California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says maybe we will undo Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage)

[MacLean]

The YOU in my last sentence of that post meant Xiphos (I used the caps to try to emphasize him, guess it didn't work as intended), since he was the one that expressed that he felt that opening up marriage to gays would open the door to other perversions. I'd be hard pressed to believe that Xiphos was pro-gay marriage for stating a belief like that. Also when he said that, he basically expressed that he thought being gay was a perversion, since he worded it that way. If he didn't mean to say that was his own opinion, a different wording would have helped, like saying that "some people think...", etc.

I see your point, but am not willing to make an assumption about Xiphos.

It is possible that he has a legitimate concern that allowing a crack in the definition might be a slippery slope situation.

At any rate, I'm proud of this site and pleased to see that almost all of us are staying rational and enjoying the debate!

[213th]

It's scary though that some people think that the courts and the government have the right to overrule the voice of the people. If that's the case, why even bother voting anymore? The government has no business overruling a vote by the people just because it doesn't like it.

The beauty about the United States is that the people make the decisions, and if you take that away (which is what California did) then you take away the heart and soul of what the United States was founded on.

[CTR man]

My apologies for the long post. I feel a Novel coming on. Fair Warning.

Are you married? Do you wear a wedding ring? Unless you live in Massachusetts or Connecticut, wearing a wedding ring means that you are straight. When you wear your wedding ring in public, you are announcing to the world what your sexual orientation is. Why do you have to throw your orientation in people's faces like that? (Rhetorical question) When you publicly comment that some woman is hot or tell people about your wife or girlfriend, you also are announcing your orientation. So are doing those things I just mentioned wrong? Hell no! Do those things to your heart's content. But any equivalent thing that a gay person does is also not wrong. If a gay person wears a piece of rainbow jewelry, that's fine (similar to wedding ring). If a gay man talks about his boyfriend the way a straight man talks about his girlfriend of wife, then that's fine.

I agree that PDA's are bad regardless of who is doing it. Anything more intense than hand holding, hugs, pecks is probably going to qualify as a PDA. No one needs to see that regardless of orientation. Period.

Yes, I am married. As a matter of fact, my wife also posts on this board. At the present time, I do not wear a wedding ring because in my line of work it catches on boxes and equipment and I do not want the risk of having my finger torn off, or worse. Otherwise I would wear one. If a homosexual chooses to wear some type of jewelry announcing their commitment, thats fine with me, so be it. If a homosexual chooses to make comments about their significant other, thats fine with me also, so be it. I'll even go so far as to say that I have gay co-workers. I may not personally approve of what they do in the area of sexual orientation but like I said it is none of my business. As long as they are there to get the job done.

What I have an issue with are those that seem to want to go overboard with the PDA's. If they feel the need to do that, they need to go get a room in private and get it out of their system. Regardless of sexual orientation.

What about the military and the don't ask don't tell policy?

There are also schools that want to have co ed dorms. Thoughts?

As for being effeminate....some men are just naturally effeminate, whether they are gay or straight. I always feel sorry for the straight guys that are naturally effeminate, because they will be labeled as gay even though they aren't. If that is the way a person really is (effeminate) then there's nothing wrong with them being that way. Now, if a man "acts" effeminate because he thinks that is how a gay man is supposed to act (and that's not how he really is), yeah I have issue with that.

I guess that this is where I have the problem. You just explained it better than I did. People trying to be something that they're not. Why is it that it seems to be that some gay men are the ones that are doing this? Why do they have to be so flamboyant about it? Very rarely do I see lesbians doing it, or maybe I am just not picking up on it.

But sometimes, some of that comes from the stereotypes that straight people have for gay people. Society bombards us with messages that gay men are all queens. Gay characters on TV are almost always effeminate to some degree (even Will from Will and Grace). If you hear that enough, you might believe it, whether you are straight or gay.

This is it right here, the gay men who choose to act like queens. I can't stand that. The shows that come to mind at the moment are Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and the character Hollywood Montrose in the movie Mannequin. To me, to a degree, this is rubbing it in my face. I have tried to put this aside. I hope I am succeeding.

Hollywood was in many ways a stereotype of an effeminate gay man; He was a fashion expert who wore pink sunglasses at all times, dressed his "subjects" (the store's mannequins) in flashy outfits, and often wore flamboyant purple suits. His car is a pink convertible called "Bad Girl", and it has a flashy cover which is navy blue with pink dots painted all around. He was also known for his catch phrases, such as "Never you fear. Your Hollywood is here!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Montrose

I'll be the first one to tell you that I am guilty of falling into the trap of stereotyping. I am doing my best to get out of that bad habit. Another stereotype is all Californians are either ultra liberal, gay, or surfers. Or any combination of the three. I assure you that I am neither of these and I am a native born Californian. Its what the media pushes out and the rest of America is left to their own conclusions.

But the flip side is that there are plenty of gay men that are just as masculine as any of us in here. The thing is you generally never even know that they are gay when you see them because they seem to be just like everyone else unless you end up hearing that they like guys.

We've again gotten so off topic in this thread, but I think this is a good discussion to have, with plenty of strong opinions all the way around.

Maybe you can answer this for me. Why does it have to be such a big deal for some gays to "come out of the closet"?

Another thing I think is wrong is being attacked for ones sexual orientation, regardless of who is doing it.

These are my feelings or beliefs as well.

Here's what I think.

The point of marriage is procreation. The advent of easy chemical contraception and abortafacients have turned the marital act into recreation and separated it from marriage. Marriage today has been turned into a legal contract with legal benefits and it has nothing to do with procreation, in a general sense. (There are those in Christian culture who still cling to procreation as part of family but culturally it's not like that anymore for a large part of our society.) In our society I don't know how we can deny those legal benefits to any class of people.

That being said I believe that marriage is a religious covenant that the government really doesn't have any business dealing with it. I think we need to get the government out of the marriage business and leave that to churches. If two consenting adults want to enter into a contract together then the government can enforce that contract just like any other.

I also believe that the radical part of the gay movement is not satisfied with gaining legal status but they want to destroy our entire cultural concept of family. That's another reason why I want to remove government from the marriage business. As long as it is debated in the political sphere it will be subject to redefinition and destruction.

If I am reading Xiphos' post correctly, he believes what I do. The radical side of the gay movement does not simply want equality. They want to change society into believing what they do is normal. In other words, they will not be satisfied until gay is the new straight and straight is the new gay. They refuse to accept that they are different. Although they should bear no discrimination for their sexuality, it is not normal and will never be 100% accepted.

Before anyone says "what is normal?", normal is the accepted set of unspoken rules that a society governs itself by. It is those things which if you do something different, you are not in trouble, but the group may cast you away. Normal in our society is heterosexuality, and although homosexuality is allowed, it is not widely accepted and will never be wholly encouraged.

I have also read it somewhere that somewhere, I think it was on the East Coast that this was happening. Some churches have been threatened with losing their non profit status if they do not marry gays. This is WRONG!!! The government needs to stay out of religion. Period. I assure you that the church that I choose to worship at will never marry homosexuals. In fact, they will excommunicate members who practice homosexuality.

End of Novel

[CTR man]

This is getting way out of hand. More Novel. Here come the radicals.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80406



QUEERLY BELOVED
WorldNetDaily
Same-sex marriage rowdies single out Mormons
Protesters riot at temple, vow further action against Latter-day Saints
Posted: November 08, 2008
12:40 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Police arrested two people, and photographs from the scene show angry crowds and violent confrontations in front of the Los Angeles Mormon temple yesterday as part of continued protests over the passage of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage

As WND reported, since the ballot measure was approved by voters earlier this week, supporters of same-sex marriage have made profane and violent threats against Christians and churches.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, has become a focused target of anger after the church's leadership urged members to support the Yes on 8 campaign and opponents of the measure, according to the Los Angeles Times, estimate LDS members gave over $20 million to pass the ballot initiative.

Lorri L. Jean, chief executive officer of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, was at yesterday's massive demonstration, which swarmed the Mormon temple with an angry mob of an estimated 2,000 protesters.

"It is a travesty that the Mormon church bought this election and used a campaign of lies and deception to manipulate voters in the great state of California," Jean told the crowd, according to KTTV-TV in Los Angeles. "Today we will send a message to (LDS) President Monson that we will not tolerate being stripped of our equal rights in the name of religious bigotry."

Jeff Flint, strategist for Yes on 8, however, told the Times, "I am appalled at the level of Mormon-bashing that went on during the Proposition 8 campaign and continues to this day."

The Times reported dozens of the protesters screaming "Bigots!" and "Shame on you!" through the temple's closed gates. The newspaper's website shows dozens of photographs of protesters scaling the fences around the temple, waving signs and being restrained by police during some isolated, violent confrontations.

"As protests go, this one is remarkably long," Los Angeles Police Department Lt. John Romero told KCAL-TV in Los Angeles, four hours after the marches began. "When we talk about anti-war or immigration rights, (it) typically (lasts) one hour, two hours top."

The LDS church has been a lightning rod for anger after its role in passing Proposition 8. Last month, protesters parked an SUV painted with hate messages in front of a Mormon family of seven's home. WND reported a television commercial in which Mormon missionaries were depicted barging into a lesbian couple's home, explaining their mission to "take away your rights."

David Loder, a business manager and member of the Mormon church, told the Times his Yes on 8 yard sign was vandalized and he heard about the protest on the radio.

"As a member of the LDS church we have known [and still do] the feeling of being ridiculed and mistreated because of our faith," he said.

Still, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, which produced the "Home Invasion" commercial, told the Times he does not believe his group was bashing Mormons.
"This is not about religion," said Jacobs. "This is about a church that put itself in the middle of politics."

Jean, whose Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center organized the rally outside the temple, now says she plans to continue protesting the Mormon church's involvement.

During the rally she announced plans for a new website to raise funds for advocating same-sex marriage in California. For every $5 donated, Jean said, her organization will send a postcard to LDS President Thomas S. Monson condemning "the reprehensible role the Church of Latter-day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law."

LDS officials yesterday issued a statement asking for "a spirit of mutual respect and civility."
"The church acknowledges that such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life – family and marriage – stirs fervent and deep feelings," church spokeswoman Kim Farah wrote in an e-mail to the Times. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information."



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80047



'Gay' marriage ad slams LDS church
Spot portrays missionaries invading lesbians' home
Posted: November 04, 2008
4:25 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A new ad launched in California just as voters prepared to decide on a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman depicts two missionaries from the Mormon church invading a home belonging to two lesbians.


The fictional scene shows the missionaries confiscating the womens' rings and finding and tearing up their marriage certificate


The Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of Stockton and president of the California Catholic Conference, called the ad "a blatant display of religious bigotry and intolerance." He said he was dismayed any media outlet would agree to run it.

The issue of marriage has been in the headlines in California since May when the state Supreme Court, ignoring a warning from one of its own members that the decision eventually could be used to legalize incest and polygamy, ordered marriage instituted for homosexuals and lesbians.

The court opinion rejected the expressed will of California voters, who in 2000 approved a legal definition of marriage as between only one man and one woman.

According to the Catholic News Agency, the commercial suggests Mormon missionaries would invade the homes of lesbian couples

Produced by the "Courage Campaign Issues Committee," the video is available here:

YouTube - "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8

In the ad, two missionaries identify themselves as Mormons and say, "We are here to take away your rights."

They go into the house, take the rings and hunt through drawers for a marriage , which they tear up.

Rick Jacobs, of the pro-homosexual marriage campaign, told KUTV television in Salt Lake City the ad literally is a message the houses of Californians are being invaded by the Mormon Church.

But Scott Trotter, a spokesman for the LDS Church, argued members are working with others in a broad-based coalition "in defense of traditional marriage."

"While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the church this same courtesy," he said.

The Catholic bishop Blaire contended the campaign to pass the marriage measure "is not about discrimination and intolerance; it is about restoring the traditional definition of marriage for the good of society and children."

"All individuals and groups, whether religious or not, have both a right and a responsibility to participate in a civil debate about this important issue," he said.

On the CNA forum page, an opponent of defining marriage as between a man and a woman said at least one vote would change because of the ad.

"I am a No on 8 supporter but this video is ridiculous. If the No on 8 campaign supports this add (sic) I will be forced to change my vote. Lying is not the way to win."

[IndianaFuzz]

At any rate, I'm proud of this site and pleased to see that almost all of us are staying rational and enjoying the debate!

Cops being rational.........who knew???

[IndianaFuzz]

What I have an issue with are those that seem to want to go overboard with the PDA's. If they feel the need to do that, they need to go get a room in private and get it out of their system. Regardless of sexual orientation.

What about the military and the don't ask don't tell policy?

This is it right here, the gay men who choose to act like queens. I can't stand that. The shows that come to mind at the moment are Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and the character Hollywood Montrose in the movie Mannequin. To me, to a degree, this is rubbing it in my face. I have tried to put this aside. I hope I am succeeding.

Maybe you can answer this for me. Why does it have to be such a big deal for some gays to "come out of the closet"?

Another thing I think is wrong is being attacked for ones sexual orientation, regardless of who is doing it.

Yes, we agree that PDA's are over the top and not needed to be seen, whether gay or straight. I guarantee you that I see probably 100 times more straight PDA's than I see gay PDA's, if not more. I suppose if I lived in San Fran. I'd see the gay ones more. In many environments, like in most midwestern locales, gays are afraid to show any signs that they are gay for fear of being gay-bashed. This ties into what I say later in this post.

Don't Ask Don't Tell: If you think this topic (Prop 8 and gay marriage) was opening up a can of worms..... hehe

As for the guy from Queer Eye (by the way I hate that title), what if he truly is that effeminate? Then he can't help it. So I can't fault him for it. Doesn't mean I want to hang out with him, but I have to respect anyone that is true to their true self. If he was really a masculine guy off camera, then yes, it wouldn't be right for him to act all queeny on air. I'm guessing he just is naturally that "fabulous". But again, if a gay man really is that effeminate, then its not rubbing it in your face, its just being himself.

As for Mannequin...is the person who wrote that gay or straight? That can affect the view of that character in the movie. Could it be that a straight writer wanted to further a stereotype? Maybe the writer just wanted to put a gay character in the movie and the only way the studio would go for it was to make the guy an effeminate guy I don't know enough about the situation to even begin to guess. But it's interesting to think about.

As for why "coming out" is important..... A closeted person has to edit what they say, for fear of being found out. A straight person often freely talks about love interests or comments on attractive members of the opposite sex. A closeted person can't make the same comments, because to do so would out themselves. Again they are afraid to be found out. Being closeted means not being able to just be one's self. Being closeted means not being able to participate in some conversations with straight colleagues without having to switch pronouns (from he to she, or him to her, etc.) to try to "act" like they are straight themselves. Being closeted means they have to just sit there and keep their mouth shut when their friends, family, or co-workers make bigoted/hateful remarks.

Coming out means that they finally can just be their self. Coming out means they no longer have to edit their words before speaking them. Coming out can mean beating the depression that many closeted gays suffer from. Coming out means that they don't have to be so afraid anymore. Coming out means being able to stand up for one's self instead of backing down. Coming out means that they then can become a role model for other closeted people who are still too afraid to be open about their sexuality. Coming out means not hiding. Coming out means that the people around them realize that they actually know someone who is gay. If every person who was gay was out of the closet, you would probably be amazed at the numbers. It's estimated that gays make up 5-10% of the population. 6 billion people on earth might just equal 300-600 million gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people on this planet.

Now what constitutes coming out of the closet? It can be holding a press conference on CNN to tell the world, "Hey, I'm gay!" It can be that when a co-worker calls someone a "faggot," that the person finally stands up and says that it's not o.k. and that it offends them because they are gay. It could be that someone suspects someone else of being gay and asks them, getting a matter of fact sounding reply of, "Yeah I am. How about those Phillies?" It could be as simple as going to a gay bar without being afraid of being seen....and maybe somebody does see and finds out about them. There are varying degrees of how much of a production or non-production the coming out process ends up being for an individual.

Kudos for being against attacks because of orientation. It's one thing to not like that fact that someone is gay. It's one thing to believe that being gay is a sin because that is what a person's religion teaches them. But it's a whole other thing to allow those viewpoints to fester into something that is nothing short of hate. CTR, we actually agree on a decent amount relative to these subjects.

There's my novel. This thread needs a publishing deal!

[IndianaFuzz]

<<<<<since the ballot measure was approved by voters earlier this week, supporters of same-sex marriage have made profane and violent threats against Christians and churches.>>>>>

What freaking idiots! It's one thing if a person wants to hold a protest because they are upset over the amendment. But being violent and threatening???? That is just plain stupid and wrong. It's no wonder that normal gay people can't sway people's opinions when you get some extremist yay-hoos doing things that are just as ignorant as what they claim the people they are protesting are doing. A wrong never makes a supposed wrong right.

[Willowdared]

CTRMan, there will always be folks that relay on lies and scare tactics to get their way.

Do Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Ileen Barzee reflect the average Mormon? How about Warren Jeffs?

I haven't seen the ad, so until I do, I remain dubious.

[Bob Loblaw]

I'm guessing he just is naturally that "fabulous".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

[CTR man]

CTRMan, there will always be folks that relay on lies and scare tactics to get their way.

Do Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Ileen Barzee reflect the average Mormon? How about Warren Jeffs?

I haven't seen the ad, so until I do, I remain dubious.

OMG! I certainly hope not. Though some, hopefully few, might like to think so. Those people need to read up on these characters. Both cases touch on polygamy, which has not been practiced by the main body of the LDS Church since 1880 when Utah was applying to become a state in the United States. Anyone found to be a member of the main body of the LDS Church and choosing to practice Polygamy is excommunicated.

For those that do not know who these people are (nutcases in my opinion), I will try to explain them to the best of my knowledge and ability. Please feel free to do some research on these individuals and draw your own conclusions.

Mitchell and Barzee are the kidnappers of Elizabeth Smart who was 14 at the time of her disappearance in 2002 in Salt Lake City, UT. Mitchell had befriended Elizabeth's father and had done some work at the family home. Mitchell and Barzee are excommunicated Mormons who kidnapped Elizabeth under the guise of making her his second wife, and supposedly brainwashing her while under their care. Elizabeth was later found wandering the streets with these two some 9 months later basically scared out of her wits that in some way her captors were going to harm her. So she did her best not to draw attention to herself. Her younger sister witnessed the kidnapping and eventually was able to give enough clues as to who the abductors were. These two abductors were later indicted and found not competent enough to stand trial and were diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenics. Mitchell was a polygamist and self proclaimed prophet who believed it was his religious right to have more than one wife, even by force. Elizabeth's family are practicing members of the main body of the LDS Church (Mormon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Mitchell

Jeffs was / is another excommunicated Mormon, practicing polygamist, self proclaimed prophet, (I think) and former leader of the Fundamentalist LDS Church whom I believe was recently caught in a raid on their property. Supposedly he has some 70 odd wives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

[TXCharlie]

Sheesh - The gays didn't have that much reaction to Jerry Farwell's fire & brimstone, who I mocked earlier. Now there's someone who deserves a kick in the butt.

As far as I can tell, all the Mormons did was run some political ads stating their opinions. What a bunch of sore loosers.

One of my ex-coworkers was a mormon - he said that they generally don't claim that they have the only answer, just the answer that works for them. But they will certainly tell you all about what they believe & don't believe, and you can either take it or leave it.

I think the gays' anger was totally misplaced.

[Ducky]

Re: The whole Mormon opinion being advertised thing.

The state should keep their fingers out of church affairs unless there is illegal activity going on, and the churches should DEFINITELY keep their noses out of secular business. IMHO, a church that crosses that line should be redefined as a political entity and pay taxes accordingly.

/end of mini-gripe

[TXCharlie]

Re: The whole Mormon opinion being advertised thing.

The state should keep their fingers out of church affairs unless there is illegal activity going on, and the churches should DEFINITELY keep their noses out of secular business. IMHO, a church that crosses that line should be redefined as a political entity and pay taxes accordingly.

/end of mini-gripe

I'm not a church-goer, but I definitely believe that any organization has a perfect right to advertise their opinion on anything that they see fit to talk about, whether that be an organized religion the NRA, or even the gay activists.

There is no Constitutionally-mandated separation of Church & State, nor was there ever such a separation. That was an invention of the Supreme Court relating to prayer in schools and the like, primarily.

All the constitution does is ban the government from promoting or persecuting a religion. It does not censor the collective voice of people with a common mind - quite the opposite.

[MacLean]

Re: The whole Mormon opinion being advertised thing.

The state should keep their fingers out of church affairs unless there is illegal activity going on, and the churches should DEFINITELY keep their noses out of secular business. IMHO, a church that crosses that line should be redefined as a political entity and pay taxes accordingly.

/end of mini-gripe

Right, because anyone who is tax exempt should shut their fucking mouths, dammit.

Oh wait, that means police departments too.

Oops.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[countybear]

Re: The whole Mormon opinion being advertised thing.

The state should keep their fingers out of church affairs unless there is illegal activity going on, and the churches should DEFINITELY keep their noses out of secular business. IMHO, a church that crosses that line should be redefined as a political entity and pay taxes accordingly.

/end of mini-gripe

Please provide a list of 'secular business' that you wish to restrict churches from having beliefs and opinions on...

[IndianaFuzz]

Sheesh - The gays didn't have that much reaction to Jerry Farwell's fire & brimstone, who I mocked earlier. Now there's someone who deserves a kick in the butt.

Yeah, Falwell does deserve that.

[Ducky]

When the churches actively influence their parishioners' votes in the political arena, saying "DON'T VOTE FOR (such and such)" or "Vote for (so and so)" then they have overstepped their bounds as caring for the souls and have intruded into the realm of the political arena. The FOP isn't a religious organization and was never tax exempt based on that premise. I see a lot of tax dodges based on 'oh, we're a church!' which is just about as much BS you can ask. I've got no less than 60 churches within five miles of my house, and that is NO exaggeration, but not a single one of them took out ad time to influence someone's vote.

It is my simple opinion, and many of you have already stated that you disagree, that when churches use their power to influence politics they should be treated as what they are obviously striving to become - a political machine. That being said, it's already known that I'm not a fan of organized religion to being with. People should always be free to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions without it being guilt tripped or spoon fed into them.

Let the browbeating commence.

[Rhino]

Please provide a list of 'secular business' that you wish to restrict churches from having beliefs and opinions on...

[/lurking]

All of them. Beliefs belong to the individual, not anyone or anything else.

[lurk]

[countybear]

[/lurking]

All of them. Beliefs belong to the individual, not anyone or anything else.

[lurk]

If I read this correctly, churches (in a couple of opinions voiced here in this thread) should not be entitled to have a publicly stated doctrine or openly pronouce their faith as it might be construed to pertain to the modern human condition, the literal application of faith to everyday life, societal issues, morality, or raising children...

Again, the hypocritical believe in free speech, but only for those whom they agree with.

Yes, a personal faith is just that, personal, however you cannot drive religion out of a society, or deny the people a free expression of their faith, individually or even congregationally. This, from someone who professes constitutionalism?

[Xiphos]

Again, the hypocritical believe in free speech, but only for those whom they agree with.

Also people are only free to vote when the outcome agrees with certain viewpoints. Otherwise government must intervene.

There's a lot of fascism in this thread and it's not the conservatives.