Gay Rights Activists want to Boycott Utah

IC Chapter are you worried? yeah that's what I thought. :thumbup:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/07/national/a162626S94.DTL

It's actually quite pathetic. The gay community was on the losing side of a state initative. :rattle: Sound familiar?

Less Californian's in Utah? Sounds good to me

Hey, maybe I'll make my way out there...ought to be nice this time of year...

Sounds good to me, less greenies in Moab.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

LMFAO, he's worried that the kids are bastards when they are either from a previous realation ship or adopted, considering gays cant have kids naturally...

I'm thinking maybe Utahns should get involved a little more in California politics.

Well, that just chaps my rear.

tharlanjr said:

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

Click to expand...

I read this quote earlier in a news story, and a couple thoughts popped up:
1)This is in California, right? The non-judgmental part of the country, where you don't need to get married to have a child, and there is no shame in that. Right?

2)(the long winded one)
When a baby is born, the child's birth certificate lists the mother and father, or mother and "unknown". By the traditional definition, the the father is "unknown" or the parents are not married at the time of birth, the child is a bastard. End of story.
By the traditional definition, any biological child of a gay union would be a bastard. If the child is living with the biological father, he never married the mother. If living with the biological mother, she never married the father.
By a more modern, permissive standard, as long as both biological parents are known and listed on the birth certificate, the child is legitimate if the father acknowledges paternity.
Whichever standard you use, the couples CURRENT marital state wouldn't affect the legitimacy of the child.
What did I miss?:dunno:

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.
"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

Click to expand...

This guy couldn't be more wrong.

Whats stupid is that Prop 8 passed, and I am thankful for, but all the gay people are throwing hissy fits about it and protesting in the streets, WTF.

There were some of them that built a cross with prop 8 stuff, then threw it on the ground and a bunch of people crushed/spit on it.

And they say we are hatefull.

All that Prop 8 did was specify that marriage is defined between a man and a woman, it didnt take any of their rights away.

And the people saying Cali thinks animals have more rights than gays, or even worse comparing themselves to blacks/women whom didnt have the right to vote.

They are having none of their personal liberties taken away, they can still go have civil unions and get all beni's that traditional marriages have, minus the name "Marriage"

Get over it ya lost.

If you're concerned about the effect on tourism, just run a commercial like this:moon:. I'm sorry, it's wrong on so many levels. You must understand that to some what other people think doesn't matter. Just because the majority of people do not agree with their views, they believe (know) if they scream and protest, the political officeholders will bend over to their demands. The vocal minority beats out the quiet majority.

I'm so sick of this gay crap I'm to the point of voting against them and anything they go for just based on their antics. Hey, let them get legally married so they can go through the BS involved in getting a divorce, they have no idea how good they have it now.

RichP said:

...., Hey, let them get legally married so they can go through the BS involved in getting a divorce, they have no idea how good they have it now.

Click to expand...

And the BS they can put others through, too!
http://www.proudparenting.com/node/1050
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...s/Fireman+sperm+donor+to+fight+CSA/article.do

SACRAMENTO 7 November 2008 (This news release was issued by the
> Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento) The following statement was
> released today by Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic
> Diocese of Sacramento and former Bishop of Salt Lake City, in response
> to attacks on (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) for
> supporting California's Proposition 8, defending the traditional
> definition of marriage:
>
> "Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in
> support of traditional marriage � the union of one man and one woman �
> that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for
> millennia.
>
> "The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to
> pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every
> faith and ethnicity. LDS were included � but so were Catholics and
> Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians
> and Anglos.
>
> "Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition
> are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a
> small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8.
>
> "As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest
> to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous
> people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to
> community causes.
>
> "I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members
> of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints � coming from the
> opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us
> supporting traditional marriage intolerant.
>
> "I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own
> words � and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to
> exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to
> accept the will of the people of California in the passage of
> Proposition 8."
>
> SOURCE: Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento

Great, now they're gonna come after Catholics too.

They'll go after whoever they need to usurp the will the of the people.

Gawd. ACT UP all over again. Anyone else remember those fruitbats?

I still say the best comment on the gay "lifestyle" came from my wife's former hairdresser - himself a gay man, who ran the shop with his partner (I'm not sure which role each of them filled.) "If you want to be gay, be gay. But don't be a farkin' fag about it."

I wonder just how many "mainstream" homosexuals are as offended by the antics of the militant fruitbats as the rest of us? It's kinda like the "Gay Pride Parades" up there by you, Tom - ever get stuck with the Fag Show between you and where you needed to be? It's happened to me a couple of times, and most of those people have been so over-the-top that I couldn't watch, not even with the sort of horrified fascination one tends to have for roads incidents.

And yet, when someone up in the Midwest (Wisconsin, I think) wanted to get a permit for a parade themed "It's Great to be Straight" some years back, he was denied. Reason? "People might find it offensive."

Like it's not offensive to shut a whole section of the city down (effectively) for a freak show?

Once again, and just for the record - I am not against people being homosexual. Either team - guys and guys or girls and girls don't bother me (and I've had a few gay friends - we'll talk about everything else, but leave sex out of the conversation. No need for grown-up people to talk about it anyhow, I think; and what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - but don't get me started on the NAMBLA jackasses...) But, it's the "over-the-top fruitbats" that want to push for mainstream acceptance of the more, er, "exotic" elements of their "lifestyle" that bother me.

"Nature or nurture"? The jury is still out on that one, and I'm not sure we'll have an answer. I'm sure arguments could be made - based upon sound principles - in either direction. However, if it's "nature" then I'd consider it a mutation in the genome that expresses itself on an individual level. Why? Becuase any mutation that would express as homosexuality is biologically self-defeating, since homosexual couples can't breed. Meaning that the genetic mutation also cannot be easily reinforced. "A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the key to the Universe."

Frankly, I'm leaning more toward it being a self-defeating genetic mutation, similar to the one that probably causes vegetarian impulses. Arguments against vegetarianism are also biological - and easy enough to prove. Simply compare the structure of the human being to the typical herbivore and to the typical carnivore - there are more carnivorous elements to our structure than you might thing. Stereoptic vision, dentition, slightly enhanced vision and hearing, the ability to "spring" upon prey - we're apex predators, who just happen to have the ability to eat pretty much anything that can be chewed and swallowed. It's just that some of us are "more carnivorous" than others (like me) - just as some of us are "more straight" than others (the big thing I don't understand about male homosexuality - men don't have boobs. Boobs are too much fun to live without! Of course, this results in a double standard - boobs being too much fun to live without makes it easier for me to understand Lesbianism... Sue me.)

Ryan is going to be one lonely SOB

5-90 said:

"If you want to be gay, be gay. But don't be a farkin' fag about it."

Click to expand...

Greatest quote, LMFAO

Its rediculous how they act sometimes, how long did they fight to be different, now they want to be the same?

I dont mind gays, but some of they are over the top and its just disgusting.

I will AVOID gay areas as much as possible, my Fiance' wanted to go into a store in Hillcrest (BIG GAY AREA) and I was like whatever just one store.

We were there, no biggie I wasnt trippen over nothing. Then this dude comes in with his shirt all tied up throws his hands in the air and in the gayest voice ever yells, "Hey Ladies!!!", I looked at her and said, "Lets Go!", lol

But thats off topic.

LIke I said before, they have all the rights as a married couple has besides the word marriage and a piece of paper.

YOu can have a ceremony without the legal documents, my parents did and didnt do the legal stuff for about 2 more years.

THey done have any lesser rights than anyone else.

Yep - kinda goes along with something I've been saying for years - "There will be racism as long as some people insist upon being ni****s." Continue to set yourselves far apart from everyone else, and people will continue to treat you differently.

(And that applies to people of all colours - not just Blacks.)

As far as the fact that the Church won't marry them (which is, I think, the largest part of the issue,) why not just form your own Church - I believe I mentioned that elsewhere? Don't force someone else to accept your own beliefs - that's what the First Amendment is partially about. Instead, form a group of like-minded peers who believe much the same thing, and form a Church around it.

(Now, we just need to strip Churches of their "tax-exempt" status to reduce the bite on the rest of us...)