Comments:Protesters demonstrate in front of Latter-day Saint temple in L.A.

First comment from anon following this news publication but prior to the subsequent slight change to the news title (copy-paste action)

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

The actions of the GLTG community in the wake of the passage of Prop 8 is akin to fascist behavior in the 1930s & 40s.

While I cherish the freedom to assemble and protest, these sad souls do not like others to exercise their right vote. A clear majority of people want to keep marriage between one man and one woman. The propaganda job by these amoral fascists is akin to what you saw in Nazi Germany (targeting of a small religious element, fear mongering, and violence).

I can't help but think of the Mormon Church's prophetic Proclamation to the Family issued over a decade ago, "...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

In addition to divorce and abuse, homosexual marriage will lead to the disintegration of the family and our society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.7.239.123 (talk • contribs) 07:50, Nov 13, 2008

Bigotry will lead to the disintegration of the family and our society. 12.202.230.168 13:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you classify the harassment of protesters and the vandalism of property? Tolerance? Jade Knight (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, people get desperate. Everyone points out the violence used by protesters as if it were something related exclusively to their homosexuality when in any other type of protest there is one, or more, acts of violence. Just as there are protest due to racism issues, religion, women rights, etc...By saying this I don't mean that its OK to act violently because thats obviously not the point, but its NOT ok to relate it to their homosexuality.—Meggogarbage (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. But these actions are unacceptable, regardless of their reason—committing violence and vandalism against any minority is a violation of human rights. Jade Knight (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As a christian

I support Gay Marriage/Civil Unions, it's the same thing to me. But lately Gay activist have been making me regret supporting them. I watch a video of group of activist beat a old women and stomp on her cross and now defacing churches. But I hope not all of them are the same, like the ones the media is showing to us. --66.229.21.217 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When I read about that event, I read something a bit different from what you're saying; for instance, the old lady didn't get beat up although her homemade styrofoam cross was defaced. I don't think these actions are justified, and they're certainly not the behavior of most activists; however, a lot of people are very very justifiably angry, and sadly, a small few of those people don't know how to funnel that anger properly. You should note that this happens in every movement. Continuing to cite these actions is unfair to the vast majority of us who are protesting appropriately. If your rights were being taken away, how would you respond?

By the way, I'm proud to call myself Christian as well. I've on occasion felt insulted inside the gay community for my beliefs, but thankfully, it's not the norm there either. I'd love to see this video so I can judge for myself,do you have a link? Cary Bass (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten the impression that she was "beaten up", though I did hear that her cross was destroyed and that she was "attacked", though as there was a camera trained on her, I would be surprised if much physical violence had been done her. On the other hand, it would seem that the Hispanic women who tried to remove negative signage at the L.A. temple were beaten. Violence and vandalism in such matters, is never acceptable—regardless of what "side" one is on. When people can have peaceful, lawful protests, it is a good thing. And being able to disagree with someone without hurling insults at them is an important part of peaceful democracy. Jade Knight (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Beaten"? Do you have a source for that information? I've seen facts like these propagate when they weren't true, just because people keep forwarding them around. bastique (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That source is in this article—as reported by a member of the L.A.P.D. His exact words were "As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground." Jade Knight (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I love Wikileaks

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon-LDS_orders_for_29_June_2008_on_same-sex_constitution_ban

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/LDS_church_Proposition_8_broadcast_transcript%2C_8_Oct_2008

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/LDS_Church_Proposition_8_anti-gay_campaign_notes

Anybody remember those? --Smackdat (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the Mormon church was against gay marriage all along. It's no secret. In Utah, members of the church were asked to participate in voter education calling campaigns and other such things prior to the election. The Mormon church is not hiding its position, in fact, the church is very strong in its opposition to gay marriage. Those articles on wikileaks don't prove anything that isn't already widely known. In fact, anyone could have been at the broadcast on proposition 8, and anyone can ask any Mormon church leader where the church stands on the issue and they will be told.

It's time to move on. A majority of the voting population in California and other states have spoken. That's democracy and it's free speech. Members of many churches and those unaffiliated with any church donated money in behalf of what they believed in. The Mormon's aren't singular in their efforts.

Slandering Mormon's because of what they believe is as ignorant as slandering homosexuals because of what they believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.39.161 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A Sad Sight

The person who brought up the fascists and any others who would do so: You are exploiting the horrors of the Holocaust for a stupid culture warring point. Clearly you have nothing to say, so you will bring up past atrocities to try and make your point for you. The constant stream of ignorant comments made by people who do not know homosexuals, believe homosexuality is a choice, and believe homosexuality is an affront to their deity are well past the point of understanding. Those people, who claim to be compassionate, have a strange and ugly hole in their hearts when it comes to the rights of gays. Let us not forget the lessons we have learned from people who would use images of fear and death to convince. Ignore this anonymous person. It will suit them well.

To say that someone does not deserve the same rights as you because they are different or to provide them a separate set of rights that you believe is equal is contrary to the spirit of democracy. Supreme Court judges past and future, state and federal, side with my point of view. To create a separate "but equal" institution because your old book tells you to have the willies about gay men (which, mind you, was only a cultural more to protect the population of my desert ancestor Jews) is cruel. Whether or not you individually realize this, please take into account a summary of what your support of bans is: An attempt by large organized groups of people to suppress the rights of others because they disagree with that group. The counterargument is that people in favor of bans are the majority; those opposed to bans are a minority. The majority prevails. The problem with that line of thinking is that the minority is not granted rights in this case, but rather they are stripped away.

From majority rule to minority rights to the spirit of the law to separate but equal institutions to the size of government these bans are venom; pure poison seeps through the heart of any campaign to separate individuals from their liberty. If we are infected by this virulence in our home country, what great leaps of humankind might we expect? None as long as argumentum ad Nazium is the preferred strategy of Americans to cope with things beyond them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointofinformation (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that having a minority tyrannize a majority is a very bad thing, (worse, perhaps, even, than the persecution of a minority, which is also very bad). I also agree that the law should be equal for all. Currently, in the United States, the law is equal for all: Any adult may marry any one other adult of the opposite gender with consent. No adult may marry a child, or more than one adult, or a pet, or a person of the same gender. This law applies to all people, regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation: everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the right to marry a member of the opposite gender. Now, there's no question that there's some disagreement as to what the fundament definition of a "marriage" should be, and there's certainly some debate over whether "alternate" marriages (such as polygamous, homosexual, and even, in some groups, pedaphilic and bestial ones) should be considered valid "marriages" in the same sense as those currently allowed by law—this is good (tolerance requires disagreement, after all), and I hope that calm discourse and democracy will prevail in finding a solution in this matter. King never achieved what he did by promoting violence or vandalism.

I also hope that certain minorities (be they sexual minorities or religious minorities) will not be singled out for vandalism and violence—this is undemocratic, and the Holocaust did start with scapegoating in much the same vein. Let us all pray we never get to that point in this great country.

There is only one thing which you have said which I take particular issue with, and that is your assumption that sexual orientation is not a choice; I know several gays who believe they have chosen their orientation, and Michael Glatze (formerly an activist for homosexuality) is quite outspoken in asserting that it is a choice. Perhaps for some homosexuals it is not a choice? But for others, it clearly is. Regardless, however, may we reach out to eachother in peace, and avoid such oppressive violence and vandalism as has been committed against almost every minority in the history of time. Jade Knight (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is ridiculous. Sexual orientation cannot be a choice unless you are attracted to both sexes and make a decision to stick with one. Physical attraction is something hard-wired into the human brain; I'm heterosexual, I find naked or scantily clad women physically arousing, the same cannot be said for men. I can 'admire' a handsome man, but in no way do I find him sexually attractive.

Implying that there are some to a majority of homosexuals who act so as a "lifestyle choice" is to ignore history, and deny evidence that the behaviour is also present in the animal kingdom. Do you honestly think Oscar Wilde would have engaged in homosexual behaviour with the risk of being jailed for it? If it's a lifestyle choice you could legislate it out of existence, just like Iran claims to have done. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

People take drugs which carry a risk of being jailed, when it is clear they have a choice. People murder which carries a risk of being jailed, when it is clear they have a choice. People will even abuse children which carries a risk of being jailed, when it is clear they have a choice. Do you mean to suggest that the risk of being jailed has ever been an effective deterrent for much of anything? What do you think of the dozens of individuals recently executed in Iran for converting to Christianity? They knew that conversion from Islam in that country carried the death penalty. Do you think they had "no choice" in their conversion, as the death penalty was clearly an adequate deterrent to stop anyone with choice?

I find it odd that you would argue that there are no homosexuals who choose to be homosexuals; I know a few who say as much, myself, and Glatze is a fairly obvious example of a well-known homosexual who considers it a choice. I can't speak for all homosexuals, but it seems clear that at least some of them have a choice in the matter. This is further supported by the fact that there is a significantly larger number (according to most studies) of bisexuals than homosexuals. I've even known bisexuals who would go in "phases" of preferring one gender over the other. Jade Knight (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on dodging the point. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I addressed each of your arguments. Perhaps you'd like to consider addressing even one of mine? I know it's so much easier to simply ignore my questions. Jade Knight (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And, to reiterate, with a slight alteration, what I said earlier: Regardless of all this, may we reach out to eachother in peace, and avoid and condemn such oppressive violence and vandalism as has been committed against almost every minority throughout the history of time. Jade Knight (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To those involved in this seemingly endless struggle regardless of your sexuality I say STAND YOUR GROUND. The old road is now closing and everyone knows it. I know that freedom and truth will prevail. I encourage you to retaliate with appropriate measures to religious oppression. It is and has always been immoral. It is a system of guidance for the animal of whom cannot control themselves, and a source of solace for those who require it. Remember your your divinity, We Are One! Listen for your your own heartsong. WE ARE HERE and WE ARE WITH YOU. LET LOVE PREVAIL Raven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.95.227 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To the above anon comment & our readers: Although your comment conveys your resentment and incomprehension toward Religion, it, nevertheless, touches a truly deeper aspect of Religion, though in a desinformed manner, that few people seem to be aware of: the Sacred teachings of Spirituality within the great Religions, from East to West, ask of us such a unique thing: to overcome [transmute] the limitations of our inferior passional nature, that is, "the animal" lower nature we all carry, for as long as the man entertains the desires (RCC, 1909), that is, stays a slave of his passions and desires, such individual will not be able to advance further, liberate himself, into higher spheres of existence (the access to the Higher Life that Religion keeps as the promise and assures to be our goal); eventually this kind of individual may become so attached to matter that hinders his own evolution. Central to this concept, and to the history of mankind herself, has always been the sexual act -- the Creative act [of new physical bodies and on a higher level, mental and emotional accomplishments in literature, poetry, art, music, science, etc.] which is found to be constructive vs. the abuse of the sexual function, uncontrolled to appease the urges of the inferior passional nature (desires), which is found to be destructive: in this regard homosexuality is found to be on the same grounds as heterosexuality in that both commit The Sin (a sin is considered to be an action contrary to the Spiritual laws), though heterosexuality allows the contructive Creative act to be performed [if we are not allowed to incarnate in a physical body, we do not have the experiences essential to our growth] and homosexuality has been always condemn, throughout the most part of civilizational history, for being both sterile and contrary to the Spiritual unfoldment of man, as it seeks merely gratification of the senses, that is, the misuse of the holy Creative force [of God] in man, referred to in numerous places in the Bible (concerning the Judeo-Christian tradition).
Through this religious view, we are expected to progressively change our current destructive behaviour as we acquire intellect and will; not the mere suppression of sexual attraction which is not a virtue in itself, but to redirect the creative force into higher channels, transmutation of the sexual force toward Regeneration (a.k.a. Spiritual rebirth or Be born again which means our Salvation-Liberation). This current [great] transgressional behaviour is the core weakness that keeps us all confined to limited[physical] human bodies (many times afflicted by illness and pain), bodies which carry death[physical] as penalty; In the religion of the Christ this consequence has been also mentioned by Paul of Tarsus who explained to us that: The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. (1Corinthians 15:55-56).
Change is coming to the whole wide world; can we embrace it? Yes, [(I) believe] We can. Yours in service. --Vilalva (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in and say that Vilalva's comment is intended to be a spiritual argument, and not a logical one. If you'd like to respond to it directly, please treat it as a spiritual, and not a logical, argument (to avoid useless bickering). My own arguments you're welcome to treat as logical, but please don't treat them as spiritual. Jade Knight (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Indeed I feel honored, dear Jade Knight, that you have classified my previous comment as a "spiritual argument"; thank you indeed. About being "not a logical one", that is, a comment devoided of logic, (I) wouldn't be so sure; but being myself a little servant, and although able to some extent, it is far beyond my scope to provide here an account of the Logic that builds and mantains the worlds, that is, of such a Wisdom currently unknow to the wise of the [physical]world, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. To me, sufficient it is that each reader may be able to wisely give his own inner impartial judgement to the content of those above "spirtitual argument[ed]" lines that I have put forth. --Vilalva (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Vilalva, you may tell gays that unless they change you believe that they will (you can fill this gap far better than I), but you must respect they may not share these beliefs and should not force them not to do what they are doing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, as evolution brings us closer to individuality and freedom, it turns out to be more difficult for our humanity to make safe choices. Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc... are some of the issues we have to face at every step of our journey in the physical body, issues that have a long history that goes deep in our even evolution. Only a clear understanding of these phenomenons and their real causes will allow us to provide the necessary aid humanity needs in order to definitively overcame these deplorable practices. Compassion, understand and love for their, and our, souls appears to be the key.

As a great western Mystic once taught (1909 poem in public domain, U.S.^[1]):

No man loves God who hates his kind,

Who tramples on his brother's heart and soul;

Who seeks to shackle, cloud, or fog the mind

By fears of hell has not perceived our goal.

(...)

There's but one thing the world has need to know.

There's but one balm for all our human woe:

There's but one way that leads to heaven above--

That way is human sympathy and love.

Yours in service, --Vilalva (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Get out of the dark ages. It's normal for some people to be homosexual and they should be accorded the same rights as everyone else. Tyranny of the majority be damned! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: In fact, from a Spiritual standpoint the last four hundred years have been the darkest ages caused by the ultra-materialism which has been rampant in the Western World and originated in the arrogance of intellectual pride, which has increased physical knowledge immensely and simultaneously has done such terrible damage to almost every aspect of life on this planet (Fontana, 2003), but above all it has almost extinguished the Light of the Spirit, that is, has denied the Knowledge of man himself, of our true and higher nature: each one of us a Spirit attending the school of life for the purpose of unfolding all the powers of God. Again, Change is coming. Finally, and to whom it may concern, the contents (the spirit) within these comments of mine (the form) come not from the majority but from a true minority: they have been called the little children of God. Peace. --Vilalva (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion is like an asshole, everyone has one. Argue religion all you want, but I refuse to believe that every "religion" (a set of beliefs) is correct. And I refuse to believe that any religion's "god(s)" would despise a homosexual. From the Christian standpoint: God created us in his image. If that being the case...then what are homosexuals? Also the Bible never once mentions homosexuality directly, nor does it ever mention it as a sin. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody chooses to be gay. They choose to accept their sexuality or deny it. They choose to be a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a member of the Church of Christ or an atheist. Anyone who tells you he or she chose to be gay is a liar, and the argument that one chooses it is fraudulent. There's no such thing as a "gay lifestyle," which is only a euphamism used to bolster arguments that being gay is a choice. My lifestyle involves going to work, coming home, watching TV, walking my dog, reading books, sleeping, some sex with someone I love maybe, but not every day (getting old). Maybe driving up the coast to watch the sunset, or walking in the park. That's my lifestyle. If my being gay makes it a gay lifestyle, then I wonder about all those gay heterosexuals out there who share the same lifestyle.

Anyone who donated to a campaign to take away my rights deserves to be protested. Not vandalized or threatened, but you seem to be forgetting there's freaks on both sides who vandalize, threaten. Some of the Yes on 8 campaigners attempted to extort money from businesses who donated to No on 8, and I have a friend who had rocks thrown at his windows because of his No on 8 sign. Let's not forget nobody has ever been murdered for being heterosexual, but to gay people, it happens several times a year across the US, and more often in some other countries. It's my rights they're trampling on, and I will do whatever I can, be as loud as I can, to make them understand that. 52% of people voted to take away my rights in California on November 4, something they shouldn't have had the legal power to do. Because of them, a movement has been reignited, and we will not quiet down until justice has prevailed. bastique 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You say that the gays who say they have a choice are liars. Others say you are a liar for asserting your own POV. It seems that you, like those you condemn, are not willing to consider that there may be more than one way of viewing things. Would it not be less hypocritical to say that you do not personally know whether it is a choice for others? Jade Knight (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Asserting my own POV?" Knowing the difference between nature and "choice" is not a POV. "Others will say you are a liar," Others have no basis to judge me. This is not a difference between two sides, this is the overwhelming majority of gay people and a few select individuals who religious zealots parade around to justify bigotry. There are not two sides here. Bastique (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What expertise do you have to determine absolute reality? Glatze was a prominent homosexual who had been a homosexual all his life: He now states that his homosexuality was a choice. I've known several other individuals personally who are similar, and this is particularly true of the bisexuals I know. The fact is that most psychologists argue (suprise) that homosexuality is psychological, while most geneticists argue (surprise) that homosexuality is genetic. You are currently judging others, Bastique. You are asserting your own POV, and if you refuse to acknowledge the POV's of others, you will come across as rigid and hypocritical. There is much to be gained through the middle path of compromise and mutual understanding. Jade Knight (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Bastique, what "rights" did you lose? It was my understanding that Civil Unions in California are afforded the same "rights" (or privileges) as marriages. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jade Knight (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a fallacy. A Domestic Partnership in California is not the same as a marriage, nor does it convey the same number of rights that a marriage has. There's very little similar. California does not have Civil Unions. But the right to Marry is the right to Marry. My Lutheran church performs marriages between same-sex couples, as do well over 300 churches in California (or happily did, before the "vote"). So Proposition 8 took away rights. This is why so many people are up in arms. Bastique (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up for me—I don't live in California and don't know California law well at all. I had heard that Civil Unions were legal in California, and that they conveyed the same rights as marriage. Perhaps someone wrote "CA" instead of "California", and had meant Canada, not California, and I had misinterpreted. I don't know. At any rate, if California does not have Civil Unions, then yes, several priveleges would have been lost with proposition 8, for a small portion of the population. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to removing government oversight of marriage entirely, thought that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Jade Knight (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a bad analogy, Dragonfire, if you meant it to be disparaging: Everyone needs an asshole. Try living life without one. What you choose to believe or not believe is your decision. Realize, however, that others may choose to believe differently. And your claims about the Bible and homosexuality are naïve, at best: Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 are, while not absolutely undisputed (but nothing in the Bible is), fairly clear on the matter. Jade Knight (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that homosexuality is mentioned in the bible, directly? You are saying that it says it is a sin? As you said above, and proved my own point, no it doesn't. Everyone believes in something. More than 2 people believing can easily be considered a religion. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Most scholars agree that the Bible does "directly" discuss the act of sexual desires or relations between two people of the same gender, yes. If the Bible does discuss these acts (in the instances aforementioned), it is quite clear that the Bible also condemns them. To argue otherwise is either naïve or intentionally misleading. Yes, a few Biblical scholars argue that the passages in question do not concern homosexual relations, and a few more argue that they are somehow limited in scope and so do not apply to modern Christians. The former view, in particular, is generally discredited, and the latter view is uncommon. But surely you already knew this. Jade Knight (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No one scholar was alive 2,000 years ago. Not one of them can account for the language spoken back then, dialects and such. Those stories you refer to are interpertations. Again not once does it mention homosexuality and not to mention the fact that it wasn't written until ovr 100 years after Christ, over a period of several more hundred years. And if you need a history lesson, the Greeks and Romans, who were around long before than Christ, married people of the same sex all the time and often had several wives and husbands. They had several gods...one might call their culture a religion. To argue that your beliefs are better than mine or anyone elses is breaking your own commandment...Who are you/we/anyone to judge what is right or wrong? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Naïvity it is, then! You've ignored my previous points, and your "history lesson" is absurd: that you would even consider claiming such a thing shows a lack of familiarity with your subject-matter. The Romans were fiercely monogamous (it is likely that Christianity is monogamous through Roman influence, not Jewish influence—the Jews permitted polygamy), and permitted marriage only between a man and a woman who shared connubium. I could start providing academic sources, but there's little point if you don't have a background in the topic. I'd highly recommend you check out Suzanne Dixon's The Roman Family to get an overview of Roman family and marriage norms and laws. If you're interested in learning more about Roman marriages in particular, Smith's Dictionary has an extensive article on "Matrimonium" which may prove enlightening. Jade Knight (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh then the orgy parties they had, and Caligula didn't exist? He wasn't married to both men and women? Christianity didn't even exist enough, if at all back then to have any influence on the Greeks. As with the Romans, they had several gods...I can start naming just a few if you like. I can also reccommend the movie Caligula, but it is probably a sin to do so. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What does sin have to do with anything? I'm talking about scholarship here, by professional historians. Suzanne Dixon is a noted expert on Roman family History. There is no sense in arguing if you're going to ignore scholarship and research wholesale and simply replace it with what you've heard or seen in film. If you had even bothered to read his Wikipedia article, however, you'd have noticed that Caligula never married any men. Jade Knight (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was his horse he married. Or something like that. (Someone had to inject the inane man marries man/man marries beast comparison that always seems to happen in these conversations, might have well been me.) Bastique (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on the historical Caligula, but I seriously doubt any purported marriage to a horse would have been accepted by other Romans—animals and slaves, under Roman law, could not have connubium. But, you do have a point—the fact of the matter is that marriage, as an institution, can be defined in many different ways. There are a few who support marriage between humans and other species, though mostly (in the West) the debate revolves around homosexuality/polygamy and the status quo. Jade Knight (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He also had about 4 dozen whore boys to jerk off in front of him and his friends whenever he pleased. The ancient Egyptians also had similar sex slaves. The Mayan had sex sacrifices, and so on and so on. All of those predate Christianity. Is what they did wrong? And you are talking of sins and do's and don'ts. The right to love someone is not something that is given to you by the church. And just because they say its wrong, does not make it so. So to say that Christianity is the only true religion is what is BS. if that were the case, then god was born at the same time as Jesus. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And what is your source for all of this? I've just clearly pointed out that your conceptions of acceptable sex and marriage in Rome were far from the truth, and I'm disinclined to think that your other assertions here about history have any more merit. And you're getting highly sidetracked; we're not talking about the Christian concept of the relationship between Christ and God here, or the value of Christian theology (at least I'm not). My arguments have nothing to do with religion, but are based on sound historical study. Jade Knight (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If our goal is to get out of the Dark Ages, Brian, then why don't we do away with archaic establishments entirely? Land taxation and eminent domain are feudal institutions—highly backwards for a modern society, wouldn't you agree? Institutionalized marriage has been largely non-existent for most of the world for most of humanity's past: in the West, at least, it was regulated by religions and governments to protect women from losing their chastity before a committed, child-rearing family relationship, and to ensure proper inheritance. For couples who engage in sex before marriage and are unable to have children (for whatever reason), institutionalized marriage seems a terribly backwards and Medieval manner of handling things—aren't we more progessive than getting married these days? Jade Knight (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you always resort to twisting the other party's argument and ad-hominem?

Those who believe in some daft sky God and try to impose that belief on civil society around them are the ones living in the dark ages.

You want to define marriage as an "institution", and in other comments try to argue that a civil union is the same because you have the same legal rights. Do you not see any discrimination here? Homosexuals are being offered second-class treatment, "go sit up the back of the bus" style.

I'll ignore your comments about property taxes and eminent domain, please try to stay on-topic. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! I have not made a single ad-hominem attack, and your insinuation otherwise is dishonest. I have also made no attempts to "twist" anything, though I do try to help people see what their logic, when carried through its natural course, leads. I did not say that a civil union is the same as marriage. I did ask if the rights a civil union gave were the same rights that a marriage gave. Please read more carefully in the future. I don't want to "define" marriage as an institution: Sociologically, marriage is an institution (as are civil unions). My points about property taxes and eminent domain are on topic: you're telling someone to "get out of the Dark Ages": did you really mean this, or are you simply interested in applying a rhetorical double-standard to disparage those you disagree with? Jade Knight (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have disparaged Jason's arguments and insinuated he is not adequately educated. You twisted my mention of the dark ages to suit the argument you wished to make; in fact, you're doing it again with this very comment. Property taxes and eminent domain have nothing to do with the religious philosophy prevalent in the dark ages; both serve purposes of furthering a functional society. Dogmatic and outdated religious attitudes towards homosexuals are as much use as a square wheel. I believe you're defending the indefensible by arguing that anyone who is not in a heterosexual relationship should have less rights than someone who is. That is an attitude from the dark ages. Oh, and in case you don't get it, it is the right to say, "we're married". If you consider a civil union equal to that then Proposition 8 should have argued for the abolition of all marriage, not a redefinition of the term to fit the views of a bigoted and paranoid subset of humanity. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I disparage an argument, then that is, by definition, not "ad-hominem", Brian. I have made no statements whatsoever concerning Jason's "education", though I have pointed out (quite accurately) that he is clearly unfamiliar with Roman family history. Brian, the entire point of marriage in Roman and Medieval society, and especially with its integration as a religious and political institution, was "to serve purposes of furthering a functional society"! Marriage (as an institution) was not simply some whimsical artistic thing—it was a functional, important institution; I believe I've partially listed some of the reasons for this already on this page. If you'd like, I could go into more detail, and recommend a few academic books on the subject. Who is to determine what is "outdated", Brian? Historians? Judges? Democracy? You (a dictatorship)? Some people think eminent domain is outdated. You do not. You think a traditional definition of marriage is outdated. More than half of California does not. I have never once said that those who are not in heterosexual relationships should have less rights than those who are in them; on the contrary, I feel very strongly that they should all have the same rights. BTW, to say "we're married" is a right only insofar as it is the right to free speech—and homosexuals in California can still say that all they like. Nothing about proposition 8 changes that. Your last sentence makes very little sense: what I consider and what proposition 8 argues have nothing whatsoever to do with eachother; I did not help draft proposition 8, I did not vote on proposition 8, and I was not at all involved in the campaigning efforts surrounding either side of it. BTW, Proposition 8 did not radically "redefine" anything—Californians, by an overwhelming majority, decided in 2000 to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Then, last year, a panel of 4 judges decided to "redefine" marriage to include homosexuals. Proposition 8 was simply the people of California reasserting their right to define marriage as a people, instead of having 4 judges take that right from them. Jade Knight (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I will say, however, that insinuating someone's viewpoint is wrong because it is religiously-based, instead of addressing that person's arguments directly, is ad-hominem (as would be the reverse). Jade Knight (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Insinuating that your beliefs are better or more accurate that anyone else's, yes. if you didn't think so, you wouldn't be so hell bent on forcing it down our throats. I believe what I want, it is MY right. I won't have a Church, religion, or government tell me what human sex I should like. I live in America and if people don't like that I am an GAY American, then they have several other countries which don't like homosexuals that you can choose to go to. But because I am gay, does not mean my rights, as an American, should be limited. Last time I checked, the federal constitution, IMO more powerful than the Bible in terms of beliefs, doesn't define marriage as between a man and woman. It would be like saying I cannot vote because I am gay...what is the difference? Setting the religious aspect of marriage aside, there is none. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're insinuating that your beliefs are better or more accurate than anyone you care to disagree with; that is the nature of disagreement, if disagreement is intended to be a catalyst for change. I'm not interested in forcing "my beliefs" on others. You know, DragonFire, people could just as easily say "If you want to get a gay marriage, then you have several other countries which like homosexuals that you can choose to go to." That statement, like your own, ignores the reality of people living in this country. Quite frankly, it's rude. Realize that, as a gay person living in America, you currently have all of the same rights as non-gay people living in America. I believe I've already pointed this out elsewhere on this page. (I'm not interested in comparing the Constitution to the Bible, BTW—the two have little in common, frankly.) It's nothing like saying you can't vote because you're gay, DragonFire: if that were the case, you would be disenfranchised. Now, if the current law were that homosexuals could not marry, then yes, that would be somewhat akin. But that's not the current law. The current law allows homosexuals to marry legally the exact same ways that heterosexuals can marry legally. It also places the same restrictions on them. Neither, for example, can legally marry more than one person at the same time, even if they are in love with more than one person at the same time. Jade Knight (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just glad Prop 8 passed. Yevuard (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Pursuer Of Happiness

Why is there a need for gay organizations for same-sex marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.208.64 (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)