Just saying in The Livewire’s America, you can believe whatever you want, as long as you follow the rules

Well except scientologits

Good one, Livewire. I normally don’t get insights from South Park, but I have to say the Mormon episode did, and helped me appreciate that joke more.

Even if we conceed Mormons are a ‘cult’ (I don’t, but I admit some do) they aren’t harming anyone, and are pretty decent members of society.

Plus, they have a) the right to believe as they see fit, provided they follow the laws of the country; and b) they retain all the rights and responcibilities of citizens, including the right to lobby the government and to affect legislation.

Agreed. And to be clear, I don’t view the Church of LDS a cult either.

If you stopped there, I wouldn’t have commented. But you projected your view of Brian Miller as an antireligious bigot onto gay persons as a whole.

who tries to hide behind being gay as an excuse.

I can’t read a person’s mind, so I have no way of knowing for sure. But I didn’t see Brian Miller using being gay as an excuse regarding his views on religion. Besides, he didn’t have to. Plenty of straight people are anti-religious as well.

Pat, while your rationalizations of idiocy are heartwarming from a standpoint of loyalty to one’s minority status, they also are doing little more than reinforcing in the minds of said idiots that they can do whatever they want and the gay community will pop up to make excuses for them.

NDT, I’m not rationalizing anyone’s anti-Mormon bigotry. Just pointing out that it’s not just gay people and not just anti-religious persons. You, on the other hand, were selective in criticizing all gays based on one person’s comment. And for some reason didn’t bother to point out that religious persons also think as Mormons as a cult, and chose to ignore that point when I brought it up.

“What’s the difference between a religion and a cult?” “About 2,000 years.”

Even if we conceed Mormons are a ‘cult’ (I don’t, but I admit some do) they aren’t harming anyone, and are pretty decent members of society.

Plus, they have a) the right to believe as they see fit, provided they follow the laws of the country; and b) they retain all the rights and responcibilities of citizens, including the right to lobby the government and to affect legislation.

Now if only we could turn our guns on the more enjoyable targets, like Scientologists for example

I’d rather just call out Brian Miller as an antireligious bigot who tries to hide behind being gay as an excuse.

NDT, actually, this isn’t about gays hating religion. Maybe Brian Miller does, so need to project his views onto the rest of us. Further, it’s not just anti-religious who think Mormonism is a cult (in fact, they may regard all religions as cults), but many religious persons view the LDS Church as a cult and/or non-Christian, and may support Brian’s suggestion. They may be a minority, but not a “tiny, tiny” one.

Doesn’t matter. That will never happen because antireligious bigots like yourself, Miller, are a tiny, tiny minority.

In fact, I challenge you to do it. Go ahead and show the world how gays hate religion and seek to ban it publicly. Go on, practice your “principles”.

Brian, the majority of the people in California voted prop 8 through. So you’re now saying ‘the religious right’ is a majority? Falwell will be so proud.

And government recognition of marriage is not a ‘right’ say it with me. The court, you know the same supreme court who pulled the ‘right’ out of the aether agreed the same thing with their upholding of prop 8. So now the California Supreme Court is part of the ‘Religious Right’?

Please show where this mythical ‘denying of humanity and dignity’ came from. Do you mean the comercial showing Mormons ransacking a couple’s home? Or maybe you mean the assault on the little old lady.

*yawn* Come back when you have actually something new to say, little boy.

Hating is a part of life, especially of political life. It is, in fact, necessary for survival. Being against hate is like being against war or anything else that is part of the human phenomenon. The preening moralism that proscribes strong negative and personal reactions as “hating” and therefore by definition excluded…it’s just a rhetorical game.

I hate the Jihad and any Muslim who supports or takes part in it. I hated Communism and anyone who professes Communism I will hate. What I am unimpressed by, for example, is lingo from the HRC and friends about Love Conquering Hate…and the transformation of every opponent of gay marriage into a “hater”. It’s moralizing PC BS. And I hate it.

Would they accept a majoritarian effort to have Mormonism classified as a “cult” instead of a “legitimate religion” as A-OK?

Seriously, the right wing has a victim complex the size of Mount Everest.

“I tried to take away your rights and deny your humanity and dignity under the law, and you had to be HATEFUL in your response!”

It’s like the guy who punches someone else, only to realize that the guy he punched is twice his size and knows judo… “now, now, no need to get violent!”

Maybe he shouldn’t have thrown the first punch?

That ad nearly changed my vote on prop 8 – so offensive was it. Given that I strongly favor marriage for gays, that’s saying something. I suspect that a lot of people on the fence were offended as well.

Thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman is hardly controversial. It is a foundation of western civilization and has proven successful for a long time. As such, it is up to us to make the case (and there is a good one) that this institution be changed. That is what legislatures are for.

If this is done through the courts then there really is no reason for the courts to uphold laws against bigamy, incest, and all the rest (any lawyers care to comment?).

With that out of the way, couldn’t agree more with the previous commenter, the way to secure gay marriage rights in any state is to win on the merits of the issue not through intimidation or coercion.

Seane-Anna, so you would be more supportive of same sex marriage if it was about equality for gays, and not about (as you see it) destroying the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of this country? Or do you see same sex marriage as destroying the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of this country.

If you don’t support full marriage equality for your son, then you don’t love him as much as you would if he were straight.

Esuriance, I do think that is an unfair characterization here for many reasons. First of all, Leah does want the same for her children, which is more than we can say for still too many parents who cannot accept their child’s sexuality, or even worse, accept their children. Second, I think Leah’s support for federal civil unions, at this point, is practical. Like it or not, federally recognized marriage is not happening anytime soon. We have a president who says he supports federally recognized civil unions (although, unfortunately is so far, backtracking on most of his promises for gay equality), so this is a great place to start. With such in place, then people in MA, NH, IA, VT, CT, ME, and soon in CA and NJ, will not only have same sex marriage, but also the same rights and benefits as any married couple. Anyway, you should apologize to Leah for that comment.

Gay Marriage, if it is to be, should be through the legislature, not the courts.

Douglas, I’ll agree with you there. But…

sorry, I lack a lesser more kind word.

STEAL another persons child to build a family.

Putting aside the way you are phrasing (I’m assuming) adoption, are you saying that the ideal of marriage is the following. That it should be limited to those who can and will procreate. That’s it. So besides same sex couples, who obviously cannot procreate. But also, opposite sex couples who cannot procreate or do not want to procreate, including those who want to adopt children. Furthermore, some couples like to wait a number of years before they have children. They should wait until they are ready.

But you know what? I’ve never heard a convincing argument against that line of reasoning other than “nuh-uh!”. I should think someone would have come up with something more thoughtful by now.

And I’m not going to provide one here, TGC. If you want to know when the slippery slope began, I suppose when marriage became part of society, and we had laws to recognize them. Marriage has changed since it first started. It is no longer limited to people within the same classes, less of them are arranged now, women are no longer considered property, not limited to people of the same race, etc. All of these changes, even the ones that are, IMO, as fundamental as the genders involved, happened on their own merits. I’m sure there were people who argued, “well if we don’t treat women as chattel in a marriage, then…”

So same sex marriage should be argued on its own merits. Will it lead to polygamy or marriage to rocks? I hope not. Whereas, I believe that there are compelling arguments for same sex marriage, I don’t believe the same is the case for the other two. I say, let them make their case. I don’t believe they can.

After all, he’s nothing but a cartoon.

Gay Marriage, if it is to be, should be through the legislature, not the courts.

My only thing about my opposition to gay marriage, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has EVERYTHING to do with process

I’m personally of the opinion that marriage is about procreation, but since the state has been involved in the marriage as merger contract crap, I see no reason to exclude gays.

In my life, there is only one woman I will ever marry, and if she doesn’t want children, I will never marry her.

but I’m a guy who actually has standards based on basic values, I was a Marine, but I don’t think anyone who WANTS to be a Marine can say they were, just cuz “it’s just words.”

You earn it, you give it value, words have value, and meaning, and If I can’t marry the woman I love because she doesn’t want children, because I think words mean a thing, why should the courts give gays the right to engage in a farce?

That is what it is, it’s a farce, gay marriage, for the most part, isn’t meant to build lasting bonds, it’s to attack the foundations of existing lasting bonds.

It won’t “destroy” “traditional” marriage, but it will say to those who have a “traditional marriage” that their marriage is meaningless, and their children aren’t theres, their “commitment” is only a game of words.

Marriage is not that, it is something special, and while I understand that a man could love another man, and a woman could love another woman, but it doesn’t change the fact that you basically have to . . .

sorry, I lack a lesser more kind word.

STEAL another persons child to build a family.

Love who you please, but you can’t create fundamentally as we were made, and THAT is why I oppose gay marriage.

YET!
YET!!!!

If gay marriage is passed through the legislature, and with the support of the people? YAY

But I agree with you, an ammendment is overkill, but then again, a single judgement is a bridge too far.

Id not trade my rights and freedoms in exchange for fiscal responsiblity in California

considering marriage gives you nothing that you cant already do on your own other than make you eligible for government entitlements, whereas fiscal irresponsibility takes away your rights and freedoms….you just have traded them away.

Great website!

The anti-marriage side often makes the argument that our love is the equivalent of lusting for a horse, or even an inanimate object, and that if we grant to gay people marriage equality, we’ll have to grant it to people wanting to marry an animal or a rock. Is this not a hateful argument, GayPatriot?

Frankly, I don’t see it as “hateful” at all. What’s more, nobody says (to my knowledge) that it’s the “equivalent of”, but rather if we allow one, we have to allow the other. But you know what? I’ve never heard a convincing argument against that line of reasoning other than “nuh-uh!”. I should think someone would have come up with something more thoughtful by now.

If you don’t support full marriage equality for your son, then you don’t love him as much as you would if he were straight.

Well damn, E-surance. That’s no way to get Leah to agree with her. Besides, looking at kids today, it doesn’t seem like liberals love kids all that much. Throw the liberal infanticide of tens of millions of kids and I think one could conclude that liberals love kids like OJ loved Nicole.