Town Square

Post a New Topic

Hip Hip Hooray!

Original post made by Hip Hip Hooray! on Nov 3, 2009

Maine vote REJECTS gay marriage law! Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote!

The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation once again! Hip Hip Hooray!!


Web Link



Comments (60)

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 3, 2009 at 11:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

And in other news, Washington state approved a referendum on giving same-sex domestic partnerships the same exact rights as married couples, effectively allowing gay marriage. So much for the claim that "Gay marriage has now lost in every single state...in which it has been put to a popular vote".


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 1:07 am

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Because Maine has so much influence on the rest of the nation.

It'll come soon enough and most likely in my lifetime as I'm 28. And the day it does come, there will be another Hip Hip Hooray post but for all the right reason.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved"- who unperserved it?


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 2:36 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Long live bigotry and intolerance!
I'm very curious about what goes on in the marriages of gay marriage opponents that they are so threatened by gay marriage - very curious indeed.
There are plenty of hetero marriages out the that "undermine" the institution. The tyranny of the majority is always stopped eventually in this great country of ours- it's only a matter of the time and effort of sensible and dedicated citizens.


Posted by Pablo, a resident of Downtown
on Nov 4, 2009 at 6:23 am

I am glad it failed and continues to be viewed as a perverse act by the populous. Something quite odd about the entire act and not a good example to children. If people want to see this type of thing they should go to the zoo.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:17 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Thank you, Pablo, for so beautifully proving my point.


Posted by T.H., a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:50 am

It's funny to me that the most educated people, as far as the law applies, in almost every state knows that it is discrimination that gays can't get married. The state supreme courts rules it's discrimination and then the less educated people without law degrees or a basic understanding of civil rights vote it down. This is how a democracy becomes an idiotocracy.


Posted by T.H., a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 8:13 am

Oh, and the OP and others trying to preserve marriage by not allowing gays to get married...continue cheating on your spouse and divorcing. Marriage is made a joke of by those heterosexuals that do it over and over again. If you consider it an institution of god...A.) Seperation of church and state as set up by the founding fathers B.) If it is an institution of god it has failed like the Garden of Eden caused by the heterosexual masses. "Adam and Eve" destroyed it not "Adam and Steve" as you'd like to think.


Posted by Bobby, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 4, 2009 at 8:48 am

Seems pretty simple to me, the majority of people do not want homosexuals to marry, get over it!


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:11 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Adam and whatever guys he's bedding with can call it anything but marriage. Why in the world would gays take their perverse lifestyle and want it to be considered mainstream and acceptable? What's next-pedaphilia, legal acceptance of NAMBLA, etc?
Call it something else, but don't hijack marriage form normal, heterosexual humans. Get your gay lawyers to fight for what ever community property rights you think you want, but it's still not marriage and never will be.


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:21 am

Or consider the fact that you can have all the "rights" that me and my spouse have and be happy with that and let it go.

People are happy to give you rights, just not change what the rest of us have because a teensy percentage of you want it (insert stomping your feet here). Because we all know the real agenda of the homosexual radical extremists...to use the public schools as a recruitment base.

We're all familiar by now with the NPR story where a Massachusetts group of teachers discussed that since the courts legalized gay marriage, it is NOW important that they continue with their mission and they teach all about gay sex in the classroom - since the kids won't learn about it at home. As one teacher commented, "When they ask how Gays have sex, I used charts and explain they can use sex toys..." How appropriate for school children to learn! No wonder our schools are failing and producing ill-prepared kids for life. Or is the science they need gay biology?

And all from that conservative bastion of truth, NPR.

The point is gays can never be 'normal' or 'accepted' for the sexual acts they commit. Pure and simple it is abhorrent and deviant to the majority with values and morality. Sure you can have the legal rights you want, as now allowed in Washington State, in hospitals, financial agreements, etc, etc, etc with your "partner", but you can't have marriage. You are incapable of "knowing" each other physically in the biblical sense and therefore can't ever truly be married -- what you covet and think will happen if you are bestowed by a state with the "right to marry". You can't duplicate the purpose of the parts when they are the same - that is truly "knowing" the other in a sexual way - since that is your interest. It can't happen. It's like attempting to do a tree and demanding it's marriage. It's more like a spectacle and truly sad.

Oh, but its "love". Sure it is. If it was about love, you'd live together and couldn't care what you were classified. It's more than that and we all know it.

And finally, the divorce comments about true marriage...Great make it illegal for us to divorce. Make it last - I would be for that, too! That's the kind of business the state should be in. Also make good on your threats to pass laws that if heterosexual couples don't have children it's invalidated. All that would do is strengthen our society -- just as we want it to be! So I double-dog dare you! :)

See, divorce may be "legal", but it isn't accepted and it certainly isn't "celebrated" -- like the gay activists want their immoral behavior to be. Could you imagine a divorce pride parade? How ridiculous. Now you see what the rest of look at you as.

If that makes me a bigot, they you can't see beyond your own self-interest.

The "tolerance" you demand and say is so "inevitable" in the future isn't tolerance at all. It is an attempt to annex a sacred and divinely established relationship between those that can procreate and enjoy the mystery of attraction between a man and a woman together. When your so-called tolerance only goes one way, it's not so much. Practice what YOU preach to the rest of us. If it is truly inherently valuable we would all want it to be a part of societal values. The fact is, just because you "care" for another doesn't make it right. I care for my horse; I don't distort it into a sexual relationship. Look no further than any other distortion of a true loving relationship.

There is parenting...there is pedophilia. There are man-woman relationships and there is rape. There are numerous examples of the real and true and then the fraudulent and the distorted.

Hey did you hear about Rosie and her partner, about Elton John and his partner, about the exceedingly disproportionate dissolution rates of gays? Yeah - totally "normal". Sure. Right.

Oops, those pesky logic and morality things strike again. And then there is the "progressive" thought that those more highly educated "know better" than the idiots of the nation. I suppose we should reverse Washington's decision last night since it came from the populous not a court of more highly educated? You choose facts when they are convenient and dismiss the others when profitable to you.

I love liberals who *think* they are progressive and tolerant and enlightened - that's as accurate as someone who thinks they are going against all societal norms and so they are somehow victims.

Good one.


Posted by You betcha!, a resident of Downtown
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:28 am

To Hip Hip Hooray,

Here, here!

To Or...

Excellent post


Posted by You betcha!, a resident of Downtown
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:29 am

SteveP

As always, well said!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Or wrote: "That's the kind of business the state should be in."

What part of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" did you not understand?


Posted by Bobby, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:52 am

Where in the constitution does it give you the right to be a pervert?


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 am

Just using the same logic the gays do, I mean you do...

Glad you got the larger point of the post. As always, right on the money Stac, er, maybe not.

Wah-wah-wah


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:56 am

Amen, Bobby.

You can't argue with that logic!


Posted by Curious, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:57 am

It makes me exceedingly sad to know I live in a town with such mean-spirited, hate-filled, and selfish people. Who gives a ^%$%@ if two men or women want to get married. I certainly don't. It would not affect me or my family one bit. And please, don't trot out the tired old strawman of "they will teach our children about gay sex in school - it's happening in Massachusetts". That canard has been disproven so many times. I know I will teach my children to accept all peoples and to not discriminate against someone based on who they may love.

To those of you applauding the Maine decision, shame on you. If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one. Stay out of other people's lives and concentrate on being a well adjusted and contributing member of society.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:59 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Or also wrote: "I suppose we should reverse Washington's decision last night since it came from the populous not a court of more highly educated?"

The point you failed to grasp is that civil rights should never be put to a vote of the populace precisely because majority rules becomes a form of tyranny. When a majority takes away a minorities right to the pursuit of happiness, the majority's own right to the pursuit of happiness is undermined and loses its moral basis.


Posted by Curious, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:05 am

Reading between the lines, it seems most of the anti-gay marriage folks here have their biggest issue with the gay sex act itself. "Or" seems to define marriage as the ability to consumate the relationship through straight heterosexual intercourse. Others state that gay sex equals pedophilia or beastiality.

So a question to all of you...if a straight couple engages in anal sex or oral sex or uses sex toys, does that invalidate their marriage or place them in that "pervert" category?

If a gay couple does not engage in anal sex or oral sex or use sex toys, can they get married?

Just curious.


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:09 am

Dear Curious -

You said,

"To those of you applauding the Maine decision, shame on you."

and

"Who gives a ^%$%@ if two men or women want to get married. I certainly don't."

Since you have been enlightened as to what is morally wrong and what is morally right, could you please site a source that gives you your moral authority?


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:12 am

Stacey,

You wrote, "When a majority takes away a minorities right to the pursuit of happiness, the majority's own right to the pursuit of happiness is undermined and loses its moral basis."

I like to walk around my house naked, but I'm not entirely happy. I would like to expand my happiness by walking around my neighborhood, particularly around 2:45 in front of a local elementary school. It makes me happy. Would you like to insert your morals here? Did I mention I live in the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood?


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:16 am

The point is morality is not relative. Socially agreed upon norms is what is best for ALL. And those have been established by thousands of years of communities - working within those parameters. Going outside of those is the crack that will open the flood gate justifying all other ill conceived behavior.

I guess I thought you were smart enough to understand that. I won't give you the benefit of the doubt next time.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:21 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Here's a little fun with cut and paste:
Pablo: " am glad it failed and continues to be viewed as a perverse act by the populous. Something quite odd about the entire act and not a good example to children. If people want to see this type of thing they should go to the zoo."
SteveP: "Why in the world would gays take their perverse lifestyle and want it to be considered mainstream and acceptable? What's next-pedaphilia, legal acceptance of NAMBLA, etc?"
Or..."The point is gays can never be 'normal' or 'accepted' for the sexual acts they commit. Pure and simple it is abhorrent and deviant to the majority with values and morality. Sure you can have the legal rights you want, as now allowed in Washington State, in hospitals, financial agreements, etc, etc, etc with your "partner", but you can't have marriage. You are incapable of "knowing" each other physically in the biblical sense and therefore can't ever truly be married -- what you covet and think will happen if you are bestowed by a state with the "right to marry". You can't duplicate the purpose of the parts when they are the same - that is truly "knowing" the other in a sexual way - since that is your interest. It can't happen. It's like attempting to do a tree and demanding it's marriage. It's more like a spectacle and truly sad."
Bobby: "Where in the constitution does it give you the right to be a pervert?"
Anyone else see a pattern here?
I don't know about you all, but my marriage is based on a lot more than just sex. What's with the fixation?



Posted by Wow, a resident of Birdland
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:22 am

Wow Stacey,

If we are self-governed by rules set up by people, why are we not allowed to self-govern at the ballot box?

You either trust people to self-govern or you don't. Which is it?

The people of the USA are passionate about their liberty - we're just not stupid enough to give it to psuedo liberty causes.

Which is it - are we the "smart" voters that can decide our own fate or are we "stupid" sheep that need to be told how to vote and behave? Your moral compass and logic needs calibration.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:31 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

To Or...
Since you wrote "Pure and simple it is abhorrent and deviant to the majority with values and morality," and then to Curious "Since you have been enlightened as to what is morally wrong and what is morally right, could you please site a source that gives you your moral authority?" I'm trying to figure out what source gives *you* moral authority.
Then you wrote: "Hey did you hear about Rosie and her partner, about Elton John and his partner, about the exceedingly disproportionate dissolution rates of gays? Yeah - totally "normal". Sure. Right." I'm sure that difficulties in maintaining gay relationships has *nothing* to do with heterosexual mobilization against accepting gay relationships or gay marriage. Aside from the challenges that at one time or another face *any* relationship, when parts of society (and I emphasize parts, because there are plenty of us heterosexuals who think people who mobilize against gay rights are ridiculous) take it upon themselves to strip certain couples of their rights, and apparently, based on these boards, focus with a strange intensity on their sexual habits, things are made even more challenging for those couples.


Posted by You betcha!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:31 am

Congratulations Stay Cool, you've figured out marriage isn't just about sex. We're glad you came to that conclusion. Now if you can explain that to the gays we'd appreciate it. They are the ones making it about sex and we are responding to the argument.

This isn't about sex at all, it is about maintaining the basis building block of a society. When one considers the social structure of civilization, family is clearly the foundational unit upon which church and government rest. Families are created and held together by the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman who live cooperatively and raise and nurture the children born to them. Families are the building blocks essential to the formation of a community, and strong social structure arises from the foundation many families provide.

Not only is marriage vital to society, the benefits of marriage for individual adults and children are well-documented. In general, married people live longer, spend less time in the hospital, have higher incomes and enjoy greater emotional support. Children raised by their mother and father are less likely to live in poverty or drop out of school and are more likely to finish college. They are also at lower risk for becoming sexually active in their teen years.

Marriage is not simply about sex, but it is the way all of humanity benefits. Divorce, homosexual unions, and raising children out of wedlock is never a benefit to society as a whole - or to the individuals involved in deficient examples. Those of us wanting to sustain traditional and sanctified marriage do so to preserve our society - not undermine or degrade it.


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:38 am

My moral authority comes from that passe, untested and totally disproved theory called...The Bible - God's own words. I'll stand with him. Where do you stand?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:38 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Or,

Your facetious example reveals your lack of understanding in the philosophical underpinnings of our government. What of your rights are impinged by two people of the same sex getting married? You're not a part of that marriage! The litmus test is a quote from Jefferson: "It does me no harm for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

And they aren't _my_ morals, they're the morals this country was founded upon. If I vote away the rights of another, my own rights are up for being taken away by a vote. I will not suffer such a thing.

"Morality is intimately related to a nation's government, for as James Madison wrote, "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea." Morality refers to conduct that is proper between members of society. Respect for the equal rights of every citizen becomes the foundation of morality and justice in a free society. Rightful government necessarily reflects this proper relationship in its policies and in its dealings with its own citizens and with other nations."

""God... has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197 "

Web Link


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:41 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Wow,

The Founding Fathers studied the early Greek democracies. They knew well from that lesson that direct democracy fails as in EPIC FAIL. All the Greek democracies fell into tyranny. Why do you think we have a REPRESENTATIVE and REPUBLICAN form of democracy?


Posted by Wow, a resident of Birdland
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:48 am

Stacey,

They also knew that when a society embraces homosexuality it fails. I'll choose Rome for my example.

And to quote Samuel Adams, "It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this reason, it is always observable, that those who are combined to destroy the people's liberties, practice every art to poison their morals."


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:49 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Or,

You have no moral authority. God is the moral authority, He who has made you a moral creature. By your very nature of being in a state of morality, you have a duty to uphold that morality by ensuring access to the inalienable rights God imbued in all of Man.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:49 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Or,

You have no moral authority. God is the moral authority, He who has made you a moral creature. By your very nature of being in a state of morality, you have a duty to uphold that morality by ensuring access to the inalienable rights God imbued in all of Man.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:51 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Or...
Where I stand is in opposition to your desire to legislate your Christian morality. My religious beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion of the legalization of gay marriage.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:52 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Wow,

You poison morality through the denial of access to the so-called inalienable rights given to us by God. Tyranny of the majority is that poison.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:53 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

So interesting to me is the cherry-picking of what parts of Christianity should apply to an assessment of the marital rights of homosexuals - of exactly *which* Christian concepts are chosen to support opposition. Very convenient.


Posted by Gay is glorious, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:55 am

Pablo and Stay cool,

I am not gay but have many friends who are.. they are respectable people.. not like you...

I hope one day that you both exoerience a family member coming to you with news that they are gay!!!!lets see how you'll feel after that......


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:58 am

Stacey,

Jesus and Paul urge us in Scripture to discern when someone's teaching or behavior is ungodly - this flies directly in the face of saying we "shouldn't judge others". In fact we should. We just cannot determine the application of God's wrath (meaning whether or not they deserve salvation). That is determined by God and was worked out through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus's amazing act on the Cross.

God even gives us the authority in scripture to rebuke others -- OUT OF COMPASSION. It is our responsibility, those that know God's laws and to love others as he does, which is to impart those that do not know or are in error of his ways and expectations. It is very simple. Homosexuality is not acceptable to God, therefore, it is incumbant upon me a subject of God to uphold, honor, and as a US citizen granted the rights I have to use the law to uphold God's laws. Afterall, the government is upon His shoulders, not your opinions. The founding fathers knew this and created a way of life to ensure it.

Homosexuals can continue in their sin, but the state cannot and should not sanction it as a collective representation of the views of the people.


Posted by Curious, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:59 am

@ "Or" - you ask where my moral grounding originates. Rather than basing it on a book of stories written hundreds of years ago by various authors, living in various communities, and driven by various biases, beliefs, and agendas AND THEN translated by various individuals with their own agendas, biases and interpretations, I choose to base my morals and ethics on common sense, the good ol' "Golden Rule", my parent's teachings, and a worldview absent of hate and fear.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:59 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Gay is Glorious,
Somehow you have misread my posts - I am in direct opposition to Pablo's viewpoint! Please re-read!


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:06 am

That's "curious" Curious,

You said,

"Rather than basing it on a book of stories written hundreds of years ago by various authors, living in various communities, and driven by various biases, beliefs, and agendas AND THEN translated by various individuals with their own agendas, biases and interpretations, I choose to base my morals and ethics on common sense, the good ol' "Golden Rule", my parent's teachings, and a worldview absent of hate and fear."

What is "curious" to me is that in fact, the "Golden Rule" is taken from the BIBLE.."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12).

Are you often this hypocritical? Let me give you a tip...it helps to educate yourself on the most important document in the history of mankind.

Pax


Posted by Or..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:09 am

Okay, Children, it's been moderately entertaining, but I'm getting bored swatting flies here - your pathetic attempt at any real arguments are, well, pathetic.

See ya.


Posted by Wow, a resident of Birdland
on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:12 am

And the winner is..."Or..."!

I learned a lot Or...

Thanks -- Good to know we're on the same team.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:22 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Or, your staggering intellect will be missed.


Posted by Curious, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:28 am

@ Or - I wonder if you can hear me laughing all the way over here.

Obviously, you have not mastered the "internets". The Golden Rule pre-dates the Christian Bible by a good thousand years or so. It has been a foundation of many belief systems before Christianity came into being.

"An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 - 1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do".[5] An example from a Late Period (c. 1080 - 332 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another".[6]. It also appears in the Book of the Dead (1580-1350 BCE): "He sought for others the good he desired for himself. Let him pass."

The Golden Rule can also be found in early Greek texts and Buddhist teachings.

In fact, many of the parables, teachings, and concepts espoused in the Christian Bible have their roots in previous texts like the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Ten Commandments can be found in the BotD which pre-dates the Bible by a few thousand years.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Or wrote: "Jesus and Paul urge us in Scripture to discern when someone's teaching or behavior is ungodly - this flies directly in the face of saying we "shouldn't judge others"

Strawman argument? I'm not advocating that "we shouldn't judge others". If you think that's the case, you've really missed the point.

Or also wrote: "It is very simple. Homosexuality is not acceptable to God, therefore, it is incumbant upon me a subject of God to uphold, honor, and as a US citizen granted the rights I have to use the law to uphold God's laws"

You have no granted rights that are not derived from God on the basis of Man's nature as made by God. Moreover, you are not granted rights to use the law to defy God's will. God granted those same rights (_pursuit_ of happiness) to everyone, including those who participate in same-sex relationships, because God made them too. It is incumbent upon you to use the law to uphold those rights as those rights are given by God. This does not preclude you from "rebuking others out of compassion". It only disallows you from using the power of government from doing so ("Respect for the equal rights of every citizen becomes the foundation of morality and justice in a free society."). Using the power of government to "rebuke others out of compassion" for something that does not break your legs or picks you pockets directly flies in the face of "upholding God's laws". You cannot uphold God's laws by violating His will, His intent in the way He made all of His creation. That's exactly why "When a majority takes away a minorities right to the pursuit of happiness, the majority's own right to the pursuit of happiness is undermined and loses its moral basis."

Also, as you are well aware, it was God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, not Man through the power of government.


Posted by T.H., a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm

You can't argue with these anti-gay marriage people and get anywhere. They are alomst all Christian types that claim the bible is their guide. I don't want to get into religious arguements of how they pick and chose which parts to the bible to remember or to follow but they quote Leviticus on this one without even knowing the scholarly debate on the interpretation of the passage. Anyway it's their religious belief and they don't care if it goes against the doctrine that the church and state are to remain seperate in the U.S. to avoid bigotry and to keep the majorities morality from becoming law. They dismiss that and stick with what they believe their god wants them to think and do. No man will change their mind. Sad but true. Just feel sorry for their kids if they turn out gay, oh right, they think people choose to be gay. They must have choose to be heterosexual meaning they are gay and acting straight if they believe their own logic.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 6:38 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

After reading some of the posts on here, I'm not shocked in the least. I don't think I've ever seen as much intolerance or hatred as is displayed on this thread. People are comparing gay people to animals in the zoo, pedophilia, and every other nasty thing they can think of.

What is sick that some of you fail to recognize, is that you display your own personal thoughts onto the gay community; they are thoughts that the majority of the gay community do not have. Gay people do not want to sleep with young children nor engage in bestiality. Additionally, we don't go door to door (like some religious people that shall remain nameless) trying to boost our numbers- that's sick. Ask yourself this- when did you have a gay man come to your door and ask "Would you like to become gay?" A part of me does think that maybe many of these posts are from a few select individuals that use multiple screen names.

"I like to walk around my house naked, but I'm not entirely happy. I would like to expand my happiness by walking around my neighborhood, particularly around 2:45 in front of a local elementary school. It makes me happy. Would you like to insert your morals here? Did I mention I live in the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood?"- That's an extremely sick comment, not matter how serious or sarcastic it is.

"Marriage is not simply about sex, but it is the way all of humanity benefits"- and yet you fail to recognize that half of all marriages in the U.S. fail. Are you going to blame that on the gay community or will you be human enough to admit that the failed relationship is the cause of the two parties involved?

Lastly, I'm guessing that the one's who are against gay marriage would have supported my brother calling me a "faggot" and "fruit cake"- ignorance at it's finest. Ok, one more question: do you comprehend the history behind the word "fagot"? (And yes, it is spelled differently).


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Julie is a registered user.

I couldn't stomach reading all of the posts.

For those of you fixated on the sex part of being gay...let them get married! Statistics show that sexual activity decreases greatly after marriage!

I cannot stand those arguments that liken homosexuality to something truly perverse like being a pedophile, etc. Those are the same idiot arguments leftover from Prop. 8 that countered, "Gee if we allow gay marriage then maybe I'll want to marry my dog". Please! What on earth did some of you do in your youth to lose so many brain cells??

I agree with Stacey - the right of marriage should never even have been put up to a vote. Not so long ago there were majority groups who thought black people shouldn't be allowed to drink from the same water fountain as a white person. Does the fact that a majority decided that make it right?

For those of you who are against gay marriage and yet also belong to a "minority" group - how do you feel about that? Many people over the years have fought and even died to move forward in guaranteeing you the same rights, respect and privileges as White people. How can you then turn around and dump on another minority group?


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

'You betcha' made the following comment in an earlier post:
"Congratulations Stay Cool, you've figured out marriage isn't just about sex. We're glad you came to that conclusion. Now if you can explain that to the gays we'd appreciate it. They are the ones making it about sex and we are responding to the argument."
Rather than respond right away, I took some time to figure out exactly what I found so disturbing about the comment. Aside from the obvious snide comments regarding my "discovery," and the collective "we" v. "you/them" attitude (though that's ok, I'm glad not to be part of your "we") I realize the most glaring issue is the stunning ignorance shown regarding gay relationships. I can't believe someone actually wrote "Now if you can explain that to the gays we'd appreciate it. They are the ones making it about sex and we are responding to the argument." That is truly amazing not only in the projection of the fixation on sex, but the assumption of the absence of any other components to gay relationships and a total lack of any attempt to understand the complete picture.


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Nov 5, 2009 at 10:00 am

SteveP is a registered user.

...and in the end, after all the debate and perverse justification of your liberal belief that gays can join in holy matrimony, one thing remains constant: They can't legally marry.
They can cohabitate, shack up, hang out in the restrooms at the Sportspark (per the police blotter from 3 years ago), become life partners, significant others, roommates, etc. but they can't be married. End of story.
Now debate something more important, like the poor economy, socialized healthcare, Al-Queda, the Taliban, etc.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2009 at 10:05 am

Stay Cool is a registered user.

"Perverse justification?" A concern for civil rights hardly qualifies as a perverse justification.
You say they can't legally marry. I say, yet...
And *I* will decide what I think is important to debate.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 5, 2009 at 10:48 am

Stacey is a registered user.

SteveP wrote: "They can cohabitate, shack up, hang out in the restrooms at the Sportspark (per the police blotter from 3 years ago), become life partners, significant others, roommates, etc. but they can't be married."

Nor can they or their children visit with a dying loved one in a hospital despite having a power of attorney. Now ask yourself, does that pick your pockets or break your legs? Read about lawsuit here: Web Link And about how it was dismissed here: Web Link Is that supposed to be some form of "rebuke others OUT OF COMPASSION"?


Posted by T.H., a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 5, 2009 at 11:54 am

Steve - Being concerned about people's civil rights is important, and the idea that we should debate something else more important when you are taking the time to tell people to do so says to me you are the one wasting your time. Your mind is clearly shut on the issue so I won't "waste my time" trying to convince you. Using a sports park reference from three years ago shows your lack of even half baked complaints about gays. Heterosexuals never commit crime or lewd acts in Pleasanton. You really are not well educated, well thought out, or even bright enough to compensate for the previously mentioned shortcomings. One thing you are is angry and a bad spokesmen for your position. As a heterosexual male I am more amazed by people's reasoning for their anti-gay stance then their actual position. Religion is one thing but when they express their personal feelings it is sad but shows their mindset and intelligence. Like when the KKK speaks, it just shows how dumb they are. Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Steve you might as well not respond to me I won't reply...as you said waste of time.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Julie is a registered user.

T.H., well said!


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2009 at 1:06 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

I'm guessing SteveP would also blame the whole gay community for the death of a 4 year old near Fresno- the child was molested and then drowned. And if I remember the article correctly, the molester was a teenage boy and the victim as a 4 year old male.

It's a bit comical how people claim to not pass judgment onto others' because their religion says so, but continue to group so many different types of people together. The gay community does NOT condone or associate themselves with pedophilia, beastiality, NAMBLA, or any other organization that promotes injustice to others.

How often do we hear about gay people storming through college campuses, ready to jump out of bushes and attack a student? Never. When we hear about rape, or for instance, the recent gang rape of the girl at her homecoming dance- where the people gay? No. These types of acts can be committed by anybody, anywhere, at any time. It doesn't matter what one's sexuality is- so stop claiming that gay people are going to ruin other people's lives.


Posted by T.H., a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm

I think gay people can ruin heterosexual people's lives. A homosexual is shamed into hiding their true identity from the world because of bigotry so basically poses as a heterosexual and gets married. Has a loveless marriage, possibly even seeks to gratify their true self in clandestine and dangerous situations, and basically ruins their own, kids' and wife's life. If the same person felt free to be who they truly are they would be happier and possibly find another person to make their life a joy. The wife also meets a man that gives her the loving relation she deserves and all are happy.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin
on Nov 6, 2009 at 8:50 am

More bigotry on display. I'm sure you're proud HHH. Amazing what people will announce to the world and then pat themselves on the back for.


Posted by Curious, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:02 am

@ Janna - I think you missed the sarcasm T.H. was infusing his post with.


Posted by T.H., a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm

I am speaking of people like
Larry Edwin Craig - former Republican politician from the U.S. state of Idaho.
Mathew C. Manning – Christian Evangelist
Ted Arthur Haggard – Right wing Christian Evangelist
They were shamed into living a double life and ruined many in the process including their own. If they felt free to be who they really are these problems wouldn't have happened. Side note - They were as anti-gay as the people posting these anti-gay sentiments here. Makes you think, doesn't it?


Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin
on Nov 10, 2009 at 9:56 am

Actually, I was referring to the person who started this thread, but thanks.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Jim Kohnen Post Office Signed into Law
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 866 views

Never Say Never -- the Perry Indictment
By Tom Cushing | 5 comments | 653 views

Patience and very deep pockets can pay off
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 486 views

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 468 views