Group opposed to gay marriage plans U...

Group opposed to gay marriage plans Utah gathering

There are 30 comments on the The Fresno Bee story from Jul 1, 2014, titled Group opposed to gay marriage plans Utah gathering. In it, The Fresno Bee reports that:

The Rockford, Illinois-based World Congress of Families has about 40 partner organizations, including the Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Fresno Bee.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#1 Jul 1, 2014
Are they going to gather together and not marry a gay person? Good for them.
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#2 Jul 1, 2014
This is the reality of what you cowardly Americans have allowed... this is the sickness that becomes worse and demands more the more you stay neutral and allow this insanity to redefine your country and morals. Look at these pictures... this is the mentality and the promise.

http://www.blogwrath.com/toronto-homosexual-w...

Give a queer an inch and they will take a mile, then turn around to infect your children with HIV and mental disease.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4 Jul 1, 2014
I wonder why this freaks a disobedient too the Bible.

1 Peter 4:15New King James Version (NKJV)

15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6 Jul 1, 2014
Howard wrote:
It's refreshing to see decent people making a stand and fighting tooth and nail to the end to protect families and children from the homosexual plague destroying our once great nation..
From the article titled:
Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Kentucky's ban on gay marriage, and in doing so he issued a scathing rebuke to opponents of same-sex marriage.

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

“….These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.[...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering….”.

-District Judge John G. Heyburn II

http://theweek.com/article/index/264096/speed...

To view the ruling in PDF format: http://static.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7...

Many children who had Dads serve in the military don't have fathers anymore. How does that affect your “no role model in the home so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry” equation? Should that mean we ban the spouses of Veterans who died and left behind children from marrying just like gays and lesbians?

The whole shtick about a Dad (or Mom) not being in the home is one of the flimsiest "arguments" against SSM for so many reasons. Objecting to SSM because of role model ideals ignores reality.

One of those realities I just pointed out. Another is the divorce rate which results in many children not having one parent in the home. Why object to SSM and not divorced people with children remarrying? Divorced people with children are very similar to gays and lesbians with children. So it is obviously an equal protection issue, and to deny SSM would not be in the best interest of the family.

What about Big Brothers and Big Sisters? Two organizations formed to fill the role if the child lacks a good male or female role model in the home. It's sort of odd you, wondering and Kimmie never complain a child being exposed to those 'gender segregated' relationships. I'm sure you endorse those groups, so it's hypocritical of you to complain about a gay or lesbian couple not being able to provide a Mom or Dad for a child.

Then there is the fact that the States all allow single parent adoption. I’m sure you oppose that for the same reason you oppose SSM. Notice that you put your feelings about marriage and two parent homes ahead of the needs of the child.

Now if you are worried about a male role model (or a female one in the case of a male SSC) for the child, they have all the same resources every other child has through school, sports, church, etc. So the whole male/female Mom/Dad roles that you want children to have are possible even without the biological Mom or Dad being around. Therefore the role model objection for SSM is not a valid objection.

Let us remember the words of District Judge John G. Heyburn II.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#7 Jul 1, 2014
Brilliant, "DNF".

BRILLIANT !!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8 Jul 1, 2014
Howard wrote:
It's refreshing to see decent people making a stand and fighting tooth and nail to the end to protect families and children from the homosexual plague destroying our once great nation..
Only a backward hillbilly would believe that.

Rose's Law applies.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9 Jul 1, 2014
These nuts will all get together and whine.

How pathetic is that?
Larry Craig s WC Stance

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Jul 1, 2014
How will the mormon whatever it is find the manpower to baptize by proxy into the mormon whatever it is all One Million Moms, though?

My guess is that the mormons will take some scientology classes to help the mormons manipulate time and space in the necessary way....
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Jul 2, 2014
Wow people will spend millions to deny people rights, sick.
Marcavage s Emission

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jul 2, 2014
Truth wrote:
Wow people will spend millions to deny people rights, sick.
The effort reliably makes them (the organizations) millions, however. That money supports the rentboy activities of an awful lot of folks, I'll wager.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#13 Jul 2, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>.....The whole shtick about a Dad (or Mom) not being in the home is one of the flimsiest "arguments" against SSM for so many reasons. Objecting to SSM because of role model ideals ignores reality.
To that point, most of the kids of gay parents that *I* know actually have THREE very active parents, not just the two-parent model that the right-wing crazies seem to worship so much--the two actual parents and the third bio parent is often also involved. How can a child being loved and protected by THREE parents not be better than two?

Not to mention that ALL parents and families have outside friends and families that act as role models for the children involved. Both my parents had best friends that were large parts of my life growing up and definitely positive role models.

Unless people are planning on taking themselves into a bomb shelter or marooning themselves on a remote, deserted island, and permanently shutting out the rest of the world, children can't help but have role models of both genders from the outside world. Part of the role of being a parent is to make sure that your child has only positive role models, as far as that's possible (which isn't very far in today's world).

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#14 Jul 2, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
These nuts will all get together and whine.
How pathetic is that?
Too right. There will likely be *several* dozen people there crying and whining and kicking the dirt and being angry. How sad to waste their lives being upset about things that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on their lives....

But it WILL be VERY entertaining for us!! I hope someone films it so we can all point and laugh!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Too right. There will likely be *several* dozen people there crying and whining and kicking the dirt and being angry. How sad to waste their lives being upset about things that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on their lives....
But it WILL be VERY entertaining for us!! I hope someone films it so we can all point and laugh!!
I've been laughing for years already. LOL

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#16 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
To that point, most of the kids of gay parents that *I* know actually have THREE very active parents, not just the two-parent model that the right-wing crazies seem to worship so much--the two actual parents and the third bio parent is often also involved. How can a child being loved and protected by THREE parents not be better than two?
Not to mention that ALL parents and families have outside friends and families that act as role models for the children involved. Both my parents had best friends that were large parts of my life growing up and definitely positive role models.
Unless people are planning on taking themselves into a bomb shelter or marooning themselves on a remote, deserted island, and permanently shutting out the rest of the world, children can't help but have role models of both genders from the outside world. Part of the role of being a parent is to make sure that your child has only positive role models, as far as that's possible (which isn't very far in today's world).
Beautifully said. If I ever married and we had a son, I am sure my 4 sisters and several nieces would be able to provide strong positive female roles models so he wasn't "confused somehow".

For us it's a very exciting time, but for others this is very frightening. I find it interesting that SSM is making such great strides while at the same time, the religious right is practically in post coital bliss after the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the left is in an uproar. Getting a bit off topic there but I have "evolved" my thinking about that case.

Too bad the anti gay industry opposes evolution even when it comes to thinking and strategy. They insist on using the same losing claims to justify what is being increasingly seen as unlawful acts.

IN fact many court cases are citing the SCOTUS majority opinion found in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

It makes no sense for them to claim that only a Mom and Dad can provide appropriate role models for children.

As snyper used to say, Romans 12:2
International Standard Version
"Do not be conformed to this world, but continuously be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God's will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect."

Sadly the anti gays refuse to see the futility of their cause.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#17 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Too right. There will likely be *several* dozen people there crying and whining and kicking the dirt and being angry. How sad to waste their lives being upset about things that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on their lives....
But it WILL be VERY entertaining for us!! I hope someone films it so we can all point and laugh!!
Now that was mean.

(I agree with it but....)

wink

(oh dear, are my Presbyterian roots showing?)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#18 Jul 2, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Beautifully said.
Thanks!
DNF wrote:
<quoted text> If I ever married and we had a son, I am sure my 4 sisters and several nieces would be able to provide strong positive female roles models so he wasn't "confused somehow".
This is what mystifies me--the utter lack of ANY effort toward cogent thinking among those that oppose us. Do they REALLY believe that a child's parents are his or her ONLY role model??? OMG!!!! Talk about NAIVE!!!

I suspect their actual fantasy is that children only learn anything from their parents, and what the parents don't teach them, they won't know. It speaks directly to their fears of sex ed and schools acknowledging that gay people exist. Again SO naive!!

Even if a child has *fantastic* parents that do absolutely everything right and teach the child all about the endless wonders of the world, a child STILL needs more than just them as role models! And, frankly, only truly irresponsible and selfish parents don't *want* that for their child(ren). To desire for your own child to be so sheltered and ignorant of the ways of the world is child abuse. They'll get chewed up and spit out by the real world and it'll be all the parents' fault.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
For us it's a very exciting time, but for others this is very frightening.
That's a good point. They really ARE terrified. But it's a terrified of their own making. They CHOOSE to be ignorant of reality. They CHOOSE to be afraid of what they don't understand rather than learning about it and no longer allowing it to harm them.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I find it interesting that SSM is making such great strides while at the same time, the religious right is practically in post coital bliss after the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the left is in an uproar. Getting a bit off topic there but I have "evolved" my thinking about that case.
I'll be crucified for admitting it, but I DO see both sides of that case. And note that the SCOTUS, themselves, specifically limited the case to this one issue and said it could not be used as precedence for any other case.(Good luck with that, SCOTUS, but that's what they said.....)
Mushroom Clouds

Florence, MA

#19 Jul 2, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
This is the reality of what you cowardly Americans have allowed... this is the sickness that becomes worse and demands more the more you stay neutral and allow this insanity to redefine your country and morals. Look at these pictures... this is the mentality and the promise.
http://www.blogwrath.com/toronto-homosexual-w...
Give a queer an inch and they will take a mile, then turn around to infect your children with HIV and mental disease.
Jesus Christ! Just drop the bomb already!
WoW!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#20 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks!
<quoted text>
This is what mystifies me--the utter lack of ANY effort toward cogent thinking among those that oppose us. Do they REALLY believe that a child's parents are his or her ONLY role model??? OMG!!!! Talk about NAIVE!!!
... be used as precedence for any other case.(Good luck with that, SCOTUS, but that's what they said.....)
Are all biological parents fit to raised children? I agree. It is an appeal to tradition fallacy.
Mushroom Clouds

Florence, MA

#21 Jul 2, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Are all biological parents fit to raised children? I agree. It is an appeal to tradition fallacy.
"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide".
~Joseph Goebbels

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22 Jul 2, 2014
Howard wrote:
It's refreshing to see decent people making a stand and fighting tooth and nail to the end to protect families and children from the homosexual plague destroying our once great nation..
Really?

What are they going to do? Gather and whine about other people's business?

Those snakes are destroying our once great nation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Salt Lake City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
William Edward Puckett 5 hr Carol 18
Bruce "Catelyn" Jenner: FAKE HERO Sun Ha Ha Ha 1
The Pucketts Sat Carol 1
News Who says Mormons aren't Christians? (Oct '11) May 26 Raydot 31,994
I wish it wasn't like this May 25 Missing You 1
Apartments that forbid pitbulls in So SLC May 23 Anonymous 3
White men! Date a woman with bi-racial kids? (May '11) May 23 10uhsee 66
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salt Lake City Mortgages