What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
811 Comments
- poogy21, on 11/15/2008, -29/+275My honest thought about Gay Marriage; I don't particularly care for or against it. However, when I weigh both sides of the argument, one clearly does not measure up to the other. Here's why I voted NO on the ban for gay marriage:
1. Gay couples (married or not) do not impact my relationships in any way.
2. Traditional (in the religious sense of the word) marriages are no beacons of light
3. I wouldn't want anyone to tell me what to do in the bedroom and how it will effect my life.
4. Lastly, and most importantly I believe religion has it's place.. but I don't believe in preaching religion and I strongly oppose state and federal laws influenced by religion - for one clear reason.. YOUR RELIGION IS NOT MY RELIGION.
You see, I'm Jewish. And if the Mormon Church decided to ban marriage based on what THEY define as a valid marriage, then I have news for straight couples who voted to ban Gay Marriage: You are traveling down a dangerous road. Be careful who you chose to make your rules for you. - mobedda, on 11/15/2008, -37/+243If we don't get to vote them out of existence in return, then we get to tax them.
It's THAT simple. - StarThrower2, on 11/16/2008, -21/+209If churches want to get involved in political issues, then they should be deprived of their tax-exempt status.
- sgiffy, on 11/16/2008, -16/+177To quote Dan Savage: "When political attacks are launched from churches, political responses will be delivered to churches. If goddamned McDonald's had organized and paid for Prop 8, we'd be marching on goddamned McDonald's."
Calling your beleifs religion does not make them immune form attack. - Michael9636, on 11/15/2008, -25/+185Too all the Mormons who are asking, "Why are you picking on us? Catholics and others voted for Prop 8 too..." this article is the answer.
- Phylter, on 11/15/2008, -58/+185People in glass houses... They project their hate and show surprise that they've angered a LOT of people. Remove their tax exempt status for being a Political Action Committee and watch their horror... Boycott their *****, Marriott hotels for one.
Here we have a religion that is okay with pedophilia and polygamy marginalizing loving same sex couples. How ***** DARE they!
They've kicked a hornets nest wide open and show surprise at the result. Now they're pleading persecution for their beliefs, but it's okay for them to do it to others. THEY are the persecutors and are getting what they deserve. - StaticThunder, on 11/16/2008, -6/+71Those groups pay taxes. Mormon churches don't.
- StaticThunder, on 11/16/2008, -13/+72I don't think Christians should be allowed to marry. Half of their marriages end in divorce, and its bad for children of those couples. I can haz ballot proposition?
- poogy21, on 11/16/2008, -15/+65These minority groups, which are for the most part religious, were barraged by Anti-Gay propaganda, saying "Your kids will be forced to learn about gay marriages." - These campaigns were funded by the Mormon church.
So shame on those who voted for the ban. But I don't blame the ignorant. - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -10/+59That's obvious - they prevent gays from marrying.
- lohphat, on 11/17/2008, -8/+54Interesting quote:
"Whoever lives to see the Kingdom of God fully established upon the earth will see a government that will protect every person in his rights."
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses s.XXXI - 'Political Government'
How...ironic. - poogy21, on 11/15/2008, -24/+69I thought that read; "Morons tipped scale.. "
Oh, wait.. never mind. ;) - timmers0, on 11/17/2008, -33/+71I'm a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and an attorney. Most Mormons find the protests irritating but not that big a deal. In any event, free speech is an important right.
This debate isn’t about substantive rights: it’s about the word “marriage.” Under California law, same-sex couples can enter into "Civil Unions" which confer all the same rights as marriage under California law. (Family Code §297.5.) (But not under federal law, which is unaffected by California’s marriage laws.) All that is under dispute is whether same-sex couples can use the word “marriage” to describe their relationship.
Our perspective is this: using the word “marriage” to describe gay relationships will trigger numerous legal consequences that will eventually infringe on various civil liberties. Churches that refuse to perform gay marriages will find their tax exempt status threatened, adoption agencies that refuse to give children to same-sex couples will have to close, and as has happened in Canada and Sweden, those who say homosexuality is a sin may be threatened by hate crime laws. All of this has occurred already in some places, it will eventually occur in California. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
Moreover, in all honesty, we believe there is something special about the relationship between a man and a woman, and that the law should recognize that unique relationship by reserving the word “marriage” for traditional families. Any other definition confuses children and ignores the role that heterosexual couples play in creating the next generation of children.
As Elton John put it: "If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.” http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elt ...
Don't dig this down: it's important that people hear both sides. (I'm going to bed, I'll try to answer your responses tomorrow evening.)
May God bless you, even if you disagree. - TheBadWolf, on 11/17/2008, -25/+62God, I can't believe how many eighth graders on this website just discovered the Mormon/Moron joke. Seriously, people, it's been done to death.
I'm absolutely fine with the Mormons tipping the scale. Democracy is democracy, and the majority ruled. Should we be angry at Google or Apple for expressing their support for the No on 8 campaign? No, it's their right to say whatever the hell they want.
I did not support Proposition 8. I didn't vote on it, seeing as I'm not from California, but given the opportunity I would have voted no. Still, I'm not going to go up in arms against the people who voted yes (or supported the vote) just because I lost. It was an election. Everyone says how much they love democracy until a law they don't like is passed.
Oh, and can I add that the Catholic church, which is a hundred times bigger and has millions more members in California, also supported proposition 8? Sounds like they made much more of a difference than the Mormons ever could. - kolobcreek, on 11/17/2008, -5/+40Its amazing how those who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of all.
- TakeyMcTaker, on 11/17/2008, -13/+48I was raised Mormon, unfortunately. I wanted to pursue a degree in the Sciences, somewhere other than BYU, so I quit the church as soon as my parents couldn't force me to attend any longer. I was indoctrinated in their BS from birth, and they still didn't make any sense to me. I can't remember if it was the video they showed us about the robot grandmother, or the multi-cow valued stereotyped Polynesian bride, and the subsequent discussion about "biblical values in the film" that was the tipping point.
OK, now I remember. It was because they didn't allow my black friends in their churches until sometime during the late 70's or early 80's, and then they covered up the policy as if it was never part of their "doctrine". I think they substantiated it with some BS about Cain and Abel, or some-such idiocy. Kinda like how they substantiate their prejudice against homosexuals with their inane interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah now. Here's the basic fact I learned from growing up Mormon: if you're not one of them, they only care about you insofar as they can con you into joining their cult. That's true of many churches -- they're just the one I know best.
This is really ironic, because they formed their own State (Utah) just to get away from the traditional marriage definitions (2 consenting adults, no more) held in other states. They only stopped practicing polygamy officially when the Federal government forced it on them. They might not even have status as a tax-protected religion today if it wasn't for that change in "doctrine". Idiots. - CaptHuggyFace, on 11/17/2008, -5/+37The members of the church donated the money, and they are not tax exempt. Had the church donated the money, fine. But they didn't. There's a difference here that people in their blind rage are not seeing.
- okyourturn, on 11/17/2008, -12/+44mormons don't smoke, drink, or have anal sex. what DO they do for fun?!
- NorthMass, on 11/17/2008, -24/+55Digg tries to stop bigotry against gays, and in turn practices bigotry against anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, and automatically assumes that makes them a homophobe. Im against prop 8 btw, I am just sick of all the hatred against people who are for it.
- somnambulator, on 11/16/2008, -7/+35If charitable donations and tithes are tax deductible, why are religious institutions tax exempt? They have already benefited from one bite of the tax cherry.
- sanman, on 11/17/2008, -4/+31Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Homophobes
How recent was it that they stopped barring black people from membership? - geekwithsoul, on 11/17/2008, -4/+30And they funded most of the "Yes on Prop 8" propaganda -- you do the math. Largest single contributor (at $20 million).
And this from a group infamous for polygamy and pederasts - oboshoe, on 11/17/2008, -38/+64Oh noes! A bunch of people entitled to vote, voted
- digitronix, on 11/16/2008, -4/+30You're right. Once we start allowing the state to define what marriage is and allow them to regulate it, some people are going to suffer. The idea of marriage licensing has always been a bad idea, because it gives government power to prevent certain marriages, and it could eventually lead to horrible consequences, including religious people voting to ban certain unions. It isn't the religious people to blame (I fully support anybody voting on convictions, religious or not), it is the concept that government ought to license marriages.
- Teksaid, on 11/17/2008, -6/+31Technically I am Mormon. I was baptized in the church when i was 8 years old. Which is an agreement to follow the 10 commandments and to stay a member of the church until i have been excommunicated.
Personally I have considered myself an Atheist since around the age of 14 when I sat down and thought logically about it all. I am 18 now and this is enough reason for me to personally walk into the church and talk to the bishop and tell him I want out, then I will have to go through the process of being excommunicated, which I've heard is a lot more work then people think. - poogy21, on 11/16/2008, -4/+29What Values?!
- non00b, on 11/17/2008, -4/+29they wear magic underwear
- sonofblacula, on 11/17/2008, -1/+26Or, ya know....just stop showing up. They can't fine you or something.
- singleton, on 11/17/2008, -2/+27Thank God I live in California and not Utah.
- elo91, on 11/17/2008, -4/+28yeah well as far as most people are concerned, if you vote differently than me, your vote ought not to count because you're a big meanie stupid-face.
- sonofblacula, on 11/17/2008, -7/+31I agree. We need to bring marriage back to its traditional roots. I propose additions to the constitution outlining what dowry I am entitled to in exchange for my daughter, and how our family's land will be divvied up. And I've had it up to here with these damn kids choosing their own spouses. The proper way to arrange a marriage is to have two fathers agree contractually that their children will be married.
(By the way futo, Prop 8 and Amendment 2 in Florida do not allow gay civil union or marriage. Don't pretend that the religious right is okay with gay civil unions. They aren't really okay with gays existing, let alone receiving the legal perks that come with marriage) - o0joshua0o, on 11/17/2008, -1/+24They didn't stop barring black people from holding the priesthood until 1978!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church ...
It's strange that an omniscient Creator would need to change His mind... - superkendall, on 11/17/2008, -16/+38Prop 8 would never have passed without the increase in black voter turnout. No-one wants to talk about that though, they just want to hate on Mormons.
- Lhandroval, on 11/17/2008, -8/+30This conclusion, while convenient, isn't supported by analysis. From fivethirtyeight.com:
"At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two."
see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myth ... - Shipyaad, on 11/17/2008, -3/+25@mmclaurin:
Overwhelmingly? Really?
Yes on 8: 6,156,848 52.2%
No on 8: 5,646,170 47.8%
A difference of 510,678 votes. Hardly overwhelming.
Compare with Prop 22, back in 2000...
Yes: 4,618,673 61.4%
No: 2,909,370 38.6%
A difference of 1,709,303.
Somehow, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that prop 8 will survive through the next election. - lettruthout, on 11/16/2008, -3/+24Yes, exactly what values would those be? Hatred for minorities? Hypocrisy?
This seems like another sad case of an organization defending its ignorance at all costs. - staticoranges, on 11/17/2008, -3/+24But the Mormon church doesn't.
- linagee, on 11/17/2008, -1/+21Kind of like saying TV ads don't buy things, consumers do.
- seanmx, on 11/17/2008, -18/+38ignorance. "Here we have a religion that is okay with pedophilia and polygamy" read a little about something before you insult it. Thats like saying rich white people still own slaves. Just because something happened a long time ago, doesnt mean it still occurs. Polygamists are excommunicated from the LDS church and have no association with it. Get your facts straight because it only makes you look like a fool.
- staticoranges, on 11/17/2008, -1/+21Churches also brainwash people.
- brandita, on 11/16/2008, -25/+44They are just mad they can't have more than one wife.
- mrsteveman1, on 11/17/2008, -3/+22It isn't going to even survive court review, and they can review it in fact, because it attempts to revise equal protection.
- TakeyMcTaker, on 11/17/2008, -7/+25http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,155 ...
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/community/post ...
Words matter. Calling these consensual unions two separate things is the same as calling it "separate but equal". There is no such thing as "separate but equal" -- which already came up during Brown vs. The Board of Education. The main difference here is in how employers are allowed to treat the "terms" differently. If you are an employer that offers benefits to your employees' "spouses", all "spouses" should be treated equally. You shouldn't be allowed to treat a "spouse" differently because the government calls them a "partner" instead. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens right now, and the Mormons fought to keep it that way.
Also, if "marriage" is to be a term defined by government, then religious definitions have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, you are violating the Bill of Rights -- you're asking the government of state to endorse a set of religions (those that are against same-sex marriage) over others (those that permit same-sex marriage, which do exist).
Go ahead and call it "Civil Unions" for all I care -- just as long as everyone's Marriage gets re-worded equally, including yours and mine. I happen to be a Euro-mutt white male married to a black woman -- not too long ago that was not defined by the government not as "marriage" but "miscegenation". Your Marriage/Union is no more valid than mine, just because I don't believe in your religion, and just because my marriage was not recognized by government in prior generations. The problem is, you want the government to endorse the old term "marriage" for some, and a new term for others. That's just plainly not ethical, nor Constitutional.
If you're really a lawyer, you should know all that by now. - Squeeself, on 11/17/2008, -5/+23You sir, are a voice of reason in a sea of blubbering buffoons.
- mrsteveman1, on 11/17/2008, -3/+21"They see it as an assault on the church as the state saying, "I don't care what you believe or what your god says, you or someone else, will marry these individuals whether you like it or not.""
Religions have absolutely no say in the legal definition of marriage, which is entirely separate from religious marriage. If you don't understand the difference, it doesn't surprise me.
"This is not persecution, and there is no civil rights being taken away, and Christians don't really care what two people do in their own houses, but the majority of people of California have spoken, and the religion based worldview has won."
The california supreme court has recognized that marriage is a RIGHT. - ostracize, on 11/17/2008, -0/+18"It's strange that an omniscient Creator would need to change His mind... "
Apparently he was only kidding when he told Joseph Smith that polygamy was okay. - BlankVerse, on 11/16/2008, -8/+26It's a shame that the article didn't do more to point out the substantial support from California Catholic bishops.
Even though I was against Prop. 8, I think that there has been too much scapegoating of Mormons (and Black voters) on this issue. - Bith8654, on 11/17/2008, -1/+18Let me get this straight, you don't mind having to pay more money as long as gays can't get married? What are you so afraid of?
- TakeyMcTaker, on 11/17/2008, -1/+18Dugg for good quote. I wish I could digg more for it being a Dan Savage quote -- best advice writer ever.
- plbrntt, on 11/17/2008, -11/+28Hey TheBadWolf, this vote wasn't about funding a freeway or filling potholes. This was about taking away the civil rights of a class of people and making them 2nd class citizens in the state constitution.
Civil rights have never been granted by popular vote. Ever. They have been granted by representative government or by judges.
The scarier thing about this proposition is that it could be used to attack minorities again in the future. Civil rights should not be put to the popular vote in this country. Imagine if it were your rights up for a public vote. -
Show 51 - 100 of 833 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is