Misc

Owner of a mullah's heart

You can't say you aren't anti-gay when you deny equality for gays. 

Crush : 1st learn some manners before preaching others

Do you even read what I write or you are in such a rush to shout slogans and labels that you don't even read! 

1st Learn to practice what you preach which is supposedly respecting others !!!

You can call me Mullah, anti-gay or gay or whatever you want. That makes me no less or more of who I am but it only shows the hypocricy of what you say and what you practice.

Just because it is kewl or politically correct I am not going to jump on this so called "progressive" band wagon and I am not talking about America , but the definition of marriage globally and historically.

This is obviously now a personal issue of bashing me for my views by you which has nothing to do with subject at hand , First you need to take a course in healthy exchange and understanding concept of democracy before bothering to exchange ideas or claiming that you care about gays and others !!!!!!!

I always stop discussions views when parties become personal , since I refuse to bring myself to their level.

So this shall end this discussion with you and your equal opportunity progressive personal name calling labeling practice !

Let me tell you about this "fabric" of society

It has been built with 1. slavery in America 2. 10 commandments, which say nothing about gays 3. straight white men (closetted sometimes), who tell gays, women and others what is right and wrong.

You still haven't any good reason to support your claim that it's ok to ban gays from marrying. Not one. Keep going though. As sad as it is, I think it's good to see how people can delude themselves of saying "i don't hate gays. I just don't think they should marry!"

Again david, which stone tablets are you reading?

Just because Obama says it, does it make it truth? Give me a break. It's an important label and you're not defending anything but hate here. There is no definition of marriage - man and woman. You're being dense on purpose, and that's fine. You already embarrassed yourself with what you said about Heterosexuals under attack.

And don't ever use your past residence in San Fran as a reason for not being anti-gay. How dumb. 

crush and others

what's all this emotional nonsense that you are writing in response to facts
and logic.

I had a very good friend who was openly biologically gay at age of 13 and I
discussed and learned observing him first hand and saw the social discrimination
that he faced in a closed society such as Iran and I had much sympathy for him
and was not shy to walk with him in the street when other kids were afraid to be labeled gay.

I lived in San Francisco for 13 years and lived in West Hollywood also (both
famous for high % of gay population). So as a heterosexual who has known many
gays I know much about them firsthand and I have never seen them any different
than the next person in the street and always been proponent of equal right for
everyone regardless of sexual orinetation, gender, race, color,  religion, nationality, etc etc...
So you Mullah label does not stick to me. Beside in theory and emotions you have no idea what you talking about

If a gay couple under a civil union have the exact same rights as a
married couple, where is the legal discrimination????!!!!!!! You can not name
ONE !

I and majority of people (just as Obama does too) consider marriage as the
union between man and woman yet have no objection to a union of gay couples.
PERIOD.

However we do not condone CHANGING the meaning of marriage from man/woman to
same sex.

Changing the definition , will even affect school books. Youth as young as
kindergarten and before their have fully understood their sexuality can be
thought differently. This will have long term social effect on our future
generations.

The fact is there are 3 kinds of homosexuals:

1- Those who are biologically different than a heterosexual.

2- Those who have had a drama in life such as rape, abuse, difficulty in
relationship with opposite sex  etc which lead them (consciously or
subconsciously) to homosexuality. I have personally seen first hand lot of such
examples of homosexuality by choice especially among the lesbians, bisexual and
transvestites. some of whom in fact are in desperate need of counseling, and I
don't mean being judgmental, they should have any choice they make but they also
need help to understand better the reasons beyond their chosen orientation for
healthier future relationships of their choice.

Again its freedom of choice and one's relationship or sexuality is nobody's
business, but social and cultural education is based on habits and norms of a
society and such redefinitions are an attempt by a small minority to redefine
such fabrics of our society.

Equality has absolutely nothing to do with this, its all about an attempt
by extremist liberals and a percentage of gays to change the fabric of our
society. There is NOTHING progressive about this, NOTHING !

and I see this nothing different than when I see bunch of wmotional people shouting long live this or death to that  without understanding what it all really means!

I fully oppose changing the definition of marriage at the core level of our
education and society .

Let me tell you what else you can't do in Utah

Hey, as long as Utah is telling California what is right and good:

You can't order beer with whiskey and vodka

You can't order two alcoholic drinks together

You can't buy pornography

You can't be free, basically

This is so creepy! Why don't we all just invite the mullahs and priests to guide our lives. 

Churches and other religious

Churches and other religious institutions enjoy the luxury of not paying taxes.  My point is, if they want to be heavy handed in being involved with our constitution than they need to pay up.  Churches should not be tax exempt.  Marriage is not the same as a domestic partnership and parents who raise their children in a loving homosexual home do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple.  I'm still pissed that out of state money was used to push this proposition in my state.  Why should Idaho or Utah care about how laws are legislated in California? 

As for being emotional? Are you kidding? Love and marriage ARE

This is exactly about people's emotions. Two people in love who want to get married should have that right, especially as Iraq war, bailout funding citizens. What is your problem David? Do you really see a gay couple as inferior? As not deserving of the same label? I can't believe you would say that this is not about emotions.

I'm not even gay, never been with a woman and I understand the injustice here. I can't imagine heading out with someone I love and being told, Sorry, not today.

Mullah David.Very funny. Heterosexuals are so under attack. LOL!

Get your penises and vaginas together everyone! The gays are forcing us to see them as equal!!

You sound like a Mullah. God damn. Oh you're equal but man and woman is the real first kind of marriage. <pats gays on head> 

Which stone tablets are you reading David?

Where is it established that marriage is between man and woman? And if you are against a gay marriage, then do not marry a man! Why is it your business to say gay marriage doesn't equal straight marriage? Children? Are you joking? Look at the state of the world. Families are in the worst condition ever. Children are being abandoned and some couples don't even have kids.

the usual religious hypocracy of freaks

with nothing better to do than be obsessed with genitalia and what other people are up to.

If these nutters did actually keep to their Mr Abraham, they'd allow polygamy.
but oh no!

I don't care who gets married and who doesn't. Leave people alone and Keith Olberman is making the mistake that most people do.
The Golden Rule - do onto others as...- is part of this. You see, it's imposing your own values onto others.
The way to go is "do onto others,as they wish you to do".

Love or whatever. Proposition8 is seriously retarded and pathetic and surely against the Constitution.
All US citizens have the right to be treated equal under the law.

safsateh !

Whatever your views are, prove them or state them but do not distort the facts.

POINT ONE: 

Marriage is between man and woman.

-If some people allow(ed) it among family members , that did (does) not change the fact that it still was (is) between man and woman (regardless of blood relationship)

- If some insist(ed)  that it has to within their own race, tribe, religion etc (right or wrong) it still does not change the fact that it was between man and woman.

- If some allow MULTIPLE marriages, such as a man marrying 4 TIMES with 4 woman , it still does not change the fact that it is between man and woman.

Definition of marriage has NEVER changed. It may have been applied differently but it has always been between man and woman by definition.

 POINT TWO:

GAYS ARE HUMAN TOO.

YES ! and they must have same legal rights to form unions as heterosexual do. Now what does that have to do with not being treated like human?!!!

Like I gave an example before. You can not call red , blue , but that does not take away from the fact that they both are colors!

Now if you want to redefine red , say so but don't tell me if red does not get redefined to blue that means I am denying that blue is a color too !!!!

Gays must be able to form unions just like men and women do because we all are human and equal. Marriage is defined as union of a man and woman. Now what does that have to do with not treated gays as human?

Why some to make their point try to distort the facts?

If you think definition of marriage must CHANGE to accommodate gays, say so. But please do not safsateh or emotionalize the issue to gain support.

To me this whole thing is a political move to force a view and definition upon heterosexual. By redefining marriage you are not gaining any additional rights for gays that they can not have by having a union or whatever they wish to call it, but you are taking away and encroaching on the right of heterosexual families.

Redefining relationships has nothing to do with "progress" ! it has to do with reverse violation of rights a group of people for the sake of another while there was absolutely no need to do so.

Yes!...and Mormons who wear

Yes!...and Mormons who wear funny underwear and believe in scripture who can only be read by wearing special glasses paid 30 million dollars to pass this stupid bill.  They're taught by their elders in their temples to marry and have a scibbilion children just so they can inherit their own personal planets.  Let's also not forget that the FLDS  marry multiple women and CHILDREN  in hopes to fulfill some weird prophecy.  Are you F*&^g kidding me.   Not to mention the fact that most of this money came from other states outside of California.  These churches get to legislate what we do, only if they're prepared to pay taxes. 

That's just dumb. Why are you Iranians like this?

We are our worst enemy. I swear. This is about America and it's promise to the people. Why do you have to mock someone else in the process? Iranians make me sick sometimes. 

Redefining marriage

marriage has had different meanings in different cultures, and during different times in hitory...marriage in iran today, is between one man, up to 4 wives, and a few sighes..who says marriage should be between a man and a woman?

Oh yea. Religion is the authority on what's RIGHT with the world

Excuse my while i laugh my ass off again. 

When has religion ever helped anyone resolve a problem in the world? Gays pay taxes, contribute to America, and they deserve the same rights.  

We are America, not Saudi Arabia. 

Smart people don't get married

Smart people don't get married straight or gay.

My Problem with gay marriage

My Problem with gay marriage is that gays are trying to reestablish the religious institution of marriage. Marriage is a holy religious practice. Gays want to go into churchs. Why? They know that the practice of homosexuality is wrong in the three main religions. And I personally don't think that we need to make religion change so it becomes relivant in modern day. I just think we don't need religion. All we need to give gay's are exact rights that hetrosexual have through civil union.

Omni...?!

Dear Parnian, did you even understand the the Khyyam quote in the clip above? If you did, how could you claim that Khayyam's poetry was religious?! And if you didn't, the book ABOVE refers to RELIGION the book of LOVE represents HUMANITY! What is religious and godly about that?! Are you sure you're talking about Khayyam? Could it be Molavi, or perhaps Hafiz you're referring to?
And what is so sanctified about marriage --half of which ends up in break ups? What loving environment are the children of divorce supposed to be brought up in?!

bravo!

what he said and the way he said it was very appropriate and eloquent!

i totally agree.... and "all you need is love, love is all you need...."

If these people are so worried about "the children"

They should go to NEBRASKA where people are dumping their children at social services in record numbers. Mothers and father. Heterosexuals. I dont hear mormons and catholics attacking them. Instead, they are wasting good money (or filthy money, whichever you like) to attack Obama, abortion, and gays. 

Screw all of them. This article will break your Iranian hearts. This is happening in Amerca, and I don't hear one religious group getting too sad about it. 

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111502416.html 

We humans are stupid. That's what it comes down to.

This is a ban that IRI would support. By that reason alone, I'm pretty much opposed to prop 8! I saw the video of that tight wad woman on Oreilly Factor telling bill that "this protects the children". From what? Gay baby eaters? You can't force someone to be gay! WTF!? This woman should be banned from TV and marriage with a face like that. Sorry, had to say it.

Cosmic Laws?!

Who comes up with the rules of marriage?  It is human beings, isn't it?!  And while we are at it, we add a "sanctimonious" predicate to it as if it's an untouchable subject! 

If we are to call ourselves civilized human beings we must accept others as they are even if their sexual preferences differ from ours.  As Keith Olbermann put it and I am paraphrasing here "...we have one world in the entire known universe and we should take care of each other...".

but Marge...

That's exactly how we have to keep repeating ourselves that WOMEN are people too! 

When it comes to the gay people's rights, heterosexual men and women have to be reminded over and over again that gays are human too.

The funny thing is that the definition of this holy word "Marriage" has changed throughout the time. There was a time that it was between a man and a woman and no rules against incest. There were times that marriage was between a man and many women, and there was a time that marriage was not legal between people of different races. 

Which one of those definitions applies today?  why did the definition change through the years?  the answer is "progress" and as long as there is progress, definitions are bound to change and they should.

IRANdokht

Oh David....who says so?

Just because over the course of history it has been so? Well I think then a lot of things would be different now too. 

What a sad world. I'm not gay, but I feel sorry for people who are, just because they have to constantly try to say that they are equal. I can't imagine what that must feel like.  

over sensitization

Two people must have the right to form a legal and religious union and have all
the legal rights that such union grants them being a man/woman , man/man or
woman/woman. There should not be any discrimination in their relationship, union and
commitment .

Having said that marriage has been defined as union of a man and woman. 

union of two members of the same sex can be called anything else.

This is not an attempt to obtain the same rights. Majority of people have no
objection to that. But this is an attempt to redefine marriage of a man and
woman and that is what people have rightfully voted against .

The issue is not love. Love and commitment and legal rights that goes with
unions regardless of sex of partners should be allowed but changing and
redefining relationship of others (man/woman) is an attempt to encroach on the
rights of heterosexuals.

If not might as well we call blue and green the same because they both
are colors ....and call apple and orange the same because they both are fruits!

If gays want to love and form unions and have equal legal rights, they must
but what is this persistence of a minority to redefine the name of the
relationship of majority (man/women)

NO I do not think this is a question of love but an attempt to force a life
style on others by redefining marriage.

Just call it  a UNION , a whatever you wish, make a new word if you want but don't try to force it on me by changing my definitions!

It's all politics by some and has nothing to do with equal rights

if it's about the children

To those who are concerned with the well-being of the children, please consider that gay couples who are legally married would be able to  adopt, which means giving a child a loving family and a safe home.

When you don't consider gay people legally equal to heterosexuals, you can't claim that you have respect for them. That's contradiction at best.

IRANdokht

I have nothing against Gay

I have nothing against Gay people. They can love each other as much as they want and do what ever they want. This is n't about love. It is about sanctitiy of marriage. The whole purpose of marriage is to produce children in loving environment. Love between a man and a woman. Please don't pull Omar Khayyam into this either. The love in his poems isnot about worldly love. It is about the spiritual love for omnipresent God.
This is not dogma. I respect my gay friends and their love for eachother but I love and respect the cosmic laws more.

Are you pissed that religious fanatics are eating your lunch?

Here's what you can do about it.

//www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/repealprop8

Go for it.

Transcendence...

That is why I love Omar Khayyam, for his message (unlike that of religion) is not bound by time, space or inhibition!