7 comments

• 

  Bruce

  7 months ago

  If you tink NPH has a good signing voice, check out this one to:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDaszN9ByxM
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  7 months ago

  I think the gay community is looking for a reaction from the Christians. They think that this musical would do the trick.
  
  I think that this musical is very sacrilegious, but I won't do anything about it. Prop 8 supporters, please do not get too venomous in your statements.
  
  To the Prop 8 Opponents: Is banning a father from marrying his daughter unjust and unconstitutional? After all, they love each other, and there should be no law that should be prohibiting them from marrying, right? What about banning marriage to minors? Is that unjust? What about banning people from marrying animals? What about banning polygamy? Are all these unjust and unconstitutional?
  reply
• 

  Matt

  7 months ago

  Why, exactly, is marriage between two consenting, nonrelated adults unjust?
  
  We ban incest on public policy grounds solely because of the genetic consequences. Minors aren't permitted to marry because they're not permitted to enter into legal relationships. Animals have exactly nothing to do with anything. You can try to bury your bigotry, but this is no different than the ban on interracial marriages, or bans denying marriages to members of different classes. Why are those permissible?
  
  If you want to say that you believe it's immoral, then why aren't you protesting marriages for money, or marriages of convenience, or drunken Vegas weddings? Why, after a divorce rate approaching 60% and having exactly no religious, moral, or other standards for marriage, is the sanctity of the institution JUST NOW threatened in this one inconsequential way?
  
  If you and your church doesn't approve of gay marriages, don't perform them. But since when do you get approval rights for what other churches and civil officers do?
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  7 months ago

  http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles...
  
  Tell your comment of "If you and your church doesn't approve of gay marriages, don't perform them." to these guys, ok?
  reply
• 

  Matt

  7 months ago

  They weren't asked to perform a ceremony. Their policy allows the general public onto the land; sending people away for bigoted and discriminatory reasons is illegal.
  
  No one was forced to participate, conduct, or endorse any activity. If they didn't want to provide access to the general public, they didn't have to, but they CHOSE to.
  
  Thanks for playing.
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  7 months ago

  They were being asked to allow something that they viewed as morally wrong on their property. They have a right to turn them away.
  
  I am certain that any public events have to get their approval before they go into effect. If a church owns a campground or a park, then they can determine what they can and can't allow there, even if it is open to the general public.
  reply
• 

  Matt

  7 months ago

  "They were being asked to allow something that they viewed as morally wrong on their property. They have a right to turn them away."
  
  No, they had no such right. Their property was a campground and pavilion for which they sought tax-exempt status. For non-religious properties (i.e. not church grounds), that status is contingent upon being open to the public. If they wanted to use it for their own internal purposes, they could have done so and paid taxes on it like countless other churches do.
  
  "I am certain that any public events have to get their approval before they go into effect. "
  What?
  
  "If a church owns a campground or a park, then they can determine what they can and can't allow there, even if it is open to the general public."
  No. General public means general public. They cannot close their doors to some people and not others and still be complying with "open to the public".
  reply