Currently
54°
Clear

Advertisement





Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS


Advertisement


Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription


Map the Valley


Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service



Commentary: A Man of faith but still a man

The whole town was in shock after the story broke out. But I wasn't. "What a horrible scandal," some said. But to me, it was a natural series of events that I always believed were inevitable.

Padre Alberto, as he is known to his many followers, never did anything that would lead me to believe he was not a man of God, completely dedicated to his vocation of teaching the word of the Lord to young and old, rich and poor, couples and entire families. People look to him for inspiration, support, spiritual guidance. He not only is a man of faith, but one who possesses a special kind of charisma that has created an almost cultlike following by his fans. Yes, his fans. In the priestly world, Padre Alberto is a rock star. But above all things, he is a man.

That is why when a gossip magazine -- known for its sensationalist and scandalous headlines -- published pictures of him with a woman expressing his affection, I was not surprised. What did surprise me is that he would expose himself to the scrutiny of the vicious world of yellow journalism.

Whatever led him to take such an important step in his life is something that probably will remain in his soul and his conscience, regardless of his public comments. The important thing is that he followed his heart. More than six decades ago, a man near and dear to my heart struggled with the same life-altering decision: my own father.

I did not find out that he had even been a priest until after his death in 1985. Since then I struggled with the uncertainty of not knowing the circumstances under which he'd left the priesthood and if my mother had had anything to do with it. For more than two decades, I searched high and low for the facts. My pursuit of the truth took me from the archives of the Archdiocese of Mexico City to the halls of the Vatican. I wanted so badly to understand why a man who had entered into the very strict vows of celibacy would break those vows and risk the condemnation of the institution of the Catholic Church. Even more troubling for me was not knowing why my father had kept such an important episode of his life a secret.

Through the years and in research conducted for my book, "I Am My Father's Daughter: Living a Life Without Secrets," I learned some of the details of his life as a priest. For example, that he was educated in a seminary in Rome, that his brother also had been a priest, that for more than a decade he had served in several parishes in and around the Mexican capital, and that at some point he had complained to his family that he'd suffered a grave disappointment with the church.

As I looked through the decades-old archives of the archdiocese, a young priest tried to appease my restlessness by reminding me that the one thing I would never be able to know was what exactly was going through his mind when he made that decision. That was one secret he had taken with him to his grave.

I later learned from his family members of his lifelong struggle to reconcile with the Catholic Church. You see, in the 1940s a priest could not just decide to walk away from the institution and still be a practicing Catholic. His efforts were documented in a letter written in Latin to the Holy See begging to be absolved. It was, in fact, Father Alberto Cutie who helped me translate the document into English and helped me understand how much my father valued giving his daughters a religious education, as explained in the letter.

Father Cutie and I have had many conversations about the church through the years, about its teachings, its rules and its shortcomings. Celibacy is unnatural, I would say; but it's the sacrifice we make for the Lord, he'd reply. I remember discussing with him the irony of canon law during the height of the sex-abuse scandal by Catholic priests. I could not understand how, according to Code 1395 of canon law, sex between clergy and an adult woman is a far more serious offense than molesting minors. The former can result in suspension; the latter, merely punishment with unspecified penalties. It's a position that's difficult to defend.

It's hard to make parallels between my father's story and that of Father Cutie; at only 40 years of age, his future is still unwritten. I have no doubt that he will continue to be the beloved figure who has comforted and inspired thousands, even as many condemn his actions. But if he were to in any way follow the steps of my father -- get married and have children while continuing to be a man of faith -- he could leave a legacy of love and courage for many generations to come.

Maria Elena Salinas can be reached at www.mariaesalinas.com.

(May 9, 2009)

POST A COMMENT

 

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

 


Please log in to post comments
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Alihandero wrote on May 10, 2009 4:14 PM:

" If the liberal progressive Ms. Salinas can say : "Celibacy is unnatural," freely without disapproval, why can't others say "Homosexual behavior is unnatural?"

Why? "

jeff wrote on May 11, 2009 2:49 PM:

" Alex,

You can say it is all you want. There are no laws against saying homosexuality is unnatural - your entire premise is a fabrication. However,
homosexual behavior isn't unnatural. You can find multiple examples of homosexuality in nature but try finding one of celibacy. So say it all you want just realize you're wrong when you do. "

Alihandero wrote on May 12, 2009 5:07 PM:

" Thanks "Jeff."

So you ARE saying that Ms. Salinas is wrong then.

And by the way, it's not MY premise - I just asked a question.

But now that you mention it, premise-wise, I believe that I would restrict my observations to human people, not the lower animals you seem to love and frequently mention when the topic comes up.

In real people - not the lower animals - homosexual conduct and its physical actions misuse purposeful parts of the human body. This produces several not natural, physiologically unhealthy behaviors for the body and the species.

So whether you believe that the normal human body was created by a Higher Power or evolved through scientific principles, homosexual physical activity in human beings is 100% unnatural.

But if you insist on believing that "if gay animals can do it, so should we" well, I have yet to see a cloaca on a human body or even a normal well-adjusted hermaphrodite. "

Alihandero wrote on May 12, 2009 5:14 PM:

" Oh, by the way, "jeff," there IS celibacy in the lower creatures:

see Parthenogenesis

"Parthenogenesis is a form of agamogenesis in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual. Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in many plants, invertebrates (e.g., water fleas, aphids, stick insects, some ants, bees and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g., some reptiles, amphibians, fish, very rarely birds). In plants, apomixis may or may not involve parthenogenesis."

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction)

Unless you, "jeff," don't consider this celibacy too. "

Melissa wrote on May 13, 2009 8:29 AM:

" Celibacy is unnatural, that is why the priest said they choose to deny their sexual urges. Homosexuality is not a choice. What anyone chooses to say is their purogative. Homosexuality is as natural to me as heterosexuality is to others. It is only unnatural to those who do not understand. Homosexuality is found all thru nature, and obviously it is natural in the human species because it exsists, if it was not in our nature, it would not occur. We are born with our attractions, those who are heterosexual did not choose to be that way, just as those of us who are homosexual did not choose to be the way we are either. Basically it boils down to this; say what you want, we live in a free country. Just understand the difference between Ms Salinas saying Celibacy( a choice stated by the priest) is unnatural, and others saying homosexual behavior (not a choice) is unnatural is like comparing apples to oranges. "

jeff wrote on May 13, 2009 8:34 AM:

" Sorry Alex but you've missed the boat again. Parthenogenesis is not a form of celibacy. Celibacy means to either be unmarried or refrain from sexual activity. Parthenogenesis is a sexual activity. By the way, I have met normal well-adjusted hermaphrodites but even if there were none as you claim how does that prove that all homosexuals are abnormal and not well-adjusted?

Just because you claim that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't make it so. "

jeff wrote on May 13, 2009 8:34 AM:

" Oh I almost forgot. I wasn't saying Maria Salinas was wrong about anything, just that you are. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 13, 2009 3:04 PM:

" To: Melissa, I would hate to think I had to justify my lifestyle according to any of these species of animals.

Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

I just don't see my lifestyle going that of a "fruit flies", for example.

So isn't it a reach when you try and use animals and mamals with the lowest of intelligent Quota, to demonstrate their involvement in homosexuality techniques and patterns?

Would you compare your love making with that of a cow? a horse? turkeys and vervets? Give me a break, won't you?

This seems to be the extent of how far you will go to try and excuse your behavior and choice of a lifestyle. Yes I say choice because even at the age as described of prior to school age, we are all capable of making decisions, I suppose? But not all decisions we make are the correct one's? Interesting Phylosophy??? "

Alihandero wrote on May 14, 2009 12:06 AM:

" Sorry to correct you with higher education and all, but parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction.

Look up a-s-e-x-u-a-l.

Without intercourse.

And cel·i·ba·cy means:

1. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2. The condition of being unmarried.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

I stand by my correct answer.

Let the good readers decide for themselves the truth, whydoncha? "

jeff wrote on May 14, 2009 8:53 AM:

" Fred,

Not sure if you're unaware or what's happening but you're an animal. I would most definitely compare sex in humans to that of other animals. You, me, Melissa, a horse, a dog and yes even a fruit fly are all animals living on the same planet. We are all trying to survive and live. You would be better off simply living your life instead of trying to tell others how to live theirs. "

dose wrote on May 14, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Watchdog Fred wrote on May 13, 2009 3:04 PM:

"This seems to be the extent of how far you will go to try and excuse your behavior and choice of a lifestyle. Yes I say choice because even at the age as described of prior to school age, we are all capable of making decisions,"

So Fred since you claim that being homosexual is a choice, I'm curious at what age did you decide to be heterosexual instead of homosexual. "

kermit the frog wrote on May 14, 2009 3:46 PM:

" Yay Melissa! People like Fred are going to have to continue sheltering themselves from the real world pretty soon. Being gay is SO not a choice. Ask anyone! Limp wrists and bobbly heads are something not everyone is talented with, and are certainly not choices or learned. And it's OK!!! Wake up and realize that people are people, and people get to live their lives however they want as long as it doesn't bother other people. "

Melissa wrote on May 14, 2009 4:35 PM:

" To Watchdog Fred,

I do not have to make excuses for my lifestyle or my behavior. There is nothing wrong with the way I act, or with my lifestyle. Sure I am human and I make mistakes but who I love is not one of them.
No Fred I do not compare my lovemaking to a cow, but then I do not compare it to anything really. My intimate relationship is special and requires no comparisons thank you. But are we all mammals? Yes we are. Sexuality is a natural thing, heterosexual or homosexual. Which ever one you identify with is normal, and natural. No one chooses who they are attracted to Fred. But I guess by calling it a choice is how you excuse your behavior towards homosexuals. "

Alihandero wrote on May 14, 2009 4:56 PM:

" Hey Watchdog,

I would ask the Greek Chorus here (pardon the reference, folks) a question or two:

-Can a human love another human without having sexual relations with them?

and

-Is the act of having sexual relations completely voluntary based upon a conscious decision the person makes or is it an animal impulse that simply cannot be controlled?

I am looking forward to see their answers here, because...well, I'll just wait for the erudite responses to be submitted from the erstwhile defenders of the fey. "

Melissa wrote on May 15, 2009 1:59 PM:

" Alihandero to your first question, can a person love someone without sexual relations....sure, I love my family and friends with all my heart, but that kind of relationship is different than the relationship between my girlfriend and I. I am sure you know that though, you are an intelligent person. I am sure you either are or have been in love and you know the difference. As for question two, can you choose not to act on a sexual attraction? Sure, I personally know many people who are single who choose not to sleep with everyone they are attracted to, heterosexual or homosexual. Your sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether or not you choose to sleep with someone on the first date. But what a person can not choose is WHO they are attracted to sexually. Now if you are trying to say we can choose to deny who we are so we can fit in and you and others who believe as you do, do not have to accept we exsist, too bad. I lived in the closet, I can breathe a lot better out here. I am who I am. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 18, 2009 8:59 AM:

" to Melissa and jeff, you keep saying that there is homosexuality in all of the animal kingdom. Can you prove that? I will agree that animals have been seen doing things that according to us humans is a homosexual act, but has it actually been observed that those animals are attracted only to the same sex as them, or that they are performing an act that is only an animalistic instinct? I am sure that all of us have had the incident of a small dog trying to mate with our leg, but was it the fact they were interested in us as a sex partner, or just a response to a ingrained instinct? I go with the instinct. Yet homosexuals in our midst go for the same gender on purpose, knowing that it isn't capable of producing the normal outcome of heterosexual relationship. So again site one case study that shows that those "homosexual" animals you keep talking about purposely sought out only animals of the same gender as them. "

jeff wrote on May 18, 2009 9:38 AM:

" Thanks for proving me right and yourself wrong Alex. The truth lies right in your last comment to me. Where in your definition of celibacy does any form of sexual reproduction come into play? Comparing asexual reproduction and parthenogenesis to celibacy is like saying people with kidney disease who stop eating meat have chosen to become vegetarian or that a paraplegic has chosen to not use their legs. The difference between a celibate human being and an asexual aphid is that the human can chose to have physical sexual contact if it wishes to. The aphid can never do this as its biology doesn’t allow it. The aphid is making no conscious decision to refrain from having sex and let’s not forget that parthenogenesis is a sexual act.

“-Can a human love another human without having sexual relations with them?”

Yes

“-Is the act of having sexual relations completely voluntary based upon a conscious decision the person makes or is it an animal impulse that simply cannot be controlled?”

You should try asking some heterosexual women who were raped by a heterosexual man. "

jeff wrote on May 18, 2009 1:32 PM:

" NHG,

You’ve opened Pandora’s Box and it is not a positive move for your side of the argument. First I would ask, can you site one example of homosexuality in nature that isn’t done out of preference? Of course you can’t but if I leave it at that you will call it a cop out so I will continue.

Giraffes, dolphins, big horn sheep and bonobos are prime examples of animals that prefer same-sex activities. Sheep live in homosexual societies, giraffes and bottlenose dolphins can often be observed holding all-male orgies along with different types of whales and manatees.

The worst thing you could have said for your argument is this

“has it actually been observed that those animals are attracted only to the same sex as them, or that they are performing an act that is only an animalistic instinct?”

It’s as if you’re finally admitting that homosexuality is instinctual i.e. it’s hard wired into the animal.

Read about the “Against Nature?” Museum that just opened in Oslo.

I have a 200 word limit here, so if you want more information I’m sure I’ve given you enough to get started with. "

Alihandero wrote on May 18, 2009 4:34 PM:

" The Greek chorus responds per usual:

"You should try asking some heterosexual women who were raped by a heterosexual man."

Apparently someone does not think there is a choice involved here and that heterosexual actions are considered to be normal in our society.

Want us to believe there is no such thing as 'homosexual rape?'

or

Can't women rape men?

or

Can't homosexuals rape heterosexuals?

Choices are made every day. Some choices are bad, some are good.

Society decides what is what.

And marriage is still defined as being between a man and a woman in California. "

Melissa wrote on May 18, 2009 10:40 PM:

" NHG You want just one? Dolphins. Like humans they are the only other species who mate for pleasure, and yes that includes mating with those of the same gender. That you can research yourself, look it up. Dolphins also are not considered lower life forms as they can communicate with humans and each other. They are very intelligent. Do I seek out a woman on purpose? Yep sure do, why because that is whom I am attracted to emotionally and physically. Let me ask you a question, if your wife or husband ( I am not sure as to your gender so I am being politically correct here) was unable to have children because of some medical condition would you choose not to marry her/him even though she or he is the love of your life? Even if that person made you whole would you opt not to persue the relationship because they can not perform what society says is normal? The fact is in society majority enter into relationships out of love and the results of that love does not always have to be children. There are heterosexual couples who choose have happy childless marriages. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 19, 2009 9:01 AM:

" to jeff, I guess you have never been by any of the farms around here, I have seen it many times myself, and even the dog on the leg is an example.
Not saying that you are wrong, but I have never heard of any of the references about all male dolphin orgies, or big horn sheep or etc. Yes I have heard of many species of animals that the sexes are usually seperate, but not for homosexual activity. But rather a matter of dominance, whereas one male has a harem of many females, and continues to have that until a stronger male comes along and dislodges the alpha male.
But from you are trying to say is that one of those male dolphins will actually leave it's pod in search of only other male dolphins to have individual sex with? "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 19, 2009 12:52 PM:

" to jeff and melissa, I did check it out and wikipedia does support some of what you have claimed, specifically about big horn sheep, and they also mentioned penguins. Didn't notice a reference ot dolphins though, but that doesn't mean that it isn't out there. So I do admit to not knowing this before and both are right that it has been documented. But there are many things that happen in the animal world that we as "humans" find disgusting, i.e. cannabalism, murder, and for some of you polygamy. But just because the animals do it, doesn't make it right for humans to do it. And as I always say that the purpose of marriage is procreation, no homosexual act in any mammal that I know of leads to that end. Yes Melissa, many man-woman couplings do not result in a naturally conceived child, but I can tell you also that 100% of homosexual couplings will not result in a naturally concieved child. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 19, 2009 12:56 PM:

" to jeff and melissa, I know that you will find this hard to believe, but I am not out on a witch hunt to track down homosexuals. I really am for live and let live, you keep it to yourself and do not harm anyone else, then may God smile upon you. But when you attack my beliefs, then I try to respond back, not in bitter name calling, but rather with an attempt to show facts. And both of you usually respond back to me with the same civility. So I guess I will end this with, we will as always agree to disagree. "

Alihandero wrote on May 19, 2009 3:47 PM:

" Hey Melissa,

Perhaps I am going out on a limb here, but can I safely say that you are a supporter of Animal Rights too? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 20, 2009 9:27 AM:

" I am certainly glad I don't have to dig up information on the sexual mating habits of dolphins to explain my own desires in terms people can understand. That is the wonderful thing about the heterosexual relationship, explanation isn't required, it is an understood behavior. All you have to do is admit you are involved in it, the explanation is already in place by God as marriage between a man and a woman. Oh and that is how the Consitution states it as well, how charming, that worked out. Right Ali!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 20, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Next thing I know fire flies and nats will be used to determine our most foremost thoughts on intestinal fortitude and eating for pleasure sake. "

jeff wrote on May 20, 2009 9:43 AM:

" NHG,

Not sure why I would need to be around a farm to see a dog try and mount another dog or a leg because I have witnessed this behavior in many other location types. What does this prove? It still shows an instinct on the part of the animal to engage in homosexual behavior.

You say that you have never heard of the examples that I gave, this is not new information. I told you about them so you could do some investigating on your own. "

jeff wrote on May 20, 2009 9:45 AM:

" Alex,

"The Greek chorus responds per usual"

What does this even mean?

If I am the 'Greek chorus' you are most certainly the closeted one.

Stop trying to assume you know what I am thinking or saying, you never get this right.

Every assertion in your last comment regarding what I am saying is incorrect except the part about where I believe that homosexuality is not a choice. "

Melissa wrote on May 20, 2009 2:19 PM:

" NHG thank you for taking the time to see that Jeff and I are not spouting off just for the sake of argument, there are those on here who would argue with that just because it came from same-sex supporters. I am glad you and some others on here can engage in civil discussions, I try very hard myself to be civil even when I am being attacked for who I am and what I believe.

Here is one question I have for whom ever chooses to give me the honest answer. Why is my desire to have the same rights and marry whom I love a personal attack on anyones rights? There is freedom of religion in this country so does that not mean I do not have to tie myself to the teachings of others? So does that not mean that I have the right to believe how I want and still have the same legal rights as everyone else?

Ali, I do not believe in Trophy Hunting if that is what you mean by Animal rights then yes. My family has always hunted and fished, but we use what we kill. "

jeff wrote on May 20, 2009 2:56 PM:

" NHG,

No need to respond to my last comment where I said you should investigate on your own. obviously you did just that. I posted that comment prior to yours so I was unaware. I applaud you for doing so by the way. You are correct when you say that just because it exists in the animal world doesn't mean we should do it as well, however, one of the many arguments against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. That is just not the case. You are also correct that gay marriages will never result in a naturally conceived child. I am curious then, what about a man and woman marrying with a known pre-existing health issue that prevents one of them from being able to reproduce? Should they not be allowed to marry? Or what about a transvestite couple where a naturally conceived child is possible? Are you pro transvestite marriage? "

Melissa wrote on May 20, 2009 2:58 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, The question was asked why some can say celibacy is unnatural, but can not say homosexuality is unnatural. The point of the examples is that homosexuality is natural and found in ALL species on this earth including humans. If it were not natural it would not occur. I do not have to use the Animal Kingdom to prove homosexuality is natural, For those of us who are gay, it is natural! That is really all the explanation needed. The only folks who question my lifestyle are those who, for whatever their reason, can not fathom that attraction is something you are born with, it is a natural happening in your body, not something you control. Most of those folks use God as a reason, but what they fail to understand is in this country we are allowed to believe in whatever God we choose, and my God made me just the way I am and loves me just the way I am. As for the constitution, it is sad and shameful the majority of this state voted to write discrimination into the constitution. I guess they thought "freedom and justice for all" only applied to them. "

Alihandero wrote on May 20, 2009 4:49 PM:

" For those not educated in classic literature,

"The Greek chorus (choros) is a group of twelve or fifteen minor actors in tragic and twenty-four in comic plays of classical Athens."

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_chorus)

As in the "teabagging" incident, those social progressives who have their minds mired in the scatological vocabulary pool reveal themselves to the rest of society's norm.

Poorly. "

Alihandero wrote on May 20, 2009 4:57 PM:

" Hey Watchdog,

Don't you love it when homosexual advocates say "It MUST be all right because the lower animals do it all the time?"

Next, their argument for homosexuality being healthy and normal will be justified because our human species - HOMO SAPIENS - has the word HOMO in it!

YouBetCha! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 20, 2009 8:13 PM:

" To; Melissa wrote on May 20, 2009 2:58 PM:

It is with a double edged sword you wish to battle me over this issue. You do not understand why I don't want your lifestyle forced down my throat? While in earnest you don't want my heterosexual one, forced down yours. It seems to me we agree to disagree? I donot want your style nor do you want mine, simple, concise and conclusive. Yet this discussion and many people's zest to somehow come up with the proper statement that will somehow change all this continues to flag the blog ways?

After not one, but two popular votes, please let me reiterate "popular votes" by the voters of this great state, we have determined "marriage to be between a man and a woman". Period end of discussion. All LGBT's were allowed to vote, were they not? So that should make this a mute issue, done discharged and dealt with by everyone.

The populous have decided, you don't like the decision, we get that, but it still today and will forever stand as the law of this land. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 21, 2009 10:55 AM:

" to Melissa, I don't believe that any of us, WDF, Alihandero or myself are against you getting the same benefits, and please notice that I said benefits, as a married couple is given legally. But we are against those that demand that the meaning of marriage to the majority of people on this Earth be changed to satisfy the wants of a few. Marriage to me is and always will be between a Man and a Woman.

There are also heterosexual couples that do not have the same rights as a married couple due to the fact that they have never married, so this points out that those benefits given out due to marriage is not biased. You must marry to enjoy those benefits. Now I know that you will say that you are not allowed to marry, which again I will state I believe that you shouldn't be allowed to marry. I hate the word count!!!!!! (continued) "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 21, 2009 11:01 AM:

" to Melissa, (continued) I would be the first to sign up on a petition that would provide similar benefits to anyone that wants lifestyle other than normal marriage, without all of the current legal mumbo jumbo and fees. But just don't call it marriage. And I wouldn't really be hurt if the State of California applied that same term to all of us, just as long as my Marriage License is still recognized for what it is, a Marriage License between a man and a woman.
I have always advocated that you and everyone else as an adult should be able to determine who you want looking after you, getting your inheretance, etc. But please just don't trample on the institution of Marriage.
to jeff, just because an animal does it, doesn't still make it unnatural. It occurs in nature, but that alone doesn't make it natural. Otherwise like I said then you would have to define cannalbalism as natural. Polygamy would be natural. Incest would be natural. Do I need to continue? "

Alihandero wrote on May 21, 2009 4:09 PM:

" Hey Watchdog and NHG,

I concur with you both 100%! "

Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 7:48 PM:

" NHG, LOL that word count sure can interupt things I agree there. I am also glad to see that you agree my girlfriend and I should not have to go thru what we have to go thru legally to have the same benefits your marriage license gives you. But unfortunately where you believe I should not be able to marry, l believe you should not be the only person with the right to marry. What does my marriage license change about your marriage license? Will your marriage license suddenly not have a man and a womans name on it? Again your marriage license is a legal document that entitles you to rights and benefits I have to struggle for. Take away that we have different sexual orientations, what really is the difference between you and I? Do we not both have to pay taxes? Do we not both have to work? Dont we both answer to the same legal system? Sexual orientation aside, we are pretty similar and should be treated so by the government. Whom we choose to love should be none of the governments business as long as the relationship is between two consenting adults. Continued. "

Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 8:07 PM:

" NHG, who are legally able to enter into a contract. Now in this country we are both entitled to have our beliefs and opinions. One of the many things I love about this country for sure. But when it comes to the protections of the laws, we both should be equally protected. Marriage is a legal institution, one that should be available to all citizens of this country, not just the ones who feel thier beliefs are more important than the rights of thier fellow citizens. My belief of what marriage is different than yours, and in this country we can both have our opinions and still not impose them on each other. You can have your marriage of one man and one woman, you already did when you said I do, Now I want my definition to apply to me. You are already married no one can take that from you unless you and your spouse choose so, Now I should be able to do the same and have the marriage of my definition. Not yours because you already have a marriage.

I have still yet to hear from anyone, what my marriage will do to yours. "

Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 8:17 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, you are mistaken, I am not offended by your heterosexuality or anyone elses for that matter. I could care less if you loved a man or a woman. What I do not want shoved down my throat is your beliefs of what is right and wrong. In this country Freedom of Religion protects me as well from having to have it shoved down my throat. You are entitled to your beliefs, however it is unconstitutional and against my civil rights to expect me to live by what you believe. Again my being able to marry my girlfriend will in no way effect your life. You will still have your beliefs, you will still be able to have your marriage as one man and one woman, but I will get to have my beliefs and my marriage as I define it. Now I do not blog on here to change anyones mind. I believe in Freedom of Speach, I think it is great we can post our opinions, there are countries in this world where we could not do such a thing.

Don't get ahead of yourself, forever is a long time for you to be predicting. "

Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 8:24 PM:

" Alihandero, you say this:

"Next, their argument for homosexuality being healthy and normal will be justified because our human species - HOMO SAPIENS - has the word HOMO in it!"

First tell me how my relationship is unhealthy? What about homosexuality is unhealthy. Name something that aflicts just the LGBT community please.

Second of dont you think your going a bit overboard or is it that you do not like swallowing the pill that homosexuality is natural? We do not have to resort to making things up my friend, that facts show themselves plus we gave you a lot of examples where homosexuality is found in nature. Dont forget, it is found within our own species, obviously. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 21, 2009 10:00 PM:

" To: NotHomeGrown wrote on May 21, 2009 10:55 AM:

You make excellent points. However, the relentless and daunting fight to keep this issue alive when it has died everywhere else seems totally ridiculous to me.

Do you hear Arnold crying to the media over the propositions that just failed he wanted, no you do not. What is law is law simple as that, had the LGBT community left this alone the original vote would have stood and this special election and all it stands for would not have been necessary. That is the problem with this issue for me, mature, so called intelligent people cannot take no for an answer.

I'll be the second signature on that petition NHG, I totally agree with how you laid it out and the restrictions necessary to protect marriage between a man and a woman.

For the record, I too hate the word count, it just adds to more blogs than necessary. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 22, 2009 9:05 AM:

" to Melissa, I will disagree a bit with you about marriage being a legal institution, but rather call it a religious institution with legal ramifications. And that is why I will always continue to oppose marriage being linked to anything other than a man and a woman, as that is what my religion says it is. Marriages were performed as a religious ceremony way before they were considered a legal matter. Men and women were married in religious ceremonies way before any "legal" documentation (i.e. license) were provided. So yes your wanting to change the definition of marriage does affect me, at least spiritually. Otherwise why don't the major religions of Earth condone gay marriages? Why don't the Torah, the Bible, the Quran state that homosexual activity and marriage are okay? Yet most of them do tell us to love one another. So I can still be courteous to you and suggest alternatives to afford you the same rights that are enjoyed by married couples, but I don't have to surrender the majority's definition of marriage. "

jeff wrote on May 22, 2009 2:57 PM:

" NHG,

If marriage is a “Religious Institution” than the government has no right being involved. Unfortunately that is not the case in our country; therefore the government should not and is constitutionally obligated not to regulate who can and who can’t marry based on religious reasons.

Gay and straight marriages were performed well before the abrahamic religions outlawed it. I have pointed this out several times before – China during the Ming dynasty being just one example.

The major religions of Earth - i.e. Christianity - condoned slavery, incest and genocide and besides who cares what the major religions say? We don’t all believe in your religion and no church holds any legal control in our country.

You still haven’t explained how it affects you.

“Men and women were married in religious ceremonies way before any "legal" documentation (i.e. license) were provided. So yes your wanting to change the definition of marriage does affect me, at least spiritually.”

How, exactly? What does it do to you? This would only change the "Legal" definition not the "Spiritual" one. Churches could still deny to perform the ceremony. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 22, 2009 6:52 PM:

" To: Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 8:17 PM:

You have this a little confused, I am not trying to alter anything for you. It currently is not legal for LGBT's to marry in the state of California. It is legal however for heterosexuals to marry. So don't infringe your belief on me, when it isn't even a legal concern any longer in this state. Furthermore, just because homosexuality is practiced among any species animal/human doesn't make it a legitimate lifestyle, it just proves it exists. At one time so did Typhoid, Polio, Chicken Pox, and many diseases it doesn't make them acceptable, it just acknowledges their existence. Before you jump on the chuck wagon, I am not saying LGBT behavior is a disease, it is merely a comparison to show the value of existance in society. Just because a behavior exists in society does not make it healthy, happy and good for that entire society especially when the practice you seek is already against the law and now against the very constitution of this state. What you seek is now illegal, do you wish to break the law? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 22, 2009 6:57 PM:

" To: Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 8:17 PM:

Everyone in the LGBT community wants this decision sat aside. O.K. then what do we disallow next in laws and restrictions placed upon society? Do we make carrying a concealed weapon legal for the folks who like guns? Do we make rape legal for our friends who have an over active overt need for gratification? Do we empty all the prisons regardless of crime and start all over again, because we don't like the way it is ran? Do we elect a man incapable of leadership, who is constantly apologizing for 200 + years of american history and behavior? This same man who runs down our country at every opportunity abroad instead of strenghthening relationship with allies like Great Britian? A man who, disrespects the men who are veterans and sacrificed all, for the very European Continent he keeps apologizing to. Perhaps we should have stayed home during WWi and WWII? I think you get my point, laws, rules and decisons are on the books for a purpose, especially those voted on by the citizens of this state. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 22, 2009 7:02 PM:

" To: Melissa wrote on May 21, 2009 8:17 PM:

All I heard fomr you prior to the election is just wait and see what happens then? Well it happened, it was the result I predicted long before the first ballot was ever cast. That isn't an I told you so, it is you told everyone wrong.

You were over confident in society changing since the last vote you failed to realize it passed originally for all the right reasons and repeated history during this final vote.

You say my prediction is too soon, well I say 233+ years of just this countries history, says I am right on this issue as well. I hope we live to see who is right? I'm not gonna say this isn't gonna change someday but I think I'll be long gone from this life when it does. "

Melissa wrote on May 23, 2009 10:04 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, if you were not or are not currently trying to change anything for me why did you vote yes on Prop 8? The Supreme Court, the individuals who enforce the laws and knows the laws better than anyone of us, said that Prop 22 was unconstitutional and same-sex marriage should be legal, anything other would be unconstitutional. Yet those of you who did not like that verdict, tried yet again to take my civil rights away and succeded. Where in that do you seen not changing anything for me? You are the one infringing your beliefs on others in this state by telling them your definition of marriage should be the only one. It is no longer a legal concern because of the religious beliefs of others, which is against my constitutional right of Freedom of Religion. Now tell me again whom is imposing on whom? All your examples Fred are of diseases and violent crimes. Of individual who are in a prison system for being convicted of a crime, homosexuality is not a crime or a disease. It is a sexual orientation people can not control. Like it or not that is the fact. "

Melissa wrote on May 23, 2009 10:15 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, I think you need to look up the definition of legitimate. Most definitions have to do with birth rights, and professions. The one definition that applies to homosexuality proves that it is legit. Why? Because even though we can not marry as of right now, we can legally legitimize our relationship. As for it being acceptable, it is only unacceptable by those who feel the need to impose thier religious beliefs on others. You are forgetting Fred, you only won by 3% majority. There are those who find it completely acceptable, just because you do not, does not mean it is unacceptable. Was I confident in the majority, yep I sure was. I did not think we were so undeveloped as a society to vote discrimination into the constitution. I believed whole heartedly that we learned from our past. Yes Fred I was wrong, but that does not mean it can not or will not change. I do hope we live to see the change. Society will be much better off when we learn to respect each other as we are, accept that we are all different but in no means is anyone right or wrong. "

Melissa wrote on May 23, 2009 10:19 PM:

" Watchdog Fred, As for the president, well Fred this is one place where we agree. I did not vote for that man, something about him not saluting our flag in the begining of his campaign just did not sit to well with me. How are you going to run a country in which you can not salute its flag. I am outraged he is bowing to other leaders, and apologizing for our great nation. To me that is a slap in the face to our military. Those who served and those who gave thier lifes did so for that flag and our country and by him apologizing undermines the honor in which those served and died. BOWING!! I almost choked when I read that in the paper! I can say Fred, one thing about this country you and I agree on is the president. He needs to show a little more respect for the great nation he is supposed to be leading. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 24, 2009 10:42 AM:

" To: MELISSA, "Society will be much better off when we learn to respect each other as we are, accept that we are all different but in no means is anyone right or wrong. "

Society has already reached this point, we do accept that you are different. We acknowledge that your rights should and for the most part are recognized.

Do heterosexual men & women, not have the right to hold, cherrish and adorn their relationship to the level it has down through history? Do you have to come along and rewrite custom, law, religious beliefs so that you may have a feeling of acceptance? That is what you are wanting to do, you say you don't change anything for us as heterosexuals, poppycock! They had to rewrite the Marriage License itself, changes such as bride and groom were replaced with appropriate homosexual terms. So how dare you say what you want does not change anything for us, it changes the very basics of the matrimonial ceremony. You say, I changed your relationship with my vote, no I protected my own ceremony vs yours. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 24, 2009 10:49 AM:

" To: Melissa wrote on May 23, 2009 10:19 PM:

My problem with Obama is he thinks he is more important and significant than God himself. What is even more devistating is he has a following who believes it. I've witnessed it right here on this blog, characters worshiping him like some false idol of importance. A man who can do no wrong, most men do wrong from sun up to sunset, the difference is, most will admit it, but not Obama.

His turning his back on our allies, his tremendous afront to the Queen in providing her an IPOD with all of his OWN SPEACHES RECORDED ON IT! Proves to demonstrate is alter ego hard at work. He didn't even take time to visit the graves of many americans who gave all to the defense and protection of the European continent. Yet he bows for a Saudi Shiek like a good little muslim. They call this service to our country, building relationships abroad, all I saw was a one man, one woman production with a cast of 500 in the background as extras. Come on folks wake up! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 24, 2009 10:54 AM:

" To: Melissa wrote on May 23, 2009 10:19 PM:

Not a single move Obama has made has helped the average joe/jane citizen. He continues to focus on saving corporate auto makers, insurance companies, banking institutions, forgetting without the support of the general public, who he is bankrupting, will all fail anyway. What good does it do to save the auto industry if there is no one left who can afford to buy their product? What good does it have to have insurance companies if no one can afford the premiums. As for banking, that is a joke, we bail the banks out and they pay off foreign banks with the bailout money. What did that do to stimulate anything in America, but further distrust for the banking industry?
He has failed miserably at home and abroad, he spends way too much time with our enemies and not enough with our long dear friends and allies. He spends his time telling the world he is creating a newer gentler america all the while selling us down the river to all other nations as a somehow secondhand interest. He should be impeached. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 24, 2009 11:02 AM:

" To: Melissa wrote on May 23, 2009 10:15 PM:

I too was confident in the majority, the moral majority which stood up and was counted in this election like never before and made me proud to be part of it. The people have spoken, not once but twice on this issue and it went from law to a constitutional ammendmant at the LGBT's insistance. The minute the revolution started to change a popular vote and then when justices change it, it was doomed to become an ammendment not changeable by any court justice. You say we changed the constitution as an afront to you, no we didn't we changed the constitution because you changed a vote with your lawyers pushing for it. You want to blame someone for all this Gaven Newsome, Jerry Brown, are two very good places to start. If not for their participation and making this such a hot issue it probably never would have been changed. When Gavin Newsome stood up and made his speach about; "Like it or Not" he put a new furry into the fight. Those of us who didn't like it, united together. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 26, 2009 9:16 AM:

" to jeff, where are your responses to my post about "natural" cannabalism, polygamy, incest?

You claim that if gay marriages are allowed that churches won't have to perform them. Pray tell me how that will be, because then the churches will be attacked by all them lawyers out there for not providing equal opportunity to all.

I guess that I will have to admit that you know more about the Ming dynasty then I do, as I am not aware of there homosexual marriage rituals. But I guess if they did it then it has to be right, just like genocide is also okay. Since they did that also then you can't have one without the other.

Please tell me exactly in the Bible where it approves of incest? I guess that missed those verses while attending Sunday School. I am not saying it wasn't mentioned, but I really fail to recall the exact passage that says that it was condoned. continued "

NotHomeGrown wrote on May 26, 2009 9:23 AM:

" to jeff continued
Why do you say "Christian", since most likely you are referring to something from the Old Testament, which is equivalent to the Torah, therefore Jewish, and since the Muslims believe also in the Book (i.e. the Bible), then it would be that all 3 major religions condone incest? Please be very specific in which passage actually says that incest is not a sin!

As I have said to Melissa, be someone that is for positive change. Work on changing the law in California that makes it easier to afford the same rights to all, but don't change the basic meaning of Marriage to fill all when you see that it is hurtful to others. Change California law to make different things that allow for those benefits, and it can be a group of "ors", i.e. Marriage License, or Dosmetic Relationship, or Legal Guardianship. Hope that helps you comprehend my drift. But don't go against the majority of peoples belief of Marriage just to quite the squeaky cog of the small minority of the homosexual community. "




Advertisement


HOT TOPICS

> More Hot Topics


MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

    Selma:

    Kingsburg:



    PHOTO GALLERIES

    "More Photos

    Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

    Hanford Luminaria
    Hanford Luminaria
    Friday, November, 20 2009
    (6) Photos
    Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final
    Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final
    Wednesday, November, 18 2009
    (13) Photos
    Fire on Hawk Street
    Fire on Hawk Street
    Wednesday, November, 18 2009
    (11) Photos

    Reader Submitted (7) Albums

    Vintage Hanford
    Vintage Hanford
    Monday, December, 15 2008
    (1) Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (37) Photos
    Events
    Events
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (38) Photos

    More



    EMAIL UPDATES

    Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.
    E-Mail:
    Daily News Updates
    Breaking News Alerts