Well, that's all fine if you happen to believe in god and follow Christian logic. Otherwise, it's all hot air wrapped in polite, soft-spoken delusion.
One of the most disgusting things about this bigoted piece of filth is its total dishonesty. There is as much truth to it and to the nauseous piece of bile accompanying it as the sign "Arbiet Macht Frei" over the gate of a concentration camp.
To get some of the reaction to the Mormon support of Prop 8 and the Mormon campaign to deprive other Americans of their full human rights, be sure to watch the YouTube videos:
"Mormon Church Defends Prop 8 and Marriage(s)" by lezazacomedy
"'Home Invasion': No on Prop 8 ad directed toward Mormon Church" by jonahtrainer
-and-
"Mrs. Betty Bowers: Less is Mormon!" by MrsBettyBowers
Hmm, me smells horseshit. Tolerance?? Why would the lgbt community show tolerance to people seeking to redact their given rights of marriage? Religious liberty does not entail you to force your beliefs onto others. Frankly, I'm staggered the LDS church is so invested in Prop 8 when its aim is keeping marriage between ONE man and ONE woman and polygamy is so heavily imbibed in the Mormon testament. Seems funny that they're throwing words like "sacred institution of marriage"
The Constitution is silent on the issue of gay marriage. Nowhere in the language of the 14th Amendment or even the constitutional history of that amendment was there any intent to grant a "right" to gay marriage. Therefore, this subject should be left to individual states to decide.
There is nothing wrong with the church having payed employees. Or even paying for missionary activities. It's called evangelism. Are you against the practice or just against the LDS doing it?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31 deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
"The value of the Church's in-kind contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.
Love is love, leave your religion out of it! Religion is NOT love, it's hate. America was NOT founded on religion, it was designed to get away from it. And for you to think that gay marriage will ruin " traditional " marriage....how could you raise a child to tell them that love only exists in 1 way. Love is a wide variety, there are no threats to your narrow mind!
Well if u imagined the whole world being all gay no1 would be born and one of god's plan wouldn't happen. Also i think the Devil is gay that's why he influence all of us to sin and be like him, cause to the devil man+man and woman+woman is heaven....
@Orsbore I think that to more tolerant, less bigoted and more intelligent people, you're the one making a fool of yourself. Just look at this post of yours... well, if you look at it, the foolishness won't register. But for people like me, people less bigoted, less hate-filled, less ignorant and more intelligent, you're the fool.
I'm not the one involved in a campaign that seeks to deny equal rights to a minority group of American citizens who are doing no harm - that would be you, and the "good Christians" featured in this video.
Obvious stupid bigot is obvious. But hey, thanks for the lulz, you stupid bigot.
@Orsbore It's not equality. Homosexuals want special treatment for inferior behavior. That's like the boss's son being incompetent or doing a less important job but getting the same pay and title.
Sorry you're so mindless that you zealously endorse superficial political dogmas without a second thought. It makes no sense to PRETEND that gay unions=marriage. They're not the same and never will be.
>It's not equality. Homosexuals want special treatment for inferior behavior
LOL! They want to be treated the same way heterosexual couples are treated, that IS equality. How do you figure it's special treatment? You can claim that they're inferior, but that's not a fact. Without evidence, it's meaningless opinion. Got evidence?
Stupid, hateful bigots like you are funny to me. C'mon tell me some more dumb stuff.
By the way: are you a Christian? I'm guessing that you are.
@Orsbore You say, "They wanted to be treated the same..." I JUST SAID THAT, IDIOT. Didn't you read my post?
Their behavior IS inferior. For lesbian couples, for example, where is the biological father? Nowhere. How about gay men in "committed relationships?" Surveys show, by their own admission, only 50% of them even believe in monogamy.
To you, that may be equal. But to normal people, that's inferior. Why should we accept the far Left's dogma that their behavior is the same or equal?
>You say, "They wanted to be treated the same..." I JUST SAID THAT, IDIOT.
You dumb bigot, what you said is that "homosexuals want special treatment" What makes you think that equal rights is "special treatment?" Rights don't depend on behavior. By your logic, people with dyslexia could be denied the right to vote; people who don't like to bathe daily could be denied the right to bear arms, and people who don't keep up with current events could be denied a driver's license
@Orsbore Yes, in this case, the same treatment IS special treatment. That's what I just explained using the analogy of the boss's son. DUH.
Rights don't depend on behavior, huh? It seems to me that being married, by definition, is a behavior. At a minimum, you have to get someone to want to marry you, and then you have to go down, get a marriage license, go to the courthouse and then go carry out the decision.
Can you get married without all that stuff? OBVIOUSLY not so clearly, you're wrong
What you're saying here is totally irrelevant to a discussion of civil rights. You're just talking out your ass now because you have no real argument and you know it. You did the same thing 4 months ago when ScienceReasonBelief made a fool of you.
You've gone from obvious stupid bigot to obvious troll, and obvious troll is not worth trying to communicate with.
Thanks for not answering my question about your religion. I bet a friend that you wouldn't - I'm now $20 dollars richer
@Orsbore Actually, by my logic, a person who has a biological urge to sit at the back of the bus will continue to sit at the back of the bus, no matter what we call the back of the bus. Calling the back "the front" doesn't give them the right. They already had the right, but their biological urges led them to not sit at the front.
How does a child whose biological father has nothing to do with them constitute an inferior outcome as a result of behavior? That's a dumb question.
What you're saying here is totally irrelevant to a discussion of civil rights. You're just talking out your ass now because you have no real argument and you know it. You did the same thing 4 months ago when ScienceReasonBelief made a fool of you.
You've gone from obvious stupid bigot to obvious troll, and obvious troll is not worth trying to communicate with.
Thanks for not answering my question about your religion. I bet a friend that you wouldn't - I'm now $20 dollars richer
>Their behavior IS inferior. For lesbian couples, for example, where is the biological father?
You ignorant slut, how does that equate to INFERIORITY? Many heterosexual couples don't want, or can't have, children of their own. In such cases, there's no biological father, but they have the right to marry, and no one is trying to deny them the right to marry. Homosexual couples want that same right - no more, no less
Your bigotry is showing, but please, make more dumb posts.
>How about gay men in "committed relationships?" Surveys show, by their own admission, only 50% of them even believe in monogamy.
Hah! Your stupidity is staggering! Judging an ENTIRE group based on a opinion that you freely admit is shared by only SOME in the group is a textbook example of bigotry
50% of marriages end in divorce. So much for heterosexual monogamy.
You never did tell me if you're a Christian or not. Are you too embarrassed to answer? I understand if you are.
@Orsbore My stupidity is staggering? Well, stagger away. Aren't you the fool that thought marriage has nothing to do with behavior?
I'm judging gay men by the fact that they are men and by the fact that polls show that they value monogamy far less than straight men. Is this surprising to you? This is common sense. Men don't value monogamy the same way women do.
Sociological studies prove that married men (as in, men who commit to a woman) are "domesticated." Man+man is not equal to man+woman
What you're saying here is totally irrelevant to a discussion of civil rights. You're just talking out your ass now because you have no real argument and you know it. You did the same thing 4 months ago when ScienceReasonBelief made a fool of you.
You've gone from obvious stupid bigot to obvious troll, and obvious troll is not worth trying to communicate with.
Thanks for not answering my question about your religion. I bet a friend that you wouldn't - I'm now $20 dollars richer
@idaman12345 Gay men #1 typically do not want children, #2 typically do not value monogamy _even in a state recognized union_, #3 if they do have children would be unlikely to be the biological father leading to MUCH higher abuse rates, #4 lesbian couples with children involve an absent biological father, #5 children of lesbian couples statistically experience gender confusion, #6 children of lesbian couples typically experiment sexually with the same sex at higher rates, etc.
@idaman12345 When you guys have no arguments, you just get all elitist and condescending. You must know it's impossible to support the mindless dogma that a man+man=woman+man, when we all know that's wrong. The emperor has no clothes, in other words. The "stupid" people like me are actually using our common sense.
Stop PRETENDING that two men is the same as a REAL marriage. It's a sham. You know it's a sham. You're just more interested in fitting in with your elitist friends.
IF MARRIAGE IS SO DAMN HOLY! WHY DO U STUPID MORMONS GET MARRIED JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE SEX???? IF YOU'
RE SO HOLY!? WHY IS IT THAT SEX IS ALL THAT ON YOUR MINDS???? HAVE LOTS OF SEX, HAVE LOTS OF BABIES THAT WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO RAISE PROPERLY! i SEE THESE MORMONS! SO MANY KIDS NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO EVEN DRESS THEM PROPERLY! WE ARE OVERPOPULATED! WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE!!!
see love all brothers and sisters so why are people against gay people so why is there is so many hate. love one and another. it's just who you love, come on the frog fell in love with the princess. being gay doesn't mean that you are marrying a serial killer. there's nothing wrong about being gay it's just who you LOVE.
I am Catholic, but you do not even need to be religious to be against gay marriage. The whole idea is just a farce, and the only reason it has gotten this far is because the activists have played their political cards right. Yes on 8!
@ma7799... sooooo, you think you're better than me? you think that I don't deserve to have love in my life, that I don't deserve to have my love legally protected like yours is?
This is not about "love," but family values, mores, and the future of our society. You can "love" whatever you want, but called it marriage is an issue that we will defend.
@ma7799: oh, so now gays suddenly don't have family values, mores, and are not concerned with the future of society? since when?
you can "defend" it if you like, but you are going to eventually lose this one. everyone is entitled to the same rights and benefits.
but first, please tell me how you decided gays don't have family values, mores, or care about our society's future? because all the gays I know DO care, DO have family values, and DO have mores.
The idea that a gay union = marriage is a political dogma. LDS stands for common sense and truth on this issue. I don't need a religion to tell me that a gay union is not a marriage.
@namordecai: you obviously don't really know any gay people, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense. gay people love just as heteros do... if you knew gay people you'd know that.
ROFL... I don't recall talking about love. Why would the government have to get involved in love? Will they legislate love? Give love awards instead of medals of honor? How about our nation's flag be switched from stars and stripes to cupid? Why do you want to the government involved to recognize love? That is the stupidest, most mindless, ignorant argument imaginable, and I think my IQ dropped a little for having read it. You people are weak-minded drones.
@nam: Weak minded? Like the LDS cultists who blindly follow their leaders and have no idea how their tithing dollars are being spent? "LDS stands for common sense"? BS! If you're LDS, then you're the true drone! And don't get me started on the drones in other religions...
The government IS involved in legislating love, since they do sanction and regulate marriage. You really are obtuse! Not to mention bigoted and out of touch. Massive fail.
@namor: hang on a minute while I stop laughing! boy, you sure can be unintentionally funny! so let's see, you've studied every subject on the planet. gosh, so have I. oh, & you know the science of evolution 100 times better than me? gosh, how could you know that, since you don't know me? & the people you know are far better role models than me, even tho, again, you don't know me. & finally, I never said WHY govt got into the marriage business, only that they had.
@namor: YAWN! ....you are just calling names. no real argument here. go back to school and when you have something to say that makes sense, get back to me.
@namor: you really are delusional, aren't you? you have brought up things we haven't even discussed, yet claiming that we have. I've never said anything about evolution, or things being "dealt with", or the Meyer-Shermer debates. I was talking about equal civil marriage... but perhaps there's an imaginary third commentator that only you can see? You keep ranting on and on with him... have fun.
LOL Wow, I replied on the wrong thread. Your "sciencereasonbelief" got me confused that I was talking to a different idiot. Even though I am far smarter than you, I did something pretty stupid. Anyway, your arguments are even stupider than the guy I momentarily thought I was debating with. As I was saying before I got confused which thread I was on, the gov't never instituted marriage to recognize love. That you thought it did shows borderline mental illness.
@namor: you're a piece of work and should seriously seek help. i never said that the govt instituted marriage to recognize love. As I pointed out in a previous post (the one before all the ones you erased in embarrassment), I didn't say WHY they got involved, only that they HAD gotten involved.
So, you're the one who confused the threads, yet somehow, without even knowing me, you're STILL smarter, huh?
Here's you in response to my assertion that a gay union is not a marriage: "gay people love just as heteros do... if you knew gay people you'd know that." Since this was in the context of a debate about whether the gov't should recognize "gay marriage" or not, the implication on your part was that the government had something to do with LOVE. Clearly your response was non-sequitur, and it appears you realize that now. Good job. Also, YOU should be embarrassed for supporting something so idiotic.
@namor: there's no implication, idiot. they DO legislate an aspect of love, since most couples these days get married for love, regardless of how govt involvement started. clear enough for you yet? re-read it if need be. if your head starts to hurt then pause.
There's an implication in EVERYTHING, because everything has a context, effecting its meaning.
They do not legislate aspects of love. ROFL. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That is hilariuos, dude. That's like saying the government legislates me taking a crap, because they tax toilets.
Sounds like you have no explanation as to why you made the mindless claim that the government legislates love. It doesn't. It legislated filial ties, which is why a man and a woman pairing is unique. Also, megalomania suggests that a person thinks that their outside world IS them. You use it in a context suggesting it means arrogance. Wrong. So utterly wrong.
@namor: see, the reason why you're boring me is because you're not really all that intelligent.
you mistake the historical reason, filial ties (you forgot property) with the main reason why people marry today. why you can't understand the difference is beyond me. and they you don't even understand that megalomania is a condition that has to do with grandiosity and narcissistic behavior, which clearly fits your "smarter than thou" attitude.
@ScienceReasonBelief I'm not mistaking anything. If we're talking about "gay marriage," we're talking about making new laws. If the original law was never made for the purpose of love, than obviously, the same litmus test should be applied to homosexuals... unless what they really want is special treatment.
Also, I learned about megalomania in college, and the discussion was in the direction of infants being megalomaniacs. For adults, megalomania is about delusions of power or wealth. So wrong.
@ScienceReasonBelief As a parting thought, gay people are not Black people. This is not a civil rights movement, seeing as Black people didn't have a biological urge to sit at the backs of bus, demanding that everyone call the back, "the front." The "gay marriage" movement, is just a bunch of mindless crap invented by narcissistic, homosexual lobbyists.
I am sure that Hitler made everything happy for those walking into the showers to get gassed, then burned. This vid is offensive in everyway. It offends my mind and heart. i firmly feel that these people will go to hell for what they are doing. We will still be married no matter what the GLBT groups do. Allow them thesamerespect. I remember George Wallace and those guys. These guys will be remembered the same way. Bad move LDS. Very bad move, it will haunt you later.
Contrary to God's plan? Isn't that imposing religious belief on a secular society? Isn't it hurting some of God's children? Isn't it mixing church and state, something that the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke out against vehemently when it was the church being persecuted? This agenda by the coalition is based in fear and outright untruths promoted in the guise of love, but is in reality a wolf in sheep's clothing.
We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race... every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun. - LDS MORMON The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
LDS MORMON PROPHET Joseph Smith: "And the rebellious NIGGERS in the slave states". . . " (Millennial Star, 22:602;)."
LDS MORMON PROPHET JOHN TAYLOR "This Greeley is one of their popular characters in the East,and one that supports the stealing of NIGGERS..." [Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5 page 119]
LDS MORMON Apostle George A. Smith: but would rob the coppers from a dead NIGGER'S eyes, if they had a good opportunity (Journal of Discourses, 5:110)
"We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race....every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun". - LDS MORMON The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
Astoria30001, You have no understanding of the Bible, or common sense. There wasn't any white people in that region of the Bible, which is the middle east until the Crusades. Study before you talk. It shows you're ignorance.
So if we can put the right to marry up for a vote, then why can't we put the right to a trial up for a vote? Or the freedom of speech? Or due process? I guess we could vote on whether to exterminate the Mormons or African Amercans if we wanted to, right?
The definition of marriage, as described by religionists of various stripes, is certainly problematic. When pressed, any number of religious entities would probably have to admit that legally married individuals of OTHER faiths (or no faith at all) are not REALLY married "in the eyes of God." To which, I say, "Believe what you want to believe," but the atheist couple, the Shinto couple, The Animist couple are still entitled to the rights & priveleges or legal marriage.
Wrongful behaviour is this bigotry being spouted and promoted by men who think they're following the Truth while denying the rights to another group of people. Let the people vote on on the legality of the Mormon sect, then they'll see what they are doing to other people.
this person states "vigorously promotes our beliefs" no you do not. you have freedom of speech like everyone but to push your beliefs unto others is wrong. keep it in your church, no where else.
If I was a member of the LDS church I would be terribly angry that my religion spent so much money on discriminating against others.
One would think that a church who very openly denied people of color any position of authority until the late 1970s would back off on biggotry. Weren't you people persecuted to the point where you needed to leave your area in the East to come to Utah? How can you be so comfortable being this intolerant of others who aren't like you?
The Church didn't donate directly to the cause. The money came from members of the Church, invidually. The leaders of the Church simply offered encouragement. It's not against the law for a Church to offer encouragement on moral issues.
It's wrong, in many cases, to not discriminate. For example, passing a law to pay me like a firefighter, when I don't even work for the government would be wrong. You SHOULD discriminate between me and firefighters. Similarly, marriage (traditional definition) is necessary for civilizatoin to even exist. If the institution of domestic partnership vanished, society would suffer no consequence. Asserting they are the same asserts that civilization is irrelevant.
A fairly good red herring argument, which of course is an example of an illogical argument. Discriminate has basically two meanings. You use the first meaning to create the red herring--draw someone away from the definition actually being discussed. Discrimination in a civil rights sense is acting on a derogatory prejudice. It is to discriminate against a person or group based on an arbitrary trait or supposed trait.
Since we're discriminating against a THING, gay UNIONS, and not gay PEOPLE, I have to disagree. Gay unions do not have a mother and father. They do not have biological parents in the home. They don't have natural reproduction. So that thing is inferior to marriage. GOOD discrimination.
Discrimination is not restricted to individuals. Discrimination can be classified as personal or institutional--against individuals because of a group they belong to, or against the group itself. Being against the union of people within a group is relying on the prejudice that they are "inferior",as you have clearly titled the basis of your prejudice against the unions that such people form. I know little of gay couples w/children, but many seem to have one biological parent in the home.
Amend.1:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . you are free to marry man to women as in your religion, that is not under threat.
A person should quietly show tolerance of their oppressors when a civil right is going to be voted away--from them, or members of their family? Sounds more like an eastern religion--Chinese obedience or something.
I don't think a queer would want to get married in a religion that promotes hate.
this is all just imposing one's belief on another. This mocks the spirit of the constitution to allow each individual the FREEDOM and RIGHT to one's personal beliefs and RELIGION. THUSLY, from that alone, we cannot impose religion on government to force others into one way. That does not celebrate diversity and individuality. That's an immature inability to tolerate diversity.
This is meant to be a diverse society. For peace, we must allow each to have the right & freedom of belief/thought.
How can we live together in peace and harmony, uniqueness, and diversity, if we try to force each other into our own beliefs. IT'S BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU PRO PROP 8 PEOPLE THAT STARTED PHILIP II'S HOLY WARS THAT KILLED 350k people, the Christian Crusades that killed 1-million, Hitler's intolerance of impurity that massacred 15 million, Queen Mary's persecution of protestants, Henry's massacre of Catholics, the oppression/exploitation of minorities. You share the same line of thought w/them.
So because there are some gay people out there, the rest of us should be forced to tolerate it? WE HAVE FREEDOMS TOO and right now there are more straight people than gay people. I refuse to be forced against my will to tolerate something as wrong, twisted, and perverted as gay marriage.
lucario, you have your civil rights all whacked. so should catholics tolerate protestants, or the other way around? So the whites were correct in denying civil rights to the black minority and enslave them or exploit them? So the Chinese deserved to be mistreated as a minority...
you have your fundamentals all screwed up with your biased views of hate and discrimination. it's cuz of people like you that allow hitler, crusades, holy wars, minority exploitation and slavery to occur.
Oh because the Bible clearly says that blacks are inferior and that we should go kill everyone who isn't Christian. Go read a Bible before you make stupid comments like that. I don't want kids taught about Gay marriage in school. Gays can keep their rights under California Family Code 197.5, I just don't want their beliefs shoved in my face.
we're just fighting for equal HUMAN civil rights and equality, separation of church and state to enforce the constitutional freedom of EACH individual to live in different beliefs and thought. We're just leveling it out. We're not shoving beliefs in your face by making you believe the way we do. We're just asking that you not be aselfish ignorant prick and be FAIR and tolerant in the spirit of freedom and civil liberties. On the other hand, you're trying to force your beliefs on us through gov.
lucario, in addition, you don't know what how to live in peace and harmony with people that think and believe differently from your religious bias. This country was founded on religious freedom... In that light, we all are to live together in peace, to each his own religious belief. That means we need to be tolerant and respectful and quit being a nosy bossy little bitch trying to force beliefs on others. sure you have rights, but we're just fighting for equality, not for you to lose your rights
people, pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION - this is how the tyranny of the majority CORRUPTS people's minds. When African Americans were first starting to try and buy houses in white neighborhoods, they faced the very same mentality.
That is just the problem if the law changes then churches have been and will likely be forced to perform and recognize these marriage thus taking way their freedoms.
So that discriminates against those people as well as parents not giving them the option to raise their children with their families traditional beliefs. Talk about people who have no moral values it goes both ways.
Completely false! Churches are allowed to discriminate by law. Ever hear of someone outside your church suing to be married in your church? Doesn't happen. US Constitution and freedom of religion takes precedence. Please back up your facts next time that churches "have been forced" because this is a false statement. It has never happened anywhere.
This then leaves you to teach WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRADITION (which is not everyone else's by the way). NO ON PROP 8
Okay here goes: In New Jersey,a lesbian couple sued a Christian ministry after it declined to host a civil union ceremony for them on its property.
In addition to forcing the organization to disregard the rules set down in the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which states that gay unions cannot be performed in church buildings, the lesbian thugs also wanted cash "for economic loss, humiliation, and,[of course] mental pain."
(continued) The justification for this outrage is the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which has been interpreted to mean that homosexuals must be granted their increasingly arrogant demands, however unreasonable.
Almost as disturbing as the use of these feel-good discrimination laws to inflict depravity on a church is the disrespect shown for private property.
(continued) According to Garden State Equality, which imposes the interests of "the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community," the church's property is in fact public property "by virtue of having been used by the public for many years."
The women could have held their ceremony anywhere—and eventually did hold it somewhere else—but they filed a complaint anyway because they wanted the ministry's "moral approval".
Filing a complaint and having a court agree with you are two separate things. When a court agrees that a church has to perform a ceremony, then maybe this will be a valid argument. Still it's NJ, NOT California and the Supreme Court decision specifically states that churches will not be required to perform such ceremonies.
Problem with such idealistic thinking is that when it comes to law suits people will base all decisions upon those of preceding decisions regardless of what particular state they are in.
Often times a case will present a previous one, usually in a different state, when dealing with law and establishing precedent.
As has been stated before that this proposition 8 not passing will have long-term effects for everyone in the days ahead, for all people not just you and me.
Demographers show that most Christians are homophobes. They won't always admit it openly. Instead they'll disguise it by referring to homosexuality as a choice, or by saying that while they don't approve of that lifestyle, they respect everyone's choice to love whomever they want. Yet they'll do everything in their power to shield their children from homosexuality for fear that their kids might end up becoming gay.
If only they understood that it's not a choice maybe they'd stop fearing it.
"It's About the Kids??" In favor of Prop 8: ScuseMeJudge The Mayor of Chino Hills The LDS Church Some Catholic hierarchy Newt Gingrich Opposed to Prop 8: CA State Superintendent of Schools CA Teachers' Ass'n CA Nurses' Ass'n American Academy of Pediatrics The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, both of our U.S. Senators, the mayors of our 3 largest cities. LA Times, Sacramento Bee, San Diego Union-Tribune, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Fresno Bee, and every other major newspaper in the state.
MOM, again you are hiding behind children to force your personal idea of morality upon your neighbors. Prop 8 won't take OUR son away from either of his parents, and it won't take any other kids away from any other same-sex parents.
The only thing you'll do to those KIDS is to dissolve their parents' marriage and cause significant personal and financial turmoil in those kids' families. Thanks.
Yeah, MOM, anyone can see that you REALLY care about kids--as a shield to hide behind.
Cute rhyme, mom. But see, thing is--two people getting married next door won't stop you from procreating all you want.
Mom, there are now six billion of us on this planet. You and the other procreators are already doing a fine job without trying to change our laws to set yourself up in some sort of exclusive club.
Demographers show all evidence to the contrary. Every country in the world has declining birth rates. Europe's is so low, they don't even have enough to sustain their current population, and when in the next decade when their aging population begins to retire, they will not have enough younger workers in the work force to sustain them in their socialist countries. We are experiencing a demographic winter of unprecedented proportions.
americanmom says: "This is about what's best for children ..."
Interesting idea, mom, and entirely irrelevant to Prop 8.
This Prop won't take kids away from same-sex couples. It won't change the rules on gay adoption. Why even bring up the issue? You wouldn't be trying to scare voters by using kids, would you?
No. Just explaining that when France looked at this issue they focused on one thing: France's next generation (i.e. children!). I understand fully that domestic partnerships can adopt. However, scientific evidence concludes that children do best raised by a mom and a dad. For a country to endorse and promote same-sex marriages, it is denying children the right to be raised in a home by a mother and a father. Which parent are they best without?
mom says: "For a country to endorse and promote same-sex marriages, it is denying children the right to be raised in a home by a mother and a father"
No it's not.
Same-sex couples have the same rights to adopt or to have their own children whether they are married or not.
Banning marriage does nothing but "punish" those same families by making their lives harder and more expensive due to the loss of some of the rights of marriage.
Doesn't sound to me like you REALLY care about kids at all, mom.
This issue has EVERYTHING to do with my children and their children's children. Which is why I have such a huge interest in seeing Prop.8 pass. I ask my question again: Which parent do you think a child is best without?
mom asks: "Which parent do you think a child is best without"
Neither. Which one of MY child's parents do you want to get rid of?
Families aren't theoretical constructs, as you seem to think them to be, mom. They are flesh and blood. You can talk all day about what you believe the "best" family is, but that doesn't matter to real families, including mine.
And again, Prop 8 affects that not one iota. You simply wish to tear apart my marriage and you're hiding behind kids to do it. Pathetic.
Exactly, "neither." By endorsing gay relationships, a state would be INTENTIONALLY denying that child from the outset of the influence of either a mother or a father. Prop. 8 is about restoring the traditional definition of the term "marriage"--a union that involves a man and a woman--the best possible scenario for raising California's next generation, providing them a microcosm of the world in their own home, modeling how to interact with both genders, helping them best understand their own.
I dont understand the "children deserve a mother and father" argument. Gays can legally adopt in this state. Prop 8 won't change that. Don't you understand that fact? Allowing same sex marriage is not going to influence the number of kids raised in same sex households.
I know lots of gay men and women who have adopted the kids no one else wants: minorities, disabled, older. These kids sit waiting for parents that never come. Are you saying they're better off not being adopted?
calpoidog, remember it takes a man and woman to make a child & the quote you are referring to is from a church leader stating his beliefs so there is no reason to put words in his mouth & assume that he is ignorant of adoption rules just as you say Prop 8 won't change who can adopt who so that has no bearing on what we are discussing here.
Personally, I can not say if those children would be better off or not, personally I hope for the best most caring parents for all children.
It isn't that fact that homosexuals can or can't adopt, it's that the line that differentiates the type of union the prospective parents are involved in must now be ignored and can not be a deciding factor. It takes choice away.
"ScuseMe" says: "Would you too punish the Catholic Charities ... etc."
Neither the Catholic Church nor ANY other church except the LDS Church are putting out multiple POLITICAL ads systematically bearing false witness in order to wage a POLITICAL campaign against their neighbors, and doing so with the same neighbors' money, gained through religious tax exemption.
Hollywood pays ITS taxes, "ScuseMe." Bet you could fill a lot of potholes with the property tax on just one trumpeting gold angel .
This taped satellite broadcast recruiting Prop 8 support was produced with tax-exempt money. The church buildings used for thousands of people to attend Prop 8 campaign rallies with this satellite broadcast as centerpiece—these pay not one penny of property tax. The rest of us have to pick up the slack on the taxes THEY are exempt from. The No-on-8 ad producers sure aren't tax-exempt. Sound fair to you?
Tell the Mormon church to stay out of our government AND our lives. Vote NO on Prop 8!
cureloms says: " tax-exempt money is being used on both sides"
Any evidence for that?
Is any No-on-8 campaign anywhere near as large and well-organized as the Mormon Church?
Is any No-on-8 website and production company tax-exempt, as the site (preservingmarriagedotorg) responsible for the latest round of slick Prop 8 hit pieces,complete with pretty actors. It's wholly owned by the Mormon Church and is bought with tax-exempt money.
Wake up? Hollywood is dumping millions into this through all sorts of organizations. Go tell that thousands and hundreds of thousands throughout the earth, including recently in Texas, that you want to tax and punish the very church that brought them fast relief in food, water, bedding, and hygiene kits after they suffered calamities.
Would you too punish the Catholic Charities and other great Christian churches who after Katrina were on the Front Lines with aid? Tolerance?
You would tyrannize us all with Taxation as a means of oppression and punishment. You should live in the former USSR, or I suppose rejoice in the one currently being constructed here in the USA. I find your argument one that is totally lame. Get the huge foundations taxed then too. David Rockefeller boasts of "conspiring" against the USA, and of being part of a "secret cabal" working to bring about the very type of tyranny you delight in and with to implement, one criminalizing re
savagekim, you got any evidence for your broad brush slander or do you just like to make things up?
Nearly all those elders on all those bicycles went to public schools that I paid for, along with their eight brothers and sisters. And I gladly subsidize them without complaint because it's good for our society.
But if their bishop wants to use MY dollars to run a POLITICAL campaign against me, something no other church does to this extent, then you BET I'll complain loud and long.
Proposition 8 isn't about the rights of same-sex couples. As California law (297.5) states, same-sex domestic partners are granted the same rights as married partners. I have gay friends and relatives and want them to be able to have love, companionship, and the same rights as married couples. Proposition 8 IS about making a statement that judges do not have the right to ignore the voice of the people (proposition 22)and retaining our democratic rights to promote the values that we believe in.
Amy, with "friends" like you, who needs enemies? And domestic partners are NOT granted the same rights as MARRIED. If Amy's domestic partner Ann gets very sick and is unable to make medical decisions, the family, which Ann may or may not like or trust, would trump Amy. If they were married, the SPOUSE trumps all. Before you post this bullshit that they are equal do your freakin homework. Also, judges JUDGE, and they judged that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Your gay "friends" need to dump you.
* Ninth Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
* Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
As NO Legislative body ever passed a Law to REMOVE the right of Same Sex Couples to marry, that Right is RETAINED by the people.
The sacred institution of marriage, as we Mormons know it to be is one man and many wives. No one has ever struck down D&C 132.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Denying such a right is a wrong-doing Joseph Smith himself fought against. Smith was appalled that the US Government had denied the Saints their religious and civil rights (see his reasons for running for president of the United States). Civil rights. That's what Joseph was fighting for when he was martyred.
You are incorrect to say that Joseph Smith would have fought for, or was fighting for, a definition of marriage that ignored the validity of gender for the raising of posterity within the bonds of marriage. Posterity worlds without end is what Joseph taught. The welfare of children is the real civil rights issue. Children have the right to a father and a mother.
You act as though a child brough up in a house with two loving gay parents somehow hurts the child. Valid studies have PROVEN this is not the case. A dear brother of mine, very straight, was brought up by two loving fathers and his mother and step dad in another house. He graduated top of his class and lives a very productive successful life with his wife and children.
I grew up around more than one mormon family that put on airs that things were ok when abuse and adultry was running rampant.
Fact is, non-biological parents are proven to be more likely to abandon children or abuse them. So your facts are BS. I thought you far lefties were all into the evolution thing. What hte hell are you thinking? You don't believe evolutionary instincts would give more motivation to protect and take care of your biological offspring?
Evolution is based on reproduction--or the ability to reproduce. No species relies on marriage for that reproduction. So marriage is not necessary for civilization. Gay partnership may, however, depend on our concept of a civil society--civilization--a community. That implies that we care for all young, our disabled,etc, and as we develop as a society, we care for the minority in our group. We are, as a civilized, loving society, capable of caring for people different from ourselves. Please.
Also, we are very civilized. WE compromoised and gave gay couples, despite their inferior union, the same rights as the superior marriage. But your entitlement issues and big, whiny baby attitudes have led you to believe you're like Black people, just because you're not allowed to redefine an important culturally sensitive word for EVERYONE.
You are a whiner. You think you're entitled, not to tolerance but to preferential treatment. Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211 has a few things to say. There are other rulings also that cover EXACTLY what I've been saying. Marriage is NECESSARY and invaluable to society, so it DESERVES preferential treatment. Gay unions must be tolerated, it seems but have strangely gotten all the rights of marriage. To call them the same takes away preference of real marriage. So YOU are taking from US.
Very interesting that you quote a case that involves legislative divorce, the definition and obligations of contract which would allow divorce and was also used to reinvent state miscegenation laws after the 14th amendment.
From the case: (Marriage) is . . .a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life. If marriage is a basic building block to happiness & society, why restrict it?
You restrict it to maintain its strength and purpose for existing. For example, we restrict who can be a firefighter as a paraplegic would not work out too well. Another example of good discrimination. Fortunately, paraplegics aren't dumb enough to try to pass legislation to allow them to become firefighters.
California decisions have described marriage as the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.
Numerous international human rights treaties recognize the rightto marry and to found a family as a basic human right. I have read more on your position and the assumptions of corruption to marriage--a tenuous premise at best.
There are more people that fully accept homosexuality than there are actual homosexuals.
It's very simple; change the language and you get: thoughts-->feelings-->actions-->environment-->thoughts-->feelings... et cetera ad infinitum. Your opinion is irrelevant, especially since the vast majority of the U.S. insists that marriage maintain its definition so as to reinforce the beneficial behavior associated with it. If you had your own country, you could try radical social experiments on IT instead.
I have read many of your posts and see that we simply speak a different language, quite literally. Our definitions of civil rights issues and discourse, what constitutes the natural, our boundaries of the physical and metaphysical, what it means to be a Christian and how we form logical arguments are incompatible. People in our respective positions are at an impasse.
Funny. I've always been able to define terms and discuss premises. THat's probably because I think things through very well and don't normally accept beliefs whose premises aren't well thought out. Einstein once said, if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it. I am going to assume he was referring to situations like this.
Well, you do a poor job on this issue. You are very emotional and use many poor definitions and ad hominid attacks.You must be tired of this discussion, though.
I doubt Einstein's grandmother understood the general theory of relativity and my grandmother refused to understand when I dated a Japanese man. Prejudice perhaps?
You can read the premise of Justice as fairness in John Rawls book, the Theory of Justice. You can look up "discrimination" in the OED and court cases--Bakke v. UCDavis?
I took a philosophy of ethics class in college. I'm fine with my definition of justice. Why would I trust a lawyer, whose job it is to see things only one way and from one side? WHY? How about YOU study the philosophy of ethics, which is not adversarial and doesn't engender an adversarial approach? Also, it's ad hominem, not ad hominid. I will grant I toss in an occasional ad hominem attack, but that's not the crux of my argument. In fact, I do a fairly good job on this issue.
The funny part is namordecai, it isn't just far lefties that understand evolution. All it takes is an education. Try some.
Nowhere did I state non-biological parents are better.I am saying they certainly can be just as equally capable of parenting and give the same exact kind of love needed to raise a healthy human. One nice thing about children raised with queer parents is they are less likely to be brainwashed with the bigotry and intolerance you preach. May God protect our society from LDS
Darwinism, which I've studied more than you, is comparable in strength to Intelligent Design, when it comes to explaining the variety of species. ID is much stronger with regard to the origin of life. Darwinism with regard to adaptive mutations is N/A. SOME microevolutionary changes can be observed, however. So it's not worthless. Also, prove I'm a bigot. Don't use your empty, worthless name calling here. And the LDS Church is awesome. The people, as a whole, and leadership amaze me. U kno zilch
If this proposition fails, there will be the obvious lawsuits coming against the church, where a gay couple, now legally recognized by the state as able to be wed, will sue to be married within an LDS temple. What if the church objects? The power of the state will then criminalize the church. This is absolutely and totally a stomping, trampling, smearing and destruction of the US Constitution and everything fought for in the war of Independence. Honest gay people concede this.
LDS members have to qualify for a temple recommend in order to enter the temple so you never have to worry about Gays being sealed to one another, they would never qualify.
You know this you are just scare mongering.
I doubt if a case could be made to demand a Mormon Bishop to marry a gay couple in the a Church building either because those Gay members would be excommunicated first.
Well, that's all fine if you happen to believe in god and follow Christian logic. Otherwise, it's all hot air wrapped in polite, soft-spoken delusion.
wayneartist 2 weeks ago
Oops, that should have been "Arbeit" below.
RCSVirginia 1 month ago
One of the most disgusting things about this bigoted piece of filth is its total dishonesty. There is as much truth to it and to the nauseous piece of bile accompanying it as the sign "Arbiet Macht Frei" over the gate of a concentration camp.
RCSVirginia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To get some of the reaction to the Mormon support of Prop 8 and the Mormon campaign to deprive other Americans of their full human rights, be sure to watch the YouTube videos:
"Mormon Church Defends Prop 8 and Marriage(s)" by lezazacomedy
"'Home Invasion': No on Prop 8 ad directed toward Mormon Church" by jonahtrainer
-and-
"Mrs. Betty Bowers: Less is Mormon!" by MrsBettyBowers
RCSVirginia 1 month ago
Revoke the 503c3 status of the LDS church.
Pilgrim812 2 months ago in playlist from "Save our Children" to Proposition 8
Hmm, me smells horseshit. Tolerance?? Why would the lgbt community show tolerance to people seeking to redact their given rights of marriage? Religious liberty does not entail you to force your beliefs onto others. Frankly, I'm staggered the LDS church is so invested in Prop 8 when its aim is keeping marriage between ONE man and ONE woman and polygamy is so heavily imbibed in the Mormon testament. Seems funny that they're throwing words like "sacred institution of marriage"
MIS315 6 months ago
The Constitution is silent on the issue of gay marriage. Nowhere in the language of the 14th Amendment or even the constitutional history of that amendment was there any intent to grant a "right" to gay marriage. Therefore, this subject should be left to individual states to decide.
hawkeyery 11 months ago
So in the former world, were our spirits male and female? And were any of them gay, lesbian or bisexual? Where would sexuality otherwise come from?
rustydog1236 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is nothing wrong with the church having payed employees. Or even paying for missionary activities. It's called evangelism. Are you against the practice or just against the LDS doing it?
Sk8er408 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31 deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
"The value of the Church's in-kind contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.
Sk8er408 1 year ago
Love is love, leave your religion out of it! Religion is NOT love, it's hate. America was NOT founded on religion, it was designed to get away from it. And for you to think that gay marriage will ruin " traditional " marriage....how could you raise a child to tell them that love only exists in 1 way. Love is a wide variety, there are no threats to your narrow mind!
laoi 1 year ago
Are you serious?
1: its against our religion) great, but that gives you no right to challenge a person's legal right to not be in your religion.
2: it hurts free speech) really? believing and practicing what you believe as opposed to doing as you say unquestioningly is promoting free speech?
Your reasoning is that despite that the government isn't run by the church it shouldn't allow anything against your religion to happen?
galdon2004 1 year ago
Well if u imagined the whole world being all gay no1 would be born and one of god's plan wouldn't happen. Also i think the Devil is gay that's why he influence all of us to sin and be like him, cause to the devil man+man and woman+woman is heaven....
Michael007lai 1 year ago
@Michael007lai
The only thing "gay"here is your beliefs of christianity.
Killer0fTheSun 1 year ago
A message much more responsible and mature than the opposition...
retownsend 1 year ago
I just don't quite know what to make of such happy, self righteous bigots.
Orsbore 2 years ago
@Orsbore Ironically, you and your ilk are the self-righteous bigots. The guys are just doing their job.
namordecai 1 year ago
@namordecai
Hahahahahahah! You silly little twit, haven't you made a big enough fool of yourself here already? :P
Orsbore 1 year ago
@Orsbore I think that to more tolerant, less bigoted and more intelligent people, you're the one making a fool of yourself. Just look at this post of yours... well, if you look at it, the foolishness won't register. But for people like me, people less bigoted, less hate-filled, less ignorant and more intelligent, you're the fool.
namordecai 1 year ago
@namordecai
I'm not the one involved in a campaign that seeks to deny equal rights to a minority group of American citizens who are doing no harm - that would be you, and the "good Christians" featured in this video.
Obvious stupid bigot is obvious. But hey, thanks for the lulz, you stupid bigot.
Orsbore 1 year ago
@Orsbore It's not equality. Homosexuals want special treatment for inferior behavior. That's like the boss's son being incompetent or doing a less important job but getting the same pay and title.
Sorry you're so mindless that you zealously endorse superficial political dogmas without a second thought. It makes no sense to PRETEND that gay unions=marriage. They're not the same and never will be.
namordecai 1 year ago
>namordecai wrote
>It's not equality. Homosexuals want special treatment for inferior behavior
LOL! They want to be treated the same way heterosexual couples are treated, that IS equality. How do you figure it's special treatment? You can claim that they're inferior, but that's not a fact. Without evidence, it's meaningless opinion. Got evidence?
Stupid, hateful bigots like you are funny to me. C'mon tell me some more dumb stuff.
By the way: are you a Christian? I'm guessing that you are.
Orsbore 1 year ago
@Orsbore You say, "They wanted to be treated the same..." I JUST SAID THAT, IDIOT. Didn't you read my post?
Their behavior IS inferior. For lesbian couples, for example, where is the biological father? Nowhere. How about gay men in "committed relationships?" Surveys show, by their own admission, only 50% of them even believe in monogamy.
To you, that may be equal. But to normal people, that's inferior. Why should we accept the far Left's dogma that their behavior is the same or equal?
namordecai 1 year ago
>namordecai wrote
>You say, "They wanted to be treated the same..." I JUST SAID THAT, IDIOT.
You dumb bigot, what you said is that "homosexuals want special treatment" What makes you think that equal rights is "special treatment?" Rights don't depend on behavior. By your logic, people with dyslexia could be denied the right to vote; people who don't like to bathe daily could be denied the right to bear arms, and people who don't keep up with current events could be denied a driver's license
Orsbore 1 year ago
@Orsbore Yes, in this case, the same treatment IS special treatment. That's what I just explained using the analogy of the boss's son. DUH.
Rights don't depend on behavior, huh? It seems to me that being married, by definition, is a behavior. At a minimum, you have to get someone to want to marry you, and then you have to go down, get a marriage license, go to the courthouse and then go carry out the decision.
Can you get married without all that stuff? OBVIOUSLY not so clearly, you're wrong
namordecai 1 year ago
@namordecai
What you're saying here is totally irrelevant to a discussion of civil rights. You're just talking out your ass now because you have no real argument and you know it. You did the same thing 4 months ago when ScienceReasonBelief made a fool of you.
You've gone from obvious stupid bigot to obvious troll, and obvious troll is not worth trying to communicate with.
Thanks for not answering my question about your religion. I bet a friend that you wouldn't - I'm now $20 dollars richer
Orsbore 1 year ago
@Orsbore Actually, by my logic, a person who has a biological urge to sit at the back of the bus will continue to sit at the back of the bus, no matter what we call the back of the bus. Calling the back "the front" doesn't give them the right. They already had the right, but their biological urges led them to not sit at the front.
How does a child whose biological father has nothing to do with them constitute an inferior outcome as a result of behavior? That's a dumb question.
namordecai 1 year ago
@namordecai
What you're saying here is totally irrelevant to a discussion of civil rights. You're just talking out your ass now because you have no real argument and you know it. You did the same thing 4 months ago when ScienceReasonBelief made a fool of you.
You've gone from obvious stupid bigot to obvious troll, and obvious troll is not worth trying to communicate with.
Thanks for not answering my question about your religion. I bet a friend that you wouldn't - I'm now $20 dollars richer
Orsbore 1 year ago
>namordecai wrote
>Their behavior IS inferior. For lesbian couples, for example, where is the biological father?
You ignorant slut, how does that equate to INFERIORITY? Many heterosexual couples don't want, or can't have, children of their own. In such cases, there's no biological father, but they have the right to marry, and no one is trying to deny them the right to marry. Homosexual couples want that same right - no more, no less
Your bigotry is showing, but please, make more dumb posts.
Orsbore 1 year ago
>namordecai wrote
>How about gay men in "committed relationships?" Surveys show, by their own admission, only 50% of them even believe in monogamy.
Hah! Your stupidity is staggering! Judging an ENTIRE group based on a opinion that you freely admit is shared by only SOME in the group is a textbook example of bigotry
50% of marriages end in divorce. So much for heterosexual monogamy.
You never did tell me if you're a Christian or not. Are you too embarrassed to answer? I understand if you are.
Orsbore 1 year ago
@Orsbore My stupidity is staggering? Well, stagger away. Aren't you the fool that thought marriage has nothing to do with behavior?
I'm judging gay men by the fact that they are men and by the fact that polls show that they value monogamy far less than straight men. Is this surprising to you? This is common sense. Men don't value monogamy the same way women do.
Sociological studies prove that married men (as in, men who commit to a woman) are "domesticated." Man+man is not equal to man+woman
namordecai 1 year ago
@namordecai
What you're saying here is totally irrelevant to a discussion of civil rights. You're just talking out your ass now because you have no real argument and you know it. You did the same thing 4 months ago when ScienceReasonBelief made a fool of you.
You've gone from obvious stupid bigot to obvious troll, and obvious troll is not worth trying to communicate with.
Thanks for not answering my question about your religion. I bet a friend that you wouldn't - I'm now $20 dollars richer
Orsbore 1 year ago
@namordecai what special treatment is that?
and what about their behavior is "inferior"
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Gay men #1 typically do not want children, #2 typically do not value monogamy _even in a state recognized union_, #3 if they do have children would be unlikely to be the biological father leading to MUCH higher abuse rates, #4 lesbian couples with children involve an absent biological father, #5 children of lesbian couples statistically experience gender confusion, #6 children of lesbian couples typically experiment sexually with the same sex at higher rates, etc.
namordecai 1 year ago
@namordecai I think that to more tolerant, less bigoted and more intelligent people,
so basically the pro gay group
but the rest of that makes no sense to the rest of the comment
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 When you guys have no arguments, you just get all elitist and condescending. You must know it's impossible to support the mindless dogma that a man+man=woman+man, when we all know that's wrong. The emperor has no clothes, in other words. The "stupid" people like me are actually using our common sense.
Stop PRETENDING that two men is the same as a REAL marriage. It's a sham. You know it's a sham. You're just more interested in fitting in with your elitist friends.
namordecai 1 year ago
IF MARRIAGE IS SO DAMN HOLY! WHY DO U STUPID MORMONS GET MARRIED JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE SEX???? IF YOU'
RE SO HOLY!? WHY IS IT THAT SEX IS ALL THAT ON YOUR MINDS???? HAVE LOTS OF SEX, HAVE LOTS OF BABIES THAT WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO RAISE PROPERLY! i SEE THESE MORMONS! SO MANY KIDS NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO EVEN DRESS THEM PROPERLY! WE ARE OVERPOPULATED! WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE!!!
TheFamousJamie 2 years ago
see love all brothers and sisters so why are people against gay people so why is there is so many hate. love one and another. it's just who you love, come on the frog fell in love with the princess. being gay doesn't mean that you are marrying a serial killer. there's nothing wrong about being gay it's just who you LOVE.
matzahball12 2 years ago 2
I am Catholic, but you do not even need to be religious to be against gay marriage. The whole idea is just a farce, and the only reason it has gotten this far is because the activists have played their political cards right. Yes on 8!
ma7799 2 years ago
@ma7799... sooooo, you think you're better than me? you think that I don't deserve to have love in my life, that I don't deserve to have my love legally protected like yours is?
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
This is not about "love," but family values, mores, and the future of our society. You can "love" whatever you want, but called it marriage is an issue that we will defend.
ma7799 2 years ago
@ma7799: oh, so now gays suddenly don't have family values, mores, and are not concerned with the future of society? since when?
you can "defend" it if you like, but you are going to eventually lose this one. everyone is entitled to the same rights and benefits.
but first, please tell me how you decided gays don't have family values, mores, or care about our society's future? because all the gays I know DO care, DO have family values, and DO have mores.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
The idea that a gay union = marriage is a political dogma. LDS stands for common sense and truth on this issue. I don't need a religion to tell me that a gay union is not a marriage.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namordecai: you obviously don't really know any gay people, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense. gay people love just as heteros do... if you knew gay people you'd know that.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
ROFL... I don't recall talking about love. Why would the government have to get involved in love? Will they legislate love? Give love awards instead of medals of honor? How about our nation's flag be switched from stars and stripes to cupid? Why do you want to the government involved to recognize love? That is the stupidest, most mindless, ignorant argument imaginable, and I think my IQ dropped a little for having read it. You people are weak-minded drones.
namordecai 2 years ago
@nam: Weak minded? Like the LDS cultists who blindly follow their leaders and have no idea how their tithing dollars are being spent? "LDS stands for common sense"? BS! If you're LDS, then you're the true drone! And don't get me started on the drones in other religions...
The government IS involved in legislating love, since they do sanction and regulate marriage. You really are obtuse! Not to mention bigoted and out of touch. Massive fail.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
Comment removed
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: hang on a minute while I stop laughing! boy, you sure can be unintentionally funny! so let's see, you've studied every subject on the planet. gosh, so have I. oh, & you know the science of evolution 100 times better than me? gosh, how could you know that, since you don't know me? & the people you know are far better role models than me, even tho, again, you don't know me. & finally, I never said WHY govt got into the marriage business, only that they had.
got a REAL argument???
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
Comment removed
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: YAWN! ....you are just calling names. no real argument here. go back to school and when you have something to say that makes sense, get back to me.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
Comment removed
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: you really are delusional, aren't you? you have brought up things we haven't even discussed, yet claiming that we have. I've never said anything about evolution, or things being "dealt with", or the Meyer-Shermer debates. I was talking about equal civil marriage... but perhaps there's an imaginary third commentator that only you can see? You keep ranting on and on with him... have fun.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
LOL Wow, I replied on the wrong thread. Your "sciencereasonbelief" got me confused that I was talking to a different idiot. Even though I am far smarter than you, I did something pretty stupid. Anyway, your arguments are even stupider than the guy I momentarily thought I was debating with. As I was saying before I got confused which thread I was on, the gov't never instituted marriage to recognize love. That you thought it did shows borderline mental illness.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: you're a piece of work and should seriously seek help. i never said that the govt instituted marriage to recognize love. As I pointed out in a previous post (the one before all the ones you erased in embarrassment), I didn't say WHY they got involved, only that they HAD gotten involved.
So, you're the one who confused the threads, yet somehow, without even knowing me, you're STILL smarter, huh?
Classic megalomania. Good luck with that...
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
Here's you in response to my assertion that a gay union is not a marriage: "gay people love just as heteros do... if you knew gay people you'd know that." Since this was in the context of a debate about whether the gov't should recognize "gay marriage" or not, the implication on your part was that the government had something to do with LOVE. Clearly your response was non-sequitur, and it appears you realize that now. Good job. Also, YOU should be embarrassed for supporting something so idiotic.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: there's no implication, idiot. they DO legislate an aspect of love, since most couples these days get married for love, regardless of how govt involvement started. clear enough for you yet? re-read it if need be. if your head starts to hurt then pause.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
There's an implication in EVERYTHING, because everything has a context, effecting its meaning.
They do not legislate aspects of love. ROFL. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That is hilariuos, dude. That's like saying the government legislates me taking a crap, because they tax toilets.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: just because you can't understand it, does not mean it's not true.
you're beginning to really bore me. have fun... and get that megalomania thing in check.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
Sounds like you have no explanation as to why you made the mindless claim that the government legislates love. It doesn't. It legislated filial ties, which is why a man and a woman pairing is unique. Also, megalomania suggests that a person thinks that their outside world IS them. You use it in a context suggesting it means arrogance. Wrong. So utterly wrong.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: see, the reason why you're boring me is because you're not really all that intelligent.
you mistake the historical reason, filial ties (you forgot property) with the main reason why people marry today. why you can't understand the difference is beyond me. and they you don't even understand that megalomania is a condition that has to do with grandiosity and narcissistic behavior, which clearly fits your "smarter than thou" attitude.
you have nothing intelligent to say.
fin.
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
@ScienceReasonBelief I'm not mistaking anything. If we're talking about "gay marriage," we're talking about making new laws. If the original law was never made for the purpose of love, than obviously, the same litmus test should be applied to homosexuals... unless what they really want is special treatment.
Also, I learned about megalomania in college, and the discussion was in the direction of infants being megalomaniacs. For adults, megalomania is about delusions of power or wealth. So wrong.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namor: "fin" means "the end" meaning I'm finished with you, fool. Bye!
ScienceReasonBelief 2 years ago
@ScienceReasonBelief As a parting thought, gay people are not Black people. This is not a civil rights movement, seeing as Black people didn't have a biological urge to sit at the backs of bus, demanding that everyone call the back, "the front." The "gay marriage" movement, is just a bunch of mindless crap invented by narcissistic, homosexual lobbyists.
namordecai 2 years ago
@namordecai since when do blacks have the rights to only call their movement the "civil rights movement"?
idaman12345 1 year ago
Where were they on the moral issue of Bush's war?
ckunzler 2 years ago
I am sure that Hitler made everything happy for those walking into the showers to get gassed, then burned. This vid is offensive in everyway. It offends my mind and heart. i firmly feel that these people will go to hell for what they are doing. We will still be married no matter what the GLBT groups do. Allow them thesamerespect. I remember George Wallace and those guys. These guys will be remembered the same way. Bad move LDS. Very bad move, it will haunt you later.
Vegasexcitement 2 years ago
fear mongering to da max
rytallica898 2 years ago
These 3 old morons are losers!!! So glad I'm out of that church!!!
SoCalGuy20 2 years ago
Contrary to God's plan? Isn't that imposing religious belief on a secular society? Isn't it hurting some of God's children? Isn't it mixing church and state, something that the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke out against vehemently when it was the church being persecuted? This agenda by the coalition is based in fear and outright untruths promoted in the guise of love, but is in reality a wolf in sheep's clothing.
janonda42 2 years ago
MORMONS THINK "WHITE IS RIGHT"
We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race... every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun. - LDS MORMON The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
astoria30001 3 years ago
How do know god wasn't black, Asian or any other race?
Your I.Q. isn't showing.
ixiiioviii 3 years ago
Those aren't my words. I was quoting Prophets and mormon books.
astoria30001 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RACIST LDS MORMON PROPHETS & APOSTLES
LDS MORMON PROPHET Joseph Smith: "And the rebellious NIGGERS in the slave states". . . " (Millennial Star, 22:602;)."
LDS MORMON PROPHET JOHN TAYLOR "This Greeley is one of their popular characters in the East,and one that supports the stealing of NIGGERS..." [Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5 page 119]
LDS MORMON Apostle George A. Smith: but would rob the coppers from a dead NIGGER'S eyes, if they had a good opportunity (Journal of Discourses, 5:110)
astoria30001 3 years ago
"We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race....every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun". - LDS MORMON The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
astoria30001 3 years ago
Astoria30001, You have no understanding of the Bible, or common sense. There wasn't any white people in that region of the Bible, which is the middle east until the Crusades. Study before you talk. It shows you're ignorance.
RMAYNARD219 2 years ago
RMAYNARD219 astoria was quoting from an LDS document.
Rockymtntruth 2 years ago
So if we can put the right to marry up for a vote, then why can't we put the right to a trial up for a vote? Or the freedom of speech? Or due process? I guess we could vote on whether to exterminate the Mormons or African Amercans if we wanted to, right?
Kind of scary if you think about it.
chrisehogan 3 years ago 2
"of the state off of free speech and off of the way we raise our children to our set of belief systems"
How is that ANY different from the arguments of the seggregationalists?
RoseEEOE 3 years ago
The definition of marriage, as described by religionists of various stripes, is certainly problematic. When pressed, any number of religious entities would probably have to admit that legally married individuals of OTHER faiths (or no faith at all) are not REALLY married "in the eyes of God." To which, I say, "Believe what you want to believe," but the atheist couple, the Shinto couple, The Animist couple are still entitled to the rights & priveleges or legal marriage.
gregorvonkallahann 3 years ago 2
Wrongful behaviour is this bigotry being spouted and promoted by men who think they're following the Truth while denying the rights to another group of people. Let the people vote on on the legality of the Mormon sect, then they'll see what they are doing to other people.
fanagot 3 years ago 2
this person states "vigorously promotes our beliefs" no you do not. you have freedom of speech like everyone but to push your beliefs unto others is wrong. keep it in your church, no where else.
flpete 3 years ago
1:00 watch his head shaking and forced smiles. Looks like he does not quite believe this message of *tolerance* he is spewing.
divinegoddessartemis 3 years ago
If I was a member of the LDS church I would be terribly angry that my religion spent so much money on discriminating against others.
One would think that a church who very openly denied people of color any position of authority until the late 1970s would back off on biggotry. Weren't you people persecuted to the point where you needed to leave your area in the East to come to Utah? How can you be so comfortable being this intolerant of others who aren't like you?
Chilsuhn 3 years ago
The Church didn't donate directly to the cause. The money came from members of the Church, invidually. The leaders of the Church simply offered encouragement. It's not against the law for a Church to offer encouragement on moral issues.
namordecai 3 years ago
It's wrong to encourage discrimination!
dansemacabre17 3 years ago
It's wrong, in many cases, to not discriminate. For example, passing a law to pay me like a firefighter, when I don't even work for the government would be wrong. You SHOULD discriminate between me and firefighters. Similarly, marriage (traditional definition) is necessary for civilizatoin to even exist. If the institution of domestic partnership vanished, society would suffer no consequence. Asserting they are the same asserts that civilization is irrelevant.
namordecai 3 years ago
A fairly good red herring argument, which of course is an example of an illogical argument. Discriminate has basically two meanings. You use the first meaning to create the red herring--draw someone away from the definition actually being discussed. Discrimination in a civil rights sense is acting on a derogatory prejudice. It is to discriminate against a person or group based on an arbitrary trait or supposed trait.
peekayb 3 years ago
Since we're discriminating against a THING, gay UNIONS, and not gay PEOPLE, I have to disagree. Gay unions do not have a mother and father. They do not have biological parents in the home. They don't have natural reproduction. So that thing is inferior to marriage. GOOD discrimination.
namordecai 3 years ago
Discrimination is not restricted to individuals. Discrimination can be classified as personal or institutional--against individuals because of a group they belong to, or against the group itself. Being against the union of people within a group is relying on the prejudice that they are "inferior",as you have clearly titled the basis of your prejudice against the unions that such people form. I know little of gay couples w/children, but many seem to have one biological parent in the home.
peekayb 3 years ago
Amend.1:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . you are free to marry man to women as in your religion, that is not under threat.
A person should quietly show tolerance of their oppressors when a civil right is going to be voted away--from them, or members of their family? Sounds more like an eastern religion--Chinese obedience or something.
I don't think a queer would want to get married in a religion that promotes hate.
peekayb 3 years ago
"To those who would say Judges would never rule, forcing a church to marry in it's sacred efifices those it wishes to reject, are smoking weed,"
You have no credibility after that assnine statment.
mdlinks 3 years ago
this is all just imposing one's belief on another. This mocks the spirit of the constitution to allow each individual the FREEDOM and RIGHT to one's personal beliefs and RELIGION. THUSLY, from that alone, we cannot impose religion on government to force others into one way. That does not celebrate diversity and individuality. That's an immature inability to tolerate diversity.
This is meant to be a diverse society. For peace, we must allow each to have the right & freedom of belief/thought.
gkundo 3 years ago
How can we live together in peace and harmony, uniqueness, and diversity, if we try to force each other into our own beliefs. IT'S BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU PRO PROP 8 PEOPLE THAT STARTED PHILIP II'S HOLY WARS THAT KILLED 350k people, the Christian Crusades that killed 1-million, Hitler's intolerance of impurity that massacred 15 million, Queen Mary's persecution of protestants, Henry's massacre of Catholics, the oppression/exploitation of minorities. You share the same line of thought w/them.
gkundo 3 years ago
So because there are some gay people out there, the rest of us should be forced to tolerate it? WE HAVE FREEDOMS TOO and right now there are more straight people than gay people. I refuse to be forced against my will to tolerate something as wrong, twisted, and perverted as gay marriage.
Lucario1856 3 years ago
lucario, you have your civil rights all whacked. so should catholics tolerate protestants, or the other way around? So the whites were correct in denying civil rights to the black minority and enslave them or exploit them? So the Chinese deserved to be mistreated as a minority...
you have your fundamentals all screwed up with your biased views of hate and discrimination. it's cuz of people like you that allow hitler, crusades, holy wars, minority exploitation and slavery to occur.
gkundo 3 years ago
Oh because the Bible clearly says that blacks are inferior and that we should go kill everyone who isn't Christian. Go read a Bible before you make stupid comments like that. I don't want kids taught about Gay marriage in school. Gays can keep their rights under California Family Code 197.5, I just don't want their beliefs shoved in my face.
Lucario1856 3 years ago
we're just fighting for equal HUMAN civil rights and equality, separation of church and state to enforce the constitutional freedom of EACH individual to live in different beliefs and thought. We're just leveling it out. We're not shoving beliefs in your face by making you believe the way we do. We're just asking that you not be aselfish ignorant prick and be FAIR and tolerant in the spirit of freedom and civil liberties. On the other hand, you're trying to force your beliefs on us through gov.
gkundo 3 years ago
I don't want heterosexual privilege pushed in my face, either.
sfcub69 3 years ago
lucario, in addition, you don't know what how to live in peace and harmony with people that think and believe differently from your religious bias. This country was founded on religious freedom... In that light, we all are to live together in peace, to each his own religious belief. That means we need to be tolerant and respectful and quit being a nosy bossy little bitch trying to force beliefs on others. sure you have rights, but we're just fighting for equality, not for you to lose your rights
gkundo 3 years ago
people, pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION - this is how the tyranny of the majority CORRUPTS people's minds. When African Americans were first starting to try and buy houses in white neighborhoods, they faced the very same mentality.
sfcub69 3 years ago
That is just the problem if the law changes then churches have been and will likely be forced to perform and recognize these marriage thus taking way their freedoms.
So that discriminates against those people as well as parents not giving them the option to raise their children with their families traditional beliefs. Talk about people who have no moral values it goes both ways.
AequitasVeritas7777 3 years ago
Completely false! Churches are allowed to discriminate by law. Ever hear of someone outside your church suing to be married in your church? Doesn't happen. US Constitution and freedom of religion takes precedence. Please back up your facts next time that churches "have been forced" because this is a false statement. It has never happened anywhere.
This then leaves you to teach WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRADITION (which is not everyone else's by the way). NO ON PROP 8
calpoidog 3 years ago
Okay here goes: In New Jersey,a lesbian couple sued a Christian ministry after it declined to host a civil union ceremony for them on its property.
In addition to forcing the organization to disregard the rules set down in the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which states that gay unions cannot be performed in church buildings, the lesbian thugs also wanted cash "for economic loss, humiliation, and,[of course] mental pain."
AequitasVeritas7777 3 years ago
(continued) The justification for this outrage is the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which has been interpreted to mean that homosexuals must be granted their increasingly arrogant demands, however unreasonable.
Almost as disturbing as the use of these feel-good discrimination laws to inflict depravity on a church is the disrespect shown for private property.
AequitasVeritas7777 3 years ago
(continued) According to Garden State Equality, which imposes the interests of "the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community," the church's property is in fact public property "by virtue of having been used by the public for many years."
The women could have held their ceremony anywhere—and eventually did hold it somewhere else—but they filed a complaint anyway because they wanted the ministry's "moral approval".
AequitasVeritas7777 3 years ago
Filing a complaint and having a court agree with you are two separate things. When a court agrees that a church has to perform a ceremony, then maybe this will be a valid argument. Still it's NJ, NOT California and the Supreme Court decision specifically states that churches will not be required to perform such ceremonies.
calpoidog 3 years ago
Problem with such idealistic thinking is that when it comes to law suits people will base all decisions upon those of preceding decisions regardless of what particular state they are in.
Often times a case will present a previous one, usually in a different state, when dealing with law and establishing precedent.
As has been stated before that this proposition 8 not passing will have long-term effects for everyone in the days ahead, for all people not just you and me.
AequitasVeritas7777 3 years ago
Demographers show that most Christians are homophobes. They won't always admit it openly. Instead they'll disguise it by referring to homosexuality as a choice, or by saying that while they don't approve of that lifestyle, they respect everyone's choice to love whomever they want. Yet they'll do everything in their power to shield their children from homosexuality for fear that their kids might end up becoming gay.
If only they understood that it's not a choice maybe they'd stop fearing it.
madbetamax 3 years ago
mike2jb 3 years ago
MOM, again you are hiding behind children to force your personal idea of morality upon your neighbors. Prop 8 won't take OUR son away from either of his parents, and it won't take any other kids away from any other same-sex parents.
The only thing you'll do to those KIDS is to dissolve their parents' marriage and cause significant personal and financial turmoil in those kids' families. Thanks.
Yeah, MOM, anyone can see that you REALLY care about kids--as a shield to hide behind.
Vote NO!
mike2jb 3 years ago
anmom says: "Vote YES on 8 and procreate."
Cute rhyme, mom. But see, thing is--two people getting married next door won't stop you from procreating all you want.
Mom, there are now six billion of us on this planet. You and the other procreators are already doing a fine job without trying to change our laws to set yourself up in some sort of exclusive club.
Vote NO on 8!
mike2jb 3 years ago
Mike,
Demographers show all evidence to the contrary. Every country in the world has declining birth rates. Europe's is so low, they don't even have enough to sustain their current population, and when in the next decade when their aging population begins to retire, they will not have enough younger workers in the work force to sustain them in their socialist countries. We are experiencing a demographic winter of unprecedented proportions.
americanMOM123 3 years ago
YES on 8. :0)
Marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined.
Children deserve a mom and a dad. Research clearly demonstrates that children do best in a home with a mom and a dad. Even FRANCE got that one right.
This isn't just about affectionate feelings of consenting adults. This is about what's best for children, and the future health of American families.
Vote YES on 8 and procreate.
americanMOM123 3 years ago
americanmom says: "This is about what's best for children ..."
Interesting idea, mom, and entirely irrelevant to Prop 8.
This Prop won't take kids away from same-sex couples. It won't change the rules on gay adoption. Why even bring up the issue? You wouldn't be trying to scare voters by using kids, would you?
mike2jb 3 years ago
No. Just explaining that when France looked at this issue they focused on one thing: France's next generation (i.e. children!). I understand fully that domestic partnerships can adopt. However, scientific evidence concludes that children do best raised by a mom and a dad. For a country to endorse and promote same-sex marriages, it is denying children the right to be raised in a home by a mother and a father. Which parent are they best without?
americanMOM123 3 years ago
mom says: "For a country to endorse and promote same-sex marriages, it is denying children the right to be raised in a home by a mother and a father"
No it's not.
Same-sex couples have the same rights to adopt or to have their own children whether they are married or not.
Banning marriage does nothing but "punish" those same families by making their lives harder and more expensive due to the loss of some of the rights of marriage.
Doesn't sound to me like you REALLY care about kids at all, mom.
mike2jb 3 years ago
This issue has EVERYTHING to do with my children and their children's children. Which is why I have such a huge interest in seeing Prop.8 pass. I ask my question again: Which parent do you think a child is best without?
americanMOM123 3 years ago
mom asks: "Which parent do you think a child is best without"
Neither. Which one of MY child's parents do you want to get rid of?
Families aren't theoretical constructs, as you seem to think them to be, mom. They are flesh and blood. You can talk all day about what you believe the "best" family is, but that doesn't matter to real families, including mine.
And again, Prop 8 affects that not one iota. You simply wish to tear apart my marriage and you're hiding behind kids to do it. Pathetic.
mike2jb 3 years ago
Exactly, "neither." By endorsing gay relationships, a state would be INTENTIONALLY denying that child from the outset of the influence of either a mother or a father. Prop. 8 is about restoring the traditional definition of the term "marriage"--a union that involves a man and a woman--the best possible scenario for raising California's next generation, providing them a microcosm of the world in their own home, modeling how to interact with both genders, helping them best understand their own.
americanMOM123 3 years ago
I dont understand the "children deserve a mother and father" argument. Gays can legally adopt in this state. Prop 8 won't change that. Don't you understand that fact? Allowing same sex marriage is not going to influence the number of kids raised in same sex households.
I know lots of gay men and women who have adopted the kids no one else wants: minorities, disabled, older. These kids sit waiting for parents that never come. Are you saying they're better off not being adopted?
calpoidog 3 years ago
calpoidog, remember it takes a man and woman to make a child & the quote you are referring to is from a church leader stating his beliefs so there is no reason to put words in his mouth & assume that he is ignorant of adoption rules just as you say Prop 8 won't change who can adopt who so that has no bearing on what we are discussing here.
Personally, I can not say if those children would be better off or not, personally I hope for the best most caring parents for all children.
AequitasVeritas7777 3 years ago
It isn't that fact that homosexuals can or can't adopt, it's that the line that differentiates the type of union the prospective parents are involved in must now be ignored and can not be a deciding factor. It takes choice away.
mah0nri 3 years ago
Vote NO on prop 8.
pjh2003 3 years ago
Vote no on 8!
moniequa 3 years ago
"ScuseMe" says: "Would you too punish the Catholic Charities ... etc."
Neither the Catholic Church nor ANY other church except the LDS Church are putting out multiple POLITICAL ads systematically bearing false witness in order to wage a POLITICAL campaign against their neighbors, and doing so with the same neighbors' money, gained through religious tax exemption.
Hollywood pays ITS taxes, "ScuseMe." Bet you could fill a lot of potholes with the property tax on just one trumpeting gold angel .
mike2jb 3 years ago
This taped satellite broadcast recruiting Prop 8 support was produced with tax-exempt money. The church buildings used for thousands of people to attend Prop 8 campaign rallies with this satellite broadcast as centerpiece—these pay not one penny of property tax. The rest of us have to pick up the slack on the taxes THEY are exempt from. The No-on-8 ad producers sure aren't tax-exempt. Sound fair to you?
Tell the Mormon church to stay out of our government AND our lives. Vote NO on Prop 8!
mike2jb 3 years ago
These is a pretty uninformed commentary because tax-exempt money is being used on both sides. Please do your research.
cureloms 3 years ago
cureloms says: " tax-exempt money is being used on both sides"
Any evidence for that?
Is any No-on-8 campaign anywhere near as large and well-organized as the Mormon Church?
Is any No-on-8 website and production company tax-exempt, as the site (preservingmarriagedotorg) responsible for the latest round of slick Prop 8 hit pieces,complete with pretty actors. It's wholly owned by the Mormon Church and is bought with tax-exempt money.
Most voters think that's unfair.
Vote NO.
mike2jb 3 years ago
For hell sake Mike,
Wake up? Hollywood is dumping millions into this through all sorts of organizations. Go tell that thousands and hundreds of thousands throughout the earth, including recently in Texas, that you want to tax and punish the very church that brought them fast relief in food, water, bedding, and hygiene kits after they suffered calamities.
Would you too punish the Catholic Charities and other great Christian churches who after Katrina were on the Front Lines with aid? Tolerance?
ScuseMeJudge 3 years ago
Yes Mike,
You would tyrannize us all with Taxation as a means of oppression and punishment. You should live in the former USSR, or I suppose rejoice in the one currently being constructed here in the USA. I find your argument one that is totally lame. Get the huge foundations taxed then too. David Rockefeller boasts of "conspiring" against the USA, and of being part of a "secret cabal" working to bring about the very type of tyranny you delight in and with to implement, one criminalizing re
ScuseMeJudge 3 years ago
our society picks up a much heaver tax burden taking care of the social problems created by sexual morality. what a shallow argument.
Vote yea on 8
savegekim 3 years ago
savagekim, you got any evidence for your broad brush slander or do you just like to make things up?
Nearly all those elders on all those bicycles went to public schools that I paid for, along with their eight brothers and sisters. And I gladly subsidize them without complaint because it's good for our society.
But if their bishop wants to use MY dollars to run a POLITICAL campaign against me, something no other church does to this extent, then you BET I'll complain loud and long.
Vote NO!
mike2jb 3 years ago
When the LDS church offers to pay my state property, income, and sales taxes, they can tell me how to vote.
Until then, it's none of their goddamned business WHOM I vote for or HOW to vote regarding referenda.
BenAliGtor 3 years ago
Proposition 8 isn't about the rights of same-sex couples. As California law (297.5) states, same-sex domestic partners are granted the same rights as married partners. I have gay friends and relatives and want them to be able to have love, companionship, and the same rights as married couples. Proposition 8 IS about making a statement that judges do not have the right to ignore the voice of the people (proposition 22)and retaining our democratic rights to promote the values that we believe in.
amyocook 3 years ago
Amy, with "friends" like you, who needs enemies? And domestic partners are NOT granted the same rights as MARRIED. If Amy's domestic partner Ann gets very sick and is unable to make medical decisions, the family, which Ann may or may not like or trust, would trump Amy. If they were married, the SPOUSE trumps all. Before you post this bullshit that they are equal do your freakin homework. Also, judges JUDGE, and they judged that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Your gay "friends" need to dump you.
CAguymasc 3 years ago
The U.S. Constitution: Bill of Rights
* Ninth Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
* Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
As NO Legislative body ever passed a Law to REMOVE the right of Same Sex Couples to marry, that Right is RETAINED by the people.
MarkDellavecchia 3 years ago
Testing testing 123
walkerabbie180 3 years ago
All men and women in relationships, same sexed or otherwise, deserve equality under the law and respect. I fully intend to vote no on prop 8.
SpeedyBruin 3 years ago
I said civil rights as did Joseph.
suescannon 3 years ago
The sacred institution of marriage, as we Mormons know it to be is one man and many wives. No one has ever struck down D&C 132.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Denying such a right is a wrong-doing Joseph Smith himself fought against. Smith was appalled that the US Government had denied the Saints their religious and civil rights (see his reasons for running for president of the United States). Civil rights. That's what Joseph was fighting for when he was martyred.
suescannon 3 years ago
suescannon,
You are incorrect to say that Joseph Smith would have fought for, or was fighting for, a definition of marriage that ignored the validity of gender for the raising of posterity within the bonds of marriage. Posterity worlds without end is what Joseph taught. The welfare of children is the real civil rights issue. Children have the right to a father and a mother.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
You act as though a child brough up in a house with two loving gay parents somehow hurts the child. Valid studies have PROVEN this is not the case. A dear brother of mine, very straight, was brought up by two loving fathers and his mother and step dad in another house. He graduated top of his class and lives a very productive successful life with his wife and children.
I grew up around more than one mormon family that put on airs that things were ok when abuse and adultry was running rampant.
Chilsuhn 3 years ago
Fact is, non-biological parents are proven to be more likely to abandon children or abuse them. So your facts are BS. I thought you far lefties were all into the evolution thing. What hte hell are you thinking? You don't believe evolutionary instincts would give more motivation to protect and take care of your biological offspring?
namordecai 3 years ago
Evolution is based on reproduction--or the ability to reproduce. No species relies on marriage for that reproduction. So marriage is not necessary for civilization. Gay partnership may, however, depend on our concept of a civil society--civilization--a community. That implies that we care for all young, our disabled,etc, and as we develop as a society, we care for the minority in our group. We are, as a civilized, loving society, capable of caring for people different from ourselves. Please.
peekayb 3 years ago
"marriage is not necessary for civilization"
Not according to the California Supreme Court.
Also, we are very civilized. WE compromoised and gave gay couples, despite their inferior union, the same rights as the superior marriage. But your entitlement issues and big, whiny baby attitudes have led you to believe you're like Black people, just because you're not allowed to redefine an important culturally sensitive word for EVERYONE.
namordecai 3 years ago
Odd, you would call my logical argument a whiny attitude. Interesting tactic that I don't usually deal with in person.
Could you cite the court case in the Cal Supreme Court, I can't seem to find your reference.
Can you explain your judgment of inferior and superior? What logic are you using?
peekayb 3 years ago
You are a whiner. You think you're entitled, not to tolerance but to preferential treatment. Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211 has a few things to say. There are other rulings also that cover EXACTLY what I've been saying. Marriage is NECESSARY and invaluable to society, so it DESERVES preferential treatment. Gay unions must be tolerated, it seems but have strangely gotten all the rights of marriage. To call them the same takes away preference of real marriage. So YOU are taking from US.
namordecai 3 years ago
Very interesting that you quote a case that involves legislative divorce, the definition and obligations of contract which would allow divorce and was also used to reinvent state miscegenation laws after the 14th amendment.
From the case: (Marriage) is . . .a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life. If marriage is a basic building block to happiness & society, why restrict it?
peekayb 3 years ago
You restrict it to maintain its strength and purpose for existing. For example, we restrict who can be a firefighter as a paraplegic would not work out too well. Another example of good discrimination. Fortunately, paraplegics aren't dumb enough to try to pass legislation to allow them to become firefighters.
namordecai 3 years ago
California decisions have described marriage as the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.
Numerous international human rights treaties recognize the rightto marry and to found a family as a basic human right. I have read more on your position and the assumptions of corruption to marriage--a tenuous premise at best.
There are more people that fully accept homosexuality than there are actual homosexuals.
peekayb 3 years ago
It's very simple; change the language and you get: thoughts-->feelings-->actions-->environment-->thoughts-->feelings... et cetera ad infinitum. Your opinion is irrelevant, especially since the vast majority of the U.S. insists that marriage maintain its definition so as to reinforce the beneficial behavior associated with it. If you had your own country, you could try radical social experiments on IT instead.
namordecai 3 years ago
I have read many of your posts and see that we simply speak a different language, quite literally. Our definitions of civil rights issues and discourse, what constitutes the natural, our boundaries of the physical and metaphysical, what it means to be a Christian and how we form logical arguments are incompatible. People in our respective positions are at an impasse.
expectationsnegate 3 years ago
True enough.
peekayb 3 years ago
Funny. I've always been able to define terms and discuss premises. THat's probably because I think things through very well and don't normally accept beliefs whose premises aren't well thought out. Einstein once said, if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it. I am going to assume he was referring to situations like this.
namordecai 3 years ago
Well, you do a poor job on this issue. You are very emotional and use many poor definitions and ad hominid attacks.You must be tired of this discussion, though.
I doubt Einstein's grandmother understood the general theory of relativity and my grandmother refused to understand when I dated a Japanese man. Prejudice perhaps?
You can read the premise of Justice as fairness in John Rawls book, the Theory of Justice. You can look up "discrimination" in the OED and court cases--Bakke v. UCDavis?
expectationsnegate 3 years ago
I took a philosophy of ethics class in college. I'm fine with my definition of justice. Why would I trust a lawyer, whose job it is to see things only one way and from one side? WHY? How about YOU study the philosophy of ethics, which is not adversarial and doesn't engender an adversarial approach? Also, it's ad hominem, not ad hominid. I will grant I toss in an occasional ad hominem attack, but that's not the crux of my argument. In fact, I do a fairly good job on this issue.
namordecai 3 years ago
The funny part is namordecai, it isn't just far lefties that understand evolution. All it takes is an education. Try some.
Nowhere did I state non-biological parents are better.I am saying they certainly can be just as equally capable of parenting and give the same exact kind of love needed to raise a healthy human. One nice thing about children raised with queer parents is they are less likely to be brainwashed with the bigotry and intolerance you preach. May God protect our society from LDS
Chilsuhn 3 years ago
Darwinism, which I've studied more than you, is comparable in strength to Intelligent Design, when it comes to explaining the variety of species. ID is much stronger with regard to the origin of life. Darwinism with regard to adaptive mutations is N/A. SOME microevolutionary changes can be observed, however. So it's not worthless. Also, prove I'm a bigot. Don't use your empty, worthless name calling here. And the LDS Church is awesome. The people, as a whole, and leadership amaze me. U kno zilch
namordecai 3 years ago
Suescannon,
This is not a matter of civil rights, it is a matter of morality. And the church has a right to stand up for what they believe in.
brendasuzee 3 years ago
Continued:
If this proposition fails, there will be the obvious lawsuits coming against the church, where a gay couple, now legally recognized by the state as able to be wed, will sue to be married within an LDS temple. What if the church objects? The power of the state will then criminalize the church. This is absolutely and totally a stomping, trampling, smearing and destruction of the US Constitution and everything fought for in the war of Independence. Honest gay people concede this.
ScuseMeJudge 3 years ago
LDS members have to qualify for a temple recommend in order to enter the temple so you never have to worry about Gays being sealed to one another, they would never qualify.
You know this you are just scare mongering.
I doubt if a case could be made to demand a Mormon Bishop to marry a gay couple in the a Church building either because those Gay members would be excommunicated first.
rd1999 3 years ago