Posted by: Jim | October 21, 2008

California Christian Voter’s Guide

2nd UPDATE: If you’re looking for the California Christian Voters’ Guide for 2012, click here.


UPDATE: I just realized that this blog is 2nd on the Google return for “California Christian Voter’s Guide.” I’ve been getting quite a few hits because of this. Out of blind optimism, I encourage all such readers to read on with an open mind!


I just ran across this: which provides voting “recommendations from a conservative viewpoint with a Christian worldview.” Some Christians are just too busy to pray about how to vote, or to read the measures and compare their intent with the intent of the Bible. Apparently the author knows that Christians are too busy to read his justification for his recommendations, since he doesn’t offer any.


If you’re a Christian and aren’t voting this way, I apologize for my over-generalized commentary.


Prop 1A

Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.


My Notes: There are no trains in the bible. I guess that explains the Christian stance on this measure.


How Christians are Told to Vote: NO

How I will vote: YES


Prop 2

Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.


My Notes: Even though animals were sacrificed in the old Testament, it also indicates that God cares about animals and even plants. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” So apparently he feeds them, but doesn’t necessarily allow them room to fully extend their limbs.


How Christians are Told to Vote: NO

How I will vote: YES


Prop 3

Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.


My Notes: Our children’s hospitals are in a shambles. I have a friend who does the same job I do at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, and he says his office is overrun by rats. Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” but today’s Christians just stop at “Suffer.”


How Christians are Told to Vote: NO

How I will vote: YES


Prop 4

Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.


My Notes: I would be for this if it were written better, but currently it “Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.” This means doctors will notify the parents every time to save their own asses, and in some cases they will be endangering the child.  


How Christians are Told to Vote: YES

How I will vote: NO


Prop 5

Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.


Notes: The Bible says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” But Christians here are saying thumbs down. No mercy! California prison system is a major reason why our state is going bankrupt. Rehabilitation costs less than punishment!


How Christians are Told to Vote: NO

How I will vote: YES


Prop 6

Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index.


My notes: Do we need more cops? More cops = more arrests = more costly prison sentences with no rehabilitation. Sorry, we can’t afford it because we have a train to build.


How Christians are Told to Vote: YES

How I will vote: NO


Prop 7

Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.


My notes: In Leviticus, it says,The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.”


How Christians are Told to Vote: NO

How I will vote: YES


Prop 8

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.


My notes: Christians used to burn witches, now they legislate against homosexuals. Everyone needs a hobby.


How Christians are Told to Vote: YES

How I will vote: NO


Prop 9

Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.


My notes: We agree!


How Christians are Told to Vote: YES

How I will vote: YES


Prop 10

Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.


My notes: I’ve read further on this issue and changed my mind. This bill is misleading and should be voted down.


How Christians are Told to Vote: NO

How I will vote: NO


Prop 11

Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14 member commission.


My notes: After reading this incredibly boring bill. I came to the conclusion that this is a very fair approach to redistricting.


How Christians are Told to Vote: YES

How I will vote: YES


Prop 12

This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes.


My notes: We agree again!


How Christians are Told to Vote: YES

How I will vote: YES


  1. I saw Oprah’s Prop 2 episode. I can see both sides of this proposition, but what won me over was the basic need for an animal to move without stepping int its own feces, or at least lie down in their pen.

    The rep from the Humane Society was a very articulate man, and made the statement to sum it all up: “These animals make the ultimate sacrifice for us. The least we can do is allow them their basic need to move and lay down comfortably.”

    The opponents cited numerous economic factors, retrofitting their farms and so forth, and sure, some farms will go out of business. They also had on the show farmers who were 100% free range cattle and poultry. It works.

    I’ll gladly pay a few more cents a dozen for eggs that come from a clean and happy hen. Jim, you and I agree on this one.

  2. Hmmm…there may be hope for you yet, Todd…

    * * *

  3. Thanks Bri. I meant only the conservative animals should benefit from this proposition, or course 😉

  4. Conservative animals? You mean like Rush Limbaugh?

    Oh man; I just conferred an unforgivable insult upon all living fauna.

    * * *

  5. I’m a Christian, but I too wondered at why Prop 1A was even mentioned in this voter guide. What’s not to love about a quick getaway to Disneyland?

    I agree with you on Prop 7, but can’t agree on Prop 10. We need to completely change our unsustainable transportation and development in the USA; researching new ways to starve more 3rd world babies just so we can continue motoring to drive through fast food is not ethical.

  6. Hello Fritz! You’re not the first person to disagree with me on 10. I have not read the materials against it, but apparently there is a lot of stuff in 10 that is unsavory, so I may switch to a “NO” vote on that one … As it’s written it doesn’t seem to starve babies in 3rd world countries. Hmm.

  7. Prop 4 is a definite YES. I have a friend who is now sterile because of a botched “safe” abortion. If a child breaks their arm at school, a doctor cannot touch them without parental permission. Yet an abortion provider can do surgery on a 14 year old girl without her parents knowing about it. It is a hypocritical double standard. Parents have RIGHTS regarding their minor children. Any surgery done on a child without parental permission is abominable. The ads on TV are deceptive and play on the emotions of people – right out of the typical liberal playbook. We parents have rights and we chose to have our children and raise them, not the government or the school districts. Vote NO on 4 and do not surrender your rights as a parent.

  8. Kind of like Barack Obama, you are proclaiming to be a Christian but some how miss the Christian point. You comment that Christians who disagree with Homosexuality are doing this because “they need a hobby.” Shame on you. (BTW – you might want to gander at that little ole’ book that is never changing called the Bible… 1 Cor 6:9)

  9. I understand and except you have the right to voice or to write your opinon. In fact I would die to protect that right. However to mislead someone and slander someones belief is wrong. Yes wrong. You might want to understand your history a little better as in prop. 8. If we continue to change the defentions of words and slander those we oppose we could end up with “Big Brother” as in 1984 by George Orwell. Yes that is a large jump now but we are getting closer to it everyday.It took only a few years in Germany to hate the Jews. So please be carefull of what you write. Thanks. I do not understand the anger the media and people have against the Christian Church.

  10. John, I am not a Christian, I am an atheist. Shame on YOU for, if you’re for Prop 8, hating homosexuals.

    Charles the first,
    I agree with your point, but who did I slander? Please elaborate, as I’m pretty good on history. Are you saying that Christians didn’t used to burn witches?

  11. In defense of John, whats the point of this blog if you aren’t even a Christian (which is what he assumed), so you can proudly show how against Christians you are and bag on them in the process? I love how you assume the “Christian” viewpoints you found on some website are held by all, then you attack all Christians for these viewpoints with your snide little prop 8 remarks. Good job buddy…

  12. Dudeski, are you a Christian who is against Prop 8?

    Can you find me anyone who is for Prop 8 who is not a Christian? Did you know that bill was funded by out-0f-state Mormons, which is essentially illegal and anti-American?

  13. Also, Dudeski if you’re mad about the positions presented in that website, go be mad at that website’s author for claiming to be representing a Christian viewpoint. Directing it at me is easy, because I’m a mean old atheist. Go clean up your own house. That’s harder.

  14. All of you ignorant self-righteous little so-called ‘christians’ can go fuck yourselves.

    And by the way, everybody who’s taken five minutes of Psych 101 knows that if you are so freaked out by ‘the gays’ that you actually want to legislate their rights away, it’s because you’re most likely a closet queer yourself.

    So instead of sticking your unAmerican nose in other people’s business (yes, I hate to be the one to have to shit in your salad, but this country wasn’t founded on ‘christian’ principles; it was founded on the concept of individual liberty, which translates basically to minding your own business), just go on jacking off to pictures of Jeezuz in the privacy of your own home, and quit trying to deprive other people of their rights.

    Or, better yet, as your kind seems rather fond of saying, ‘love it or leave it’ — in other words, if you don’t like the concept of individual liberty, move somewhere where folks share your values — like perhaps, one of the many Muslim Theocracies that tolerate Christians but execute gays. You should be very happy there…as long as you don’t try handing out any Jeezuz tracts or something like that. They don’t take kindly to that sort of thing, which is probably the only thing I admire about them.

    * * *

  15. Brian makes a good point. Compare a list of countries where laws against homosexuality exist, and we will find that Christians would align us with the least progressive nations on earth. Go to WikiPedia and check out the details:

    Africa: (68%)
    Total Number of nations: 53
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: 36

    Asia / Middle East: (48%)
    Total Number of nations: 48
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: 23

    Europe: (0%)
    Total Number of nations: 55
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: ZERO

    North/Central America: (29%)
    Total Number of nations: 35
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: 10

    Oceania: (41%)
    Total Number of nations: 22
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: 9

    South America: (7%)
    Total Number of nations: 14
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: 1

    Total number of Nations: 227
    Number of nations with laws against homosexuality: 79 (35%)

  16. What happens to your thinking if it is something that, God forbid, you don’t agree with like… the NAMBLA organization that speaks up for the rights of pedophiles, or maybe it is okay for a son to marry his father, or what about a man and fido, his best friend? Do you wish that the institution of marriage (which is most definitely a religious ceremony at its fundamental core. Yes there can be marriages without mention of religion, but the concept is a spiritual one.) be undefined? Do you wish that it be defined as between two consenting adults? How do you wish to define it? From a societal standpoint there are consequences both good and bad from whatever decision you make. From a biological standpoint (to take out all subjective emotion) it is not wise for a 25 year old son to marry his mother or his father or his brother or his sister. Where does YOUR definition start and end? Why is your idea better than mine? Why is my idea better or worse than God’s? If God is real, then there is no argument because He would have created the laws of the universe and He would be the Creator in general. The pot can call the potter anything it wants, but it is a created thing nonetheless. The only reason that there stands to be an opposing viewpoint is because God cannot be proven, correct? So if you take God out of the equation, then does it make sense biologically, socially, to have marriage for same sex couples? If marriage is a religious ceremony by conception of the idea, then how about leaving the word marriage to mean what it has always meant, and creating “Gay-rriage ” or stick with the Civil Unions, and make them equal in “rights” to a heterosexual marriage? Does the gay community have a right to force it’s desires on my own religious freedoms? Can they, or anyone, legislate a different meaning for baptism, or communion? If they like the church’s idea of something and want to copy it, fine, go ahead and make a copy, but don’t change it for others that have a strong moral belief. I might want a Bar-mitzvah but I want it to be when I’m 10, instead, and I want it to be for me and my wife. Well Bar-mitzvah is for a 13 year old boy. I could fight to change the meaning, or I could create something different. I would be forcing Jewish tradition and law to change for the desire of a certain group of people. I could accuse them of discrimination and say that they are not treating me as an equal, but that would be false. Just as gay marriage is accusing anyone who opposes Prop 8 as being intolerant, hate-filled bigots. What if those same people who are being accused say, ” Leave our institution alone and create one for your own religious or anti-religious views.”? Are they treating them unequally? Gays could “marry” in the sense that it is a new institution that they are creating. A way to share their lives and love for each other without infringing on other peoples beliefs. Is it right that they strong-arm religion to force them to change their beliefs, legally? This is all strictly from the adults points of view. There is a whole other matter with the children’s point of view and whether two moms or two dads is better or worse than a mom & a dad for a child. Gay marriage always leaves out either a mother or a father. I believe that the next definition change would be for father and mother… There will no longer be a mother, but a mother figure and no longer a father, but a father figure. Who is your father figure? Oh here he is, Melissa! What seems like equality on the outside is really only masked and packaged in equality to sell to a voting public.

  17. […] California Christian Voter’s Guide UPDATE: I just realized that this blog is 2nd on the Google return for “California Christian Voter’s […] […]

  18. Ted, your slippery-slope logic is eclipsed only by your inability to use paragraphs.

    How you can equate the marriage of two consenting adults with a man screwing his puppy is beyond me.

    I am not the one who is trying to redefine marriage Ted, you are. The definition we have now is just fine. How about we leave it alone and not let it be defined by whackos?

  19. I just love the way you portray christians as “How We Are Told To Vote” as if we cannot think for ourselves. We vote our biblical principles. Its not that we think God is on our side, you have it all wrong, its we are on His side. But if you don’t believe what he says then go for, but you will stand one day before Him and there will not be one single thing you will be able to do about it and it doesn’t matter if you believe it or not. His truth is not dependant upon you believing him or not. The fact is you will stand before Him. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes on that day and remeber you WILL DIE like everyone else. As for the bond measures in this state it is people like you who have helped get this state into a financial mess. You people have voted in bond measure after bond measure election after election and now the piper is wanting to be paid. Ge this through your head, the money is NOT FREE. Now that this state is in a mess our credit ratings continue to be reduced. With Wall Street in a mess it is getting harder and harder to sell those bonds to Wall Street. When we can’t we the tax payers have to foot the bills now into the tens of billions. Get it through your head, THIS STATE IS BROKE! It is in financial debt over its head. We cannot afford any more programs. NONE! No on all bond measures.

  20. you’re an idiot!

  21. Jim,
    Your disgust is proof of my point regarding the puppy. Where do you draw the line for marriage. Obviously the dog example is extreme, and I actually give you more credit than you give yourself to think that it is beyond you to understand the point.
    It’s not redefining it by saying that it should be for a man and a woman. There are things that are understood, but many who need to legislate the obvious because common sense is not so common. An example of this is on warning labels from safety goggles to aspirin to children’s toys.

  22. Jim,

    You didn’t answer any of the questions that were raised. You simply name called, criticized the format and then name called again. Thought this was more of a discussion type of blog to exchange ideas, not to see who can put down another’s thoughts more creatively or angrily. Too bad.

  23. Ted, I draw the line at consenting adults. No animals or children will be harmed.

    You apparently draw the line at consenting adults who are heterosexual. There’s no rational reason for that viewpoint–only a religious one.

    It frightens me that the land of the free–my nation that I love–is becoming a nation of frightened bigots who need to find some class of people to oppress in order to feel good about themselves.

    Are you consistent in this belief? Since it’s in the Bible it should therefore be Law? Do I really need to show you how ridiculous this would make our nation? We would have laws mandating the stoning of disobedient children, and requiring menstruating women to leave town. Are you in favor of this? No? Well what makes it so correct for you to legislate against homosexuality? Leviticus has laws about Homosexuality, stoning of children, and menstruating women–and many many more absurd and impossible laws. Why don’t you obey ALL of it instead of just those convenient to your narrow point of view? God said it, after all … don’t you believe those? Or, maybe it’s just your local Pastor to whom you relinquish your reason.

    All you people have carved your opinions etermally into the internet. There will come a day when people will look back on your words and marvel (and laugh) at how ignorant you all are. People will look upon your words much the same way as we now look upon the “righteous justification” of religious people in the South who saw it fit and proper to own slaves in the mid-1800s.

  24. Christians are among the most judgmental people you’ll ever meet, especially when they get their hot little hands on a keyboard and can rant and rave in anonymity. Unfortunately, they are also among the most hateful and hypocritical people around as well. Just look at their desperate, hateful screeds in these comments.

    How do they rationalize their claims to follow the word of someone who said “love your enemy,” but vehemently hate those who disagreement with them? Read “turn the other cheek” and lash out against people who disagree? Read “behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye,” and then proceed to judge how others live their lives? Cherry-pick language from the Old Testament to justify their hateful behavior, and completely ignore Christ’s words in the New? How do they live with their behavior in the face of their own beliefs???

    It is endlessly amusing to me how blind they are to their own shame, and how ignorant they are about proper grammar and spelling. Everything they say — and they way they try to say it — invalidates their own argument. And they try so, so hard to convince themselves through you that they’re right, but I suspect that in their deepest, darkest hours they get the slightest little glimmers of awareness of what they really are. And that’s when they dive into a new bout of prayer and fasting and penance to renew their steadfast blindness.

    But frankly, it’s easier just to ignore them and know that they’ll get theirs in the end. If they’re right that God will judge us all at the end, then he will judge them harshly for their hatred and will punish them. And if we’re right that God either doesn’t exist or couldn’t care less about these things, then they will have lived their lives in vain.

    I think Spider Robinson said it best: If one who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and one who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron.

  25. Ted, I know it’s difficult for you people, but try to stick to the issue. Prop 8 is about marriage. It’s not about child-rearing, not about bestiality, not about religion. It’s about keeping your type from discriminating against people who aren’t like you — gays, this time. It’s about love, which might explain why your type doesn’t understand it.

    Ninety years ago you wouldn’t give women the vote. Fifty years ago you people were ranting about integration and miscegenation. Now you’re after the queers.

    Nobody’s making your precious church marry Adam and Steve — you’re ignoring that aspect of it. But Prop 8 will let Adam and Steve get married by a justice of the peace somewhere else, or the captain of the Love Boat, or by any church that isn’t as backwards and hateful as yours is. It’s about giving them the same rights in their relationship that you have in your own — and without making them “separate but equal.”

    You go right on ahead and hate fags if that’s what your version of Jesus tells you to do. Me, I’m going to vote against Prop 8 and wish them the same joys and misery that I enjoy in my own wedded “bliss.” And after Prop 8 fails — and it will — I hope you start involuntarily projectile vomiting every time you see Adam and Steve kiss.

  26. Oy. That’s what I get for posting at one in the morning. I’m sorry if I confuzled you, Ted, I meant to say being AGAINST Prop 8 is all those wonderful things I cited in my first paragraph. Being FOR it means being backwards and unChristian and ultimately judged unkindly by history.

  27. Jim and Churk,

    The most hate that is written on these pages is your hate toward Christians.

    The simple matter was where do you draw the line for what marriage is? I draw it at heterosexual consenting adults who are not related. This, I believe is the actual definition, and is the definition in question for this proposition.

    People are all equal in my own opinion. I’m an egalitarian when it comes to people, but an elitist when it comes to ideas. I believe that all people are equal, but that some ideas are better than others. (I think we all agree to this. You think your ideas are better, etc)

    Take everyone’s ideas and see what is better for society. I understand that you believe that homosexual marriage is fair and equal and good and right in our society. That is your privilege.

    You know I struggled with it myself, the “separate but equal” concept when I wrote that perhaps they should have another ceremony that is like marriage, but not called marriage.

    How do you allow the church to have their ceremony as it is defined, but reconcile the fact that there are others that think it unfair and want to redefine it? If you allow others to marry, then you redefine the word (thus redefining the actual thing). If you keep it the same and create a separate but equal ceremony then you are discriminating. Is it one or the other?

    Do you have an idea, or do you just say change it and who cares what the Christians think of their own ceremony, we’re changing it!

    A separate but equal “marriage” was already established with the examples that you said, like a ship or a justice of the peace, so I suppose that if they don’t force churches to marry outside of their definitions, then all could still be homogenous in our society, allowing all non violent beliefs to coexist.

    I see marriage as something created for a man and a woman, and think that that is best for society and child rearing (as it has been for thousands of years).

    I’m a Christian who is always learning, and trying to do what is right in the eyes of God. You can hate me for what I believe, and there is nothing that I can do about it. I’m not the one with the hate, believe me. I don’t hate homosexuals. Homosexuals live on my street, are friends of mine, and I see them as God’s children, as I see you the same way.

    What is tolerance? If it is accepting all points of view, then what about a point of view that says Jesus is the only way to God? Wouldn’t you have to accept that as a valid view? You wouldn’t have to agree with it, but you should be tolerant of it, right?

    If homosexuals are allowed to marry, and it is quite possible that prop 8 will pass, then they marry. The reason for a vote is to see what the people think. It’s not a burning at the stake witch hunt or anything filled with malice. It’s the political process.

  28. Churk,

    You said… “Christians are among the most judgmental people you’ll ever meet, especially when they get their hot little hands on a keyboard and can rant and rave in anonymity. Unfortunately, they are also among the most hateful and hypocritical people around as well. Just look at their desperate, hateful screeds in these comments.

    How do they rationalize their claims to follow the word of someone who said “love your enemy,” but vehemently hate those who disagreement with them? ”

    When you lump all Christians together like you do, how are you any different than saying “All Jews are…, All blacks are,… All _______ pick your class, religion, race, or sexual orientation.

    When you write about us saying love your enemy but vehemently hating those who disagree with “us”, it appears that that is what YOU are doing. You are vehemently hating those who disagree with your world view. I haven’t read what other “Christians” have written on this blog, because it’s hard to stomach some of the language and the venom that is written on these virtual pages.

    I’m 100% sure that some that is written is as you say, but that doesn’t make the concept or the religion or the people of Christianity what you say. Just as in all classes, and races and religion, there are individuals.

    I’m just wanting a discussion not a fight. Peaceable conversation and exchange of thoughts and ideas can be a bridge to a society with peace instead of anger.

  29. Jim,

    You said… “You apparently draw the line at consenting adults who are heterosexual. There’s no rational reason for that viewpoint–only a religious one.”

    Why do you think that a religious reason cannot be rational?

  30. Thank you for taking the time to post this, and the links to the resource sites.

    FYI – the guide that you linked to shows yes on 11 now, your notes indicate a no.

    Happy Voting!

  31. Ted,

    e•gal•i•tar•i•an –adjective
    1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.

    You are not an egalitarian. If you were, you would believe in the equality of all people. You cannot deprive one group of people access to a primary part of society (marriage) and say they are still equal. The word you are looking for might be “Provincial.”

    Christians say they don’t hate the sinner, they just hate the sin. Well I don’t hate Christians, I just hate Christianity. I really don’t hate you Ted. However, I hate what Christianity is doing to the country that I love. I hate Christianity because it has always been a tool of injustice.

    You think this is a simple matter of how we define marriage. You are failing to see that discrimination is taking place if Prop 8 passes. This is not about happy happy joy joy schools and families. You will be tearing some good families apart if you get your way.

    Separate but equal did not work. History has shown us that.

    While I tolerate your right to believe whatever you want, I cannot tolerate you forcing your beliefs on others. This legislation is un-American and Unconstitutional. I cannot tolerate seeing its purely bigoted agenda be twisted and manipulated into something that LOOKS like it’s all fuzzy warm “Good for our kids and schools and families” bullshit. Can’t you smell it Ted? Here are some good comparisons:

    Vote yes on Slavery: It’s good for the kids!
    Vote yes on Witch Burning: Protect our Schools!
    Vote yes on Stoning Disobedient Children: God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

    Your question about church marriages is valid, but here’s the deal. Churches are performing a governmental function when they officially marry people. If your church cannot agree with marriage as it is mandated by the government, then your church is in a quandary. It’s not our problem—it’s yours. There’s nothing saying that your church can’t perform non-state-recognized weddings for your own religious ceremonial purposes. I think legally you can refuse Gay couples this privilege as long as it is not tied to any official state benefit.

    You said, “I see marriage as something created for a man and a woman, and think that that is best for society and child rearing (as it has been for thousands of years).”

    But what if those children are …. GAY? Because yes, people are born gay. I think what is best for child-rearing is a society that won’t oppress them. Do you know how many innocent gay teenagers kill themselves because they feel like they were born a monster? Your views are to blame.

  32. Thank you School Assem
    bly Speaker, I’ve updated that.

    I also read more on Prop 10 and have changed my view on that.

  33. Jim,

    My views are to blame for gay teenagers killing themselves? Nice try. If people acted like Christians, loving each other and treating them like they would like to be treated themselves, then the gay teenager would be able to live in a world where people have different views on his sexual choices.

    Being born gay… I have not read any evidence that proves this. It’s hard to talk about Christianity with a person who professes to hate it, but such is life. Life is not easy. People spit in Jesus’ face and beat him and mocked him, etc.. so it is nothing new.

    I certainly do NOT want to discriminate. I don’t. I’m trying to live out my faith and am trying to love others and be the best person in society that I can. I can do this without being a carbon copy of you, or anyone else who has an opposing viewpoint.

    If California wants gay marriage, then it will happen. I won’t cry. I will accept the California law and live accordingly.

  34. Ted, I too used to be opposed to gay marriage. Then I sat down one day and really thought about why I was against it and realized it was my own squeamishness about homosexuality. I’m straight, and the thought of being with another man is repellent to me. I think that’s about as far as most anti-gay marriage folks get.

    But I extrapolated it a step further. I’m also not into fat chicks. Or Asians. Or lady dwarves. Or female amputees. Or women named Margaret. Or women who want me to pee on them. Etc. There are lots of types of different women I’m not into, that repulse me. But if I WERE into them … whose business would it be besides mine (and theirs)? And how would I feel about it if a bunch of loudmouths stuck their noses in my business and tried to keep me from marrying my love? I wouldn’t like it. And when I got to that thought, that’s when I changed my position on gay marriage. It’s none of my business. Just like it’s none of yours.

    So go ahead and hate gays. Believe that they’re second-class citizens. Don’t let them marry in your church. But it’s none of your damned business if some other church or a public official, or an ordained minister from the Universal Life Church like myself marries them. Their marriage has NOTHING to do with yours.

    And before you start arguing about how lettin’ them homos marry is going to be the end of society, take a look at the divorce statistics your type enjoys and ask what how YOUR marriage is serving the common good.

  35. Wow. I just spewed coffee all over my monitor: Ted hasn’t read any evidence that proves people are born gay. Denial, table for thousands of closed-minded Christians?

    Hey Ted, what do you call the millions of gays who say “I was born this way”? Isn’t that proof? (Don’t bother answering; that was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously “yes,” but I know you’d say “no.”)

    This is where the argument breaks down for you people. You cling so tightly to your beliefs that logic cannot penetrate. That’s why debating virtually anything with someone who argues from a position of faith is a waste of time — you cannot be swayed by facts, convincing arguments, not even bribery. It always boils down to “well, this is what I believe.”

    But consider this: You believe gays choose that life because there’s no evidence that they are born that way. You must mean “scientific” evidence, studies and whatnot, since you discount the empirical evidence. So show me the scientific proof that God exists.

  36. Ted, you seem like a decent guy. You seem semi-open-minded. I will say that for you to balance Christian “standard” viewpoints and trying not to discriminate puts you in a precarious place. I’m sure you hate atheism as well, so we’re on equal footing. 🙂

    Check this page out:

    You’ll find that there have been a myriad of studies that find correlations between biology, genetics, and gender preference. You’ll also see that sexual preference is not 100% biological; environmental factors play a role as well.

    But as Churk says, there sure are a lot of gay people who say “I was born this way.” That holds a lot of water with me.

  37. All this arguing really has no point. These people get their beliefs by cherry-picking a few ridiculous old superstitions from an irrelevant bunch of Stone-Age myths and ancient laws they can’t even trace to any source beyond their own circular reasoning. They ignore the parts that they can’t relate to (such as stoning their children), and desperately cling to the ones that reinforce their own prejudices. How on Earth can anybody have any kind of rational exchange with someone like that? Answer: you can’t.

    Like many people in this country, I was raised in the dogma of Christianity (or, rather, one of the several uniquely American versions of ‘Born-Again’ drivel), and when I was, say, eight or nine years old, nobody could have talked me out of it. But then I grew up. I began to question it all, and found that I had in actuality been indoctrinated in a weird cult — one that had its origins rather loosely based in many ancient traditions, some sensible, some anachronistic, and some downright insane. I did a lot of studying outside of the self-referential and biased materials I had been raised with, and got a good grasp of the origins of the ‘faith’ that I had been forced to adopt as a child. I concluded, on my own, that most of it was essentially garbage. There were certainly some core moral principles, shared by most religions, that were worth observing, but ironically those were usually the things that were left at the curb in favor of intolerance, fear, hatred, a perverse joy in imagining the suffering of ‘unbelievers’ (‘Hell’) and a bizarre obsession with The Apocalypse.

    And so, like my beliefs in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, I let it all go.

    So the point is, people have to come to their own conclusions; few are going to have their mind changed by having opposing beliefs thrown in their face, and unfortunately few people bother to step outside their comfort zone and question where their own views come from. And even when they do, they often become confused, guilty and scared, and thus find themselves running back to the safety of the familiar. It’s an all-too-common human weakness to fear the unknown, and prefer the illusion of security provided by whatever one was raised to believe. Much of the world’s strife can be blamed on this phenomenon.

    And yes, I admit I can be rather harsh and judgmental toward those who still drink the Kool-Aid, mainly because it’s hard to have any respect for supposed adults who still believe in fairy tales that I myself gave up on as a young teenager. But as for ‘hating’ Christians, well, I reserve any ‘hated’ toward those meddling, busybody elements of religion (whether they be Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, or whatever) who attempt to legislate their worldview and thus impose their intolerant superstitions on the rest of us.

    Believe whatever you want — I may shake my head derisively and laugh at your silliness, but I won’t actively persecute you. Try to make your dogma the law of the land, however, and I will fight you with everything I’ve got.

    * * *

  38. Well, I for one, hate no individual due to sexual preference. I know a lot of nice people who happen to be gay. The fact that I don’t agree with their lifestyle choice doesn’t mean that I’m a gay hater. And contrary to popular belief, it is a life” choice”. It falls under the same category of any sexual sin such as adultery, child molesting, etc. God did not make people gay. That would mean he made a mistake, in which he does not. The bible forbids homosexuality, ( Romans 1: 26-27). That isn’t any person saying it. IT’S THE BIBLE, PAUL TO BE EXACT.We all have choices to make in all factions of life. The biggest question is, will you choose to honor our Lord or turn to your own selfish desires? Some of us are entrapped further by deep, deep sin than others. The bible says to love the person, hate the sin. That goes for anything. In our society today, there is no accountablity. Therefore, everything is okay and more the better. I am a big enough person to disagree with another without the horrible bitterness that engulfs a few bloggers on this site. Yes on 8 and may God continue to bless us all in this wonderful country !!!

  39. Oh, and one more thing: I am SO sick of hearing all the ‘slippery slope’ bullshit about how equal rights for gays will lead to equal rights for pedophiles and dog-fuckers and incest-lovers and whatever. All you do when you talk about that shit is show how retarded you are.

    We already have a standard for sex and marriage that need not be changed. Two words: CONSENTING ADULTS. Is that not enough for you? We also have plenty of laws against incest, rape, bestiality and all sorts of other such things, and if you think that allowing gays to marry is going to open the floodgates for people wanting to repeal bestiality laws or let NAMBLA and priests have a legal free-for-all with underage boys, well, I just feel sorry for how utterly stupid you are.

    And before you even write me off as a potential victim of Prop 8 and thus your ‘enemy’, let me assure you that I am not gay. Homosexuality is not something I understand, because I am not attracted to other men. However, I DO understand Love, and I DO understand Freedom. That’s all I need to understand in order to support the rights of my fellow human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, and, yes, religion.

    Live and let live is supposed to be the American way, ya know. Remember the Golden Rule?

    Why don’t you just admit the truth? That you personally hate ‘fags’ and wish they would all disappear, just like some slimeballs feel about Blacks or Jews or anybody else different from themselves? At least you’d be being honest about it instead of pretending it’s all about ‘family values’ or some other bullshit.

    That way the rest of us could just write you off as the bigoted loser that you are, ignore all your whining, have the cops monitor any Hate Groups you form (like they do with Skinheads and other extremist bastards), and go on with our lives as Americans (you know — like Jefferson and Adams and Lincoln and MLK), continuing our rocky and imperfect but nevertheless admirable path toward human equality, freedom and, maybe, if we’re lucky, something resembling enlightenment.

    * * *

  40. Jim,

    I don’t hate atheists. Most of my family and most of my friends are atheists. We all have a choice (in my opinion it is a God given choice) to believe in a God or to not.

    The interesting thing that you and I could discuss is this, and it’s huge… If you do believe in a God, then you have to decide what god to believe in.

    There are multiple religions and gods. The one I happen to believe in (and the belief is real, I couldn’t change it if I wanted to. That might be something that you won’t understand because I can’t explain it. I think you have to have the experience to understand. Or the person explaining it to you would have to have a better mind than I do.) is Jesus, the God of the Bible.

    Now, there are a lot of things in the Bible that talk about the society back then and issues that existed then. In the Christian belief, there is an old and new Testament, the old being the Jewish Torah, and the new beginning with the book of Mathew, etc. I realize that social issues change, but it is my belief that God’s word doesn’t change. So in my thinking absolutes can and do exist.

    How do you tell what is absolute and what isn’t? Well, there are denominations and opinions on those things. Different societies agree on different absolutes. Is it wrong that your father or mother molested you when you were a child? I would say yes, of course it is wrong.

    If God IS real, and I choose to believe it, then I try my best to reconcile my world according to God’s wisdom.

    Since I’m a fallible human, I will fail probably more times than not. I might think the Bible teaches something when it does not. There are many __________ fill in the blank again (Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Jews, Whites, Hispanic…) who don’t reflect their party/affiliation all the time and who can put a bad name to it. So I can’t just follow a church or a pastor or priest, I have to test things according to the book that I believe is from God.

    As I go through my life, I try to figure it all out and do the best I can. I am not mad at others for doing the same thing, even when it doesn’t jive with what I believe. That is their prerogative and their journey.

    We should all be able to get along with our differences. My belief comes from my faith, so be it. Who are you or anyone else to tell me differently? Your idea/opinion is yours, so like it’s been said, don’t try to force it on anyone else.

    The political process in my estimation is just for this type of thing. Some people are for Abortion rights, some think it’s murder. Some are for keeping marriage the way it’s been, and some are for not defining it thus changing it to include homosexuals.

    I understand that this is a bigger situation because it’s not like a traffic law that is trying to keep people safer or another type of thing that has less emotion behind it.

    I want to give people the right to marriage! That is a beautiful thing, that we as humans can enjoy. In my thoughts, marriage is a gift from God. I obviously think that there are limits to it, but other people think the line in the sand should be drawn differently. Okay. Let’s vote as a society, because society includes more people and ideas than the ones that I and people like me believe.

    That’s where the argument of the NAMBLA and bestiality comes in. Where you and I are comfortable with one definition, there may be others that want to extend the definition further.

    We might think incest is wrong or bad for society, but there might be thousands of people who like that but are afraid what others think. There could come a time when we vote on that. You don’t have to have hate in your heart to not want a Father to marry his daughter. Couldn’t you try to be objective and think that it’s biologically and socially probably not a great idea?

    Again, you would see what society wants. Obviously society is not always “right”, correct? It was after all our society that didn’t let women vote and judged people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. You can’t lay that on Christianity. There were people from all walks of life that made those mistakes.

    I just read an article yesterday about how the principles of Christianity helped to actually abolish slavery and the right for women to vote by preaching that we are all created in God’s image and that we have intrinsic value, thus we should be treated with dignity and respect.

    Anyway, I guess the main thing that I want to express is that I value your opinion as a person. I hope that you would value mine.

  41. Jim,

    I haven’t checked out your wikipedia link yet, but will.

  42. Hmmm…’Jesus Lover’…that name sounds awfully gay to me.

    Just kidding. Hey, friend — you sound like a nice enough person, despite your obvious deep indoctrination. As I indicated above, it’s pointless to argue with your dogma, because you believe the Bible (or at least the interpretation of it that was spoon-fed to you) and nobody’s going to change your mind.

    But, forgetting the whole issue of homosexuality for a minute, here’s some food for thought about religion:

    If you were born and raised in India, you would most likely be a Hindu or perhaps a Muslim. If you were from another Asian culture, you might be a Buddhist, or your ‘religion’ might be a form of Communism. You could be from just about anywhere and have been born Jewish. If you came from some parts of Europe or Latin America, you would most certainly be Catholic. Even being born here in the US, you could have been raised in any number of religions, including all of the above or a thousand sects of Christianity very different from your own. Or you could believe deeply, regardless of where you were born, in one of the zillion other religions that exist around the globe, or else be convinced absolutely that religion itself is nonsense.

    It all depends heavily on the culture you came from, as well as the one subscribed to by your parents (and whether or not you questioned it all).

    But one thing is almost absolutely certain, and that is that you would believe in it (whatever you were born into/raised with) wholeheartedly, with certitude and conviction, and probably you would consider all other belief systems as wrong and/or sinful (unless you were a Buddhist or follower of some other universally tolerant idea).

    So when you refer the the Bible so assuredly, all I can say is that it could benefit you to remember that to other religions — ones that you could EASILY have been born into — YOU are the sinner, and YOU are in error. The Bible, to many of the belief systems you could have inherited, is meaningless.

    It is but an accident of birth and subsequent upbringing that you believe the way you do.

    Odds are that you will ignore this, deny it or even ironically respond by thanking your particular god that you happened to get lucky and be born as one of the ‘chosen few’. I’ve posed this dilemma to Christians and other dogmatic types before, so I know what to expect. I doubt you will surprise me.

    But I had to say it anyway. Maybe somebody out there will have a lightbulb go on over their head. Who knows?

    * * *

  43. Not sure about your continous need to call names. I apparently do not share the same views and feel no need to call you a dirty name or put you down. You seem like a rather intelligent individual, but I believe people can become over educated and under learned. In many of our Universities today they are selling extreme liberal jargon which has become very dangerous . People turn from their bibles and instead give their ears to professors who are master brain washers. Yes….you have something that is fueling real hatred, revealing a hardened heart. Supposing you’ve truly been exposed to God’s truth, you should understand that we’re called to have the faith of a child. The bible is not just some sort of fairy tale that doesn’t relate to today. It all plays a part in everyday living if you listen. The closer you listen to God, the more he reveals to your heart. Don’t believe me ? Try it. Nobody would ever have to know. What do you have to loose?

  44. Churk and Bri –

    I have to agree that your opinions are the most negative and hateful on this blog. As well, I would like to point out that your grammar is far worse than Teds…but is that what this blog is about?

    I hope the majority of people in our country voting today will do so based on the issues rather than what is ‘popular’ and sounds intelligent.

  45. Ted:

    You sound like a nice enough individual, and it’s good that you don’t hate people. I believe your heart seems to be in the right place.

    Your logic, however, is flawed.

    In fact, it’s common knowledge that ‘majority rules’ Democracy is dramatically flawed, because it gives the majority potentially unfair control over the basic rights of a minority — which is what the Civil Rights movement, Women’s suffrage, Slavery Abolition and other movements were about. The Democratic ideal of self-rule through a majority vote needs to be balanced by protections for people that, due to their numbers, are vulnerable to being steamrolled by the tyranny of the majority.

    Your insistence on using examples such as NAMBLA and incest just don’t hold water, because child molestation and the like are not (and will never be) protected, any more than murder, robbery, rape, or any other actual crime.

    NAMBLA members will never have a right to molest a child. Never. There is no slippery slope; no relationship between pederasty and homosexuality. You are essentially equating a condition with a crime.

    To be a homosexual is to have the same attraction for one’s own gender that the rest of us have for the opposite gender. That’s it. Pederasts are, unfortunately for them, attracted to underage children. Studies show that homosexuals are generally born that way, while pederasts and pedophiles develop their propensities as a result of an emotional problem in childhood. Neither can help it; neither one has a choice in their particular attraction — but whereas homosexuals are hurting no one by getting together with other consenting adults like them, pedophiles have no choice but to cross the line in order to fulfill their desires — that is, they have to prey on unconsenting children. Society, of course, can never permit this, any more than it can permit rapists to indulge in their urges.

    The mere thought of having the pedophile’s predilection horrifies and disgusts me — but at the same time, one has to feel sorry for them. After all, they have an itch they can never scratch without committing a horrible and unjustifiable crime.

    As I’ve studied a fair bit of Psychology, I understand what Psychologists will tell you: that most pedophiles don’t actually molest any children, and simply remain tortured self-loathing souls who know their desires are wrong, and basically live in their own private Hell. The ones that DO act upon those desires become criminals of the lowest sort, and even other criminals loathe them. They rarely survive in prison unless isolated from the rest of the population.

    And you want to put gays in the same category as THAT? Simply for being mutually attracted to a consenting adult of their same gender?

    You really think the two things are in any way related? If you truly think this way, I don’t even know what to say to you.

    If you are sincere in your concern regarding a ‘slippery slope’, your worries are unfounded. If, on the other hand, you are just prejudiced because you are stuck on a couple of Bible verses, why don’t you just have faith that your God will sort it out, and that it isn’t YOUR job to deprive people of their rights unless those rights are hurtful to others, right here; right now?

    Incest, pederasty, and other such perversions are easily distinguishable from homosexuality: they hurt people, and they exploit vulnerable members of humanity that cannot be expected to be able to consent. The same goes for bestiality, in that an animal can’t give you permission in the way that we as a society have inexorably defined it.

    Therefore the comparison is wrong, unfair, and absurd.

    * * *

  46. It’s interesting how the same people who are FOR discriminating against about 7% of our population are also up in arms about mean language being used.

    Food for thought …

  47. More food for thought…

    …but those who complain about other’s hatred are the very ones spewing it.

  48. Well Bri, I’ve been faced with many of the issues and questions that you’ve thrown out there and my answer is this… matter what walk of life or your background, we all at some point will have the chance to be exposed to God’s truth. What you do with the information from that point is up to you. Once a ” seed ” has been planted , choices from there will nuture it’s growth or snub it out . But again, it’s all contingent on choices. God loves everyone one of us unconditionally as our heavenly father. And like most parents, he loves and hopes his children in return choose to love him back. Sure, he could make us, but doesn’t want to. Look, there are many questions with no real answers. We’re not supposed to know everything or have all answers and I’m completely comfortable with that. Maybe one day He’ll reveal all to us ??? Til that day, we need to do our best with the knowledge we do have. I am a sinner Bri and I know that. I make mistakes daily. I do do my best everyday though and know that in my heart. Let me tell you the peace of mind there is at the day and at the fact that somebodyelse is in control of this crazy world and all the happenings. That offers great comfort on days such as this , where our world as we know it could be completely changed tomorrow with the information of a new Pres. , depending on the outcome…….

  49. Just so you know, NAMBLA got the age for sexual consent lowered to 14 in Canada. In my oppinion, that IS legalizing child rape!!!

  50. It’s also interesting how NONE of them are addressing the “hard” questions Bri and I posed of them, challenging their beliefs.

    As for their charges that we’re just a bunch of meanie-means… I’m not the bible-thumper. I’m not the one who supposedly lives by the code of “love your neighbor.” I’m not the one who’s trying to love a good life so I’ll be judged kindly at the end. That gives me total freedom to be as big an asshole as I want to be. When I do it, I’m being true to myself. When you do it, you’re a hypocrite.

    So just be advised that complaining about me not playing with your restrictions only makes me smile.

  51. bri,

    I love what you said about all of the options out there to believe or not believe. Obviously you are correct. I don’t see the dilemma that exists.

    In your particular example, you said that you were born into something. Well, I wasn’t born into a Christian home.

    I experienced atheism, agnosticism, Jewish theology, Catholic theology, new age philosophy, among others. I even researched ideologies such as socialism and communism and capitalism and marxism and darwinism… I went to college and took comparative religion courses, the old testament course, the new testament course.

    When you say you could have easily been born into hinduism, you are right, but that doesn’t mean that your thinking starts and stops there. Do you honestly believe that someone who was born a Christian has not become an atheist or a Jew or a Hindu? How about an atheist becoming a Christian or a Hare Krishna or a Buddhist?

    Just because you are born into something doesn’t mean that you are brain washed and can no longer decide for yourself what is rational or moral.

    Because other people think that I am the sinner as you put it, doesn’t make it true. I don’t have to be hostile toward them, as you can see by my posts. They can be hostile all they want and call names to make them feel superior and clever and witty and funny and cool.

    You might want to check yourself as to where that hostility comes from. Perhaps you are the one not open to ideas. Perhaps you can’t fathom that you are wrong? I could be wrong. No doubt.

    I’m taking my chances that there is a power greater than you and me. There is too much order in the universe to deny that fact for myself. I have experienced true forgiveness and grace and mercy from a living God. I put my trust in God more than I would put my trust in a particular man. If God is the creator, then it comes to reason that he would know best. I’ve tried to live a life where I thought I knew best, and it didn’t work out so well.

    Over time I realize how right God is. He has proven to me time and time again what is truth. So that is a small window into my faith in Christ.

    You could treat me meanly and spit on me and call me names. You could hate me. Hopefully, no matter what you decide to do with me and people like me, you will get love and respect in return.

  52. All,

    In regards to being mean spirited… isn’t it normal to want a conversation where both sides can be heard without profanity and insults? I mean really?


    Thank you for your response that is articulated well and with reason.

    One view is coming from a point of view that God knows best what is good for us. The other view says that God doesn’t exist and that they know what is good for us.

    To finally put to rest the NAMBLA and incest rationale… From me, it was never meant to equate homosexuals to pedophiles or other horrible crimes. It was to try to point out that there could be a minority of people who want to be accepted by society by wanting marriage to include their ideals of marriage.

    If you can see that, you can see the point of view doesn’t have to be discrimination. It’s just a point of view of morality.

    Since nobody is understanding this, I will drop it because I’m not sure how to better express what I’m thinking. Sorry if it was offensive to anybody who is gay.

    I do come to the conclusion that I have to leave it up to God to sort out and I’ll continue living my life the best that I can. I am always willing to learn and to be a better example and human being.

    This might be enlightening to some of you…

    I do not want to force anyone to become a Christian, just as God does not want to force anyone to be a Christian. I would not and do not want to mandate my religion on others freedoms.

    I live in a great country that allows me to vote and vote my conscience and my own personal belief system. That is an amazing freedom! I enjoy that very much. It is not mandating or forcing my religion to VOTE.

    If I vote for wanting traditional marriage to remain, then that is what I feel is best. If this is considered a grave injustice, then it will come out as such in the end and justice will prevail.

    If gay people are allowed to marry in California, then it is not the end of the world. It is my preference that marriage remain what I’ve always known it to be, but if it changes, I will not die or have the desire to FORCE my opinion on someone else. I just want the freedom to have my opinion and be able to vote the way that I feel without being intimidated by someone of a differing opinion.

  53. Eloquently said Ted

  54. Jesus Lover,

    I appreciate your input and words on the subject.

    God bless you.

  55. I think the more humane that our society is the better.

    The animals give up their lives for us, the least we can do before slaughtering them would be to give them room to lie down, I mean really!
    I’m voting yes on Prop 2.

    Yes on 1a and yes on 3.

    I’m also voting yes on prop 4. I would think that education for parents dealing with their children should be taught before allowing children to get operations such as these without parental consent.

  56. Ted we’re in agreement on 1a and 2 and 3.

    And I understand your point on the slippery slope deal. I do see where you’re coming from, but those of us against Prop 8 have been very adamant in our reply: we’re against pedophilia, incest, etc. I would NOT support laws making those legal and I’m pretty sure that a majority of the most vehement liberals would agree. I really think your fears are unfounded. So … since everyone seems to be against hate (yeah!) can we let “Consenting Adults” be free to do as they please as long as they are not hurting anyone else’s person or property? Can we please keep your religious morals out of it?

    I’ve tried to be civil, and probably crossed the line a few times into being unfriendly, but this is a passionate issue for many of us.

    Oddly, not a single homosexual has chimed in here–but those of us against Prop 8 understand the kind of agony you are going to cause these people. Lots of people. People who have families, homes, pay taxes, are involved in community improvement, and want a lot of the same things you want, who love children and want safety and security just like you and I do. These people do not deserve to have their lives ripped apart. Please find it in your heart to have Christ-like compassion on them. You can hate the sin if you want, but if you love the sinner you will let them stay married. Your legislation will not stop their sin.

  57. Jim,

    This is a nice side of you that I’m glad to be allowed to see. Thank you.

    I do not wish to tear apart families. To the gay people who are already married, would this strip away their license? That doesn’t seem fair since they were legally married to begin with. Kind of like a double jeopardy kind of thing.

    If the legislation is denied, then what can I do but obey the law of the land? I’m glad to have had a voice in the matter even if it’s not the popular voice.

    I will take your wise words of advice and have Christ-like compassion on them. I will hate the sin, but not the sinner.

    There are ripples in a pond that have a reaction to the initial dropping of the stone… I hope you are correct that my fears will not be realized (in the form of forcing Christians and Jews to believe as the government has told them to. To be stripped of the authority to teach my morality to my children, and not have the government be the provider of moral education forcibly to my daughter.)

    Christians have long been persecuted for their beliefs. Christians have also persecuted. Christians are humans who have a right to their beliefs but should not persecute outside of the law. Does that make sense?

    I’m saying that the political system as we enjoy allows for us to vote for our beliefs, and that it should never be taken away from us. If the law of the land changes, then you can legally challenge the law (as the supreme court justices did in the case of homosexual marriage).

    All within the law should be tolerated and encouraged so that a flow of ideas is not stifled and that religious and personal freedoms are protected.

    So instead of keeping religious morals out of it, embrace the idea that we all have the right to our ideas, religious or not. That would make for a much more peaceable society.

  58. Ted, with all due respect, you proved that you don’t really get it in your last sentence. “So instead of keeping religious morals out of it, embrace the idea that we all have the right to our ideas, religious or not. That would make for a much more peaceable society.”

    By keeping your religious morals IN it you are NOT respecting the rights of those who don’t believe as you do. Keeping religion out of it doesn’t force you to do anything you don’t want — you are free to practice your own morality in your own life. But with religious morals IN it restricts others from enjoying their own freedoms.

    Speaking to Prop 8 specificially, it is an attempt to impose your religious morality on everyone. What’s the harm to you if it fails? Nothing. You aren’t forced to marry another man, you are free to continue to think it’s morally wrong and not do it. But if 8 passes, people who DO want to marry their gay lovers won’t be able to. The harm to them is to be prevented from enjoying all the rights in their relationship that you enjoy in yours. They are forced to live like you even though they don’t want to.

    Religious morals should absolutely be kept out of it. Personal freedom should always be paramount. Legislating morality is never fair, because everyone’s morality is different.

  59. No Christian on this thread has yet stated why protecting the institution of marriage is their business. All we have are assertions that marriage is spiritual or religious at its core, and that therefore Christians possess an interest in this matter and are “free to vote their beliefs”.

    In this case, gay marriage for people who are not Christians? Is this okay? Gay atheists marrying in civil ceremonies, okay?

    No, of course not, because this is part of the wider cause of advancing the notion of Christianity as an upholder of “values” and that is fine. The necessary adjunct to that is “what values”? This is where opinions diverge, because the project of a secular society, which is how the US was conceived (not this idiot myth of it being a Christian nation), necessarily permits people to not be dictated to in the matter of how they live their lives by zealots of any stripe, and like it or not, if you want to apply your “morality” then the limits of this application is you and your family, not those who you happen to share a country with.

    Truly, if US Muslims concentrate in sufficient numbers in a city and then vote to institute Sharia Law, we will see how much Christians support the notion of religious beliefs being used as a basis for legislation. Where an atheist or a humanist departs is that we are not hypocrites, we would object, in principle, to any law established in this way, where a person who does not share a belief (and at least believers are still prepared to admit that, that this isn’t truth) is coerced into living as if they do. If Christians don’t want to marry gay people in their churches, then don’t, fine.

    The fact is, there are many more faiths (and people without), so have your enclave where marriage is just for men and women, let that be your right, to administer your organisation as you wish. But to try and prevent The Outside World, the wider world, from pursuing its different destiny, free from the plague of your orthodoxies, please!

    Be tolerant.

    As for this “hating the sin, not the sinner” – this is straight out of a particular morality that is itself simply a position. To me, for instance, there is no such concept as sin, and I am therefore in no way a sinner. If somebody wants to perceive the world in that way, fine, but it does betray an inability to empathise with what is actually going on, ie: that people are simply living their lives. As for the “gay is a choice”, this is just a nonsense, the notion that homosexuality is something that people embark on like a singing career, it is just a necessary squaring of the ludicrous circle required if you believe a big Guy with a beard picked up some mud and breathed life into it, etc.

    The notion that homosexuality is immoral is also absurd, outside of the fact that morality itself evolves. At one point, being a Christian was considered immoral, and Christians were persecuted appropriately. At one point, marriage itself was considered immoral, to take as your own a member of the community (there are rites that support this theory, village elders enjoying the bride on her wedding night, etc). At one point, the law was considered immoral, as it replaced the blood feud, the vendetta. All that is at stake is your own position, your own conscience, your own choice of how you act, as a Christian, at this point in time. History will be the judge, or, if you like, your God, who surely stands outside of time?

    Isn’t God going to be unimpressed that you inflicted your “morality” on the “immoral” as prisoners of the worldview of your time? Won’t it be the atheists, the humanists, etc, who are seen to be right, because we wish to overcome our present situation and genuinely make use of our reason and our commitment to a free and open society to precisely permit people to engage without fear in behaviour that we may not endorse, enjoy, practise, in our own lives.

    This is the same way that an atheist or a humanist, etc, must put up with the idea of a world where Christians go around waving flags and shouting nonsense (the person invoking the Bible as truth, now THAT was funny), it is their right, just as the KKK have their rights, too (see, this is the same tactic as mentioning homosexuals in the same breath as dog-fuckers and peadophiles).

    The basic problem, to summarise, is that Christians posting here perceive their morality as inviolate, rather than as just one more arbitrary table of values, one that has enjoyed a past eminence, but is now just one choice among many, and must learn the hardest lesson of all, to tolerate those who exercise their rights as free citizens to live in another way.

  60. “because we wish to overcome our present situation and genuinely make use of our reason and our commitment to a free and open society to precisely permit people to engage without fear in behaviour that we may not endorse, enjoy, practise, in our own lives.”

    ie: I tolerate Christians in the same way I tolerate homosexuality.

    However, homosexuals don’t run around trying to convert me to being homosexual, tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t own July Garland records, and insist on proclaiming their beliefs primarily via bumper stickers.

  61. “What would Liberace do?”

  62. Wow, really don’t know what to say about all of your incredibly disturbing comments. Evil has been a constant threat all through the ages and continues to this day and probably more so present day. So, all the things you mention that relate to extreme ugliness in history has to do with the age old good verses evil. That will continue til the end my friend. It’s supposed to get worse and people like me be ridiculously ridiculed. I can take it. I don’t even believe the”anything goes” mentality. It doesn’t get people or society’s anywhere. In fact it weakens them. Any culture in time that has been tested by those who push for moving away from God, has never endured. America is not immune from this. The sad thing is, by the time all of these ideologies do us in, there won’t be enough strong people to come save the day and we’ll be flying a different flag.

  63. Kingfelix,

    There is more condescending hatred toward Christians on this blog than I have seen in a long time.

    I am absolutely protected to vote my morality. My religious freedom does not confine me to my family. I’m not sure what country you are referring to where we can’t and don’t legislate morality. We most certainly do.

    It is my business to vote my conscience. It is my duty to God and country to vote my conscience.

    It is those who try to bully their opinions that are at fault. Take your opinions to the poles. Talk about your opinions to your neighbors and on blogs.

    Again with the cussing and the put downs and the belittling of another human beings beliefs. It is a sad thing to witness. I was beginning to feel that we were making progress as fellow Americans and fellow humans on the planet.

    You said that I don’t get it. I beg to differ. It is you who doesn’t understand. I absolutely understand that my opinion is just as valid as yours.

    We all get our opinions from our own search in life and our upbringing and our environment and experiences. Why are yours more superior than mine?

    I trust the God of the Bible. My faith in him is unshakeable. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  64. I wish all of the people on this blog the very best in life. I pray that you find meaning and purpose in your lives and are fulfilled beyond all that you can hope or imagine.

    Thanks for the conversations and the opportunity to have a chance to be heard in a very hostile environment.

    I also pray for health and wisdom and joy! May you have peace and love and righteousness in your lives.


  65. Ted — I’m not saying my opinions are superior to yours, what I’m saying is that mine are not restrictive on others, but yours are.

    I’ll weep bitter tears for your ordeal here later. Just be advised that A) you came in uninvited and asked for everything you got, and B) if you thought this was hostile, then you are a very delicate flower indeed.

  66. churk,

    A lot of opinions are restrictive. You can’t have a society where there are no restrictions. That is anarchy and chaos.

    No need to weep for me. Not that you care, but I’m not hurt and I’m not as delicate as you might think.

  67. The truth is the United States of America is a secular country. Questioning or voting for an electoral candidate based on religious affiliation is a violation of their constitutional rights. This makes the Christian Right and its political activity criminal.

    If the United States is going to elect any one to any office let it be on their ability to perform the duties of the office. As the President Elect has stated indirectly, protecting religious freedom is his responsibility, exercising it is not his mandate.

  68. Ted’s comment – “My religious freedom does not confine me to my family. ”

    My statement – “if you want to apply your “morality” then the limits of this application is you and your family, not those who you happen to share a country with.”

    If you can’t read what I write, then I can’t take seriously your response. I welcome your religious freedom, I would also welcome your religious tolerance. Why should the law reflect your religion? Why should somebody who does not share your beliefs have to comply with legal demands that you have formulated from them?

    Simple questions.

  69. Why do Christians keep going on about hate here? There’s not a hateful word in my post, actually.

    I have no hate for Christians, only for their misguided actions in trying to use the law to shut down the freedoms of other people. It is not enough to invoke your beliefs anymore, we live in an age of reason, the West is secular, the West is culturally diverse. It is about living together, not forever demonising those who dare to differ from you.

    Yes, I hate the sin, not the sinner, to use terminology you are familiar with.

  70. Kingfelix,

    Simple questions, simple answers:

    You’ve said…
    – “if you want to apply your “morality” then the limits of this application is you and your family, not those who you happen to share a country with.”
    — In my interpretation here you are saying my freedom to practice my religion should not be applied to the outside world. I can practice it for myself and my family, but leave the rest of the non believing world out of it. — is that a fair assessment? Or, in your own words, do I not deserve to be taken seriously because I’m not understanding your words?

    I’m sorry but I don’t see another interpretation here. Please explain further if I’m still not seeing it clearly.

    People get their ideas from a complex body of knowledge and experience. Because I call myself a Christian, do you have the right to say that anything “Christian” in thought should not become law for those who are not Christian? -Simple question.

    If Christians are told by their God that it isn’t right to kill, should we not be able to vote in our free society against murder and try to legislate law, even for those who don’t agree?

    Does it change when we are talking about abortion? How about human rights?

    Aren’t we free to try to make the world a better place, the way we think will prosper society, even if you don’t agree with it?

    If I say that you can’t steal from your neighbor or if I say that you can’t rape another human being, I am restricting you from your freedoms to take what you want to – to do what you are feeling at the moment.

    If those things came from an atheist would the ideas seem better to you? Or, perhaps we can look at the ideas themselves and see if it is a positive or negative for the society that we share.

    If I told you little green men told me, would that make the idea less of an option?

    Should you simply banish a way of thinking simply because it is a “religion”. Perhaps you would enjoy a type of “ethnic cleansing” to get rid of those pesky little Christians who are always poking their noses in other peoples business?

    Sounds awfully familiar to me.

    The fact remains that I am free to vote. Period. I can vote for unpopular things. I can vote for ridiculous things. Who’s interpretation of ridiculous should we use?

    Although we all agree that NAMBLA is a terrible, horrible organization. They too have the freedom to vote the way they think will improve society or their own station in life.

    Like it or not, it is the American way. Homosexuals can vote for what they think is better for them and for society. Christians can most certainly do the same.

    Why is it that it is okay to bash Christians? Is it okay to bash homosexuals? How about Jews? Is it okay to bash whites, or blacks or puerto ricans? I say no to all. Let people live and vote how they want. It is the United States of America. Let Freedom ring!

    The people will decide if the ideas are what they want. All of our input is valid. Who are you to say that mine is not valid?

    Where has this country gone when we take away our freedoms to vote our conscience? Should there be a thought police to say “where did that thought come from, it smells of Christianity to me.”

    One day you may see your prejudice as it is. One day you may realize that the pot is calling the kettle black. You may ASSUME that Christians are hateful. You may lack the capacity to honestly love and to ask questions and to try to understand where a Christian is coming from.

    Do you already have derogatory names for Christians? Do you have a burning hatred for those with fish on the back of their cars, or bumper stickers? Check your own heart honestly and see if there are traces of prejudice.

    Some assume that Christians are all the same. The reality is we are as different as everybody else. We have a common desire to be Christ-like and we recognize our own shortcomings.

    We believe in Jesus as the son of God who takes away our sins and reconciles us to the Father, the Creator. After that, we try to live out the best lives that we can, honoring God with our speech and actions and love.

    Love doesn’t mean to love all behavior.

    Some immediately assume that wanting traditional marriage to remain the same is the same thing as hating homosexuals.

    They have the freedom to want marriage for themselves if they think it’s unfair that they don’t. They have a desire to want to be accepted by society as a normal way of life that is not treated with scorn. I understand this.

    I have the right to believe that it is a behavior that is not good for society even if others may think it is good for society. We live in a society together. We make up the society, so we can share ideas.

    I don’t want to discriminate against homosexuals. That’s why the language of the law is so powerful. Who doesn’t want equality? Who doesn’t want freedom as I’m asking for myself?

    The quandary comes when I decide to trust the Bible because I think that God knows more than I do, and I’ve seen that his ways are good and have lived a life that has witnessed that goodness. I on the other hand don’t want to point out a particular type of person (like I’m preaching against you pointing out a particular religion, etc).

    The other quandary comes when we equate a behavior with a race. We want all people to be equal, but our society is full of laws that don’t make all behaviors equal.

    We mix these two thoughts and mush it all together and it becomes fuzzy.

    So it remains that I believe that we all have the freedom to vote our conscience and let the chips fall where they may. These things have a way of working themselves out in the end.

  71. grant,

    You said… “The truth is the United States of America is a secular country. Questioning or voting for an electoral candidate based on religious affiliation is a violation of their constitutional rights. This makes the Christian Right and its political activity criminal.”

    I’m not sure that you understand this correctly. There are some people who vote because they like the persons name better. Some vote because the person is their same religion (and they are familiar with that religion and feel comfortable voting for a person because of that).

    The point is that we all have our reasons. Where do we get our information? The internet, the speeches, the papers… We don’t really know these people, so we make up our minds in a complex way. None of which is criminal.

  72. Kingfelix,

    You’ve written… “I have no hate for Christians, only for their misguided actions in trying to use the law to shut down the freedoms of other people. It is not enough to invoke your beliefs anymore, we live in an age of reason, the West is secular, the West is culturally diverse. It is about living together, not forever demonising those who dare to differ from you.”

    Okay, really simple… If tolerance is allowing all ideas to exist and one of those ideas says that there is only one way, how do those coexist?

    It is like the Greeks and Romans…. There were tributes to all kinds of Gods. There was even a tribute to an unknown God! One God says I am the only way to heaven. Another says there are many ways to heaven. A tolerant society now has choices. They are all tolerant of each other allowing them to coexist, but they are very different viewpoints.

  73. Poor delicate little flower. Any resistance to his way of thinking is labeled hatred. Any questioning of his beliefs is labeled bashing. Anything other than outright agreement hurts his widdle feewings.

    Ted. We understand what you’re saying: you think we’re wrong. Well, we think you’re wrong. The difference is, our wrong doesn’t hurt anyone. Yours does.

    I refer you once again to my first post in this thread, the one where I talked about how hypocritical and judgmental you Christians are, and how blind you are to your failings. That opinion still stands, and you are embodying it.

    And because I like quoting great minds, here’s what I said specifically to you in a subsequent comment, when I was trying to have an actual conversation with you…

    This is where the argument breaks down for you people. You cling so tightly to your beliefs that logic cannot penetrate. That’s why debating virtually anything with someone who argues from a position of faith is a waste of time — you cannot be swayed by facts, convincing arguments, not even bribery. It always boils down to “well, this is what I believe.”

    But consider this: You believe gays choose that life because there’s no evidence that they are born that way. You must mean “scientific” evidence, studies and whatnot, since you discount the empirical evidence. So show me the scientific proof that God exists.”

    I’d still like you to answer that final question, “show me proof of God.” Otherwise, I’d like you to stfu.

  74. Churk,

    You said “Poor delicate little flower. Any resistance to his way of thinking is labeled hatred. Any questioning of his beliefs is labeled bashing. Anything other than outright agreement hurts his widdle feewings.”

    Isn’t this the argument that you say to Christians who want marriage to remain as it always has? Don’t you say that any resistance to that is hatred? Don’t you call it homo-phobic?

    So classic.

  75. Churk,

    Looks like you are the one who appears to be so delicate. Not that delicate is a bad thing.

    If you can’t understand by now, either you haven’t really taken the time to read my posts, or we have to agree to disagree.

    Whether there is proof of God or not, the belief in God exists. Anyone with that belief is free to vote and act in a way that is legal in that person’s society.

    Very simple.

  76. No Ted, those are my responses to you specifically where you’re whining about how mean we are to “Christians” when we’re talking to YOU. This discussion has NEVER been about your right to vote your conscience, you just keep retreating to that because it’s all you can defend.

    My argument to Christians and anyone else opposed to gay marriage is: Mind your own fucking business.

  77. Ted wrote – “You’ve said…
    – “if you want to apply your “morality” then the limits of this application is you and your family, not those who you happen to share a country with.”
    – In my interpretation here you are saying my freedom to practice my religion should not be applied to the outside world. I can practice it for myself and my family, but leave the rest of the non believing world out of it. — is that a fair assessment? Or, in your own words, do I not deserve to be taken seriously because I’m not understanding your words?”

    – You still don’t quite get it.

    Practice your religion, go hog wild, do what you will.

    My constriction is really the constriction of freedom itself, it is not a prohibition and that’s why you keep confusing yourself.

    If Christians, or anybody else, inspired by a particular moral table of values seek to take away the freedoms of others – eg: the right to have an abortion, the right to marry (marriage is not fundamentally Christian. If anybody wishes to debate this, then you’ll need to show that nobody married before the birth of Christ… you can start with the fact Joseph and Mary were married…) then this is counter to the spirit of the US, which is not a Christian nation (again, another myth). So, Christians may advocate against what they want, but should not be permitted to overturn the laws that have been passed and continually force people into legal limbo (am I married? am I not married?) because, and nobody wants to answer this – Why should Christians enforce their own morality on others via statute?

    Have you got it yet? I am advocating a free society where those who threaten that fundamental freedom are constrained, because the free society is more important than ceding to the whims of a section of the citizenry.

  78. The basic formulation is that we note your objections, discount them, and then move on.

  79. Kingfelix,

    Christians and Jews and other people of faith who are citizens of the United States of America can practice that citizenry to the full extent of the law whether you or anyone else likes it.

    It’s just a fact. Until you get over that fact, you are the one singling out people of faith as doing wrong.

    We could debate the Christian values that founded this country, believe me there is more than enough evidence for this and we could fill up these pages with some great quotes and concepts from the founding fathers if you really want to. I’m game if you are.

    You seem to be going around in circles even though the answers that I give you are as clear as I feel that I can make them. I’m sorry if I’m not clear enough, I’m not perfect and am not the best writer.

    I don’t want to anger you or put you down and I’m beginning to feel that what we had going is now tiring and to the point where you just want to move on.

    Someone said, maybe it was churk, that I want you all to think that I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s too bad that it has to come to that after all the explanations, but such is life. Perhaps others on this blog got something out of our discussions.

    Just understanding one another is a good start.

    I don’t think you are wrong. I think you are entitled to your opinion. I’m fighting for my right and all Christian’s rights to have our opinion even if it is based in religion. All opinions are based on something.

    You say you are advocating a free society, but it is not really free if the citizens are not allowed to vote and take part in an exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are based in religion.

    You said, “…nobody wants to answer this – Why should Christians enforce their own morality on others via statute?”

    I’ve answered this many times but will be happy to answer it again.

    Moral laws are legislated all the time. If there is no moral right and wrong then you live with relativism. Be careful what you wish for because relativism can be dangerous.

    You figure that as long as people are as sane as you are that relativism should be fine, but someone could decide they want your car, your house, your wife, your children. They could decide to do horrible things to you or your property because perhaps they were in need, or they really wanted to…

    So when laws are passed there is always a moral right and wrong behind it, even if it’s hidden deep down.

    A person making a law enforces their own morality on all the people that the law effects. If that person is atheist, does that make the law better? It’s now an atheist legislating her or his morality on others.

    Just because a Christian wants a law doesn’t make it so. The people have to approve it and judge it on it’s own merits.

    Some people who aren’t Christian actually like some Christian concepts, is that new to you?

    You also said ” Have you got it yet? I am advocating a free society where those who threaten that fundamental freedom are constrained, because the free society is more important than ceding to the whims of a section of the citizenry.”

    I understand what you are saying. You are saying that in order to be truly free you have to have a society with no ideas that would constrain another of their fundamental rights and freedoms.

    In order to have this, you would not be able to tell people what to do because it would stifle their freedom and right to do as they please.

    You could start out this way, but then you would have to add freedoms FROM things, like violence and theft. Then you would realize that, that isn’t enough so you would have to put restrictions on businesses like monopolies and hiring minorities, and then there would be ethics involved as to the proper ways to handle disputes and then you would have to decide what to do with people who didn’t follow the rules… There would be opinions everywhere and relativism would thrive and you would have a chaotic society. Kind of like we already have.

    You have to include ALL ideas in a free society. You can’t say Jews are out! Down with the Christians! Feed them to the lions! Well you could, it’s been done before.

    Discount my ideas as a fellow brother and human being and move on. That’s your prerogative. Many great thinkers and kind people were treated poorly throughout history.

    I’ll choose the way of Christianity.

    I will continue to pray for everyone on this blog for true happiness and joy of life! I hope that all of these long discussions and transferring of foreign ideas is not too frustrating.

    People argue and fight (married people, friends, co workers, strangers…) all the time. It’s not all bad. We all want to be understood.

    I think I understand your point of view, as I’ve reflected in this last post. I think that it is an impossible point of view because with so many millions of people on the earth, there will always be somebody’s opinion that could be based in a religion. With so many religions it would be hard to come up with laws that wouldn’t reflect their principles.

    To not restrict people of behaviors would be outrageous. Who gets to decide which behaviors to restrict, if not the citizenry? You would have to banish the religious from the citizenry or command them not to practice their beliefs when it comes to legislation.

  80. churk,

    You can say mind your own business all day long and twice on Sunday if you like. That’s your freedom. I have the same freedom to vote for traditional marriage if I want to. If you don’t like it, start a dictatorship or move to a country where the people don’t have a voice.

    I think it’s funny and sad the language that you choose to use and the anger you choose to direct to me. I also feel responsible so I apologize.

    If you are angry at a Christian like me, you are angered quite easily I’m sure. I’m the least of your problems. There are plenty out there that will picket your abortion clinics, get violent, spew venom and hurtful words to get their point across.

    I don’t condone that, but as I’ve said before, people have the right to act what they believe, within the law. I’ve also pointed out that Christians are all different people with different backgrounds and experiences. We may have a common bond, but our actions are manifested as differently as snowflakes, because we are all individuals.

    I can take your words, let them fly. It doesn’t make your point any clearer, but if it helps you release your anger, go for it.

    May God bless you and give you comfort and peace in your heart for the rest of your life. May you enjoy a long happy life with lots of loved ones and friendships that are meaningful.

    I would love for you to know the living God and find the true Jesus of the Bible, but if that is never an option for you in your life, for whatever reason, I hope you find something similar that can bring you happiness.

  81. Maybe we can talk about something that we have in common? Do you like the NBA or the NFL?

  82. Churk:

    Might as well just give up on debating with ol’ Ted, whoever he is. It’s like trying to have a conversation with a Cocker Spaniel.

    He obviously means well, even though he’s not equipped mentally to communicate beyond the level of grunts and Bible verses, so I suggest just giving him a tablespoon of peanut butter and let him focus on the process of trying to get it off the roof of his snout.

    That always makes for a funny YouTube video, anyway.

    * * *

  83. I don’t remember grunting, and I don’t remember writing any Bible verses, but I do like peanut butter!

    Come on, we can lighten up a little. 🙂

    In regards to a Cocker Spaniel, I wish I really was more like one in regards to its loyalty, faith/trust, courage, forgiveness, love, light heartedness and playfulness. Dogs are awesome, my favorite of all animals.

    Do we have anything in common? Do you like U2, Elvis Costello, Dave Matthews, Jet, The Killers, The Beatles, The Raconteurs, Ben Folds, Ben Kweller?

    Maybe we could have common ground with a love of Italian food? SNL? Fantasy Sports? Surfing?
    Playing pool, going bowling, basketball, flag football?

    Anyway, I sincerely appreciate your passion for justice and I believe that you mean well for society. I don’t necessarily want a carbon copy of myself running around all over the place. I love diversity. Love different cultures, and foods and ideas.

    That’s what makes this country great in my opinion. A true melting pot of people and ideas coming together for a common goal. Sure it is flawed and there isn’t a perfect system, but I don’t want to live anywhere else, do you?

    We overcome injustices and prejudices even if it takes some time.

    I would suggest trusting in the God of the Bible wholeheartedly and without reservation and see what happens.

    If you don’t, then try to value human and all life and believe in something greater than yourself (so that you are not your own God). Serve others and not yourself. Surround yourself with loved ones and treat people with respect wherever you go and whatever their station in life. Be humble and listen to someone’s heart not just their words.

    P.S. I do like those funny YouTube videos so maybe that’s where we have something in common! :o)

  84. Ted,

    I think we have a partial understanding, but where we’re not communicating with is this: you say that having a law against murder is a moral law. Indeed it is! But that morality is based on a *humanistic* code of ethics as laid out by Immanuel Kant–not Jesus. In other words, laws should be primarily limited to things that harm another’s person or property. The saying goes, “Your rights end were my nose begins.”

    For you to say that laws against murder therefore justify laws against homosexuality because both are “moral laws” is horribly wrong. One can be justified by using secular reasoning, and the other one can’t–you MUST use religious reasoning to outlaw homosexuality, or marriage of gays, or whatever. When your argument MUST use religious reasoning–you need to toss the argument. Because one day Ted (and this I promise) if we keep making laws on that basis, and we wait long enough, you or your kin will be legislated against. One day white Christian straight folks who love Jesus will have some law that singles THEM out. And it will be done for some irrational religious reason. How will you feel then?

    “Allah has deemed that infidels must be stoned–so get over here.” <— imagine those words. Now imagine how Homosexuals feel at finding out that their marriage is no longer valid.

    But otherwise, you are right that there are MANY laws that have been made on the basis of some random morality (i.e. marijuana). I would bet that everyone arguing on the secular side of the argument thinks that marijuana should be legal, because those laws are based on some random morality as well.

    Anyway … are we sick of this debate yet? I sure as hell am! LOL

    Prop 8 won, but it will be struck down by the Supreme Court if they stick with their precedence.

  85. “You could start out this way, but then you would have to add freedoms FROM things, like violence and theft.”

    Yes, and freedom from religion, too, as the separation of church and state was intended to do.

    I appreciate that a morality is at work, I just prefer this morality to be permitted to evolve, something that is hampered by Christian zealots who won’t accept new laws and use all kinds of illegal fundraising methods in CA to pass Prop8 and throw a bunch of people’s marriage licenses down the toilet.

    By what right do they assert that their morality is superior? What is the interest in this matter for Christians? This has still not been answered, no matter how many times I request for a basic answer on why Christians should rewrite the laws to roll back freedoms won by others. Why do Christians in this case require gay people to be less free and have less rights?

    As for relativism, please, do you really want to go there? Morals evolve. Again, you are postulating somehow, what? That Christian contains immutable values? Okay, state any of these absolute values and I will show you its evolution from immorality. You just don’t grasp that this is a world in flux and that nobody but busybody Christians really gives two shits about what consenting adults choose to do to/with each other.

    How does focusing on something as minor as same-sex marriage rights square with the Christian mission for the world? Couldn’t these people be sending some $$$ to Africa instead of trying to derail the harmony that dwells in otherwise ordinary gay suburban lives in CA?

    If such vindictiveness was happening under any other banner than religion, people would be absolutely appalled (I am, regardless), but that’s because people don’t expect anything better from Christian conservatives.


    Also, I appreciate many of your points, although your writing five enormous comments in a row etc habit is indicative of something or other not altogether wholesome and unconducive to any reasonable sort of discourse.

  86. “Christians and Jews and other people of faith who are citizens of the United States of America can practice that citizenry to the full extent of the law whether you or anyone else likes it.

    It’s just a fact. Until you get over that fact, you are the one singling out people of faith as doing wrong.”

    You’re just so fucking thick, it’s unbelievable. It is not that I am singling out people of faith as doing wrong, it’s that ONLY PEOPLE OF FAITH are perpetrating THIS PARTICULAR WRONG. And they are doing it out of the one thing they profess to abhor, HATRED, HATRED of Gay People because they stick it in each other’s asses or lick each other’s pussies and enjoy it and what if Jr becomes one of these, or holy shit, what if I am one of these?

    Every man should try sucking a dick or having a man suck their dick. It’s nothing particularly special, it’s nothing wild. Equally, why shouldn’t a couple of women break out strapon dongs and while away an evening, maybe when their husbands are out of town (hunting holiday, ie: sucking each other’s dicks in a log cabin someplace).

    Well, whatever. The point is, what’s there to be upset about? Right now, there are a million other problems the world faces and this is just something that is clearly all about Christian guilt and shame at the human body and the various (their words) sins it is capable of. Well, I prefer to simply see it as the great carnival of our being here on Earth, and that every possible combination, every possible abomination, will happen, as it has since the very beginning of time. It’s life, and when you’re not pouting over gay people wearing rings and holding hands and kissing in public, it can really be quite a hoot.

  87. You know, why didn’t God just not give men assholes or forget about creating sex organs or the sexes all together. We could reproduce like tomatoes…

  88. Because if we could — I would have had a million children by now! 🙂

  89. Hi Jim,

    Nice to hear from you again.

    You’ve written… “I think we have a partial understanding, but where we’re not communicating with is this: you say that having a law against murder is a moral law. Indeed it is! But that morality is based on a *humanistic* code of ethics as laid out by Immanuel Kant–not Jesus. In other words, laws should be primarily limited to things that harm another’s person or property. The saying goes, “Your rights end were my nose begins.”

    The 18th century German philosopher may be old, but he isn’t older than the 10 commandments. I have a right to defend myself. I have a right to kill in self defense and in war. The society kills via corporal punishment.

    Laws prevent children from having sex. They prevent people under 21 to drink alcohol. They prohibit the cruel treatment of animals.

    What about the example of a law restricting pornography in public places? How about laws against slander?

    We restrict men from entering women’s bathrooms and vice versa.

    Regardless of who was first to say anything, philosophies that follow may retain the same morals.

    You could say that about all morals. That’s not uniquely __________ (fill in the blank) because such and such wrote about that in this and that.

    Then you said, “or you to say that laws against murder therefore justify laws against homosexuality because both are “moral laws” is horribly wrong. One can be justified by using secular reasoning, and the other one can’t–you MUST use religious reasoning to outlaw homosexuality, or marriage of gays, or whatever. When your argument MUST use religious reasoning–you need to toss the argument”

    So the point that you are making is that if you can use secular reasoning it is okay to do so, but if you use religion it isn’t? Okay.

    Not all people who want marriage to remain one man and one woman are Christian. I’m sure a high percentage were, but definitely not all. I think they attributed the proposition passing to Latinos and Blacks, not to Christians.

    People use secular reasoning in terms of natural law and biology. A man and a man were not designed to be sexual. You can look at this from a pure biological and natural point of view.

    I thought you said that there are biological factors and natural factors for someone to be gay. They may say they were born that way, but an adults mind cannot really know. By the time they have a memory there could have already been natural factors that have influenced sexual behaviors like rape, abuse, incest…

    Isn’t society based on the family (because we all have to be born into a family and it takes a man and a woman to make a baby)?

    Having homosexual families splits the family unit and takes it to a different place. All children in these new families will be without a mommy or a daddy. I’m not sure that is the best way to raise children. You would have to ask a psychologist about that one.

    Marriage will be seen as superfluous. Imagine society granting marriage licenses to any union that met the conditions of a committed friendship and ask yourself how long marriage can survive as an institution.

    Marriage is not just about more intimacy. It is about merging with one’s sexual other half or counterpart, a complementary sexual other. I think that the arena of casual sex and easy sex language and imagery on television and in print also contribute.

    I quickly looked up some information and found… “Homosexual practices have some negative health related side effects like a disproportionately high rate of sexually transmitted disease, mental health problems, and shortened life expectancy. ”

    I didn’t know that.

    Also I found this: Approving homosexual behavior will also contribute to the gender identity confusion of adolescents and, by virtue of denying any significance or value to male-female differences, will bring about the decline of gender norms.”

    I don’t have all the answers or the time to really look up what I should. Although, I believe that we should all really make the time because it is a serious and grave situation for all involved.

    Like I said before, I’m not the perfect person. I’m trusting in a God that I believe knows more than I do.

    I’m glad that I can voice my opinions in a free society and that they are taken seriously, not discounted because of the color of my skin or the religion I embrace.

  90. Ted says, “Marriage is not just about more intimacy. It is about merging with one’s sexual other half or counterpart, a complementary sexual other.” Let’s ignore the fact that Prop 8 isn’t about that at all and let’s focus on the fact that that description would apply to ANY marriage — straight, gay, NAMBLA, whatever. Proof positive that he’s talking out of his sanctimonious ass.

    Ted, your opinions are NOT taken seriously here, they are discounted specifically because of the religion you try to force on others.

    With that, I’m out. Ted’s not really trying to have a discussion, he’s trying to get our goat, get a rise out of us. I’m not wasting any more time on him.

  91. Thanks for the discussion gentlemen. I know it can get heated. I know you think horribly of me and my opinions and my religion.

    I’m in no means preaching to the choir when I talk here, and I know I came uninvited.

    For those of you who showed me respect and patience and honor as a fellow human sharing the planet with you, thank you.

    For those who didn’t, that’s life.

    I’m glad Proposition 2 passed!

    I’m happy for the political process and the right to BLOG!

    Thanks for the theatrics and the verbal gymnastics- to borrow from Elvis Costello.

    On to happier subjects and friendly environments.



  92. Man, that was like the Mad Hatter’s tea party crossed with the 700 club.

    Did I drop acid and wander into a Christian bookstore or something?

    * * *

  93. i think it is interesting the ted makes a point based on logic and reason and then attacks him personally saying he is talking out of his sanctimonius ass and that his opinion was not taken seriously.

    why is that churk? is that because he doesn’t agree with you. i found that if any presents an argument that is based on reasoning, moral logic and yes a Christian worldview that people get incensed and start attacking saying they ie. a “sanctimonius ass’.

    Prop 8 was about equal protection and rights and then the Mormon church expresses their rights legally and constitutionally and a militant gay faction harrasses them and defaces their property here in Ca.

    I think it is ironic that the gay movement talks about tolerance, until someone disagrees with them especially for religious reasons. I know there is a deep seated sense of rejection by the gay population from feeling rejected/condemned by the church, and the church must take some ownership of that and reach out in new ways.

    But if it is tolerance you are preaching don’t call someone a “sanctimonius ass” if they are honestly expressing their convictions. that is not going to get you anywhere.

    If the gay movement is going to be taken seriously they should come with plausible arguments based on reasoning and science to overturn thousands of years of teaching in society, schools, families and in the church. And they must make a convincing argument that it will be better for society and the very institutions that make up society like marriage and family.

  94. Mike,

    Ted’s points were in no way based on logic or reason. Sorry.

    And Prop 8 may be legal, but it is much the same way that slavery was legal. It is also unconstitutional, and will not last.

    Remember the abolitionists? They were pissed off too, and used angry language too. And the slave South reviled the abolitionists and called them Terrorists, and kept pointing to their angry language. But guess what, their angry language did not make them wrong. And neither does ours.

    Ted moves in and out of being reasonable to being sanctimonious.

    And guess what else, Mike? It’s is NOT the gay movement’s burden to prove why they deserve all the human rights that everyone else does. YOU have the burden of proof to show why they do not! YOU have the burden of proof to invalidate the damage you are doing to 7% of our society by marginalizing them. And you will never ever win that argument. You will always have to resort to religious hokum and mythos and bullshit sanctimony.

  95. Hey Mike
    The Nazis were honestly expressing their convictions too. In fact, so were the 9/11 hijackers.

    Anybody who could read Ted’s ramblings and somehow come away with ‘points based in logic and reason’ must surely be a fascinating individual, worthy of anthropological study as a potentially undiscovered lifeform. Ted seems like a nice guy and all, but he is confused and his arguments are conflicting and nonsensical.

    You talk about ‘irony’ and then you go and say that Prop 8 was about ‘equal protection and rights’, which just illustrates that you are as confused on the issue as Ted. Prop 8 was about TAKING AWAY rights. it was about making people with a sexual orientation different from yours UNEQUAL in the eyes of the law. Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?

    It’s bad enough when you argue that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and it’s bad enough when you use the circular reasoning of your religion to justify it. But then you try to cloak it in Orwellian doublespeak and claim it’s somehow YOUR rights that are being violated by the mere EXISTENCE of gays and their desire to have equality under the law. That’s just plain unfathomable, man.

    ‘Tolerance’ doesn’t mean I ‘tolerate’ your right to punch me in the face. TOLERANCE means that, even if you don’t like my face, you have to TOLERATE it and avoid PUNCHING it. If you DO decide to punch it, even as a well-funded collective group that manages to put my right to a damage-free face up to a majority vote, you are violating my rights, period, and I will sue your sanctimonious ass. And I will win, regardless of the vote. The vote was illegal, and thus null and void.

    Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but that entitlement STOPS when it results in actions that deny people rights equal to your own. That should be a simple concept to get, but somehow y’all just can’t seem to understand it.

    Oh, and by the way, ‘The Mormon Church’ doesn’t have any rights. Only PEOPLE have rights, NOT organizations. The PEOPLE of The Mormon Church can collectively decide that THEIR institution won’t perform gay marriages, and their religious freedom will be protected by the Constitution of the United States. But they cannot extend that ‘protection’ outside of their organization to ‘protect’ them from gays BEING ALLOWED to get married elsewhere. No organization, including The Mormon Church, has any business (or right) ‘expressing’ itself by using its power (money) to push an agenda that steamrolls over the rights of individuals. If The Mormon Church decided to fund an initiative that said Mike A was no longer allowed to post comments online because they didn’t agree with his opinions, then I would be just as against them for it. And if a 51% majority of citizens agreed with them, and tried to deny Mike A the right to free speech, they wouldn’t have the RIGHT to do that, because you can’t put individual liberties up to a vote.

    Why is that so difficult to comprehend, Mike? Ted?

    I can ask all day what business it is of yours, and WHY YOU EVEN CARE who other people marry or what they do in bed and with whom. I can wonder why it’s such a big deal to you, and why you somehow think that anybody else’s marriage has anything to do with you. I know I have enough on my plate just worrying about MY life and dealing with MY relationships and such; I am baffled as to why you even have the energy or give a shit about other people’s personal lives.

    But none of that is even the issue. The issue is plain and simple. It’s not complicated; it’s not difficult to understand. The issue is that no person or group of persons, no matter what their beliefs or how well-funded they are, can legislate away another person’s equality. That has already been proven in the courts time and again, and it will be proven this time too. All that Mormon money will have been wasted, because this will be fought all the way to the US Supreme Court, and Prop 8 WILL be ruled unconstitutional, however long it takes. Bet on it.

    * * *

  96. Hey guys,

    I thought I was done, but came back to see if there was any activity and thought I would put in my 2 ¢ again. I hope you don’t mind.

    I understand what you are saying about denying someone’s right to marry. It does make sense. I understand the idea behind the slavery analogy also. However, there is a line that society, and even you draw when it comes to this, correct?

    The same logic applies to a father marrying his son. and a daughter marrying his father or mother.

    The daughter and the son could be adults so that you can get that out of the way. They are consenting adults.

    There is no harm. They don’t have to have children. They just want to love and be loved and treated equally like anyone else and have the right to marry.

    Don’t say there are already laws against that, because those laws would be unethical and wrong according to your standard.

    The exact same logic would apply if to numerous people in a group marriage. Group marriage would change what the family looks like. They could all be consenting adults that do no harm. They would have an equal chance to contribute to society in a positive way.

    They would want to change the definition of what we all understand is marriage.

    I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, so please bear with me and have patience. Is this not the same thing? Let’s just have a normal, honest discussion if possible.

  97. Ted, I hear what you’re saying. And I appreciate your lack of antagonistic intent. The only problem is, we keep debunking your examples and you keep bringing them back anyway.

    I’m not sure where you get your obsession with the whole ‘father marrying his kid’ thing. Seems kinda creepy to me that you are so focused on that. Is there a movement I am not aware of? Are their millions of fathers and daughters clamoring to marry each other? If so, this is news to me.

    IF such a movement were to appear, and if those people — all adults — wanted to change the incest laws and be allowed to get married, then I guess they would have to make their case and we’d have to cross that bridge when we came to it. Incest laws exist for 2 reasons: 1) to protect CHILDREN from sick, predatory adults in their families ; and 2) to address the issue of genetic entropy that results from inbreeding. So those issues, both valid, would have to be addressed. What would NOT be relevant, however, even though this will drive you and other religious types CRAZY, is the ‘morality’ of it. If for some reason I don’t understand, an adult and their adult offspring decided they were in love and wanted to get married, the only issue would be the danger of their children being genetically deficient.

    In fact, if you REALLY want to get into the nitty-gritty of it all, re-read your Old Testament. It’s filled with men sleeping with their daughters, brothers sleeping with sisters, and such — and none of it is even condemned. That’s because incest was a normal part of many of the cultures of that time. I don’t know if any of them ever got married per se, but I don’t see why that couldn’t easily have happened. Men had as many wives and concubines as they could afford; it was the fashion of the day and considered completely moral, as was, evidently, sleeping with their kids and siblings. These practices even continue through the present day in some cultures, and we can be judgmental of them if we wish, but they can claim that our morality is relatively new, whereas theirs goes back thousands of years.

    In fact, when you say ‘change the definition of what we all understand is marriage’, I have to laugh. Because marriage, like everything else, has changed drastically over the centuries. At one time, marriage was all about commerce. A female child, as is still the case in some parts of the world, was considered a liability because women weren’t allowed to work and help support the family. So she was sold off to a man, and the two families joined forces, through complicated webs of traditions that were all about property rights and such. It was rare that this was a love match; it was usually arranged by the girl’s family to their best financial advantage, and the more attractive she was (and the better she could cook and clean and the more she was healthy and built for reproduction), the more likely the family could better themselves by finding a rich family to buy their way into, using the girl (and often a dowry) as capital. Hopefully male heirs were produced who could work and attain power. If offspring were female, the cycle of selling them to the highest bidder started again. Does this sound like the typical American marriage of today, that you are so intent on protecting?

    Marriage all over the world is and has always been made up of very different rules, traditions, practices and definitions. And the ritual of marriage, like all things, has undergone a zillion changes and complete transformations since its inception. There is no One Sacred Universal Form of marriage, and there never has been. It has been in constant flux and change…forever.

    OK, back to the ‘slippery slope’ thing.

    I mentioned the Old Testament. I know that Christians have a tendency to cherry-pick the Old Testament and, when they find something that seems at odds with their beliefs, they toss up the argument that the New Testament supposedly changed everything.

    OK, so regarding incest and polygamy and other OT practices that WE happen to find unsavory, it’s common to claim that the New Testament somehow magically put a stop to all those age-old practices, right? But given what we know about real history, the only thing that changed with the New Testament is that they stopped TALKING about that stuff in the Bible. The Roman Empire was rife with such practices until Christianity took over much later and started retroactively rewriting history and legislating its newfound morality (but we all know that just because authorities make something illegal doesn’t make it stop). Christianity’s War on Sex was about as effective as America’s War on Drugs. Probably even LESS effective.

    I’m not arguing for incest or even polygamy; just once again questioning your strange ‘slippery slope’ theory. There is homosexuality, there is incest, there is bestiality, and there are all sorts of other variations on sexual behavior, some of which would make us all nauseous — and here’s the key — THEY HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. Some of them were even considered normal parts of life at various times in history. But NONE OF THESE THINGS HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER. One does not lead to the other. Letting gay people get married isn’t likely to lead to people wanting to marry their children — but if it does, then we will address that issue THEN. If you’re going to start prohibiting things because they MIGHT inspire other people to do OTHER things, well, where the hell does THAT end? We might as well outlaw STRAIGHT marriage, because apparently it inspired gay people to ALSO want to get married. Ooooh, there’s your slippery slope! Straight marriage led to gay marriage, so gay marriage will lead to people marrying chickens and couches. OH MY GOD! WE MUST MAKE IT STOP!

    The only sure way, then, to make sure that future deviants don’t come up with something even scarier to you, is to outlaw marriage altogether. In fact, we should outlaw attraction, because it could LEAD to marriage. And just to make sure, we should make all the women (and maybe the prettier men like, say, Johnny Depp) wear big, shapeless, black, head-to-toe coverings so men don’t find themselves attracted to them. Yeah, that’s what we need to do. Sounds familiar, though…maybe it’s been done someplace already…hmmm…

    * * *

  98. I love that the Mormon church funded an initiative limiting marriage to “ONE man and ONE woman.” Too funny.

  99. please read the link at the bottom to see all the rights gay couples have as “registered domestic partners”. i wrote this email for another purpose but I think you get the point. the bottom line is those who are arguing that marriage should be allowed for gay people because it is their right. at the crux of that argument is that they had no choice and so you put sexual orientation on a par with race or gender, something which no society has ever done. you make it look like everybody who doesn’t agree with you has their head in the sand and are living in the dark ages if they uphold a traditional view of marriage between a man and woman as best for society.

    when someone infringes on a view of marriage bri that is contrary to what I think is good for society for my kids and grandkids it does affect me. you are arguing a point that says if it doesn’t affect me I don’t really care. i am saying what is good for society and has been proven to uphold the fabric of society is important for me and to fight for what is right. the agenda behind this tries to intimidate people making them look like an idiot for making arguments based on biblical truth.

    secondly if I truly love a gay person and think what they are doing it is wrong, the truly loving thing is not to say live and let live but to speak the truth in love. you are arguing for a society where if someone is sincere and get can 50% of the vote that should change the law.

    if the whole society started saying it is okay for a man to have sex with his dog, because they are committed to each other. we should we not challenge their rights because of the affect on society. you would probably say that is an absurd argument because it is so offensive to you.

    the bottom line is you say it is an equal right because you would argue the are born with this orientation and have no choice. how do you argue with the thousands of those who have gone to groups like “overcomers” and are now happily married. do you want me to post all the testimonies.

    i heard so much in the conversation about prop 8 about equal treatment and right for gay couples and how discriminated they are with current law. i knew they already had many rights in ca, but i didn’t know what that exactly consisted of. i found this doc on the internet which summarizes the rights that have already been legislated over the past 8 years, it also gives a history of legislative action on behalf of domestic partners since 2000. if you read through this IRS doc you will see they have almost all of the rights of married couples. the ca. state return even has a category for registered domestic partner along with married on the tax form. Also there are medical visitation rights, estate/inheritance rights, also state and local employers provide employee benefits and many other property right etc… there is more but i’ll stop there..

    it is funny that there was hardly any mention of these rights during the recent debate about Prop 8. As we go forward and even in our future talks about this issue in the ELCA, I thought it would be helpful to know about this document. but it seems calling it a gay domestic partnership doesn’t go far enough, unless it is put on a par with marriage as we have known it for thousands of years between a man and a woman, they will say they are being discriminated under the equal protection clause in the constitution. Ie. making gay orientation the same as race or gender.

  100. “if the whole society started saying it is okay for a man to have sex with his dog, because they are committed to each other.”

    This says it all, arguing by sick analogy.

    Better to have a cock in your ass than your own head stuck there.

  101. Mike, “Argumentum ad absurdum” really is fallacious reasoning. The dog-marriage thing is not what we are arguing here, as it would be harmful to dogs.

    But your second point, which deconstructs marriage, is a much more valid argument. I think your point is “hey, Gay people can still get all the equal protection and benefits under the law that straight people can, so why is everyone so upset?”

    Well, it’s still bad.

    If I legislated against all white people using lace-up shoes, then told them it was legal since slip-ons were still available, that would be unconstitutional.

    And so is Prop 8.

  102. Fallacious – that sounds drrrty.

    The only thing I can’t abide by is whenever the ‘progressive,’ side of a controversial event like this eventually loses, they take it out on the general populous. Sure, they’re not overturning cars and burning dumpsters, but their idea of justice is if they lose, to piss and moan until they get their way. To stop traffic or cause a ‘peaceful disturbance’ just makes ’em look silly. I have stated numerous times that gay marriage doesn’t bother me. I’m not in California, so I didn’t have to vote on it, but I knew months ago that if Prop 8 passed, there would be massive protests.


    Look, I’m with you guys on this, but for God’s sake, take the loss and move on. Change it next time. That’s how our system works. I’m looking forward to 2012, but in the meantime I have no wounds to lick, and I’ll be fine until *I* can affect change by voting once again. That’s as far as I’m willing to go to make my statement on any given candidate/amendment. I suggest we all move on.

    Jim – what did you think of Obama’s acceptance speech? Especially how it ended – the ‘God’ stuff. You were the first one I thought of 🙂

  103. …and a P.S. – Bri, I will not kiss you on the lips. I’m not gay – not that there’s anything wrong with that (to wax Seinfeldian). 😉

  104. Hey Todd-o, I ain’t gay either. In fact, I’m currently in the process of moving 800 miles away from my beloved city to be with my even more beloved girlfriend. If I were gay, I’d get to stay home. 😉

    Anyway, in response to your message about ‘just moving on’, well, if a majority of Colorado citizens decided you had to give up your wife, would you just say ‘oh well’ and move on? Would you expect your friends to ‘move on’ or to back you up?

    As much as I give you shit on here, I know you’re a good guy and I’m pretty sure we’d agree on more things than we disagree on — after all, we just expose one tiny facet of ourselves when we post — and usually it’s only in relation to a single topic or three. It gets heated because it’s safe and we can throw a fit if we want; we’re a zillion miles away from each other, sitting in front of glowing glass. If we were sitting in a cafe somewhere, we might still disagree but we’d either laugh about it or change the subject. Ya know?

    So I just want to throw this at you:
    E M P A T H Y.

    It’s a thing that is by nature often absent from anonymous blog exchanges, or at least it appears to be, because people show the selves they want to show, maybe even just in that moment and in that space on that subject. Obviously I am insanely guilty of displaying an abject lack of it in some cases, and I fully admit it. Sometimes I’m just being ornery on purpose; other times it’s an outlet for whatever mood I’m in.

    But true, meaningful empathy is all-important in the real world outside these invisible barriers that separate us.

    If injustice is done, even if it’s by ‘majority vote’, there is nothing more important than empathizing with its victims. As the old saying goes, injustice to one is injustice to all. Does that mean that I demand my own way on every subject? That I’m going to protest in the streets every time my particular viewpoint is rejected by the masses at the ballot box? Not in MY case; I know there are people like that — but they are the rare exception rather than the rule, and it’s TV coverage that gives them more credit than they probably deserve. But true empathy means that when something so obviously unjust is enacted upon any broad group of people, whether I am among them or not, that I do not simply let stand that injustice.

    The only question is: do you feel it is unjust or do you not? If not, then you will be among the masses that accept it; perhaps even revel in its perceived win for your particular ‘morality’. That is what you believe, and therefore I cannot argue with your silence on the matter. Why would you protest something that you believed was right?

    But if it was, to YOU, injustice — and you knew you could oppose it if not actively resist it, would you not? Could you not? Would you at the very least be vigilant on your stance, and hope for a positive reversal?

    If, for example, Christianity were outlawed in the State of Colorado, how long would you stand against the ruling? Would you just watch the churches be shuttered? Would you watch Christians being told to recant? OK…whatever your answer, the key is in THIS question: WHAT IF THEY WERE THE JEWS? And THIS one: what if they were THE MUSLIMS?

    To be honest, I don’t give a rat’s ass about gay marriage. I’m not gay, but I’ve been married, and if gays wanna take on that potential hornet’s nest of traditions, then let ’em have it. Or not.

    The thing is, what I AM is AGAINST the people that are against gay marriage. I am against people who declare themselves against the rights of others that they would normally demand for themselves. I am against people who are categorically against ‘the other’ — whatever their definition of ‘the other’ should be.

    And I will ‘move on’ from that position the day that I die.

    * * *

  105. Todd’s right, it’s all a question of sucking it up, it’s all a matter of style.

    “To stop traffic or cause a ‘peaceful disturbance’ just makes ‘em look silly.”

    Perhaps they could bomb LDS churches the same way abortion clinics were bombed.

  106. Let me provide a visual of this forumn. If Ted were an elderly woman…

    The hate shown herein was immense, and all from the “No on Prop 8” supporters. What place does hate have in society?

  107. Projection, asshole.

    Hmmm, what places does hate have in society? The same place Hagee and Pat Robertson had, inside the right-wing Christian church…

    There was actually little hate on display, but the Christian posters got upset about direct critiques of their, ahem, beliefs.

  108. Why same-sex ‘marriage’ matters
    Marcia Segelstein – OneNewsNow Columnist – 11/18/2008 5:00:00 AM
    Despite the fact that Americans just elected one of the most liberal presidents in history, they also voted to uphold traditional marriage in every state where it was on the ballot.

    Gay activists (and a few Episcopal bishops) would have you believe that votes against gay “marriage” are a result of bigotry, the equivalent of racism or sexism. After all, they argue, what’s wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to publicly proclaim it? Doesn’t the world need more committed love, not less?

    S.T. Karnick, writing in the autumn issue of SALVO magazine, points out that homosexuals may already “marry” in any number of places, under the auspices of any number of organizations. Churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and numerous others “either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex ‘marriages’ or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.”

    No law prevents these religious organizations from conducting such rituals, nor would most Americans expect or want the government to dictate doctrine to churches. But if and when same-sex “marriage” becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals.

    Right now, individuals and corporations may choose to treat same-sex unions the same way they treat traditional marriage, or not. As Karnick writes so succinctly: “This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position.” What’s at issue here is government-enforced recognition that same-sex “marriage” is legally identical to traditional marriage, no matter the individuals’ or institutions’ religious beliefs.

    Government intrusion on religion is what’s at stake.

    Despite what proponents of gay “marriage” argue, there are serious and wide-ranging implications for society by redefining something so fundamental. Already in Canada and Europe, pastors have been threatened with legal challenges as a result of teaching traditional Christian doctrine on marriage. And what about parents who want the right to be the ones teaching morality to their children? Will they have a legal leg to stand on when public schools teach that gay “marriage” is okay? Already, thanks to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), homosexuality is being introduced in schools at younger and younger ages. Just a few days ago, kindergarten students at a California school were given pledge cards produced by GLSEN and asked to sign them to support a “harassment-free school.” Parents protested. But is there a day coming when such protests would bring charges of discrimination, punishable by law?

    “Equality” laws in Great Britain recently forced a Christian adoption agency there out of business. Like a similar case in Massachusetts (where same-sex “marriage” is law), a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Wales can no longer continue its work of placing abandoned and abused children in homes. Why? Based on its Christian beliefs, St. David’s Children sought out only homes with a mother and a father. As one British MP pointed out, there are plenty of other adoption agencies gay couples could have used. The government, because of innocuous-sounding “equality” laws, has essentially told the agency it can no longer base its work on its Roman Catholic tenets because they are, in effect, discriminatory. That is frightening. Exactly who are these laws supposed to be liberating, or for that matter, protecting?

    Visit Marcia Segelstein’s blog — she values your comments and ideas!

    Will it someday be considered hate speech to publicly state what researchers have already determined: that children fare best when raised by their biological father and mother? By sheer common sense, most people realize that basic fact. We’ve seen the damage inflicted on children by divorce, for example, in study after study. The vital role that fathers play in their children’s lives has been well documented, and we know that in households without fathers children statistically don’t fare nearly as well.

    Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, has written extensively about this issue. “Marriage as a universal human idea,” she says, “has deep roots in three enduring truths about human beings everywhere: Sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother.”

    Same-sex couples who have children (by adoption or other means) are automatically removing either a father or a mother from their children’s lives. Of course children from traditional marriages often end up in less than ideal situations because of divorce or the death of a parent. But that doesn’t mean we should impose on a child from the outset a less-than-ideal scenario. Shouldn’t we be aiming for what’s best for children?

    Shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right, and that sexual orientation is a protected class, it also ruled that a Christian doctor who refused to inseminate a lesbian couple should face legal consequences. My Roman Catholic obstetrician does not perform abortions, presumably for religious reasons. The state cannot force him to do so. It is his choice. But soon, given the fact that same-sex “marriage” has just been made legal in my home state of Connecticut, he may be forced to act against his religious beliefs when it comes to same-sex couples, or face legal consequences like the doctor in California.

    What’s at risk in this fight is not the civil rights of homosexuals. What’s at risk is religious freedom for every American. That and the not-so-small problem of undermining what has been for centuries the very foundation of society.

    After ten years as a producer for CBS News, forty-something years as an Episcopalian, and fifteen years as a mother, Marcia Segelstein ( considers herself a reluctant rebel against the mainstream media, the Episcopal Church (and others which make up the rules instead of obeying them), and the decaying culture her children witness every day. Her pieces have been published in “First Things,” “Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity,” and “BreakpointOnline,” and she is a contributing editor for Salvo magazine.

  109. As much as I would like to not reply, I must.

    Ted, these are a continuation of the same, vapid arguments, and in fact better FOR the legalization of gay marriage.

    First, by pointing to studies that children fare better with a father and mother is an utterly spurious conclusion. It should otherwise be stated that children do better with TWO parents. Well duh. And also … uhh … homosexual marriage usually don’t produce children. So why the fuss?

    And the whole bit about “we need babies” is profoundly ridiculous. First of all–look around–we have no shortage of babies. Secondly, that argument presumes that by educating children about homosexuality that they will all start opting for it and OH MY GOD the human race will slowly die out because all the gay sex will not produce any children.

    Again, the argument is as thin as rice paper against the charging linebacker of reality.

    On the other hand, the blogger deduces that when Prop 8 is legal–our State government will actually be *dictating* doctrine to churches. HA! How do you like them apples, churches? You’ve now turned over the interpretation of your inerrant word of God to an ostensibly secular governing body. Oops. What a bad precedent, because since you rely on slippery-slope alarmism, our future generations of government will surely mandate that the eucharist be comprised of ACTUAL human flesh, and that baptism be done in pools of hydrochloric acid. You set the precedent by turning your doctrine over to the government, Ted. You’re going to have to live with it now.

  110. These are huge issues and they are great to discuss!

    I just posted someone else’s thoughts since it was in the newspaper publicly anyway. I’ve already spoken my heart on the issue. I’m now just bringing other’s ideas into it for a wider variety of thought.

    Regarding slippery slope arguments:
    A SLIPPERY slope argument is a kind of argument that warns you if you take a first step, you will find yourself involved in a sticky sequence of consequences from which you will be unable to extricate yourself, and eventually you will wind up speeding faster and faster towards some disastrous outcome. . . .

    It is characteristic of all slippery slope arguments that a dangerous outcome of some contemplated course of action is warned of. But the slippery slope argument is more than just a warning. The dangerous outcome is put forward as a reason for not taking a first step in the contemplated course of action. It is an argument put forward by a speaker to persuade a hearer not to take this first step, on the grounds of the consequences that may follow.

    Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking have a section on the slippery slope argument, where it is often treated as a fallacy. However, the slippery slope argument can be used correctly as a reasonable type of argumentation to shift a burden of proof in a critical discussion.”

  111. Here is something else that I found in my email:

    It seems that there are legal issues besides moral or ethical ones. Everything should come out on the appropriate side of justice.

    Liberty Counsel Files Motion to Intervene to Defend California’s Marriage Amendment

    San Francisco, CA – Today Liberty Counsel is filing a motion to intervene to defend against three lawsuits filed at the California Supreme Court by same-sex marriage advocates. The lawsuits, which were filed last week, are asking the Court to overturn the California Marriage Protection Act (Proposition 8) recently passed by California voters. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families.

    Same-sex marriage advocates erroneously argue that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision. But a revision covers multiple subjects, whereas an amendment is a single subject, as in this case. Moreover, the amendment was in the process long before the California Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008. The same-sex marriage advocates argue it violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which they say protects minorities’ rights against the majority vote. Proposition 8 opponents are requesting California to withhold issuing all marriage licenses, including licenses for heterosexual couples. The lawsuits were filed by the ACLU, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Santa Clara County, the city of San Francisco, the city of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles lawyer, Gloria Allred, on behalf of a lesbian couple.

    Liberty Counsel’s motion to intervene asks the Court for permission to join as a party in all three cases on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The Amendment passed with 52% of the votes and states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Now that it has been passed, the Amendment will nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15.

    Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The proponents of same-sex marriage have thrown a ‘Hail Mary’ pass with no receivers downfield. The lawsuit seeking to block Proposition 8 is patently frivolous. The people have a right to amend their constitution. It is amazing how much effort has been put in this battle to keep the people from deciding the future of marriage. It makes no sense that four judges can rewrite the historic definition of marriage and more than five million people cannot restore it to its common understanding as the union of one man and one woman.”

  112. At the time of the election, I was catholic and against prop 8. Just because my (now former) religion said something doesn’t mean that it’s true. (to Ted) I think we all know that there is a pretty big difference between two women or two men than polygamy etc.

    Many Christians can see beyond what their faith tells them to follow their conscience and do what they think is right. My belief (then) was that even God was for gay marriage. Although now, due to unrelated circumstances, I am an atheist, I still believe that if there was a God, He/She/It would vote NO ON 8.

  113. CRL … thanks for posting! It’s good to see that you have de-converted. If you want any help, have any questions, etc. feel free to drop me a note at

  114. That is very fascinating, You are an excessively skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and stay up for seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: