Truly bigoted and hateful? That reminds me of what Bush said about the 911 terrorists. He called them cowards. They may have been crazy, but they sure weren’t cowards. I figure Bush said that because he thought it was the greatest insult he could come up with.

And here we are. The economy is crumbling, but we have people dividing the country over gay marriage. We have people claiming their rights are being taken away, if they don’t block the rights of others.

Why are religious people supporting government marriage, and claiming it as a religious ceremony?

As someone who supports marriage between a man and a woman, I would like to see groups like the Eagle Forum to stop trying to get gay people to marry straight people. That’s a marriage doomed to fail.

Gay people are being discriminated against, when they don’t have the same health insurance rights, or social security rights from those poor kids that were born into the broken marriage when they were trying to be straight.

It would be great if the ultra right would realize they are being manipulated by being whipped up into a frenzy over gay marriage so they ignore what really matters. Their own family and can they support those family.

Divide and conquer pal. You have been conquered by a divisive diversion.

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m2d12-You-respect-my-rights-and-Ill-respect-yours

The problem here is that you base your “arguments” on a lot of statements that you assume are universals truths, or just plain true. This is just not the case.

Rights are those actions which can be exercised and enjoyed free of any public acceptance or grant.

Since when is that? Let’s see… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are considered to be rights, correct? And yet government has to issue laws and ordinances that protect them, correct? I’d call that “intervention and declaration of government”. And– what do you know? These rights got famous because they were IN a grand “Declaration”.

But again, whatever you call it, there should be equal access and equal protection for all (14th Amendment, anyone?)

Tell me, Mr. Cross, where do you draw the line, then? …What of incest, polygamy, etc.?

Connor, there are distinct differences here. Incest and polygamy are not orientations, like hetero and gay. The first two describe situations and behaviors, the second two describe inherent traits. Furthermore, incest and polygamy are illegal, while heterosexuality and homosexuality are not.

Fact is, your self-identity can only be exhibited through outward behavior.
Blacks and women… their inherent identities and characteristics had nothing to do with their outward actions.

As mentioned above, my outward behavior is an expression of my inherent self, just as much as physical characteristics define a person. This is true whether you are black, female or hetero. Therefore, the argument does not fall apart. As a society we have long recognized that many factors play into who we are.

And this is where you HAVE rejected science, which has shown– whether it be nature or nurture or both– that sexual orientation is hard-wired into us. Therefore, who we love and who we have sex with are inherent to who we are. Instead, the Mormon church’s Evergreen organization and LDS Family (Social) Services continue to argue that orientation is a choice, when the rest of the scientific world disagrees.

Mr. Obama believes all sorts of fiction, but his own personal whims does not make something a right. Rights are given by our Creator and existed before government. Homosexual marriage does not fall into this category…

While I appreciate the sentiment of the founding fathers and agree that rights are inalienable, they are not given by our “creator”. Rights are determined by a government. You see, you’re dealing with a Deist here. Stating that a certain “creator” gave you rights or commanded that gay marriage is wrong not only makes no sense to me, but it is irrelevant to a civil government that claims to offer equal protection to all.

By the way, just because your own personal whim (or religion) says that gay marriage is wrong, doesn’t mean it’s true either. However, that WOULD be the more honest way to play it for you and your ilk. Instead of making up all these arguments to suit your designs, simply say, “I don’t want gay marriage because that’s what my religion believes.”

My own personal belief is that, for many, it’s more about fear of the unknown, and loss of power.

…it signals the degradation of morality…

Well now, it’s a shame you feel that way. I’ll bet that if you had a real friend who is gay (not just an acquaintance), that you’d feel different. When it comes to treatment of their fellow beings, gay people are about the most moral around. Again, this comes down to your rejection of science and the fact that sexual orientation is an innate part of who we all are– not a moral issue.

You will find, as have other countries, that allowing gay marriage has nothing but a positive impact on society. Oh, I doubt that you’ll roll over… but think of your wasted energy. Focus on something you can really have a true impact on… poverty, illiteracy, climate change, etc.

One more thing… it’s not a lifestyle, no more than the way you LOVE is a lifestyle. Lifestyle implies choice.

It’s a life. Best of luck in yours.

First of all, the right in question IS marriage/civil unions, not association. If marriage is a privilege, then tell me, how did you EARN that privilege?

You’re ignoring my argument. Marriage through government sanction is by its very definition open to public scrutiny and approval. Rights are those actions which can be exercised and enjoyed free of any public acceptance or grant. This supports my assertion that the right in question is indeed association (which you enjoy free of government mandate), unlike marriage (which requires the intervention and declaration of government).

The administration in power certainly believes that allowing gays to be legally united is a civil right.

Mr. Obama believes all sorts of fiction, but his own personal whims does not make something a right. Rights are given by our Creator and existed before government. Homosexual marriage does not fall into this category, despite any support that “the administration in power” may lend to it.

Therefore, no equal access currently exists.

Tell me, Mr. Cross, where do you draw the line, then? You say that the opportunity for you as a homosexual man to marry a woman is not equal access to marriage, but I’ve never heard anybody on your side of the argument define where they would draw the line. What of incest, polygamy, etc.? Your same arguments apply to the marriage of any two individuals, so do you support anybody being able to marry anybody, without any standard dictating otherwise?

I know full well that you have chosen to reject science…

Oh, right, I’ve rejected science. Nice.

Fact is, your self-identity can only be exhibited through outward behavior. You define who you are based on what you do. But when your desire to access certain “rights” rests solely on your actions, then that opens the debate to public scrutiny and judgment. Your side is quick to equate this quest as analogous to blacks and women, but their inherent identities and characteristics had nothing to do with their outward actions. Homosexuals cannot make this same argument, and thus the comparison falls apart.

Ah, so simply because “the people” have decided that straight people only get the right of marriage, that makes it OK? Really?

So long as you want government to sanction your union, then absolutely. You’re not asking for public acceptance of a private lifestyle, but instead demanding public support of a publicized union and style of behavior. If you want your neighbors to support your marriage, then they absolutely get a say in whether they think that that is right.

…state and federal gay marriage/union rights ARE coming, whether you like it or not. Do you realize that’s the reality?

I actually agree with you on this one. I oppose it, and I think that it signals the degradation of morality, but I do agree that your side will likely ultimately win many of the battles you’re fighting. But you’ll never convince me that that’s a good thing—only that public sympathy is shifting and your lifestyle is becoming increasingly popular.

Does that mean I should roll over and let your side have its way, chalking it up as inevitable? Hardly.

First of all, the right in question IS marriage/civil unions, not association. If marriage is a privilege, then tell me, how did you EARN that privilege? Just by being heterosexual? Hmmmm, I’ll bet that that you had to do absolutely NOTHING to be hetero.

Let’s talk about current political reality: The administration in power certainly believes that allowing gays to be legally united is a civil right. If you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/ …and scroll half-way down the page, you’ll see it called a civil right.

But even if you want to call marriage a privilege, it doesn’t matter. It’s a privilege than everyone should have equal access to. And don’t give me the silly argument that I, as a gay man, can marry a woman, therefore I have equal access. Because of who I am, fundamentally, that is not possible. Therefore, no equal access currently exists.

I don’t care whether or not you accept me as a gay person. I know full well that you have chosen to reject science, tell me I have a choice, and believe that I am sinning against God and will never make the “Celestial Kingdom”. There are many things that you as a Mormon do that disgust me, too. However, in a CIVIL society, we grant equal rights across the board regardless of religious beliefs.

You argument about the world where churches are the sole arbiter of marriage makes no sense, because a church has no way of granting the 1,100 civil benefits marriage provides. Again, you’re confusing civil marriage with religious marriage. (But if they did have that power, YES, I would sue them!)

Ah, so simply because “the people” have decided that straight people only get the right of marriage, that makes it OK? Really?

Do you know your history? Do you realize that every major civil rights advance made in this country has either been through the courts or a legislative body? And usually against the majority opinion? Can you guess the reason why?

The end result is, either through the courts– whether it’s through state courts or an Supreme Court with Obama appointees… OR through equality-minded legislatures that recognize civil rights when they see it… OR through a popular vote (as stated above, a 2007 Gallup poll shows support for gay marriage to be at 65% for people under 35), state and federal gay marriage/union rights ARE coming, whether you like it or not. Do you realize that’s the reality?

I’d suggest for you less arguing against it, and more preparation to accept it.

Once again, rights are being confused with privileges and opportunity. The right in question here is not marriage, but association. You yourself say that you should have the right to join yourself to the person you love. And you do! You can live with whomever you desire, and spend your life with them. Who is stopping you from doing that?

But no, it is taken one step further. Not only do homosexuals want the right to be with the person they love, they also want the public to accept it and give it their blessing. Imagine a world where government had no involvement in marriage, and churches were the sole arbiter of the sacred union. And if these churches denied homosexuals the “right” to marry, what then? Would you sue them? Or would you spurn religion and simply enjoy your life free of a marital status?

But government indeed is in the martial equation, for many reasons. As such, we the people have the right to determine who government will and will not sanction in this union. Just as not everybody has a right to a drivers license, business license, or some other government-granted privilege, so too is a marriage license subject to certain applied conditions that must be met. We the people, through our government, get to dictate what those conditions are.

Thus, marriage is not a right—it is a privilege extended by government. The right you already do enjoy is that of associating with whom you wish. But you do not have a right to public approval of your private decisions.

The right to join oneself to the person you love and want to make a life with should be universal. While it may not be accepted by every faith, it must be accessible to everyone under the law. That’s only fair.

Believe what you like in your church (I was fortunate enough to escape mormonism), but the reality is that even if you’re married in a church or a temple, you must still obtain a marriage certificate. That means there is a religious aspect to marriage but also a civil one. Gays only want the civil one, as they believe in religious freedom as much as anyone else does.

A better system (adopted by New Zealand) is that anyone, gay or hetero, gets a civil union certificate from the state, and if they want a religious ceremony, fine. But the religious ceremony has no tie to the civil union, and no legal standing. It’s simply, and beautifully, a rite, prayer and sacrament before God.

That way, you can preserve your “sanctity of marriage”, and ALL of us can be equal under the law.

By your own admission here, you note that homosexual individuals already enjoy these rights—the difference is that they have to pay more money to exercise the right.

So what you should be saying, then, is that this isn’t about equal rights, but instead about the pursuit of government-granted economic incentives to make those rights more easily enjoyed.

In the end, it’s about equality. Please don’t tell me that all the rights are already there for gay couples, because it simply isn’t true. What we have to do to secure them, such as legal documents and such, that cost lots of money… straight couples can do with the stroke on a pen on a marriage license.

It’s also amazing that Mormons still think that civil marriage and religious marriage are one and the same.

Mark my words… the world only spins forward, it only evolves. Eventually gay rights will be in “common” with the rest of the developed world. It will likely be in your lifetime, too… Since nearly 2/3 of Americans under 35 support gay marriage (2007 Gallup poll), it looks like you are going to lose.

You need to provide some back up to your claims. For instance, there is no historical proof that Romans had difficulty reproducing because of “rampant” homosexuality.

Likewise for your statement about how every country that has abandoned religion has fallen to disorder is also not true. Most of northern Europe seems to be doing quite well, and they have largely abandoned religion.

Likewise the ridiculous statement about abortion. Tell me, do you actually try to do research or do you dream up these silly claims?

Just curious.

So what you’re saying is:

Even though the Romans had difficulty reproducing because of rampant homosexuality, promoting gay rights reflects reality.

Even though every socialist/communist nation in the world has come to ruin under that system and only accepting more capitalist principles did some eventually recover, entitlement programs reflect reality.

Even though every country that has abandoned religion has fallen to disorder and eventually fell to a degenerative revolution, atheism reflects reality.

Even though the already rampant abortion rates being hyped up by abortin-on-demand would lead to the eventual extinction of the species, abortion rights reflect reality.

Well, if that’s the reality you’re rooting for, I can understand why you feel discriminated against.

You’re both creating a real problem by failing to communicate with each other. I have liberal friends and conservative friends. Often my liberal friends really do drive me nuts, but here’s what I see them doing.

They see blatant corruption in their own party and they call it moving to the center because that’s what the media told them. Republicans are just as easily duped by the media http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/010909Roberts2.shtml

This country is going down. We all need to unite, but instead we are being divided and conquered. http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m2d12-You-respect-my-rights-and-Ill-respect-yours

As citizens who pay taxes, you can’t expect gay people to view themselves as second class citizens as you do. It’s okay for you to get a legal contract and call it marriage, but it’s NOT okay for a gay person. We are talking about a government issued contracts that gives people many benefits.

I’m also not being the argument that college roommates might get a contract and call it marriage. If they do, who cares, but they are setting each other up for property disputes when the divorce comes.

The issue of torture is barely a Democrat/Republican issue. It is mostly a constitutional issue. There are individuals and eras of people who go against the constitution in both parties and in the population at large. BAD EXAMPLE.

Have taxes gone up or down in the past 100 years?
Entitlement program?
Abortion rights?
Religious freedom?
Gay rights?

You give one example over the past decade that is only partly a partisan issue and you ignore all the big CONTINUING issues that we’ve seen a CONSISTENT pattern of conciliations over the past century.

Which will history remember? A big issue that is now passing? Or consistent issues that still drag on?

During the Bush years, Republicans moved the Overton Window so far to the right that people were actually discussing whether torture might be morally justified.

Last week, we had President Obama giving away concessions on the stimulus package to the GOP in an effort to attract them and seem ‘bipartisan’. They voted against it en masse anyway.

However you feel about Obama or the stimulus, you simply can’t argue that the GOP is full of conciliatory Democrat-pleasers. Please read the news or something before commenting.

I agree that this would be an acceptable compromise. But experience has shown that for liberals, this is never enough. Their understanding of “compromise” is that if they move far enough to the left, the compromise will be right where they wanted it. But then that becomes the new middle. The left moves further left, so does the right.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the two major parties. Democrats never compromised (or compromised very little). Republicans compromise. Then Democrats move further left. Republicans’ continued willingness to compromise has turned the Dems into socialists and the Repubs into liberals.

This is not compromise. This is the left slowly getting more of what they want, while the right slowly loses everything.

Unfortunately, I think that applies to the whole economy thing and Wall Street, too.

We’re doomed, in other words.

My first marriage was by the Justice of the Peace and did not have a thing to do with religion.

What we should do is let gay people get legal contracts and call them what ever they want, but they should be banned from suing a church for not wanting to recognize that contract, and they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children, unless the children belong to their partner.

We have all these gay people who try to get marred and it doesn’t work out. They can’t keep up charade, so they get divorced.

This is a divide and conquer issue. Many gay people I know are against the North American Union and Global Government, but we can’t come together to fight those issues because we are hung up with this crap.