Most conservatives are live-and-let-live types. The less government, the better; the less that the state regulates us, the better. For that reason, many conservatives have not put up much of a fight when it came to the abolition of sodomy laws; nor did we care much when gays wanted to “show their pride;” nor did many of us object to civil unions. For most of us, it was, “Fine, fine, do what you want.” However, we have come to find out that, each of these steps was not a pinnacle, but merely one step in a very long ladder. We have come to realize that, the legalization of gay marriage will not be the end of it either.
We have found the gay marriage movement to be very litigious. It does not matter what society says; they can vote again and again to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman; gays will use every legal maneuver possible to get their way. I do not doubt that there are some gays who are sincere in this movement. However, for others, this is simply more of their “in your face” attitude (which describes a gay pride parade, if you have not been to one before).
Allow me to present a few examples, many of which are well-known to most of you?
The Boy Scouts was one of the greatest and most honorable organizations in America. Then the gay activists and the ACLU attacked the Boy Scouts because they did not want self-proclaimed homosexuals as scout leaders. As a result, the Boy Scouts were kicked out of city parks, public schools and other meeting areas. They lost funding from the city and county governments and from the United Way for their programs to mentor boys without fathers. What will happen to this organization when, gay marriage is put on a par with heterosexual marriage? At one time, the girl scouts or boy scouts were a rite of passage for young people, and these legal battles have diminished their once great position in our society. You need to remember, in a court battle, often, whether a person wins or loses is not as important as to how much money the whole thing costs. The sad thing is, there was no reason for such a savage legal attack, beyond simple meanness. I would love to know what wonderful thing homosexuals believe that they achieved in this attack of the Boy Scouts.
We know for a fact that, gays will use “hate speech” legislation and “gay marriage” laws to attack churches and other organizations. This has already been done in our country and in other countries.
Sweden has a law now which bans “all speech and materials opposing homosexual behavior and other alternative lifestyles” and there can be a 4-year stint in jail for breaking this law. This is a law almost specifically for the pastors of a church who teach the Bible and what it says about homosexuality.
Gay marriage is just a step in the ladder; it is not the end game nor will it be the last law, nor will this be the end of gay lawsuits. It will become ammunition for more lawsuits.
The Anglican Bishop of Chester, England, but put under police investigation for saying, “Some people who are primarily homosexual can re-orient themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option.”
During Homosexual Pride Week in Saskatchewan, Canada, Hugh Owens took an ad out in the paper, showing the symbols of 2 men holding hands in a red circle with a line drawn through it, next to 4 Bible references. The verses were not written out. He was fined $4500.
A video was made in New Zealand which pointed out the link between AIDS and homosexual behavior; the New Zealand parliament outlawed the video, because it promoted hate speech.
Chris Kempling has a PhD in psychology, is head of the Central British Columbia Public Health Board and he is a counselor at a high school in British Columbia. He wrote a letter to his local paper, which suggested that homosexuality was not simply a genetic orientation, that homosexual sex could be unhealthy and promiscuous, and that homosexuals could become straight. He was suspended from his teaching job for a month without pay.
In California, a lesbian asked 2 Christian doctors to artificially inseminate her. The doctors refused and she sued them. The doctors lost on appeal.
I suggested in an earlier piece that schools would be sued for not having enough of a positive message about homosexuality; and that there would be lawsuits over “institutionalized homophobia.” This has already occurred in British Columbia, where the ministry of education had not gone far enough by avoiding discrimination against homosexual and bisexual students; they were guilty of not having a positive message out there concerning sexual orientation in the classroom.
Robert Jason of Foothill, Ontario sent out an email expressing a belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The police actually showed up at his front door and interviewed him, and they warned him not to threaten anyone (which he did not do).
A printing business in Ontario was put out of business through litigation because the owner did not want to print up stuff for a local homosexual and lesbian group.
Even now, there are a few public schools in California where students who object to a pro-homosexual policy can be sent to counseling.
These examples come from The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger.
So, ask yourself; will this get better or worse after gay marriage? Will there be more or less government interference with our schools and businesses after gay marriage? Will there be more or fewer lawsuits filed?
I oppose gay marriage for many reasons, but the certain increase of laws and lawsuits is one of the primary reasons that I oppose it.
This article is from Conservative Review #168 (PDF version)
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
Hey Gary, are you in Canada? We have a thing in the USA which provides for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I could care less about gay marriage, but there will not be any laws that will pass muster that will ban a type of speech… just look at the recent case were the Westboro Baptist Church was sued by the father of a Marine who was killed in action. The Westboro nut jobs picketed his sons funeral (and they were carrying signs “GOD HATES FAGS”) and their right to free speech was challenged through a law suit from the father suing for civil damages. The Supreme Court found in favor of the Westboro clan and overturned the verdict and monetary award. So this argument about “hate speech” etc is not really applicable here.
Oh, and lawsuits, I think gays will be more suing each other for divorce than other people… lol.
All I can say is that I keep hearing the sound of a flushing toilet getting louder and louder. More laws to elevate one small groups status above all others. It’s a crime to punch someone in the face, but if that person is homosexual then it’s a hate crime. All crimes have some hate in them don’t you think? The polarization of the country is in process and the flushing sound keeps getting louder.
@Sid:
Excellent point. Give them gay marriage. . . but ONLY if the so called “hate crime” bills are repealed.
That’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read. You nut jobs have been opposing gay marriages for years and years now, and you’re just trying to put more spins on it to make it “sound better” and “more honorable” for why you oppose them. What a bunch of horse shit. For ages now, homosexual people have been terrorized, hunted, had their lives torn apart, and generally made miserable, and NOW that they are gaining power and able to fight back against those that discriminate against them, NOW you’re bitching about that as well.
These people had every right/reason to be sued/fired that are stated in that article. It’s called discrimination, and it should be abolished entirely in this world. This whole thing is stating that you are pro discrimination! There should be more laws about this type of stuff, there’s laws for heterosexuals, there should be laws for homosexuals as well!! It’s like you idiots WANT to be seen as assholes, it really is.
As for blast….yes, because the heterosexuals aren’t suing each other at all and divorcing left right and center, are they?? I think you’re just afraid homosexuals will actually marry one another for love/happiness and their divorce rates will be HUGELY lower than those of “other people” as you put it.
Hey KumaTenshi, I’m tired of you jackboot fascists pushing your gay morality down my throat. I refuse to bow to your moral imperialism. You’re no different than when European colonialists stormed into Africa and the rest of the third world and not only imposed their will at gunpoint, but demanded they change their culture, values, and religion from their traditional beliefs to Christianity. They said the same thing the gay mafia says today, that their beliefs were backward, outdated, savage, unelightened, barbaric, and narrow-minded.
Gay thugs operate no differently today. They’ve moved in, asserted themselves over use, demand we change our traditional beliefs to accept homos because what we think is ‘unlightened’, ‘bigoted’, and ‘narrow minded.’ They even demand it be taught to our smallest children and indoctrinate them, just like the Euros did to the Africans. And guess what? The pedophiles aren’t far behind. Now they’re demanding the same rights as the homos.
Down with the insdiious homo elitists, down with gay nazi thugs, the jackboot moral imperialists and indoctrinating colonizers preying on our children. Long live the resistance!
That’s fine Skip, I’m tired of people trying to shove the ideal that being homosexual is wrong down MY throat.
Nice argument you use there, considering that the USA does, currently is, and has done this in many other countries, christians and religious people have done that exact same thing all over the world, as have many other so called “GOOD” countries/organizations.
So I’m pretty saying you’re full of shit as well, and just like to try and draw out anything you possibly can to make yourself look better, and everyone else seem wrong.
All that gay people are demanding is fair treatment, like everyone else has. It’s stubborn, ass backward individuals like yourself, who believe they are right and damn everyone else if they don’t think so as well, that cause them to have to fight for this treatment. You down cry them, you honestly think they’ll just roll over and take it?? Because when the same thing happens to you, I can guarantee, you DO NOT!
not this shit again.
Really?
Or only if the religion isn’t scary?
Sweden’s News in English.
@playwithfire:
Haha. Did you really think Gary could keep his mind off what homosexuals do behind closed doors for very long?
@KumaTenshi: There is no objective of fairness here. The only objective of the homos is to ram their beliefs down our throats, including down the throats of our kids in school as young as five years old. You demand we be tolerant of your lifestyle, you slap hate crimes on anyone that disagrees with you, and seek to outlaw and imprison anyone that would use their 1st amendment right to stop your jackboot agenda, and we’re the bad guy because we won’t let you run us over?
Spare me your crap about equality. The polygamists and pedophiles want their ‘equality’ too. This is about imposing your belief system over everyone else, in violation of the Constitution and separation of church and state. You don’t have a ‘right’ to force your morality down everyone’s throat, and it isn’t ‘equality’ to make everyone believe how you believe. You operate by the boot and nitestick and think people just ought to sit back and take it.
You sit there and cite my example as the hypocrisy of Christianity, but the homos want to do exactly the same thing to us: colonize the world with your moral imperialism. We we aren’t going to bend over for you. We’ll deal with little thugs as thugs are meant to be dealt with. Keep the homos away from our kids! Long live the resistance!
@Skip – Well, a couple of things. First, I’m not gay. Secondly, not from the US. Lastly, your first amendment prohibits laws that would restrict free speech, as that was the context you were using it in…..none of which they are doing. What you’re thinking of is freedom of thought, the so called right to believe all that bull crap you’re spewing out of your mouth about homosexuals. You americans get those two confused A LOT!
You’re basically seeking to be able to ram your own so called beliefs down everyone elses throats, that homosexuals are bad/evil because they love/want to be with people of the same sex. Again, freedom of thought. Much like when the US discriminated against and enslaved black people! I’m sure that probably pissed you off when that ended.
Moral imperialism, that’s hilarious. They want to be able to marry and have it legally recognized, not be discriminated against by people like yourself simply because of who they are, and you’re claiming it’s moral imperialism. So by your logic, we should be allowing the teachings of Hitler and his ideals to run rampant throughout your country, and everywhere else as well, yes?? Because he had a very set ideal on humanity, much like yourself.
You can’t “force” anyone to believe as you do, that’s humanly impossible. People will believe what they want, they always have, they may fake otherwise, but their own thoughts, they will always have. So if we are to tolerate narrow minded assholes such as yourself, explain to me why you should be tolerated, and not homosexuals? Because you are doing the exact same thing as them, as you even admitted as much when you said that the homos want to do the exact same thing, as your example earlier, which I cited as the hypocrisy of Christianity.
Of course gay people are demanding it, because they have been subjugated, terrorized, and hunted for decades, much like the black slaves were. They have equal rights, and yes, the homosexuals want their rights now as well, and guess what?? They will likely get them!! Polygamists already have, and have had, their rights for years. Church of Latter Day Saints, enough said.
As for your constant pedophiles remark, they won’t get their rights, for main reason. It’s evil. Why is it evil? Because pedophiles have this tendency to make people not of sound age and mind do things that scar them for life, it’s illegal, people are jailed for it. Homosexuality is not evil. Why? Because it’s people want to be happy and have lives with a partner of their choosing, that IS of sound age and mind. And, because I know you’ll use this as an argument, pedophiles exist as a MINORITY in all runs of life, both heterosexual and homosexual. Much like murderers.
You are condoning people because of their choices, your country has been doing so for decades. You have never shown it to be evil or anything, just “morally wrong” in the eyes of God. Well, there’s a problem with that, a lot of us don’t believe in your god, and I don’t believe in any god, much like much of the world. Those types of people marry everyday, and have been for ages now. Why are you all right with them marrying??
@KumaTenshi: Really? Well tell me why I should tolerate YOU. Well you might want to look around, because in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the like, they are fining and imprisoning anyone who speaks out against the homo agenda. They’re trying to do it here in the U.S., but our 1st amendment has stopped their nazi garbage from taking hold.
It’s isn’t about gays wanting equality. They want dominance. They are ramming it down our kids throats in school, saying homo activity is normal and punishing any child who doesn’t agree as hateful and intolerant. Obviously the gays are working the schools because they want to colonize and indoctrinate at the earlier possible age to normalize their behavior. They are pushing hate crimes for speaking out against the homo jackboots, they demonize and vilify, threaten, and commit acts of violence against anyone who disagrees with them.
The gay lobby is NOT about equality. The gay lobby is a bunch of thugs. They want to ram their beliefs down OUR throats and they call is bigots and intolerant because we won’t bend over for them. It’s the gays who are bigots, it’s the gays who are intolerant, it’s the gays who are narrow-minded fascist jackboot nazi thugs. You just don’t want to see it because you’re going to have the little world your way and you think you’re going to beat people into submitting to it. I am NOT narrow-minded because I refuse to submit to some homo who wants to colonize his moral beliefs onto society.
We have every right to deny gays the ‘right’ to marry, just as we do the polygamists and pedophiles. The gay ‘struggle’ has nothing to race and black equality, because skin color isn’t a choice, there are groups and nations of that race, and because skin color carries not connotations beyond skin color. The idea of a sexual preference being a protected class is the grossest of unenlightened ignorance.
The more you talk, the more you sound like some propoganda spreading yahoo, with no actual proof or any actual logic or reasoning behind pretty much anything you say.
As to why you should tolerate me, because I tolerate you. Or, if you’d like, I could not do that, just hunt you down and beat the unholy hell out of you for no reason other than I don’t like you. I’d love to hear about this fining and imprisoning people in Canada for speaking out against homosexuality, considering I live there and there’s no such thing happening. Perhaps you should put the crack pipe down, hmmmm?
Can we all just agree that girl on girl is freakin awesome?
@Skip Bimford
I don’t think that gays make people gay. People are born that way.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
@KumaTenshi: You said:
Hold on a minute there, Kuma. Read this, emphasis mine:
So this private businessman, who is supposed to be allowed to do business with whomever he chooses, and is now forced out of business because he did not want to print materials for an organization that promotes pedophilia.
Tell us, Kuma; how did this man deserve what he got??
@KumaTenshi: You said:
YOU tolerate?
You mean you were being tolerant when you said –
“That’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read.”
“You nut jobs have been opposing…”
“What a bunch of horse shit.”
“It’s like you idiots WANT to be seen as assholes…”
Yep, that’s some world class tolerance there!
BTW, when you said:
You are just flat out wrong.
Sorry Kuma, nice try. Well not really. You come on this board and use vulgar language, all the while preaching at everyone to be tolerant.
If this is all you are capable of, I would surely tolerate you shutting up and sitting down.
@anticsrocks:
Interesting little article, aside from the fact that there is no proof that whatever organization this was promoted pedophilia, as it sounds more like they’re taking something that was said in a ruling on his part, and twisting it around to promote their own ends.
“The Ontario Superior Court of Justice varied the terms of Brockie’s servitude, allowing that he could refuse materials that directly conflicted with the “core elements” of his faith. He could refuse to print brochures promoting homosexual conduct, but not business cards for an organization that publishes material like Men Loving Boys Loving Men. This essay can be found on-line, “brought to you by The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives” – into whose service Scott Brockie has been indefinitely conscripted by order of three learned superior court judges.” Source – http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=75
Essentially, he can refuse to print anything that DIRECTLY conflicts with the core elements. A business that publishes material (as wrong as it is) like that, their business cards are not going to promote that crap. What Brockie refused to print were BLANK letterheads and envelopes. BLANK doesn’t exactly promote any kind of homosexual conduct, so I can see why he lost, as would anyone else with half a brain. The whole pedophilia thing was an EXAMPLE and they just decided to try and connect it with the original group he refused to print for, in order to further his own case. As for being stuck with all the fees, well –
“Donations to Scott Brockie’s Defense Fund can be made at any Royal Bank branch, or mailed to Account #507-721-9, Royal Bank Branch #3132, 33 City Centre Drive, Mississauga, Ontario L5B 2N5” Source – http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/apr/04041604
As we’re all well aware of, in any part of the world, religious people will, and do, band together like crazy for things like this. The fact that justice costs a crap load of money is not something that is influenced by any group except the lawyers. You want to blame someone for costing so much money, blame them. Justice systems are like that the world over.
@anticsrocks:
If I wasn’t tolerating him, I wouldn’t have bothered to give actual replies to anything he said, called him a fucking dick and told him to go kill himself. Yes, that was being tolerant, as he kept babbling on about, I am allowed to say what I want, in the way that I want, and if I choose to insult him, because of the way he’s acting, then I will do so.
You know what I find funny about your little surveys there? The MASSIVE change in sources when it comes to the typical male/female sources, and the ones when it comes to the homosexual ones. For example, of course, all the surveys for the male/female were done in the US. The ones for the other side, well one was a Dutch survey, so god only knows where else they get their information from. Also, to make a point –
“it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.”
Amazingly enough, that whole article is about comparing things that DO NOT exist in relevance to one another. Marriages, and relationships, two VERY different things. It basically skews the information, to make it seem a lot worse than it actually is. You see, when straight people get married, they’ve gone through relationships, LOTS of relationships, and lots of sexual partners as well usually. They are comparing the AFTER point of this for the straight people, and the relationship part for the homosexuals, because of course, they are not allowed to be married. It does not prove that they would have less successful marriages, because hey, straight people are constantly breaking up and leaving relationships ALL the time. The only way that survey would be fair, would be to actually compare relationships….keyword, RELATIONSHIPS, no marriages, on both sides. Does it do that? No. Which means it’s absolute bullshit.
Yes, gay men like to sleep around. Guess what, so do women and men. That’s why we have these terms for them, whores. :O The survey is irrelevant, and proves nothing other than the fact, that homosexuals and straight people who are not married, they sleep around a lot. Big surprise. Most straight relationships last the same if marriage doesn’t come into the picture. You see, the issue, of course, is that homosexuals CAN’T marry, so you have NO idea how their divorce rates or anything else would be.
@KumaTenshi:
Thank you for your honesty. You make my point for me.
@Tom:
I guess you missed the whole point of this opinion piece, didn’t you?
It is not that conservatives want to control what you do behind closed doors; but we have found that, the gay movement is not just about getting gay marriage…it is about getting its tentacles into everything that we do, from what is said in the pulpit to what is taught to our grammar school children. I am simply pointing out that, the end game is not gay marriage. That is a great plateau from which you will attack in every way possible traditional society. It gives you a great legal toehold from which to make this attack.
KumaTenshi may have been vile in his diatribe, but, at least he is straight-out honest. All of these various legal attacks, he sees as good.
My appeal is certainly not to you, Tom, or to KT; it is to the conservatives who read these things, so that they realize how invasive the gay agenda is and will become.
@blast:
You can believe what you want to believe, but your belief is not supported by science. A study has been done of identical twins and homosexuality. When one person is gay, his twin is not always gay (i have heard percentages everywhere from 50-80% on this).
That means, there is undoubtedly a genetic predisposition, just as there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. However, just as all people who have this genetic predisposition are not alcoholics, the same is true of homosexuals. There is an interplay of environment and free will choices with genetics which are essential when it comes to a person “being gay.”
Part of this is a great emphasis upon physical attraction. God (or nature, if you prefer) designed the soul of a man to coalesce with the soul of a woman. There is a completion and a balance here which does not exist in the homosexual world. Perhaps some are so frustrated by this lack, that they sincerely think that state recognition of their homosexual relationship will somehow provide this soul coalescence (after all, so many people today want the state to do so much for them).
@Gary Kukis:
This piece of yours basically states: bad things could happen if something Gary Kukis doesn’t like comes to pass, and here are some examples.
I, or anyone else, could write the exact same article on any topic under the sun: “People shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol”, “People shouldn’t have the right to walk outside in thunderstorms”; ” Children shouldn’t be allowed to go to the circus.” “People shouldn’t be allowed to swim in the ocean,” “Students should not be riding on school buses”. Doesn’t matter the topic, it would take me ten minutes to find horrific examples of things to support my argument. Does that make it a good argument? Of course not. In other words, this is just another pointless scare piece, not a very good one, and certainly not convincing in the least.
I dont think science (or nature, if you prefer) has proved the existence of a soul yet, Gary. Much less determined how it is designed.
@playwithfire:
You soul is your ability to think, your vocabulary, your emotion, your norms and standards, your volition; in other words, the immaterial part of you. If you want to doubt that exists, that is up to you. If you want to argue that the soul of a man and a woman are the exact same, then I need to go out in my back yard and try to reason with a tree stump that is back there.
@Tom:
Point in fact, Tom, I listed things which have come to pass; and we all know that more gay stuff in the courts and in our schools will be the natural result of the legalization of gay marriage. You probably see that was great and wonderful. I don’t expect to ever convince you of anything, Tom. I see it as a disaster and a mess.
@Gary Kukis: For your perusal, I know it is only a snopes.com article, but it does show scientific evidence in this issue:
Weight of a Soul
@KumaTenshi: You said:
After one very short search, I found this paper showing that the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives do indeed hold and distribute material promoting pedophilia.
You said:
So if a Jewish printer were asked to print BLANK letterheads and such for a Neo-Nazi organization, he would have to comply? Are you serious? Maybe in Canada can some private citizen be forced to do business with organizations that offend them, but not here in America.
You said:
Please cite examples before speaking for “all.”
You said:
Yes, you have the right to say what you want. The owner of this private blog also has the right to not print it. And the rest of us have the right to label you as a knee jerk, foul mouthed fool that you are if he does print your comments. You are quick to use vulgar language and make assertions without backing them up.
You said:
Yep, they are. And that is why the majority of Americans are AGAINST allowing gays to co-opt the institution of marriage.
You said:
Once again, making assertions without citing credible sources.
@KumaTenshi: You said:
Okay, on gay RELATIONSHIPS:
“Marriage is a Human Right NOT a heterosexual privilege.”
I wish people wouldn’t have such backwards views on the world it’s decimation like this article that makes the us bad people. We need to accept everyone for who they are skin colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation or any of other related things that make us all diffrent. Because we are all human and were the same species not matter now different we are.
And this is coming from the view of a young heterosexual Christian who has a very liberal view of the world and understands that we are all human no matter what our differences are. I think the world would be a better place if we all try to accept others for who they are. It’s the 21st century would should be passed this these types of decimation now.
@Lottie. R: I have no problem accepting people for who and what they are. I just have a problem with them foisting their agenda upon our institution of marriage. Gays represent 1 – 2% of the population, so why should they get to force the other 98 – 99% to change one of our most sacred ceremonies?
@JustAl:
They would still use gay marriage as a legal stepping stone into the grammar schools (as is being done right now).
@KumaTenshi:
You said a lot of angry and silly things, but this was one of the most silly. No one is stopping you from making lifetime commitments to whomever or whatever you want to make these commitments to.
However, statistics show that a homosexual relationship is not like a heterosexual one. They do not last and sexual fidelity is not the least bit important to most gay couples.
@KumaTenshi:
That is nonsense. I gave a number of examples where homosexuals have engaged in vicious legal attacks. Their involvement in many schools on the grammar school level, even now, without gay marriage, is disgusting and wrong.
@Lottie. R:
They do not get to take something which we have 5000 years of history on, and redefine it. Changing what marriage is, actually changes what marriage is. In these comments, there are list about a half-dozen ways that a homosexual marriage is different from a heterosexual one. Marriage is a natural state between one man and one woman, whether recognized by the state or not.
Calling marriage a human right, and then redefining it entirely makes little or no sense.
@Gary Kukis
Well, I am not a scientist and have never done any research on this… but I stand my by statement.
Genetics play a role. Which means they were born that way. You might want to compare being gay with alcoholism, but last time I checked… alcoholism has a chemical and psychological connection. However it manifests itself after the genetic predisposition, weather it be a “choice” or not, is meaningless… unless of course you are projecting your personal beliefs on the issue.
Well, y’all are gonna lose this gay marriage thing. The gays will get it. I really do not see what the big deal is. Gays wanna get married, let em! Don’t be silly and say its the same as pedophilia! come on! We should encourage people to commit to each other. All the negative stuff people are saying about gays can be directly attributed to the discrimination they suffer. Imagine being a gay kid reading this blog. Y’all could do with being a bit more understanding. If your kids gay, they’re gay. It ain’t coz they’re being told about it in school. Deal with it.
@Oli:
You obviously did not read the article.
Also, being “gay” is not a one-way street; you are or you are not. There have been many gays who have been cured.
@blast:
Don’t confuse me with the facts. Good approach to life.
Being discriminated for being gay weather its in born or choice is wrong. This country is suppose to have a freedom of choice and I think religion is ruining that freedom. You shouldn’t have to be a white, middle class, christian, and straight to have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else. I think the biggest law that needs to be made in this country is separation between church and state. We can not make decisions for anyone else. All those people had the right to sue for being discriminated against, would you say that it wasn’t fair for someone to be denied a Boy Scout troop leader because he is black? Nobody should be treated any differently for who they are and its sad that this country can’t see that.
@Kayla: Even though you are necroposting, something you said just made me HAVE to comment. You said:
Let me posit to you that save for religion, specifically the Judea-Christian religion, mankind might still be suffering from the atrocities that were abundant before the Judea-Christian value system came into being.
Infanticide, slavery and all manners of human activities were eventually found to be against what came to be known as the Judea-Christian value system. Yet you say that religion is ruining freedom. How is that?
According to you, the government needs to get out of the decision process:
I agree with you on this point. The Federal Government has no place deciding what marriage is. I believe it needs to be left up to the states. However, your call for a law that separates church and state goes against what most of the gay activists want. When you say that we cannot make decisions for anyone else, does that mean that you are not in favor of a law that says anyone can be married? Two men? Two women? Three men? Four women? Where do you draw the line if you do make such a law? But that is beside the point, for you don’t want the government to decide for anyone.
However, if you want a law that says anyone can be married, I ask you this. Since homosexuals make up barely 5% of the population, why do they get the right to make the other 95% change their definition of marriage?
You cannot have it both ways, Kayla.
Your statement about being white, middle class, Christian and straight to have freedoms is a very racist comment. Does that mean that you don’t know any black, middle class, straight Christians who enjoy the freedoms set out in our founding documents? Any hispanic? Asian?
You may be frustrated by the idea that gay people cannot be legally married, but don’t let that frustration seep over into you emotions to the point that you become a bigot.
And let me remind you that when California put on the ballot the idea of gay marriage in 2008, it was soundly defeated. The reason? Since a huge black and hispanic voting block turned out to support Obama, they also overwhelmingly voted against this proposition. Seems that the black and hispanic communities tend to be more religious and thereby more conservative socially. Kinda makes your statement of being white, middle class, Christian and straight seem woefully short sighted and out of touch with reality, doesn’t it?
I personally have no problem with two same gender folks forming a Civil Union and enjoying the same “perks” that married folks partake in. There would be no bigotry in that and the homosexual community could get what they profess to be their goal – to be legally recognized in their relationships.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the
opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that
“spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)
Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of “segregation”, GLAD Brief, Opinions, at 12, because they denied the “social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would “mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual counterparts and diminish their status in the community”regardless of whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”, Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13
And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup. Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently stigmatizing and inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.
The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition of marriage is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts, but the solely due to the construction sodomist fundamentalists choose to put upon it.
In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make sodomist fundamentalists feel better about themselves.
@Kayla:
Almost every major religion views homosexual acts as being sinful (I don’t know if any which do not). As has clearly been proven by studies, genetics is a factor in homosexual behavior, but genetics are not determinative. The same is true of alcoholism, drug addiction, and gambling addiction. Until homosexual activists went after psychiatric organizations and got them to remove homosexuality as a disorder, it was a treatable condition, with varied results. However, there are start similarities between homosexuality and alcoholism, and curing these maladies also has similar results.
Of course, any Black man ought to be a scout leader; but a homosexual? That is a whole other thing.
@Michael Ejercito: Great points. As I said, legalizing gay marriage will only begin a deep slide into judicial legislation, which is going to trample the rights of thousands (if not millions) of individuals who simply do not want to recognize gay marriage as being a legitimate form of marriage.
@blast: Gay divorce is actually half of the straight divorce rate. Get your facts straight.
@gary kukis: See, in the United States, we have this part of a document called the Constitution(don’t know if you learned about it in school) that prohibits the government from recognizing a state religion. Therefore your arguments about how it shouldn’t be legal because of your religion are ridiculous. No legitimate psychiatric/psychological organization has believed that homosexuality is treatable for more than 30 years. Give that argument up. You’ll never win with that antiquated statement.
@Bill: You claimed:
Link you source, please.
@Bill:
What did the Supreme Court write about it?
From Reynolds v. the United States , 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
id. at 164-166
From Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)
id. at 341 to 343
From Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)
id. at 45, quoted in Davis, 133 U.S. at 344-345, and United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908)
@KumaTenshi: Hello, KumaTenshi.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the “Mormon Church”), and noticed that you mentioned them in one of your responses concerning the right to polygamy. I’d just like to clarify that polygamy is only practiced in a small sect known as the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” not in the Mormon Church, who completely stopped practicing polygamy over a century ago, and does not associate with the “reorganized” church. As soon as polygamy was outlawed in the U.S., Mormons stopped practicing it, because we believe in following the laws of whatever land we may live in.
The only reason Mormons began practicing polygamy in the 19th century is because of persecution. Their population was being reduced due to mobs, raids, and attacks, and the female population was soon quite a bit larger than the male population. Polygamy, consequently, was implemented, as marriage and creating families is central to LDS beliefs. After Mormons migrated to Utah, polygamy was soon outlawed and no longer to be practiced. I just thought I’d clarify, because many people still believe that modern Mormons practice polygamy, which is very far from the truth.
Oh, and as I said before, I’m a Mormon, but at the same time, I’m not ignorant enough to try to force my religion-based personal beliefs down another person’s throat. The problem with most people who oppose homosexual marriage is that they can’t completely separate their religious beliefs from political ones, unlike many people I know. For example, my church also opposes homosexual marriage. While I do not support it due to my beliefs, I have realized that in a situation where church and state are completely separated, gay marriage makes a lot of sense. It’s all about a person’s God-given right to choose for themselves.
Would I legalize gay marriage if given the opportunity? Of course I would. A human being is a human being, and, depending on who you are quoting, whether it be Locke, Rawls, or Kant, humans have natural and inalienable rights. If a person is attempting to exercise their right to freedom of thought, as well as their own pursuit of happiness, who am I to refuse them?
Well, that’s about all I have to say. I hope you get to read this, because I enjoy spreading what “those crazy Mormon people” are really
about.I just want to add something else about those “crazy Mormons” that @MichaelaMason didn’t mention. And that is the LDS has one of the best welfare programs going, and praised by Ronald Reagan. It’s actually too bad that Romney doesn’t use this example of his faith on the campaign trail as a model for US welfare reform.
And thanks, Michael, for straightening out the less than informed on Mormons. Have so many friends, both Mormon and jack Mormons, that are far from “crazy”. None find polygamy acceptable, and quite a few are very conservative in their political views of government intrusion and fiscal irresponsibility. They are not indoctrinated in to wanting handouts by their faith.
Michael, from my research polygamy was started by Smith himself from the get go. Just to be clear I don’t hold that against the Mormon religion because it’s the past.
The majority of Mormons I have known and currently know, are good hardworking people and like Mata said, mostly Conservative.