The Boiled Frog Blog

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

 

   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 davidhart on Wed, 07/16/2008 - 14:48.
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
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, CALIFORNIASANTA ANACA1,617,170
FIELDSTEAD AND CO.IRVINECA800,000
FOCUS ON THE FAMILYCOLORADO SPRINGSCO522,355
WILLIAM BOLTHOUSEAVILA BEACHCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED200,000
ANDREW PUGNOFOLSOMCALAW OFFICES OF ANDREW PUGNOATTORNEY35,000
PROP. 22 LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDSACRAMENTOCA30,000
LAW OFFICE OF CHUCK LIMANDRIRANCHO SANTA FECA27,000
SAN DIEGO ROCK CHURCHSAN DIEGOCA25,679
KENNETH ELDREDPORTOLA VALLEYCALIVING STONES FDTN.CEO25,000
ROLAND HINZVALENCIACAHI-TORQUE PUBLICATIONSPUBLISHER25,000
ROBERT HURTTORANGECACONTAINER SUPPLYEXECUTIVE25,000
DALE BROOMEREDLANDSCALOMA LINDA RADIOLOGY MED. GRP.PHYSICIAN25,000
ALLYSON WEINBERGSANTA ROSA VALLEYCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED25,000
EDWARD ATSINGERCAMARILLOCASALEM COMMUNICATIONSBROADCASTER12,500
EDWARD ATSINGER IIICAMARILLOCASALEM COMMUNICATIONSBROADCASTER12,500
STEPHEN RIDINGERCAMARILLOCAEVETS CORPORATIONOWNER/PRESIDENT10,000
KENNETH PAYTONGARDEN GROVECAN/ANOT EMPLOYED10,000
GRETCHEN KIEDINGSOLVANGCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED10,000
C. JIM ELAMSANTA YNEZCAAGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INC.CONSULTANT8,000
DALE BROOME MDREDLANDSCALOMA LINDA RADIOLOGY MED. GRP.PHYSICIAN7,600
MR. STEPHEN RIDINGERCAMARILLOCAEVETS CORPORATIONOWNER/PRESIDENT5,000
TAXPAYERS FOR HOLLINGSWORTHSACRAMENTOCA5,000
RICHARD SPENCERCARMELCADICK SPENCER & ASSOC.INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT5,000
RICHARD CLEMENTSELMWOODNECLEMENTS & DREVOATTORNEY5,000
M & D DEVELOPMENT, LLCCORONACA5,000
STRONGTOWER FINANCIAL, INC.FRESNOCA5,000
CALVARY CHAPEL OF CHINO HILLSCHINOCA2,000
THE FAMILY ACTION PACNEWPORT BEACHCA2,000
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCILHOLLANDMI1,410
ANNE HOFFMANSAN DIEGOCAHOMEMAKER1,116
MR. RICHARD KURTZCAPE ELIZABETHMERETIRED1,000
MRS. OLIVIA LEECHINOCAMICHAEL T. LEE GRADING & PAVINGSELF-EMPLOYED1,000
MR. PAUL MILLER IIEAST HANOVERNJPAUL MILLER AUTO GROUPOWNER1,000
TRADITIONAL FAMILY COALITIONSUNNYVALECA1,000
TAMARA SEYMOURSAN DIEGOCAFAVRILLE INCCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER1,000
MR. ROBERT EICHENBERGNEWPORT BEACHCAELLISON EDUCATIONAL EQUIP. INC.CO-BUSINESS OWNER1,000

 

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

 

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HEADQUARTERSNEW HAVENCT500,000
TERRY CASTERSAN DIEGOCACASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISESCEO445,000
DOUG MANCHESTERSAN DIEGOCAMANCHESTER FINANCIAL GROUPCHAIRMAN125,000
MANCHESTER FINANCIAL GROUPSAN DIEGOCA125,000
ROGER BENSONLA JOLLACAN/ANONE100,000
ADAMO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CO.LAKESIDECA60,000
JOSHUA BAKERMANCHESTERMOBIOCOLD ENVIRONMENTALOFFICE MANAGER50,000
ROBERT HOEHNCARLSBADCAHOEHN MOTORSPRES.50,000
CALIF. STATE COUNCIL KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUSFONTANACA50,000
GERALD SIMONSENPOWAYCARM PROPERTIESPRES.50,000
BRIAN CASTEREL CAJONCACASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISESCEO48,200
DANIEL MULVHILLLA JOLLACAPACIFIC SOUTHWET MORTGAGEBANKER40,000
T.B. PENICK & SONS, INC.SAN DIEGOCA40,000
THE VINEYARD GROUP, LLCMESAAZ35,000
PETER LEPARULOSAN DIEGOCANOVATELEXECUTIVE30,003
INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICYMANASSASVA30,000
MARGOT KYDPOWAYCASAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRICVICE PRES.25,000
THE VINEYARD GROUPQUEEN CREEKAZ25,000
LARRY SMITHNEWPORT BEACHCAMHI REAL CO.EXECUTIVE25,000
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRIRANCHO SANTA FECA20,000
KELLY BURTSAN DIEGOCATRES-DACDEVELOPER20,000
CRAIG CASTEREL CAJONCAFAMILY DISCIPLESHIP MINISTRYPASTOR19,200
JUSTIN CASTEREL CAJONCAN/AACTOR18,200
CANDICE CASTEREL CAJONCANOT EMPLOYED18,200
GARY DAVIDSONESCONDIDOCACASTER FAMILY ENTERPRISESCFO18,200
KENNETH KREMENSKYEL CAJONCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED18,200
CHA CHA CASTEREL CAJONCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED18,200
CHRISTINA CASTEREL CAJONCAN/AACTRESS18,200
NICK CASTEREL CAJONCAFAMILY DISCIPLESHIP MINISTRIESMANAGER18,200
BARBARA CASTEREL CAJONCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED18,200
MECHELE KREMENSKYEL CAJONCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED18,200
TOM KYDPOWAYCACATHOLIC EXCHANGEMEDIA DEVELOPMENT15,000
MICHAEL FARGUSONLA JOLLACAFARGUSON INVESTMENTSOWNER10,000
RITA SOLOMAN-DAVISEL CAJONCASOUTHLAND ENVELOPEVICE PRES.10,000
DOUGLAS BROWNWEST HOLLYWOODCAKWK MANAGEMENT LLCPARTNER5,000
WILLIAM ADSITSAN DIEGOCACA. ORTHOPAEDIC INST.DOCTOR3,000
RICHARD PEROZICHESCONDIDOCADIOCESE OF SAN DIEGOCLERGYMAN2,000
SALVATORE CORDILEONESAN DIEGOCADIOCESE OF SAN DIEGOBISHOP2,000
PATRICIA ERZINGERLA JOLLACAN/ANONE2,000
SANDRA MURPHYSAN DIEGOCAN/ANONE1,000
JOSEPH LAWRENCESAN DIEGOCACDMA DEVELOPMENT GROUPVICE PRES.1,000
GENEVIEVE DAVISONLA MESACAN/ANONE1,000
NANCY MCCABESAN DIEGOCAN/ANOT EMPLOYED1,000
ELIZABETH MANCHESTERLA JOLLACAMANCHESTER FINANCIAL GROUPMANAGER1,000
ST. STEPHENS CATHOLIC CHURCHVALLEY CENTERCA1,000
JOHN WAKELINPOWAYCASAIPCMANAGER1,000
JAMES BOOREPOWAYCAOASIS MEDICALMANAGER1,000
Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Newsvine
  • Technorati

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 14:10.
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 - 16:25.
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 - 16:57.
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 - 00:12.
um, it’s obviously a joke.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 14:04.
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 davidhart on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 14:22.

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 - 20:27.
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 Tue, 10/21/2008 - 23:59.
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 - 11:38.
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 - 12:36.
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 - 12:28.
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 - 00:15.
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 - 00:53.
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 - 15:42.
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 - 18:32.
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 - 15:33.
“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 - 01:37.
“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… “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=4fa9b1b7ea0386aa449ea5c… 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_g… “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 - 00:22.
“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 - 20:48.
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 - 22:44.
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 - 20:29.
“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 - 10:50.
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 - 20:49.
and except women

Submitted by H N on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 00:07.
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 - 16:05.
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 - 02:52.
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=4fa9b1b7ea0386aa449ea5c… “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,