Mormon church enters Calif. gay marriage fight

To Mose, as a straight, businessman, active in my church & community, grandfater of 9, and with no gays in my immediate family, all I can say to your comments is bull@#%&. I prefer to stand on the side of love.

I love how many people claim the 'majority' when they take their opinions solely from their friends whom probably will think the same way they do or they wouldnt be friends. If you go to progressive states like California you'll probably find many people either dont care or are in favor of gay marraige.

Remember when you make claims of 'the vast majority' you have to have information from every area of the country and every ethnic and social group, your opinions do not make them the 'majority' opinion.

This is a matter that should be dealt with state to state as all marraige laws are done on a state to state basis. There is no reason why this subject should be any different, if you think there is than please share it and be sure to explain why it merits a national law over a state law.

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought you had said twice you would no longer respond because it is off topic here. But since you keep asking I will give you the information.

You are right I did, but like Obama I can change my mind.

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Your discrediting any source as invalid because they criticize bush is not valid.(( You can't believe that source because they are a leftist group, you can tell they are a leftist group because they criticize bush.)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/0...

That is funny, aren't you doing the exact same thing? You are discrediting any source that does not report alleged abuses.(You can't believe that source because they are GOP shills you can tell they are GOP Shills because they don't report abuses you allege) See how that works both ways.

Now I quoted CNN which the vast majority of people understand is anything but a GOP shill. You quoted this website that is "Breaking News and VIEWS for the Progressive Community" Yeah they are unbiased.

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
This link will provide the connection between the torture that we all know occurred and the bush administration. It wasn't bad apples, it was bush.
You may notice (if you will open your eyes) that there is no age limit on the "enhanced interrogation." They do have children in those prisons designated enemy combatants and they suffer the same fate as adults, without exception.
Certainly you can see the advantage to bush for keeping his torture tactics quiet. But he has had his legal team working to make up legal justification for this clearly illegal activity. Why would they need justification if they weren't doing it? Do you really think bush will come out and say that 23 people died due to "enhanced interrogation?" Or will he make up some other excuse, or just ignore the dead.
If a member of your family were treated like this, by some foreign power, would you turn the other cheek?

Again, you are making a jump that we are torturing and killing innocent children. That is your accusation. NOTHING you have submitted has proven that. Not even the liberal website you provided stated that to be true. You took a phrase and interpreted to mean what you want it to mean in order to reinforce your hatred of Bush.

I simply want proof from a reputable source of child torture and killings. If that proof comes to light, I will gladly join you in condemning Bush and whoever else is involved.

Of course if Bush has signed off on child torture and murder he isn't going to admit it, but if you honestly do not think that the media especially here in America (with the possible exception of Fox News) would not report provable child torture and murder that was condoned by President Bush then you truly have no grasp of anything.

No, of course I would not want my relatives tortured, I also do not want our country attacked again. Its a fine line isn't it. What if some level of torture could prevent another 9/11?

War is dirty. Those who act outside of orders should be prosecuted (and many have). Unfortunately, sometimes you have to sink to the level of your enemies to defeat them...I know you won't like that, but it is unfortunately the truth.

Good luck on whatever it is you are attempting to accomplish.

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought you had said twice you would no longer respond because it is off topic here. But since you keep asking I will give you the information.
Your discrediting any source as invalid because they criticize bush is not valid.(( You can't believe that source because they are a leftist group, you can tell they are a leftist group because they criticize bush.)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/0...
This link will provide the connection between the torture that we all know occurred and the bush administration. It wasn't bad apples, it was bush. You may notice (if you will open your eyes) that there is no age limit on the "enhanced interrogation." They do have children in those prisons designated enemy combatants and they suffer the same fate as adults, without exception.
Certainly you can see the advantage to bush for keeping his torture tactics quiet. But he has had his legal team working to make up legal justification for this clearly illegal activity. Why would they need justification if they weren't doing it? Do you really think bush will come out and say that 23 people died due to "enhanced interrogation?" Or will he make up some other excuse, or just ignore the dead.
If a member of your family were treated like this, by some foreign power, would you turn the other cheek?

the groups you tout are hard to believe not only because they are far left, but they very short on specifics and names, and for my any way, most of these groups believe if you go beyond name rank and serial number, it is torture, and that just aint the case. The fact the they use "torture memo" tells me that they are baised, and their views must be judged knowing they are baised.

Ben wrote:

I love how many people claim the 'majority' when they take their opinions solely from their friends whom probably will think the same way they do or they wouldnt be friends. If you go to progressive states like California you'll probably find many people either dont care or are in favor of gay marraige.
Remember when you make claims of 'the vast majority' you have to have information from every area of the country and every ethnic and social group, your opinions do not make them the 'majority' opinion.
This is a matter that should be dealt with state to state as all marraige laws are done on a state to state basis. There is no reason why this subject should be any different, if you think there is than please share it and be sure to explain why it merits a national law over a state law.

The people of CA are against it they voted for the ban, the CA supreme court went against what the people wanted and overturned their vote.

Ben wrote:

I love how many people claim the 'majority' when they take their opinions solely from their friends whom probably will think the same way they do or they wouldnt be friends. If you go to progressive states like California you'll probably find many people either dont care or are in favor of gay marraige.
Remember when you make claims of 'the vast majority' you have to have information from every area of the country and every ethnic and social group, your opinions do not make them the 'majority' opinion.
This is a matter that should be dealt with state to state as all marraige laws are done on a state to state basis. There is no reason why this subject should be any different, if you think there is than please share it and be sure to explain why it merits a national law over a state law.

IRS tax and inheritance rules. If the state you live in allows marriage then the IRS should recognize that.

Ben wrote:

I love how many people claim the 'majority' when they take their opinions solely from their friends whom probably will think the same way they do or they wouldnt be friends. If you go to progressive states like California you'll probably find many people either dont care or are in favor of gay marraige.
Remember when you make claims of 'the vast majority' you have to have information from every area of the country and every ethnic and social group, your opinions do not make them the 'majority' opinion.
This is a matter that should be dealt with state to state as all marraige laws are done on a state to state basis. There is no reason why this subject should be any different, if you think there is than please share it and be sure to explain why it merits a national law over a state law.

just remember the majority of Califorianians voted to keep the definition of marriage one man and one woman, I believe the numbers is 76%.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Real Christians pray for all lost souls, even ace's,

I don't hear you praying.
Maybe you're too busy formenting hatred and bigotry under the guise of "morality"?
BTW- as long as I see you christians praying to win a ball game, etc., instead of praying for some child with cancer, then you'll remain a sad excuse for a christian.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
just remember the majority of Califorianians voted to keep the definition of marriage one man and one woman, I believe the numbers is 76%.

That was true about inter-racial marriage also.
You guys lost THAT battle, lol.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
just remember the majority of Califorianians voted to keep the definition of marriage one man and one woman, I believe the numbers is 76%.

Just remember the US is a republic, not a democracy.

Ace wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't hear you praying.
Maybe you're too busy formenting hatred and bigotry under the guise of "morality"?
BTW- as long as I see you christians praying to win a ball game, etc., instead of praying for some child with cancer, then you'll remain a sad excuse for a christian.

And you won't hear me pray, but I still pray for you. Why do you think I can't pray for both?? God really doesn't care how often or for what you pray, just that you are praying.

Dram wrote:

<quoted text>
Just remember the US is a republic, not a democracy.

and the people of Cal will have another chance to make their voices heard and ammend their constitution to maintain the traditional definition of Marriage.

antonio farinha wrote:

http://www.network54.com/Forum /440382/
http://www.aporrealos.com/~aporrea/forum/view...
http://www.aporrealos.com/forum/viewforum.php...
http://www.aporrealos.com/forum/
http://www.aporrea.org/

and the point is??? all but one is in a foreign language, and the one in English I can't find a link to the topic or our current shide track.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
No games, just the way it is, works mean certain things, MAN WOMAN CHILDREN is the family structure, that is the way we were made, all you have to do is to look at our anatomy and it is pretty obvious. Males are generally bigger and stronger, Females generally smaller and softer, made for different functions, protection, rearing, feeding giving birth. Just because these lines have become blured in recent times doesn't mean that they are gone all together, just some things that we can't get away from.

I notice you never answered my question. Let me repeat it for you, in case you forgot:

What facts do you have that say a child has a better chance of success being raised by an opposite-sex couple as opposed to a same-sex couple? The last time I checked, you couldn't come up with any. Has that changed?

Apparently not.

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so dumb, I am saying no one wants to know or cares about what someone chooses to do with their sxual lives, gay people should keep their sexual preference in private, just like people who masturbate keep that in privacy, usually.

Quit taking rights away from homosexuals for what they do in private and you won't hear much from gay people. The only reason we are speaking up is because people like you are discriminating against us. We would like nothing better than to have nothing to do with people like you. Stop discriminating against us and you will get your wish.

Stilwell wrote:

<quoted text>
Then heterosexual people should keep their sexual preference private also and not be able to get married. Boy you are about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

True. Why don't they see that?

what wrote:

<quoted text>
The people of CA are against it they voted for the ban, the CA supreme court went against what the people wanted and overturned their vote.

Yes, which is what the court is required to do when it finds that the will of the majority is unconstitutional. Our form of government worked exactly as designed.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
just remember the majority of Califorianians voted to keep the definition of marriage one man and one woman, I believe the numbers is 76%.

And in 1967, the majority of Americans (over 90%) would have voted that marriage should only be between people of the same race. That didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling that such restrictions are unconstitutional.

What the people want is irrelevant when it comes to basic civil rights such as marriage. Our government is designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
and the people of Cal will have another chance to make their voices heard and ammend their constitution to maintain the traditional definition of Marriage.

Perhaps.

And not a SINGLE person will be made better off in any way whatsoever as a result. Thousands will suffer, be harmed. Nobody will be helped.

The question "why" remains unanswered. Nobody can come up with a legitimate reason as to WHY these couples shouldn't have thier ALREADY EXISTING marriages legally recognized.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
and the people of Cal will have another chance to make their voices heard and ammend their constitution to maintain the traditional definition of Marriage.

Amend it to keep it the same? More likely they will leave it alone since the end of the world as foretold by your ilk did not occur.