,000
IRVINE CA 100,000
IRVINE CA 100,000
AVILA BEACH CA NONE or N/A UNEMPLOYED 100,000
IRVINE CA 100,000
AVILA BEACH CA NONE or N/A UNEMPLOYED 100,000
COLORADO SPRINGS CO 100,000
IDAHO FALLS ID NONE or N/A N/A 100,000
BRYN MAWR PA NONE or N/A NONE 100,000
LAGUNA BEACH CA GENERALTION HEALTH CARE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES 100,000
BREA CA NONE or N/A N/A 100,000
BAKERSFIELD CA SELF-WHEELWRIGHT CONSULTING CONSULTANT 100,000
SAN DIEGO CA CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 100,000
LAGUNA BEACH CA GENERALTION HEALTH CARE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES 100,000
BRYN MAWR PA N/A NONE 100,000
SALT LAKE CITY UT THE BYRON COMPANY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 100,000
CACHE UT WATERMARK INVESTMENTS, LC INVESTMENTS 100,000
BOUNTIFUL UT NONE or N/A N/A 100,000
IRVINE CA 100,000
ROGER BENSON LA JOLLA CA N/A NONE 100,000
BRYN MAWR PA NONE or N/A NONE 100,000
MESA AZ 100,000
IRVINE CA 95,000
NEWPORT BEACH CA NONE or N/A N/A 75,000
WASHINGTON DC 64,250
SAN DIEGO CA CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 62,500
BIG SUR CA SELF/DICK SPENCER ASSOCIATES INVESTOR 60,000
ADAMO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CO. LAKESIDE CA 60,000
BELLEVUE WA THERMO KING NORTHWEST CONSULTANT 50,000
SAN CLEMENTE CA 50,000
WEST DES MOINES IA STEPHEN GRUBB CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 50,000
DALLAS TX NONE or N/A N/A 50,000
SAN DIEGO CA NONE or N/A RETIRED 50,000
MURRAY UT NONE or N/A HOMEMAKER 50,000
LIBERTYVILLE IL FENWAL BLOOD TECHNOLOGIES BUSINESS EXEC 50,000
MANCHESTER MO BIOCOLD ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE MANAGER 50,000
SAN CARLOS CA SELF-WILDE INVESTMENTS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT 50,000
GLENDALE CA AMERICAN ENERGY CORPORATIONS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 50,000
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA ALPHADON CONSULTANT 50,000
RCH PALOS VRD CA NONE or N/A HOMEMAKER 50,000
SACRAMENTO CA NONE or N/A RETIRED 50,000
BARRINGTON RI N/A NONE 50,000
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA N/A RETIRED 50,000
SACRAMENTO CA NONE or N/A RETIRED 50,000
ATHERTON CA ALLRED INVESTORS PRIVATE INVESTOR 50,000
CORONA DEL MAR CA THE FIELDSTONE CORP. CHAIRMAN 50,000
MANCHESTER MO BIOCOLD ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE MANAGER 50,000
POWAY CA RM PROPERTIES PRESIDENT 50,000
ROBERT HOEHN CARLSBAD CA HOEHN MOTORS PRES. 50,000
GERALD SIMONSEN POWAY CA RM PROPERTIES PRES. 50,000
CALIF. STATE COUNCIL KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS FONTANA CA 50,000
JOSHUA BAKER MANCHESTER MO BIOCOLD ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE MANAGER 50,000
POTOMAC MD FOULGER-PRATT CO. INVESTMENT BUILDER 50,000
BARRINGTON RI N/A NONE 50,000
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA N/A RETIRED 50,000
LA JOLLA CA NONE or N/A NONE 50,000
BOUNTIFUL UT HENRY MARSH CONSULTANT 49,000
WELLINGTON FL HUNTSMAN GAY GLOBAL CAPITAL PRIVATE EQUITY 49,000
ALPINE UT SORENSON CAPITAL MANAGING DIRECTOR 49,000
KAHUKU HI H. DINWOODIE MARSH CONSULTANT 49,000
BRIAN CASTER EL CAJON CA CASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISES CEO 48,200
LAIE HI BYU HAWAII PRESIDENT 44,900
LAIE HI N/A HOMEMAKER 43,900
NEWPORT BEACH CA MHI REAL COMPANY PRESIDENT 42,000
Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Newsvine
  • Technorati

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 15:10.
12 Reasons to Vote YES on Prop 8 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. 10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians. FYI - The Driver's license and drinking age arguments are invalid. If you are "underage" at one time in your life you are "of age" at another. Those are not even comparable points or contrast. If we ultimately have to have an argument on what the definition of marriage should be, I don't think it should exclude sexes. If people are going to get squemish and assume that people will start marrying their animals and children and relatives I don't see why the definition can't just be make a legal marrying age and state that it is to include humans only.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 17:25.
Fuck all of you. All of these reasons to vote yes are discriminating and wrong. I cant believe all of u believe all this. I'm going to laugh when this prop fails in 2 days.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 11/17/2008 - 17:57.
Ummmmm..it's been two days and the prop hasn't fallen! YES ON 8

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 01:12.
um, it's obviously a joke.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 15:04.
fricken hilarious! thank you. and, true to form, it only took one commenter to not get the joke and instead dive right into to NAMBLA! funny stuff if it weren't so scary.

Submitted by David Hart on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 15:22.

This is the gay equivalent of Godwin's law; "As an Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Hart's law: "As an Internet discussion involving GLBT issues grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving NAMBLA or bestiality approaches one."

Godwin was a Nazi -;)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 21:27.
HA! good point, but if it's scientific, we may want to balance your threory out with a little "intelligent design." also, it's always good to dub things Jesus' lend automatic credence to your arguments, esp amongst these believers. so can we make it Jesus's NABMLA Law of Hart's Relativity?

Submitted by H N on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 00:59.
1. I kind of do accept your proposal for the definition of marriage. However, as stated before, this will give other groups a precedence to base their arguments upon. For example, the NAMBLA group, will argue regarding the legal age and it already met the second requirement. Regarding your post, homosexuality itself is a diversion of marriage, is it not? I'm sorry to say this blandly but if you put a naked man and a naked woman togeter, they fit. Two men/two women, you can force them to fit in places that it shouldn't fit into. Now, I don't know much about how the GLBT does it, but everyone can see that ... I hope. Now, for your analogies, you should think about the purpose behind each. 2-8. When were these part of the argument? Besides, homosexuals can still marry, as they have been doing. 9. Oh, a man have been married to his dog: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21768663/ Oh, this should be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage As said, NAMBLA organization are trying to legalize underage marriage/sex. Not a wish anymore is it? Are these assumptions any more? Who are the ones assuming? 10. Hey, that's the stats. Whatever you say will not change this. Homosexuality, adultery, the desecration of the God's laws left these side effects on society. 11-12. Now, you are not even making sense. Those analogies are to point out that there are separation everywhere within our society, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Like the legal age, who are we to determine the legal age? Is not separation? Regarding marriage/civil union, you can say marriage is the legal age, and civil union is not, can you not? Gays can come into marriage, when they've reached the requirements, can they not? If they do not meet the requirements, their union will be a civil union. Eventhough you've humored me with your sarcasm, and sometimes have truly pointed out the absurdity that exists in our society, you're still trapped within your own bias, and you don't get it. Our society is the way we are because of the lies that people has bought into from the beginning of time to now: You will not die (spiritually nor physically) from disobeying God. Look at where we are right now! Trying to rationalize our sins, proud in the ignorance our dying spiritual and moral awareness. Now I've been chewing on this subject for quite a while now. I would like to say this: I have informed you of our arguments, that they are not based on scare tactics but on facts. More importantly, I have informed you of what God feels about sin and His message of salvation. The outcome of this proposition will either be yes/no, and God already knows. If it's yes, I'll be happy. If no, you'll be happy. Either way, we will have to answer for our choices, here on Earth, or at God's judgment seat. For all the GLBT out there, God's message is love, but His Word is "... living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12. What are your heart's intentions? "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." Galatians 6:7-8 Regardless of the outcome, I hope we all can live to see its results. Hopefully then, you will see the goodness of God as you remember this discussion.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/29/2008 - 12:38.
The so-called Christians who oppose equal rights for gay people are going to go down in history as the same type of Christians who selectively used passages from the Bible to support slavery and oppose women's voting rights. The fact is, gay people DO exist, and our loves and lives are every bit as valuable and worthy as heterosexuals'. Marriage has been defined and redefined for millennia. In Biblical times, polygamy was the norm. For a long time, it was a property arrangement where a husband "owned" his wife. At one point, even interracial marriage was banned--and so-called "good Christians" misused the Bible to justify that, too. The anti-fairness folks write about gay people as if they actually knew what they are talking about. They think only about sex. They seldom consider the daily lives of gay couples, and the ordinary acts of love and kindness that make their relationships beautiful. If a gay person wishes to pass his entire estate to his partner tax-free at death, why should he be prevented? Under current law, only married couples can do that. There is no valid justification for this kind of unfairness. The simple solution is to grant gay people the same rights as heterosexuals, just as countries like Norway, Canada, South Africa and Spain have done. The march toward full equality is unstoppable, because it is based on LOVE. If the antigay folks were honest, they'd admit their fight stems from hatred, fear and ignorance. This is a sad condition, but love will overcome.

Submitted by Mitchell Way (not verified) on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 13:36.
The bottom line is, you don't have the authority under the Consitution of the United States of America, to impose your religious beliefs upon others. Currently there are benefits and provisions being granted to people who marry, regardless of a religious or civil agreement, and you absolutely cannot grant those benefits to one group and not another. Oh, and seperate but equal is not allowed either. If you don't like it, maybe your bigoted self-righteous hypocritical sect should go to another country, because I'm pretty sure when our forefathers founded this nation, it was to escape the same kind of imposition that you bigots are putting on us right now. Peace out.

Submitted by Mitchell Way (not verified) on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 13:28.
The bottom line is, you don't have the authority under the Consitution of the United States of America, to impose your religious beliefs upon others. Currently there are benefits and provisions being granted to people who marry, regardless of a religious or civil agreement, and you absolutely cannot grant those benefits to one group and not another. Oh, and seperate but equal is not allowed either. If you don't like it, maybe your bigoted ass should go to another country, because I'm pretty sure when our forefathers founded this nation, it was to escape the same kind of imposition that you fuckers are putting on us right now. Peace out.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 01:15.
I really wish that you could see how this has nothing to do with the kind of sex people have. That is no one's business but the people having it. You may say that you will not have any kind of sex other than woman-man sex, but that does not mean that man-man or woman-woman sex is wrong, nor is it any of your business who is doing it and why. Likewise, so what a man married his dog. Just because you will not marry your dog does not mean that it is wrong to this man. Leave it be, it's neither your business nor mine. I also wish you could see that your religious opinions have no place in this argument. We are talking about logic and society and people, not religion, and the long windedness of your arguments is based around views that are not shared by many of the others here, and so are rendered irrelevant to them. They mean nothing and are wasted. Many people do not believe that they are pitiful beings who are misbehaving. They do not believe that they need saving, they are simply living, and aught to be let to live. These arguments have been revolving around trying to make a point against this amendment logically. Unfortunately, I see no logic in spouting bible verses and condemnations of pity and repent. The last thing people need is to feel like they are pitiful beings who need to feel sorry for acting in a natural way to their kind. Unfortunately others can't tell when to leave well enough alone. You are not helping anyone.

Submitted by H N on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 01:53.
I do understand your points. I am a Christian and to tell people about the message of salvation is my ultimate goal, that's why I jumped on it when the people who've posted here misrepresented the image of God. I understand your moral relativism, and tolerance; I just wished to voice my opinions regarding that attitude, but I also know that your tolerance doesn't tolerate this. You should see that all of the arguments for prop 8 has grounded reasons on things that has actually happened, not as the Ads, blogs, opinion articles stated. They are not lies. You should be watching out for those who tries to misinform you. Prop 22 passed and it defined marriage. It got struck down. If we don't give a definition, we won't have one. If we give another definition, we are potentially stuck in a trend of re-defining marriage and related laws. Of course, for people like me, this decision also include my religious opinions. I'm sorry for my long windedness, I do not have talents for sarcasm, nor wit, nor charm. I can't help to try and be comprehensive, but in trying to answer everyone, the original argument was confused. I understand that this forum does not accept me. That you want to do things your own ways and do not care what truth I have to offer because you don't care and don't want to care. I just wanted to hang around, hoping someone does care, but I respect your decisions. I will not be posting in this forum anymore.

Submitted by Sharon (not verified) on Fri, 10/10/2008 - 16:42.
THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE A YES vote on Proposition 8 is protects our freedom and the divine institution of marriage, which has been in existence since the world began with Adam and Eve. It is the no vote that is trying to change the meaning of marriage. Under California law, gay or lesbian domestic partners “shall have the same rights, protection and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code 297.5). Proposition 8 will not change this…it just won’t be called marriage, and public school teachers would not have to tell children it is the same as marriage. Voting NO takes away our freedom: 1. Public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. 2. Churches may be sued over their tax exemption status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their own religious buildings. 3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and father. 4. Private school may be required to provide student housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine. 5. Free Speech will be taken away from church leaders & teachers who preach against same-sex marriages. 6. Litigation…the change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits against those who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman: photographers who refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors who refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even when given other willing doctors names; ministers who will not perform same sex marriages, and many more. Marriage between a man and woman is a sacred institution put into existence by a loving Heavenly Father and is the corner stone of his great plan to bring children into this world. Please join me and many others in voting YES on Proposition 8 and keep traditional marriage safe.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 19:32.
The US Government has made the issue of same-sex marriage a moral one, plain and simple. The US Government is not the religious or moral judge of its citizens. Marriage should not be seen as an institution (especially not a government institution), but rather as a sacred bond between two people. The US Government should rather concern itself about (and spend our tax money on) key issues like education, healthcare, poverty, security and the overall welfare of its citizens. Tolerance in all forms is critical to the survival of a free society, one that prides itself on the basic civil rights of all its citizens and of all human beings.

Submitted by Ashlie (not verified) on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:33.
"Under California law, gay or lesbian domestic partners “shall have the same rights, protection and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code 297.5). Proposition 8 will not change this…it just won’t be called marriage, and public school teachers would not have to tell children it is the same as marriage." -Why do all these arguments revolve around children and perceived ill-effects this will have on them? Are people really that easily swayed that the word "child" makes them cry? If adults are openly intollerant of equality, what are we telling these "innocent children"? If these children are our "future" what are we setting our future society up for? Hate, discrimination and the idea that beacuse someone is different they aught to be judged based upon religious standards that are intollerant and evil? Teachers in public schools shouldn't have to tell children that heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. They should know that they are the same. "Public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage" - It is "just as good" as traditional marriage. There is no difference other thanthe sex of the two people. They are just as able to raise well-balanced, socially sensitive and productive children in society. "Churches may be sued over their tax exemption status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their own religious building" - Churches and other religious organizations should not even enjoy tax-exempt status to begin with. "Refuse to allow" is a key statement there, no one has any right to refuse anyone to marry. "Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and father" -"Long-held" does not translate into "Rightly-held". it is ignorant to assume that same-sex couples cannot rear well-balanced children. "Private school may be required to provide student housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine" -And that is wrong why? Everyone, no matter what their sexual preference, should be allowed to have the same opportunities. "Free Speech will be taken away from church leaders & teachers who preach against same-sex marriages" -There is no current ammendment that states that religions will have to stop preaching that homosexuals are the reason for all the hate, war and death in our country. You can all continue to do that as you always have. Congratulations. "Litigation…the change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits against those who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman: photographers who refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors who refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even when given other willing doctors names; ministers who will not perform same sex marriages, and many more" -As they should be! Intollerance is unacceptable, and religion cannot be used to justify it. Marriage is a state institution, not a religious one. Perhaps it would be better to be tollerant than ignorant and evil-minded. "Marriage between a man and woman is a sacred institution put into existence by a loving Heavenly Father and is the corner stone of his great plan to bring children into this world." -Once again, the god of the christian religion did not approve of marriage or heterosexual relations. It was said again and again that it was better for the men to castrate themselves than to enter into such carnal sin as sexual relations with another human. Read you book. Also, just because a very old, very misleading, very poorly translated and very mistakenly understood book stated that humans were to be fruitful and fill the earth does not mean that our current world needs more reproduction! Over-population is no ones "great plan". To vote yes is to be truly evil and corrupt. Those who are opposed to homosexual union are perverted to be so obsessed with this issue. This should not even 'be' an issue on the ballot! No one has any right!

Submitted by H N on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 02:37.
"Hate, discrimination and the idea that beacuse someone is different they aught to be judged based upon religious standards that are intollerant and evil?" How is defining marriage a discrimination, intollerant and evil? As previously mentioned, GLBT can still marry. Their marriage will not be legalized by law. They can still have rights under a domestic partnership... "Teachers in public schools shouldn’t have to tell children that heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. They should know that they are the same." Teachers are teaching children regarding homosexual marriages and parents' rights to raise their child are being violated: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/ "It is “just as good” as traditional marriage. There is no difference other thanthe sex of the two people. They are just as able to raise well-balanced, socially sensitive and productive children in society... “Long-held” does not translate into “Rightly-held”. it is ignorant to assume that same-sex couples cannot rear well-balanced children." " · 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. · 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders come from fatherless homes. · 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. · 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. · 75% of all adolescent patients in drug abuse centres come from fatherless homes. · 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. " http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/whatabouththechildren.htm http://www.pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=51&sid=4fa9b1b7ea0386aa449ea5c0197cc1e7 http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fshivaid.htm "Churches and other religious organizations should not even enjoy tax-exempt status to begin with. “Refuse to allow” is a key statement there, no one has any right to refuse anyone to marry." Gay marriage is NOT a right. America needs to have a definition of marriage (a criteria) and that definition is proposed in Prop 8: a union between a man and a woman. We want a definition that all Americans can follow. It has never been written but it has always been the social norm - man and woman -> love -> marriage. Therefore, I can say that it is an implied criteria. Now that this traditional definition is under attack, we Christians believes that this fundamental definition should NOT be changed, and therefore we want to make this into law. This is like saying that you have to pass your driving test before you can drive. Should a person say that I'm being discriminated against because I'm young/I can't pass the driving test and the law has to be changed to accomodate their demands? Should our traditional definition be changed? It is our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. The GLBT can tell people that they are GLBT and are in love (freedom of speech), live together and get married (liberty/free will), and love each other (pursuit of happyness). It's just that they don't fit the definition of being married (as recognized by the law). Do we need to change our long held definition uniform over all race, nations, and time until now because of the proliferation of "out-of-the-closet" confessions? (Side note: Why, of all things unique about people and nations, that the definition of marriage has widely been held as between a man and a woman, and has not been under attack, until the celebrities in America started to "confess"? We Christians follow the Bible, who do you follow? It's the mentality to be tolderant nowadays. I wonder who introduced it? Tolerant to what point, I wonder?) If you disagree with this definition, read on. If marriage is just a union between any two individuals, why do you say that marriage between an adult and a child is wrong? Back in the days, the Chinese have older women marrying to very young child to be their nanny-wife. Of course, the relationship might never be consumated, but it was right in their culture for a while. There are places where children as young as 13, they got married. Who gave Americans the right to define the legal age to be an adult as 18? If those people become citizens of the US and decides that it's narrow minded to have the legal age as 18, will be lower it? If we keep on lowering the legal age, how long will it take for a 30 years old adult to be able to be legally married to a 13 years old "child"? The adult can say that I truly love this person and the "child" can say that s/he is mature enough in her decision to consent. Where do we draw the line? You've seen that 50+ years ago, the American society will never accept homosexuality to the point that we have a Hayes code to forbid inappropriate behaviors on screen. What makes you think that marriage between an older person and an "underage" child will be condemned 50+ years from now? Again I ask: where do we draw the line? But just for those who doesn't agree with this logical conclusion: "Homosexuals and pedophile" - The Christian fear is not unfounded. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/frightening_gay_statistics.htm "AB 2567 has passed the California Assembly and the Senate and is awaiting Governor Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. This bill will set aside May 22nd as a special day to celebrate the life of homosexual politician Harvey Milk in the public schools. Harvey Milk will be honored in the same manner as our Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King, although the only thing he is actually known for is being proud be be a homosexual!" Fortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed this bill on September 30. The rebuttal to Prop 8 says that voting no will not affect the educational system in any way. Really? Can you trust people who have lied to you? Put that aside: if same-sex marriage is legal, our children will be taught that both types of marriage is OK. What would we do if they later feel that we are narrow-minded and decides that the definition of marriage then is inclusive to animals? Some people LOVE their animals! I've heard of a CEO in the place I work for, who took a week off of work to tend his dog, who was sick. If married people cannot show each other this type of devotion, on what basis can we stop someone who can love this deeply from re-defining the definition of marriage? (I'm not saying that the CEO wants to get married to his dog, but there are many people who have committed beastiality, can't they use this argument?) “Everyone, no matter what their sexual preference, should be allowed to have the same opportunities." Even a 50-year old man and a 9 years old boy is OK to you? "No matter their sexual preference." "There is no current ammendment that states that religions will have to stop preaching that homosexuals are the reason for all the hate, war and death in our country. You can all continue to do that as you always have. Congratulations." Have you been to church? If you go to a church that preaches that, you obviously have not read your Bible to be able to distinguish between a wolf and a sheep. If you haven't been to a church, you should, before making such accusations on a public forum. "As they should be! Intollerance is unacceptable, and religion cannot be used to justify it. Marriage is a state institution, not a religious one. Perhaps it would be better to be tollerant than ignorant and evil-minded." Marriage was created by God. I believe you're an evolutionist though. "Intollerance is unacceptable." I wonder who is the intollerant one? You seem very intollerant about Christianity as a whole. We believe that homosexuality is a sin but we Christians are taught (by the Bible) to love everyone (the sinners). You are throwing out accusations and your own opinions, without any references to facts. I wonder who is the ignorant one? I guess you're tolerant to incest also, isn't it love? "Once again, the god of the christian religion did not approve of marriage or heterosexual relations. It was said again and again that it was better for the men to castrate themselves than to enter into such carnal sin as sexual relations with another human. Read you book. Also, just because a very old, very misleading, very poorly translated and very mistakenly understood book stated that humans were to be fruitful and fill the earth does not mean that our current world needs more reproduction! Over-population is no ones “great plan” I wonder which Bible you're reading from. "<< Genesis 2:18 >> New American Standard Bible (©1995) 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." "To vote yes is to be truly evil and corrupt. Those who are opposed to homosexual union are perverted to be so obsessed with this issue. This should not even ‘be’ an issue on the ballot! No one has any right!" We Christians do not want America to be another Sodom or Gomorrah, that's why this issue is so important. If you don't understand that reference, Google.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 01:22.
"63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. · 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders come from fatherless homes. · 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. · 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. · 75% of all adolescent patients in drug abuse centres come from fatherless homes. · 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home" so are you only against lesbian marriages? kids with two dads might be able to solve world hunger and bring world peace.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 21:48.
Corinthians?? 8 Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows - it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9 But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust. 1 Yes, it is better to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

Submitted by H N on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 23:44.
You've referenced I Corinthians Chapter 7. I really hoped that you will post everything (relevant) in its entirety, and not leave out crucial information. I'll fill in the missing pieces for you: "6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness." On the same subject, even with what you've posted, is it on the same level as what Ashlie posted "that it was better for the men to castrate themselves than to enter into such carnal sin as sexual relations with another human?" Carnal sin? My post was merely to tell Ashlie that the Bible did not say that. God's intent for sex was not what she said it was.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 21:29.
"We want a definition that all Americans can follow." ...except homosexuals, who obviously won't be able to follow it by "definition". That's just like saying "All men are created equal" ...except blacks.

Submitted by PeaceLove (not verified) on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 11:50.
Anonymous said, We want a definition that all Americans can follow.” …except homosexuals, who obviously won’t be able to follow it by “definition”. That’s just like saying “All men are created equal” …except blacks. Brilliantly said. I think we, on the side of tolerance, acceptance and equality for all people, will never, ever reach the brainwashed sheep that are fooled to think that Jesus preached intolerance. They are simply unreachable, because they are simply simple-minded. Education broadens your mind. If they had an education, or a child who was gay, or if they were gay themselves, I'm sure they'd have an entirely different perspective.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 21:49.
and except women

Submitted by H N on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 01:07.
In response to your example about the inter-racial marriage issue: The Bible has never said that it was wrong or un-natural for such marriage to occur. That is just proof of how erroneous people can be when they base their rules and regulations upon man and not God. Much grief and injustice was blamed on God when mankind took things into their own hands and did things their own way. About women, Christianity was a religion that upheld women rights (Jesus talked to a Samaritan woman during an age where women are treated as nothing, and Samaritans are considered inferiors to Jews). Although the Bible does limit the woman's role in certain aspects, such as ministry, but that is God's will, and He must have had a reason for it. However, God has never put a restriction on what a woman can and cannot do in regards to the workforce or on the ballot. Again, humans screw up. To get back on track, though, I want to make sure that you understand this: Prop 8 does not take away GLBT "rights" to marriage. They can still marry. Their marriage will not be recognized by law but their unionship is still recognized. They can have their "marriage rights/benefits" through civil union/domestic partnership "rights." Again, the definition is proposed so that incestuous relationships and pedophiles cannot come and say later that they want to be married because they "love." This is needed because if marriage, the building block of society, can be redefined, what can't be redefined? Even if marriage is changed to man-man/ woman-woman, to man-child, immediately we can see that our laws regarding legal age will have to be changed, thus, our notion of what is a "crime" and what is not will have to be changed. If our definition of "crime" changes, at what point do we stop? Anarchy? Has anything good come from disorder? (Please don't mention the Big Bang! If you believe it...) The definition is proposed so that Americans can still have religous freedom (obvious). God designed marriage to be between and man and a woman and eventhough we believe that His design is best for society, we are not forcing that upon anybody. We still let GLBT unions take place, we refuse to take part, but we do not force the state to forbid GLBT unions. Their unions still have legal importance. However, our religous freedom is being forced to sucumb to recognize the gay lifestyle, despite our religion. The definition is proposed so that free speech prevails in America. I've included an article in my previous post where the parent's rights to be notified of their children's education are being stepped on. They cannot express their discontentment, nor ask for a resolution: they were arrested. Even now, if anyone dares to stand up for their belief that the gay lifestyle is wrong, they are referred to a ignorant, bigotted, evil, and intolerant. The result, most people shut up. Let me tell you this, freedom of speech is a treasure given to Americans. No one should take that freedom away, especially not with the intimidation and verbal harrasment that I've seen so frequently. You think that the gay lifestyle should be celebrated, I don't. To me, allowing oneself to live in a gay lifestyle is like allowing oneself to be adulterous, both of the lifestyle is sinful. I don't hate adulterers, nor do I hate gays, I am a sinner myself, I just think that they are missing out because by tolerating that lifestyle, they allow themselves moments of happiness that will turn into bitterness and that will reduce their life to nothingness, not the life that God wants them to have if they were to follow His commands and seek after His will. I should be able to voice my opinions without being arrested. With Prop 8, these threats will not continue to shadow over the heads of Americans, but GLBT still have their rights. I don't see how that is evil. We're not taking anyone's "rights" away, just re-enforcing the existing ones. If you want more "rights", pass a bill that will add more benefits for civil unions, even more for those unions than the existing ones for marriages. Lastly, I want to say that if you are truly tolerant, you would also be "tolerant" to the Christian way of thinking, to those who does not hold your same point of view. If you are truly tolerant, there will not be "wrongs," but everything is "right" in some way, shape, or form. If you are tolerant, you would believe in moral relativism - that you should not impose your own values and ideals on others - who are you to say that others are wrong/evil? Who are you to say that those who are racists/sexists are wrong? In conclusion, if you do not fir the description above, your tolerance stopped at some point. That point is defined by you, based on your standards and values. In being that type of tolerance, you've became a hypocrite, someone who's not tolerant. Changes are good, but not all changes equates to progress.

Submitted by Ashlie (not verified) on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 17:05.
Morals and laws are very relative. What is right in one culture is often disputed in another. Thus is the main battle of humanity, to determine what lines should be drawn, and who should draw them, neglecting the question of them being drawn at all. Sex has been demonized and has been turned into a dirty word in many instances when performed outside of marriage and ‘proper’ sexual orientation. It is true that in many cultures of the past, and sometimes in current cultures, there is a more casual approach to marriage and sex. Men in Asian cultures often openly had sexual relationships with young boys. It was normal for that society’s standards. Should we, in Western culture, condemn a system that has worked for them for centuries just because our society’s morals state otherwise? Middle Eastern women are, to our eyes, often mistreated and suppressed, forced to marry at young ages and concealed from public for the ‘greater good of men’ for their entire lives. Should we, in Western culture, condemn a system that has worked for them for centuries just because our society’s morals state otherwise? The point made is that perceived “law” and “tradition” is very relative to the time and place in which they are defined. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is a wonderful book that is a prime example of this. Tradition is a dangerous thing within society. People tend to follow traditions blindly as time goes on, soon forgetting why they were done at all, and so continue them for no other reason than the tradition itself. We can see this today in our current world from why we have bridesmaids at weddings to why we use words such as “buck”. Once a tradition is challenged, however, feathers get ruffled and people tend to become instantly sensitive and aware of perceived threats against what they have always thought as “normal” or “the way things are”. Change is viewed as detrimental from someone’s perspective no matter how you view it, and this is what is happening here. Intolerance is an irrational suspicion toward a certain group of people. Using the story of Sodom or Gomorrah, in this case, is irrational to many people because it does not pertain to our current world. Apparently the view is that wherever religion tells the people to draw the line is where morals must be determined, instead of encouraging people to use common sense and rational thought within reason. It is irrational (from the religious perspective of you as an individual, and others who share this belief) to think that simply limiting a term such as “marriage” or “married” to a man and a woman somehow makes the issue better in the eyes of your god, while still ‘allowing’ homosexuals to continue being homosexuals. With or without the word involved, homosexuals will continue being homosexuals, thus there is no certain ‘safety’ from another Sodom or Gomorrah, and thus the original cause is futile. On the issue of where we draw a line on issues of sexual selection amongst humans and why, homosexuality has been grouped with (socially perceived) criminal acts such as the following. Bestiality – Speaking specifically from the point of view of our American culture as a whole, this is seen as disgusting and abominable. Why? What tells us as a society that bestiality is wrong? This is not to question the view that it is wrong, it is to dissect the issue itself, to get to the root of the traditional belief. Incest - Speaking specifically from the point of view of our American culture as a whole, this is seen as disgusting and abominable. Why? What tells us as a society that incest is wrong? This is not to question the view that it is wrong, it is to dissect the issue itself, to get to the root of the traditional belief. The two issues stated above are completely different in their affect on individuals, yet they are perceived as the same sort of threat. They are perceived as unnatural. One is the sexual relationship between two different species where one is a human. Even in nature two different species will not choose to breed or cannot breed with each other. Their geological separation has either rendered them incapable of doing so or they have no interest due to the specific species sexual preferences. The other is performed amongst related human species, at times much to the detriment (scientifically speaking) of the performing individuals and whatever offspring they may create. Homosexuality does not create any harmful effect on society or individuals. Even certain species in the wild, in a shortage of females within the species, will turn to other males for relief, including sheep and ducks. This has been documented in hundreds of species from insects to mammals. Humans have an unfortunate separatist way of thinking that isolates them from this proven natural occurrence. We are not above nature just because we are human. Just because we have the ability to view ourselves as Elite does not mean that we are. Limiting this issue to “We Christians” is largely ignoring the fact that there are far more people that are not “We Christians” in this world. Whether or not you see this as a discriminatory act against homosexuals or not, it is, and it is limited to "you christians". Superstitions aside, this issue should be looked at for what it is, petty and unjustifiable. It has been turned into a religious issue from it’s original intent as a political issue to gain support for a Senator running in the Presidency. It is a fact that Christianity and other major religions make up a majority of people in our country, and they have been directly targeted to gain support where there would otherwise be very little. These “Sheep” as it were, are willingly being blindfolded and herded by the masses for the gain of others. There are many more important issues that should be gaining funding and support. This is a waste of money and time, on both sides of the debate.

Submitted by H N on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 03:52.
Your main point is moral relativism. I will reference this theme throughout my comments on your previous posts below: "Sex has been demonized and has been turned into a dirty word in many instances when performed outside of marriage and ‘proper’ sexual orientation." Not from what I've seen or heard. I feel that sex is glamourized and taken in by the American audience like an addiction. Year after year, more sexual graphics appear on TV/movies. I've found myself saying "I wished they took out that scene and it would make the movie better." I had to walk away from many movies that I originally wanted to see because of the obscenity that seemed so humorous to the American audience. http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp "Tradition is a dangerous thing within society." Then why would the GLBT community care so much if their union is a civil union/domestic partnership or marriage? They want to redefine marriage for everyone, and you are saying that they should. If you are so much for "change," why do you want to change the GLBT unions not into something else, but into the "traditional" term of marriage? Sounds like a contradiction. "Change is viewed as detrimental from someone’s perspective no matter how you view it, and this is what is happening here." As I wrote previously, change does not ALWAYS equates progress, and this is what is happening here. It poses too many loopholes, and is a direct attack to society as a whole. Read my response to Anonymous above. "Intolerance is an irrational suspicion toward a certain group of people." What type of irrational suspicion have I made? I've supported my opinions with research. I do not accuse people. I do not categorize them without support. Towards the GLBT lifestyle, even if God did not say no, reading about their lifestyle still can give me an idea that I should not want my children living in this type of lifestyle: http://www.pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=51&sid=4fa9b1b7ea0386aa449ea5c0197cc1e7 "Using the story of Sodom or Gomorrah, in this case, is irrational to many people because it does not pertain to our current world." How is it irrational? How is the story irrelevant to our current world? If people are being condemned for saying that they think the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, and many are saying that they should be forced to live with it, regardless of their religous stand, how long do you think it will take until they have to live in a city that is like Sodom or Gomorrah? "encouraging people to use common sense and rational thought within reason" Who define "within reason"? You've already mentioned moral relativism. Within reason 50 years ago does not include the homosexual lifestyle. Now, it does. Within reason 50 years from now might include pedophiles, and what about another 50 years? Within reason changes, according to you, so common sense and rational thought, can be any of the following? Common sense and rational thought = bestiality, incest, pedophile behaviors are not condemnable? Common sense and rational thought = hyprocritical behavior towards tolerance? Common sense and rational thought = disregards towards the future of society and the long-term impacts of current decisions based on the label of diversity? You probably feel that I misunderstood your stand on bestiality and incest. I assure you, I didn't. You did not want to "question the view that it is wrong", however, from my explanation of moral relativism, and your willingness to question the traditional view on these subjects, along with your unwillingness to "impose" the American moral standard on others who might practice it, it is with high confidence that common sense and rational thought might go down this path to accept these practices within reason. You've justified that the above practices, for now, is unacceptable because it's harmful, or not beneficial. Beastiality: Animals have inter-specie sex (horses, donkey). If you're an evolutionist: (human, chimp) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Other_evidence_of_interspecies_sexual_activity. Based on your argument, then why can't human? NOTE: We Christians believe that humans have the breath of God, therefore, we are not like animals. Because we live in a fallen world, the things that goes on are not what God designed them to be, but God did give human free will. Therefore, you have a choice: To be Christ-like and deny yourself, carry your cross, or like you say, to think that we're nothing more than animals. If you want to think like an animal, you'll act like one, and if you act like one, you'll become one. Humans can do so much more, just, some people, like you, prefer to think of human on the same level as animals, living on natural instinct. "Homosexuality does not create any harmful effect on society or individuals" What about the gays that left their heterosexual family to pursue themselves and the family they've left behind? http://fileblogs.com/Broken-Homes-Broken-Children&article_35279 Let me repost: http://www.pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=51&sid=4fa9b1b7ea0386aa449ea5c0197cc1e7 http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fshivaid.htm However, this is besides the point. I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is sin, you don't. Let's just leave it at that, the focus of Prop 8 is not to attack the GLBT lifestyle. I don't know why this kept on popping up as an issue. To merge two issues and confuse the real purpose of Prop 8? "It is irrational (from the religious perspective of you as an individual, and others who share this belief) to think that simply limiting a term such as “marriage” or “married” to a man and a woman somehow makes the issue better in the eyes of your god, while still ‘allowing’ homosexuals to continue being homosexuals." Finally! Something I can agree with! Limiting a term such as "marriage" to a man and woman does still "allow" homosexuals to continue be homosexuals! You understand! See, that's their lifestyle, that's what they chose. We tell them about God's design, but God also gave them free will. Therefore, we can only pray for them - we can't change them, we can't take away their free will. However, you're wrong that this Prop 8 is to justify the issue to God. It's not. It's still a sin that America allows, and America will have to take responsibility when God judges. However, we as Christians cannot forbid homosexuality, for the reasons mentioned, we can only raise awareness. Through God's grace, people might realize and repent, and Sodom and Gomorrah might be avoided, like the people of Nineveh, so that this won't happen: "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment and condemn the people living today, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. But look-something greater than Jonah is here!" However, Prop 8 is to put a stop to the re-definition of marriage, that is a potential source for a lot of the loopholes for future crime, which threatens the already weak foundation of society. (See previous posts). http://www.heritage.org/research/Family/MarriageDebate/TheMarriageDebate.cfm "It is a fact that Christianity and other major religions make up a majority of people in our country, and they have been directly targeted to gain support where there would otherwise be very little. These “Sheep” as it were, are willingly being blindfolded and herded by the masses for the gain of others." Eight years ago, Prop 22 passed without such a large debate. Now, Prop 8 has the same exact wording, but it's being attacked fiercely. I wonder who's the one that gained more support, where there otherwise would be very little? I wonder who are the ones willingly being blindfolded and herded by the mass for the gain (destruction) of others, under the title of tolerance and rationality? It is a fact that many profess to be Christians, but many are also professing being gay and being a Christian. Many "Christians" are involved in adultery. Many "Christians" are preaching to get money. Many "Christians" are putting up "miracle" shows. Many "Christians" are preaching that health and wealth speeches. Many "Christians" say that all roads lead to God. Again, I ask if you can distinguish between the sheep and the wolves. Through your generalization and lack of understanding of the core issue and what I meant when I refer to as "we Christians," I doubt that you can distinguish. "There are many more important issues that should be gaining funding and support. This is a waste of money and time, on both sides of the debate." As I've tried to make clear, this is not an issue regarding gay rights. This is probably the most important issue on the ballot since it may affect our society and our future. It is not a waste of money to raise awareness and clarify people's confusions, help people to better make decisions that will affect the future generations. This issue may shape the future of American laws, and decide what this nation will turn into. I will repost the dangers of prop 8 not passing: Again, the definition is proposed so that incestuous relationships and pedophiles cannot come and say later that they want to be married because they "love." This is needed because if marriage, the building block of society, can be redefined, what can't be redefined? Even if marriage is changed to man-man/ woman-woman, to man-child, immediately we can see that our laws regarding legal age will have to be changed, thus, our notion of what is a "crime" and what is not will have to be changed. If our definition of "crime" changes, at what point do we stop? Anarchy? Has anything good come from disorder? (Please don't mention the Big Bang! If you believe it...) The definition is proposed so that Americans can still have religous freedom (obvious). God designed marriage to be between and man and a woman and eventhough we believe that His design is best for society, we are not forcing that upon anybody. We still let GLBT unions take place, we refuse to take part, but we do not force the state to forbid GLBT unions. Their unions still have legal importance. However, our religous freedom is being forced to sucumb to recognize the gay lifestyle, despite our religion. The definition is proposed so that free speech prevails in America. I've included an article in my previous post where the parent's rights to be notified of their children's education are being stepped on. They cannot express their discontentment, nor ask for a resolution: they were arrested. Even now, if anyone dares to stand up for their belief that the gay lifestyle is wrong, they are referred to a ignorant, bigotted, evil, and intolerant. The result, most people shut up. Let me tell you this, freedom of speech is a treasure given to Americans. No one should take that freedom away, especially not with the intimidation and verbal harrasment that I've seen so frequently. You think that the gay lifestyle should be celebrated, I don't. To me, allowing oneself to live in a gay lifestyle is like allowing oneself to be adulterous, both of the lifestyle is sinful. I don't hate adulterers, nor do I hate gays, I am a sinner myself, I just think that they are missing out because by tolerating that lifestyle, they allow themselves moments of happiness that will turn into bitterness and that will reduce their life to nothingness, not the life that God wants them to have if they were to follow His commands and seek after His will. I should be able to voice my opinions without being arrested Lastly, remember to read my spill on tolerance. Actually, I will re-post that below. If you are truly tolerant, you would also be "tolerant" to the Christian way of thinking, to those who does not hold your same point of view. If you are truly tolerant, there will not be "wrongs," but everything is "right" in some way, shape, or form. If you are tolerant, you would believe in moral relativism - that you should not impose your own values and ideals on others - who are you to say that others are wrong/evil? Who are you to say that those who are racists/sexists are wrong? In conclusion, if you do not fit the description above, your tolerance stopped at some point. That point is defined by you, based on your standards and values. In being that type of tolerance, you've became a hypocrite, someone who's not tolerant. Therefore, we Bible-believing Christians believes in tolerance but we are intolerant to sin. God is our absolute truth. We don't believe in moral relativism. We believe that He is our creator (our parent), and so He has absolute say in what is wrong and what is right. He created marriage for it to be between a MAN and a WOMAN. He has explained that homosexuality is against his natural order. He said that only in a morally deprived society will these actions be accepted by society. God has been right in many issues. He has the foresight and knows what is the best for us, eventhough we might need to take time to see it for ourselves. His words has proved true over and over again through prophecy and history. If you don't believe this, read the Bible and find out.

Submitted by Janel (not verified) on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 12:27.
This is a circular battle, Ashlie. You're always going to end up repeating yourself to these people.

Submitted by June Bride (not verified) on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 15:11.
Janel you are correct. I do have a question. Which of the supporters listed above donating funds or replying to these blogs... Which of you are willing to give up your right to marry and be reduced to second-class citizenship by accepting either Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions instead of the marriage you now have or can have? That question was asked of Ken Mettler (Kern County High School District) and Marylee Shrider (Bakersfield Californian columnist) and neither of them were willing to. So even they see the difference between Marriage and Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. Seperate is not equal. If Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are not good enough for them (Shrider, Mettler, yes on 8 voters, the contributers listed above, and those on this blog voting yes), then they are certainly not good enough for ME! As a lawabiding, tax paying, American Citizen the Constitution quarantees me equal rights. There are small minded people that want to write into the Constitution discrimination that is not already there to take away the quarantee to equal rights from hundreds of thousands of people. When did discrimination become okay? Why do christians embrace it so freely? God does not discriminate. Vote No on 8.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 17:56.
Actually, God does discriminate. Strongly, especially against a sin like homosexuality. He set clear rules and punishments against homosexuality. Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. God is a jealous, wrathful God. He hates sin. There is no hope from Hell for these sinners as long as they continue sinning according to His laws.

Submitted by H N on Sat, 10/18/2008 - 02:20.
To Janel and June Bride: Let me give a relevant analogy: I am in love with a married man. He loves me, but he also loves his wife. In a monogamous society, he can't marry me, and cannot provide me with a marriage license. Am I a second class citizen? I should be able to change the definition of marriage to make my society a polygamous society instead, because I feel that separation is not equal, right? Afterall, is the traditional definition of marriage correct in limiting marriage to only be between one man and one woman? Who defined it? Other cultures are polygamous, why is my society condeming it? Oh, it's the Christians! They studied that in church and so it must be wrong! It's discriminatory! OK, let's say that marriage is a right. Let me give another analogy: There was a bill that says that the legal age for drinking is 21 (I know that it's law - this is an analogy). I have the right to drink, but I can't do so legally until I reach the age of 21. Am I considered a second-class citizen? I don't want to meet those legal requirements and say that separation is not equal! Four of my drinking friends happen to be judges and ruled that that bill is unconstitutional on the basis that it discriminate against drinkers and youth. I want to change the age of drinking to an age that I believe will fit my liking, disregarding the consequences of that decision and anyone who dares to say that there are severe consequences to changing that status-quo are hateful, small-minded, and discriminatory people. My opinions: These analogies show the childishness of the requests and is completely absurd. A monogamous society defined their rules and if the people do not like that society's definition of marriage, if the society have to keep on changing and accomodating to all preferences and being totally tolerant, can a society continue to exist? People who meet certain requirements should be able to drink, and those who can't drink yet, can drink coke. People who meet defined requirements should get a marriage license, if not, they are considered to be in a civil unions/ domestic partnership. The question is, what is the definition/requirement for marriage? That's a definition that prop 8 proposed. It's a definition that has withstand the test of time. Throughout the 8 years of prop 22, have you heard of gay not being able to marry? [Churches not accepting it stand on their religious grounds, which should not be violated, but there are also "churches" who do perform gay weddings. Do people even go to churches nowadays? Las Vegas is more convenient, no?] However, with prop 22 struck down, cases are appearing in court that violates the guaranteed religious freedom, parents are getting arrested. Look at Massachusets and its examples! GLBT are redefining the definition of marriage, creating a huge loophole which can have a detrimental effect on our society. This was mentioned over and over again in my previous posts. If you have not read them and understood, please spare me the trouble of not having to "to end up repeating [my]yourself to [you]these people." If you believe that it is a circular reasoning, I wonder why the relevant points and articles included in my posts did not get any feedback, was totally ignored, and only the point that it's "gay's rights" is being discussed even though over and over again I've written about the fallacy of this argument? Even if it is gays' right to get a marriage license, they should be intelligent enough to recognize that if they withold some of their deserved rights in order to preserve their society, they should do so. A society with a government needs to be organized, where the people sometimes have to give up some of their rights to preserve that society. [I have the right to define the traffic light color red meaning "go" and green meaning "stop." However, in order for society order, I stop at the red lights, and go when the lights turn green.] In my previous posts, I've mentioned why the redefinition of marriage is dangerous and its potential effects on society. This is not a question of gay rights! It is a question of how to stop moral relativism from destroying our laws and society, by providing concrete guidelines and boundaries. "As a lawabiding, tax paying, American Citizen the Constitution quarantees me equal rights." Voting Yes on Prop 8 will not give me any more rights as a citizen, and does not take away the rights of anyone else. AGAIN, they still have the right to get married! NOTE: After all the proof of the anti-prop 8 claims, why are people not recognizing who are trying to give them information and who are trying to string them along? To Anonymous and June Bride: Anonymous, your biblical references are concise, thank you. June Bride, discrimination has been a norm in society for as long as I know of. Discrimination against women, blacks, Chinese, Indians, Samaritans, etc... As in my previous post, discrimination is not embraced by Christians, it is embraced by people who want to take matters into their own hands instead of relying on the Word of God. Christianity is the religion that freed those TRUE second+ class citizens from discrimination and the rules and regulations of men. If you have not read it, I do not want to waste any more of my time to re-post. Anonymous, I do not agree with your portrayal of God. God does not discriminate. He is just, and He is love. He made rules not just against homosexuality but against sins because he loves us and does not want us to live through the consequences of sins. Sins hurt us, and He hurts when we get hurt. Just think about adultery and the lives that it hurt, the scars that it leaves, the guilt that comes after. He is a Holy and just God, therefore, He cannot accept sins; not because He discriminates. In fact, He loved everyone, and came to Earth for everyone, and sacrificed himself for everyone, paying for the sins of everyone. God does not have a separate punishment for the sin of homosexuality from any other sins. The wages of sin is death. This requirement has been satisfied by Jesus Christ, however, because God does not want His creation to be separated from Him. Think of it as this: Jesus Christ is God's son, and is God, and He is like a King. We are the people belonging to Him, but we did not listen to Him, instead, we followed after a traitor and rebelled. Because He is just, He cannot just ignore our rebellion, and ignore our trangressions against His laws. But instead of letting us take our well-deserved punishments, He, himself chose to take his own punishments for all of us, sacrificed himself so that His people might live. A King, dying so that His people can live, and He defeated death so that His people would not have to taste it. Those who believe in Him then can come back to Him. He waits patiently until He knows that there will be no one else who will come back to Him. At this time, He then will judge the traitor and all of its followers. What better love is there than for a man to lay down his own life for a neighbor? Regarding the hardness of heart, everyone who sins can have their heart hardened, not just homosexuals. "The same sun that melts the wax, hardens the clay." That's why there's free will, and that's why people needs to be made aware of their sins so that they can choose to repent. However, the decision is still theirs to make. God has already offered the free gift of life and it's up to us to take it. If we continually refuse it, our hearts will become hard - like the Pharaoh in Moses' time. True enough, "Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation." That's why God have laws, so that we can see our shortcomings in regards to His perfect standard. God is a jealous God, because He loves us too much, but not a wrathful God - He has already paid for our wraths. There is no hope from Hell, but there is hope right now for the sinners - I was one. "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isiah 53:1 Yes On 8

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 01:27.
this is not an apt analogy. not in the slightest.

Submitted by June Bride (not verified) on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 16:00.
Thank you, Ashlie. You wrote very well what I was thinking and have not had the time to write. Your points were truthful and counter every false arguement "they" have. Thanks again for writing the letter, I intended to write. I am very busy rallying everyone I meet and see to vote NO on 8. We already have our victory party planned. No on 8! No on 8! No on H8! It's simple, really. Equal rights for all. Protect ALL marriages. No on 8

Submitted by David Hart on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 15:37.

Please Reduce our Moderation Overhead by Registering.

it's free, easy and private. Your comments will be published immediately.

Submitted by Ashlie (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 - 19:38.
This proposition is appaling. It violates the basic constitutional rights of all people. It violates the right of everyone to pursue happiness and alienates unalienable rights. It violates the seperation of church and state, and it is extremely perverted in it's purest form. Such obsession with the sexual orientation of others is both perverted and disgusting. There is NO logical reason why same-sex marriage should be frowned upon. That is a very personal decision that everyone has a right to make and no one has a right to question. The Constitution is meant to give rights to the people, not take them away. Same-sex couples are enduring a horrendous repeat of what blacks had to go through. This Proposition does not encourage forward thinking, it is a regression of society brought on by religious blunder. The idea of "Seperate but Equal" should make us all ill. It is unacceptible. Not only is it disgusting that the supporters are so against who others marry, they lay claim to the word 'marriage' as if it was a biblical term. In the Bible marriage was not smiled upon. Jesus himself said that "It is better for a man to be a eunuch than to enter into marriage...". Sex was an original sin, and that made marriage a form of legal sin. No one should support such ignorance and intollerance. You say not to judge, yet here you are judging innocent people.

Submitted by Lisa for Equal Rights (not verified) on Sat, 10/18/2008 - 13:25.
Thank you Ashlie, Propositions like this make me think for a second that our country is heading back in time, not forward. But then again, the Republican agenda is anything but progressive. I grew up in the Protestant church and never was I taught intolerance of any kind. That seems to be a staple of the current Christian theology. I can no longer align myself with the Christian church and the fanaticism that I see. I believe Jesus would be a liberal if he came back today. Because what I knew of him, he loved and accepted all people, and cared for the poor, the sick and the needy. His message was love and tolerance, not hatred and bigotry. In the end, I believe that goodness will prevail -- Prop 8 will be demolished and Obama will steer our country in a new direction of peace and prosperity.

Submitted by Wifeof 1 man (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 - 13:01.
I have read the blogs and want to render my own thoughts. Love is a gift given by God to all people. Yes everyone pratices love every day. You cannot take that gift and omit all the others that God has given to fit your own lifestyle. In the Bible it distinctly list the Ten Commandments and all others Laws given by God. #1 Love thy God with all thy hope and thy Might. This love comes with expectations. He has given us free will to choose to believe, follow his commands and spread his word and love all over the world. It talks about all those who oppose the word of God and Jesus' sacrifice to save us from our sins. Sodom and Gomorroha was destroyed by God because of homosexuality, adultery and murder. God's word is what seperates his followers from all other people on this earth. Real followers not the hipocrites that cheat on their spouse with another women or man. One who kills, cheats in business, and molests and rapes innocent children. Accepting God's Love means in turn you would love him back and those around you. You would allow your life to be molded into his liking and not your own. If you love someone you would tell them the truth and not want harm to come to them. So Christians are indowded to tell you the truth and Vote Yes on Prop 8.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 15:30.
Politics and religion do not mix. Constitutional "Seperation of Church and State" was proposed by three Ministers who didn't want to fear for their religious right like they had in England. It was not instituted by anti-religious people to keep religion's gods out of their lives. The Amendment was made to keep the two seperate, and what this proposition is doing is shoving one religions views down society's throat. There is no logical reason that homosexuality is wrong. Make a list of logical reasons that homosexuality is wrong without religious "reasoning". Likewise, you cannot accept religion and be okay with homosexuality. There is no gray matter here. The issues are very black and white, and should be treated as such. The fact that even people within the same denominations disagree on people's rights is proof that religion has no place in society and government. It is not a helpful entity and should not be a determining factor of rights.

Submitted by June Bride (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2008 - 16:52.
"We can never be the better for our religion if our neighbor is the worse for it." --William Penn Perhaps William Penn said it best. He appears to an intelligent human with a caring soul. Unlike many of the supporters of prop 8. Using religion for the basis of hatred, discrimination, and intolerance reflects poorly of the religion of your choice. Even lesbians can have well adjusted children, who serve our country, love their wives and take care of their children. No on prop 8 is the only way to negate the hate. Make love, not 8!

Submitted by Kyle (not verified) on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 18:53.
To those who think we christians opposed to same sex marriage are "haters": Just curious if you think it would be okay for someone to marry his sister or more than one spouse or how about someone who is already married? If you discriminate against any of these circumstances you must be "hater" too. Quit deceiving yourself and others. The traditional definition of marriage HAS worked for thousands of years. its recent decline is a result of people like you calling bad things good and allowing tolerance for destructive selfish behavior (homosexuality, alcoholism, divorce, adultery, abortion, etc.) DON'T you dare blame traditional marriages for these ills. Lack of responsible adults in marriages, parenting, and personal choices are the reasons we are facing these problems to this degree. You're just compounding these troubles by continuing this charade in the face of science that clearly suggests this behavior is bad for society. Children are the real innocent parties here. Teaching them that this behavior is normal or productive for our civilization is a fallacy. My traditional marriage didn't cause this. The problem with same-sex marriages is the redefining of something that is a core value of our society. If it's rights you want, let's revamp civil unions giving them the rights they seek, not REDEFINE something many of us still consider so sacred even if you don't. You are forcing us to draw a line in the sand and stand up for something you cannot begin to understand because you refuse to acknowledge the spiritual component that motivates us. Those who have held on to these core values have a higher chance of raising well adjusted, successful, productive children who in turn will do the same. We ARE doing a great job despite misguided people like you whose moral compasses have no direction or path. Stand for something society needs more of. Vote YES on prop 8!!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 11:58.
A nation that still believes in itself holds fast to its own god. In him it does honour to the conditions which enable it to survive, to its virtues--it projects its joy in itself, its feeling of power, into a being to whom one may offer thanks. He who is rich will give of his riches; a proud people need a god to whom they can make sacrifices. . . Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude. A man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a god.--Such a god must be able to work both benefits and injuries; he must be able to play either friend or foe--he is wondered at for the good he does as well as for the evil he does. But the castration, against all nature, of such a god, making him a god of goodness alone, would be contrary to human inclination. Mankind has just as much need for an evil god as for a good god; it doesn't have to thank mere tolerance and humanitarianism for its own existence. . . . What would be the value of a god who knew nothing of anger, revenge, envy, scorn, cunning, violence? who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous ardeurs of victory and of destruction? No one would understand such a god: why should any one want him?--True enough, when a nation is on the downward path, when it feels its belief in its own future, its hope of freedom slipping from it, when it begins to see submission as a first necessity and the virtues of submission as measures of self-preservation, then it must overhaul its god. He then becomes a hypocrite, timorous and demure; he counsels "peace of soul," hate-no-more, leniency, "love" of friend and foe. He moralizes endlessly; he creeps into every private virtue; he becomes the god of every man; he becomes a private citizen, a cosmopolitan. . . Formerly he represented a people, the strength of a people, everything aggressive and thirsty for power in the soul of a people; now he is simply the good god...The truth is that there is no other alternative for gods: either they are the will to power--in which case they are national gods--or incapacity for power--in which case they have to be good.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 12:05.
~Friedrich Nietzsche

Submitted by Ashlie (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 14:56.
Society does not need more heterosexual marriage. Have you seen the numbers recently? Overpopulation much? What society needs is a good dose of hard tollerance. There is an irrational point being spewed in the Pro 8 commercials about innocent children being taught that same-sex marriage is okay. Not only is it a point that is obviously being used to sway emotional, baby-popping, religious house-wives, it is giving an alternative to teaching children about acceptance and equality. It is an excuse to teach children about seperation, inequality and discrimination. Homosexual unity is a wonderful idea. Not only does it encourages people to openly explore their natural tendancies without fear, it is environment and earth friendly. There are more than plenty of homeless and neglected children that need homes. And as an alternative to having kids of their own, they are adopting these children left and right, and aught to be able to. People in this society are baby-happy to the point of peadophelia. The obsession that our society has with having babies is disgusting, and gay marriage offers a solution to the overpopulation problems that we face. Morals are defined by a society, not by religion. When a society begins to adopt religious values and label them as morals, the population risks self destruction.

Submitted by Tom (not verified) on Thu, 10/02/2008 - 03:23.
IDIOT. Incest is illegal because in-breeding causes birth defects. What planet are you from? What birth defects are gay couples going to cause. IDIOT.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 20:22.
Just curious if you think it would be okay for someone to marry his sister or more than one spouse or how about someone who is already married?
Those are all criminal acts you moron.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 22:38.
you mean multiple wives like in the bible? you mean like fathers and daughters having intercourse like one of gods prophets in the old testament? the bible says slaves, obey your masters. the bible says that women who do not wear head coverings in the church are sinners. the bible says a lot and does not say a lot.

Submitted by Kyle (not verified) on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 05:07.
Yes I am fully aware they are illegal...but laws change. And that was my point that you clearly don't have the mental capacity to grasp. Instead you would rather spit hateful demeaning names at those who are equally passionate about defeating self-destructive, socially illogical, and scientifically damaging behavior that you condone. And by the way it's not "moron" but rather "mormon" and proud of it. Your lack of response other than an undeserved epithet is telling as to your ability to debate this issue with any kind of civility or respectability.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 16:56.
How is homosexuality "self-destructive"? It encourages self acceptance and tollerance, self-respect and confidence in oneself. How is homosexuality "socially illogical"? It keeps population growth under control and people who live happy lives make happy societies. How is homosexuality "scientifically damaging"? There is nothing about homosexual behavior that is scientifically damaging. ---

Please Register to avoid comment moderation

Registration is free, private and easy.

Submitted by David Hart on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 20:37.
Sometimes I wonder exactly how some of these idiots successfully answer the math captch required to post.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/03/2008 - 12:20.
There is a difference between tolerance for the transgression and tolerance for the transgressor. Am I also required to tolerate the murderer and rapist?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 15:09.
How disgusting that same-sex marriage should be catagorized with murder and rape. Same-sex couples are not hurting anyone, and they are not breaking any laws. That is a blatantly ignorant and violent assumption. The assumption that gays are akin to criminals is like assuming that all American christians are violent zealots out for world domination, or that all catholics are supportive of Spanish Inquisition style conversion, or that christians as a whole still believe in stoning people for certain practices, except it's not true. There should be no seperation of us as a people. No special treatment and no discrimination. Discrimination has been condemned since the forming of the California Constitution, and here you are trying to spit upon it like it's a dirty magazine.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subscribe to Comments

Comment RSS