Rick Harsch wrote on Sep 11, 2006 8:36 PM:
" Move to France! What an idea. Atheist truffles? Unfortunately, France is more Christian than America, so you'll have to stay there. That's sad, because the French maintain their virility and femininity and are quite tolerant of gay folk. It's a far more free country than America. And statistics show that children raised by gay couples achieve higher academic standards and play better soccer. "
why? wrote on Sep 11, 2006 5:52 PM:
" I am shocked at how much time and money is spent defining something that shouldn't even be delt with at a govermental level. Marriage is a religous ceremony that is recognized by churches. Last time I checked church and state sould be seperated, why is our government deciding who can or can't get married? If it were up to me i would say lets forget marriage at a goveremental level because the governemt has no business saying who can or cant get married, leave it up to the churches. I think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else...but marriage isn't a right that should be granted by our government.... "
Alf wrote on Sep 11, 2006 9:39 AM:
" I'm told that there are about 365 biblical teachings against heterosexul behavior. So are all heterosexual acts incompatible with Christian teaching? If I was raised to hate straights, I'd read Jesus' comment to the adulterous woman and say, "Jesus called her heterosexuality a sin and told her to quit it"; therefore, heterosexuality is a sin. Those who prostitute scripture to satisfy their own prejudices will always find an excuse to hate by using the same "ill-logic." "
See what happens wrote on Sep 11, 2006 7:36 AM:
" When gay people are parents we end up with monsters like Karl Rove. The horror! The horror! "
Remember wrote on Sep 11, 2006 7:35 AM:
" First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller "
Still Waiting For the Proof (To "Just Me") wrote on Sep 10, 2006 11:43 PM:
" Majority opinion? The "majority" used to support slavery, the sub-human status of black people, Jim Crow segregation, the prohibition of women's voting, the legal right for a man to rape his wife, and many other horrible violations against one's fellow Americans. Our Constitution is based on the concept of protecting the powerless from the powerful. Also, financial arguments against gay marriage are completely INVALID. NO amount of money is worth more than protecting the equal rights of ALL Americans to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are ALL equal in the eyes of the Law, and that is something that money cannot destroy. "
The truth is out there wrote on Sep 10, 2006 7:00 PM:
" I know many lesbian "couples" that used anonymous donations from sperm banks so as to NOT know who the father is. In using an anonymous donor, it guarantees that the "father" will not be forced to pay "support" by the state. They (the lesbian couple) also don't want the state to recognize them as married, because it would reduce or eliminate government aid. It's all about money. "
.....not the only regligion part 2 wrote on Sep 10, 2006 1:40 PM:
" Are these same opposers to the ammendment also the ones who were opposed to the woman's movement, or the end of slavery, or the civil rights movement? Rethink throughout history how so many have suffered by thoughts such as your own. One God, one loving God who does not discriminate! "
Catholicism is not the only wrote on Sep 10, 2006 1:39 PM:
" I totally disagree, I do not feel that only the Catholics get to go to Heaven, as I know many who merely do "lip service" on Sunday in church and do not honor God's will and laws elsewhere. Granted you have that with every religion. I feel that there is one God and many different religions to praise and honor him, as well as one Heaven above for all of us. As for my stance on marriage.....I feel that one's sexual orientation should not be a way to discriminate them from being able to legally be married and to raise a family. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 10, 2006 11:49 AM:
" The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"
Protestants aren't truly Christian wrote on Sep 10, 2006 11:04 AM:
" The only true Christians are "Catholics" ignore this false religion. It's the 1 commandment. "
to "Truth" wrote on Sep 10, 2006 10:48 AM:
" "1. Children of divorced couples know both biological parents, children of gays will never know at least one of their biological parents."
Most Lesbian couples ALWAYS know who the father of their children are. They recruit a family member (of the non-childbearer), and they donate the DNA.
You obviously are not bright. "
Normal??? wrote on Sep 10, 2006 9:23 AM:
" Please tell me what is normal, and through who's eyes have you determined this. To, "children of gays will never know at least one of their biological parents." If a child comes from a divorce, of course the child will know the parent. Does a child from rape know the biological parent? Most children in same sex relationship come from adoptive agencies, and are usually considered the least sought after due to many phyical limitations. Raising a child is not the single responsibility of parents or parent. Children are a community resonsibility. "
MN_Guy wrote on Sep 10, 2006 9:03 AM:
"
Finally, a decent argument, well written.
"No one here or elsewhere has ever answered the question: "HOW DOES THE MARRIAGE OF TWO GAY PEOPLE NEGATIVELY IMPACT STRAIGHT MARRIED COUPLES AND THEIR FAMILIES ?". It can more easily be argued that low wages, outsourcing of jobs, adultery, and alcohol more negatively impact families in America. But it is easier for gays to be made the scape goats for the destruction of the American family."
I'm still not in favor of gay marriage, but at least the above statement clears the air. "
The truth is out there wrote on Sep 10, 2006 8:37 AM:
" 1. Children of divorced couples know both biological parents, children of gays will never know at least one of their biological parents. 2. Doyle, using HIS line item veto, cut Medicaid for CHILDREN, this isn't just a Republican issue, ALL politicians DO IT. 3. With out the amendment, the State Supreme court WILL eliminate the current marriage law. 4. The part of the amendment dealing with what you all consider "civil unions" has little to do with RIGHTS, and much to do with TAX COLLECTION. "
re: this clown wrote on Sep 10, 2006 8:01 AM:
" What this clown doesn't say is that many kids adopted by lovong gau couples would otherwise sit in foster care. "
What about Childless Gay Couples? wrote on Sep 10, 2006 7:45 AM:
" I'm in a loving 14 year Same Sex relationship. We do not plan on EVER having children. I would still like all the protections of marriage. How come a heterosexual couple who wants to remain childless can marry? "
just me wrote on Sep 10, 2006 12:43 AM:
" for those of you looking for "proof" that the gay life style will ruin America, you won't ever hear it. there is no solid proof, but there is something called the majority opinion. first there should not be a second sentence in the amendment referendum. second the "proof" i think is in the benefits that people want to give out to gay couples. the health care costs alone will sky rocket, therefore less cash in people's pockets. from there i think you can figure the rest out. "
Lance wrote on Sep 9, 2006 10:26 PM:
" The marriage ammendment is nothing more than a republican attempt to garner votes. No one here or elsewhere has ever answered the question: "HOW DOES THE MARRIAGE OF TWO GAY PEOPLE NEGATIVELY IMPACT STRAIGHT MARRIED COUPLES AND THEIR FAMILIES ?".
It can more easily be argued that low wages, outsourcing of jobs, adultery, and alcohol more negatively impact families in America. But it is easier for gays to be made the scape goats for the destruction of the American family. "
MN_Guy wrote on Sep 9, 2006 9:06 PM:
" The homosexual community has done a masterful job of public relations that has linked their sexual preferences with "civil rights" and at the same time accused anyone who disagrees with them as a horrible, uncaring homophobic person. When is the last time you saw a gay person portrayed on TV or in a movie as a bad person? It's not about love, or the old "loved one in the hospital" propagada. It's about them demanding that abnormal behavior be classified as normal. Do what you want in private, but don't tell school children it is just a normal variation of life. It's not and never will be. "
Still Waiting For the Proof wrote on Sep 9, 2006 5:47 PM:
" To date, I have not seen or heard one bit of proof of gay marriage harming heterosexual marriage or children. All articles, message boards, and Letters to the Editor that I have ever read have completely failed to prove how gay marriage hurts anyone. All I have seen is rampant condemnation of gay sex, Biblical quotations (but none from Jesus Christ), and childish insults and mockeries. So, I continue to wait patiently..... "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 9, 2006 4:57 PM:
" Dear Interesting: Your idea of tolerance is having the "freedom" to step on someone else's toes in the name of Christianity and the Bible. When someone points a finger at you, saying get off someone else's feet, you scream intolerant. Give me a break. We are all prepared to tolerate your religious beliefs, please find it in your heart to consider tolerating others. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 9, 2006 3:33 PM:
" one year in la crosse i was come onto by four separate gay men, three of whom were gentle enough, the fourth of whom had gone caca in his drawers and was unsubtle. i thought maybe i was a magnet for gays. then nearly 20 years passed and all the gays i met were uninterested in me. some were happily involved and some were anxiously looking, and some were resigned to relatively love-mate-less lives. they reminded me a lot of heterosexuals. "
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness wrote on Sep 9, 2006 3:18 PM:
" One of the foundations of the Declaration of Independence. I do not see anything that has to do with sexual orientation or religion in this context. If you are an American you will vote "YES" so that your fellow Americans may continue to follow the dream regardless of your disdain for how others live their life in The United States of America! "
Solomon wrote on Sep 9, 2006 1:14 PM:
" To to Solomon: Are you really unable to see the difference between a gay relationship and beastiality? That demonstrates your own moral depravity more than anything else. It's the same warped sense of morality that drives those who favor this amendment. I teach my children to respect other people. That's my moral responsibility. You can go ahead and lie to your children - tell them that gay marriage brings us one step away from humans marrying turtles. Hopefully, they'll be smart enough to know that you're full of it. "
To Solomon wrote on Sep 9, 2006 11:39 AM:
" I disagree that we need to teach our children about the gay lifestyle in school. Unfortunaltely, most are already very well aware of it through network TV and other media outlets. I assume you would also condone teaching polygamy, polyamory, adultry, fornication, and beastiality as acceptable alternatives as well. Why limit it to only one type of "alternative" sexual behavior? In addition, taking a stance against immorality hardly equates with abuse. For people who choose this lifestyle - that's up to them, but like it or not, there is right and wrong. We must continue respect those who choose what God has declared as wrong while not condoning the actions. "
Bottom Line wrote on Sep 9, 2006 9:59 AM:
" The bottom line is this. Regardless of whether this amendment passes or not, same-sex marriage will still be illegal in the state of Wisconsin. The question is this: "Are we satisfied with the current definition of marriage as being between a husband and wife, as state law mandates, or does it need to further clarified as being between one man and one woman?" This is what the amendment is asking and this is what you need to make your choice based upon. It has nothing to do with benefits, liberties, rights, etc as some would have you believe. If it doesn't pass, nothing changes, but the door will remain open to future liberal interpretations of "husband" and "wife". Which will you choose? "
Interesting wrote on Sep 9, 2006 9:44 AM:
" It has been interesting to observe the dialog, particularly the negative, intolerant, name-calling responses by those opposed to the amendment, who themselves preach a message of "tolerance". What a hypocritical double standard. It is also interesting that the Tribune will not post comments containing "religious attacks" but have allowed comments directed towards
Christians labelling them as the "American Taliban" , "religious brainwashed hippies", and the like. "
Protect the family? wrote on Sep 9, 2006 8:57 AM:
" We have to protect the Christian family at all costs.
After all where do the vast majority of serial killers and child molesters come from? If you guessed strict fundimentalist families wou win a plastic dashboard Jesus and a "the Bible said it, I believe it, that setlles it" bumper sticker for your car.
"
majority rules? wrote on Sep 9, 2006 8:11 AM:
" i think this is a pretty big misunderstanding about American civic life. we don't simply follow the will of the majority. minority rights are accepted. if they weren't, half our federal budget in 2002 would have been spent building internment camps for american muslims. we live in a pluralist society, which means multiple "ways" are tolerated and accepted. this is the result of those darn "activist" founding fathers, like T.Jefferson...dang liberal. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 9, 2006 7:48 AM:
" What should be taught in schools is that gay people exist and that its not okay to abuse them just because they're gay. We should all be teaching that to our children. You seem to agree with "tolerance", who puts gay people and the 9/11 terrorists in the same category. It is that depraved sense of morality, as well as an obsessive desire to insult gays that is driving the attempt to pass this amendment. "
Jimmy wrote on Sep 9, 2006 3:20 AM:
" It's always for the good of the children, isn't it. Stop using that line, its getting old, and there are so many *actually* harmful things we are doing to some children that we would never think about ceasing, i.e. alcohol abuse, smoking, etc. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 9, 2006 1:01 AM:
" Curious: While you assert that expanding the concept of marriage to same-sex couples "attacks the moral fabric" and the "institution of marriage", you are defending concepts such as 'fabric' and 'institution'. On the other side are the CHILDREN in these families who you would like to Amend the Constitution to HURT. So you tell me what is more important, a concept of an institution or a concept of a fabric or real flesh and blood children. I will stand with the children each and every day against those who fight imaginary battles and hurt the young Americans among us in that situation. "
Fairness for All wrote on Sep 8, 2006 10:18 PM:
" To Curious: You asked several times why gays "insist on attacking the moral fabric of society". I guess you could ask the same of people who "insist" on getting a divorce. Both are present in our society, neither are going anywhere, and both deserve civil treatment for the sake of families. "
Fairness for All wrote on Sep 8, 2006 10:13 PM:
" To Curious--"Should a pedophile be able to marry a 5-year old?" Hmm...two consenting, tax-paying, law-abiding adults vs. a criminal and a minor incapable of making his/her own legal decisions? Do you really want to make that correlation? It unravels your argument. "
Understanding wrote on Sep 8, 2006 7:59 PM:
" Solomon and others - to say that same-sex marriage hurts no one is only partially true. It may not affect people in the near term, but let's use some foresight. For example, God forbid divorce, but it was "legalized" by Moses thousands of years ago because of the hardness of man's heart- and we're all aware of the negative consequences that it has had. In Massachusetts and Vermont, the homosexual lifestyle is beginning to be taught to elementary school students because the practice is "legal". You may not see the negative effects immediately, but they will follow. It is a natural progression when morality decays. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 8, 2006 3:42 PM:
" To Tolerance has limits: Tolerance does indeed have limits. And, most americans wouldn't tolerate your belief that gay people marrying is the moral equivalent of killing thousands in the 9/11 attacks. Gay marriage hurts noone. It offends some peoples' religeous beliefs. So, be offended and move on. The 9/11 attacks killed thousands and wounded thousands more. You have the right to express your warped, bizarre belief that gay marriage is as bad as 9/11, but I would hope you would have more respect for those who lost loved ones in that brutal attack. "
GOD wrote on Sep 8, 2006 3:32 PM:
" Right on PAPA BEAR. You have got it right. "
To Papa Bear wrote on Sep 8, 2006 3:10 PM:
" If it takes a man to be a dad, how can any woman in a same-sex relationship fufill a child's need for a father? The same can be said for a man fufilling a child's need for a mother. "
Understanding wrote on Sep 8, 2006 3:06 PM:
" A common thread here is the love of God. He is a God of love and calls us to love one another. We can love without accepting what He forbids. The point being missed here is that there are other attributes of God. He is gracious, merciful, forgiving. What many overlook, however, is that God is also holy, righteous, and just. Therefore, He established consequences for living outside His plan (clearly laid out in the Bible). Because He is holy, He tolerates nothing unholy. We all unholy and that's why He sent Christ into the world. You can choose to belive or not. My intent is not to judge or force my beliefs - just inform. If you're uncomfortable with that, maybe God's trying to reach you so give Him a chance. "
Real Nice wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:52 PM:
" 'Eat that you religious brainwashed hippies' Spoken like a truly open-minded Marxist/Leninist. "
Curious wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:51 PM:
" Papa Bear said, 'Government and religion should not be inter twined' With all due respect, our Founding Fathers were clear that the two SHOULD exist together. 'Without religion there is no virtue. Without virtue there is no liberty.' 'Government and religion are twin sisters.' You may have never heard these quotes because the liberal playbook over the past 5 decades has made these types of historical references verboten. I'm curious, you mention that people should be able to marry whoever they want. Should a pedophile be able to marry a 5-year old? "
Real Nice wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:47 PM:
" 'Maybe you should move to IRAN where religious mullahs call all of the shots' Spoken like a true communist where only the elite are allowed to express an opinion. Apparently Patriot2 is the only one worthy of an opinion and his will be done. "
Curious wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:45 PM:
" Patriot2 said, 'So if your religion is a religion of LOVE and not HATE, you will overcome your prejudice, live in reality, and vote NO' With all due respect, it is you who are delusional and attempting to attack the institution of marriage that has been defined as being between one man and one woman for centuries. It is you who is, whether intentional or as a useful idiot, promoting the destruction of this nation by attacking its moral fabric. I'm still waiting to find out why you would do this. "
Curious wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:42 PM:
" Patriot2 said, 'However, majority rule is about political decisions and not individual liberty' I'm curious, when did homosexual marriage become an individual liberty protected within the Constitution? I don't recall reading that anywhere in the document. Please point out which article and paragraph I can find that in. "
Understanding wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:40 PM:
" Patriot2 and others - Yes there are religions other than Christianity in our nation and we must tolerate each other. However, to say that we are forcing others to accept our beliefs is incorrect. No person can cause another to conform - that is a matter of individual choice. We are called to share and stand upon our beliefs. By "tolerance" do you mean "acceptance"? There is a big difference between the two. I can tolerate you as my neighbor without accepting/approving of your chosen lifestyle. Preaching "tolerance" as "acceptance" because of what is "right" for you is moral relativism and makes you and others guilty of what you are accusing Christians of - forcing a set of beliefs upon others. "
Curious wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:40 PM:
" Patriot2 said, 'But you will be successful in hurting those adults' With all due respect, how does clarifying what the law already says hurt anyone? The harm is created when adults choose to live an alternative lifestyle. The government doesn't make that choice for them. The bring it upon themselves to be outside the mainstream of society. I'm curious, why won't you answer my question about why you insist on destroying the moral fabric of our nation? "
Curious wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:35 PM:
" Patriot2, you're the one who said it was all about homosexual couples getting benefits like married couples do. I'm curious, why do you keep flip flopping? Are you trying to cover for the loopholes in your corrupted logic? "
God Help Us wrote on Sep 8, 2006 2:33 PM:
" 'Yeah except the majority of people are morons.' Spoken like a true Stalinist, elitist, dictator. "
Papa Bear wrote on Sep 8, 2006 1:33 PM:
" You people are dispickable. You should be able to marry who you want. Religion has no place in government. At least, that is what it did stand for. For the last 15 30 years, I see more and more religion being manipulated and used as the basis for laws and mandates. Government and religion should not be inter twined. As this case goes, I would rather a child have 2 parents than 1. And, just because they are not by blood, does not mean they are not a parent. As the old saying goes, anybody can be a father, but it takes a man to be a dad. Blood or no. Eat that you religious brainwashed hippies. "
question wrote on Sep 8, 2006 12:58 PM:
" In the bible, slavery is sanctioned. Can we repeal the anti-slavery laws if we want to? Would we be better christians if we followed this "christian" belief? "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 8, 2006 12:44 PM:
" Regarding tolerance has limits: Comparing gay marriage to Islamic terrorists is so convoluted and idiotic I shall refrain from commenting. Two homosexuals desiring to express their love for each other in marriage is like somebody hijacking jetliners and killing thousands? Get a life. Sexual expression is a private matter. What we do or do not do in the bedroom should be the rights of any two consenting adults to pursue without the fear of government snooping. Your tolerance obviously has limits. In fact, I would say you are rather INTOLERANT. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 8, 2006 12:41 PM:
" Regarding whether gays want government to sanction their sins. First of all, sin is a religious concept not a government responsibility. If we are to start regulating behavior on the basis of one religion's concept of sin, we shall have no longer protected the deepest freedoms of religious decision-making that makes us the nation that we are. Gays and progressives want to believe that Americans will rise above their own particular sexual orientation to understand that their are differences among us that should be tolerated and not persecuted. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 8, 2006 12:39 PM:
" Regarding Majority Rule: Good points. However, majority rule is about political decisions and not individual liberty. America was designed so that each person would have the EQUAL right to practice their belief in God or not in the fashion of their choice. That is why we have CIVIL LIBERTIES that are not subject to the whim of the majority that might choose to stuff them down the gullets of every person regardless of their own deepest convictions. Nice try. Maybe you should move to IRAN where religious mullahs call all of the shots. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 8, 2006 12:36 PM:
" Curious: Declaring that marriage as a "union between a man and a woman" will work to limit this arrangement to heterosexuals. I will grant you that. But it will not stop homosexuals from setting up households and having children. But you will be successful in hurting those adults and more importantly harming those children. So if your religion is a religion of LOVE and not HATE, you will overcome your prejudice, live in reality, and vote NO. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 8, 2006 12:34 PM:
" Curious, sorry for your loaded question. The issue is not about monetary gain. I don't think most heterosexuals marry for monetary gain. It is simply that the status quo includes households with two same-sex parents. Many of these households have children. Some live right here in La Crosse. These children deserve the protections that marriage brings with it for children whether it be about hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, child custody and support. And this includes the rights of that child to have TWO parents who share in those benefits. "
To the 10:39 posting-- wrote on Sep 8, 2006 11:58 AM:
" Did you EVER hear of the separation of church and state? I guess not. What kind of American are you? There are millions of citizens of this country who are not Christian. Maybe YOU should be the one to move to a different country. Furthermore, I am a Christian and a teacher and I am appalled at your "anti-God liberal" name-calling. You really have NO IDEA what you are talking about, do you? "
TO: Doesn't majority still rule in America? wrote on Sep 8, 2006 11:51 AM:
" Yeah except the majority of people are morons. "
To: Doesn't majority still rule in America? wrote on Sep 8, 2006 11:46 AM:
" So you don't have a problem with middle east countries invoking Islamic Law. The only reason you are christian is because you where raised that way. "
SICK wrote on Sep 8, 2006 11:41 AM:
" You know what is sick is how many people that still believe all that hooeey in the bible. It's 2006 there is science now, we don't need thoser fairy tales that are told in the bible. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 8, 2006 11:30 AM:
" To Tolerance: You're equating gay marriage with the 9/11 attacks. That belief is warped, bizarre and immoral, not to mention anti-american. Gay marriage hurts noone. It offends some people's religious beliefs. So, be offended and move on. 9/11 was a brutal attack on our nation where thousands were killed and thousands more injured. And you think gay marriage will damage our country just as much? You have the right to hold that opinion, but please try to show more respect for those who lost their loved ones in that tragedy. "
Gays want the government to officially sanction their sin. wrote on Sep 8, 2006 10:53 AM:
" Thank God for churches like First Free where truth is told to all. This church, and the viewpoints it presents, are a treasure to not only those of us who attend, but all in the region. "
Doesn't majority still rule in America? wrote on Sep 8, 2006 10:39 AM:
" This is a majority Christian nation and we have the right to vote for biblically correct laws. If you are an anti-God liberal, why not move somewhere where you are in the majority, like France? "
Hate and Bigotry? wrote on Sep 8, 2006 10:00 AM:
" The hate and bigotry are coming from those who are adament about destroying the traditions of our nation. No one ever suggested that homosexuals can't share their lives with one another. They can already do that and can get powers of attorney and other legal ways to acheive any right they desire. They are the ones who attacked our institutions which is why we must now defend them. It is their arrogance and jealousy and hatred for mainstream society that inspires them to destroy the traditions that the majority believe in. They chose a lifestyle that is outside the mainstream and now they think they deserve the benefits of the mainstream? Give me a break! "
Curious wrote on Sep 8, 2006 7:35 AM:
" I'm still curious. How can you rationalize destroying the moral fabric and long-standing traditions of our nation just so a very small minority of immoral citizens can have a monetary gain? I'm amazed at the depths of rationalization that you practice and I am curious to know how you descend to such depths of corrupted philosophy. I want to understand so I can better avoid that path. It is the role of government to create boundaries around human behavior lest we have anarchy. Declaring marriage as a union between one man and one woman ensures that citizens will live within a moral family unit that has resulted in successful societies for thousands of years (that it is pleasing to God is another great reason for it). If we depart that moral road then our society will rapidly descend into chaos. "
Was also at the meeting will vote NO wrote on Sep 8, 2006 7:21 AM:
" I was also at the meeting and consider myself conservative in some areas. The speaker simply FAILED at making any legitimate point. It jeoperdize families and children. Also may also jeoperdize others that are not gay, such as non married individuals and victims of domestic violence. As a conservative christian mother, I cannot go along with something so full of hate and bigotry. I hope others like me will also vote no on this. "
Tolerance has limits wrote on Sep 8, 2006 5:15 AM:
" Dear Patriot2: In your comment to Curious do I understand you to mean that because of our Country's freedoms I am to 'tolerate' what happened at 9/11 because it was their freedom to do it? I don't think so. I love the American way because it takes us to the polls and allows us to set standards for how we Americans choose to live. If some don't like that, it is not called 'intollerant', it's called Democracy! Democracy takes us to the polls. And when a law is set by the American people we don't have the right to expect 'tolerance' if someone else doesn't like it. Tolerance has limits. We set limits on murderers; pedophiles; or hundreds of others. Is that intolerant? I'm looking forward to setting a law on November 7. And when it is set, those that don't like it - are simply intolerant! "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 7, 2006 11:00 PM:
" Dear Curious,
I shall be voting NO on this Amendment because I understand something very basic about America. That each of us is created equal and that each of us is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While we do not always understand why certain people do things with their freedom, it is the tolerance of this freedom and the protection of it that is the fabric of this society. "
Fairness for All wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:38 PM:
" "Curious", the line, "They can hire lawyers to draw up powers of attorney that will ensure them every right they desire", is incorrect. No lawyer can award bereavement leave, or ensure a partner's right to draw a deceased loved one's pension, or even guarantee decision-making rights for an adopted child. And I won't even mention the lawyer's fees. Why do some need to pay thousands of dollars for a fraction of the rights others receive with a $75 marriage license? "
Fairness for All wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:32 PM:
" Understanding and Patriot2, I'm enjoying your debate. I agree with Understanding that when two people marry, it is to show their love and commitment to God and their friends and family. The original intent of marriage was a union in God's eyes. However...the government had to go ahead and stick their nose in it. The government added the civil aspect of marriage, which includes tax benefits, rights to pensions, hospital visits, custody rights, etc. etc. None of these are the reasons people get married, but by denying marriage (and civil unions), you deny all this as well. And of course, deny it to parents, and you deny it to children. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:06 PM:
" To Facts or Blowing smoke: " I was at the meeting too and the research is in print to document these facts." Actually, The "research" cited by this woman and others like her is thinly veiled religeous dogma. There is no real science behind it. The unbiased research on the children of gay parents clearly shows that these kids are healthy normal kids for the most part. The only arguably damage is done by the bigotted ignorant insults hurled at their parents every day by speakers like this one. "
Curious wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:39 PM:
" I will be voting yes on this amendment for two reasons: 1) it further clarifies the intent of the original law to help prevent activist judges from finding loopholes as they did in Massachusetts and 2) I am tired of the constant attacks against the traditional values of our nation. People can live with and love whomever they choose. They can hire lawyers to draw up powers of attorney that will ensure them every right they desire. You don't need to destroy American traditions to get what you want so there must be some other reason why you insist on doing so. So I'm curious, why are you so obsessed with destroying the moral fabric of our country? "
Dear "Facts," wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:11 PM:
" I would argue the fact that your facts are wrong. Do you believe everything you read? Do you ever question anything? Just because you see something in print, you conclude it must be true. How about this-- the sky is green and the grass is blue. There it is in print-- it must be true, right? I guess you have the sense to recognize a fact when you see it. One person's fact is another person's fiction... or maybe I'm just "blowing smoke." "
Does God speak wrote on Sep 7, 2006 5:19 PM:
" in English? Does he have a Midwestern accent, too? Why do all these self-righteous, fundamental Christians think God speaks to them, or through them? Only PEOPLE discriminate against other people. God does not. "
mary wrote on Sep 7, 2006 5:12 PM:
" Ms Appling mentioned 300 Wisconsin pastors who have signed a pledge in favor of the civil unions and marriage ban. That sounds like a lot. On the other hand, nearly 150 individual pastors, more than 40 entire congregations across the state, and over 20 regional religious groups are on record as opposing the ban on civil unions and marriage. That’s thousands of people of faith who see the ban as not in keeping with the spirit of Christianity or any of the several other faiths represented by this list. Ms Appling did not give a source for her information nor give a way to see the list of actual individuals. Here, however, is a link to a long list of all the churches, congregations and individuals who oppose the ban, as well as labor organizations, professional organizations and a host of other organizations that oppose the ban. http://www.fairwisconsin.com/endorsements/index.html "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 7, 2006 5:08 PM:
" Dear Understanding,
Thank you for your tone of discussion. Please be aware that your understanding of God may differ from other Americans. That you should live as God planned for you is appropriate. America is a multicultural nation that includes atheists, Christians, Moslems, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, and many other religious faiths. It is important for each of us to exercise tolerance so that we may all get along. Imposing our religious views on everyone else will only cause problems. "
Facts or blowing smoke wrote on Sep 7, 2006 3:49 PM:
" Why is it so many of you who are apposed to this amendment have nothing better to do but to call names? Can't you win an arguement by dealing with the facts? Yes facts! I was at the meeting too and the research is in print to document these facts. If you really care to sound intelligent then grow up and knock off the name calling and deal with the facts. I really don't care where your stats come from (the pro side or the against side) but at least know from whence thou speakest! Most of us at least have the sense to know the difference between facts and blowing smoke. AS for me, the FACTS say - vote YES. "
Understanding wrote on Sep 7, 2006 3:11 PM:
" Dear Patriot2, Thanks for the dialog. To say that legislators are defining marriage is incorrect. Marriage was defined by God when He created man and woman, placed them in a unique relationship, and commanded them to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. Since then, man willingly deviated from God's plan for marriage and family, hurting many innocent people. This extends beyond the homosexual community and includes heterosexual adultry, divorce, etc. So again I reiterate that this debate is solely about legitimizing plans other than what God intended, be it homosexual, polygamy, adultry, or the like. For those that choose an alternative to God's - that is up to them - I will not judge or disrespect (but disagree with) your choice. It is not my job to do so - but know that God will in the end. "
Is it about the Children? wrote on Sep 7, 2006 2:18 PM:
" This speaker holds the viewpoint of many Republicans- and I agree with many posters here that two gay parents are better than a lot of single divorced parents. This is the same party who does NOTHING to get health insurance for the 7 million kids in this country that do not have it. So, are you looking out for kids or not? You certainly aren't proving it. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 7, 2006 2:00 PM:
" This "gay marriage hurts children" business is baloney. There is minimal adverse impact on children based on being raised by gay parents. This minimal adverse effect is caused by the bigotry espoused by this speaker. Anyone who wants the facts about this issue should read the following article: http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26666.html "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 7, 2006 1:56 PM:
" BTW, quoting from the article:"Among the reasons she listed was “Why Marriage Matters,” a book listing 26 problems children of unmarried couples face in life. The book cites research in the social sciences and says children fare worse in school, are more prone to delinquent behavior and more likely to be in failed marriages." This is another reason to include same-sex parents in the "marriage-world" so that their children, some of whom live in La Crosse, will have that same protection. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 7, 2006 1:31 PM:
" It is interesting that the "conservatives" are interested in homes with both moms and dads and yet they act to increase the probability of children out of wedlock. They oppose effective sex education depending on ineffective abstinence-only approach, they interfere with the delivery of contraceptives on college campuses, opposing morning-after OTC medication for under 18 year-olds, and interfering with abortions for girls under 18 requiring parental notification. Doesn't sound consistent to me. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 7, 2006 1:18 PM:
" Dear Understanding,
God is not defining marriage in Wisconsin. The legislators are choosing to define marriage. Bashing homosexuals and harming the children in those households will do nothing to enhance heterosexual unions. And denying the protection of marriage to those children has EVERYTHING to do with insurance benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation, child support, custody questions and treating every American with respect. "
Understanding the heart of the issue wrote on Sep 7, 2006 12:46 PM:
" The proposed amendment to the State Constitution is not about denying benefits or "religious liberties" to those involved in the homosexual lifestyle. They have the same legal, vistition and insurance rights, and liberties that heterosexual people do. The opposition to this amendment is simply about redefining marriage to include and give validation to their chosen lifestyle and nothing more. There is a reason God established and ordained marriage between a man and a woman - some are obvious while others we may never fully understand in this lifetime. What the proposed amendment aims to do is to clearly define what is already an established state law. By further defining marriage as "between one man and one woman", we will safeguard the sanctity of marriage for future generations. "
so is a child better off with Brittany Speers as a "mother" than a committed wrote on Sep 7, 2006 11:34 AM:
" same sex couple? And yeah, while we're at it let's ban divorce. It makes about as much sense as this cruel ammendment. "
How arrogant wrote on Sep 7, 2006 11:18 AM:
" Why do some people feel they have a right to interpret what God "says" about ANYTHING? How disgusting. Does it ever occur to anyone that two people of the opposite sex may be married, but never have children for whatever reason? How does that follow these so-called "rules" of marriage "for the sake of children"? Maybe we could force them to have children... Yet two people of the same sex are not allowed to have children to love? Ms. Appling, you are sadly mistaken. I will say a prayer for you. Please remember that people like her are NOT speaking for God. GOD is LOVE. "
Agree wrote on Sep 7, 2006 11:16 AM:
" Patriot2, well said. And it's about having two parents - I don't care the sex. "
Willy McGee wrote on Sep 7, 2006 10:32 AM:
" “Children need moms and dads,” Julaine Appling said at the informational forum at First Evangelical Free Church. “When we purposely create motherless or fatherless homes, we’re saying children don’t matter.”
If Julaine really believed what she says, she would work to make it harder or impossible to get divorced. Divorce creates more motherless or fatherless homes than gay marriage ever could!
I am a practicing heterosexual married 30+ years to the same woman and I am voting NO on this stupid amendment! "
Glad I didn't know about this meeting in advance! wrote on Sep 7, 2006 10:27 AM:
" The children of homosexual couples are brought into this world (or adopted) after MUCH foresight, thought and introspect. That's a lot more than you can say for all of the unwanted "oops" kids born to unfit man/woman couples and/or unwed mothers. The happiness rate is likely far higher, percentage-wise, amongst kids belonging to a loving same-sex couple as opposed to the number of those in highly disfunctional heterosexual family situations. Don't try to use children to lobby for your closeminded viewpoints. The fanatical right-wingers are using them as a wall to avoid facing the real truth - that they're all bigoted, egocentric freaks. "
Krusty wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:30 AM:
" Soo...lets say we allow gays to marry, then what? Do we draw the line right there and say no more? After the gays get what they want can we discriminate against the next group that comes along? "
We ALL need to make parenting a priority wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:14 AM:
" As a single mom, I didn't CHOOSE to raise my child without a father. His father chose not to participate in raising him. I realize that my son was and is at a disadvantage for not having a loving father in his life. Uncles, grandfathers, teachers and coaches all serve as mentors and role models, but there is no substitute for a DAD. Whether married, single, heterosexual or homosexual - commit yourself to your children and be responsible parents. "
It has nothing to do with sexuality... wrote on Sep 7, 2006 9:01 AM:
" Children live in homes of heterosexuals and homosexuals and are abused, neglected, and subject to living conditions (physical or emotional) that are difficult to believe. People that do a lousy job of raising children do a lousy job regardless of race, religion, sexual habits, etc.
For an example of how heterosexuals can provide mixed messages, look at Rudy Guiliani, our country's 9-11 hero. He had his children living in a house with his estrnged wife AND his mistriss. Tell me that isn't a confusing message for children! "
DAN wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:58 AM:
" BY THE MEANING OF UNMARRIED COUPLES,DOESN'T THAT MEAN DIVORICED COUPLES ALSO ?? THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO GET INSURANCE,INHERITANCE AND HOSPITAL RIGHTS ALONG WITH OTHER THINGS.
IF GODS WORDS ARE SO CLEAR WHY DID HE MAKE THEM GAY???
TO USE CHILDREN TO VOICE YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS IS VERY SAID. VOTE NO "
The Bible is clear on this subject wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:41 AM:
" Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God. Thank you First Free for hosting this important informational session. And thank you for supporting the Conservative Christian agenda, President Bush, and other defenders of biblical teaching. "
oz wrote on Sep 7, 2006 8:10 AM:
" If two-parent families are so important to the American Taliban (the religious conservatives who want to impose their religion on all the rest of us), then why aren't they trying to ban divorce? After all, it's "all about the children," and children are harmed far more by divorce than they are by civil unions or non-traditional couples. "
Guy Wolf wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:19 AM:
" Denying rights to homosexuals is a violation of religious liberty. There are a number of faiths that support the union of homosexual couples including Reformed Jews, some Lutheran Communities, amd the United Church of Christ among others.
People came to this country for the right to practice religious liberty. If Evangelicals do not believe in civil unions, fine. But this is not a battle between the rights of one church against another. It is a fundamental struggle for the rights of every citizen living in this country. And it is the right of every unmarried heterosexual couple to live as they choose.
By the way, there are plenty men home today that have raised their children while there happened right here in La Crosse. And the children grow up healthy and normal. I agree, two parents are better than one.
"
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 7, 2006 7:15 AM:
" It certainly is about the children. There are many children now being raised properly in the homes of same-sex parents. These children deserve the protection of MARRIAGE and are being HURT by those that would deny the legal rights provided by this institution to their parents. Issues of INSURANCE, INHERITANCE, CUSTODY and CHILD SUPPORT are associated with marriage. Attacking these children will not enhance opposite-sex marriage but only make the least able to defend themselves more vulnerable. "
Love is love! wrote on Sep 7, 2006 6:11 AM:
" Thank you, Kris Peterson, for showing that there are people who can go against the "speakers" and stand up for what is right. Love is love, and two people of the same sex can love a child as much if not more than oone man and one women. "
Advertisement
