skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for philipcala

( philipcala )

Comments made by philipcala

Documentary Attempts To Lift The Curtain On Prop 8

randolphslinky says "Philipcala you're being intellectually dishonest."

How would you know? Someone who casually throws around such accusations is hardly in a position to know.

You say "... please tell everyone how homosexuals are supposed to "prove" their marriage will be for the benefit of family life as you put it."

I didn't say "prove". You are putting up a straw man to knock down. I said to base the argument on the potential benefit to family life of expanding the word "marriage". In view of the sorry state of traditional family life, extending marital rights to same sex couples will help their family life and any children in the household.

You continue: "And then tell us all why heterosexuals don't have to offer such proof. (Be careful here too, it gets really ugly with the Stats on American heterosexual marriages)."

It is pretty obvious that family life, be it heterosexual or gay, is helped by the social commitment that marriage entails.

But when gay marriage is claimed as a civil right based on "relationship equality", when any distinction is claimed to be akin to race discrimination, and when private clinics, agencies, and others are sued because they want to restrict their services to traditional relationships, then I see a problem.

As for the original issue of lifting the curtain on who funded Prop 8, as I said before, we all need to know who is behind publications meant to influence us, but not so one side can try to intimidate the other. That unfortunately provides a good reason to restrict transparency and so is counter-productive.

June 28, 2010 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Documentary Attempts To Lift The Curtain On Prop 8

Randolphslinky, I wish you didn't have so much sarcastic vitriol dripping from your posts! You also insist on believing that religion and the Bible are the only reason anyone could have for objecting to the way gay marriage is being promoted as a civil right. The implication is that any group wishing to focus their services on traditional relationships is comparable to a restaurant wanting to serve only white people. White folks eat just like everyone else, and there is no real basis for discriminating between people when it come to restaurants. However, there are real distinctions that can be made between traditional partnerships and all others. These distinctions should not be arbitrarily discarded on the alter of "relationship equality". Promote gay marriage as a privilege extended to non-traditional partnerships for the benefit of family life, and I could vote for it. But I can't vote for making illegal any distinctions between traditional versus non-traditional relationships. In my opinion, that goes too far.

June 24, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Documentary Attempts To Lift The Curtain On Prop 8

janejanebobane has given very good and actual examples of how the promotion of gay marriage equality as a civil right has already been used to challenge or deny PRIVATE persons and groups the right to choose whether to counsel, impregnate, marry, or photograph folks based on whether their relationship is traditional. My objection to the supposed equality of gay relationships is based on biology and culture, not religion. Why not promote extending marriage to gay relationships based on its value to present family life and without the legal implications of the supposed equality of gay marriage to traditional marriage? I could vote for that. Considering the closeness of past votes, a 3 percentage point shift could make all the difference.

June 23, 2010 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Documentary Attempts To Lift The Curtain On Prop 8

Concerning the propriety of the Mormon Church in promoting Prop 8, I believe that whenever spiritual ministers stray from their primary role of facilitating personal spiritual development in their congregations, whenever they act out collectively in the world, then they are no longer acting as a religious organization offering spiritual services alone, but rather as a social advocacy group as well. An advocacy group is subject to different rules than a church. A church should be able to teach a spiritual truth that individuals in the congregation are free to interpret and apply to the world. But a church as a church advocating specific propositions is acting in that case as a social advocacy group and should be subject to rules governing such groups. Most importantly we all need to know who is paying for the ads meant to influence us.

June 22, 2010 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Documentary Attempts To Lift The Curtain On Prop 8

Re Randolphslinky's response to my earlier comment, I did not say I was against gay marriage. Nor did I base my position on the Bible. I simply disagree with how gay marriage is being promoted. I disagree with the claim that making any distinction between gay versus traditional marriage is unfair and violates gay rights. The implications of that argument are that no one could prefer traditional marriages without being legally judged discriminatory. As I said, remove that potential threat and I would vote for gay marriage, especially considering the present state of family life in our country.

June 22, 2010 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Documentary Attempts To Lift The Curtain On Prop 8

Had gay and other family partnerships been promoted solely on the basis of greater loyalty to family values, then I would have voted against Prop 8. Unfortunately, the proponents of gay marriage (including 4 of the 7 California Supreme Court justices) claimed and still claim that it is unfairly discriminatory to deny marriage to same sex partners. But that would imply that churches, private fertilization clinics and private adoption agencies would be unfairly discriminatory if they continue to restrict their services to traditional relationships. Public schools would need to teach gay marriage on equal footing with male-female marriage. That goes too far and also ignores a million years of biologic and cultural evolution that has delivered to us the male-female relationship as the potentially ideal partnership for unaided procreation and the raising of children.

June 22, 2010 at 12:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )