Let's vote no on Proposition 8 | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Let's vote no on Proposition 8

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Comment

Dear editor, Proponents of Proposition 8 on the coming ballot want to prohibit same-sex unions from adopting children. They argue that a two-parent, man-woman family is necessary for the healthy development of children.

Is there evidence for this? In this era of fragile marriages and single-parent households, is there evidence that the children of those household must turn out badly, or that the children of heterosexual marriages necessarily do better, or that there is anything the state can do that would make marriage more durable, stable or sacred?

Doubtless many fair-minded people of good will support extending the legal rights, obligations and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, and calling it “civil union.” But we recognize that the idea of civil union does not satisfy the relationship of a heterosexual couple. That relationship is deeper, richer and is spiritual. To the extent that such values are any business of the state, they are recognized officially as “marriage.” Same-sex couples deserve no less, but if it would calm the tempest over the issue, and those who are uncomfortable using the term “marriage” for that situation can think of something just as meaningful to call it, let us hear it. But for now, the court seems to have accepted the word “marriage.”

Same-sex couples are not asking for our approval. What they need is the respect and fairness that all people owe one another. Let us vote no on Prop. 8.

Bob Stone / Yountville

131 comment(s)

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:49 AM:

" despite what they may say....Prop 8 is a measure to strip rights away from our neighbors...simple as that...nothing about religion, nothing about education, just stripping away rights. It is discrimination pure and simple. "

pharper wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Actually, there is no evidence that children are better raised by a heterosexual couple. Though most studies are done looking at the children of lesbian couples, the evidence is clear: there is no psychological or emotional difference between a child raised by homosexual parents and a child raised by heterosexual parents. The children of homosexuals are statistically no more likely to identify as gay or bisexual than the children of straight couples, according to a NY Times article and a study done by a major university. Boys raised by lesbian couples are less likely to be sexually active at a young age than boys raised by straight couples, and are typically less aggressive. Girls raised by lesbian couples are more likely to pursue careers in the fields of science, technology, and other gender-neutral or male-dominated areas, but again are no more likely to identify as lesbian or bisexual than girls raised by straight couples.

The evidence is there. Prop 8 proponents just don't want to see what's right in front of their eyes.

No on 8. "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:47 AM:

" YES ON 8 YES ON 8

Protect a childs human right to a mom and pop.
Facts are Facts
Children with 1father 1mother fair better in life.
Not in each instance but overall indefinatley.
Compromising principles is not the answer! "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:28 AM:

" Kids put up with enough teasing and outright meanness and bullying at school without the added weight of having to explain two daddy's who sleep together and hold hands...

And you libs want to brainwash your kids to be "tolerant" of that...??? Look up the definition of "tolerance"...

None of us should be forced to put up with this socially demeaning nonsense...

Vote YES on Prop 8..... "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:54 AM:

" WHAT PROPAGANGA PHARPER!

where is your allegience?

Just tell'em you are gay. That is a choice you made. And now you want every1 else to support you regardless of their beliefs!
By citing an article in the N.Y times is hardly conclusive evidence. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:13 AM:

" The New York Times, that bastion of objectivity. ~~[snicker]~~

Follow Obama's example and just vote "Present". "

pharper wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:17 AM:

" I'm citing the sources the NY Times article used, not necessarily the article itself; I can't post outside links, but I suggest you find it, amigo. I really don't care whether or not people "support" me; all I expect are equal rights for everyone, which is a principle our countryw as founded on. Where is your allegiance? Mine's to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Being gay is NOT A CHOICE. I don't know how many times that must be said before people actually get it. Clearly you've never met an openly gay person in your life; they will tell you that they've known, often from ages as early as three, that they are gay. I'd like to know: why would ANYONE choose to be something that is discriminated against and abhorred and persecuted by many people? That doesn't even make sense. Homosexuality occurs even in the animal kingdom; did you ever read the story about the two male penguins who bonded and raised a baby together? Did they choose that? Are you implying that animals too have the capability of cognitive thought and can choose to be gay or straight?

I'd like to see YOUR sources. Who says that having heterosexual parents is the best? What about people who divorce? Should they not be allowed to divorce, since a child, by your logic, MUST have two parents of the opposite sex? What about single mothers and fathers who never married, or mothers who become pregnant by artificial insemination? Should their right to be parents be revoked? Your argument doesn't hold water. I have sources, facts, and studies to back up what I say; I'd be happy to provide you with names and links, even though links are not allowed here. "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:49 AM:

" PHARPER:
Help understand this?
I know people that were gay at one time in their life.
Now presently they are not gay anymore.
This leads me to the conclusion that... "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:02 PM:

" PHARPER: "Boys raised by lesbian couples are less likely to be sexually active at a young age than boys raised by straight couples, and are typically less aggressive"

Do you want a society full of weak men?

Are you intimidated by powerful men?

Are these the real motives? "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:17 PM:

" amigo--
there are many people who wish they weren't gay, and many people who, for the sake of fitting into a particular religion or regaining social acceptance SAY they're no longer gay, but how do you know what proclivities they keep in private?

Your conclusions are false, I'm afraid, and based on limited experience and information.

By the way, amigo, you say all children have a right to a mother and a father. I suppose, then, your next ballot initiative will be one that outlaws heterosexual single parent households? You're going to fight for the rights of children by increasing penalties for deadbeat mothers and fathers, right? You know, or that would be mighty hypocritical of you.

This initiative is all about the religious right flexing their heterosexual privilege, and frankly, their ignorant smugness is very unbecoming.

Jesus loved all sinners, and you ALL are sinners. You don't have the right to throw stones, but you do it with such conviction.

Also, you don't have to marry anyone you don't choose. Not in this country, anyway.

NO ON 8! "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Hey amigo....

We all have feelings that we cannot act upon for various social reasons.... Personal discipline is what controls our behavior, or even the bad consequences of bad behavior...

What is it that keeps you from mugging someone when you need beer money...??? How about stomping the guy who drove through the crosswalk while you were in it...??? That attractive 12-year old neighbor girl who has a crush on you...???

None of this is about the "feelings" that the liberal agenda tries to foist on us... It's all about bad behavior, and not being able to deal with the consequences of bad behavior...

The liberals want no consequences for unacceptable social behavior, so they spin their argument just as alcoholism has been branded as a disease... The bad behavior kicks in when the alcoholic decides to drive impaired...

Deciding to act on bad social behavior is a choice... No free passes for that, you libs...

Amigo, your assumed conclusion is correct... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:19 PM:

" amigo--

One would think, with your desire to protect the rights of children to have a mother and a father, that you'd welcome a postponement of sexual activity among immature males, as this would decrease out-of-wedlock births. "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Nope, Dwayne, you, too, are wrong.

Your argument starts with a false premise that homosexuality is a disease or bad behavior, or socially unacceptable.

You yourself may find homosexuality to be abhorrent, but that does not give you the right to take civil liberties away from people.

I'm just so sorry that you haven't met some of my gay friends and family members who are the most interesting, fun-loving, socially responsible people. It would bring you a lot of joy to open up that dark little part of your heart. "

funnyme wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:54 PM:

" amigo,

You are wasting your time with the people who live their lives only on the premises of following their "feelings"...Just nod YES on 8!...again! "

amigo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Steph : you missed my point.
By a male having less of a desire for sex or sex drive ..... is a diluted male. A weak form of masculinity.....less aggresive.

I think think is more part of the feminist movement in conjuction with the homosexual movement.
conscience or unconscience "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:25 PM:

" steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:19 PM:".....a postponement of sexual activity among immature males...."

Interesting feminist liberal double standard that it's "all the guys fault"...

You have nothing to say about those 14-year old girls that hang out at the mall dressed like hookers...???

Geee Steph, and I was starting to respect your opinions... ;-)

Leave things the way they are... Marriage is not in the equation... Google Biology 101.... "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:31 PM:

" amigo I think your last serious of posts explains to all who wondering what type of person you are.... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:33 PM:

" There are different forms of aggression, amigo. You have your gang-banger style aggression, for example. You have young men engaged in macho behavior that is nothing but destructive--likely the result of negligent parenting. These boys run the streets, and engage in sexual activity at an age well before they are mature and able to care for the consequences of their behavior. Make you all warm and proud to be an American, amigo?

On the other hand, you can have very masculine young men, who are, say, aggressive in sports, or even academically competitive. Parents who foster enlightenment, high academic standards, adventurousness (through, say, travel, or trying new foods or sports) also raise children who have good self control. These children are busy with enriching activities, school, church, etc. Even (especially?) children of gay couples.

And just because they're not running the streets and having sex at a very young age, doesn't mean they're abnormal or weak. Don't the abstinence programs teach this very concept, amigo?

I will agree that boys have been short-changed in our culture, and that they are naturally, on average, more agressive than girls, and this is not a crime. Boys should be expected to act like boys (across a spectrum of "normal") and be taught to exercise self-control, and accommodations should be made for the way they learn and grow.

However, one issue has nothing to do with the other here.

There are responsible same-sex couple parents, an there are responsible heterosexual parents, and then there is the opposite, sadly. "

pharper wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:36 PM:

" I didn't say that these young men have less of a desire for sex. I said they are less likely to engage in sexual activity at a young age. That's a GOOD thing. The Prop 8 people are also the anti-abortion people, and the fewer young people having sex, the fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions there are. That's a good thing. You don't want young women being promiscuous, do you? Why would you want men to be promiscuous? Aggression is not a good thing; it's what causes crime. It's what causes rape. You are aware that most people in prison are male, right? Personally, I'd love to see some men out there who aren't driven by anger or by some "top dog" mentality. People with the ability to reason are far more powerful than those who use aggression or brute strength. I'm not saying that aggression isn't occasionally a necessity, but to say that being less aggressive makes someone less of a man is just offensive to men who think with their brains and not their muscles. I think what’s important is for children to have a home where they are loved, cherished, and disciplined; the sex of their parents doesn’t matter, and the research shows it.

I don't see what the feminist movement has to do with the gay rights movement, unless we're talking about wanting equal rights for all. Amigo, you've not addressed a single well-substantiated fact. You continue to spew hate speech and speculation, rather than facts, citations, sources, or actual information, and you carefully avoid any questions that are addressed to you. I honestly don't know how some of your comments are allowed. "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:44 PM:

" steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:51 PM:
" Nope, Dwayne, you, too, are wrong."

So who made you judge and jury...???

My opinion differs from yours, but it's more than arrogant to declare me as "wrong"... That's the main problem with this proposition that's being shoved down everyone's throats... "Here it comes, whether you like it or not...!!!" Now THAT is what's wrong here... What childish behavior for a minority to get their way... It has created a backlash of resentment... "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:31 PM:
" amigo I think your last serious of posts explains to all who wondering what type of person you are.... "

Amigo is a respectable citizen who wants to live in a stable society, not some form of paganism that the Romans tried and failed.... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Dwayne, the subject at hand is sexual activity of boys.

Of COURSE the girls' parents play a vital role--if not more important. It is girls who bear physically and economically the brunt of irresponsible sexual activity, and for heaven's sake, I wish girls would be a little more protective of their roles in society as gate-keepers! We could do with fewer children born to single mothers who are not ready to provide the sort of stability and nurturing that children NEED and deserve. Unfortunately, THEIR mothers often are not the best role models, and so many girls don't know to build a nest before they lay the egg, or to demand men prove their worth before they allow access to their bodies. It's very, very sad for their babies.

But amigo was arguing about weak boys, and so we were talking about boys/young men. "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:33 PM:

" Oh, Dwayne, did I hurt your "feelings"?

Man-up, big guy.

We're debating. My opinion is my opinion. "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Steph, the subject at hand is,
"Let's vote no on Proposition 8"

The other stuff is just side bars it was mentioned...

In spite of what I read into your posts, girls are not victims of sex... You really gotta be kidding, right...???

Vote YES on Prop 8, and keep the sanity in our diminishing values as a society... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:23 PM:

" To say nothing of prop 8 proponents shoving their religion down MY throat.

I'm libertarian-minded, Dwayne. I'm not asking you to swallow anything or DO anything you don't want to do. Likewise, I expect you to keep your religion to yourself when it comes to imposing bigoted restrictions upon responsible adults. "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:31 PM:

" paganism?.....did I just make a wrong turn into the twilight zone? "

pharper wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:32 PM:

" It's not a double standard, Dwayne. The fewer young people having sex, the fewer unwanted pregnancies. It has nothing to do with blaming the boy; it happens that in this case we're talking about boys. Crying "feminism" whenever anyone mentions a boy's natural tendency to be more aggressive than a girl is ridiculous. However, the "boys will be boys" attitude is what the Taliban used in order to justify punishing a woman for being raped. People need to all adhere to the same laws and regulations regardless of sex...that's why passing Prop 8 is writing discrimination into the state constitution.

Feminists are not raging man-haters, no matter what kind of garbage you hear people spew, by the way. There's nothing wrong with feminism. "

funnyme wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:51 PM:

" So, IS a sexual encounter/activity/preference a behavior CHOICE or not?

I believe it's a choice (given by the circumstances or not), therefore like with any "choice" you may suffer or enjoy the consequences to you "choices".
Society and the law will dictate those consequences.

It applies both ways "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 5:42 PM:

" steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:23 PM:"....I expect you to keep your religion to yourself...."

You made a wrong turn somewhere... I have never mentioned or invoked religion in any of this discussion.... Never....

You are trying to deflect a valid argument by blowing smoke... Typical liberal fare, when you can't focus on the conversation...

My argument is about an immoral society... Did you think that's religion...??? "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Dwayne, please show me where I indicated that girls are victims of sex. In fact, I believe I indicated just the opposite, that too often they do not act responsibly.

What is immoral about two adults wanting to marry each other? How does that make for an immoral society, please, unless it's against your religion? "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:07 PM:

" Funnyme--

To answer your question, sometimes/sometimes/no.

And, I agree with you that actions have consequences, some good, some not so good.

Some societies impose unreasonable or unnaturally cruel consequences to behavior that is not immoral. The Taliban come to mind rather quickly. "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Dwayne, you do agree that heterosexual activity is more hazardous for women than it is for men, right? And so it behooves women to mind the consequences of their choices. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:29 PM:

" Pharper - "The children of homosexuals are statistically no more likely to identify as gay or bisexual than the children of straight couples, according to a NY Times article and a study done by a major university. "

Do you know why children don't "identify" as gay or bisexual no matter if the parents are homosexual?

Because it's not a choice you make. Just like I didn't one day make a decision that I am going to be heterosexual or left handed, it's not a choice, it's how you were born.

When those of the religious persuasion talk about "lifestyle" and "choice" with homosexuals they playing games. They have a good reason from their point of view. If god created everything and everyone then god created homosexuals as well. That they can't live with so they say it is a "choice" about a "lifestyle". "

pharper wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:05 PM:

" I agree with you. I was using the language used in the article--when they gave the findings of the studies, they said "identify," so that's what I used. Thank you for bringing it up, though. :) Like I said, most people know from a very early age that they are gay or straight. My point is that these people seem convinced that having homosexual parents will somehow "turn" the children. These children are no more likely to "turn" gay or to be gay than any other children. There's no gay lifestyle or agenda, I'm well aware of that. My best friend in the entire world (he also happens to be my cousin) is gay. "

msdemo wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:13 PM:

" I remember when Dr. Joyce Brothers said that those men who protest the most about gay behavior have problems with their own feelings. Menwho are sure of who they are do not fear people who are different.

I can't see why the big deal about 2 people who love each other being joined. Call it what you want.

And if I want to marry "my garden hose", what business is that of anyone and who does it hurt!

You know if 8 is approved, it will just go back to the courts because it is a civil rights issue. Also no one can be cured of this, it is something that happens before birth! Have you ever considered that it might be "God's way" of controlling the population!

Frankly I don't understand kind Christian people forcing their beliefs on others. "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:38 PM:

" Okay Steph, I get it.....

You think morality and religion are the same... (sigh) There's clearly something that you don't understand, or you are spinning a different subject to distract from the meat of the discussion...

I wasn't trying to change your mind, just stating my opinion, and don't appreciate having it twisted or spun for you to demean it for your own purpose...

You win...I'm done...We stand as we were... "

funnyme wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:55 PM:

" steph,
...not immoral...it will certainly be in the eyes of the beholder.
To stay with your example of the Taliban (extreme muslims, correct?) which are "a lot of them" (forgive me if I don't know how many) consider "western customs and behaviors" immoral.
Does that make our lifestyle and religion immoral? No. To us.

Do we deserve"unreasonable or unnaturally cruel consequences to behavior that is not immoral"?

No.

Are homosexuals immoral? I am sure a lot of them are (just like a lot of the heterosexuals are. Bill Clinton comes to mind, rather quickly). Sometimes I listen to a SF radio station where the two hosts are disgustingly immoral and give some of the decent gays a bad name, in my opinion. Do I have to accept their behavior as normal in name of diversity. No, I don't! Do I ever hear a gay bashing their behavior? I haven't. But again, when they start with vulgarities I change the station. I don't force them to change to fit my morals.

Heterosexual activity hazardous for women more than men? How so?
Please explain to me how is it that I am at risk? "

Dwayne wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:04 PM:

" steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 6:10 PM:
" Dwayne, you do agree that heterosexual activity is more hazardous for women than it is for men, right? And so it behooves women to mind the consequences of their choices. "

No... AIDS is rampant among men in San Francisco, not women.... "

Raven wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:40 PM:

" take off your blinders dwayne...it is rampant among all sexes... "

steph wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Dwayne--
I don't think religion and morality are the same. I have heard from religious people the belief that only religious people can be moral, and I disagree.

I beg your pardon for accusing you of religious bias, when apparently you are not religious.

Pray tell then, WHAT is immoral about homosexuals marrying one another? I was presumptuous, but I have not heard you defend the immorality of homosexuality--it is always a religious argument. Maybe you have something new for me to consider. How are my friends--who've been faithful to one another for years--how are they immoral, or why would it be immoral for them to be married to one another?

I will agree with you that promiscuity is immoral, as it often leads to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and/or unwanted pregnancies. I believe it is soul-less behavior, whether hetero- or homosexual.

On the subject of the hazards of sexual activity, women can (and do) become pregnant (men cannot), which is a dangerous and expensive condition. Some sexually transmitted diseases are more dangerous for women--HPV, for example, which is the cause of cervical cancer. Now, obviously, women in monogamous relationships (funnyme?) are at far decreased risk (assuming their partners are truthfully faithful), and if they practice effective birth control, and so it's optimal to teach young women of the benefits of being selective, of having high standards, and of being monogamous.

Come on--you knew that, right? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:24 PM:

" Yes, vote NO on 8. Prop 8 will not protect marriage, as it claims. It will not restore marriage. It will only prevent marriage for many who are in love.

And our society is better off if our people can create happy and loving marriages.

Rather than worry about same-sex couples getting married, work on improving those heterosexual marriages that are messed up and worse. Restore marriage by making it work for the people it serves, not by restricting access to it. "

amigo wrote on Oct 18, 2008 6:29 AM:

" Lets face some reality here!
this gay movement is gaining momentum and has joined forces with the feminist. They seek to destroy masculinity and redefined the moderm man as something that he has never been and was not designed to be.
The gloves are off and the movement will use any psycological means to gain a stronghold.
Lets vote yes on 8 and lets free the boys. Let them grow up to be strong men. A generation as great as the ones that built this country, made vast advances in science and medicine, and invented the football. barbeque, and remote control.
Vote yes on 8 its freedom!!! "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Oct 18, 2008 10:57 AM:

" I had to look at the basic facts before deciding.

The "moral issue": Will prohibiting marriage deter same sex relationships? Nope. People are going to play house with whomever they please. Gays know that some people object to their lifestyle, so "sending a message" with Prop 8 will have little, if any, effect on a "society of diminishing values".

The "child issue": It takes more than just two adults to raise a child. I think, the more adults the better. Human nature is an incredible thing, and I feel that children will seek out the masculinity or femininity that they need from all the family around them. I believe that there's more trauma from just a single adult in a household than two of the same sex. Kids aren't stupid, they figure out homosexuality regardless if it's taught to them or not.

The "religion issue": Fair and square, if homosexuality raises religious problems for you, then by all means you deserve to vote in a manner that will provide you with religious comfort. Myself? I believe that modern religion is extremely messed up, and even though I'm spiritual and believe in God I don't participate in any of it.

The "rights issue": It's true, once the lawmakers find out that they can pass laws that infringe on individual's rights they will be all over it. Smokers: Illegal to smoke in your own home, even if you live alone. Have to go outside, it's morally right to consider the health of others. Teen drivers: Raise the age limit to 21, prevent teen accidents. It's morally right to protect our children. You get the idea.

So, after considering both sides, and respectfully reading all of your opinions, I would have to vote NO on Prop 8. "

Rocco wrote on Oct 18, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Here’s a different angle…Give the term “marriage” back to the churches that view it as a sacrament and get the government out of our bedrooms. Every domestic partnership should be just that, a legal “domestic partnership.” I don’t want the growing government to think it needs to define the relationship I have with my partner. And what ever gender my partner is none of your d__n business! On the other hand, I’ll still vote yes on 8 if for no other reason than my distrust of militant liberals that try to control the language. Not every bath is a baptism…not every meal is a communion… and not every romp in the hay is a “marriage.” Yes on 8 for now, and then let’s all move to make sure that any domestic partnership is treated fairly and equally. "

napascot wrote on Oct 18, 2008 12:06 PM:

" amigo,

are you for real?????????????

what was the point of your last comment "

steph wrote on Oct 18, 2008 12:49 PM:

" Rocco!

Your partner is very beautiful, by the way... ;)

Are you going to give more power to a couple of churches to decide the future of your personal liberties?

NOT me.

While I completely understand your mistrust of militant liberals, this is an issue that removes government intrusion of the type they favor, oddly enough.

MarshaMarsha--knuckle bump to you. How reasonable! "

steph wrote on Oct 18, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Hey, amigo--
This will blow your mind:

Ruff calls me a Bush apologist, Dwayne calls me a liberal. I've joined forces with the emasculating feminists on this issue, AND. One of my sons just got his hunting license. For real!
My other son just finished a football game this morning (we won.) The other one--well, he took his PSAT test this morning, so I'll give you that one--so feminist of us to have our son take a test. (Typical gay agenda. Pssht!)

Anyway, sometimes the little pegs don't fit, you know?

Did I tell you about my new gay friend, the one who was chased by a lion in Africa while on safari? He lived to tell. You'd never know he is gay--he's very masculine and successful. Not that it matters either way.

Blinders can help with confusion and anxiety--they work for horses, anyway. "

winemd wrote on Oct 18, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Marsha, Marsha, I agree with you, and for the same basic reasons, I will vote against this measure, even though some of the opponents are being as militant and intolerant as the supporters, which I don't like from either side. Although I think the idea of the state issuing only domestic partner licenses appeals to me, if for nothing else than to keep the emotional aspects out of the equation when it comes to state government. "

musikluvr wrote on Oct 18, 2008 5:22 PM:

" The evidence is that traditional families have evolved over 5,000,000 years. If same-sex couples want to stick around awhile and prove they can create a tradition then, maybe we can consider it. What's the hurry? "

Raven wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:34 AM:

" 5 millions year eh, musiklover...interesting take on the length of time human beings, as modern human beings, have been around considerably less time than that...and we have no way of know what family structure was like before recorded history, which shrink the time even more....a little creative anthropology? "

jpcrash wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:43 AM:

" pharper stated that being gay is not a choice. Then what is it..genetic? Was it learned by the persons environment? Does that mean sexual predators perhaps don't have a choice and they were genetically cursed? Should we allow sexual predators to do what they want to do simply because they can't help it? "

Raven wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:04 AM:

" apples and oranges, jp and you know that...there is no connection because of one simple fact...being a sexual predator is illegal...period...no right involved in being one, no rights denied ....unless you are intimating homosexuals are sexual predators....(btw, studies show that most sexual predators are heterosexual) "

007WYNWM wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Yes on 8 why beacuse Obama Biden McCain Palin are all against Gay Marraige read it yourself and watch the Debates. "

4gnapan wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:43 AM:

" I seem to remember a finding that homosexuality was linked to genetics, quite some time back.

Sexual Predation crosses all boundaries, Sociopaths come in all flavors, and have absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

No on 8, No on Hate. "

ReneeFannin wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:01 AM:

" All of this "liberal agenda" stuff you speak of sounds a bit ignorant. As gay people we cross parties. We are Republicans, Democrats and Independents etc. You talk as if you can stop us from being openly gay and from raising children. You can't. Prop 8 won't do that, even if it passes. We are raising children and have been for an entire generation plus now. Our kids are healthy and well adjusted. The arguments of the discriminators are getting weaker and weaker as more people are seeing that being gay is as incidental as the color of someone's hair. It has no effect on character or personality. Whether Prop 8 passes or not, we will still be married. Many of us have already been married in our churches years ago. We desperately want our civil rights and as of today our courts have ruled that we have them. If women had to wait for the popular vote for our rights, we still wouldn't have them. If slavery had to wait for the popular vote, the practice might still exist. That's why we have a Constitution. That Constitution is clear. We have the right to marry. Please don't alter it and please stop trying to take away our civil rights. It will accomplish little for you. We will still live next door. Our kids will still go to school with your kids and our families will still sit next to yours in church. We might even drink from the same water fountain if you aren't careful.:-) Our marriage will not threaten yours. Please Vote No on Prop 8. Keep our California Constitution intact and try to have conversations that combat the lies and ignorance every chance you get. "

pharper wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:47 AM:

" It is not genetic, as far as evidence suggests. However, it is something that people are born with inherently. I suggest the documentary” For the Bible Tells Me So” for the scientific information and citations (you can also find the cartoon with the science in it on youtube). However, there are many factors which contribute to it. A younger son with older brothers is more likely to be gay than the oldest boy, for example. There are scores of factors that "make" a person gay, but no one chooses it. Some choose to "experiment" with relationships or sexual encounters with the same sex, of course, but that doesn't mean they're choosing to be gay.

The difference between a sexual predator and a gay person is vast. A sexual predator harms others. A gay person harms no one simply by being gay or having consensual sex with another person. The term sexual rpedator itself implies that this person has done harm to another and plans to do it again, or has at least considered harming them. Being gay is, in and of itself, not harmful to anyone. There are "bad" gay people and "good" gay people, just like there are "bad" straight people and "good straight people. Being gay does not somehow make you a different kind of person. You're just another person who happens to be sexually and romantically attracted to people of the same sex. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:15 PM:

" jpcrash, your logic is flawed. According to that logic, if being gay were a choice, then all sexuality is a choice. Meaning that you yourself were faced with all types of sexual feelings and had to decide at one point in your life what you really wanted. Is this true?

Sex is an instinc of reproduction for survival of a species. It is not yet known why certain males and females desire sexual relations with the same gender. Could be genetic, environmental, psychological, any number of things or even a combination.

Homosexual relationships are between consenting adults. Sexual predation involves a perpetrator and a victim. Two COMPLETELY different situations. To compare them is absolutely ignorant. "

winemd wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Many heterosexuals have occasional thoughts, fantasies or dreams that are homosexual in nature. Do homosexuals have occasional heterosexual thoughts, etc. (I really don't know the answer to this, but I would think so)? I would say there is a continuum of sexuality and a continuum of action on those thoughts, fantasies, etc. To that extent, sexuality is a predilection for everyone, if not exactly a choice and not consciously made. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:34 PM:

" Living in California has really blinded liberals from the reality of the world. Imagine being a child of gays in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Thailand, Russia, Georgia, Montana or any other geographic location not slammed by a perverse minority who believe all other values, other than their own, have no meaning.

This minority stands on a pedestal of 'equality' and 'rights' while disregarding the moral objectives and values that generation after generation of humanity has held sacred from one end of the earth to another.

I'm voting as 95% of the world would vote: YES on 8. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:39 AM:

" There ya go, Paddy! Throw in a bunch of 3rd-World countries, some former Monarchies, and a remote state where folks flee to "get away from society" and compare them to one of the most diverse places on Earth. That'll confuse 'em!!!

95% of the world, eh? Have you checked the gay marriage laws in South Africa, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Spain lately? How about our neighbor to the north, Canada?

Looks like a fairly good size percentage of the world has already voted to oppose you, Paddy. "

loneranger wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:00 AM:

" It seems to me that many of the proponents of Prop 8 are attributing many social programs to this one proposition. I can't see how withdrawing rights from some folks who under our pledge of allegiance are given the right to “justice for all” will make any difference in my marriage or how I chose to raise my kids. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Marsha - call it Pangea and Gondwana... it's a global, pre-historic and historic evolution of beliefs and faiths that have established the majority perspective that gay relations (much less gay marriage) is inherently wrong. If this had been adopted thousands of years ago the human race would possibly be extinct at this point.

As far as the few countries that recognize gay marriage it means nothing. Again, it's a small minority in these countries that have slammed the majority with their dogma of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender rights at the expense of morality of the majority (not to be confused with the Moral Majority). "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Paddy, homosexuality is inherent, as is heterosexuality. It's an oxymoron to say it's inherently wrong. We are all individuals and whatever makes one an individual does not define another. What is wrong with you being able to marry who yo are inherently attracted to and your neighbor the right to marry who they are inherently attracted to. The law must allow for all Americans rights, as they relate to their inherent traits, not just the majority's. Hence the equal rights arguments of opponents to this proposition as opposed to what seems to be the proponents argument - equality only to the majority. "

elb wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:14 PM:

" srnitnw,

I would suggest that just because someone has a propensity toward something doesn't necessarily make that inclination a good or right thing to act upon.

In fact, for someone who has a propensity toward molesting children, their choosing to satisfy or deny that inclination makes all the difference in the life of that unsuspecting child.

As for the person who has an insatiable appetite for stealing... Just because they seem to have been born with this impulsive behavior doesn't suddenly make it less illegal or suddenly an acceptable behavior in society.

Do we suddenly change the rules for someone who seems unable to control their inclinations? I think not.

Likewise, I do believe that certain people may have a propensity toward homosexual behavior, but that doesn't suddenly make that behavior right.

The bottom line is that in the end, each person still has a choice to act upon or ignore their certain inclinations, therefore engaging in homosexual activities is, in my book, regardless of how intense the propensity is toward such behavior, still a choice.

VOTE YES on 8, and restore the definition of marriage as it has existed since the beginning of time, not just since the constitution of the United States of America was written. "

MarshaMarsha wrote on Oct 20, 2008 5:50 PM:

" Paddy, elb, I have no response.

I'm going to go watch the dogs sniff each other's behinds and bark at each other through the fence.

I find it much more stimulating. "

Raven wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:31 PM:

" oh jeez...since the beginning of time.....?..... "

elb wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Yes Raven, "since the beginning of time..."

You see, I believe that our Creator is the one who has defined marriage to be between one man and one woman and since our Creator is, Himself outside of time as we know it, then His design is also.

Therefore, I stand firm on my opinion that marriage has been defined for us since the beginning of time to be between one man and one woman. "

Raven wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:51 PM:

" have you taken a close look at the varieties of marriage in the Old Testament?...which one was created at the beginning of time?

Don't think Abraham would fit into your definition....

and you have know trouble than imposing your religious beliefs upon those who don't subscribe to them....are you ready for the reverse to be done to you if you set this precedent, because once you start stripping away rights....it rarely stops with just one group... "

Raven wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:51 PM:

" can you show me the section of the Bible.....that makes that definition? "

elb wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Sure Raven,

First let me say that the Holy Bible has much to say on the subject of marriage. There is a theme of marriage between one man and one woman that runs consistently throughout the texts, but with limited space (And the fact that you did not ask for a sermon) I will share the original account.

In Genesis 2:18 We read that God said, referring to Adam whom He had created; "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper.

Then we read a little later in that same book that God did indeed make Adam a helper who was a "woman" not another man.

Genesis 2:23 "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man."

Then we read right after vs. 23 God's design for marriage:

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

We can see here in Genesis that God says that man will leave his father and mother (not his father and father or his mother and mother) and that he will cleave unto his wife (Not another man). "

Paddy wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:41 PM:

" Marsha - I've often wondered where you get your revelations. Makes sense now. "

my name here wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:09 PM:

" Yes, elb, it says that man shall cleave unto his wife. In Biblical times "cleave" meant "to penetrate". Today, "cleave" means "to split or cut with a sharp instrument". It all depends on the interpretation, doesn't it? Funny how you can skew most anything to mean what you want. You go with that. "

Sharon wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Everyone keeps saying we need seperate words. IT seems to me there already is. I remember reading in my mom's big old Catholic Bible about the sacraments. Marriage was not used in there. It was called the Sacrament of Matrimony. I also remember hearing in wedding at a church that started out as "We are gathered here to celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony"...In all of the civil unions I have witnessed It starts out with "We are gathered here to witness this marriage". Also anyone getting married must get a Marriage licence from the county. You can get a ceremonial Matrimony Certificate from your church but your marriage is not legal until you get your marriage licence signed by a person certified to perform a legal and binding ceremony. "

localmomma wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:31 AM:

" It is sad that people really think that Prop 8 is out there to protect children. Are you people serious?! Its the people that arent okay with people loving who they want to love and want to marry those people, who are blowing this prop out of the water.

Protect the RIGHTS that the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, & Transgender! Hetrosexual people are allowed to marry anyone they want, how is a Gay Marriage any different?

Why dont the people that are so bent out of shape take to GOOD look at a Lesbian or Gay couple and I bet you that they are more loved than a Hetro couple that the Hubby is having an affair with a Man. Or better Yet, the Woman is having an affair with a Woman!

Get overselves!

NO ON PROP 8! "

ReneeFannin wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Let's try to stop the all of the hateful words......WE MUST JUST CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THE "CHRISTIANS" WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR CIVIL RIGHTS TO MARRY AND WHO CONTINUE TO TRY TO PUSH US AND OUR CHILDREN DOWN THROUGH SUPPRESSION OF EQUAL RIGHTS....THEY DO THESE EVIL ACTS IN THE NAME OF GOD- WHICH MAKES IT ALL THE MORE DISGRACEFUL.THEY NEED OUR PRAYERS...THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. PRAY FOR THEM, TALK TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW....AND MOST IMPORTANTLY VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8. "

indian_pride wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:28 PM:

" It's sad to see history repeat itself... All of the arguments in this forum against gay marriage have been seen 50-100 years ago:
-it's unnatural
-it goes against the church
-it will damage the children
-it will degrade society

Back then, all of these arguments were used to convince people that interracial marriage was wrong (illegal in fact and subject to imprisonment, public ridicule and in some cases death). Well, guess what folks?
Interracial marriage was legalized and did the world fall apart? No.
Are children with mixed-race parents damaged or disenfranchised in any general way? No.
Is anyone uncomfortable having to explain to their 5 yr old why Jonny's mom is black and his dad is white? I hope not.
Do churches now have any objection to interracial marriage? No.
In fact, does ANYONE still object to interracial marriage? I hope not.

Yet here we are spreading the same fear and ignorance about same-sex marriage and its possible impacts on society.
Why is love such a difficult concept to grasp when it doesn't apply to you? Be happy in your marriage and allow others to do the same, so we can tackle REAL problems in this country. "

Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:33 PM:

" so, elph...then Abraham was not following God's laws regarding marriage... "

Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:34 PM:

" sorry.....elb....not elph..... "

elb wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:28 PM:

" Raven, It's okay. I've been called an elf before. My ears are actually pretty pointy.

Wow! I'll try this in less than 300 but it'll be hard. :-)

The account of Adam and Eve describes God's intended design for marriage while in the state of perfection.

The polygamy we read of later in Scripture is of course after the fall of mankind, (Adam and Eve having eaten from that famous tree.)

After the fall, and sin having entered in, producing as a result a slow and steady decay of mankind and society, we eventually come to a world full of sickness and war and famine in which to contend.

Though the Bible doesn't seem to be clear why God may have allowed polygamy in the early years it has been suggested by historians that in this patriarchal society where women were simply unable to support themselves and were often left with horrific alternatives for survival like prostitution and begging... God may have allowed polygamy as a way to help offset the result of man's downfall.

It has also been suggested that God may have allowed polygamy as a means to fulfill the command to "Be fruitful and multiply."

I tend to think that God is pretty skilled at multi-tasking and was probably covering more than one base while allowing for a time this thing called polygamy, even though it was, as we can see in the beginning, never His intended plan for marriage. "

elb wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:12 PM:

" Raven, I thought this text from the Book of Matthew Chapter 19 verses 3-9 might help answer your question about God's design verses what God might allow for a time.

Here we see Jesus is answering the Pharisees who were at the time living out of the law of the Old Testament to which you and I have been speaking thus far.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” "

steph wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:50 PM:

" Permitted you to divorce your wiVES, but from the beginning it was not so.

Well there you go.

Polygamy is allowed--nay, encouraged--by the Bible.

I better not tell my husband. On the other hand, I could use some help around the house. "

Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:06 PM:

" despite all that how do you really know what God means for marriage if she allows one of her prophets, and as I recall didn't David, Solomon and others to have multiple wives/concubines... the joys of polygamy...

and just one thing, if she can change her mind on polygamy how do you know she hasn't changed her mind and decided marriage is something she wants all her people to enjoy, gay or straight? "

Jose wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:35 AM:

" Same sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Connecticut, Massachussetts and California, and recognized in Israel. So what? "

Jose wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:38 AM:

" No matter if (homo) sexual orientation is a choice or not. The ethical issue is that DO NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE. "

Jose wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:44 AM:

" "Protect children? Another misleading argument! Who can prove that equality on marriage will "oblige" state to recognizing adoption by same sex married couples? "

elb wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:58 AM:

" Raven, I knew where you were going with your line of questioning and God is clear on the subject of divorce, He said, "In the beginning it was not so, but because of the hardness of your hearts it was permitted." Then he gives them adultery as the only legitimate grounds for divorce. God is quite clear on this.

As for polygamy God did not change His mind regarding his original design, we, being sinners went on and did our own thing just as we do today. He allows us to wallow in our own self-made miseries, because we are stepping outside of God's design.

Those men who had multiple wives in Scripture, if you read their stories you will see that they suffered a great deal while managing such large households. Having that many wives does NOT come without consequence and God allowed them to suffer those consequences too.

As for Homosexuality, The Old Testament and the New Testament speak boldly against this so it no longer becomes an "option" so to speak for some later thinking along the lines of, "Well, maybe God will allow homosexuality today because things are different?"

I've read your posts on Prop 8 and abortion, even so I'm pretty sure you and I won't agree on any of this, but I do appreciate the time you afforded me to share some of what God has had to say on the subjects at hand.

Blessings "

elb wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Steph,

Those verses were on the subject of divorce, not polygamy. I used them to show that God does indeed have a design and man continues to step outside the boundaries of that design.

Sometimes God allows us to do this and suffer our own self-made consequences, other times He states very boldly, "DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!" (That was a paraphrase, of course) As in the case with homosexuality.

You see, you forgot a very critical part of that verse and that is, "Because of the hardness of our hearts Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, But in the beginning (God's design) it was not so.

Those people were in a state of sin and would not budge. A hard heart is never an indication that all is well. "

savetycoon wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:17 AM:

" this is the way i see it..
people, even if your not gay, or lesbian.. vote no on prop 8. EVERYONE in the world deserves the equal right to get married.. so then they will be treated equally to get a divorce.. everyone is intitled to go through that hell.. let them if they want.. their marriage doesn't affect mine.. and we shouldn't be the one to play god on their lifes..

just don't allow our children to go watch them get married.. now that is Ridiculous.! "

Raven wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:18 AM:

" actually elb, divorce was the furthest thing from my mind ...never mentioned and had no intention....so you might reexamine your crystal ball....

the point is...while you may be certain that your god has designed this...what about those who do not subscribe to your beliefs...you feel confident is imposing your brand of theology upon them....?

and a hard heart is apparently only a bad thing if people refuse to acknowledge your beliefs...and not if you refuse to acknowledge or tolerant someone else's.. "

elb wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Raven, no one said you had to subscribe to the same beliefs. You're the one who asked the questions about Scripture. I answered as best I could.

As far as the subject of divorce is concerned... I did not suggest that divorce was the crux of your inquiry. I merely used the example of divorce in Scripture to show you what Jesus said about "God's design" versus "Man's rebellion" against that design. The like can be considered when we look at homosexuality.

It has been suggested by some that God maybe didn't condone homosexuality a long time ago, but that He might today because, well, "times have changed."

Not so, says Scripture. That was my point. But as I also said, it is clear from posts past that you and I are not going to agree on this matter so lets both just be thankful for our freedom to vote our conscience.

Good day to you and yours. "

Raven wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:19 PM:

" so you say scripture, once3 written, is set in stone...how do you decide then what parts of scripture to follow and what parts you don't? and what parts do you not follow? "

amigo wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:51 PM:

" From spirtual faith to spirtual bondage in 1 generation.

Have you people lost your will to survive?

How can this gay juggernaut strongarm your thoughts so easily?

Come on people vote yes on 8.

For petes sake go to the zoo and take a look at the animals.Then tell me how many gay tigers last more than 1 generation "

indian_pride wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:03 PM:

" elb, I realize it's difficult (due to its wealth of proven facts and rational storylines) but please leave the Bible out of this argument. "

mytwocents wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Dwaye sadi...No... AIDS is rampant among men in San Francisco, not women.... " What??? HIV as a virus holds no boundries.We are all susceptible to viruses. I am voting No on Prop 8, it's up to the individuals if they want to marry, not me. What's next a law stating we must all be Christians? "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:43 PM:

" No on 8.. Let them eat cake! "

amigo wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Yes on 8... And still have some cake. Mabye chocolate or carrot cake "

srnitnw wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:34 PM:

" 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. "

amigo wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:32 PM:

" srnitnw: way to go keep speading that propaganda you got off the gay mafia website "

Raven wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:35 PM:

" quick amigo...can you give us the address for the gay mafia web site so we can all join? "

steph wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:17 PM:

" Right on, srnitnw.
Great read! "

John Richards wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:32 PM:

" pharper wrote: "A gay person harms no one simply by being gay or having consensual sex with another person."
Then explain to me why the incidence of HIV/AIDS among gays in San Francisco is much higher than among equivalent heterosexual populations in this country? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:46 PM:

" Homosexuality is not just an attraction for members of the same gender. Let me give you an example. Before it became fashionable for gays to 'come out of the closet' there were many instances of gay men married to women, and even fathering children with those women. How can that be if you have no attraction towards the opposite sex? If the tables were turned, it would be impossible for me as a heterosexual to 'perform' with another man. The very thought is abhorrent to me. "

pharper wrote on Oct 26, 2008 1:03 AM:

" That is completely obtuse, JR. It is not simply being gay that spreads AIDS; that's an ignorant assumption. Due to a lack of information about it and a stigma on discussing it, the spreading of AIDS is higher among homosexuals. It has nothing to do with being gay or relations between gay couples. It has to do with too little information and education among the gay community about the spread of AIDS--most information about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is targeted towards heterosexuals. Being gay does not mean a person has AIDS, and it certainly doesn't mean they will be spreading it or practicing unsafe sex. Like I said, being gay in and of itself has NO adverse effect on other people--certainly not you.

What about murder? More murders are committed by men than by women. Does that mean that men are murderers?

I'm not sure how much you know about human male anatomy, but certain reactions can be induced without any kind of physical attraction to another person. Before it was "fashionable" (what a horrible term to use for it; it's not "fashionable" even now--people have just learned to be tolerant) people did not have the option of coming out. A marriage, 2.5 kids, and a house in the suburbs were expected--breaking from that norm could result in the loss of a job, family, a home, and in extreme cases, life. I'm sure if your entire life (and the lives and reputations of your loved ones) depended on pretending to be something you weren't, you could do it. I’m sure you never chose to be heterosexual or to lead a heterosexual “lifestyle.” Would you say that there is even a heterosexual lifestyle? If there’s a homosexual one, there must certainly be a heterosexual one, right? "

pharper wrote on Oct 26, 2008 1:04 AM:

" To clarify: I stand by my point about the lack of information being the cause of the higher spread of AIDS among the gay community. My murder analogy was a poor one; I mean to say that one cannot generalize a section of the population based on individual actions, cases, or circumstances, particularly without knowing the facts. "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:03 AM:

" no one is asking you to perform with another man JR....and do you really want a biology lesson on how a gay man can father a child? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 26, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Raven wrote: "no one is asking you to perform with another man JR....and do you really want a biology lesson on how a gay man can father a child? "

You missed my point. The biology of it is not significant. What is significant that a gay man can achieve sufficient desire to have sex with a person of the opposite gender at the drop of a hat, yet a heterosexual male (for the most part) would not be so inclined. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 26, 2008 12:54 PM:

" pharper wrote: "I stand by my point about the lack of information being the cause of the higher spread of AIDS among the gay community."

I don't buy it. Why would gays (who as a class are better educated and more affluent) have less knowledge about HIV/AIDS then heterosexuals?. I'm sure the opposite is true. "

pharper wrote on Oct 26, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Not true, actually. Sexuality is highly fluid; perhaps you yourself cannot see yourself doing it, but most people can find some kind of attraction to someone of the sex they are not typically attracted to. If you've ever heard of the Kinsey Scale, you’ll know that sexuality is not set in stone. There are almost no people who are exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual and who could not ever be attracted to the same or opposite sex. As well, certain physical reactions do not require physical attraction to that person, and the rest of it is easy to fake. Most heterosexuals have never been in a position where their lives, careers, or families depended on their pretending to be homosexual. Again, I say that if your life or the lives of those you loved depended on your being homosexual, I'm sure you could do it.

I don't mean that general education is scarce among the gay population. But I'm sure you're well aware that most information about STDs is targeted towards heterosexuals. Because of this, the homosexual community is largely uninformed about the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs and how it can be prevented. I advise you to look up general information about HIV/AIDS. You'd be surprised to find that, although some sources do mention homosexuality, most of the information targets heterosexual couples or individuals.

The point here is that homosexuality does not harm anyone. Aspects of being homosexual don't harm anyone either, if safe sex is practiced with a consenting, of-age partner. Being gay and having AIDS have no correlation or relationship. "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Exactly j.r..

AIDS is rampant among homosexuals.
You cant deny the facts

Pharper how can you not see these common sense connections? "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 4:08 PM:

" omg i cannot believe your last post pharper. Im at a lost for words "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 6:12 PM:

" pharper says: The point here is that homosexuality does not harm anyone.

Pharper have you ever heard of N.A.M.B.L.A.? "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 6:32 PM:

" amigo, NAMBLA has nothing to do with prop 8 and what pharper was talking about and you know it...we are talking about consenting adults.... "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 7:58 PM:

" Raven are you aware that teen sex happens everyday in america.

Are gay teens consenting adults?
Do they not have sex? "

pharper wrote on Oct 26, 2008 8:04 PM:

" NAMBLA is in NO way related to homosexuality. Those men are pedophiles, and completely incomparable to homosexuality. How completely obtuse and offensive for you to even suggest such a thing. Clearly you have not done your research. "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 8:59 PM:

" Pharper BTW iam not researching im just using my common sense.
My post are just my opinion and my opinion alone "

pharper wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:07 PM:

" Are heterosexual teens consenting adults? Do they not have sex?

Please. That argument is highly irrational. "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:10 PM:

" well for your info, amigo, unless the teens are 18 or 19 they are not consenting adults....but plenty of hetero and gay teens are having sex...and amigo...prop 8 will have no effect on that.... "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 10:48 PM:

" according to prop 8 website marriage is taught in 96% of california school even though it is not required.
So Jack Oconnel did if fact lie! He state that schools are not required to teach about marriage but in fact they do 96% of the time.
The California Department of Education’s own website says that 96 % of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Educ. Code Sec. 51930, et seq.) "

pharper wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:18 AM:

" According to the Prop 8 website? I'm sure that's reliable, unbiased information... "

amigo wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:42 AM:

" The California Department of Education’s own website says that 96 % of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Educ. Code Sec. 51930, et seq.) "

vot e on 8 "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:07 PM:

" amigio, if you dont want to hear the facts don't ask the questions....each school decides is they are providing the classes...and if they do, the state has guidelines they follow.....

and parents are given the option to have their child opt of of any classes that are provided....

and the Yes on Prop 8 web site is just a little bit biased.....call the napa school district and ask them what they provide "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:11 PM:

" my name here wrote "Yes, elb, it says that man shall cleave unto his wife. In Biblical times "cleave" meant "to penetrate". Today, "cleave" means "to split or cut with a sharp instrument". It all depends on the interpretation, doesn't it."

No, it doesn't. The Bible wasn't written in King James English. Genesis was written in Hebrew, and we have both early Hebrew manuscripts and Greek translations done approximately 400 B.C. We know for certain that the original Hebrew meaning in today's English is that a man shall be joined to his wife. What is so hard to understand about that? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Steph wrote: "Polygamy is allowed--nay, encouraged--by the Bible."
Chapter and verse, please.
I've read the whole Bible through many times, and I don't see where polygamy was ever encouraged by God. I do see the Bible reciting many stories about sinful men committing many sins. That does not mean endorsement. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2008 8:52 PM:

" indian_pride wrote:
"It's sad to see history repeat itself... All of the arguments in this forum against gay marriage have been seen 50-100 years ago."
Tell me, where in the Bible does it say that interracial marriage is wrong? Let me save you the trouble of looking. It doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, there are frequent occurrences of such events which appear to have been blessed by God. Read the story of Ruth, the Moabite widow who attracts the fancy of a Jewish farmer named Boaz. By contrast, the Bible has no such idyllic events involving same sex liaisons. On the contrary, the Bible is explicitly condemning of the latter.

You say history is repeating itself? Obviously not, since there are big differences. "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2008 9:07 PM:

" pharper, Raven, do you have evidence that much less than 96% of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health (etc.) Act?
Jack O'Connell is being grossly disingenuous when he says "Our schools aren't required ..." That may be correct as to the letter of the law, but he knows darn well that a large percentage of schools do teach on that subject, in which case they will be required to follow certain guidelines when teaching about marriage, opening up a can of worms! "

John Richards wrote on Oct 31, 2008 9:10 PM:

" Raven wrote "so you say scripture, once3 written, is set in stone...how do you decide then what parts of scripture to follow and what parts you don't?"

Very simple. Just read Acts 15:19-29. "

Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2008 6:23 AM:

" took a look at them I cannot see where it says you have a choice over which parts of the Bible you can follow...

for example, acts 15:19,
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

and ends with this..

We have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater than these essentials you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

and nothing in between says you can pick and choose that i can see....

and oh yeah..

O'Connell is correct... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 1, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Raven, I never said or implied that one can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. This was all brought up in the context of "You Christians are hypocrites because you don't stone adulterers like it says to do in the OT." One must always use the Bible to interpret the Bible. My reading of Acts 15 tells me that the apostles agreed that the Jewish OT laws were no longer applicable, except for three prohibitions (fornication, food sacrificed to idols, and consumption of blood).
I don't see what you are getting at.

And, just saying "O'Connell is correct" doesn't prove anything. I expected better from you. "

Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2008 8:58 PM:

" JR.....well I have looked at the web site and cannot see anything saying 96 percent of the state's schools are teaching marriage... 96 percent
refers to the number of schools in 2003 that CHOSE to provide
comprehensive sexual health education. It is optional, decided by each school district and then must follow state guidelines in what is taught....and here is what is required if they choose to teach it, according to the code...

EC Section 51933 requires that comprehensive sexual health education shall be age appropriate; medically accurate and objective; available on an equal basis to English language learners; appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds; and appropriate for and accessible to pupils with disabilities. This education shall encourage students to communicate with their parents or guardians about human sexuality and shall also teach respect for marriage and committed relationships. It shall not teach or promote religious doctrine nor reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by the non-discrimination policy codified in EC Section 220.

and I am getting at the fact that depending on what part the bible, which, last time I checked includes the new and the old testament, is used one can argue any number of sides of the same issue...and everyone seems to pick and choose the parts of both they follow...which then defeats that idea the bible is the last word on anything, much less the sole source of all that is moral and good in the word... "

John Richards wrote on Nov 1, 2008 10:51 PM:

" "...and everyone seems to pick and choose the parts of both they follow...which then defeats that idea the bible is the last word on anything, much less the sole source of all that is moral and good in the word... "

To be sure, there is lots of ignorance about what the Bible teaches, and how to use it to interpret the more difficult passages. Just like the U.S. Constitution has Amendments which modify or replace parts of the original document, so the Bible has later passages which modify or supersede previous teachings. We don't think less of our Constitution because it has amendments, so by the same token, there is no contradiction for similar Biblical 'amendments' (like Acts 15:19-29). Unsophisticated Christians often don't understand this concept. "

Raven wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:25 PM:

" and what about those of us who are not christians?

with all those individual variations, how can any of you be worshiping the same god?

maybe using the bible to justify stripping away some one's rights is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind by wanting a clear wall between the church and the govt..... "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: