Pelosi: Prop 8 supporters might have been too dumb to grasp what they were doing

posted at 8:53 pm on November 8, 2008 by Allahpundit

Evidently, it’s now somehow illegitimate to vote on the substance of an issue without being fully informed of the legal posture first. Sure, a majority opposes gay marriage — but did they know that four justices of the California Supreme Court disagree with them (whereas three don’t)?

Speaking as someone who would have voted no on Prop 8: Who cares?

“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”

Treacher snarkily retrofits her “logic” to fit the election results:

“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their views of race relations and male beauty were,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are picking the next President of the United States.”

Everyone see what she’s up to? I once served on a jury during a criminal trial and whenever a cop would testify, the judge would go out of his way to say that we shouldn’t let our respect for the law color our assessment of the credibility of his testimony. Simply judge him on the merits, we were told, just as we would anyone else. Pelosi’s saying the opposite. Never mind the merits; don’t you know that gay marriage is in the Constitution — as of, er, six months ago, per the decision of a narrowly divided court? Exit question for Madam Speaker: If Scalia and Thomas bring back freedom of contract, you’ll be super keen to block any amendments that would diminish freedom in our country by overturning the decision, right?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The Progressives are about a Power Grab, by hook or crook. I pointed out that two of their special interest groups have been battered. Now there is Obama’s record as State Senator no one bothered to point out in the MSM how things were going for those Welfare folks in Public Housing in his district. So the Democrats promised Tolarance and Fairness. Then the first acts as President Obama is going to reward the enviromentalist and the pro abortion lobby. That is where his Prime support came from. But he used Gay folks, Feminist, Minorities and Poor folks. His first acts as President, doesn’t address any of their concerns, which oddly seem to be at odds with each other in the “Bundling of Special Interest” But those same people will keep voting Democrat because the Democrats “Brand” themselves compassionate,tolerant, and fair. Outrageous. Below what Obama did for his district, when he was a State Senator. Machiavellian Much, Senator Obama?

http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/11/grim-proving-ground-for-obamas-housing.html

Dr Evil on November 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM

I can only think that if these families were so “needy” in this lousy economy, that they’d use the money that they donated to Barack Obama to pay their damn house payment instead of letting it foreclose and CAUSE the lousy economy.

Reread this next time you feel the need to forumlate an argument consisting only of an appeal to pity and a sad Psychogenetic Fallacy.

leetpriest on November 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Am I to believe that the credit crisis is being caused because all that mortgage money went to obama? you really believe that? wow no wonder the GOP is dying it is soooo out of touch w/ reality it’s not even funny.

Noneya on November 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM

“Speaking as someone who would have voted no on Prop 8: Who cares?” WE DO.
If you’re a parent living in California and had their majority vote (4 million) taken away from them by 4 Cal. Supreme Court ‘Justices’, you might feel differently.
I used to not care until I realized what the gay lobby/mafia is doing in our public schools (thru gay ‘marriage’): indoctrinating our kids into the gay lifestyle.
I also found out that, under CIVIL UNIONS, they have all the CIVIL RIGHTS of any other hetero couple. Pelosi is the moron.

I urge you to read about how Cal. textbooks are being altered to be ‘non-discriminatory’ towards maybe 3% of the population who has same sex parents, (no use of ‘dad and mom’ or Mothers’/Fathers’ Day); sex ed in kindergarten including instruction on gay ‘marriage’; how they must allow ‘trans-gender’ students to use whatever restroom they see fit; having gay activists come and talk to students about ‘alternate’ lifestyles. But, again, if you have no children, and don’t care about what The Pink Hand is doing to our children, really, why should you care?
Bottom line: the gay ‘community’ has too much power and they will not stop until they force everyone to accept them. No one can legislate acceptance. They must accept themselves and love themselves as they are and not look to society for validation.
It’s obvious that they are the ones filled with hate and as long as they push their anti-family agenda on us, they will create more resistance to their ‘lifestyle’.

Christine on November 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM

The reason that the gay activists target churches is that they are terrified of the moral judgments about their ‘lifestyle’.
I say: live and let live. I don’t like anyone proselytizing me, gay, straight or religious. It’s time the gay community grew up and tolerated differing opinions and let their sexual/ gender preferences take a back seat to being productive citizens who care about and work for the survival of their country and the world. It’s NOT about them.

Christine on November 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM

No one can legislate acceptance. They must accept themselves and love themselves as they are and not look to society for validation.
It’s obvious that they are the ones filled with hate and as long as they push their anti-family agenda on us, they will create more resistance to their ‘lifestyle’.

Christine on November 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM

There have been a lot of changes in elementry school during the past 40 years. Some of the language about “mothers” and “fathers” has changed before the gay marriage issue do to the fact that often fewer than half the children have both a mom and dad at home. I hear schools using terms like “caregiver” since a child may be relying on one parent, a step parent, a nanny, or a grandparent.

Regardless of whether gays can marry or have civil unions the issue of having children in a class who have gay parents is something that schools will continue to face.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Allowing gay marriage would transform gay culture; making it safer, fairer to the families of homosexuals, and more stable.

But then Christians would have to accept that gay people are usually decent folks like the rest of us, and we can’t have that.

RightOFLeft on November 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Palomino!

sulla on November 9, 2008 at 3:05 PM

“Speaking as someone who would have voted no on Prop 8: Who cares?” WE DO.
If you’re a parent living in California and had their majority vote (4 million) taken away from them by 4 Cal. Supreme Court ‘Justices’, you might feel differently.

Christine,

I think Allahpundit is saying: who cares if the electorate was told what the Cal. Supreme Court had done? Voters should have been able to make up their own minds, and it’s not important for them to have that decision contaminated by the knowledge that if they voted yes, they would be disagreeing with the state Supreme Court.

Patterico on November 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Someone should tell Blinky she doesn’t have the freedom to run roughshod over my religion and its customs.

Ryan Gandy on November 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM

U.S. law hasn’t been bound by Christ’s teaching on marriage and divorce. It seems inconsistent from a Christian standpoint to accept straight divorce but then contend the marriage is being defended by stopping the gays.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM

I don’t care to argue with you about that. What I care about is your claim that Jesus never spoke about gay marriage in any of the Gospels. That is a false statement. Jesus did speak about gay marriage in the Gospels. In His own words (See Matthew 19:3-6) He reaffirmed God’s plan was man and woman. Not man and man, or woman and woman. The Creator Himself (Jesus Christ) CLEARLY established marriage to be a life-long union between one man and woman. There is nothing vague about it. Gay marriage was never even an option! So, I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that Jesus never spoke on this matter. He spoke LOUD and CLEAR! Thank you dedalus, and have a very nice day. My prayers are for you.

apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 5:38 PM

That is absolute nonsense. I can walk down the street here in San Francisco and find people with signs and megaphones saying homosexuals are damned (marries or not) and people having sex before marriage are whore mongers. They are on a certain corner every day and even though their views obviously offend many people they are left alone and able to broadcast their views. They are protected by the Constitution just as those people who protest in bad taste at the graves of fallen heroes (Ed covered this well at CQ).

lexhamfox on November 9, 2008 at 3:06 AM

It is not nonsense at all. Read the news, open your eyes, and you’ll see that what I’m saying is already starting to take place right now.

apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Allowing gay marriage would transform gay culture; making it safer, fairer to the families of homosexuals, and more stable.

But then Christians would have to accept that gay people are usually decent folks like the rest of us, and we can’t have that.

RightOFLeft on November 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Speaking as a conservative Christian, I couldn’t care less what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. When you start indoctrinating my children to accept it as “the only right and proper way” to live as a family, however you will see me try to interrupt your lecture of MY children. You think I’m mistaken? I have only three words for you. They are the title of a new book being read to KINDERGARTNERS! The name of the book? “King and King” a tale of two gay princes that marry. This has been read to children in the San Diego school district this year. So who is indoctrinating whom?

Vntnrse on November 9, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Allowing gay marriage would transform gay culture; making it safer, fairer to the families of homosexuals, and more stable.

But then Christians would have to accept that gay people are usually decent folks like the rest of us, and we can’t have that.

RightOFLeft on November 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Typical reprobate type vocabulary.

apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 6:00 PM

The Creator Himself (Jesus Christ) CLEARLY established marriage to be a life-long union between one man and woman. There is nothing vague about it. Gay marriage was never even an option!

So should we disallow for marriage completely since the divorce rate is higher than the presidential and congressional approval ratings combined?

Is gay marriage any better than heterosexual divorce?
My anecdotal experience suggests that couples are much quicker to divorce today than when my grandparents were first married. Don’t we all kind of condone this assault on biblical matrimonial standards with our flippant social attitudes towards hypersexuality and adultery.

Some of the threads at HA about Palin, MKH and our host herself probably do just as much to diminish the sanctity of marriage as a third-grade fairy tale. Haha punny!

Using the Bible to justify legislation is a losing prospect. Also, I doubt that you, presumably a Christian, follow every biblical law or decree.

Bonus points
for any HA commenter who can correctly define the hoodish slang term “glass house.”

The Race Card on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

So should we disallow for marriage completely since the divorce rate is higher than the presidential and congressional approval ratings combined?

It would make more sense to disallow for divorce completely, or at least no-fault divorce. Divorce is a useful strawman because the thought of outlawing it strikes so many people as ridiculous but it would be better to do that than to legalise homosexual marriage at least in terms of social consequences if the Bible does not grab you.

Bonus points for any HA commenter who can correctly define the hoodish slang term “glass house.”

All I could find was this entry in the Urban Dictionary:

1. glass house effect
a.k.a. turned tables.
When your job gets reversed. When your sh** gets all messed up just the way you messed up someone else’s sh**.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 7:04 PM

So, I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that Jesus never spoke on this matter. He spoke LOUD and CLEAR! Thank you dedalus, and have a very nice day. My prayers are for you.

apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 5:38 PM

My point has been that he spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying. I’m not making a case that Christ was in favor of gay marriage, and have pointed out where Saint Paul clearly condemns homosexuality.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM

My point has been that he spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying. I’m not making a case that Christ was in favor of gay marriage, and have pointed out where Saint Paul clearly condemns homosexuality.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Until very recently no had ever heard of such a thing. The Bible condemns sodomy in very strong terms.

Taking the propensity to commit the sin of sodomy and then extrapolating that into a public lifestyle (homosexuality) is a modern phenomenon.

Complaining that the Bible does not condemn homosexual marriage in strong terms is a pedantic criticism.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 7:31 PM

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Interesting response. I think you may be on to something regarding no-fault divorce.

Somehow when I was growing up, even through the Reagan administrations, America sat back and excepted this sharp downturn in fidelity and marital sanctity. It would seem that no-fault divorce played a big role in that negative trend.

Incidentally the Bible grabs me and fairly-well defines and dictates my personal behavior. However, I have come to see the limitations of my personal guide on the lives of an increasingly secular society. I voted for prop 8 and will likely be called a “bigot” by many I know because of that decision.

RE: glass house
A Glass House is a big-ass American car with big ass windows, often the perfect lowrider sled. Per my experience most people are talking about Impalas (74-76) or Cutlass Supremes. The particular make/model references might be a regional thing thang.

***
“useful strawman”…nice. :)

The Race Card on November 9, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Complaining that the Bible does not condemn homosexual marriage in strong terms is a pedantic criticism.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 7:31 PM

I said the opposite. The Bible condemns homosexual sex and I pointed to Saint Paul in Corinthians. The Old Testament is full of condemnation of homosexaul sex.

I said that Christ didn’t single out homosexual relationships with the same emphasis that he used for divorce and remarriage. My contention isn’t that Christ would have OK’d gay marriage, but that many Christians accept divorced and remarried people as having valid marriages.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM

This is the text of CA Proposition 8 as it was listed on the CA ballot:

Proposition 8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact. Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Anyone who didn’t understand that they were changing the Constitution simply can’t understand English. This is a pretty lame excuse by Pelosi for losing. It’s time for Newsom and Pelosi to face facts. It’s done, “if you like it or not”

Dollayo on November 9, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Somehow when I was growing up, even through the Reagan administrations, America sat back and excepted this sharp downturn in fidelity and marital sanctity. It would seem that no-fault divorce played a big role in that negative trend.

The corollary to no-fault divorce is that the more broken homes there are, the more the government can license itself to intervene as the primary caregiver thus expanding its role in people’s lives.

Incidentally the Bible grabs me and fairly-well defines and dictates my personal behavior. However, I have come to see the limitations of my personal guide on the lives of an increasingly secular society. I voted for prop 8 and will likely be called a “bigot” by many I know because of that decision.

You could always tell your acquaintances that its a secret ballot and thus none of their business. Unfortunately that in itself would let them know which way you voted.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Nancy Peloise the Marie Antoinette , of our time.

ColdWarrior57 on November 9, 2008 at 8:25 PM

I said the opposite. The Bible condemns homosexual sex and I pointed to Saint Paul in Corinthians. The Old Testament is full of condemnation of homosexaul sex.

I said that Christ didn’t single out homosexual relationships with the same emphasis that he used for divorce and remarriage.

I only meant that there would no need to single out homosexual relationships because they are implicitly forbidden by the command not to commit sodomy.

I would actually draw a parallel with what I would call liberal logic here.

Last night I said that legalisation of homosexual marriage must lead to the legalisation of other forms of marriage. You called this a “slippery slope” argument but that is not how I would characterise it. It is more like a black hole – once it is opened everything is sucked out all at once.

What I mean is that under liberalism the redefinition of marriage as something other than what it has always been implicitly puts it up for grabs and this logic must be followed to include other alternatives marriage lest polygamist etc. are to be unfairly discriminated against.

I would call your own preference for marriage as being between two people an unprincipled exception. Anyone who believes in non-discrimination as the highest ruling principle of society has no reason other than personal preference to put homosexual marriage above marriage to a very close and deeply loved pet.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 8:29 PM

My contention isn’t that Christ would have OK’d gay marriage, but that many Christians accept divorced and remarried people as having valid marriages.

Yes many do. Why they would be so eager to follow King Henry VIII’s example of personal morality while rejecting King George III’s plan for tax credits for the middle class is anyone’s guess.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 8:32 PM

I would call your own preference for marriage as being between two people an unprincipled exception. Anyone who believes in non-discrimination as the highest ruling principle of society has no reason other than personal preference to put homosexual marriage above marriage to a very close and deeply loved pet.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 8:29 PM

When animals can be party to contracts then we can worry about people marrying their pets. Currently, there is a barrier.

Could CA or another state legalize polygamy? Sure, but gay marriage wouldn’t require them to do so, since Prop 8 could have been written to define marriage as between 2 (and exactly 2) people.

Is there a principal behind my view that gays should be recognized in marriage? Here are my reasons:

1.) Sexual intimacy and devotion are part of the center of a marriage. Gay people are not attracted to the opposite sex.
2.) Marriage is the most beneficial arrangement for an individual adult. Society benefits when people are in committed relationships and can care for one another during pemotional or financial ups and downs. That is true whether one is gay or straight.
3.) Gays increasingly live openly as couples within locales where they are employed and participate in the community. It is better for the community if the couple is married and their commitment recognized and supported.
4.) Children are a reality with some gay couples, especially women. It seems reasonable to recognize the marriage of a couple that is raising children.

We recognize marriages between straight people based on their love for one another and expressed desire to share their lives together. There is no requirement for reproductive ability. Gay people seem to have the same ability to commit and to love.

My principle is that gay marriage not only provides equality to those whose sexual orientation is to the same sex, but that it is beneficial to society as a whole since it provides for more stable lives for a significant percentage of the population.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:00 PM

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 8:29 PM

A shorter answer to the principle question is: exclusivity and fidelity.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM

When animals can be party to contracts then we can worry about people marrying their pets. Currently, there is a barrier.

I have very little or nothing to say as regards legal or constitutional matters as I have no competence in these areas though I’d be fairly sure some legal loophole or reinterpretation could be finessed in order to advance the principle of non-discrimination which in my opinion is more of a core fundamental belief than a legal principle.

Is there a principal behind my view that gays should be recognized in marriage? Here are my reasons:

1.) Sexual intimacy and devotion are part of the center of a marriage. Gay people are not attracted to the opposite sex.

I am not convinced that the hypersexual sub-culture in which homosexuals participate can be reconciled with ordinary marital devotion. I am thinking here of “gay pride” parades which resemble pagan festivities with their loud crashing drums, demonic-like semi-naked paraphenalia and public sex acts. That marriage will “sivillise” homosexuals does not seem likely to me.

2.) Marriage is the most beneficial arrangement for an individual adult. Society benefits when people are in committed relationships and can care for one another during pemotional or financial ups and downs. That is true whether one is gay or straight.

There is nothing to stop homosexual “life partners” from pooling their resources or writing each other into their respective wills as inheritors of their wealth.

3.) Gays increasingly live openly as couples within locales where they are employed and participate in the community. It is better for the community if the couple is married and their commitment recognized and supported.
4.) Children are a reality with some gay couples, especially women. It seems reasonable to recognize the marriage of a couple that is raising children.

All this means is that the normalisation of homosexuality is leading to the normalisation of homosexual marriage. Thus it “seems reasonable” but in my opinion it isn’t.

There is no requirement for reproductive ability.

There is an unspoken societal requirement to replace the population (a spoken requirement in contemporary Australia and Turkey).

My principle is that gay marriage not only provides equality to those whose sexual orientation is to the same sex, but that it is beneficial to society as a whole since it provides for more stable lives for a significant percentage of the population.

I think you would agree with me when I say that homosexuals desire legitmacy afforded them for their unions. I think we would disagree on the why.

You would say its because they can’t change their behaviour and they’d be harming no one in the process.

I would say its because they know in their conscience that their behaviour is wrong. If I’m correct they will not be at peace and settled once married. They will still be subtly deranged in a moral sense. It is a gamble on your part.

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous. You should have picked the more appropriate nickname icarus.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

It doesn’t matter what the voters of California have to say about it. Gavin & Nan will find the judges to push through the legalities, because both of them think the voting public is stupid, and therefore any decisions they make are invalid.

How this explains the state going to Obambi, you tell me.

I’d looooooove for Nan to discuss this in terms of voter breakdown, so she can explain why the majority of Hispanics & Blacks voted the way they did. C’mon, Nancy — this oughta be good!

wankette on November 9, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous. You should have picked the more appropriate nickname icarus.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Ha Ha. No I’m more the artificer by nature, perhaps merely looking to escape a maze.

You are right about the similarity and differences in our views. I do think that some homosexuals can’t change their sexual attraction but are capable of deriving the benefits of commitment and devotion.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM

“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”

Nancy…what about the 2nd amendment (part of the bill of rights). that you choose to ignore?

F15Mech on November 10, 2008 at 1:16 AM

My point has been that he (Jesus) spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM

That is NOT what you originally said, dedalus. You said that the Gospels didn’t record Jesus speaking on gay marriage. Look. See for yourself:

Christ did speak specifically against divorce and remarriage, but the GOSPELS DON’T RECORD HIM speaking on gay marriage.

dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 11:25 PM

That’s what you said. And that is absolutely so dumb to believe such a thing. Like I said before (and you haven’t acknowledged yet) the GOSPELS DO RECORD Jesus speaking on gay marriage because He established marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN in the Gospel of Matthew. Not man and man, or woman and woman. The Creator Himself (Jesus Christ) established marriage to be a life-long union between one man and woman who were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Do you understand that? Do you get it?

And your other statement:

My point has been that He (Jesus) spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM

That’s another false statement. You gotta check all the verses together before you make such broad statements, alright. You want clarity. Is this CLEAR enough for you! ALL sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sin to God. This includes gay sex. Even lust is adultery! Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: BUT I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). Jesus is obviously talking about sexual sin. In the next verse He says, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” In otherwords, if your eye causes you to sin by looking at lustful things, it’d be better for you to be blind than to end up in hell with both your eyes.

IN SUMMARY: Both of your statements about Jesus:

1. The Gospels don’t record Him speaking on gay marriage.

and

2. Jesus spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.

Are wrong! I know you said (after the fact) that you weren’t making a case Jesus was in favor of gay marriage, and you said that Paul clearly condemns homosexuality. But, those weren’t the statements I was objecting to. I’ve laid out my case above. You need to understand that what you said about the good Lord Jesus is wrong, as is shown by many verses in the Bible above. Thank you. Have a nice day/night.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:23 AM

My principle is that gay marriage not only provides equality to those whose sexual orientation is to the same sex, but that it is beneficial to society as a whole since it provides for more stable lives for a significant percentage of the population.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:00 PM

I get it now. You support gay marriage. No wonder I have trouble getting a straight answer. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:40 AM

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

People who don’t understand this should ask themselves why? I’m not trying to isolate homosexuals as lepers. All sexual sin is offensive to God. So, why would people condone it. They need to ask themselves that question because they will have give account to God on judgment day.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:50 AM

I do think that some homosexuals can’t change their sexual attraction

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Why would you think such a stupid thing?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Why would you think such a stupid thing?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Based on reading about and knowing straight and gay people. When someone is not aroused by the same or the opposite sex and they spend decades having sex exclusively with that gender, then they are either straight or gay.

It seems even more hardwired than a guy who is attracted to a particular type of girl (say blonds, tall women, Asian women, latin women, brainy chicks, or women with large breasts). Some guys will date women repeatedly who fit a given profile, maybe they are all tall brainy blonds. Still, though their attraction was evident, they’d be more likely to switch to a female brunette than to a guy.

If you wanted to collect scientific data you could measure the physiolgical effects of arousal on an individual as evidence that they are attracted to the same or opposite gender.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 6:25 AM

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Maybe. Perhaps, though, your approach will lead to the more radical innovation. What if gays continue to be barred from marriage and begin to build a culture around civil unions? What if civil unions become the new normal? Gay people have done something similar before by moving into rundown urban neighborhoods–say SoHo or Chelsea in NYC–where they fix up the buildings and open up galleries. Suddenly all the affluent straight people want to live there and property values skyrocket.

Could young straight people opt for the civil unions that their gay friends have? Possibly, if the legal arrangement is cleaner regarding the terms of the commitment, control of the financial assets, home ownership, estate planning and eventual custody of the children.

Which scenario would do more to undermine marriage–gays marrying or straight couples opting for the customized legal arrangements of civil unions?

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 6:36 AM

IN SUMMARY: Both of your statements about Jesus:

1. The Gospels don’t record Him speaking on gay marriage.

and

2. Jesus spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.
apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:23 AM

In the Matthew 19 passage Jesus is focused on the issue of divorce in response to a question from the Pharisees where they ask about a man and his wife. Jesus says that divorce is always wrong since the man and woman are one flesh. Since he speaks directly about the sinfulness of divorce in that passage and doesn’t address the sinfulness of gay relationships the divorce issue seems clearer in Matthew 19.

The other passage is from Genesis, which is outside the scope of my reference since I was dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, specifically where he changes Mosaic law.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 AM

What really worries me is that Nan is 2 heart beats away from the presidency.

el rey on November 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM

In the Matthew 19 passage Jesus is focused on the issue of divorce in response to a question from the Pharisees where they ask about a man and his wife. Jesus says that divorce is always wrong since the man and woman are one flesh. Since he speaks directly about the sinfulness of divorce in that passage and doesn’t address the sinfulness of gay relationships the divorce issue seems clearer in Matthew 19.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 AM

Yes, Jesus does address the sinfulness of gay marriage. It seems to me that you just don’t wanna admit when you are wrong even when the evidence is right there in front of you. Once again, the passage in Matthew isn’t speaking about divorce and nothing else. The truth is, sometimes a lot can be said by what is not said. Jesus established that marriage is between a man and woman. Let me help you understand this.. that means gay marriage is sinful.

The other passage is from Genesis, which is outside the scope of my reference since I was dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, specifically where he changes Mosaic law.

The passage from Genesis is not outside the scope of reference. It’s relevant to this conversation because Jesus quoted from Genesis 1:27-28 and Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-6. Check it out. Jesus, when confronted by the Pharisees said, “HAVE YOU NOT READ, that he which made them at the BEGINNING made them MALE AND FEMALE, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:3-6). The BOLD CAPS are where Jesus is quoting the creation account in Genesis (which is the foundation for the institute of marriage) affirming again that marriage is between male and female. So when you say you are only dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, well, I am too. Jesus quoted Genesis in the Gospel of Matthew. He thought it was relevant to the subject of marriage and family. Why don’t you?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Based on reading about and knowing straight and gay people. When someone is not aroused by the same or the opposite sex and they spend decades having sex exclusively with that gender, then they are either straight or gay.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 6:25 AM

That is pure propaganda. You choose who you take your pants down for, okay. That’s a choice you make.

It seems even more hardwired than a guy who is attracted to a particular type of girl (say blonds, tall women, Asian women, latin women, brainy chicks, or women with large breasts). Some guys will date women repeatedly who fit a given profile, maybe they are all tall brainy blonds. Still, though their attraction was evident, they’d be more likely to switch to a female brunette than to a guy.

If I circled every time people like you used the words “might have,” “could have,” “it seems,” etc. That is an answer based not on evidence but opinion, and you should admit it. Your entire answer is filled with typical reprobabte hallucinations.

If you wanted to collect scientific data you could measure the physiolgical effects of arousal on an individual as evidence that they are attracted to the same or opposite gender.

God did not make you gay. God did not make you to have sex with a man. That’s a choice you make. It’s called lust. I have it. You have it. We all have it. We can either control it, or give into it. Pretty simple dedalus. It’s not rocket science.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM

God did not make you gay. God did not make you to have sex with a man. That’s a choice you make. It’s called lust. I have it. You have it. We all have it. We can either control it, or give into it. Pretty simple dedalus. It’s not rocket science.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Precisely. Most people lust for the opposite sex. About 5% of people lust for the same sex. Acting on lust can be controlled, but experiencing lust often can’t be controlled.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM

So when you say you are only dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, well, I am too. Jesus quoted Genesis in the Gospel of Matthew. He thought it was relevant to the subject of marriage and family. Why don’t you?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I acknowledge your point regarding Genesis being relevant given Jesus citing it.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:42 PM

If I circled every time people like you used the words “might have,” “could have,” “it seems,” etc. That is an answer based not on evidence but opinion, and you should admit it. Your entire answer is filled with typical reprobabte hallucinations.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM

If I’m citing a matter of fact, I’ll try to reference a source. If I’m basing an opinion on observation I’ll use a construct like “it seems”. It seems to me that some guys like tall blonds. If that seems like a reprobate hallucination then we have lived quite different experiences.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:50 PM

The truth is, sometimes a lot can be said by what is not said. Jesus established that marriage is between a man and woman. Let me help you understand this.. that means gay marriage is sinful.
apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I do draw the conclusion that Jesus was not in favor of gay marriage, but it is from, as you say, what is not said. He might have been clearer and condemned it as he did so explicitly with divorce.

What, though, was the question that Jesus was answering? Didn’t the Pharisees ask about a man and his wife?

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Acting on lust can be controlled, but experiencing lust often can’t be controlled.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM

That’s right. Now we’re getting somewhere. We all experience lust. I do all the time. I mean, I am tempted to lust on a regular basis. Every time I see a beautiful girl that’s temptation right there. We lust for all sorts of things. For some it’s food. For others money. Some people have a problem with power and pride. Truth is, we’ll have to deal with lust and temptation until this present world is destroyed and we are in heaven with the Lord. The Bible says, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 John 2:16-17). So you are right dedalus. We all experience lust. That’s because man has a sinful nature (Romans 5:12). But, we also experience lust because our enemy wants us to sin against God, and is tempting us to do things we shouldn’t do. ! Peter 5:8 warns us, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” That is who Satan is and what he does, dedalus. He will try to increase your addictive behaviors. Try to increase your emotional conflict. Throw doubt attacks at you (thoughts like “You’ll never get free,” or “You won’t be able to do it”). Try to point you into self-destructive behaviors. Being involved in the sexual sin of homosexuality is no different than an alcoholic or drug addict. It’s a destructive lifestyle. It destroys peoples lives which is exactly what Satan wants! Look what Jesus said when He rebuked the Pharisees, He said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (John 8:44). Satan loves homosexuals! The good news is we can fight him though! Like you said dedalus, acting on lust can be controlled. But, WE NEED GOD’S HELP otherwise the Devil will devour us like a lion. How do we do it? Scripture says to “Walk in the Spirit (according to God’s Word), and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16). We are told, “Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked” (Ephesians 6:16). And to “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11). We can achieve local victories over Satan when we “Resist stedfast in the faith” (1 Peter 5:9). And that’s how you do it! That’s how you defeat sinful lust. You follow the Word of God! Any other way, and you can have no real defense against Satan. You step out on to that battlefield without your shield and you’re committing spiritual suicide. And that’s the truth. God bless you.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM

I acknowledge your point regarding Genesis being relevant given Jesus citing it.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:42 PM

Thank you. I am happy for you that you had the courage to admit that. And I don’t look at an admission like that and think, “Yeah! I was right!” Nuh uh. I look at it like, “I am so happy this person is still able to discern between right and wrong.” Be thankful you can still tell the difference. That your conscience is still working properly. Please, don’t become a reprobate, dedalus. I want you saved and going to heaven. That’s my only motivation in all of this.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I do draw the conclusion that Jesus was not in favor of gay marriage, but it is from, as you say, what is not said.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 8:26 PM

That is my point. By virtue of Jesus establishing that marriage is between a man and woman — anything deviating from that standard (ie, men marrying cattle, men marrying fish, men marrying men, etc) would be sin. By confirming and establishing the parameters for marriage, Jesus did address the issue of gay marriage.

He might have been clearer and condemned it as he did so explicitly with divorce.

It’s important to note that man already knew sodomy was a very serious sin by then (Sodom and Gomorrah is a great reminder of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically). The people knew “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). They already knew sodomy was sin.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 11:30 PM