RR wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:25 PM:Another useless piece of crap by Kirk. Make this bozo get a job. This fearful, hateful, bigot is a disgrace.

Vistan wrote on Oct 9, 2007 5:37 AM:It's funny, I do not see any fearful, hateful or bigoted statements in this commentary! It is way to easy for people to throw out those comments against people who voice a well thought out argument against an issue such as gay marriage! The fact is that most of us in this county DO disagree with homosexual marriage and have said so over and over again! What is not said is that most of us DO NOT disagree with homosexual unions that allow for the "committed" couples to have all of the rights of married couples, including powers to make legal and health decisions for their partners. People like RR above should at least do a little research and thinking before they just condemn Mr. Kirk because no matter what short comment he has made, it does not change the fact that Mr. Kirk has the courage to voice the sentiments of the majority of the people in the county!-

RR wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:01 AM:No hatred??? Maybe it is time you learn to infer meaning from text. The generalizations he makes of how homosexuals and homosexual families will ruin marriage and children are fueled by fear and ignorance. It is easy to view something as a good argument when it is your viewpoint. This country is not only about the view of the majority. Again learn to read and infer. The majority can believe what it wants but when the civil rights of others are infringed upon they are protected by the law. Do some research about Kirk, but he is just so brave to be part of and agree with the majority. What courageousness.-

Poor Job... wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:26 AM:Mr. Kirk, of hiding your hatred and intolerance. You talk about the apparent need for children to have two parents (a mom and a dad; a female and a male), but apparently the vast number of children in single parent households doesn't bother you...its homosexuality that bothers you.-

mike wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:11 AM:Why does you paper continue to print this mans' hate filled speech?It is not his right nor duty to tell anyone what constitutes a healthy ,loving relationship or indeed,a family.What a load of rubbish!!!-

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:20 AM:Richard Kirk brlongs in the "Faith and Values" page, it is obvious that he is using religion instead of logic in every one of his arguments, none of which hold any water. Richard Kirk, hie thee your personal and religious biases to a different page. Regards, Alf.-

These Above Comments Show The True Character Of Liberals wrote on Oct 9, 2007 9:03 AM:All these comments are a GREAT example of what liberals are all about. Use 'bigot' 'hate speech' 'intolerance' to try and silence those who disagree with their minority view via shaming them with inflammatory arguments. Calling someone a bigot, demanding they move to another page, saying it's a load of rubbish doesn't invite speech; it's intended to silence someone's point of view. Modern liberals are alarmingly anti-free speech. Kirk has a right to speak his opinion, just as liberals have a right to write pro-gay marriage articles. If I see a pro-gay marriage article, I would dispute the SUBSTANCE of what is said rather than direct personal insults toward the individual that said it. These comments are a prime example of what the future holds for conservatives---silencing their views out from the marketplace of ideas altogether, so that one-liberal-voice directs the dictates and contours of debate.-

Todd wrote on Oct 9, 2007 9:47 AM:Wow, what venemous vitriol from the supposed tolerant Left in response to Mr. Kirk's article. Mr. Kirk defends an institution that has been in place since the dawn of humankind and for this he is called a bigot and hate-mongerer. I bet the Dems in Congress are compiling a list on Mr. Kirk,just as they admit doing now on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, among others (See Henry Waxman, Democratic Congressman from Van Nuys). The Left detests free speech. The hyper-active,frothing response to Mr. Kirk's well written article is a clear example. Keep it up Mr. Kirk!

John wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:45 AM:I agree with Alf that the Faith & Values section would be a better venue for Kirk?s opinion piece. But at least his column is in the Opinion section, and he is entitled to his opinion. I disagree with Kirk?s opinion, so I guess that makes me a Liberal. I would like to point out to a previous blogger that not all Liberals, or all Conservatives, come in just one flavor. I find that attitude as offensive as some of the pejorative labeling and name-calling directed at Kirk. Kirk uses some statistics about Scandinavia, all derived from ultra-conservative sources. There are dissenting views. Here?s one: ?[Name deleted] is also mistaken in maintaining that gay unions are to blame for changes in heterosexual marriage patterns. In truth, the shift occurred in the opposite direction: Changes in heterosexual marriage made the recognition of gay couples more likely.? This quote is from an article titled: ?Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?? You can Google the article?s title and find the entry by that name to see supporting statistics.-

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:34 PM:Well, "John" at 10:45AM, thank you! Though I may wish to shout this joker down, I fought for his, and my, right to free speech. My only 2 disagreements are his mis-placement (since there is a "Faith and Values" section) and with what he says, both of which are beyond my control. Can you imagine a world completely ruled by R. Kirk, me or GWB, it makes me shudder or want to vomit. Regards, Alf.

Kind of Trite wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:43 PM:The issue, John, in my comment was that apparently liberals act and speak in ways inimical to free-speech. You may personally find that as offensive as painting all liberals the same way...but me, nah, I think personal insults directed at someone with the intent of silencing their voice/ideas is a lot worse; and I think from an objective standpoint, most people would agree. Besides, it's kind of trite; I could simply say, rather than all liberals being anti-free speech, a "majority" of them seem to act in a way that is hostile towards conservatives' free-speech. I could also further qualify it by saying liberals overall "more likely than not" act hostily toward free-speech; but some type of generalization is necessary in order for action to be taken to protect conservative views. If generalizations are barred and isolated to simply saying John Doe tried to silence Conservative A, no one will care; but if you say 40% of liberals have been assaulting conservative students on campus or lashing out verbally in class at them, then some action might be taken to do something about free speech rights. You might not like it John, but generalizations are necessary to raise concern and motivate action with regards to a growing problem.

Oh for goodness sake wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:51 PM:Are we in the 21st century or not? Given the idea that gay marriage destroys/undermines/unweaves the fabric of heterosexual marriage, then how come there are so many still married heterosexuals? How many gay marriages would it take to destroy, et al, heterosexual marriage: 1? 100? 1000? And would gay marriages in the Netherlands have an equal effect on heterosexual marriages in the United States, or would this be a localized phenomenon? How far away from heterosexuals would a gay couple have to be to not pose a threat to a straight couple's marriage. And regarding the idea that gay marriages are "fundamentally different because they have absolutely no procreative or familial significance." To whom? I would think that two people in a gay marriage would and do consider themselves family. Many come with children already in place, other choose to adopt or use other methods to procreate. Does Mr. Kirk's position mean also then that marriages between older adults are also "fundamentally different" for the same reasons as gay marriage? Two people, marrying in their 50's or 60's are not likely to procreate. And would they not have any familial significance? I don't think they would agree. I think rather that Mr. Kirk finds himself to be the insignificant one, blinded by an entertaining yet dangerous sort of reasoning. Maybe I and my significant other are of no significance to you Mr. Kirk. But then again, neither are you to me.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:32 PM:The Richard Kirk that writes this column lives in a world that puts people into "slots". "Gay" or "straight", long hair or short hair, saint or sinner with no middle ground, no individual "anything" other than the label, at least that is how he represents himself. Binary, yes or no, moral or immoral by his standards which are not the teachings of the Christ to which he professes belief. Life is simple while living in that sort of yes/no system, the problem is that we are, all of us, not that simple. We are a mixture of many things, yet R. Kirk would stuff each one of us into a little slot based on only his limited knowledge of who and what we actually were. Tell me, R. Kirk, into which slot do I fit - Marine, defender of our freedom and murderer of innocent lives in Vietnam or faithful husband, the second time around or house designer/carpenter/plumber or "rich Encinitas landowner" or recovering alcoholic or friend of a woman who is now homosexual, who I dated in high school or Conservative turned moderate turned Libertarian or ????? I knew another Richard Kirk who was the diametric opposite of your writings - he judged people, not by "labels", but by the person that they were when he met them, face to face, and he adamantly refused to use the "labels" into which you so readily stuff people. The contrast of his open-mindedness and your label-slapping, closed-mindedness is astounding. By your writings, you dishonor yourself and the "label" into which you put yourself. Regards, Alf.

usual suspects wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:00 PM:As usual Richard Kirk once again speaks of peoples' sex lives as a determining factor in how their children are raised. Hogwash. Would he rather a child have two mommies or two daddies at home or a divorced mom with no dad anywhere? Kirk always forgets to mention the divorce rate in his perfect "one man - one woman" marriages and that effect on children. I know children from communes with many moms and dads who grew up just fine and dandy, thank you very much.

Curtis wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:22 PM:His email address,kirkrg@netzero.com, perfectly describes the accuracy of his little sermon. Net zero indeed.

John wrote on Oct 9, 2007 6:01 PM:to Kind of Trite. please read Alf's post of 10/9,1:32 PM. he said it better than I could.

Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2007 6:07 PM:I have intentionally avoided reading the comments above to post this comment. Why am I supposed to believe that homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, beastisexuals, transexuals, and what ever you call adults that want to have sex with children problems to society. Give me a good reason and I will believe you. Your only reason to date is to have sex. How disgusting. Give me a reason to support your cause. Let's see if this left wing rag posts this.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:51 PM:When "Karl" uses the phrase "what ever you call adults that want to have sex with children", it is clear that "Karl" is trying to spread fear, rather than real information. Your argument is perverted, not the "gay" people who want all the rights and responsibilities of what we call marriage. That's my opinion. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:53 PM:Richard Kirk cites 7 year old information and dubious sources to attempt to justify an unjustifiable position. Good show. Now crawl back into the cave from whence you came. Regards, Alf.

To Karl wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:16 PM:I might be able to answer your question, but first you'll have to learn how to properly construct sentences. Perhaps you will gain some sort of enlightenment in the process of educating yourself; just for the record though, all of the sexual orientations you listed do not have necessarily have sex with children. Hetrosexuals are the predominant sexual orientation that prefers children as sexual partners. I'm not familiar with the terms "trisexuals or beastisexual" and think you may have invented those when you made up your own rules regarding the construction of sentences. - Curtis

Em wrote on Oct 10, 2007 7:20 AM:I am still waiting for someone to break down for me exactly how gay marriage breaks apart straight marriage. How does this work exactly? What is the cause and effect? If Britney, for example, had been exposed to more gay marriages she never would have married K-Fed? Because ... because why again? Also, I thought gays could only get civil unions in Scandinavia?-

Still Disagree wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:29 AM:John, while Alf raised some good points, it's not relevant to my argument; Alf was trying to direct his frustration at Kirk for how people are pigeonholed. Generalizations are necessary in many instances, especially when it is used to mobilize social change. And I think it's intellectually dishonest to say generalizations are just as attrocious as inflammatory speech designed to silence-chill-circumvent free-speech/other people's view points. I would be much more concerned about certain views being cut out of discourse altogether and all of us moving with one voice, rather than the somewhat irritating tendency of some people to reduce individuality and pigeonhole someone into a group-but, again, I think that generalizations like liberals tend to try and silence conservative ideas is necessary for the public to mobilize to do something about it rather than saying, John insulted Joe and tried to silence him---people would just apathetically shrug their shoulders. It's when you come up with something like, 40% of liberals on college campuses have displayed violence, aggression, or intolerance to conservative speech, that people will start to think about doing something about it.-

Alex wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:44 AM:You have no idea what you are talking about and should not have access to publishing articles in a news paper. An editorial, maybe, but there's a serious flaw in journalism if you can say things like King & King creating social chaos and get away with it. You're completely discredited.

RWE wrote on Oct 11, 2007 3:43 PM:Wow! Hot issue...Here are some stats to contemplate: About 70% of children under will be in single-parent families before they reach 21. About 50% of marriages end in divorce (look it up yourself if you doubt me). These numbers are for heterosexuals. There's a revolution afoot against so-called traditional marriage alright but it's not gays who are promoting it. And one other thing...Kirk talks about Edmund Burke as if he were the guiding light of the founding fathers. He wasn't. Paine, Jefferson, and the others who either promoted or wrote the Declaration of Independence relied on John Locke. But, of course Kirk doesn't want to reference Locke because Locke was a little to liberal for him. Why tell the truth when most of your readers get their history from Rush Limbaugh. If you want to know where the founding principles of the Bill of Rights etc. came from, pick up a copy of Thomas Paine's Common Sense and wear your seatbelt.

ABJ wrote on Oct 11, 2007 7:15 PM:It shouldn't matter what other people think. I'm a man, and if I want to marry a man, I should be able to. I shouldn't need the permission of the majority in this nation to do so. If I do, then this country is no longer a democracy. What's next? If I paint a picture about how black people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they have the largest amount of unwed mothers, I'm sure I could get a majority to agree to that. Or perhaps I should paint a picture about how white people shouldn't be able to marry because they have the highest divorce rate? Most of the marriages will end up in divorce, so why allow marriage in the first place to whites?! And let's go beyond marriage. Let's take the right to vote away from poor people. After all, most of them don't vote anyway, so they as a group wouldn't miss it. Placing restrictions on people because of who they are (how they were born) when that characteristic has no detrimental effect on anyone is ridiculous. Quit squashing my choice to marry the love of my life. I'm not butting into your life, so please stay out of mine.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2007 5:26 AM:Now, "Still Disagree" points out the convenience, or should I say laziness, of pigeonholing people. I agree with this person to a degree, for I also find the "liberal" practice of intolerance of, attempting to quash and downright rudeness to opposing views to be disgusting. Shouting down an invited guest speaker has no place in civilized society, least of all in an "institute of higher learning". (Helluva lesson learned, ain't it?) I still maintain that, if there is a "Faith and Values" (Religion) section of the newspaper, that is where Mr. Kirk's column belongs, in general. In this case, we're talking about "gay marriage", a social/political/legal issue that's right here, right now in the forefront of the news and religious beliefs play a part in its debate. It is significant to me because a friend, an ex-girlfriend, who is "gay", wants to marry her female partner and cannot do so. Why marry? Because she deserves the same legal status as me. She and her are partner are equally as committed as my wife and I and deserve the same rights and responsibilities that my wife and I have. To declare that "gays" are not stable, committed people and then deny them the rights and responsibilities of marriage is a method to achieve a self-fulfilling prophesy, a "Catch-22". Regards, Alf.-