Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[Jaybear]

You wanted a person who had lost their job because of Voting for Prop 8.

Here was my point: if a law protects agaisnt discrimination against homosexuals, it will also protect agaisnt discrimination agaisnt Mormons.

Most antidescrimination laws offer protections based on race, religion and sex. A few also extend to sexual orientation. None that I am aware offer protection based on sexual orientation, but not religion.

So, can you (or anyone) explain how that fact, if true, would refute the point that I made. Jeff make a grand claim that it proves that I am wrong.

Then again, in the very same thread, Jeff is concerned that people who share his views on gays can get in trouble if they discriminating agaisnt homosexuals, and is also complaining that Mormons or those who share his views on gays by supporting prop 8 are the victims of discrimination by other.

[Jaybear]

Did he lose his job because he supported prop 8?

I wonder, will you speak the truth on the matter or be evasive?

He took steps to deny gays the right to marry.

Gays took steps to deny him the job with the Olypics.

They both got what they wanted. The both lost what they wanted.

Karma?

[TAO]

Tao, from wnd.com, according to jeff's standard for truth it would appear a lie to claim the radio host was fired for support prop 8, when the official position is he was fired for defamation of sorts.

Read earlier. I wasn't talking about this guy. I was talking about the people with unclassified names. It says this:

PJI, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in religious freedom, claims to be representing a San Francisco woman who was fired for voting for Proposition 8, but whose name remains confidential to protect her privacy and legal case.

also, jeff's claim is 3 fold,

Mormon

Voted

supported their conscience

I don't know about Mormon - they probably weren't. But I suppose one of those people could have been though. Voted and Supported their Conscience definitely fit. You'd have to contact the legal organization.

[TAO]

Here was my point: if a law protects agaisnt discrimination against homosexuals, it will also protect agaisnt discrimination agaisnt Mormons.

Most antidescrimination laws offer protections based on race, religion and sex. A few also extend to sexual orientation. None that I am aware offer protection based on sexual orientation, but not religion.

So, can you (or anyone) explain how that fact, if true, would refute the point that I made. Jeff make a grand claim that it proves that I am wrong.

Then again, in the very same thread, Jeff is concerned that people who share his views on gays can get in trouble if they discriminating against homosexuals, and is also complaining that Mormons or those who share his views on gays by supporting prop 8 are the victims of discrimination by other.

Not really, no. Discrimination is not defended against in the law. Specific forms of discrimination are. This is why it wouldn't create a who-wha if a man on the Olympic skating team said he believed Mormons were wrong, and donated to an agency like CARM. But when a Mormon says homosexuality is wrong, and donates to Prop 8, it creates a big fuss.

That's why anti-discrimination laws are rather pointless in my perspective - you can manipulate around them. I also rather dislike the idea of special classes too, for the same reason.

Nah, I am not here to defend Jeff's claims though. I am actually responding to this out of a sort of tired weary disgust at the bitterness of this issue.

Alas, people always want the advantage.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

He took steps to deny gays the right to marry.

Gays took steps to deny him the job with the Olypics.

They both got what they wanted. The both lost what they wanted.

Karma?

Hey, should I start creating peer pressure for gays who took steps to force us to accept mairrage of homosexuals?

Nah, I don' think so, that would not be nice. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean you pressure them.

[Jeff K.]

How does one have a dialogue or discussion with someone who is willing to be untruthful, or if you will evasive. Some posters here have chosen to be both. Some have still not stepped up to the challenge issued. Where there demonstrations outside the AME church? No, outside of Muslim mosques? Oh heavens no! But outside of Mormon temples? Definately.

Where Mormons targeted? The evidence is overwhelming that they were, and they were targeted because they were the easiest scapegoats. Just as Jews were the easy scapegoats. It appears to me that those supporting gay marriage, at least those who have written in this forum are fine with unethical behavior, evasion, intimidation, and anything to keep Mormons from voting their conscience in the matter.

They are the champions of same sex marriage. These last few posts illustrate the lengths they agree to go through, the tactics that they endorse, and their ability to freely shed human values for their singular causes. In my most eloquent, I could not do more damage to the cause of same sex marriage than they have done.

More is the pity.

[Mordecai]

I can't wait until the militant feminist teachers are having children write essays on all the reasons why a lesbian union is exactly the same as a straight union. Who needs fathers? They're pretty much garbage, right? "Gay marriage" gives credence to the anti-family rhetoric of the extremists.

[Ares]

I can't wait until the militant feminist teachers are having children write essays on all the reasons why a lesbian union is exactly the same as a straight union. Who needs fathers? They're pretty much garbage, right? "Gay marriage" gives credence to the anti-family rhetoric of the extremists.

This statement is speculative and somewhat inflammatory. Please tone it down.

A reminder that this subject is sensitive and can easily get out of hand. Everyone watch your tone and be sensitive. Especially to those who disagree with you. You can go anywhere to find a place to argue over prop 8 and the LDS Church. We are trying to create a forum where people can dialogue over sensitive issues.

[frankenstein]

Jeff, still waiting on you to satisfy the CFR or rephrase your claim to make it reflect the facts you have. where are the mormons (plural) who lost their jobs? Your statement was plural so where is the plurality of firing/job loss?

Quoting Elder Oaks does not satisfy the CFR; unless we are to accept the assumption that if an LDS General Authority speaks what ever is said is true and need not be verified by evidence. But concerning evidence, the talk/speech from Elder Oaks has 20plus foot notes, so surely there is evidence for the multiple fires of mormons. you need to provide the proof or restate you claim. For all the talk of truth one can reasonably expect that you would back up your claims with verifiable proof.

separately.

Mormon and Catholic churches targeted

various denominations targeted.

catholic church targeted.

so it wasn't just the Mormon buildings that were targeted.

--------------

Concerning Peter Vidmar, there is no indication that he was "resign or you will be fired", because this is not the case infact quite opposite, statement from those in charge said he would have done a good job had he stayed on; because Vidmars situation is not a "resign or else" then his resignation is on him, he flinched in light of criticism, he choose to give up his job, he voluntarily left the position. That is why I do not see his situation as one being a job lost due to voting in favor of prop 8. had he been told, "You can resign or we will fire you" that is a different story, with which I would agree would be the case of a person loosing a job because of a vote.

---------------

Tao and Bluebell....sorry, I honestly did miss the first unnamed person mentioned in the article about the woman from San fran. I did not realize this person was mentioned until Tao pointed it out.

[Jaybear]

How does one have a dialogue or discussion with someone who is willing to be untruthful, or if you will evasive. Some posters here have chosen to be both. Some have still not stepped up to the challenge issued. Where there demonstrations outside the AME church? No, outside of Muslim mosques? Oh heavens no! But outside of Mormon temples? Definately.

Jeff, I have stated my point at least three times.

This discussion started when you sympathized with people that would, if they could, discriminate agaisnt gay couples.

I pointed out that gays have no greater legal protection from discrimination than Mormons.

Yes, Mormons who supported Prop 8 were targeted by boycotts.

Yes, gay activist protested in front of an LDS temple.

Those facts do not undermine or contradict my point.

SO then what is the point of your examples. What is your thesis. Gay activists are mean people?

They are the champions of same sex marriage. These last few posts illustrate the lengths they agree to go through, the tactics that they endorse, and their ability to freely shed human values for their singular causes. In my most eloquent, I could not do more damage to the cause of same sex marriage than they have done.

I am sure gay activists will be disappointed and disheartened to learn, that because they were mean, they lost your support next time around.

[Mordecai]

This statement is speculative and somewhat inflammatory. Please tone it down.

It may be inflammatory, but when you've worked in California schools and have heard the stories about what is taught in Massachusetts and the recent story about teaching preschoolers to not use the words him and her, it's quite plausible and a genuine concern. Many teachers/professors in the S.F. Bay Area are morally depraved and fanatical, and they will take any excuse to indoctrinate the impressionable into far-left doctrines.

Take a look at Massachusetts , which has had same-sex "marriage" by court order since 2003, and consider the impact on public school children. In one elementary school, a transsexual was invited into a 1st grade class to give details of his operation. [21] In another elementary school, children were assigned to play gays in a school skit. Two girls were to hold hands and pretend to be lesbians. One boy's line was: "It's natural to be attracted to the same sex." [22] A Lexington , Massachusetts school "treated" their second graders to a book entitled King and King, which is a colorful 29-page children's book in which a prince searches for a wife, only in the end to choose another prince. The story ends with the two princes "marrying" and living "happily ever after." On the last page, the princes -- now kings -- even share a kiss. [23] This was read to 7 year olds! Writing in the leading homosexual magazine, The Advocate, lesbian author Patricia Nell Warren, said this: "It is the first fact of civilization; whoever captures the kids owns the future." [24] That's true. So do we really want the homosexual agenda pushed on our children?

http://www.frc.org/g...06J06&f=WX06E07

Massachusetts is the more educated, between California and Massachusetts. I can tell you there are a lot of dumb teachers in California; if you embolden them with "gay marriage," it's going to go from ugly to hideous.

It is better to write about what has happened (fact) than what you suspect will happen (speculative) when dealing with such a sensitive issue. This post was better. - Ares

[Analytics]

It may be inflammatory, but when you've worked in California schools and have heard the stories about what is taught in Massachusetts and the recent story about teaching preschoolers to not use the words him and her, it's quite plausible and a genuine concern. Many teachers/professors in the S.F. Bay Area are morally depraved and fanatical, and they will take any excuse to indoctrinate the impressionable into far-left doctrines.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WX06J06&f=WX06E07

Massachusetts is the more educated, between California and Massachusetts. I can tell you there are a lot of dumb teachers in California; if you embolden them with "gay marriage," it's going to go from ugly to hideous.

According to footnotes 21 and 22, the first two examples of the terrible things that are happening in Massachusetts now that they have same-sex marriage are documented in a National Review article that was published in 1996, seven years before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. If the legalization of marriage is causing “the homosexual agenda” to be relentlessly pushed on kids, why would they need to dig back fourteen years in order to find enough examples to fill a paragraph?

[frankenstein]

BTW, any law that protects gays from discrimination, will likely also protect Mormons. Funny that I have never heard you complain when people who want to discriminate agaisnt Mormons are forced to lie to avoid getting in trouble.

Actually it doesn't. Just ask the Mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

Jeff, still waiting on you to satisfy the CFR or rephrase your claim to make it reflect the facts you have.

where are the mormons (plural) who lost their jobs? Your statement was plural so where is the plurality of firing/job loss?

Quoting Elder Oaks does not satisfy the CFR; unless you are suggesting that if an LDS General Authority speaks what ever is said is true and need not be verified by evidence. But concerning evidence, the talk/speech from Elder Oaks has 20plus foot notes, so surely there is evidence for the multiple firings/job loss by mormon employees.

you need to provide the proof or restate you claim. For all the talk of truth and claims that I am a liar (glad you edited that post) one can reasonably expect that you would back up your claims with verifiable proof.

--------------

Concerning Peter Vidmar, there is no indication that he was told "resign or you will be fired". Because this is not the case in fact quite opposite - statement from those in charge said he would have done a good job had he stayed on; because Vidmar's situation is not a "resign or else" then his resignation is on him, he flinched in light of criticism, he choose to give up his job, he voluntarily left the position. That is why I do not see his situation as one being a job lost due to voting in favor of prop 8. had he been told, "You can resign or we will fire you" that is a different story, with which I would agree would be the case of a person loosing a job because of a vote.

Are you going to honor the CFR or are you going to rephrase your claim about "mormons" (plural) loosing jobs due to the fact that said job loss mormon voted in favor of prop 8?

Also, how can you claim a law does not protect a person, when all indications are those person have not sought the protection of the law? Have the job loss mormons filed claims of discrimination that have been denied by the Courts? If you do not have court evidence of claims being rejected or turned away, then you have no basis to claim the law does not protect mormons. I would say any mormon fired has a excellent case for freedom of speech violations - via chilling affect.

As the law it written it protects all class of people mormon, homosexual mormon, and non-mormon.

[HeatherAnn]

Special recognition is not a fundamental right.

That sums it up.

Homosexual couples ALREADY have rights under both Common Law Marriage...

Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and they have rights under Cohabitation Agreements.

Cohabitation agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rights are already in place for homosexual couples under Common Law Marriage and Cohabitation Agreements (sometimes also referred to as reciprocal beneficiaries).

These rights may include, but are not limited to...

- Eligibility for health insurance benefits,

- Life insurance benefits,

- Child visitation rights,

- Hospital visitation rights,

- Inheritance when named in the deceased will &...

- For those under common law marriage - inheritance even without a will - called interstate succession,

- With common law marraige, courts may be ased to settle post-relationships property disputes,

- With common law marriage, alimony awards

- Domestic partners may also if entered a formal agreement for palimony prior to cohabitation

Marvin v Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (Cal. 1976)

The only reason to change the legal definition of marriage is to force social acceptance of homosexuality, through the government.

That is the wrong way to get social acceptance, especially when it infinges on others' rights.

[HeatherAnn]

It's concerning how homosexuality is pushing it's way into the legal system & into others' lives, sometimes imposing "gay rights" over the rights of others.

This especially applies to legally redefining marriage & legalizing gay marriage, which can & has had significantly negative influences, especially on children...

It has been proven over & over that children do best being raised with a mother AND father.

Supporting gay marriage is devaluing mothers & fathers, claiming one or the other is not necessary, when BOTH are.

Children have the RIGHT to be raised by the 2 different, complimentary sexes that created & conceived them.

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon.

Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).

In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.

In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.

In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Also, others' rights have been infringed upon in favor of supporting gay rights.

In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.

An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 even violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.

On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.

Redefining marriage is trying to impose a minority's belief on a majority, forcing social acceptance through the legal system & is causing harm to others in the process.

[Mordecai]

If the legalization of marriage is causing “the homosexual agenda” to be relentlessly pushed on kids, why would they need to dig back fourteen years in order to find enough examples to fill a paragraph?

It's just examples of what the far left likes to do with curriculum. Who cares when it occurred? The fact remains that "gay marriage" emboldens and empowers them to do more of the same. When "gay marriage" became the law in California, a teacher took her class of 5th graders to a lesbian wedding as a "teachable moment."

[frankenstein]

If the legalization of marriage is causing “the homosexual agenda” to be relentlessly pushed on kids, why would they need to dig back fourteen years in order to find enough examples to fill a paragraph?

Who cares when it occurred?

The author of the paragraph cares or would not have implied the connection between the an event in 2003 and that 2003 event on public school children, that is a dishonest author who wishes to deceive.

"Take a look at Massachusetts , which has had same-sex "marriage" by court order since 2003, and consider the impact [impact of 2003 court order same-sex marriage on public school in the late 1990's] on public school children." impling that what is to follow in the paragraph is a direct result of the court imposed gay marriage.

Truth, is not important in the debate concerning homosexuals, what is important is what garner supports for ones own cause, no matter the spin. The details of a situation concerning "rights" for homosexuals are unimportant, one need only fan the flame of discontent to his own sides benefit. And if anyone questions the fanning, the person who questions, is a traitor or confederate for the other side. Speaking on behalf of the truth has little acceptance in the debates concerning matters of homosexuality and the law. The issue is much too emotional for much reasonable, forthright, and truthful discussion on the matter.

[frankenstein]

The only reason to change the legal definition of marriage is to force social acceptance of homosexuality, through the government.

That is the wrong way to get social acceptance, especially when it infinges on others' rights.

whose rights are infringed upon by ssm? and what rights are infringed upon by ssm? BTW nice out of context cut and paste job in post #265.

[Analytics]

It's just examples of what the far left likes to do with curriculum. Who cares when it occurred? The fact remains that "gay marriage" emboldens and empowers them to do more of the same. When "gay marriage" became the law in California, a teacher took her class of 5th graders to a lesbian wedding as a "teachable moment."

Combing through 20 years of history for the three most shocking things that happened in Massachusetts classrooms and calling the results “what the far left likes to do” is as fair and honest as combing through the Journal of Discourses for the most shocking things that Mormon leaders have ever said, and citing them as examples of what Mormons teach. It’s distortion.

[Jaybear]

When "gay marriage" became the law in California, a teacher took her class of 5th graders to a lesbian wedding as a "teachable moment."

While that is not entirely true, so what?

What is wrong with taking fifth graders to a lesbian weddings. As with all field trips, parental approval was required. This trip was actually arranged by the parents, and it was to see the teacher getting married. And yes it was an historic teaching moment.

Do you hate all weddings, or just gay weddings?

Let me guess, you think its okay if children see men and women kiss, but children should not be allowed to see a women kiss a woman.

[frankenstein]

unimportant details jaybear, just as it seem unimportant to document the numerous mormons who lost jobs, it is equally unimportant to note that a parent arrainged the trip and no child was forced to attend, and it is equally unimportant that there was a finding of probable cause that eHarmony was in violation of New Jersey law - and it is equally unimportant that a group is in violation of the law if not mentioning that violation supports an agenda.

Stop badgering posters. References were provided previously and you already registered your opinion that they did not fully support their point. I'm watching this thread carefully so it remains respectful on both sides of the discussion. -Ares

[KevinG]

While that is not entirely true, so what?

What is wrong with taking fifth graders to a lesbian weddings. As with all field trips, parental approval was required. This trip was actually arranged by the parents, and it was to see the teacher getting married. And yes it was an historic teaching moment.

Do you hate all weddings, or just gay weddings?

Let me guess, you think its okay if children see men and women kiss, but children should not be allowed to see a women kiss a woman.

If a teacher wanted to take her class to a Baptist, Hindu or Mormon ceremony as a teachable moment I suspect the ACLU would not say "so what?"

It seems to me that both the pro gay marriage and anti gay marriage folks are fighting for supremecy in a situation created by a violation of the 1st amendment (state recognition of the religious institution of marriage). Let the state deal with legal unions and leave the definition of marriage to private organizations and this whole debate goes away.

[HeatherAnn]

Truth, is not important in the debate concerning homosexuals, what is important is what garner supports for ones own cause, no matter the spin. The details...are unimportant, one need only fan the flame of discontent to his own sides benefit. And if anyone questions the fanning, the person who questions, is a traitor or confederate for the other side. Speaking on behalf of the truth has little acceptance in the debates concerning matters of homosexuality and the law...

^ That reminds me of tactics I've seen used in the argument for homosexuality & for legalizing gay marriage.

I've explained that according to the USCDC, homosexuals are statistically more likely to change partners & therefore are more likely to get AIDS & STDs.

After explaining these statistics, I've been condemned as homophobic, even when I explain that I do not fear homosexuals & have family & friends with homosexual preferences & that 2 friends have died of AIDS & that I don't want to see more death.

Also, we should not be legally required to accept gay marriage when it conflicts with the right of freedom of religion. Nor should children be taught homosexuality in schools.

You mentioned truth. Anatomy books explain how we were ALL conceived by a sperm from a man & an egg from a woman. You'll also read that a man's sexual organ anatomically fits into a woman's, yet does not healthily fit into an anus (& when attempted can present health risks such as infection & colon rupter). If you read about human development, you'll realize at birth, our brains are only 25% developed. Our brains have evolved so that although at first, we are more dependent for longer than other species' young, we can better adapt to environmental influences over time, since so many brain connections & development occur AFTER birth.

Truth is also that we inherit some tendencies, but for most of these tendencies, specific environmental influences must be experienced in order for that tendency to be expressed.

Truth is that nobody is "born gay" - but rather, homosexuality is an acquired preference based on environmental influence & possibly inherited tendencies.

Truth is that prior to Dec. 1974, the American Psychological Association defined homosexuality as a disorder.

Truth is that after being harrased by a gay activist group, the APA changed the definition of homosexuality, not out of scientific evidence, but out of political pressure.

http://www.freewebs....hoax/theapa.htm

[frankenstein]

Stop badgering posters. References were provided previously and you already registered your opinion that they did not fully support their point. I'm watching this thread carefully so it remains respectful on both sides of the discussion. -Ares

what is the recourse for failure to honor a CFR? Jeff.K statement claimed "mormons", which suggest that there is more than mormon who lost a job because that mormon voted for prop 8. Jeff K provided a single remote reference using Peter Vidmar. Does Jeff.K quoting Elder Oaks unverifiable claims qualify as meeting the standard required under CFR? I will stop asking for Jeff K to honor the CFR despite what he claims it means to evade an issue.

[Jaybear]

This reminds me of tactics I've seen used in the argument for homosexuality & for legalizing gay marriage.

I've explained that according to the USCDC, homosexuals are statistically more likely to change partners & therefore are more likely to get AIDS & STDs.

After explaining these statistics, I've been condemned as homophobic ...

The reason you are accused of being homophobic is because your arguments are not rational.

Here, for example, if your are really concern about gay promiscuity, then you should support and endorse gay marriage, as a means to create stable long term monogamous relations in the gay community.

Surely you don't believe that if you deny gays the right to marry, they will become heterosexuals.

Also, we should not be legally required to accept gay marriage when it conflicts with the right of freedom of religion. Nor should children be taught homosexuality in schools.

No one can force you to attend a gay wedding. Even your friends with gay tendencies, whatever that means.

School curriculum is set by the local school board. If you don't like what your children are being taught, you can send them to private, parochial or home school. Do you even have children, or are you worried about what other people's children are being taught.