Gay Marriage in California

[Thrillhouse]

1) On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”
Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.
http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm
2) 5 years later, the California Legislature votes to legalize gay marriage.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage7sep07,1,5420306.story?coll=la-news-politics-california
3) The governor has vowed to veto the bill citing the “will of the people.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/08/news/calif.php

While I’m sure this thread will turn into a gay marriage debate, what I would like to discuss is the ethics of elected officials. Should they vote their conscience or the will of the people?

[RockStar]

^^Elected officials should consider several things when deciding how to vote, including:

Their own conscience and beliefs, the will of the majority, input from trusted advisors, and the law of the land (constitution, bill of rights, statutes, relevant case law, etc.).

Gay marriage is reality in a handful of countries now. I'm slightly surprised that 60 plus percent of Californian voters are strongly against it.

[crazylegs]

Thats a tough question, if you go by your own conscience and against the majority vote, your basically telling your people that their vote doesn't matter and we officials will decide your beliefs for you. If so then why even have a majority vote, I think it could be a situational issue and in this specific situation you go with the will of your people.

[twin58]

1) On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act"....

Proposition 22 was ratified....

A similar law, though not Proposition 22, was ruled unconstitutional six months ago.

(Edited to make an important correction, namely that the law ruled unconstitutional covered marriages begun in California. Proposition 22 covers marriages begun outside California.)

Court invalidates California's ban on same-sex marriage (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/archive/2005/03/14/samesexruling14.TMP)

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, March 14, 2005

Judge finds California's marriage law unconstitutional

Gay and lesbian couples in California have a constitutional right to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Monday.

The ruling by Judge Richard Kramer is just the first step in a case that is headed for the state Supreme Court, probably sometime next year.
....

In his 27-page decision, Kramer - an appointee of former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican - said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates "the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," and has no rational justification.

Rejecting California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's argument that California is entitled to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, Kramer said the same explanation was offered for the state's ban on interracial marriage, which was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 1948.
....

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com

Text of the ruling (PDF) (http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf)

Judge is a Catholic GOP appointee (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/KRAMER.TMP)

In 2003 Kramer donated $500 to Californians for Schwarzenegger, according to the Secretary of State's database. (http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/ContributorSearch.aspx.)

[stegmakk]

An elected official should go with the majority...we are a democracy...AS LONG AS it is a constitutional issue...
meaning if a majority of the people in Alaska wanted to make rules that excluded all samoans from rights...then the governor would have to rule AGAINST the majority...
get what im saying? on most issues the majority rules unless there is a bias of a protected right...

[Thrillhouse]

There was already a CA law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a women, which is the law that was overturned. Prop 22, besides making clear how the majority of CA residents felt on the issue, added a subsection to that law that CA did not have to acknowledge gay marriages from other states. The point that you are trying to distract from is that the majority of CA residents think that marriage should be a union between a man and a women. Should the 61% of CA be told tough cookies because one of the 38% was the judge trying the case?

[twin58]

There was already a CA law....

Dog ate my homework. I mean, I lost my computer connection while attempting to edit my earlier post. I'm on another computer now. To elaborate:

Proposition 22 covers only same-sex marriages contracted outside California. The law ruled unconstitutional by Kramer covered marriages contracted within California, the topic of section 300 of the Family Code.

Wikipedia entry on California Proposition 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22)

Should the 61% of CA be told tough cookies...?

You bet, or, in Latin, stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis). SCOTUS has already ruled on a similar issue. See the Wikipedia entry for Romer v. Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans)

Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gays from receiving "special rights", [Justice Anthony Kennedy] wrote:

To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

And:

[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
....

[freestylewalkin]

Should they vote their conscience or the will of the people?

well in theory the should do the will of the people because of our country because of our constitution "for the people by the people" but considering politics and human nature it probably being done the way the legislation wants it

[laxbabe42]

Vote for the will of the people. Thats what they're in there for. To represent the views of the people.

[TweeK]

i dont agree with gay marriage. the bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or women. it can be called a "union" when gays get married or something like that but it shouldn't be called marriage and it shouldn't be done in a catholic church.

[Krypt0M4g!c]

i dont agree with gay marriage. the bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or women. it can be called a "union" when gays get married or something like that but it shouldn't be called marriage and it shouldn't be done in a catholic church.
*hurls* You don't have to get married in a church.

[lax21286]

Well i think having gay marriages is {CONGRATULATIONS! You've just recieved 1 warning for cursing on TLF. Thanks for your illegal contribution}ING WRONG!!! I mean it's really amazing to see what this world is coming to. NO marriages please. Being gay and lesbos is enough. Gay Guys= NASTY Lesbian Women= HOT!!!!

[Frndlefire]

I don't think it matter what it is called, I just think that homosexuals should be able to get the same legal advantages that heterosexuals get. It shouldn't be an issue of religion but law and equal rights.

[stegmakk]

i personally think homosexuals should be able to have the same rights as straight people...
All men are created equal...this includes women and homosexuals...therefor, even though the gov should side with the majority...as i stated earlier...he should go on his own if going with the majority is against our underlying rights...which this is...

just because a religion says it is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong...religion has been wrong before, and will be wrong again...

[Ram-X-Man]

i dont agree with gay marriage. the bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or women. it can be called a "union" when gays get married or something like that but it shouldn't be called marriage and it shouldn't be done in a catholic church.

Hence the idea of the seperation of church and state. The bible is NOT the law. To say that something should be illegal because the bible forbids it is completely asinine. The rules of the bible apply only to those who wish to follow them. The law is meant to apply to everyone. There is a huge difference there.

[twin58]

Well i think having gay marriages is ... WRONG!!!

OK, so don't have one. Next?

I mean it's really amazing to see what this world is coming to.

Those darn kids with their baggy pants and skateboards? It's an outrage.

[RockStar]

....just because a religion says it is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong...religion has been wrong before, and will be wrong again...

Yup!

Bible readers would do well to note that it contains many writings that do not apply in today's world. Gayness might just be one of those, condoning of slavery would be another.

I guess hardline Christians who can't accept separation of church and state on issues of morality won't be happy unless the USA is turned into a theocratic paradise......Hopefully that never happens in my lifetime, so may I suggest they consider emigration to a fundamentalist wonderland where homos are persecuted. Saudi Arabia would fit the bill nicely! :lol: :dummy:

[twin58]

... an issue of ... law and equal rights.

Cheney has spoken out on this very subject.

Cheney breaks rank on same-sex marriage. Vice president refers to daughter as lesbian publicly for 1st time. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGHQ8DV6Q1.DTL)

Marc Kaufman, Mike Allen, Washington Post

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

....
Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney replied: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Cheney went on to repeat the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign -- that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide. He noted, however, that Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment preventing the states from recognizing such marriages.

There you have it: "freedom means freedom for everyone."

[Hooligan]

Who really cares what anyone else does with their lives? Until I get the letter from the US government delegating me to be in charge of what others do with their lives, be it good or bad in my view, I WILL NOT EVEN CARE if 1 person jumps off a 50 story building to impale a sidewalk. It ain't my problem.

With that being said...if you're gay, why not get married. Its up to you. I like chicks (not that one person cares what I like), and someday I hope to get married to my present day girlfriend (who's getting a bit impatient at 24 and 3 years after we started dating...gulp), and I certainly would never listen to 1 person telling me not to. Its none of anyone else's business, and its no body's business who a homosexual marrys too.

[TweeK]

Hence the idea of the seperation of church and state. The bible is NOT the law. To say that something should be illegal because the bible forbids it is completely asinine. The rules of the bible apply only to those who wish to follow them. The law is meant to apply to everyone. There is a huge difference there.

MARRIAGE ISN"T THE LAW ITS RELIGION ,THE GOVERMENT SHOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT MATHER Only the pope and etc. And the bible is the law when it comes to the catholic religion. and the rules of the bible apply to those who are catholic and gays should follow them if they are catholic and that means not being able to get married in a catholic church.

[GBaschski]

Who really cares what anyone else does with their lives? Until I get the letter from the US government delegating me to be in charge of what others do with their lives, be it good or bad in my view, I WILL NOT EVEN CARE if 1 person jumps off a 50 story building to impale a sidewalk. It ain't my problem.

With that being said...if you're gay, why not get married. Its up to you. I like chicks (not that one person cares what I like), and someday I hope to get married to my present day girlfriend (who's getting a bit impatient at 24 and 3 years after we started dating...gulp), and I certainly would never listen to 1 person telling me not to. Its none of anyone else's business, and its no body's business who a homosexual marrys too.

Best post in this thread.

[laxrat22]

tweek, marriage is the law and it isn't just strictly religion, i know plenty of athiests who have gotten married. why make someone who isn't religious or doesn't believe in the bible have to follow its rules. i'm a catholic, i believe in the bible, for the most part, but i also believe in gay rights. i respect the pope, i think he is the closest living symbol of god on this earth, thats why he's the pope, but i go against the church on the gay rights matter. don't worry about gays getting married in catholic churches because thats up to the church, not the government. i believe in equal rights for all, just because someone has a different sexual preference than you doesn't mean you have the right to say that person is wrong, nor does that person get to say you're wrong. and honestly i doubt it would effect many of us if gays were allowed to be married.

[TweeK]

i think people are getting the wrong vibe from me and i'm homophobic, but i'm not, i dont hate gays but i dont like em, soo sorta neutral.

ok now, heres what people dont understand ig gays are in a different religion and there bible (or where ever their religion gets its story) or whole religion allows same sex sex marriage than go ahead BUT if the gays are cat-ho-lic. to their religion laws they are not permitted to marry outside nor in a catholic church. they can change religions into whatever religion allows them to get a same sex marriage.

Now to prove another point.

we all know that society is crumbling down and bringing with it religions. before the 90' the catholic religion controlled north america, everyone went to church on sundays and obeyed the bible and gay marriages were not allowed.

Today, hardly anyone is catholic (and just because you belive in the religion doesn't mean you are catholic. the bible states that you must, sort of, fofil a catholic act every week, exp: going to church every sunday.) Now at this present day society accepts gay marriages, in 20 years society will accept what? Child Malestation.

[Frndlefire]

ok now, heres what people dont understand ig gays are in a different religion and there bible (or where ever their religion gets its story) or whole religion allows same sex sex marriage than go ahead BUT if the gays are cat-ho-lic. to their religion laws they are not permitted to marry outside nor in a catholic church. they can change religions into whatever religion allows them to get a same sex marriage.well good thing catholicism doesnt make our laws. Whether or not they are catholic is irrelevant. If they are gay they probably arent catholic so there shouldnt be a problem with them getting married, should there? Give them the same legal securities and rights that heterosexual couples get when they sign a marriage license. Same deal both ways.

we all know that society is crumbling down and bringing with it religions. before the 90' the catholic religion controlled north america, everyone went to church on sundays and obeyed the bible and gay marriages were not allowed. all I've got is....wow. omg... six years ago everyone was catholic and every catholic went to church on sunday! (which, btw, historically isn't of any importance... the rejection of documents they didnt like...pm is intereasted). Bull{at no time is it EVER appropriate to curse on TLF! You are officially WARNED! Cursing really deflates your argument, by making you look childish.}.

Today, hardly anyone is catholic (and just because you belive in the religion doesn't mean you are catholic. the bible states that you must, sort of, fofil a catholic act every week, exp: going to church every sunday.) Now at this present day society accepts gay marriages, in 20 years society will accept what? Child Malestation Any minister will tell you that it is more important that you live your life with the tenets of catholicism in mind rather than just going to church every sunday. Going to church every sunday isn't a guarantee of salation. And you're point is ridiculous. Gays have been gaining ground and finding support since the 60's, probably earlier. This isn't a recent phenomenon.

[TweeK]

all I've got is....wow. omg... six years ago everyone was catholic and every catholic went to church on sunday! (which, btw, historically isn't of any importance... the rejection of documents they didnt like...pm is intereasted). Bull****.

(we all know that society is crumbling down and bringing with it religions. before the 90' the catholic religion controlled north america, everyone went to church on sundays and obeyed the bible and gay marriages were not allowed.

Today, hardly anyone is catholic (and just because you belive in the religion doesn't mean you are catholic. the bible states that you must, sort of, fofil a catholic act every week, exp: going to church every sunday.) Now at this present day society accepts gay marriages, in 20 years society will accept what? Child Malestation.)

Ic you dont read very often because I was comparing past to present and saying
before the '90, we are now the year 2005 almost 2006, which isn't 6 years ago people didn't accept gay marriages and today we do. and in 20 years we will accept child malestation is the point a was trying to prove.


Any minister will tell you that it is more important that you live your life with the tenets of catholicism in mind rather than just going to church every sunday. Going to church every sunday isn't a guarantee of salation. And you're point is ridiculous. Gays have been gaining ground and finding support since the 60's, probably earlier. This isn't a recent phenomenon.

yes gays have been gaining ground/support/accptance like you said, since the 60's but they have never been allowed gay marriage until present years which is if you where following the thread is a recent phenomenon.

[Frndlefire]

Ic you dont read very often because I was comparing past to present and saying
before the '90, we are now the year 2005 almost 2006, which isn't 6 years ago people didn't accept gay marriages and today we do. and in 20 years we will accept child malestation is the point a was trying to prove.forgive me I misread, however I still disagree that our society is coming to some apolcalypic end because less people are catholic now than they used to be. also, are you equating homosexuality with child molestation and trying to tell us you arent homophobic?

yes gays have been gaining ground/support/accptance like you said, since the 60's but they have never been allowed gay marriage until present years which is if you where following the thread is a recent phenomenon. They still arent allowed to marry, hence the controversy. And it isn't a recent phenomena, gays have wanted to get married for years... it is just recently that they have garnered enough support that they could gain media attention for their cause.

[wrwarrior19]

People say we're a democracy, but in all reality we're more like a constitutional republic. That's why to maintain a democratic fashion, this gay marriage should actually be on a voters ballot.

[Dan]

I have a lot of thoughts about this.

Good old Ahnold. Go with the people. It's our nation, not some judge's nation. This is about marriage benefits, something many couples forgo altogether. If we were talking straight discrimination, like kicking gays out of schools, I'd be adamantly for gay rights because no matter what, every American deserves and education. But this is like, tax benefits and some things. I think that there should be something that sort of recognizes a homosexual union, so that they can visit each other in the hospital and stuff. I mean, that should be there just for like, two best friends, because sometimes laws restrict heterosexual relationships and benefits too. Anyway, I'm very, very against homosexual marriage and rights in general. You know how Vermont was the first state to allow Civil Unions, which the legislation pretty much just snuck by despite the fact that much of the state was against it? My parents went to the capitol or wherever they were doing the hearings and stood with ribbons against this stupid, stupid law, but I was like 12 or younger and don't remember too much about it. Nowadays, I'd be skipping school to go with them. Vermont sucked anyway, because Dean sucked. I have so much hate for Dean. Act 60 and Act 250 were some of the worst laws ever. I mean ARE some of the worst laws ever, since Act 60 is still screwing over foreign language and many other programs in my old high school. Well whatever, that's another issue.

I want my kids raised in a soceity where marriage between man and a woman is the only true marriage. I don't want them to be confused. I know it will happen, no matter what. I think the world is getting worse and worse, and it's evident from decade to decade, and I think it does have something to do with people losing their religion. It's just a matter of delaying it. And I'm all for delaying it. I will never support gay marriage as long as there is a breath in my body. I'm probably going to get a bunch of "close-minded" retorts, but who is to say that you're being the open minded ones by letting this march right through? You're shutting the door on tens millions of Americans that believe in a certain issue, and by dismissing them as close-minded, you never hear their side of the story. I've heard the other side, pondered it and it hasn't changed a thing for me. This goes beyond conservatism and liberalism. It's morals and ethics. If I didn't have those, I'd be voting so much differently, and my entire though process would be completely changed. But this is how I am, and I believe certain things and even though the general morals of the world degrade farther and farther, I'll still be sticking to what I've been taught. This isn't some stuck-up preaching thing, it's just that I was raised a certain way and I like how I feel, and others like certain things, so that's their deal, fine with me. But I'll stick to what I know and love.

If you disagree about the world degrading, think about even just television for a minute. Back in the days, a TV married man and wife would sleep in seperate beds. Now? We have Desperate Housewives, often rated TV-PG, where we have an incredibly inaccurate portrayal of women who stay at home instead of working. Way to degrade mothers like my own, who stay at home and work around the house and are great moms and stuff. I know working moms as well, and that's totally cool, but being a mom is a full time job, and now it's something that's scorned and mocked. It's sick. And swearing? Yeah, vulgarity is way higher now on TV than it was way back when. Violence? Jeez, no question there. Sexual content? It feels like every episode of CSI has some sex scandal-related sideplot or something similar. TV isn't safe for little kids anymore. And then there's the media. It farking blows. They barely broadcast anything positive about this hurricane. Did you know that over 9000 people have been rescued from rooftops and stuff? That's the largest rescue we've ever had in America. The media is so negative. I don't feel like I can be happy if I'm watching it. Except, Fox News is too positive sometimes, but I'll take it over overt pessimism. Well, that's all, I guess. I don't expect even one of you to agree with me, except for the whole voting with the people thing. Because this is our nation. We are the ones paying the taxes, filling the jobs, doing our duty as citizens. I don't want some crazy politician thinking he can go against it just because he feels that our ethics are out of whack. Well, in a way they are, but one man shouldn't be able to tell millions that they are wrong, just because he thinks so. Because I'm going to vote one way, but I'm not going to tell anybody else to do so as well. I'm just putting what I think out there, and nothing else.

[ColtsLax]

AHHHH!! i will hunt down the next person who attempts to use "seperation of curch and state" on the board as an argument. There is no such thing, no law, no ammendment, not bill that says that. Its from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a judge to help deffine a law that came up in a very specific way. The onyl laws concerning religion say the the Government can not make any one religion legal or illegal. So stop it.

Dan, the nation is getting more Conservative as we approach a deep recetion(sp) Dont belive me, watch CNBC. Although with all the rebuilding in NO, that could push back the eventual.

An elected politician always votes with the mind of the people. when you elect him, it is assumed that you feel he will best represent your beliefs on the national stage. If you have a problem, call your congressman. Mine, Chris Smtih has been one of the most helpful guys. I have called him on several occasions most recently on the Death Tax, and he and his office were very accomodating. Or organize a peaceful protest, a petition, a sit-in. There are many options availabe to the citizen to express thier anger.

[LaxLover546]

who cares if you are married it is just a piece of paper

[lklax5]

Malestation, Fofil?
TweeK,your bible might tell you that gay marrige is wrong, but it definately doesn't tell you how to spell.

It really pisses me off when people believe that gay marrige will destroy society. Would you rather have gays sleeping around with each other?

and it's so ridiculous, that people believe that gay marrige hurts marrige between a man and a women seriously, do you really think people will say something like: " Honey, I'm gonna need a divorce, because ever since those gays started getting married, I've been losing touch with you"

[Dan]

Who mentioned something about the ten commandments? Do you really think our nation is strictly based off of those? Wouldn't affairs, disrespectful children, average lying and other things be punishable by law, then? Capitalism would practically die without jealousy. I also think our nation is growing more and more conservative, but environmentalist whackos are still whacked and screw us over, and PETA still sucks. I love meat! I love meat! I love meat!

[Hooligan]

I have to say, that if the country felt as passionately about this mundane issue, as they did about solving our gasoline chrisis...we might have found a way to make the prices at the pumps not be so obsurd.

Personally, I think the government should be spending more of its valuable time finding ways to fund organizations seeking to find ways to make alternative fuels work for today's combustion engines, and research alternative power sources for private transportation.

Wouldn't that be nice??!?

[laxrat22]

I have a lot of thoughts about this.

Good old Ahnold. Go with the people. It's our nation, not some judge's nation. This is about marriage benefits, something many couples forgo altogether. If we were talking straight discrimination, like kicking gays out of schools, I'd be adamantly for gay rights because no matter what, every American deserves and education. But this is like, tax benefits and some things. I think that there should be something that sort of recognizes a homosexual union, so that they can visit each other in the hospital and stuff. I mean, that should be there just for like, two best friends, because sometimes laws restrict heterosexual relationships and benefits too. Anyway, I'm very, very against homosexual marriage and rights in general. You know how Vermont was the first state to allow Civil Unions, which the legislation pretty much just snuck by despite the fact that much of the state was against it? My parents went to the capitol or wherever they were doing the hearings and stood with ribbons against this stupid, stupid law, but I was like 12 or younger and don't remember too much about it. Nowadays, I'd be skipping school to go with them. Vermont sucked anyway, because Dean sucked. I have so much hate for Dean. Act 60 and Act 250 were some of the worst laws ever. I mean ARE some of the worst laws ever, since Act 60 is still screwing over foreign language and many other programs in my old high school. Well whatever, that's another issue.

I want my kids raised in a soceity where marriage between man and a woman is the only true marriage. I don't want them to be confused. I know it will happen, no matter what. I think the world is getting worse and worse, and it's evident from decade to decade, and I think it does have something to do with people losing their religion. It's just a matter of delaying it. And I'm all for delaying it. I will never support gay marriage as long as there is a breath in my body. I'm probably going to get a bunch of "close-minded" retorts, but who is to say that you're being the open minded ones by letting this march right through? You're shutting the door on tens millions of Americans that believe in a certain issue, and by dismissing them as close-minded, you never hear their side of the story. I've heard the other side, pondered it and it hasn't changed a thing for me. This goes beyond conservatism and liberalism. It's morals and ethics. If I didn't have those, I'd be voting so much differently, and my entire though process would be completely changed. But this is how I am, and I believe certain things and even though the general morals of the world degrade farther and farther, I'll still be sticking to what I've been taught. This isn't some stuck-up preaching thing, it's just that I was raised a certain way and I like how I feel, and others like certain things, so that's their deal, fine with me. But I'll stick to what I know and love.

If you disagree about the world degrading, think about even just television for a minute. Back in the days, a TV married man and wife would sleep in seperate beds. Now? We have Desperate Housewives, often rated TV-PG, where we have an incredibly inaccurate portrayal of women who stay at home instead of working. Way to degrade mothers like my own, who stay at home and work around the house and are great moms and stuff. I know working moms as well, and that's totally cool, but being a mom is a full time job, and now it's something that's scorned and mocked. It's sick. And swearing? Yeah, vulgarity is way higher now on TV than it was way back when. Violence? Jeez, no question there. Sexual content? It feels like every episode of CSI has some sex scandal-related sideplot or something similar. TV isn't safe for little kids anymore. And then there's the media. It farking blows. They barely broadcast anything positive about this hurricane. Did you know that over 9000 people have been rescued from rooftops and stuff? That's the largest rescue we've ever had in America. The media is so negative. I don't feel like I can be happy if I'm watching it. Except, Fox News is too positive sometimes, but I'll take it over overt pessimism. Well, that's all, I guess. I don't expect even one of you to agree with me, except for the whole voting with the people thing. Because this is our nation. We are the ones paying the taxes, filling the jobs, doing our duty as citizens. I don't want some crazy politician thinking he can go against it just because he feels that our ethics are out of whack. Well, in a way they are, but one man shouldn't be able to tell millions that they are wrong, just because he thinks so. Because I'm going to vote one way, but I'm not going to tell anybody else to do so as well. I'm just putting what I think out there, and nothing else.

thanks dan, you've just inspired me to abondon my republican views and become a democrat. i had hoped it was just my father but of course that was naive. i'd be more than willing to bet you don't have any homosexual friends, or even know any for that matter. gays and lesbians are people too, i don't know if you realize that. all people deserve equal rights no matter what orientation they may be. i honestly doubt that your kids and my kids would have no morals because homosexuals were aloud the same rights as us. and again, thank you

[Dan]

Look man, I'm not out here to change anybody's mind. Yes, I do know gays. I don't give a hoot if somebody is gay or not. And way to quote my whole post when little of it had to do with homosexuals, and a lot had to do with things other than gay marriage. I never said my kids would have no morals. But if I had to raise a kid in a certain decade, I'd probably pick the '50's. That was a good one. No major wars and a fairly clean soceity. And your judgement of me is off. It's going to be harder to teach my children that being gay is wrong. Because that's how I believe. Telling me I'm wrong won't change anything. Just like swearing. It's nearly impossible for kids not to swear these days because it's all around. I know that gay marriage will be nationally accepted in my lifetime. I know it will, but it's like a snake sitting at my doorstep. I'm not going to invite it in; I'm going to let it sit there until I have to go outside and face it. It seems you think that I go up to homosexuals and tell them they are wrong. Well I don't. Because I know some, have talked with some and think they are cool kids. But I don't agree with the belief, so why the devil would I support it? Why do people expect me to vote for something I disagree with? Something that I will always disagree with? I have lesbians that live on my street for goodness sakes. I'm a religious person and I believe that gay marriage is a mockery of how we were supposed to court one another and such. I don't expect to change anybody's mind through argument, because that just doesn't work. I know an awesome girl that's pretty much the opposite of me in beliefs, but I have a lot of respect for her because she isn't afraid of expressing them. Actually, it feels to me like you're being more close-minded than I am, because you're insulting what I believe, and mocking me. Well, I'm never going to mock a gay person for their beliefs, I'm just going to disagree. Strongly. And he's going to disagree with me. Strongly. He'll fight against me and I'll fight against him, but in the end, I'll still respect him for being a genuine person who's doing what he thinks is right.

[laxrat22]

where in my post did i mock your beliefs. i stated my oppinion just as you stated yours. i never said you're wrong or you're an idiot, i just said what i believe. like you i am too a religious person, but i believe the words of jesus, not someone who is driven by power and greed (i'm not necissarily speaking about current people) my good man JC preached to love your neighbor and not judge them and that God loves all his people, every single one of them. i never read anything about jesus calling someone a fag and denying them the same rights as anyone else, but i don't study the bible anymore so i could've missed something.

[stegmakk]

I have a lot of thoughts about this...snipped for reader's eye strength
I just don't see why people are so against it?
They start off with I am not against homosexuals...
so then why not let them marry? What does it do to you? Nothing.

Does it hurt moral issues? Not at all. As was pointed out morals are getting wrecked more by the traditional man/wife marriages and sex in tv and movies...

[stegmakk]

The onyl laws concerning religion say the the Government can not make any one religion legal or illegal.
So if a muslim president came to power, and while not making it the official US religion, passed laws that were muslim friendly and anti-christian...you would not have a problem with that because hey...it isn't against the law?

[Dan]

Laxrat, your whole post was mocking me. Accusing me of knowing no homosexuals, or many other things? I made my post, but it was all about what I thought, and my ten commandments post was just stating fact.

I believe a certain way. I always will. I'm not gonna go against that, because I think it does do harm even though you don't. I guess that's just how things are gonna be for me, people thinking I'm a hard-hearted, close-minded fool, but I don't really care.

[crazylegs]

I don't usually get in these homosexual threads, but I'm jumping in here because i feel it does hurt not only you and me, but our children and our childrens children. But I'm taking a little differetn stance on it, so forget religious reasons. Homosexuality is increasingly becoming more and more accepted as each decade goes by, to the point where in our current era our children (under the age of ten) 1) accept it and find it normal 2) not only accept it but embrace it, much like the many people on here that are not gay but defend it, strongly 3) are repeatedly told and reminded of it. Homosexuality is something that is learned either as a child or maybe even teenage yrs., nobody is born gay. Humans are a species of animal jsut like any other mammal or reptile, that is born with a natural tendancy to reproduce, as in the opposite sex. Unfortunatly humans are to intelligint for our own good, for we are the only species in which gays exsist. Now considering what you learn during your first ten yrs. can pretty much dictate what kind of tndancies you'll have through out your life, the percentage of gay kids is going to skyrocket because of its world wide acceptance. While the majority of these kids probably never would turn gay if it was not repeatedly preached to them that its okay. What is the percentage of gays in the 70's compared to yr. 2005, now think of the percentage of gays in the yr. 2035 now with that think of the global adoption rate adn birth rate, because gays don't reproduce. So do the math all the way up till the yr.3000 you could have over 50% of the population gay. Just some food for thought.

[roycegracie47]

for we are the only species in which gays exsist.
Benobo Chimps, the only other species which has sex for recreational purposes, in which gay/lesbianism is considered the norm and only incest is frowned upon.

[RockStar]

..... What is the percentage of gays in the 70's compared to yr. 2005, now think of the percentage of gays in the yr. 2035 now with that think of the global adoption rate adn birth rate, because gays don't reproduce. So do the math all the way up till the yr.3000 you could have over 50% of the population gay. Just some food for thought.

What do we even know about the real percentage of gays in a previous decade?

If there are any more now, the difference between is probably only due to lower rates of discrimination.....those that would have stayed in the closet back then are now more willing to out themselves.

[stegmakk]

...
Homosexuality has not been proven a learned function.
It HAS been published that male and female brains actually are physically/chemically different. What is to say that a homosexual person does not have a minor brain defect. I would tend to think that homosexuals (for the most part) are born a certain way. The few that I knew said this after trying to date some women, it just didn't do anything for them, but guys did (gross yes, but it was not what they learned).

As far as because it is more accepted now, and that this wil lead to more of them, this is debateable. For the first part, there have always been homosexuals, however this was INTOLERABLE in the past. I am not even talking about a few decades ago, I am talking centuries. Homosexuals back then would either live a lie and marry and either cheat or just not have sex with their spouse, or not even get married and stay single, or risk being caught and be gay. In today's time, it is more accepted, so more people come out and do not hide it. Add in the fact that the overall population keeps growing, and yes there are more homosexuals. Is there a greater percentage, maybe but not like what you are suggesting. Maybe a very minimal increase, but probably not.

[twin58]

I... Homosexuality is something that is learned either as a child or maybe even teenage yrs., nobody is born gay.

Googling brings up thousands and thousands of sites on this incorrect belief. You might want to try the Columbia University's "Go Ask Alice" website, which serves as a place kids where can find the answers to questions they're afraid to ask in person.

Go Ask Alice! - Columbia University's Health Q&A Internet Service (http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/)

Humans ... are the only species in which gays exsist.

I assume you meant to say that humans are the only species in which homosexual activity is to be found.

Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (http://archive.ala.org/booklist/v95/adult/de1/16bagemi.html)

Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Jan. 1999. 768p. index. illus. St. Martin's, $35 (0-312-19239-8). DDC: 591.56.

Exploding the myth that homosexuality is not frequently found in nature, this carefully researched book documents the broad range of sexual behavior recorded for nonhuman animals. The idea that reproduction is the sole reason for sexual behavior is a prevalent one, and only recently has it begun to be seriously questioned. Bagemihl, in a wide-ranging survey of (mostly) mammals and birds, presents research on hundreds of species, demonstrating all forms of sexual contact. ... The second half of the book is a look at homosexuality in a broad array of mammals and birds, with extensive references for each species discussed. An appendix covers other species in which homosexual behavior has been documented, including reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and domestic animals.
....
--Nancy Bent

What is the percentage of gays in the 70's compared to yr. 2005....

I suppose the same as it's always been. My guess: about three percent. Just a guess.

[crazylegs]

It is absolutly learned, or else it would never be thought of in the first place. Sex would be used only for reproduction if it was not learned to be used as a recreational activity, its not something your born with, a kid with a third eye in the middle of his forehead is something your born with. Your friends you talk of who turned gay (not disrespecting what so ever), went by their natural instincts and tried to hook up with the opposite sex first, right. Then with whatever happened, they learned that in our country its okay to be gay, maybe I'll give that a shot. All I'm saying is you choose what is fun and whats not, there is no meaningful outcome to gay sex, as in reproduction, so it is purely for the purpose of pleasure, therefore its learned.

[twin58]

... there is no meaningful outcome to gay sex, as in reproduction, so it is purely for the purpose of pleasure,...

If that's not a meaningful outcome, I don't know what is.

[adam]

there is no meaningful outcome to gay sex, as in reproduction, so it is purely for the purpose of pleasure, therefore its learned.


So I'm going to assume you also have a problem with all heterosexuals who have sex for pleasure and that those individuals that are sterile or can't have babies should never have sex.

[stegmakk]

Your friends you talk of who turned gay (not disrespecting what so ever), went by their natural instincts and tried to hook up with the opposite sex first, right. Then with whatever happened, they learned that in our country its okay to be gay, maybe I'll give that a shot.
Not quite...they went with what they LEARNED first that it should be a man and a woman. When they realized this was not what was clicking in their brain as the right thing to do, they tried something that they felt was correct, but what they were TAUGHT was incorrect, and that was homosexuality.

Bah...why am i even discussing this... :thinking: it doesn't affect me...

im gonna go have sex with my wife (female you smart guys) :thumbsup:

[twin58]

im gonna go have sex with my wife

OK, just as long as there's no pleasure involved.

[stegmakk]

OK, just as long as there's no pleasure involved.
LOL...maybe not for her :chuckle:

[laxrat22]

i'd like to start off by saying stegmakk is my hero just because. Dan i didn't "accuse" you of anything. i said i'd be willing to bet, and i only said that out of personal experience. you see i was once like you, homophoebic and against gay rights until i actually met a few gay people and became friends with them, my eyes were then opened and have been a supporter ever since, and i know a lot of straight guys that were the same way. so i'm sorry for assuming (not accusing) most straight guys don't want to be around gay guys because they think they are going to hit on them, and sometimes it may be true one of my gay friends tried to kiss me one time but i calmly explained to him that i wasn't gay and he never tried anything again and now we are good friends. any respectable gay man won't try to convert you to homosexuality.

and to crazylegs i think it was who said we are the only animals that are gay, you should come to my house and see my male neighbor dogs trying to hump my male dog

[stegmakk]

and to crazylegs i think it was who said we are the only animals that are gay, you should come to my house and see my male neighbor dogs trying to hump my male dog
Reminds me...my turtles (all boys) originally were kept in the same tank...not sure if the one was gay or just horny enough to try and do anything, but he would mount the other boy turtle and try to mate (I could get graphic but it was just...ewwwe...)...now I seperated them and they dont try to hump the rocks that are in their new tanks...maybe they were gay...maytbe they were just super horney and in the mood for luvin...i know it aint scientific but hey its the truth...

[Dan]

Weird, crazy turtles. Anyway, I'm not here to change minds or to argue. Laxrat, the way you wrote your post, it seemed accusatory. That's why I got on the defensive. But anyway, I guess I've said what I need to say in this thread. Sometimes we need to go with the minority; I think FDR (Amazing president, republican though I be) would have gotten screwed a lot if we didn't, and we have the electoral college for a reason, but in this case, I feel that Ahnold should vote with the people. I think most would agree that California is the most open minded of states, one of the most liberal just because of its Hollywood presence.

[AZReDWiNG]

I have not even read this thread, but I can tell right now someone is going to bring up that being gay is unnatural, that it is learned.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0621_050622_gay_flies.html


Belgian researchers investigated why male damselflies often try to mate with each other. The scientists say the reason could lie with females that adopt a range of appearances to throw potential mates off their scent. In an evolutionary battle of the sexes, males become attracted to a range of different looks, with some actually preferring a more masculine appearance.


http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm


Many domestic and wild animals engage in sexual activity with members of both the same and the opposite sex; a smaller number have eyes only for their own sex. Some of these homosexual activities appear to boost reproduction. Female cows often mount each other, thereby signaling any bulls in sight that they are ready to reproduce. In other cases, same-sex affairs may help reproduction indirectly, by promoting the general fitness of a group or individual. For example, in some species, animals are more willing to share food with a member of their own sex after sexual activity with him or her.



::mavido edit:: Ok animals humping... might be a bit to much... if you disagree PM myself or enjoi.

[GuapoGrande]

I have not even read this thread, but I can tell right now someone is going to bring up that being gay is unnatural, that it is learned.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0621_050622_gay_flies.html



http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm




::mavido edit:: Ok animals humping... might be a bit to much... if you disagree PM myself or enjoi.


yeah, and Black Widow's eat their mates after they mate. So does that mean that we can do it too?? it has to be natural because animals do it, right? it's the same reasoning.

[Coach_Goldberg]

yeah, and Black Widow's eat their mates after they mate. So does that mean that we can do it too?? it has to be natural because animals do it, right? it's the same reasoning.

Dude, you are my hero...

You and me are going to go around and make all the homosexuals wear little pink triangles. Then, once we have properly labeled all of the homosexuals, we can make them all take special gas showers. America should be for Americans, not homosexuals...

(this is pure sarcasm)

[ColtsLax]

Dude, you are my hero...

You and me are going to go around and make all the homosexuals wear little pink triangles. Then, once we have properly labeled all of the homosexuals, we can make them all take special gas showers. America should be for Americans, not homosexuals...

(this is pure sarcasm)
while that may be a bit extreme, he does have a point.

Gay people do deserve the legal rights and benefits of hetero couples. No problem there. Just dont call it a marriage. we also need to separate LEGAL marriages(by a judge) from RELIGIOUS marriages(priest/rabbi/iman)

[Coach_Goldberg]

Weird, I think this is the first time that we agreed on something...

[ColtsLax]

Weird, I think this is the first time that we agreed on something...
gay marriage is the one of the few things in leftist on. i understand that there are situations where people are gay by nature. and also, that they are people just like everyone else. That and education i side with the left. I more right on things like the economy and the involvement of our gov't in every day affairs(my new idea is a standing legislature, like the army, if we need them, call, but otherwise they go home)

[Frndlefire]

while that may be a bit extreme, he does have a point.

Gay people do deserve the legal rights and benefits of hetero couples. No problem there. Just dont call it a marriage. we also need to separate LEGAL marriages(by a judge) from RELIGIOUS marriages(priest/rabbi/iman)
*gulf clap*

I would suggest changing the name of all legal marriages to civil unions. Just remove the faith part of it from the legal code, seems resonable if we are trying to seperate the two and a religious marriage will always be called a marriage.

[RockStar]

...........Just dont call it a marriage. we also need to separate LEGAL marriages(by a judge) from RELIGIOUS marriages(priest/rabbi/iman)

*gulf clap*

I would suggest changing the name of all legal marriages to civil unions. Just remove the faith part of it from the legal code, seems resonable if we are trying to seperate the two and a religious marriage will always be called a marriage.


Civil marriages have been a reality for many years, so are you proposing to trample on the rights of others by removing access? Why?

Why does a marriage done by a civil judge in accordance with the laws of the land mean less than one done by a so called holy man?

(Honestly, if you're a Christian, how the hell can you consider a Jewish or Islamic ceremony to be more valid than a secular one? By your very faith, the Jews and Muslims are dead wrong on many things!)

Is it just so you can reserve the word marriage for your own church-performed ceremonies, and somehow feel holier-than-thou because outsiders don't have access? I can't imagine why else.

[Frndlefire]

Civil marriages have been a reality for many years, so are you proposing to trample on the rights of others by removing access? Why?

Why does a marriage done by a civil judge in accordance with the laws of the land mean less than one done by a so called holy man?

(Honestly, if you're a Christian, how the hell can you consider a Jewish or Islamic ceremony to be more valid than a secular one? By your very faith, the Jews and Muslims are dead wrong on many things!)

Is it just so you can reserve the word marriage for your own church-performed ceremonies, and somehow feel holier-than-thou because outsiders don't have access? I can't imagine why else.

I'm not quite sure how you read my statement to mean that I want to trample anyone's rights by removing access to marraige. Maybe you could clearify... I'm not saying we change anything about the laws, I'm just saying what we call it changes. A major hangup in allowing gay marriage is because people think that it is immoral (or otherwise wrong) for homosexuals to get married because it contradicts who their religion says can get married. There is less problems with homosexuals having civil unions. Now if we want homosexuals to have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals by calling all civil marraiges civil unions it removes the hurdle of people associating their personal religious beliefs with a civil marraige - which is different than a religious marriage because of the extensive secular, legal ramifications that it involves.

[Frndlefire]

Is it just so you can reserve the word marriage for your own church-performed ceremonies, and somehow feel holier-than-thou because outsiders don't have access? I can't imagine why else.
And rockstar...I've said many times that I don't perscribe to any religion so don't go looking for my to give them preferential treatment.

[GuapoGrande]

even if people can be born gay, it isn't justified. All people are born with the natural inclination to sin like lying, cheating and stealing but those things are not justified by the fact that they're natural feelings.

[Dan]

Watch out, people might call you a zealot for that belief. Look, this all comes down to people believing that relationships should be between a man and a woman or that two of the same sex is just nasty, or that people should be able to have sex with whatever they feel like. Well actually, never mind, I'm pretty sure beastiality is thoroughily illegal. Anyway.

I think all sex should be made in the bonds of marriage. All of it. I also think pleasuring yourself is wrong too. I don't look at porn, since it leads to those things, and also it's an addiction. Along with same-sex marriage, I think that changing the age of consent law to 16 in that one state is a terrible idea. If I had it my way, sex before marriage would be punishable by law. But this is a free nation, and not everybody believes the same way as me, so screw that. But when you think about it, premarital or extramarital sex just screws with so much stuff. STDs, unwanted pregnancies, rape, the complications and hate that comes with an affair. But we're a free nation, so I guess I can't control those things. But we also don't honor a man trying to run two relationships, or a woman, with their spouse and their partner. Even when a man or woman marries the person they had the affair with, things are pretty freaking screwed up. The relationship is pretty muched doomed since there just isn't much trust after that point. Much of a marriage or relationship is based on trust. The US doesn't recognize an affair as a legitmate relationship, so why should anything else? Apparently 11% of the world is homosexual. That's the stat I'm told. Well, I believe there is time for pleasure sex. Go right ahead. I just think it should be between two married people. I mean, it's the power to create a being. We treat it like a joke. We are demoralized and depraved. It is natural to sin, but that doesn't make it right. Of course I'm Christian, a worshiping and active one. I also think polygamy is one screwed up tradition that absolutely shouldn't exist right now. It's such a sick and wrong thing. It's awful for the women and children. For the one or two or however many that think Mormons practice polygamy, they don't. It's the FLDS church, or the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Sait church. Mormons are just LDS. Not FLDS. Sex isn't a toy and we shouldn't be treating it like we are, but that would require a change of heart in about 250+ million Americans. Good luck to me with that. It's not like I stop talking to somebody if they have, it's just that I lose some respect. But for most, they haven't been taught not to, so I don't really lose a lot it for them. Like all my friends from Vermont. They just know they'll get in trouble with their parents; they don't think about the morality of the issue. This is what I believe. I believe sex outside of wedlock is completely wrong. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex is to help keep the love alive in a married couple and to spread life. Yeah, I think abortion is wrong too. Of course, it wouldn't be a problem if people would freaking abstain. So, on all of those beliefs, why should I believe that it's okay for two guys or girls? I'm not going to stop treating a person like a human based on that, because I'm not a hater, but why support something I don't believe? So hypocritical to do so.

On a slightly related note, has anybody been checked out by a gay guy? It's definitely creepy and weird. Like if the creepy girl at your school was checking you out. Not pleasant.

[roycegracie47]

On a slightly related note, has anybody been checked out by a gay guy? It's definitely creepy and weird. Like if the creepy girl at your school was checking you out. Not pleasant.
As of '06 I have been hit 5 times, and had to break all their hearts. I guess it was kind of flattering in a weird, creepy way.

On note of this topic: I agree it Colts and Frndlfre, if we change the wording, people suddenly aren't as up in arms about it. I've made my point clear elsewhere on TLF that I am in favor of civil unions. On that note, at my cousin Marsha's birthday party 2 weeks ago both she and her partner Josette have begun to wear "wedding bands" (though the guesstimate is purely as a symbolic gesture, though they do travel a lot...who knows...) and we are all happy for them.

[Bobsch]

I agree with roycegracie, colts, and frndlfire.

Dan, I won't try to change your beliefs, but you said, "I believe sex outside of wedlock is completely wrong." So, what are unmarried homosexuals supposed to do? If they can't marry, then, according to what you wrote, they sinned. Or do you want them to marry the opposite sex and live false lives?

[Dan]

See, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, not a way a person is born. Thus, they are sinning. I guess in Norway people are generally more "open-minded," and I guess I'd be considered incredibly close-minded, but I think homosexual sex is wrong. Yep. I don't think it's a false life at all. I think the false life is homosexuality. Nearly everybody's gonna disagree, but I don't really care.

[Bobsch]

It isn't a choice, I think and believe, you are born one way or the other. There are Norwegian people who would agree with you...and disagree, just as I would (I happen to be American). One day, though, you will have to maybe face the fact that a son or daughter...or maybe grandson or daughter....is homosexual...I just hope you will accept them and love them, despite (or maybe because of) what you believe.

[laxboy452]

im kinda amazed 60% were agianst it considering that sf is the national gay capital of the world u know

[x-man]

Well i really don't care. It's your life do as you will. I don't care unless it directly affects me. Even if I had A homosexual family member i would not care. I don't know why people care. Do you wake up in the morning and say to yourself " man i'd love it if there were less gays".

[Coach_Goldberg]

See, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, not a way a person is born. Thus, they are sinning. I guess in Norway people are generally more "open-minded," and I guess I'd be considered incredibly close-minded, but I think homosexual sex is wrong. Yep. I don't think it's a false life at all. I think the false life is homosexuality. Nearly everybody's gonna disagree, but I don't really care.

Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or is that just a choice society has made for you and feels natural to you? What if you had to marry another man b/c it was forbidden for you to marry a woman? Could you be happy, would you make yourself be happy?

Oh, and yes in the bible it does talk about homosexuality being a sin, Leviticus chapter 18. Being a practicing Christian I must assume that if you eat meat you must eat your steaks well-done. Leviticus chapter 17 forbids the eating of blood in any form. Also, I am sure that you have never hugged or held your mother's, sister's, or girlfriend's hand from the time they are having their period until 7 days after that has stopped. Leviticus chapter 15 forbids that. Do you have side burns or wing tips along the temples? Leviticus chapter 19 says that you can not trim off the hair on your temples or clip the edges of your beard. I hope you don't have any tattoos either. Levitius chapter 19 forbids that as well. Leviticus chapter 20 also recommends the death penalty for those that curse their mother and father. I guess that is one way to implement some population control.

Also, this is all in the Old Testament. Jesus never said anything about homosexuals.

[Dan]

Wow, I love it when ignorant people try to tell me what my beliefs are. Good job, you nailed Hasidic Judaism! Ever read The Chosen? Then maybe you'd have a clue. I'm a Mormon, not an Orthodox Jew. The first five books of the Old Testament contain tons and tons of Jewish law. Did you know that when Christ came on the earth he laid down a higher law, not an eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth but turn the other cheek? Right? New Testament? Hmmm... I'm also guessing you know little to nothing about Mormon beliefs, or that we believe in The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. What? Never heard of them? Most people haven't. I don't care. Don't ever tell me what I should believe, because I know and have been taught tons and tons about my religion, probably 10 times more than you know about yours, because I'm betting you didn't have to attend four years of Mormon seminary in high school or go to church for 3 hours every Sunday. People just use religion as a weapon against the religious these days. So lame. For a coach, you're pretty critical and harsh. I thought they were supposed to help youth and encourage them, not jump and attack them on internet forums. Yeesh, I'm just 17.

I don't hate homosexuals. I don't even dislike them at all. I hate homosexuality.

[GuapoGrande]

1CO 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Rom 1:26-27 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

those are just some other verses. I'm not a zealot, but i do believe in absolute truth. Things cannot be true for one person and not for another. It's a fact that man and woman are made for each other. the old "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" saying. I know it's cliche, but it's very true. We were designed for each other. there's no way around it. Marriage is the foundation of nearly everybody's life. When you ask any married man or woman what the most important thing in their life is, they will almost always say that it is their family. It should be between a man and a woman like God meant for it to be. There are no ifs ands or buts.

I have also considered the viewpoint that "it doesn't affect me, so why would I care?" But there's horrible logic in that thought. We can use the same logic to say that people can kill each other because it doesn't affect us. What do I care if people kill other people? as long as it doesn't affect me and doesn't hurt me at all, why should i have anything to do with it?

[Frndlefire]

When you ask any married man or woman what the most important thing in their life is, they will almost always say that it is their family. And what is the divorce rate in America these days...?


It should be between a man and a woman like God meant for it to be. God didn't write the Bible, fallible, corruptable, biased, man did. And literalism is weak...

I have also considered the viewpoint that "it doesn't affect me, so why would I care?" But there's horrible logic in that thought. We can use the same logic to say that people can kill each other because it doesn't affect us. What do I care if people kill other people? as long as it doesn't affect me and doesn't hurt me at all, why should i have anything to do with it?Seriously... you're off base. Please explain to me how killing someone is tantamount to two men making out in the bedroom? This analogy isn't even close to being accurate.

Sorry, I just don't understand why people are so quick to get mad at how other people run their lives. Why is it a personal affront to you that someone does something different. If you think they're going to hell for being homosexual, well they made that choice so why do you feel like you need to legislate morality. Homosexuality doesn't hurt other people. It doesnt break, take, or ruin their property. Fine, it pisses you off, but once upon a not-so-distant time white people didn't want black people drinking from their drinking fountains because it pissed them off. . Did a black person drinking at a white drinking fountain affect white people in any way? No. Was it wrong?...well not if you agree with those white folks. Just let people be. Remember that whole "love you're neighbor as yourself" thing that that hip cat named Jesus said? Or how about those things saying we're all equal in the eyes of God? Or are those tenets just too cumbersome and outdated for our modern morality.Just live your life, be happy. I'm not Mormon, don't plan to be Mormon, but I think that's cool that Dan is. He believes in that and for him that is the best way to run his life. Tight, all the power to you.

[Frndlefire]

What do I care if people kill other people? as long as it doesn't affect me and doesn't hurt me at all, why should i have anything to do with it?
oh, and our gov't likes this idea in other regards...for instance, there is a genocide in Darfur, but our gov't won't acknowledge it. What do we care about black people killing eachother...