Fresno Famous

The usual crock...

Famous Guest...
By your logic heterosexuals should also be banned on account of people like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy et al. Your website is the usual hysterical mish-mash of lies, sensational news stories (which could all be matched and surpassed by stories of heterosexual murderers)and ridiculously gross mis-information. Murder and rape are horrible crimes and wrong no matter what the sexual orientation of the purpetrator might be.
If you are truly a PRACTICING follower of Jesus Christ why don't go out and try to relieve the suffering of the sick and the poor? Why don't you try to find loving homes for unwanted children? Why don't you help a family without income find work, repair their home, get an education or medical services. But no, you don't have time for that because you are too busy fighting (what you see as)the GREAT BUGABOO SATAN incarnate in the form of marauding,murderous, vampire PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALS.
YOU LIAR,FOOL AND COWARD!

Join the National Protest against Prop. 8

http://hottopics.gay.com/2008/11/join-the-nation.html

Please pass it around!

silly prop

It is a pretty simple argument to me.. Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I was at Ballys when they announced on Faux News that it passes and some due next to me on the treadmill did a fist pump and practically had an orgasm. I am not gay, but still find it difficult to believe why anybody would want this prop to pass. Well, I do understand, and I guess that is what makes it a sad situation. Simply put minus any legal mumbo jumbo is: Gays should be allowed to marry because it will make many people happy and will have no effect upon others. It will eventually happen, so why not not allow it now and at least be proud of being somewhat progressive.

http://www. cafepress. com/lavenderliberal.
128125839

This is a great idea! Ha!

Wanna Send A Message To The Meddling Mormon's???

"For every donation of $5 or more.... the following postcard to President Thomas Monson’s office in Salt Lake City, acknowledging your donation in his name.
"

http://www.invalidateprop8.org

Dear President Monson:

A donation has been made in your name by _________________ to “invalidateprop8. org” to overturn California's Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Latter Day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.

[PLEASE PASS IT ON!!!]

PS Bush was a great president? I NEVER voted for him---NOT in 2000 and NOT in 2004. WORST PRESIDENT EVER! We are more in debt than ever thanks to him. He got us into a war we had NO BUSINESS being in (it wasn't about the terrorists---it was about "weapons of mass destruction" which---oops, never existed). When he was told about the attack on the World Trade Center, he sat on his butt reading a storybook to an elementary school class---he did NOT get up and lead this country. Katrina was a wash out (literally). the economy is in the tank. Great president? WAKE UP!!!

Prove me wrong

Bush was a great president? Tell that to any Katrina victim. But prove me wrong. Show me the great and wonderful things Heir Bush has done and I'll recant my statement.

And Stormwysper is my REGISTERED user name of this site as I had to sign up with my e-mail address and it's easy to find out who I am without tracking my IP address. It also links to my blog and also to my youtube account where I am actually on video and list my name.

You hide. Plain and simple.

RE: Seriously

What lies? Bush was a great President. Everyone loved him after 9/11 you guys just need something to bitch about and look at what he's actually done and he hasn't done a bad job. I'd hate to see what Obama would have done with a situation like 9/11. Probably just go have a chat with them. And in regards to my name how much more does Stormwysper show who you are I just didn't have time to create a login but wanted to put something because I was so angry when I saw this junk in the paper this morning. ANd its not an argument I'm just stating the facts Look it up.

Seriously?

Yet you aren't dissapointed with all the lies Bush fed this country for eight years.

Really? This is your arguement? And yet you don't have the courage to sign your own name behind this, shows how much you truly believe in the bullshit spewing from your mouth.

Barack Obama nation passes prop 8

Famous whitewater I actually feel the exact opposite of you. I am disappointed so many people fell for the lies Obama fed them about how he is going to change this country and is now are president. But I am also thankful for the passage of these Propositions which show there is some morality left in the United States and California specifically. I do not agree with Obama or his policies but in a way am glad he was running for president this year because if it wasn't for the draw he had on minorities to vote 8 would not have passed. African American voters voted for Prop 8 70% to 30% most of these probably voted for Obama as well. So in a way you can thank Obama for this and the passage of these actually fits in great with the Obama nation.

Romans actually condemns Lesbianism

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." (Rom. 1:26-28)

next thought

phew, heated! as it should be 'cause people need to wake up. okay, question for people who AREN'T scared of differences, when's the next NO on prop 8 rally? at a mormon temple, maybe? who's with me? was there one tonight? i'm in dallas people, lame lame lame dallas and i missed it.

Communities

"Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers, and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyles, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?" - Famous Guest

First of all, I am in complete support of decriminalizing prostition. It has worked in reducing the associated crime, pimping, depression and drug addiction in the European districts that have tried it and San Francisco routinely debates doing just that.

Second of all, no community left in the free world would penalize an adulterer anymore, other than perhaps by granting generous divorce settlements in favor of the scorned spouse.

Having said that, the other acts mentioned by our fearless "Famous Guest" are wrong because of the inability of those coerced into them to give consent.

It's that simple. Unless you're a right winger whose gutter-mind goes straight to the thought of voyeurism and bestiality.

"Every gay person I have met

"Every gay person I have met has either, had no relationship with their Dad, a really horrible relationship with their Dad, or they were molested by their Dad or someone who should have loved them." - Famous Guest

Uh, that's a whole heckuva lot of gay guys you've been meeting, there, dude.

As for me and my Dad, we get along great. He didn't do or say anything that any other father wouldn't have done or said, like, "Don't be a quitter" or "Don't be a wuss," or "Stand up and be a man." I took his advice and started punching homophobes in the face in junior high school when they called my a faggot.

As for the rest of all these gay guys you know, maybe their fathers sensed their sons were gay in childhood and rejected them because of it, not the other way around and not causing their sons to be gay.

Meanwhile, why the focus on gay male sexuality and not lesbian sexuality? I thought you straight guys got off on the thought of that?

Speaking of lesbianism, they tend to have fewer sexual partners, longer relationships and far lower disease rates than both gay men and heterosexual men and women.

Where's the harm in their existence?

Better yet, what made THEM lesbian, according to your rock-solid scientific opinion?

Dumb-dee-dumb-dumb-DUMB

It's obviously never occurred to tylerpenney that studying gay men, their sex lives, their sexual practices, their disease histories and what have you is, itself, a mark of latent homosexuality.

Where are all the studies of lesbians by all these so-called heterosexual male scientists? For that matter, how come the Judeo-Christian bible, written by allegedly heterosexual males, only condems gay male sex and not lesbianism?

Why the obsession with gay males? By straight males?

Back to the topic at hand: many gay males might well be sluts, but that is all the more reason to legalize the ultimately conservative institution of marriage, so that we may form long-term, monogamous relationships and avoid the emotional and medical pitfalls of multiple sex partners.

Yet another lie

"Marriage has been defined as a man and woman since time began." -tylerpenney

Yet another lie by the radical right wing homophobes!

What about the time when, according to the Judeo-Christian bible's OWN HISTORY, that gays and lesbians of Sodom and Gomorrah ran the affairs of the ancient Middle East?

Surely THEY recognized their own gay unions.

Speaking of the bible, there is the story of David and Jonathan, in the Book of Samuel. Growing numbers of scholars are beginning to view their story as evidence of the Judeo-Christian God's approval of homosexuality http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayLove3.html, in contrast with the gay rape condemned elsewhere in the bible and by virtue of a highly detailed account of their relationship "surpassing even the love of women" and Jonathan's father's disapproval of it and their subsequent "covenant" in which they exchange a promise to love one another for eternity, otherwise known as marriage vows.

Then, too, are the recently discovered same-sex marriage rituals during the middle ages http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E6D6103AF932A25755C0A...

What about non-Judeo-Christian cultures, like my Native American ancestors, who allowed what was essentially a third sex, known as the Berdache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit, where gay men became revered, mystical healers and lesbians became warrior women? What about the Isle of Lesbos, from where we get the word "lesbian?" What about the Amazon warrior women? Surely they weren't all heterosexual! What about the Hijra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra, transsexuals of ancient India, who were allowed by society to live their lives openly and freely?

You will never hear about these people and their histories because homophobes like tylerpenney are simply too stupid or too malicious to ever tell you.

Perhaps he should do some studying, himself, before he continues to show the world the correlation between bald-faced racism and homophobia.

Chickens or people?

Isn't it interesting how voters gave more rights to chickens and pigs (Prop 2) than HUMAN BEINGS!!??

Blackwater of Hate

I took at look at this:
http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html

and found this:
One of James Dobson’s more famous quotes: "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers, and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyles, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?"
That's Dobson of Focus On Families Fame

and this:
Elsa Prince, Holland, MI
Edgar & Elsa Prince Foundation–190 River Ave, Suite 300, Holland, MI 49423 • Web: www.frc.org
$450,000
Elsa Prince gave: $200,000 on 8/8/08 and $250,000 on 8/14/08
Elsa Prince of Holland, Michigan is a board member of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and their lobbying operation, the Family Research Council (FRC). Her late husband, Edgar, founded Prince Automotive and invented the lighted sun visor mirror which made them billionaires. Prince Automotive was later bought out by Johnson Controls. Edgar Prince was instrumental in creating the FRC and upon his death, Elsa Prince provided the money to build their new headquarters in Washington D.C. [8] At Edgar’s funeral, he was eulogized by James Dobson and Gary Bauer.
Prince’s son Erik serves as Vice President of the Edgar & Elsa Prince Foundation, but is best-known as co-founder and CEO of Blackwater Worldwide www.blackwaterusa.com the highly controversial private security company with federal contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan worth a reported $500 million/year. The Princes have a sprawling ranch in Cody, Wyoming not far from Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal residence in Jackson, WY. Over the years, Blackwater has been represented by high-profile lawyer Ken Starr. [9]
The Edgar & Elsa Prince Foundation is a major donor to the Alliance Defense Fund, whose other major donors include Prince’s daughter and son-in-law, Richard and Betsy DeVos (Richard is the son of the Co-founder of Amway) and the Bolthouse Foundation, whose founder, William Bolthouse, also appears on this list.

Good to know that Blackwater spreads as much hate and fear in it's own back yard as it does around the world.

*

*

Seperation of church and state

How do two men marrying and living their lives have any effect on your beliefs? Your religion is different than other religons and yet all of these religons co-exist. But clearly the Mormons were breaking the law by lobbying for Prop 8. I don't think they should be stripped of their tax exempt status, but they should be penalized for it. They need to stay OUT of politics. This is NOT the middle ages.

Hello?

Famous Guest (at least you could have the decency to sign in):

"Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers, and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyles, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?"

As to pedophiles, voyeurs, and those who sexually prefer animals ---the key difference between these and two gay or lesbian people wanting to get married is that it involves 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Pedophilia (which is commited by straights as well as gays) involves MINORS. Voyeurs are watching withOUT consent..and animals---hello? That is just plain stupid---I'll not even try to explain that away.

Adulters and prostuitution are all part of the straight world --- even more so ---than the gay world. And I am ashamed for you to lump people whose NATURAL orientation is for members of the same sex together with those into molesting children or having sex with animals or any of this.

The Skewed Truth

Because they aren't doing anything wrong. Howabout you try an arguement that hasn't been beated to death already?

The Truth

Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers, and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyles, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?

Stop speaking for everyone

Stop speaking for everyone when you speak for no one but yourself. I have NEVER felt my religion (Catholicism) was at risk due to gay marriage.

If you need a proposition to pass banning gay marriage then you are insecure about your own faith. Stop projecting your issues onto others in an attempt to mask them.

Reply MUST READ this

"ALSO AT THIS LINK, sign in-support the removal of tax exemption status
from ALL religious affiliations that support any type of political campaign. Per IRS law."

This is why people voted Yes on Prop 8. Their religions are at risk.

Re: As to your research...

The problem with this research is that it confirms exactly what I was stating; both gays and straits are promiscuous, but the gay / lesbian community as a whole accepts or promotes promiscuity, with only a fringe of gays / lesbians rejecting it, while the majority of strait communities reject promiscuity with a fringe accepting it.

promiscuity = bad for a family environment.

No on 8 supporters---MUST READ this -->

Here is a list of every person & organization that gave $5,000 or more
to the anti civil rights campaign, YES ON 8.

Boycott them:
http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html

Here is how the anti civil rights campaign, YES ON 8 was born and won.

ALSO AT THIS LINK, sign in-support the removal of tax exemption status
from ALL religous affiliations that support any type of political campaign. Per IRS law.

www.mormonsstoleourrights.com

[PLEASE REPOST/FORWARD TO EVERYONE!!!]

As to your research...

THE STATISTICS: General Comments

One of the big difficulties with the social-science literature is that it is extremely difficult to obtain representative samples of a hidden—and stigmatized—population such as homosexuals. Most researchers must resort to what is called a “convenience” sample, which is what it sounds like: the sample is gathered in a particular way because it is convenient to do so. This method potentially skews the results. For instance, many sexuality researchers have solicited study volunteers in such places as gay bars, bath houses, AIDS health centers, and pornographic magazines.

Obviously, if researchers look in places that are likely to be frequented by highly promiscuous gay men, no one should be surprised if what they find is a lot of promiscuity. Most often, it is impossible to conclude that a convenience sample is representative—that is, that it applies to the general population of gay men.

Many studies have used convenience samples for the expressed purpose of finding gay men who are at high risk for being HIV-positive. The idea here is not to find samples representative of the general population of gay men, but rather samples representative of men who are most likely to contract AIDS. Having many sexual partners is associated with higher risks of contracting AIDS. What these studies intended to do was find gay men who might have AIDS. Since the researchers had reason to suspect that AIDS correlated with multiple sex partners, and they wished to test their hypothesis, the researchers looked for gay men in places where they knew relatively promiscuous gay men interacted.

Less-biased research is below:

STATISTICS SUPPORTING THAT GAY MEN ARE NOT MORE PROMISCUOUS

1. Laumann et al
Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert Michael, and Stuart Michaels, 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This study is one of the few (it might be the only one done to date, actually) reasonably comprehensive and methodologically sound surveys of America’s practices and beliefs. It does not rely on what researchers would call a convenience sample. But now let’s look at what Laumann et al themselves concluded about their statistics. Here are some quotes (emphasis added):

“There is a clear overall pattern in this [study]. In all cases, when we dichotomize our sample, the group of people with same-gender partners (or who define themselves as homosexual or bisexual) have higher average numbers of partners than the rest of the sexually active people in the sample. In many, if not most, of the cases for the men, _these differences are not statistically significant_. (314)

“The higher mean numbers of partners for respondents reporting same-gender sex corresponds to a stereotype of male homosexuals that is widespread in our society. . . . While some evidence in our data supports this general tendency, _the differences do not appear very large_ in view of the higher variability in our measures that results from the small sample size of homosexually active men.” (316)

This last finding, that the “differences do not appear very large,” is given some interesting, important attention by Jeramy Townsley, who writes

“[The] mean, the statistic presented by Laumann, may not be the best measure to report. A further analysis of the GSS data (on which Laumann based his results) indicates that the median (50th percentile) number of sexual partners for heterosexuals is five and for homosexuals is six. The discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males.”

(Please see Townsley’s website, especially (www.jeramyt.org/gss/partners.html ), for a more detailed look at the raw numbers.)

It seems that the Laumann, et al study, as far as it goes, actually supports the idea that gay men are not much more promiscuous than straight men, and strongly argues against Glesne’s point. Although the Laumann authors admit that the sampling size of identified “active homosexuals” (my term) is relatively small, they believe their “data, limited in some respects though they may be, represent the most varied and comprehensive measures of different aspects of homosexuality to be collected on a representative sample of U.S. adults” (p. 320). When proper methods are used to gather samples (e.g. random sampling, statistical controls, etc…), even small samples can be statistically meaningful. Conversely, even a relatively large sample, if not collected appropriately, can result in seriously misleading findings.

2. Vierod et al
“Prevalence and trends in homosexual behavior in Norway”

Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. 1997. Vo. 25(1):33-38.

This study was a big one and studied the degree of change in sexual practices among homosexual men during a 5-year period. The data comes from two questionnaire surveys of sexual behavior in the general population of Norway. The study found that the for men with current homosexual experience, the number of male partners decreased from a yearly median of 1.0 in 1987 to 0.3 in 1992. This is not what I would call promiscuity.

As we might expect, the numbers of sexual partners among gay men who have AIDS was found to be higher. Among HIV-positives, the number of male partners decreased from a yearly median of 4.3 before to 1.6 after awareness of HIV-seropositivity.

3. Dolcini et al
“Demographic Characterizes of Heterosexuals with Multiple Partners: The National AIDS Behavioral Surveys”

Family Planning Perspectives. 1993. Vol. 25 (5): 203-214

This study sampled from the general population of heterosexual men in the US. What is interesting to note in this study is its findings about heterosexual malesexual behavior.

Percentage of heterosexual men, by number of partners in the year before the survey:

0 partners 10.5 percent

1 partner 77.9

2 or more 11.2

Compared to Vierod et al, it seems heterosexuals have more sexual partners per year. (Of course, the Dolcini sample comes from the U.S., while the other studied Norway. Are these two cultures similar enough to compare? Also, we note that the Norwegian study listed the “median number of partners,” while the US listed percentages of men by number of partners they’d had sex with. Nevertheless, it seems quite probable that the median for the heterosexuals studied in the US study, with about 89 percent having 1 or more partners, would calculate to be higher than, or perhaps equal to, that of the Norwegian study, with a median of 0.3 in 1992.)

Another interesting stat from Dolcini:

Percentage of heterosexual men whose marital status is “separated,” by number of partners in the year before the survey:

0 partners 17.9 percent

1 partner 53.1.9

2 or more 29.1

The above statistic seems to suggest that homosexual men have no peculiar talent for promiscuity. In fact, the study found that in certain “high risk cities,” (cities thought to have high levels of AIDS), previously-married black men were over 12 times more likely to engage in multiple relationships than were men in general. Never-married white men were found to be over 10 times more likely then men overall. Never-married white women were over 37 times more likely than women overall.

4. Bryant and Demian
“Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples”

Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services (Vol. 1, #2, 1994)

This study has generated statistics looking much different than the ones Glesne presents. Researchers Bryant and Demian report that 63 percent of study participants (gay, male) reported being involved in monogamous relationships; 78 percent reported a frequency in extra-relationship sex of zero.

For this study, “survey forms were circulated through gay churches and community centers, but most couples requested the forms after reading notices in the gay press.”

Compare the above statistic with the Laumann study, which reports that between 21.7 and 26.4 percent of the men studied said they had had sex with someone other than their wife while they were married (p. 590). While this percentage—roughly one quarter—may be better than what some might have previously thought, is it really low enough for us to declare that heterosexuality is a “healthy lifestyle?” What should our measure of health be for the heterosexual lifestyle?

So, can we conclude that this study is satisfactorily representative of the general population of gay couples? Maybe not. But at the very least, what this study illustrates is how various the scientific research is. To list merely those studies which support one’s position, and leave out others, does not seem to be an adequately thorough approach.

5. R Fay (1989, Science 243:338-348)
J Billy (1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60)

The following text is by Jeramy Townsley. (See http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom). I have read the studies myself and have checked Townsley’s work. He reports the data correctly.

“In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)—they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.”

The Billy study states:

“[M]ore than one-fifth of men have had 20 or more vaginal sex partners in their lifetime, and a similar proportion of never-married and formerly married men had had four or more partners over an 18-month period.”

(p. 58)

Keep in mind that the Billy study was of men of the relatively young age bracket of 20–39 years.

"The Truth" makes me chuckle

So you consider every gay person you met an entire census of the nation's gay population? Yeah that makes sense.

Your ignorance is showing...

Tylerpenney, you wrote: "Gay and lesbian couples have exactly the same protections under the law with civil unions."

That is NOT correct. Yes, they have SOME of the same protections, but NOT "exactly the same" protections. That's one reason there is a big push for equality.

"You can't change the definition of something that existed forever because you don't like it."

Well, yes you CAN. This is sort of off of the subject, but definitions of MANY THINGS have been changed over time based on uses and needs within society. Marriage itself has changed a great deal over time (for example: did your parents arrange for you to marry a person of their chosing? Was there a dowery involved? Interracial marriage was taboo until about 40 years ago. Or do you want to go way back to when savage men beat women over the head with a club and dragged them back to their caves?). Marriage has many purposes. It is a contract and commitment between two people, an open declaration of love, and helps create a number of legal rights. Marriage was also for procreation and rearing of children. Now, the world already has far too many people in it. More than 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce (how many children are raised in a single-parent household?), there are innumerable "illegitimate" births and there are innumerable children who have been removed from their parents or abandoned by them. And then there are those marriages where children do not factor in at all--either for physical reasons or because the couple does not want them. So marriage for the sake of having children is an unsound arguement.

"The gay and lesbian crowd has been labeled immoral not only for their sexual orientation, but by openly accepting and even promoting promiscuity, infidelity and sexual perversion."

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! The reason gays have a bad rap for promiscuity is because that's what people focus on---the committed one-on-one relationships are NOT sensational enough, but they exist. But you need to look in the mirror. The straight world is just as full of "promiscuity, infidelity and sexual perversion". In fact, there are more sex clubs, porn videos, and sex shops aimed for straights than gays. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in the gay world--it does--but it happens just as much, if not more, in the straight world. And by NOT allowing gays to marry, you are not giving them the chance to break the stereotype you see. There are MANY gay and lesbian couples in monogamous relationships...and many of those committed gays and lesbians used their window of opportunity to get married before Prop. 8.

But calling someone's sexual orientation "immoral" as you did is just out and out wrong. These people do NOT have a "choice"---it's the way they are BORN. How can it be immoral if it is not something they purposely "choose" to do?

This isn't over. Prop 8 "passed" by a much narrower margin (4%) that the similar proposition a few years back (20%)--despite all of the twisted facts, lies and even BLACKMAIL that the pro-8 team presented. EVERYONE-gay or straight-should have the same RIGHTS as everyone else.

Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending the wedding of two friends. They are both older men and have been together for many, many years. How does their marriage hurt you? How does it effect your marriage? How is it hurting children? At the wedding were several heterosexual couples and several children. In fact, one wonderful heterosexual couple bought the cake and decorations for this impromptu wedding--trying to beat Prop. 8. It was a wonderful, beautiful ceremony. NO ONE was hurt.

While making a toast after the wedding, one of the guys said something so heart-felt and eloquent--I'll not be able to repeat it nearly as well as he did. He said that, when he was a young adult and he realized he was gay, he was devastated knowing that some of the things in life he was looking forward to (getting married and having kids) were going to be denied him. Although, he said, he was too old for children, he was so thrilled to be able to get married and he was thrilled for the younger generation to be able to have that simple right, one that he thought he was never going to have.

Legal gay marriage IS going to happen eventually. DEAL WITH IT.

Huh?

To The Truth -

Your point are completely off...

I am a gay male and my dad loves me very much. I don't know what you are trying to say. Yours are invalid in this discussion.

The Truth

Some People Just Can't Handle The Truth

The Gay lifestyle is sexually deviant. Man was clearly created with a need for a woman, and woman was clearly created with a need for man.

When things go wrong in childhood that gets all messed up in a kids head, and they turn out gay. Simple as that. I am sorry your Daddy didn't love you, that doesn't give you the right to hijack the institution of marriage.

If the men and fathers in this world would step up and do their job as men, then this issue would be greatly diminished.

It is horrible that people would go through life feeling ostracized, less than human, searching for love with hundreds of partners. I can only image the heartbreak and lonliness. It must be a terrible existence.

Every gay person I have met has either, had no relationship with their Dad, a really horrible relationship with their Dad, or they were molested by their Dad or someone who should have loved them. Dads, those kids are your responsibility, protect them, love them, do your job as a father.

One thing that really bothers me is the civil rights coatails the gay movement is riding on. I am here to tell you that you have no right. The people who marched on Washington with Dr. King were not doing it for you. They were good, decent, church going folks. The vast majority of those people did not sacrafice for your right to a deviant lifestyle. The No on 8 commercials that pushed this angle were ridiculous, a complete joke.

One thing you can take from this election, American wants change, but not that change.

If this statement hurts, it is because deep down you know it to be true.

-The Truth

You can also find studies

that support that there are genes responsible for homosexuality. This completely negates any assertion that homosexuality is a choice.

Aside from that, I can imagine that with a small percentage of the population being homosexual, it would be difficult to find a partner with whom you want to share the rest of your life.

I can't imagine that any person would want to choose to have such a hard life. Being ostracized and so many other things,,,,,like people taking rights away from you that make you feel human. Not especially when it's easier to be part of the "majority" and put up a front just to make people feel ok with themselves.

Myopian Values Suck

Diablo

He isn't comfortable, that's

He isn't comfortable, that's why he's for Prop 8. I'm comfortable with who I am and have no problem with gay people getting married.

I guess the religious right has homelessness and poverty taken care of since all they seem to focus on now is gay marriage.

Precambrian Fidelity

"Marriage has been defined as a man and woman since time began"

Really, Mr. Perry, since the very beginning of time? Was that right after the Big Bang?

You really have no idea. You and so many like you are so smug,comfortable and secure in your own shoes and never consider what it might be like to walk in someone else's.

Tyler, Why do you always

Tyler,

Why do you always focus on studies for homosexual? Why not heterosexual? You'd be more surprised that heterosexual does do homosexual activities. I wonder if you do that too? Which is why you are spewing all the hate and not admitting you do those kind of "activities"?

Re: brattybrat

Brattybrat:

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.

brattybrat: I'm sure you do not promote infidelity, or sexual perversion, or any of those things: but as a whole the gay and lesbian crowd openly accepts these things, unlike a child molester priest, who is not accepted by his peers.

That is why the majority of Californians see the gay lifestyle as an assault on our values. Its not just about being gay, its the values, or lack of values that also become acceptable, like infidelity, promiscuity and sexual perversion.

I imagine tyler must be

I imagine tyler must be perfect since he has deemed himself worthy to pass moral judgmement on everyone else.

Tylerpenney you stated "The

Tylerpenney you stated
"The gay and lesbian crowd has been labeled immoral not only for their sexual orientation, but by openly accepting and even promoting promiscuity, infidelity and sexual perversion"

Do you actually believe this crap that you spew?

I take major offense to that statement. I have been in a loving,monogamous relationship for 5 years. I know several people that have been in monogamous relationships for 20+ years.
I do not promote prmiscuity,infidelity, or sexual perversion. None of my friends do either. It is crap that you say gay and lesbians promote them.
Straight people have swingers clubs and what not. Does that mean all straight people are perverts? Is that fair to monogamous straight people?

Before you keep pointing fingers at gay and lesbians making these outrageous claims you need to look in the mirror bud. How many beloved priests have been in trouble for molesting boys within the church? How many churches cover that crap up? How do you feel about that sexual perversion?

And a push to segerate a

And a push to segerate a portion of the population is a push to hate. Stop already.

Re: its not armageddon

Gay and lesbian couples have exactly the same protections under the law with civil unions. You can't change the definition of something that existed forever because you don't like it. Four activist judges tried to do this, and the people responded (twice). Marriage has been defined as a man and woman since time began.

The gay and lesbian crowd has been labeled immoral not only for their sexual orientation, but by openly accepting and even promoting promiscuity, infidelity and sexual perversion.

A push for gay marriage is a push to accept the immoral lifestyle that is associated with the gay and lesbian crowd.

Prop 8 will be in the courts

Prop 8 will be in the courts for a long time.

Thanks for writing this.

Thanks for writing this.

Ugh

I totally feel you.
I also, had reservations going into this election. Initially I was pessimistic, convinced there was no hope for the future of this country. Then around August, the tides shifted and I felt a small flicker of hope that maybe things could be different. With every speech, debate and campaign fundraiser, I began to feel that this could really happen, we could have not only a democratic president but a black man, heading our country.
The tension in my house was so thick last night. The waiting was the hardest part.
VICTORY!
But then the fall....I waited until midnight for all of the precincts to be reported. I was sick. I didnt sleep at all last night.
So many people whom I love dearly are affected. Thinking of it again just now brings tears to my eyes. Is so unjust, unfair.
My 13-year-old daughter woke up at 3am to ask the question. When I answered yes she began to cry.
Today is so bittersweet. Its sickening and frightening and disappointing all at once.
I cant wrap my mind around this type of intollerance. I cant seem to find the words to describe what I feel just that my stomach hurts, my heart aches and i wonder, how long do we have to wait for equality for all?