Focus on the Family eliminating 202 jobs

Bill Reed, the Gazette

Published November 17, 2008 at 4:53 p.m.

Text size

Judy DeHass / The Rocky

Focus on the Family is eliminating 202 jobs — 149 through layoffs and 53 by not filling vacant positions.

More Local News

Comments

November 17, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

HA!!! working for a failed ideology. Working to elect persons who ran roughshod over the economy. So now no one has the extra scratch to donate to FOF and 202 loose their jobs...

goes to show, what goes around comes around.
November 17, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

JimmyTheSaint writes:

Looks like they'll have to outsource a group to spread their bigotry now. What a shame.
November 17, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

While I think FOF is a VILE VILE organization, I don't wish job losses upon anyone. This is just part of a larger problem and my heart just breaks each time I hear of more job losses. It's a scary time.
November 17, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

HankReardon writes:

What, no salary cut for Dobson?
Well, Merry Christmas to the 202. You just got scrooged.
Karma?
November 17, 2008

5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

Focus on the Prophet.. er Profit.

I wonder if the laid-off workers were "seasonal help" to fight Obama. I hope they earned more than just the minimum wage.
November 17, 2008

5:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Chadley25 writes:

Guess they weren't praying hard enough. Like "JustMe," I don't necessarily wish job losses on anyone, but on the other hand, the more financial trouble FOTF runs into, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see them be monetarily forced to close up their little shop of hate. I'm much less fussed about hearing that 202 FOTFers are losing their jobs than hearing news about 53,000 banking employees losing theirs.
November 17, 2008

5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Another instance of someone espousing "family values" with one hand, and doing something else with the other. Haggard (Ted) also comes to mind. If their letterhead normally contains hands in prayer, will their termination notices to loyal employees contain the finger?
November 17, 2008

6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

hogarm writes:

Must be Obama's fault.
November 17, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Driving southbound into Colo Springs, on the Ronald Reagan highway, one sees a blue sign announcing Focus on the Family. Maybe they should replace it with a sign that says, Focus on the Family. pop. 202 fewer
November 17, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

RU_Open_Minded writes:

Hmm. It appears a perfect time to play "let's you and him fight." What salary DOES Dobson make from FOTF yearly? How is FOTF different in what they do in public, than what is done here anonymously? How VILE are the comments here? Is FOTF a prophet, or a non-profit organization? How much $ is given to a "failed ideology" every year for dozens of years? What is truly the relationship between Dobson and Haggard? Do you wish for freedom to express your opinion, and simultaneously wish FOTF had none? Go ahead, let’s you and him fight…
November 17, 2008

6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

happymike44 writes:

Looks like karma is going to kick someone in the butt.
Practice anger and hatred and look what happens.
We"ll see if they can wiggle their lying two faces out of this mess.
November 17, 2008

6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

HankReardon writes:

Yeah, let's not confuse what these people do with actual work. Maybe it's time to get a real job. Good luck!
November 17, 2008

6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Fungus on the Family is issuing a list for what stores people should shop at that are "Christmas-friendly", yet they throw 202 of their own people out into the cold right before the holidays.

Maybe Dobson will recruit them into the Jelly of the Month Club as a consolation.
November 17, 2008

6:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

202 down, 950 to go. These people can go FOF themselves.
November 17, 2008

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

NDCowboy writes:

As a gay man, I dislike FOTF very much. But I did look, and Dobson draws NO SALARY from FOTF. He doesn't need to draw a salary from them because so much publicity is generated for him, he makes tons on royalties. And he doesn't have to account for anything he does.
November 17, 2008

6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

commoncents writes:

What a bad time of the year to be laid off. These 202 might be the real believers in the bunch and Jesus is going to bring them something real and tangible in their lives.
November 17, 2008

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Anderson, loved your post, but how do you espouse something with your hands unless you use sign language.

Darn, and I wanted a job with them picking out the businesses to avoid at Easter.
November 17, 2008

7:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

IronmanCarmichael writes:

Guess that makes 202 fewer families for Dobson to focus on.
November 17, 2008

7:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

artbarton writes:

I would be so pleased to have every Focus on the Family employee be reassigned to doing charity work for the sick, elderly and poor. It is a real embarassment to have this evil organization continue to be tax exempt; and smear the name of the State of Colorado.
November 17, 2008

7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

infidel91 writes:

We can only hope that donations continue to plummet . . .
November 17, 2008

8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

geneahole writes:

Focus on loving and accepting rather than dividing everyone... after you find a new job, of course...
November 17, 2008

8:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

I just read how FOF spent more than $500,000 to pass California's Prop. 8 gay marriage ban....

and now lays off 202 workers just before Christmas...

Focusing in the wrong place as usual

http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/...

what a total scrooge...
November 17, 2008

8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Arioch writes:

Now if you call FotF, the phone is answered by a guy who claims to be named "Dave", despite his musical accent and extensive knowledge of Bollywood movies.
November 17, 2008

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfkdem47 writes:

What a bunch of vultures on this board.

I don't know much about FOF, but if the petty vultures on here hate people enough to laugh and joke about them losing their jobs, then FOF must be the good guys.

The FOF opponents on here are revealing enough about themselves to prove they're not the kind of people that anyone should want to associate with.
November 17, 2008

9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

arthistorybabe writes:

Oh my, no focus on those 202 people's families....good work FOtF, practicing what you are preaching. Not.
November 17, 2008

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

Oh no, jfkdem, make no mistake about it. Focus on the Family are not the good guys. No matter how petty these posts appear, FOF has preached hate, bigotry, and intolerance for too long to ever be considered "good." If anything, they'd be the modern-day money changers christ supposedly chased out of the temple.
November 17, 2008

9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

fifty writes:

Has anyone noticed that conservative tricks like negative campaigning and setting up ballot amendments so they appear to be the opposite of what they really are, has failed to bring about the desired results? Now we can add FOTF to this group of failed conservative ideas. Just like the conservative amendments, FOTF is promoted as the opposite of what it really is. It doesn't positively focus on its own employees and their families, nor does it focus positively on homosexual families, nor does it positively focus on most if not all families. Its goal appears to be spewing hatred.
November 17, 2008

10:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Buckshot_Magee writes:

When I was growing up, my mom took my brother & me to church every Sunday and most Wednesdays. We went to the Church of Christ – in the 60’s & early ‘70’s - Evangelical before it was really popular. We sang gospel songs, worshipped the lord & prayed for the sick & dying. It was tough for my mother – keeping my brother and me focused – but we appreciated what she was trying to do.

It would have never in a million years occurred to my family that the church was actually a business – something several hundred people could make a living at – much less something folks could actually “get laid off from”. Our church paid our preacher, Brother Buford a livable salary – but that was it. He plied his trade for the love of the Lord & not much else.

I can understand why FOtF is a target of almost everyone posting – It’s out to make a buck where a buck shouldn’t be made. Brother Buford was a leader of his church. I’m sure he probably objected to gay marriage – but he was way too busy tending his flock to worry about it a whole lot. He ministered to the ones who sought guidance – and prayed for the rest.

I hate to see anyone lose their job. But, I believe, serving the lord is a passion – not an occupation. Don’t believe in abortion – adopt a single mom to be. Don’t believe in Gay marriage – don’t marry someone of the same sex. Do as the graceful Brother Buford did: help the poor, pray for the sick, and serve the Lord. Jesus would have never had a sign on I-25.
November 17, 2008

10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Chadley25 writes:

This headline would be even better news if FOTF had employed 202 people to begin with.

At first, I felt a little bad about the actual people who had lost their jobs. And then I thought about it. And I don't feel bad at all about it any longer. FOTF is, as far as I'm concerned, an evil, manipulative organization, spreading intolerance and bigotry and using its non-profit status to act as a political machine instead of a ministry. Anything that hastens its demise is wonderful news.

For those of you railing against people who denounce FOTF as being "vile," or "hateful," or whatever word you care to use, I would encourage you to look at the words of Gil Alexander-Moegerle, who co-founded FOTF in 1977 with James Dobson. He is ashamed of what their ministry has become and said so publicly at a press conference in Colorado Springs 11 years ago, specifically apologizing to gays and lesbians for the "false, irresponsible, and inflammatory rhetoric of James Dobson's anti-gay radio and print materials." Google it.

FOTF has long since lost its way, and I, for one, will applaud their continued slide into irrelevance and, hopefully, bankruptcy.
November 17, 2008

10:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

gp81 writes:

Wow. I cannot believe the hatred and intolerance that marks almost all of the comments on this article. The double standard is incredible.
November 17, 2008

11:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

farsidefan writes:

Buckshot, well said. Kudos to you for putting it in a nutshell.
I feel sorry for the 202, just as I would anyone else who is losing their job. Guess there was no room at the Inn.
November 18, 2008

1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

How unchristian to lay-off people right before the HOLIDAYS...opps...I meant Xmas...oops CHIRSTmas.
November 18, 2008

2:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

gp81 what's to tolerate intolerance...the FOF open themselves to this whenever Dobson opens his pie hole. I am not sorry for them...no not one bit. It will be a better planet when they lose more money when they and others like them lose their tax exempt status....
November 18, 2008

6:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

JonBen writes:

Someone at FotF made the decision, "Hmmm, should we lay off 202 of our people a few weeks before Christmas, or should we send a half million bucks to California to help defeat gay marriage?"

I hope they're sleeping well.
November 18, 2008

7:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

Poor little Jimminy--always off topic and unprepared. And to make matters worse, the little lad smells bad too. Try to stay focused you poor boy.
November 18, 2008

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

sundaychild67 writes:

Well said, Buckshot! I was raised in the church, loved our pastor, who was a very humble man. The church paid for his parsonage, which was a two-bedroom, very simple home. He was a pastor because he loved helping people and he set what I consider to be a very fine example of what a true Christian is. He drove an old beatup pickup and was always helping someone from the church move something with it. His life was the people of the congregation. That to me is what a man of the cloth should be. Whatever happened to the saying, "poor as church mice." I know Dobson isn't a pastor, but he could learn a thing or two if he became a truly humble man of God. Too bad 202 of his employees will learn what it's like to be "poor as church mice."
November 18, 2008

7:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

sundaychild67 writes:

GladysKravitz: Focus on the Family DOES pay taxes and that's why they can be as politically-motivated as they are. Now does that mean I agree with the hate they spew? Never.

It's churches that remain tax-exempt and I believe it's high time they start coughing it up!
November 18, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

CBJMM writes:

This is an organization that does not pay TAXE'S. Apparently they took out more mortgage than they can afford!!
November 18, 2008

8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcmooreacctnt writes:

Almost everyone's post is incredibly hypocritical here. All the talk is how "evil" and "hate-filled" FOF is. When the comments demonstrate how evil and hate-filled the RMN's readers are. Talk about a double standard. The intolerance of the left is completely unhinged...to the point of utter amazement.
November 18, 2008

8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

sundaychild67 writes:

"Well said, Buckshot! I was raised in the church, loved our pastor, who was a very humble man."

What bothers me is that people are willing to back Focus on your Family, New Life Church, Grace Life, Pat Robertson, et al... These large religious corporations are doing nothing less than selling the likeness of Jesus, make millions and pay no taxes. Have you been to their "campus"? It's amazing, yet disturbing. And to make things worse, the city of Colorado Springs was willing to give these religious organizations huge tax benefits to move their headquarters to their city.

Their flock gives at least 10% of their hard earned money to support these snake oil salesmen and think nothing of it when the church leaders do or say things that are no way Christian. And they keep going back. Why?

I'm hoping that this is a sign that the Mega-Church is dead.
November 18, 2008

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

mcmooreacctnt writes:

"Almost everyone's post is incredibly hypocritical here. All the talk is how "evil" and "hate-filled" FOF is. When the comments demonstrate how evil and hate-filled the RMN's readers are. Talk about a double standard. The intolerance of the left is completely unhinged...to the point of utter amazement."

Cry us a river. FoF and other organizations like them do nothing more that sell Jesus and teach hatred. The truth hurts, doesn't.
November 18, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

KJS writes:

It's ironic that they spent half a million toward Prop 8, and now 200 people are without a job, right before the holidays. Serves them right for their message of hate and bigotry.
November 18, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Well, obviously they should be able to pray to God for the money to keep their "ministry" alive. He didn't answer their prayers that it would rain during Obama's speech in Denver. And now, God is not taking care of them so they could continue to survive.

Hmm. Either there is no God, or He's rightfully pissed at them.

Ha Ha Ha
November 18, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

PeanutGallery writes:

Buckshot Magee... I like you!

"help the poor, pray for the sick, and serve the Lord. Jesus would have never had a sign on I-25."

Now those are some words to live by!
November 18, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Good. Best news I've heard since Obama was elected.
November 18, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Mcmooreacctnt: "Almost everyone's post is incredibly hypocritical here. All the talk is how "evil" and "hate-filled" FOF is. When the comments demonstrate how evil and hate-filled the RMN's readers are. Talk about a double standard. The intolerance of the left is completely unhinged...to the point of utter amazement."

McMooreacctnt has a terrible deficiency in analyzing context. Most of the posts I see here aren't hate-filled. They are, if anything, disgusted and disappointed that an organization that bills itself as Christian, philanthropic, and family-oriented shoves 202 of its own into the cold right before the holidays it professes to revere. How is that "hate-filled"?

Using McMoore's standards of analysis then, I would have to ask him why he chooses to defend this organization over the 202 families that helped keep it running... again, right before Christmas. To use his own language: "The callousness of McMooreacctnt is completely unhinged...to the point of utter amazement."
November 18, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

steve00 writes:

That was great, Buckshot_Magee. The Lord did show up here after all. I've been to mega-churches and arena revivals and just continue to wonder if all the glitz and spectacle is what Jesus had in mind. Didn't Jesus say 'Love one another as I have loved you'. Pretty simple, really, but look what we do with it.
November 18, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

How about layoffs at all hate mongering organizations that serve no purpose but to divide our country including FOF, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, etc.
November 18, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

What a bunch of sad, hate filled people you all are. I am a pastor and don't particularly care for some of the things that FOTF does, but my heart breaks for the 200+ who just lost their jobs. Giving for non-profits is down 20% right now so you're going to see more of this in the months to come. And that goes for ALL non-profits, not just religous ones. It's a tough time.
November 18, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Tell me, jlstaud. Does your "heart break" at all over the gay men and women who have lost the right to marry in California, or are you just concerned with ignorant, backwards Christians?
November 18, 2008

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

chill134 writes:

202 down, 950 to go. Focus on your own family. Happy job-hunting.
November 18, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Well, jlstaud? Any answers to my questions?
November 18, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

Steph writes:

"Well, obviously they should be able to pray to God for the money to keep their "ministry" alive. "

Maybe they should get Palin to give them some oil money.
November 18, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Ha Ha Ha. That's a good one "cynical."
November 18, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

"What a bunch of sad, hate filled people you all are. I am a pastor and don't particularly care for some of the things that FOTF does, but my heart breaks for the 200+ who just lost their jobs. Giving for non-profits is down 20% right now so you're going to see more of this in the months to come. And that goes for ALL non-profits, not just religous ones. It's a tough time."

They were willing to spend millions to back the Sarah Palin for VP, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage agendas. If you don't realize that "FOTF" is filled with hate filled people, you are a hypocrite.
November 18, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

me2, my prior picture about hands maybe wasn't the greatest. If I were a cartoonist, I would show a person in church clothes wearing a FOF pin (if a woman, she would have bleached-blond hair, if a man, white with big glasses like Dobson). S/he would say, "we are about family values" while hugging a child, dressed for church, with one arm. The other arm would be pushing away another child, not so well dressed, who is tugging at the adult's jacket. The "other" child is wearing a pin that says, "my mom is divorced", or "my mom is a lesbian", or "my dad is undocumented"--something like that.
November 18, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Boomertug writes:

The hate expressed by so many of you liberal-minded Coloradoans is both shocking and disgusting. Focus On The Family is one of the finest organizations of its kind. They have truly helped people in their time of need. I have followed Dr. James Dobson's progress over the last two decades and can say with confidence that he has selfless motives and is driven to help people work through serious family issues through Christian principals. What in the world is wrong with that??

You people need to get a life!
November 18, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

I just heard that FoF brought it 146 million dollars of donations in 2007. I wonder what happened to all that money?

What would Jesus spend that money on?
November 18, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

anderson writes:

"if a woman, she would have bleached-blond hair,"

Oh no, she'd have dyed her hair brown and wearing "Tina Fey" glasses and Neiman Marcus business suits.
November 18, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

What's even more sad is the number of people who donate to this sham organization. Recommendation: focus on finding real jobs.
November 18, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

If Jesus came down and saw what was being done in His name, he'd never stop throwing up.
November 18, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

cynical one, at the time of the Ted Haggard incident, the RMN published a picture of four or five woman from his church, sitting in a row, apparently unrelated, listening intently to what some elder was saying about the affair. They ALL had bleached-blond hair. So does Marilyn Musgrave.
November 18, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Steph,

No. My heart does not break for the gay men and women who cannot marry in California or any other place for that matter. If you want some kind of government sanctioned civil union then great. I'll support it to its fullest. I believe that committed homosexuals should have the same rights as that of hetrosexuals in a comitted relationship, however I will not support homosexual marriage because marriage is a religous institution not a government institution. I don't believe the government should have any say in marriage, it should be the church. After all, we supposedly live in a country with a seperation of church and state.
November 18, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

Steph writes:

"If Jesus came down and saw what was being done in His name, he'd never stop throwing up."

It's amazing how many people know the Bible line by line, yet don't understand nor follow the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it's scary.
November 18, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

WEll, jlstaud, you're a hater too, aren't you? Typical.

So, your church considers itself too holy to allow same-sex marriage. Tell me, Pastor, how many of your flock have had divorces? I bet the church didn't have a problem with that (even though that is a much more common threat to marriage than 2 gay folks getting married).
November 18, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

anderson writes:

"cynical one, at the time of the Ted Haggard incident, the RMN published a picture of four or five woman from his church, sitting in a row, apparently unrelated, listening intently to what some elder was saying about the affair. They ALL had bleached-blond hair. So does Marilyn Musgrave."

I know, but that was BP... Before Palin. Palin was the reason that Dobson and his "flock" backed McCain. Palin is the new, I hate to say it, savior of the evangelical church. She represents all that the social conservatives drool over.
November 18, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

Dear Jesus,

Please protect me from your followers. Thank you.
November 18, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Cynical,

Did you even read my post? I don't really care for Focus on the Family, but I do care about 200 people loosing their jobs. And just because someone may have a different belief from you does not make them hate filled or a hypocrite. I do not support abortion. I do not support the homosexual lifestyle, but that is my choice based upon my religious beliefs. Now if I condemn you to hell for believing differently from me then yes, I'm hate filled and if I practice homosexuality on the side while professing to be hetro then I'm a hypocrite, but I do neither of those things so please don't call me hate filled or a hypocrite.
November 18, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

Steph,

"however I will not support homosexual marriage because marriage is a religous institution not a government institution. I don't believe the government should have any say in marriage, "

Then why do you sign a contract when you get married? It's not a contract with God, is it? Nope. Marriage is a government contract. The same government that wouldn't allow slaves to get married, or interracial marriage, and now gay marriage.

Face it. Gay marriage can't do any worse to ruin the concept of marriage than the 50% divorce rate of heterosexuals.
November 18, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

"Cynical,

Did you even read my post?"

Yep.

"I do not support abortion. I do not support the homosexual lifestyle, but that is my choice based upon my religious beliefs."

Jesus teaches to love all people. If you worship Jesus and do not support all people, you are a hypocrite. Just admit it.
November 18, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Actually Steph, I'm not a hater. I actually have homosexual friends. Just because I believe the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman does not make me a hater. Honestly the person in this discussion that sounds like a hater is you my friend. As for divorce, it's despicable. I hate it and I do not condone it for any reason outside of marital infidelity or abuse.
November 18, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Sorry cynical there is a difference between love and "support." I am not a hypocrite. I do love everyone regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean I agree with them.
November 18, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

"Actually Steph, I'm not a hater. I actually have homosexual friends. Just because I believe the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman does not make me a hater."

And I guess you were okay when marriage was an institution between white people as deemed by the government?

If you are passing laws against gay marriage that make marriage a governmental institution. Do you understand this?
November 18, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

jlstaud ... You may feel badly for all the mean thing and sarcactic things being sad about FOF... I agree in general it is a bad thing that people lose their jobs...I've have it happend 2x in the past 8 years. However, FOF IMHO is one of the biggest hate groups deguised as a chirstian religious organization in this country. It may be my thing to deal with, but I have nothing but disdain and ire for all religious groups that act as if they so elite, and above everyone else. They promote and inject their zealous idealogy, as public policy of privite secular civil liberties of others when it has no bearing on their own lives. They emulate a "christian" version of Islamo-facism, imposing their will on society to the point that should change their name to Fascists on the Family!

Take it as you wish, call it intolerance of intolerance, call my words and opinion hate speech. If it lets you sleep better at night having that opinion of my opinons, that's fine with me. But at the end of the day, I will not sit back and let a bunch overt christian talabangelist invade my private life and liberty, or rape the constitution of my country as the FOF and their ilk have continued to do for far too long. Those people who work/ed for FOF, knew who they were working for and why, and have no real care for anyone but themselves and their qausi-religious militant agenda. Maybe they will see the error in their ways, and seek to be nicer as a result of their failed postures, to those they have targeted. If they do, I am willing to change the tenor of my words and feelings to seek mutual respect and live and let live.
November 18, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Cynical,

The reason I signed the marriage license is because that was the only way I could get the tax benifits of a government sanctioned marriage. Quite honestly that paper was nothing more than that. I signed a covenant with my wife, my pastor and our families that was a promise to God and that is far more important than the paper I signed at the court house. Again I say, marriage should be a religious institution not a governmental one. The governement should recognize all civil unions as just that, civil unions between two people where it is man and woman, woman and woman or man and man!
November 18, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

GladysKravitz,

Again, let me clarify for everyone reading this thread. I don't like Focus on The Family. I don't support them, I've never sent them money, I think they're too political, and the list goes on. I'm sad for those who just lost their jobs before Christmas. A few years back I was laid off the Monday after Thanksgiving and it was very difficult. Whether you agree with Focus or with any of the people that work there, keep in mind that they are humans too. They have families and this is going to be a difficult time in their lives.
November 18, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

"Cynical,

The reason I signed the marriage license is because that was the only way I could get the tax benifits of a government sanctioned marriage."

Right. That makes marriage a government sanctioned institution. If you did not sign the contract, you would not be married.

"Quite honestly that paper was nothing more than that. I signed a covenant with my wife, my pastor and our families that was a promise to God and that is far more important than the paper I signed at the court house."

Great, but if you didn't sign that contract, you would be "living in sin".

"Again I say, marriage should be a religious institution not a governmental one. The governement should recognize all civil unions as just that, civil unions between two people where it is man and woman, woman and woman or man and man!"

Wrong again. Passing laws denying people getting married makes marriage a government institution. It's hilarious how you people seem to leave that idea out when you try to rationalize your stance against gay marriage.
November 18, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

jlstaud: Not all jobs are equal. What if it had been 200 prostitutes working for brothels in Nevada that were fired? Or 200 lobbyists lobbying for something you don't support? Or 200 management guys from Enron?

Some businesses and organizations deserve to fail and this is one of them. I think FoF are the most poisonous organization (of its size) in the US and stand the best chance of driving the country away from progress and away from unity. I think they do more to drive people in this country away from Christianity than any other organization you could possibly name (seriously). The less presence they have the better.
November 18, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

GladysKravitz writes:

"call it intolerance of intolerance"

Very well said. They expect non-Christians to be tolerant of their Christian beliefs, but that does mean they have to be tolerant of their non-Christian beliefs.

Just on a side note. I hate neighbors that belonged to the Church of Christ. During the summer they would go down to Mexico to "Convert the Catholics to Christianity". I would not kid you on this. What made it more interesting is that their other neighbor is actually working for the Catholic Church.
November 18, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Well Pastor. You have homosexual friends, huh? they must be the gay version of "uncle tom." I take it that you love your gay friends but don't love the sin. I hear that all the time. Apparently, you hate more than you love, gay people (maybe even your friends) apparently cannot count on your support for them if they want to marry.

You are no better than the good Christian people who were against integration or marriage between different colors of skin. You people were wrong then and you're wrong now.

Where EXACTLY in your religion does it state that marriage should be between a man and a woman? And how does that coincide with "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself?"
November 18, 2008

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

"And I guess you were okay when marriage was an institution between white people as deemed by the government?

If you are passing laws against gay marriage that make marriage a governmental institution. Do you understand this?"

Are you freaking kidding me? Of course I'm not okay with marriage just between white people and if you would actually take a moment to objectively read my posts you would see that I'm not okay with the government being involved in marriage at all. I think all committed relationships should be able to apply for a civil union through the government that would give them all the rights that are currently available to "married" couples. In addition, I've never voted for or against any law prohibiting gay marriage because once again I don't believe it is a government institution.
November 18, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

joggle writes:

"I think FoF are the most poisonous organization (of its size) in the US and stand the best chance of driving the country away from progress and away from unity."

FoF is only a small percentage of the evangelical movement. Remember Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and all of their cronies? Selling Jesus is a huge multi-billion dollar business.
November 18, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

mcmooreacctnt writes:

Hey Zim...So if an organization is Christian, Philanthropic, or family-supporting, they have to keep their people employed even if they don't have the funds to so? How would you keep people employed if you couldn't pay them, due to lack of funds?

And no I did not take the comments out of context. If one reads the posts starting from the top, most are discussing how much FoF deserves what they are getting due to "failed ideology", calling FoF a "VILE VILE" organization, etc. It's fairly evident that persons commenting here hate Focus on the Family. FoF is seen as an organization that teaches hate simply because they do not condone a homosexual lifestyle? It seems that most persons here "hate" FoF solely for their stance on homosexuality. No one ever discusses the pratical topics of raising children and dealing with all types of problems associated with raising children. Why not? Oh...I know...it's not a polarizing topic.

Just continue to hate Dobson and his evil organization...it does not affect the effectivness of their para-church ministry in the slightest. I'll benefiting from the use of and supporting the resources they offer.
November 18, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

"Of course I'm not okay with marriage just between white people "

But you are willing to deny marriage between same sex couples. Buddy, you just contradicted yourself in a major way.

"if you would actually take a moment to objectively read my posts you would see that I'm not okay with the government being involved in marriage at all."

Too late, marriage is and always has been a government institution. If you don't want government involved in your relationship don't get married.

"I think all committed relationships should be able to apply for a civil union through the government that would give them all the rights that are currently available to "married" couples."

Why should you have any special rights?

"In addition, I've never voted for or against any law prohibiting gay marriage because once again I don't believe it is a government institution."

Doesn't matter how you vote, it's what you preach.
November 18, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Steph, Cynical,

This is pointless. All I said was that my heart breaks because 200 people lost thier jobs. Now I'm being attacked because my beliefs are different from yours. Believe it or not, just because my opinions and beliefs differ from yours does not make me a bigot or a hypocrite or hate-filled. I believe that the gospel teaches us to love unconditionally and that is what I spend my life doing. My political opinions are just that, opinions and they are seperate from my religious beliefs. Carrying on this conversation with you in this forum would be an excercise in futility. Have a blessed day!
November 18, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

mcmooreacctnt writes:

"Hey Zim...So if an organization is Christian, Philanthropic, or family-supporting, they have to keep their people employed even if they don't have the funds to so? How would you keep people employed if you couldn't pay them, due to lack of funds?"

And they get a huge amount of money from other people's donations and in turn, preach hate against people that they believe aren't Christian enough for them.

"Just continue to hate Dobson and his evil organization...it does not affect the effectivness of their para-church ministry in the slightest. I'll benefiting from the use of and supporting the resources they offer."

So you are willing to take other people's hard earned money for your own benefit? Isn't that special.
November 18, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jlstaud writes:

"Now I'm being attacked because my beliefs are different from yours. Believe it or not, just because my opinions and beliefs differ from yours does not make me a bigot or a hypocrite or hate-filled. I believe that the gospel teaches us to love unconditionally and that is what I spend my life doing."

Jesus also teaches to treat others as you wish to be treated, yet you are willing to go against Jesus' teachings. That's hypocritical. That's why people here disagree with you.

Maybe you should go back and read your Bible.
November 18, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

We don't hate FOTF JUST because of their stance on homosexuality. I hate them for their "pro-life" stance against abortion. They seem to only care about the unborn but they'll be the first to tell you that you're going to hell if you don't behave as they do AFTER you're born. Believe me, when science can detect if a fetus is going to be gay, abortion will become a sacrament to these people.

I hate them because they have a decent amount of political power (hopefully this is diminishing) to shove their fairy tale beliefs into the government.

I hate them because they preach love and at the same time praying that the weather will ruin a political candidate's speech.

I hate them because they donated so much money to Prob 8 yet don't care about their own people who now have to be laid-off. I'm sure Dobson is not nor will ever be poor.

In summary, they are outragous hypocrites. All people are hypocrites to some degree but wrapping yourself in the flag or the cross to justify your own must be the nastiest sin of all.
November 18, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i think it's deliciously ironic that this organization trumpets the party that crafted the policies that put them in the poor house.

this is a lesson to those faith-based voters out there.

you will continue to vote against your own best interests because of your belief in the supernatural.

sounds kind of silly when you put it that way, no?

cut the strings.

"just because my opinions and beliefs differ from yours does not make me a bigot "

that's absolutely correct. right on the money. that said, if you support discrimination against homosexuals, you perfectly fit the dictionary definition of bigot, jlstaud.

sorry, but that's the case.

it has nothing to do with us. it has nothing to do with the fact that others opinions differ from yours.

take some personal responsibility for your own beliefs and behaviors.

if you're uncomfortable holding bigoted beliefs, i hope you take it upon yourself to change them.
November 18, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

DenverGirl78 writes:

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, really...just adding my voice to those who are saying that while I don't wish a job loss on anyone, the fact that an organization as hateful and cruel as FOTF is losing money is definitely a good thing in my book. I would rather see those 202 people using their skills to make valuable contributions to our society and NOT having "create hate and fear and then get people's money" as their job description. I grew up in a FOTF household - my parents got whatever their monthly magazine is and my sister and I got Brio for teen girls....I feel lucky and happy that I escaped the brainwashing.
November 18, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

jlstaud ...we do agree on many levels...our genuine concern of people losing their jobs, (even just b4 the HOLIDAYS..ooops I used that naughty word that FOF frowns upon)...ironic though it is a "christian" group doing it to there own. I also agree with you on civil marraige, that ONLY civil unions be issued by govt, and marraige contracts in ones personal spiritual institution.

There is a Yiddish saying: "A Mench Trachts und Got Lachts" : A man thinks (has ideas) and God laughs. Perhaps God is laughing at FOF for all their wasteful spending on religio-politics, instead of helping their fellow man, and they are now deep in a financial hole. Of course we do not hear that James Dobson is taking any pay/benefit cuts.
November 18, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

"Now I'm being attacked because my beliefs are different from yours. Believe it or not, just because my opinions and beliefs differ from yours does not make me a bigot or a hypocrite or hate-filled. I believe that the gospel teaches us to love unconditionally and that is what I spend my life doing."

If you consider one group of people should be unable to have the same rights as any other group, you are a bigot (whether political or religious). I wonder how many negative things you've said about gays in your sermons?

BTW, you never told me where the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Well???????
November 18, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

You people should be ashamed. You claim that this Christian organization preaches hate, all while celebrating that people lost their jobs. What you so called "tolerant" liberals have said on this post is ten times worse than anything Focus on the Family has ever said. I have never seen people so happy that other people are losing their jobs, and then to try to rationalize to your poor pathetic selves why it's okay to hate Christians is ridiculous!
November 18, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

cynical_one: Well, yea. Having lived in Colorado Springs for a couple of years I just am more prejudiced against FotF than other organizations of a similar ilk. It might be due to my bias but I still think FotF is the worst of the worst (at least of ones that have at least as much income as FotF does, I'm sure there are smaller ones that are even more loony and strident).
November 18, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Tom writes:

Yes! A welcome example of downsizing! Long overdue!
November 18, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

ILoveChipotle writes:

"You people should be ashamed. You claim that this Christian organization preaches hate, all while celebrating that people lost their jobs."

This "Christian" does preach hate against gays, abortionists, and others that they deem aren't "Christians" like them. If these people decided to work for this organization and lose their jobs because FoF decided to pump millions into the anti-gay marriage Prop. in California and not use that money to pay their salaries, then tough. It's obvious what the priorities of this "Christian" organization are.

"What you so called "tolerant" liberals have said on this post is ten times worse than anything Focus on the Family has ever said."

LOL! You are so full of yourself.

"I have never seen people so happy that other people are losing their jobs, and then to try to rationalize to your poor pathetic selves why it's okay to hate Christians is ridiculous!"

Maybe those people should have gotten jobs at a company that doesn't rely on conning people out of their hard earn salaries.
November 18, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

joggle writes:

"cynical_one: Well, yea. Having lived in Colorado Springs for a couple of years I just am more prejudiced against FotF than other organizations of a similar ilk. It might be due to my bias but I still think FotF is the worst of the worst (at least of ones that have at least as much income as FotF does, I'm sure there are smaller ones that are even more loony and strident)."

You may be correct. I feel sorry for the people that actually attend these religious corporations believing that they are doing some sort of good. I'm hoping that people will realize that more "good" comes from the small neighborhood religious organizations and move away from all mega-church, "selling Jesus" corporations.
November 18, 2008

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

ILoveChipotle ... Hate...I hate the fact that FOF financially supports efforts to RAPE the constitution of this country to strip away civil (not religious) CIVIL, SECULAR AMERICAN RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES as they did with Prop 8. How can you TOLERATE an organization that endeavors to rip away constitutional protections? What's next? Racial segregation? Where you can pray?

This is where I DRAW THE LINE....and the FOF have been in the forefront of denying people of private civil liberties. It is a telling sign that they demand that retailers subscribe to their beliefs to the defference of others, or that people of their ilk, demand from govt, that they be acccomidated at the taxpayers expense, with overt Xmas displays or teaching Creationism in our schools. What that shows is that they are doing a crappy job in thier own churches thay they must depend on public policy to advance their agenda. They do what they do in such outrageous ways in a pathetic attempt of remaining relevant (i.e. their naughty/nice retail list).

I do not tolerate their intolerance.
November 18, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

jlstaud writes:

"and if you would actually take a moment to objectively read my posts you would see that I'm not okay with the government being involved in marriage at all. I think all committed relationships should be able to apply for a civil union through the government that would give them all the rights that are currently available to "married" couples.
----------------------------------------------------------

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
--------------------

Sounds like the pastor has some support!!!!
November 18, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

GladysKravitz writes:

"I do not tolerate their intolerance."

I still don't understand why we should have to be tolerant of their beliefs when they aren't tolerant of ours?

I'm not a Christian, but I have to tolerate them as they put me down for not being a Christian? Where is that in the Bible?
November 18, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Steph: "In summary, they are outragous hypocrites. All people are hypocrites to some degree but wrapping yourself in the flag or the cross to justify your own must be the nastiest sin of all."

Yes, that basically describes the problem with FOF and why people don't like the organization. They are first and last, hypocrites.
November 18, 2008

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

I am not without my biases...i wonder if James Dobson has ever visited the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. In fact I would encourage EVERYONE blogging here to go there and learn something.

http://www.museumoftolerance.com/site...
November 18, 2008

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

One word sums up the posters on this board who are happy that people are suffering. Hatemongers.

Good job hatemongers. Your expressions of hate and glee at human suffering has proven yourselves to be the sleazy ones in the issue..... not FOF.
November 18, 2008

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

GladysKravitz writes:

"I am not without my biases...i wonder if James Dobson has ever visited the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. In fact I would encourage EVERYONE blogging here to go there and learn something.

http://www.museumoftolerance.com/site...

Ironic that the museum is in California.
November 18, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

rickg19611 writes:

"One word sums up the posters on this board who are happy that people are suffering. Hatemongers.

Good job hatemongers. Your expressions of hate and glee at human suffering has proven yourselves to be the sleazy ones in the issue..... not FOF."

LOL! This from the guy who calls Obama a terrorist, a socialist, a marxist and everything his savior Rush tells him to?

One word sums you up: stupid.
November 18, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

cynical....

Wow..... it's not surprising that you would resort to LYING about my opinion of a politician. But that's not surprising. Your repeated examples of your "tolerance" by laughing and joking about people suffering, is common among those who LIE on a regular basis.
November 18, 2008

1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

rickg19611 is exactly right!

Let's see, FOTF promotes traditional family values, is pro life, supports Israel, offers support for rape & child abuse victims, offers help for adopting parents, etc... Sounds pretty hateful to me. How dare they try to help families! How dare they have a moral standard! How dare they stand up for what they believe in!
November 18, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

"FOTF promotes traditional family values".

Only if you follow their party line. If not, you are condemned. Of course, religious-based intolerance like race-based intolerance is defended by those who aren't subject to the intolerance--as if the whole world revolves around a Chipolte.
November 18, 2008

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

I know of a few people who took jobs at FOF because it was.....well a Job. It was not a great need to be part of FOF. It was a paycheck to pay mortgages, and bills when things were definately tough in the IT market in the Springs. I imagine there are some there that are in the same position. I am not approving of what FOF does nor will I ever, but there are some good people out there that will be looking for jobs and creative ways to pay their bills. No ill-will should be put forth against them
November 18, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Love the worker, hate the employer.
November 18, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Sure, and there were good Germans that helped the Nazis.
November 18, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

What next from those who demand "tolerance" from others, but demonstrate none themselves?

Cheering and laughing at the Red Cross when donations are down and they're forced to cut back?

Cheering and laughing that homeless people will suffer more because donations to homeless shelters are down too?

Cheering and laughing when the Salvation Army has less to offer the needy because the economy is down?

Those who hate FOF are making FOF look like saints.
November 18, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Agreed Anderson

Steph,

I am sorry that you hate 1 group so much that you would lump them into all the same category. Some good people will be out of a job. Some hateful people will be out of a job also.

It is my opinion, but the way you have treated some on here is no different than any other hate. Hating because of hate is just a justification for bad behaviour. I truly think there was great potential in dialogue with the pastor and what he was saying and as it pertains to my quotes above. Not that I agreed with him, but saw an opening for dialogue that was closed. Dialogue closed by any group is not productive to us as humans nor will it further the freedoms by anyone.

Live and Let Live
November 18, 2008

2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Yes, COLibertarian, do you actually think that a pastor and gay person could sit down together and change each other's minds? Don't think so.

We all hate (me included). I just don't pretend to follow a "higher-path" like our friend the pastor. That's what makes him worse than me.

We are always taught to "turn the other cheek." Unfortunately, if you turn the other cheek, they'll slap that one too.
November 18, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

"What next from those who demand "tolerance" from others, but demonstrate none themselves?

Cheering and laughing at the Red Cross when donations are down and they're forced to cut back?

Cheering and laughing that homeless people will suffer more because donations to homeless shelters are down too?

Cheering and laughing when the Salvation Army has less to offer the needy because the economy is down?

Those who hate FOF are making FOF look like saints."

Hey rick, the amount of money these churches (and especially CAtholic churces) along with the land they own would be enough to take care of any group that you mentioned above. If they can throw 1/2 million to stop gays getting married, wouldn't it have been more "Christ-like" and "Christian" to have given that money over to help the poor, the sick, etc.?

We're not laughing at groups like the Salvation Army. The Churches and their leaders are.
November 18, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

Read my quotes from the pastor and from the gay guy. They are basically saying the same thing. I could care less either way as the word Marriage is not important to me. But it is to some. That is what the gay quote is saying. Make sure everyone has equal rights..........It should not matter what "marriage" is from there...............
Again making it work for all groups is the key.
November 18, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph the money that FOF and Morman church is crazy and that is putting it lightly.

Did this push the Prop8 or was it something different. If it was do we have valid exit polls and other components of measuring this ballot issue to see where the differences sit?
November 18, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Why should we settle for "civil unions" instead of marriage? The gay that told you he/she was happy with a civil union is a gay Uncle Tom. What would you think about african-american people who would be happy with a different word for their marriage if it was to a person of a different skin colour?

An no, I don't believe just calmly debating (although I could get into that too) the Pastor would accomplish anything. His religious beliefs (which he CHOSE, unlike sexual orientation which is NOT CHOSEN) would get in the way of him making any kind of intelligent points.

You noticed he never answered my question about where in the Bible does it say marriage is between one man and one woman. He stopped debating us because he has nothing to stand on.
November 18, 2008

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

THAT GAY guy you refer to as an UNCLE TOM in all ACTUALITY is ELTON JOHN.

And Steph your logic pertaining to Interracial marriages is way off base when it comes to Prop8.

Where did the paster use Chose or not Chosen as it pertains to sexual orientation. I did not see him use that term. I may be wrong but please show me where he said it. You said he did. No he did not answer your question. I wish he would have. But from my view you were so blatently over the top with a person who wanted to have a dialogue that he chose to leave. I would not have but that was his choice.
November 18, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Steph is over the top and she admits that she hates religous people. What is the use in debating a person who just spews the vitriol?
November 18, 2008

2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

He did not mention anything about choice. I just wanted to get that fact out before any kind of a debate because that's usually the first accusation that comes out.

I don't think I was blantantly over the top. I just asked him questions which he couldn't answer so he left.

Elton John? Oh please. He angered a great many gay people with that comment. I read it too, maybe last week? He is not representative of the gay community.
November 18, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Chipotle,

I choose to! Without dialogue we as humans are nothing. I prefer working together with people that do not see eye to eye to resolve issues that keep us stagnant. I however refuse to call others names and do my all to keep from lumping people into groups. That too is de-humanizing in my little brained opinion.
November 18, 2008

2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Elton John is very representative and a huge contributor to the gay community.

And if you read it, then you should not have called him an Uncle Tom as you did.

You have assumed a great deal without dialogue from my perspective. And then in the name of getting it out before they do, or downplaying people.

I am all for freedoms. I am also for civility. Again Hatred in the name of hatred or bigotry is only an excuse for bad behaviour.
November 18, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Chipotle and COLibertarian.

OK, I'll bite. Let's debate calmly with no name-calling.

Who wants to start?
November 18, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

As I stated earlier, I have no attribute or attachment to the word marriage. If it is the only thing that is keeping citizens of this country from having the very same rights as everyone else in this country, would it not seem prudent to make sure that this postion is attained and kept for our citizens. The word marriage again means nothing to me, but it does for some religions. I would really like to see how the larger gay community felt about this "word" compared to the rights that they desperately need.

I have not been as involved in the gay community as I have in the past, but really would not think that things have changed that much regarding the word marriage over having full rights and benefits.

As for Prop8, what is your impression of the exit polling and how it broke out by those who voted for and against?

While the spending was crazy..... I do not attribute that Prop 8 was bought ANYMORE than the spending in the Presidential election was bought as some claim.
November 18, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

And Steph....... Dont bite......... well....... ;-)
November 18, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

What do you think would have been the outcome of Prop8 been in an off year election cycle? Especially compared to the historic election yr of 08?
November 18, 2008

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

I think the general attitude among the gay community regarding the use of the word "marriage" is that by denying us the word "marriage," we are thought of a second-class group; we can still get civil unions and the rights that come with that but we are still being denied that word - which we are told is only appropriate for "Straight Marriage."
November 18, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Isn't the argument that gays can civilly unite in lieu of marriage akin to the concept of "separate but equal" that was used to deny black people status?
November 18, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

Thanks. From my limited experiences, the term marriage was not an issue compared to the rights and benefits. But this was a younger crowd and wondering if that had as much to do with it as anything. At parties either straight or gay for younger people, marriage may not be the highest priority words to be spoken.

I personally could care less about the term marriage. It did not fit me when I was married and am completely happy with the term common law with the person I love.

I however do not want to take any term or rights from anyone who wishes to use those terms. My bias against marriage as a whole may be in the way of trying to come to a common ground for everyone. I again am for freedoms for everyone.

Live and Let Live
November 18, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Anderson

I guess that may be true in some circles. As I have stated, Personally I put no positive attribute nor relevence to the term or word marriage.

If it is vital to the conversation, you will get no argument from me.......
Well you would get 1. Dont lump me into the group that says that any civil union is marriage.............. I dont want marriage nor to be forced to use it. Civil Union with my better half is just fine with me!!!! :-)
November 18, 2008

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Again I ask the group

As for Prop8, what is your impression of the exit polling and how it broke out by those who voted for and against?
November 18, 2008

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

COLibertarian, actually, I think the result would have been the same. As you can tell, the feelings on this issue run very deep. I think it's very interesting how the country overwhelmingly chose Obama but everyone really took their sides on the gay issue. (I have no answer for this except that the religious side was able to collect more money and I think the matter itself is so repulsive for the religious right that it was like waving a red cloth in front of a bull). They had more determination than the other side, as this hits at the very core of their beliefs.
November 18, 2008

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

As far as the exit polls are concerned, I read that about 70% of African Americans voted for Prop 8 as well as older folks. I'm sure there were many different groups of people but I think the unifying thread of everyone who voted for it is the influence of their personal religion.
November 18, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

I respectfully disagree. Again if we say that Prop 8 was bought then there is reason to believe that the presidency was bought also. I believe neither.......

I truly believe that in ANY off year and in actuality in ANY year but this one, Prop 8 would have failed in CA. Based upon exit polls and the understanding of this historic election, I think that this definately would have been defeated.
November 18, 2008

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Prop 8 was bought. Yes, there was more money supporting it than the other way and we know a great deal of that came from the Mormon church. Is that what you're talking about?

"Based upon exit polls and the understanding of this historic election, I think that this definately would have been defeated."

I don't think I'm understanding your comment that it would have failed had it been a different election. Please explain ?
November 18, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph

Sorry to assume that you were talking about it being bought. I assumed from your statement "(I have no answer for this except that the religious side was able to collect more money and I think the matter itself is so repulsive for the religious right that it was like waving a red cloth in front of a bull). "

I looked at the collection of more money......and assumed wrongly. My apologies.
November 18, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

I think most Americans hold traditional family values. It's not because most Americans are bigots or homophobes it because gay marriage is not something they agree with. Focus on the Family is an organzation defends those traditional family values, but people wrongly see it as hateful when it's not.
November 18, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Steph,

Between work and mandatory chores, I have been trying to piece together the puzzle of Prop 8 voting, the historic number of new voters this year and comparing them to past years. Once I get those #s I will forward them to you. We may have a better picture to look at.

Having lived, worked and gone to school in SF, it was very interesting studying the different cultures and how they interacted. While interesting, it was also quite saddening to find biases in such a diverse area of the country. I think there were culture clashes along with Religious tones that led to the passing of Prop 8 I feel that better understanding these issues at all levels will allow better dialogue and hopefully understanding in the future.

Have to run but did enjoy the dialogue Steph

Thanks again
November 18, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

A great many Americans do hold traditional family values. They do not agree with gay marriage but they have no good reason, in my opinion, for trying to prohibit it.

1. There's nothing biblical that supports them (indeed, the bible's No. 1 rule is treat others as you would want them to treat you).

2. They have failed to show exactly how a gay marriage will directly hurt their marriage or the sactity of same.

Focus on the Family is a money making corporation like anything else. They are putting power and money towards what they personally believe is wrong yet they can't justify why they feel the way they do.
November 18, 2008

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

My point in bringing up separate but equal is to argue that opponents to gay marriage, like their predecessors who favored Jim Crow, want to keep a certain segment of society in an inferior status. I've concluded there isn't any practical reason to hold otherwise. It took me a while to come around to this. I used to think that tradition was a reason to keep marriage as it's been. But that idea is less persuasive these days.

Chipolte is wrong. Bigotry runs strong in our veins, and it's our dirty little secret. While many voters have a trouble understanding the complex propositions and referendums put before them, they almost all understand a prop that has a racial or sexual oriented component to it, and generally will vote against the marginalized group--although Prop 46 in Colo showed me wrong this time.
November 18, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfkdem47 writes:

I want to offer a sincere thank you to many posters on here.

Inc, JustMe, Me2, Acemon, Sheik, NDCowboy, cynical, steph, anderson. If I've missed any of you, I apologize for overlooking the help you've given me.

I knew very little about Focus on the Family before this article was published. After reading all of your attacks on Focus on the Family and the people who had the misfortune of losing their jobs, like many non-profit workers are likely to have happen this season, I decided to investigate Focus on Family and what they're all about.

What I found about them is very enlightening.

I found that they support some political agendas and oppose others, but if that is an example of hate, intolerance or bigotry, then every American is a hateful intolerant bigot. How can any rational, thinking person claim that holding a political opinion is hateful? Do you support some political positions and oppose others? In doing so, do you also call yourself hateful, intolerant, bigots?

I found no evidence that they've said any negative things about people or groups. Unlike the posters on here, I couldn't find a single example of where Focus on the Family had joked about people suffering. I couldn't find a single example of them ridiculing people who had misfortunes.

I found lots of positive comments, programs, and efforts that are directed at helping families, especially those with children.

Thank you for revealing to me that Focus on the Family has a lot of positive things to offer for America, and why they still have a thousand people working there to help people and families. I can see now why they have so many people working there and how they're able to attract so many donations. And with your posts as convincing evidence, you've helped me understand who the real hateful, intolerant, and spiteful bigots are on this board. You.
November 18, 2008

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

I can't speak for all Christians but I do not agree with gay marriage because I think it is bad for society as a whole. I believe that homosexuality is immoral and the government should not sponsor immorality. I think that when something completely contradicts traditional values, like gay marriage, is allowed it starts to have a negative impact on society. Immorality starts to become more acceptable until people are left with no morals at all.

There are numerous Bible passages regarding the sanctity of marriage (& if I had my Bible at work I could find them) and how marriage is a holy contract between the people and God. For the record the No. 1 rule is 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. Even though I think homosexuality is immoral I don't hate gay people and I'm not a homophobe. I do a lot of things wrong, I'm not perfect & I don't expect other people to be. Focus on the Family stands up for its beliefs and values and I honestly don't believe Dr. Dobson hates gay people either (he's definitely not as bad as everyone on this post says he is).
November 18, 2008

4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Yeah, well, it's quite in vogue these days, and taught at the School of White Resentment, to twist and distort the concepts of racism or hatred, and equate criticism and name-calling with the same. Example from jfkdem47: "How can any rational, thinking person claim that holding a political opinion is hateful?" The answer of course is: you can't. But the question is loaded and in that sense is deceptive. Shave away context and you can get to any answer you want. Just about any at all.

jfk's press release is typically long on conclusions, and short on specific examples of FofF's good deeds, much less arguments for or against anything, except, of course, for the loaded questions.

Some people just don't have that ability to step inside another's shoes, I guess, or it least imagine how it might feel.
November 18, 2008

4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Chipotle,

I have to say that I feel Govt should stay out of the Morality business for the most part. YES we all can finds examples where I would be wrong in that assessment. I have a few friends that prove this point to me all the time :-)

I do know 1 thing on this subject though. If I could only recieve 10% of money spent supporting and fighting this issue, I definately would not have to worry about work :-)
Sad part is there are many people on both sides promoting this division and making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ doing so!
November 18, 2008

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

jfkden47. I hope you checked other sites besides FOF's home site. They would be less likely to tell you how they asked every one of their members to pray for rain during Obama's speech in Denver.

If marriage is a holy contract between people and God, why wouldn't God want gay people to make that same bond? He made gay people too.

Chipotle, you must come up with exact examples of gay marriage/homosexuality threatens society and marriage to justify calling it immoral.
November 18, 2008

5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Because you can't make a sinful contract with God.
November 18, 2008

5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Why is a gay marriage a sinful contract?

By your thinking, divorce should be outlawed?
November 18, 2008

5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Well, Chipotle?
November 18, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: ILOveChipotle: "I can't speak for all Christians but I do not agree with gay marriage because I think it is bad for society as a whole. I believe that homosexuality is immoral and the government should not sponsor immorality. I think that when something completely contradicts traditional values, like gay marriage, is allowed it starts to have a negative impact on society. Immorality starts to become more acceptable until people are left with no morals at all."

People were saying that twenty years ago about inter-racial marriages. So far, marriage seems to have survived.

What evidence do you have that homosexuality is immoral? What data supports, directly, that homosexuality has a negative impact to society? Saying it contradicts your personal belief system is not data.

Whether you agree with an individual's lifestyle is one thing. It doesn't matter that you disagree with homosexuality, and you have every right to do so. However, calling homosexuality "immoral" and supporting legislation to deny homosexuals the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals is bigotry. Plain and simple. Inter-racial couples faced this similar issue just two decades ago. So what changed in twenty years to suddenly remove the threat that inter-racial marriages purportedly placed on society?

On another front, infidelity seems a much larger threat than homosexuality in terms of maintaining the sanctity of marriage, and is far more destructive in terms of peoples' lives, emotions, finances, and well-being. Why are there not stricter laws against infidelity? Is infidelity not immoral? If government does not make an effort to quell the increasing number of individuals cheating on spouses, is it not responsible for fostering immorality?

Where is your outcry about infidelity, ILoveChipotle? Also, what is your stance on inter-racial marriages, out of curiosity? What strict, factual data not based on conjecture do you have that gay marriages will directly and distinctly lead to the decline of civilization?
November 18, 2008

5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: ILoveChipotle: "There are numerous Bible passages regarding the sanctity of marriage (& if I had my Bible at work I could find them) and how marriage is a holy contract between the people and God."

Just an FYI, but marriage is not an institution strictly aligned with Christianity, and only Christianity. Most religions outside of Christianity have some form of marital rites. Therefore, your argument that marriage is a holy contract between ourselves and God is flawed and narrow-minded.
November 18, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

Chipolte,

Why is it immoral? Because of your faith? Why can't you decide for yourself what is moral or not instead of having to rely what's been brainwashed into your head? What sex acts do you perform in the privacy of your home? I'm sure I can round up so holier-than-thou Bible thumpers who will claim you are going to the H place because they believe what you are doing is immoral. Golly gee, if it wasn't spelled out in the bible, then it must be immoral. Your H*ell, you burn in it.
November 18, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

...round up some...
November 18, 2008

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

Besides, my god can beat up your god and mine says I can do whatever I want. You too, for that matter.
November 18, 2008

5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

Why does your god hate amputees so much? If all these other miracles can take place, why are there no documented cases of an amputee growing a new limb? Don't you think enough god-fearing christians have prayed like you know what to have an arm or leg restored? I know, god always answers prayers: yes, no and maybe.
November 18, 2008

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfkdem47 writes:

Steph writes:

"I hope you checked other sites besides FOF's home site. They would be less likely to tell you how they asked every one of their members to pray for rain during Obama's speech in Denver."

If you think that a person praying for rain during a politician's speech is no different than a bunch of people cheering two hundred people losing their jobs, then you need therapy.

"If marriage is a holy contract between people and God, why wouldn't God want gay people to make that same bond? He made gay people too."

You must support marriage for polygamists since polygamists exist. Pedophiles exist. Do you support pedophiles marrying children too?

Chipotle, you must come up with exact examples of gay marriage/homosexuality threatens society and marriage to justify calling it immoral.

How does polygamy threaten society? Do you support that too? Or has your hatred for FOF blinded you to your own hypocritical positions on the subject?
November 18, 2008

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

sad, tired old arguments that mirror the ones used by those opposed to interracial marriage.

history will look upon you the same.
November 18, 2008

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

ILoveChipotle: "I can't speak for all Christians but I do not agree with gay marriage because I think it is bad for society as a whole. I believe that homosexuality is immoral and the government should not sponsor immorality. I think that when something completely contradicts traditional values, like gay marriage, is allowed it starts to have a negative impact on society. Immorality starts to become more acceptable until people are left with no morals at all."

I think a lot of your logic parallels that of the members of the abolitionist movement (you know, those conservative Christians that wanted alcohol to be illegal). There's no question that excessive drinking has a negative impact on society (and was a large part of their argument with actual tangible, physical proof via spousal abuse often fueled by alcohol, etc). It would be difficult to argue that excessive drinking is moral (it would be harder to say that it's immoral, but many passages in the Bible in regards to gluttony I don't think that would be too difficult).

They eventually succeeded in making alcohol illegal. However, I think history shows that the majority, no matter how well intentioned, can enforce their morals on the minority if the minority is sufficiently large. I think the gay movement has long passed that 'sufficiently large' threshold and like it or not will eventually have legalized marriage.

Like it or not, I'm 99.9999% certain you are on the wrong side of history and gay marriage will ultimately be legal in the US.
November 18, 2008

7:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Uggh, once again I wish there was an 'edit' button. I meant to say 'prohibitionists' not 'abolitionists' obviously. Sigh...
November 18, 2008

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

jfkdem47 writes:

"I knew very little about Focus on the Family before this article was published."

If you don't know anything about Focus on your Family, then you live in a bubble. Remember the guy that wanted us to pray to God that it rained on Obama's acceptance speech.

"After reading all of your attacks on Focus on the Family and the people who had the misfortune of losing their jobs,"

Wrong again. No one attacked the people that lost there jobs, just the employer that was willing to spend millions on Prop 8 in California and lay off their employees right after.

"I found that they support some political agendas and oppose others, but if that is an example of hate, intolerance or bigotry, then every American is a hateful intolerant bigot."

Right. And you must be Joe the Plumber. Amazing.
November 18, 2008

9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

ILoveChipotle writes:

"I can't speak for all Christians but I do not agree with gay marriage because I think it is bad for society as a whole. I believe that homosexuality is immoral and the government should not sponsor immorality."

Jesus teaches to treat others as you wish to be treated. Since you are willing to treat others with bias and ignorance, we shall treat you with the same lack of respect.
November 18, 2008

9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

ILoveChipotle writes:

"Because you can't make a sinful contract with God."

So know you talk for God? You know what God thinks?

And while you are at it, show us where in the Bible God says "there shall not be gay marriage".
November 19, 2008

1:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Woolfthefirst writes:

Judging from the tone of the comments I've read, I would say the moral corruption in the country is worse than I thought. And since FOF is the focus of such an organize outpouring of vileness, they must surely be doing an outstanding job. I'll be sure to give them a nice donation this Christmas. God Bless Y'all, I'll say a prayer for you.
November 19, 2008

7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

cynical_one writes:

Woolfthefirst writes:

"And since FOF is the focus of such an organize outpouring of vileness, they must surely be doing an outstanding job. I'll be sure to give them a nice donation this Christmas."

Why don't you donate to those poor people that lost their jobs because FoF decided to spend their salaries supporting Prop 8? No, I guess you' rather be part of the problem than part of the solution.
November 19, 2008

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Looks like I struck a chord... Where to start?

God's Word says that homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, an abomination, fornication, vile affections, and a great sin against Him. He states any sexual act outside of marriage is adultery (hetro or homo sexual). Sex is to be between man and woman within marriage. (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27)

WhoMe - I don't decide what is immoral and neither do you - God does. (See above)

Joggle - you were right the first time. Abolishonists were Christians with a strong moral conviction.

Zim - being gay is not the same as being black!!! It's not immoral to be black. That argument is a weak and tired argument. I think the exit polling of prop 8 proves me right.
November 19, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"being gay is not the same as being black"

and why do you believe this, chipotle?
November 19, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

One is a skin color, one is a sexual orientation. Apples and oranges. Pretty obvious jay.
November 19, 2008

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

ILoveChipotle,
Thanks for sharing what YOUR God thinks in YOUR religion. However, MY God that I believe in isn't intolerant, nor bigoted. So why is your God better than my God? Why should we base public policy, or societal morals, specifically on YOUR God? And I don't need biblical verses... those were written by men, not God.

Also, if you believe that "Sex is to be between man and woman within marriage", would you feel it appropriate that this country pass laws banning ANY sort of sexual relations outside of marriage? After all, that is also a moral issue. Again, why are you only targetting gay people here?

As for my comment about black people, not so long ago (withing a generation, in fact), a great number of people felt a relationship between a black person and a white person was immoral. Some still do, in fact. They had about as much reasoning then as you do now with gay marriage, and even quoted biblical verses to support their claims. What is the difference, Chipotle? The point of this argument is to demonstrate your bigotry.

Whether you feel like being a bigot or not is your business, Chipotle. Whether you feel homosexual behavior is immoral or not is also your business. Pushing YOUR morality onto other people based on YOUR religious principles, people who are consensual adults and are harming no one, is immoral in itself. This country is based on the principles of freedom, and the pursuit of life and happiness, as long as you are not harming others in the process. Your principles of oppression and intolerance are not only immoral in and of themselves, they're downright un-American.
November 19, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

but discrimination because of either is still bigotry, no?
November 19, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Chipotle-"being gay is not the same as being black!!! It's not immoral to be black. That argument is a weak and tired argument. I think the exit polling of prop 8 proves me right."

Unfortunately, the exit polling back in the 1960s would have kept black people in the back of the bus.
November 19, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

OK, I'll press the obvious: how does two gay people getting married have anything to do with you at all, Chipotle? It's not your business, and you shouldn't have any say in their decision. It's not like they will be coming to your living room to consummate their relationship. Why don't you mind your business, and let other people do what they want? Their marriage does not affect you at all.
November 19, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

And what god would that be Zim?

We're not targeting gay people here, gay people are the one's pushing the gay marriage issue, we are only defending our moral convictions. You can't compare apples and oranges Zimmy so whatever you are trying to prove is pointless. YOU are the one's trying to push your morals on US. WE are trying to stand up for what is right.

jay - so according your logic, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want because we wouldn't want to offend anyone. There has to be some moral standard.
November 19, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Captainobvious - see my posts above, I'm tired of explaining how it's bad for society.
November 19, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Zim - when you make a realistic comparison then I will respond. It's a terrible comparison and I'm done with it.
November 19, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

CaptainObvious.....

OK, I'll press the obvious: how does polygamists getting married have anything to do with you at all, CapnObvious? It's not your business, and you shouldn't have any say in their decision. It's not like they will be coming to your living room to consummate their relationship. Why don't you mind your business, and let other people do what they want? Their marriage does not affect you at all.

Another gay marriage canard gets sliced and diced.
November 19, 2008

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: "YOU are the one's trying to push your morals on US. WE are trying to stand up for what is right."

Geez, Chipotle.... I can smell the narcissism from here. Am I telling you who you can or can't have a relationship with? No, I am not. But that is what YOU are doing. How am I pushing ANYTHING on you? If you want to be a bigot, then fine. It's your life. YOU, however, are inserting YOUR view of the world into the personal lives of others and demanding it be public policy. Sorry, Chipotle... standing up for oppression and bigotry is not right. It is wrong. Consistently through history, bigots like you have been defeated.

RE: "Captainobvious - see my posts above, I'm tired of explaining how it's bad for society."

You have yet to explain how it's bad for society. You just keep reciting the Bible.

RE: "And what god would that be Zim?"

That would be God. Or I guess the 2/3 of the world that doesn't believe in your specific version must be delusional.

RE: "jay - so according your logic, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want because we wouldn't want to offend anyone."

No... people shouldn't be allowed to intentionally harm or infringe on the rights of others. How is a consensual relationship between consenting adults affecting you personally, Chipotle? What harm, outside of biblical verses, are they causing? You have yet to answer this without reciting the Bible.

RE: " "There has to be some moral standard."

And who is the gatekeeper of that standard? YOU, Chipotle? Again, you didn't answer my question about non-marital sex. That is also sinful behavior. What laws should we pass to prevent that? Or should we only pass laws that target gay people? Have you ever had non-marital sex, Chipotle?

RE: "Zim - when you make a realistic comparison then I will respond. It's a terrible comparison and I'm done with it."

It is a realistic comparison. The problem is you have no counter. And you have yet to explain how any of your motives are not rooted in bigotry.
November 19, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RickG,
Would you then support a law that bans those who have practiced infidelity from marriage? Having a mistress isn't far off from polygamy, and infidelity is far more destructive to a family in terms of financial and emotional distress.

Another anti-gay marriage canard sliced and diced.
November 19, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

Neither, rickg. It doesn't effect me at all--either gay marriage or polygamy (even though they are not the same thing at all). I just don't have a need to force my beliefs on other people. Or down their throats. Why do you feel this need? Why do you need to control other people? Is it a lack of conviction in your beliefs? Or a lack of confidence in general? Regardless, it sure doesn't seem proper actions of a person from a faith professing a god of love.

And Chipotle, you haven't explained anything. But you have gone out of your way to display your anti-christian ways. I mean, how else would you explain intolerance of people who are different than you, passing judgement on others, helping to oppress people. All of these are things that jesus opposed, and yet you have no hesitation doing them. Not too christian of you...
November 19, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"so according your logic, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want because we wouldn't want to offend anyone."

nope, chipotle, you're cornered again so you're trotting out the strawman arguments.

so...how is discrimination against people because of color any different than discrimination against people because of sexual orientation?
November 19, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Ha! You lefties just make me laugh. Jay with your word of the week, Zim with your persistent weak arguments, CaptOblivious with your complete ignornance.
November 19, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

come back and see us when you can answer that theologically inconvenient question, chipotle.

here it is again...how is discrimination against people because of color any different than discrimination against people because of sexual orientation?

nice to see you're still running when cornered.
November 19, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

I'm just doing what you do jay...

Fine, I'll say it again. Homosexuality is a sin, being a different color of skin is not a sin. We should not promote sinful behavior.

At the risk of having to hear your word of the week, you never answer the polygamy questions either - you just avoid all questions & attack.
November 19, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

No, Chipotle, being gay is not a sin.
November 19, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

And please stop judging others, Chipotle. That is a sin.
November 19, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

That's not for you or me to decide.
November 19, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Homosexuality is a sin, being a different color of skin is not a sin. We should not promote sinful behavior."

bingo.

remember, people, beliefs in the supernatural and your own ideas of "morality" NEVER justify bigotry.

we've debunked the polygamy myths so many times i think you're one of the only fundies desperate enough to trot them out anymore, chipotle.

do we really need to go over the details again?

have you really shaken the etchisketch?

remember what i do to folks displaying willful ignorance, burrito.
November 19, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Ha! I'm not judging I'm just stating the truth.
November 19, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"truth"

lol
November 19, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Just because you have no moral standard doesn't mean you can oppress me because I do. Don't be such a bigot jay.

I remember what you do with ignorance - you display it daily.
November 19, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

and can you tell me in what way i'm oppressing you or discriminating against you, chipotle...and thus a bigot?

remember...being intolerant of bigotry doesn't make on a bigot.

pointing out bigotry doesn't make one a bigot...anymore than pointing out ignorance (willful or not) makes one ignorant.

are you going to run or do you have the intellectual honesty to answer the question?
November 19, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

Pretty slippery slope you like to dance on there, Chipotle. In your own words, you say "homosexuality is a sin." But when I say it isn't, you say "that's not for you or me to decide." It must be tough for you to watch others think for themselves, and be logical, consistent, and correct, when you can't do so yourself, and can only resort to arguments with no logic in them at all, or personal attacks. But I tell you what, your hypocrisy sure is fun to watch from my vantage. Good luck, buddy. You further prove our point with every post.
November 19, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

Chipotle,
So why address the "sin" of homosexuality, and not other sins? Again, should we strip adulterers of the privilege of marriage? Why do you keep glossing over this question? Have you ever had sinful relations, Chipotle? Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?

RE: "In your own words, you say 'homosexuality is a sin.' But when I say it isn't, you say 'that's not for you or me to decide.'"

Captain Obvious makes a great point here... you seem to have lapses in consistency with your reasoning.

You also haven't answered why you, or your religion, should be the gatekeeper of morality. From this vantage point, I see your morals as tainted, perverse, oppressive, and un-American. So which of us is right?
November 19, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

I don't decide what is right and wrong. Morality is not relative, truth is not relative - they are absolute and they are set by a higher power then I.

Just because you say it's not immoral doesn't mean that it's not, the truth can't be changed.
November 19, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I don't decide what is right and wrong. Morality is not relative, truth is not relative - they are absolute and they are set by a higher power then I."

well we're back to the same place we always get on this subject.

religious beliefs are not justification for bigotry.
November 19, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

Newsflash, Chipotle, your religious opinions are not the law (thankfully), or even the truth (decidedly). The only higher power applying to all Americans is the Constitution. You know, the one that reads all men are created equal...
November 19, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: "Just because you say it's not immoral doesn't mean that it's not, the truth can't be changed."

Maybe.... but what I contend is neither you nor your god dictate that truth. And they sure as heck don't dictate my truth, nor the truths of many Americans. This does not make me, or any American who disagrees with you, any less moral than you, regardless of how high your horse is.

God is not a bigot, and He does not condone bigotry. I don't know why you would consider Him with such a flaw, but I guess that says something about your moral fiber.
November 19, 2008

1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: "Just because you say it's not immoral doesn't mean that it's not, the truth can't be changed."

Which brings me back to a question I've been asking you over and over and you have yet to answer. If gay people should not marry because of their sins, should adulterers also have their marriage privileges nullified, because of THEIR sins? If not, why not? Why should one sin disqualify one for marriage and not the other?

Also, have you ever had sex outside of marriage? Since you feel you can stick your nose into the private affairs of consenting couples that you have never met, I have no qualms about asking you questions about your personal dealings.
November 19, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Okay, this is my last post on this topic because this is going no where. In summary:

Gay marriage is immoral, government should not promote and accept immoral acts.

God defines truth for everyone, truth is not different for you or me. I've never said He was a bigot, I've only stated that He rejects homosexuality.

I am a sinner and I have never claimed to be perfect, but that doesn't mean I can't stand up for what is right, even if that offends the angry gay crowd.

The constitution does govern America, but even the founding fathers knew there was an even higher power than themselves and this country.

Most of the country agrees with me (even liberal California) that marriage is between a man and a woman and many states have put that into their constitutions.

Because of all of that let's just agree that I am right & I win!

Cheers!
November 19, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"God defines truth for everyone"

read: "i believe MY god defines truth for everyone"

and there you have chipotle's position on this subject (and i suspect many others)
November 19, 2008

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

BO writes:

I can see it now...the thoughts of a FotF worker that has just been laid off...

"I don't know how I'll pay my mortgage...I don't know how I'll pay my bills...Christmas is in 5 weeks- how will I make sure the kids have a good Christmas?.....At least the gays in California can't get married...That's so much more important...Even though I am out of a job, I'm glad I donated that money (that I could really use now) to help support a ballot measure in a state in which I do not live..."

They should now call themselves Focus on our Finances.
November 19, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: " 'God defines truth for everyone. Read: 'i believe MY god defines truth for everyone--- and there you have chipotle's position on this subject (and i suspect many others)' "

Jay nailed it. Not only that, what Chipotle is essentially doing is placing all blame and responsibility for his controversial viewpoints on God. "God told me this so I'm just doing what he says". It's easy to avoid culpability by laying it all on God. Man up, Chipotle-- take ownership of your bigotry.... quit laying it all at God's feet already. If you're a bigot, it's because you are a bigot... not because of any "truths" that your god iterated to you.

Your delusion, Chipotle, is that your god is THE God. Why are you so full of yourself, Chipotle? Why is your god everyone's god? What makes you right when, in the world view of religions, you are very much in the minority?

I refuse to believe that God is a bigot. And I'm STILL waiting for him to answer my questions on infidelity and marriage.
November 19, 2008

3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i know we kind of piled on chipotle a bit there, but she/he does serve a fairly noble purpose here by allowing her/his arguments to be boiled down to religious based bigotry.

at least he/she is honest about it (even if unable to wrap the mind around it yet) and serves as a very good reminder as to why many folks oppose equal rights for homosexuals.
November 19, 2008

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I see the Calif. Supreme Ct is going to consider challenges to the the new law.
November 19, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Chipotle,

You nailed them! They're in the minority, and will continue to be so, since they don't have anything substantive to justify their opposition to the vast majority of Americans.

You reduced them to trotting out the same old tired arguments they always use.... the same ones that get rejected by huge margins everytime they try to force gay marriage onto an unwilling America.

The fact that they had to resort to the same overused, hate based talking points, just as they did about the original topic - FOF, is evidence of the vacuousness of their thinking.
November 19, 2008

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

psychoChicken writes:

Jay, well stated. Hate the arguement, not the person (or, in this case, the anonymous screen name posting it)
November 19, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Johnny_LaRue writes:

jay, Zim, CaptO, etc - well played. Chiplote was marinated and bbq'd in his bigotry and nonsense. Those posts speak for themselves.

My brother's favorite saying - "denying gays the right to marry is no different than denying left-handed fisherman a fishing license, for no other reason than being left-handed" There is no defense for the unconstitutional and un-american ignorance in the name of religion.
November 19, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

That's fine, Chipotle, take your ball and go home. But at the end of the day, you are still a bigot hiding behind a book, and we still believe in (and will fight for) an individual's right to pursue their own happiness.

It's good to see that there are others out there willing to stand up and speak out for those being oppressed. Jay, Zim, other like-minded people, nice work. The tide is turning. There will always be narrow-minded people like ILoveChipotle and rickg, and we must remember them for the bigots that they are. As someone else said recently, Bull Connors got people to hold the fire hoses in Birmingham. But they didn't last as the majority back then, and these few won't last here either. The parallels have been drawn, and people are starting to understand. Keep up the good fight.
November 20, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

Hahahaha!! All you proved is your hatred for religious people. Congratulations guys the tide is turning, prop 8, amendment 43, etc...

Haters like you are in the minority and the votes have proved it time and time again. You can scream and claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, but in reality your simple minded attacks only strengthen your opposition.
November 20, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

That's fine, Chipotle. Bigots like you were saying the same thing about black people in the 1960s, and look where we've come. Ten years ago no one even discussed gay marriage seriously-- now it's a part of the national debate. Throwbacks like Chipotle can claim whatever victories they want that uphold their bigoted outlook, but in the end, history will wash them away.

By the way, Chipotle, are you ever going to stop dodging my infidelity question?
November 20, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

No one showed any hatred for religious people, Chipotle, just closed-minded bigots like you. Don't feel bad though, it's not like we expected one good night's sleep to enlighten you. Maybe someday you'll finally get it. I am not, however, holding my breath.

And I thought you said you had already made your last post on this...guess we can't take your word on anything.
November 20, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

ILoveChipotle writes:

I just can't let idoiocy go ignored.

My final comment - I don't expect people without morals to understand a moral issue - maybe someday you will see the light & I hope you do.
November 20, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

ILoveChipotle writes:

"I just can't let idoiocy go ignored."

Perfect. For your "last comment" that is so fitting. I've actually got nothing to top that. Perfection. Thank you.
November 20, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

and someday we hope you acknowledge and take some responsibility for your bigoted views, chipotle.

until then, however, you'll continue to get more and more irrelevant as the country continues to move away from your kind of mindset.

remember, 2/3rds of the voters under 30 voted no on prop 8.

it's just a matter of time before you join those who opposed interracial marriage in the pages of history.

now...one more time....just so there's no confusion...

pointing out bigotry in others does not make one a bigot any more than pointing out ignorance in others makes on ignorant.

clear enough?
November 20, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

Good point jay, but what does fighting against "idoiocy" make a person?
November 20, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: Chipotle-- "I don't expect people without morals to understand a moral issue - maybe someday you will see the light & I hope you do."

Chipotle, my morals are stronger than your morals because I am not a bigot and you are. Simple math.

Still waiting on your answer to my infidelity question. I wonder why it is you won't answer it.

Home › News › Local News

Focus on the Family eliminating 202 jobs

Bill Reed, the Gazette

Published November 17, 2008 at 4:53 p.m.

Related Stories

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs