Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A Utah legislator introduced a bill Wednesday that would require all publicly funded programs, laws, and regulations, to ensure they exclude families headed by gay and lesbian couples.

Rep. LaVar Christensen writes in the bill's language that "marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence." It also says, "families anchored by both a father and a mother, fidelity within marriage, and enduring devotion to the covenants and responsibilities of marriage are the desired norm."

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/201 ... _Families/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Utah is, a country of it's own.

He should do something about all of those polygamist families who suck the government assistance teat until it's dry.

Wedgebuster wrote:Utah is, a country of it's own.

Agreed, can we ban them from associating with the other 49 states?

ATrain wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Utah is, a country of it's own.

Agreed, can we ban them from associating with the other 49 states?

Can't seem to think of a thing wrong with sealing the border. Only thing we'll be out is a lot of stepford women with huge hair.

ATrain wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Utah is, a country of it's own.

Agreed, can we ban them from associating with the other 49 states?

Won't someone think of Donnie and Marie???

So it's bad to want to limit the aid people receive because they live a different lifestyle, but it's okay to reward those who live destructive lifestyles with aid.

Is that what liberals are saying?

It's bad that this guy is bigoted (I agree, he's bigoted) and doesn't want to give aid to those with "alternative" (in his mind) lifestyles...

...but we're all for helping the "poor" and "disadvantaged" which means all the aid goes to drug dealers who make their money under the table, single parents who father or mother many different children due to unprotected sex and irresponsibility, and to felons unable to get jobs because of the illegal, irresponsible decisions of their past.

You guys have to realize this coin has two sides. Yes, he said gays shouldn't get stuff, and I know that rubs someone who is gay the wrong way. But it also rubs me the wrong way as a working, white, male American that people who don't work and have no desire to work, or who make irresponsible decisions and can't afford the lifestyle they create, are rewarded for this behavior and make as much, if not more, than I do, with no effort at all. I make irresponsible financial decisions all the time, and I'm not rewarded for it.

It's a flawed system altogether, and while this guy is a nutcase, I wouldn't run around screaming how unfair his ideas are, when the current system is much, much worse.

ToTheLeft wrote:So it's bad to want to limit the aid people receive because they live a different lifestyle, but it's okay to reward those who live destructive lifestyles with aid.

Is that what liberals are saying?

It's bad that this guy is bigoted (I agree, he's bigoted) and doesn't want to give aid to those with "alternative" (in his mind) lifestyles...

...but we're all for helping the "poor" and "disadvantaged" which means all the aid goes to drug dealers who make their money under the table, single parents who father or mother many different children due to unprotected sex and irresponsibility, and to felons unable to get jobs because of the illegal, irresponsible decisions of their past.

You guys have to realize this coin has two sides. Yes, he said gays shouldn't get stuff, and I know that rubs someone who is gay the wrong way. But it also rubs me the wrong way as a working, white, male American that people who don't work and have no desire to work, or who make irresponsible decisions and can't afford the lifestyle they create, are rewarded for this behavior and make as much, if not more, than I do, with no effort at all. I make irresponsible financial decisions all the time, and I'm not rewarded for it.

It's a flawed system altogether, and while this guy is a nutcase, I wouldn't run around screaming how unfair his ideas are, when the current system is much, much worse.

Then fix the system to eliminate the freeloaders. Don't lump an entire class of people. The comparision you make is truly sickening - you are equating singles and gays to freeloading druggies.

Show me where I equated anyone with a freeloading druggie. Please, I mean it. Show me where.

My point was the system has been ruined by liberals (and "conservatives" who turned out to be anything but, which there are a lot of), so why can't a republican be unfair, too? I'm a single man, I'm being "discriminated" against by this idiot, as well. So I'm comparing myself to a freeloading druggie? Give me a break, Jon. The point is that this idea is just as stupid as those currently in place. If anything, I'm standing up for the right of gays to be treated just like anyone else, just like the freeloading druggie has the right to be treated like anyone else. Work hard, and if you still don't make ends meet, then maybe the government can help. But that's not how the system works, and so who cares who is being discriminated against? It's an unfair system, and it's one you'd still defend.

But it's the entrenched liberal perspective that we need to provide for the less fortunate because Corporate America is out to get them. Am I right? That's part of why the system is broken in the first place. That, and those are the people whose vote is easily bought.

If someone on this board posted a topic titled "Republican wants to end welfare, handouts to the poor" you'd (or other liberals) slam them for hating humanity, being elitist, hating blacks, etc. That's the point I'm trying to make. There are 2 sides to this coin. The system as it is, is very unfair. There is no "fixing" it. Money goes down the drain on a daily basis to people who don't deserve a dime of it. This idiot is just continuing down the same slope that got us to where we are. Picking and choosing who gets the aid, so that you get more votes on election day.

ToTheLeft wrote:But it's the entrenched liberal perspective that we need to provide for the less fortunate because Corporate America is out to get them. Am I right? That's part of why the system is broken in the first place. That, and those are the people whose vote is easily bought.

What about the conservatives who donate to charities? Or the christians?

kalm wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:But it's the entrenched liberal perspective that we need to provide for the less fortunate because Corporate America is out to get them. Am I right? That's part of why the system is broken in the first place. That, and those are the people whose vote is easily bought.

What about the conservatives who donate to charities? Or the christians?

Is it out of their own pocket? Is it of their own free will?

That's the obvious difference. If you show someone you care about them enough to give them your time and money, that's one thing. If you just put them in a line and hand them someone else's money, that's another.

Unless I misunderstood your question?

Also, kalm, you and I agree on more things than we disagree.

And I was a bit too polarizing in terms of "left" and "right" in my original post, because there's a ton of politicians on both sides who support this stupid system.

ToTheLeft wrote:

kalm wrote:
What about the conservatives who donate to charities? Or the christians?

Is it out of their own pocket? Is it of their own free will?

That's the obvious difference. If you show someone you care about them enough to give them your time and money, that's one thing. If you just put them in a line and hand them someone else's money, that's another.

Unless I misunderstood your question?

Also, kalm, you and I agree on more things than we disagree.

And I was a bit too polarizing in terms of "left" and "right" in my original post, because there's a ton of politicians on both sides who support this stupid system.

Fair enough.

So all poor and disadvantaged that get aid fall into these categories?

"drug dealers who make their money under the table, single parents who father or mother many different children due to unprotected sex and irresponsibility, and to felons unable to get jobs because of the illegal, irresponsible decisions of their past."

Think there is anyone that isn't doing well that got there out of bad luck and not illegal and irresponsible choices?

Absolutely the system needs to be fixed to not help out people that don't deserve it. However there are people that genuinely need aid.

CitadelGrad wrote:He should do something about all of those polygamist families who suck the government assistance teat until it's dry.

Bingo..!!!!

And here in lies the problem with anything a Utah Republican says...
Until that state address's the well documented and rampant Mormon abuse of Federal Assistance Programs all this is basically nonsense...

The Mormon Church has mastered the process of getting every Mormon family on Federal Assistance of some kind… It’s absolutely amazing

Vidav wrote: Absolutely the system needs to be fixed to not help out people that don't deserve it. However there are people that genuinely need aid.

I said that in one of my posts.

Work hard, and if you still can't make it, then the government can help.

I'm not lumping anyone in with drug dealers or irresponsible people. I'm just saying they're riding along on a system that isn't doing what it's supposed to do, but no one is going to fix it.

I think the title of this thread is misleading a little. I'm no expert in legistation, and I think this bill is a piece of shit, but I don't see anywhere in the bill where it would ban gays from receiving state aid. The closest it comes is:

This bill:

states, as the public policy of Utah, that a family, consisting of a legally and lawfully married man and woman and their children, is the fundamental unit of society; and

requires that publicly funded social programs, government services, laws, and regulations designed to support families be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they promote the family.

I guess it could be argued that this is a launching point for future bills to discriminate, but this one itself does not do it.

89Hen wrote:I think the title of this thread is misleading a little. I'm no expert in legistation, and I think this bill is a piece of shit, but I don't see anywhere in the bill where it would ban gays from receiving state aid. The closest it comes is:

This bill:

states, as the public policy of Utah, that a family, consisting of a legally and lawfully married man and woman and their children, is the fundamental unit of society; and

requires that publicly funded social programs, government services, laws, and regulations designed to support families be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they promote the family.

I guess it could be argued that this is a launching point for future bills to discriminate, but this one itself does not do it.

Since gays can't marry in Utah they could only be single...thus this bill is bigoted....I guess.

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:He should do something about all of those polygamist families who suck the government assistance teat until it's dry.

Bingo..!!!!

And here in lies the problem with anything a Utah Republican says...
Until that state address's the well documented and rampant Mormon abuse of Federal Assistance Programs all this is basically nonsense...

The Mormon Church has mastered the process of getting every Mormon family on Federal Assistance of some kind… It’s absolutely amazing

A-fokking-men....goddam FLDS teat-sucking lunatics....

89Hen wrote:I think the title of this thread is misleading a little. I'm no expert in legistation, and I think this bill is a piece of shit, but I don't see anywhere in the bill where it would ban gays from receiving state aid. The closest it comes is:

This bill:

states, as the public policy of Utah, that a family, consisting of a legally and lawfully married man and woman and their children, is the fundamental unit of society; and

requires that publicly funded social programs, government services, laws, and regulations designed to support families be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they promote the family.

I guess it could be argued that this is a launching point for future bills to discriminate, but this one itself does not do it.

You mean like this...
Christensen's second bill in a one-sentence item that declares, "An arrangement, agreement or transaction that is unlawful or violates public policy is void and unenforceable." LGBT activists say that could be interpreted to make void any wills or medical directives between gay couples. Christensen is a lay bishop with the LDS Church.

dbackjon wrote:You mean like this...
Christensen's second bill in a one-sentence item that declares, "An arrangement, agreement or transaction that is unlawful or violates public policy is void and unenforceable." LGBT activists say that could be interpreted to make void any wills or medical directives between gay couples. Christensen is a lay bishop with the LDS Church.

Again, I'm no estate attorney, but that doesn't sound correct. I can will my estate to anyone I want. I don't have to be related to them by blood or marraige.

ATrain wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Utah is, a country of it's own.

Agreed, can we ban them from associating with the other 49 states?

Why not, the BCS does its best to do that already.