Video: Forces of tolerance confront Proposition 8 supporter
posted at 6:31 pm on November 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via Ace, bravely blogging through a case of the shivering douchechills. Reminds me of that old Onion piece, except with terrified senior citizens and styrofoam crosses being snatched and broken. Charges will, apparently, be filed.
I don’t know what these dudes are so upset about. Surely they don’t think the California Supreme Court’s going to let the public get away with this, do they? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
Madcon,
Agreed. She had every right to be there. Doesn’t make it wise though, does it?
Dillo on November 12, 2008 at 12:47 AM
On a final (really!) note:
“Owe no one anything except to love one
another, for he who loves another
has fulfilled the law.”
Romans 13:8
JetBoy on November 12, 2008 at 12:47 AM
I think a lot of you are missing the point, and that is that in a fair and free election, those voting chose to support the bane on gay marriage with a constitutional amendment. Now I’m not happy with how the national election turned out, but I’m not out knocking down little old ladies because they think they have just as much right to their feelings as anyone else. This to me is just plain Thuggery. I have many gay friends, but I still believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. We could all quote scripture to suit our needs, but the Bible does say clearly in Romans 1:27, and I quote
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: verse 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another’ men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Verse 28; And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
Now those aren’t my words, there the words of St. Paul. Take it up with him.
Amazing Grace on November 12, 2008 at 12:49 AM
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:40 AM
If condemning that kind of behavior wasn’t JBs first and most passionate reaction, then all the other off topic ramblings are all that more irrelevant.
Saltysam on November 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Thank you. We’re not homophobic. We’re actually sinophobic. We’re concerned about that person where they’re gonna spend eternity. I’m fearful for homosexuals. So how do we reach these kind of people? They are human beings. We love them. We wanna reach them. We wanna reach them in gentleness. Well, the wl ^9ach them it tells us in 1 Timothy 1 verses 8 thru to 10. It says the Law was made for homosexuals:
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” 1 Timothy 1:8-10
I posted this before. Get your son to watch this:
The Way of the Master – How to Witness to Gays – Episode 20
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 12:52 AM
The instant we reconsider our rights because of intimidation is a dark instant for the republic.
Maybe that radio show in Chicago should never have booked that Obama critic author, because of all the backlash and calls they received beforehand. Apparently it was “unwise”.
Maybe those voters in Philadelphia should have stayed away from the voting station where the Black Panthers were standing outside. Unwise.
Maybe Missouri should have known better than to put out ads criticizing Obama, because the goon squad came down on them. Unwise.
And this is a state proposition. Not even a national issue. The woman didn’t even do anything controversial. She showed up with a cross. That’s it. I guess, though, if it’s unwise, rights be damned.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 12:52 AM
She had the wisdom to show the cameras just what kind of crowd this was though, huh?
Wise? A matter of perspective.
Undaunted? Absolutely.
Saltysam on November 12, 2008 at 12:53 AM
So has all the other sins that have permeated every culture since the beginning of time, your point is meaningless.
You are a creation of God, but without faith in the atoning death of Christ, you are not a child of God.
“I have a propensity to want to molest children, I don’t know why, but who am I to question God?”
See how silly this sounds? Add any sin in there you want it doesn’t change the foolishness of your statement. Listen, God is not the author of sin, period. You have chosen to blatantly disobey His revealed will to be sexually pure, the fault lies with you, not God.
Joe Pyne on November 12, 2008 at 12:55 AM
JetBoy, I’m glad you came back (and glad I checked in once more); I want to suggest that if it was you who said gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, that you consider abandoning that particular line. It’s honestly very offensive, and I think Newsome’s use of it was a large part of what made Prop 8 a success.
It’s this sort of “we’re going to force it on you” attitude that a lot of people object to. The people of California have spoken, and I doubt you’re going to win any converts with that sort of rhetoric…not that I want you to, because I don’t see any compelling reason for the homosexual community to co-opt that institution, and that word.
Obviously, I’m not for gay marriage, because I think it is purely an attack on religion; however, I believe I could live with civil unions.
At this point, I feel like Christians are the group that could most use society’s protection. When people think it’s all right to treat them this way, simply for expressing themselves, that’s a problem.
Just a serving suggestion.
capitalist piglet on November 12, 2008 at 12:56 AM
And there is a hell whether you like it or not. You see my friend, God didn’t spare the angels nor the men and women of the old world, but sent them to hell to await their final judgment. What makes you think for one moment He’ll spare you!
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of SODOM AND GOMORRHA into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you.” 2 Peter 2:4-8, 13
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Yes, Gays have been arround all that time. So have adulters, etc. etc. I agree that you are the creation of God. We all are. But God did not make you gay. Whatever did that is not of God. And you do, and you are questioning God.
You are in great danger, Jetboy. You are still fighting inside about this issue, so you still know it is wrong. That’s why this conversation is even taking place. But your soul is losing that fight, friend. If you persist into this particular wilderness there will come a point where you will no long be able to tell the difference. The Bible, at least in my KJV, it says that God will trun you over to a reprobate mind. From there you will not return. I’m not Catholic, but I urge you to visit your Priest and try to get your life in better order.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Madcon, SaltySam and all,
I recant! Maybe she was really wise and successfully accomplished what she set out to do. In which case, that’s awesome—but in which case, also, she knew what she would encounter. So I guess, in losing (like Christ on the cross and raising again)she won!
Dillo on November 12, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Since she is a Christian, her free speech should be confined to the privacy of her own home, for public safety concerns.
Saltysam on November 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Deal. *hand shake* But, also cuz I was right. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Taking verses out of context to promote your sinful choices is not a winning strategy:
“Judas went out and hanged himself”….”go thou and do likewise”….. “and whatsoever thou doest do quickly”….
Dr. Walter Martin gets credit for using this little gem in one of his early apologetics conferences. Proof-texting only works when the verses are used in their proper context.
Your problem, JetBoy, isn’t with us it’s with God.
Joe Pyne on November 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Christian is the new Black.
capitalist piglet on November 12, 2008 at 1:05 AM
The action caught on this newscast video will further entrench the conservatism movement of the majority that voted yes for proposition 8. May God’s mercy extend Itself to all that believe in Him and may the acts of a few that make the decision to live outside of His scriptures repent of their sin and truly start living a fulfilled life that has peace and hope and purpose.
Fred Montanez on November 12, 2008 at 1:07 AM
I loved Dr. Walter Martin. I thought he was awesome.
capitalist piglet on November 12, 2008 at 1:07 AM
So, can I get money for that?
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Essentially, I see it thusly:
Only those who are willing to use violence or intimidation to silence others can be baited to do so. Those who aren’t, can’t be.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:08 AM
You don’t condone immoral behaviour using logic like that. Male-male anal sodomy is bad for your health, but then again, so is smoking. He stole a car so I can rob a bank. That is circular reasoning. Gay marriage is a health hazard to the community. Facts are facts. Not only that, but homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. God created Adam and then made a woman. This is the way God intended it and it is what is right. There is no way around it, unless you want to violate nature and God – which you do at your own peril.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 1:13 AM
I already cited that example, but all it proves is that unprotected gay sex is a health hazard to the gay community.
If gays get married, and presumably remain monogamous, what risk is posed to anyone outside of their marriage?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Seems we need a bigger perspective. Male/female marriage is a main building block for society (granted, in a country with laws based on the bible). There are sound basics in a just and solid society—Balanced government, sound laws, traditional families. Not that hard.
Dillo on November 12, 2008 at 1:19 AM
I have always voted against gay marriage-ban amendments. On more than one occasion, thanks to vagaries of migration in search of work. I figure it’s none of the lawmakers’ business what a private citizen does at home, the whole “my house is my CASTLE” notion being something I take quite literally. So long as all guests can leave at will, under their own power, when it’s all said and done, it’s pretty much all good. Makes me somewhat unusual on the Right I guess, but I’m contrarian that way. Let gays go their way, I’ll go mine; live and let live.
Now, in the space of two days of near-riotous gathering outside of churches (but God Forbid outside of mosques! You know, enclaves of the religion that actually slays gays whenever encountered; as opposed to the Christians – no matter what sect thereof), LA’s gay community has ensured I will vote in favor of banning gay marriage at every opportunity moving forward from here.
Stomping on a cross is one thing. God’s a big guy. He can take it, and dish it, and we’ll all see what we’ve earned in this life when we come to the clearing; not before. But for a guy who looks to be maybe a fit middle-aged, to challenge an elderly woman to a fight on live TV over a loss at the polls? One whose primary offence seems to be she believes in a higher power that isn’t in Sacramento or Washington? You sir, are no gentleman. You’ve crossed a line of common decency in your actions toward that woman, and this cannot be forgiven. Nor forgotten. Not least because of the lack of outrage from the gay community of LA as a whole.
Whatever I may do henceforth to support gay marriage bans at the polls, I shall.
Never before have I ever agreed with the notion that some adult individuals are too immature to be entrusted with the franchise. This has held true, even after elections haven’t gone my way. California is attempting to be the exception to prove the rule though. I’m afraid I’ll have to avoid it as much as possible until it can decide if it wants to be a participatory republic, or militant anarchy. At which time I shall abide by their decision – “When in Rome,” after all.
Blacksmith on November 12, 2008 at 1:23 AM
If god created everything in man, including his brain, then the brain that god created came up with homosexuality. This would mean homosexuality is a direct product of god’s design.
So why would he be so against something he is responsible for?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Jesus was, besides Son of God, a reform prophet. He commented on matters of law that needed further explication. His silence on homosexuality confirms His support for the existing law, i.e. Leviticus. Abomination.
ktrush on November 12, 2008 at 1:26 AM
WHAT?? No!! You’ll give your money and time to be charitable to others, and then you’ll be driven underground, mister, where you religious freaks belong!
[And that concludes the sarcasm portion of my program.]
capitalist piglet on November 12, 2008 at 1:30 AM
“Since she is a Christian, her free speech should be confined to the privacy of her own home, for public safety concerns.”
Saltysam on November 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM
**Since they are homosexuals, their free speech should be confined to the privacy of their own home, for public safety concerns. That works both ways moron.
hopefloats on November 12, 2008 at 2:08 AM
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 1:25 AM
God created man. Then, man fell away from God.
You really need to brush up on your basic Christian theology.
Ryan Gandy on November 12, 2008 at 2:18 AM
JetBoy on November 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM
By your rationale, since Jesus didn’t say anything about beastiality it isn’t a sin either.
Ryan Gandy on November 12, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Your change based on experience touches on something important here. The death of the official culture and ultra-tolerance in the face of aggression are both factors in this latest outburst. The official culture did not tolerate vile sexual outbursts and obsessions on the public commons. A bawdy unofficial culture always existed, but it was kept under wraps. Lost in the popular theme of persecution is the fact that there was a lot of unofficial tolerance for one’s fellow human beings who happened to be gay. The culture of today denies this while it tolerates the intolerable and the average citizen pays dearly for it. The brainwashed minions police others for PC and people live in fear for their jobs, lawsuits, and avoid certain areas out of fear of what they and their kids might see.
The Catholic Church paid dearly for admitting gays into its institutions. Networks of like-minded people formed, and they protected each other. This was the unforeseen consequence of ultra-tolerance.
The same thing happened in other venues. Hollywood still has a blacklist and today it is against the un-PC and anyone opposing the gay agenda. The book publishing industry is well known for this. In fact, there is no area I can think of that is off-limits to the corruption of politics and a PC agenda. It is an intellectual gestapo and fifth column that makes people afraid to express their views when they should not be.
The official culture needs to go back to a G-rated commons where families feel safe and parents can let children go to school without fear. The bad old days of beating up on gays should stay in the past, but true tolerance is reciprocal. This means that gays must respect the sensibilities of heterosexual people. Behavior that belongs behind closed doors stays there and no more bothering strangers or polluting politics with sexual obsessions. The indoctrination of kids is an atrocity in itself.
What goes around comes around and if radicals continue on this course, they are courting disaster for themselves and many others who don’t deserve it.
I do not mistreat people because they sound like this or that, or I suspect that maybe whatever, but I am sick and friggin tired of aggression that masks itself as rights and equality.
Feedie on November 12, 2008 at 2:41 AM
The Reviled Substandard Perversion (RSV) one of the most liberal versions there is! They have changed thousands of things in that one!
You are a reprobate all the way. Someone who has lost the ability to tell between a lie and actual truth. First you claim the good Lord Jesus (the Creator Himself) never said that homosexuality is sin, and now you’re claiming the KJV has errors. Do you even know the history of the Bible to make a comment like that?? I mean, typical scoffer type vocabulary, scoffing at the Bible all through this thread. Let me give you some facts on the subject. I’m limited for space, so I’ll just give a few. Did you know that the 1611 King James Bible is the only version that does NOT have a copyright on it. Yet, all the other modern version do, including your Reviled Substandard Perversion (RSV). It has a copyright. And in order to qualify for a copyright they need to make at least 200 changes to the text. They change God’s Word! And maybe you weren’t aware, but when you start changing God’s Word you make yourself an authority over God and then you’re in big trouble. On the other hand, I don’t need permission to copy my King James. The KJV has no copyright. I can make as many copies as I want and spread around the Gospel free! And why do you think that is? It’s because God would NOT put a copyright on His Word!
Here. Take a look at this admission: This is a confession by one of the Co-founders of the New American Standard Version Bible (like the RSV, another modern Bible translation):
“I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words…it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong… I’m in trouble;… I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening…there are so many …Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?” Dr. Frank Logsdon – Co-founder, New American Standard Version.
He now renounces the work he did in the NASV and said “I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord.” He now realizes he used a faulty Greek manuscript was used in the all these new versions. He now believes that the King James Bible is absolutely correct.
Folks, if you have a KJV (version I have), then you have the literal Word of God in your hand. Psalms 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are PURE words… Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.” God promised to preserve His Word and He did it in the Authorized King James 1611 Bible. You can trust the KJV. It is safe! I have so much more to offer on this topic, but this message is already long enough.
JetBoy, if you know so much about this subject. Name the main manuscripts all the different Bible versions come from? And tell me which Bible versions come from which manuscript. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 12, 2008 at 3:33 AM
Disturbing
Kini on November 12, 2008 at 4:18 AM
Dollars to donuts someone’s going to be hospitalized or killed by these “agents of tolerence” before all is said and done, ie; The California Supreme Court throwing out the will of The People.
And yet, the news folks can’t understand why folks are arming at breakneck speed…
SuperCool on November 12, 2008 at 5:01 AM
I understand your point, buuuuut, if that’s the case, then God is also responsible for and in favor of: pedophillia, beastiality, murder, rape, racism, etc…see what I’m getting at?
God’s not responsible for that.
I see it like this:
Leviticus, was meant to establish the foundations for a unified Israelite people. It does so by laying down both civil laws and social mores by which the Israelites could grow and prosper as a people. Procreation is, obviously, a very important part of preserving and enlarging a society, not to mention neccessary for it’s very survival. That which impedes procreation impedes the growth of the Israelite population, culture, and society, thus endangering it in a time and place where they were a relatively small nation surrounded by several rather large civilizations. Only way to avoid annhilation or conquest is to continuously increase your population until you achieve some modicum of parity of manpower with neighboring civilizations. Thus, homosexuality, which produces no offspring is undesirable in such a society and must be discouraged even on pain of death.
Convieniantly forgotten in the current debate is that marriage wasn’t always “One Man/One Woman”, but, often times, was “One Man/As Many Women as He Can Afford to Support”, and this was entirely within reason within Israelite society as verile men of means could produce far more offspring with several wives than they could with one.
Many other cultures in ancient times realized this also and condoned it. (What? Do people actually believe polygamy was invented by the Muslims or Mormons?)
Take Solomon, for example. Had quite the harem from what I understand.
How about this one: Leviticus says that incest is wrong. Prior to this, didn’t Lott have relations with his daughters? Was he smote for this? What about the children of Noah? Wouldn’t they have had to marry their first cousins? Isn’t that incest?
Still waiting for someone to explain who Cane and Seth mated with. If it was Eve, wasn’t that incest?
Which brings us to another point: incest, aside from being down right creepy, is forbidden because it creates rivalries within the family structure. What kind of society would arise from the product of family lives where the males were in direct competition with their fathers, uncles, grandfathers, brothers, cousins, et al, over their sisters, mothers, cousins, etc…? Patricide and fratricide would be rampant, to say the least and THAT is counterproductive, thus, Leviticus made it profane. (Not that it really needs any help getting there.)
We know now in the present that inbreeding also has that side affect of producing defective and degenerative genetics: look no further than the Royal families of Europe or some of the later Pharohs of Egypt. (Particularly the Pharohs; they’ve done studies on the remains of some of them that makes one wonder if the subject perpetually drooled or was capable of speech.)
Some would argue that homosexuality has the side affect of disease, but irresponsible straight folks pump out herpes and other STDs just as steadily as any homosexual in our society. STDs aren’t a side affect of homosexuality, they’re a side affect of irresponsible behavior and a basic lack of human dignity, amongst homo AND heterosexuals alike within contemporary society.
Back to your original point, homosexuality would have to have been conceptualized by man’s mind for your theory to work. I doubt it happened that way. I believe it’s simply within the nature of the individual, straight or gay, as to whom they are attracted to.
Way I see it, most gay folks had no more choice in who they’re attracted to than I did. I like women. When I reached adolecense, I found myself attracted to women. Most chalk it up to human nature, and so would I but I don’t know for a fact that it’s any different for homosexuals. If it’s the same for homosexuals, than is that not also human nature perhaps of a different strain?
A better way to phrase the gist of your idea: If it’s within man’s nature that some men are heterosexual and some men are homosexual, and man and man’s nature is the creation of God, how could God condemn his own creation?
God does not create the profane. God creates the divine.
It is for man to seek the devine and shun the profane.
Least, that’s how I figure it.
SuperCool on November 12, 2008 at 6:15 AM
I live in Commiefornia and voted FOR Prop 8, you see, my vote was to support the State Constitution and against the violation of that Constitution by the Commiefornia Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court that said a ban on gay marriage was discrimination but Domestic Partnership, which heterosexuals cannot participate in until 63 years old, was NOT discrimination. Now Mr. RINO himself, Arnie Schwartzenkennedy wants Prop 8 to be overturned and if it is, EVERY law and EVERY bit of the U.S. Constitution is subject to be challenged in court.
Just remember folks, we conservatives in Commiefornia and fighting not only for our OWN rights, but to protect YOUR rights as well because if we lose here, it won’t be long until the National Socialists are at YOUR door.
nelsonknows on November 12, 2008 at 6:16 AM
ahh so ok, so raise enough hell and a vote doesn’t count?
Doesnt that disenfranchise the voters? uh…hello…
What the hell has gotten into this country?
If Arnie has that overturned, well, he needs to be unelected!
johnnyU on November 12, 2008 at 8:16 AM
That looked a lot like a union “rally” to me.
SlimyBill on November 12, 2008 at 8:25 AM
“Agreed. She had every right to be there. Doesn’t make it wise though, does it?”
Let’s all be wise.
davod on November 12, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Interesting eyes you have Krydor. Just a hunch: you loathe Christians and religion, yes?
carbon_footprint on November 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Um, no. That would be a misrepresentation of my position. However, I have to remind myself that to people like you, there is only “one true Christianity” and you are the defenders of that faith.
I have no use for fundamentalists who shield themselves in literal interpretations of scriptures they likely haven’t read.
After gay marriage was legalized in Canada, my marriage was not devalued. My wife is still the same, my kids haven’t caught a case of gay. It was like nothing at all changed. Trust me, I was on your side (without resorting to Bible quotes) and I discovered that I was wrong then just as you are wrong now.
Krydor on November 12, 2008 at 8:45 AM
The gay threads sure get a lot of hits. So at the end of the piece the reporter says more or less “there’s a lot of hate and anger there, on both sides”. Both sides, really? Can you say “political correctness”? If it was a loud skinhead rally and there was a lone protester would he really say the same thing, or talk about the hateful skinheads? (Thought experiment — what if they were gay skinheads. Hmmmm). Message — if you yell loud enough to drown out the other guy’s message, then you win. Might makes right. The end justifies the means. Isn’t that the method of the left?
Paul-Cincy on November 12, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Not only is that horribly presumptuous, it is also one of the most blatantly intolerant things I’ve seen on this blog. You have pronounced the Bible to be invalid, Christians to be worthless and yourself to be the only arbitrator of truth, in such a few short words. And you think our side is intolerant?
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM
“a lot of hate on both sidies”? This man has clearly drank the koolaid. Nothing like a bunch of angry gay men picking on an elderly lady. Democrat values at work, here, folks.
bloggless on November 12, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Isn’t the copyright issue due to the fact that the KJV has passed out of copyright in most places, but that in England the Crown holds a perpetual copyright? The KJV made many changes to the Bible in 1611. Why would edits after 1611 by other versions result in changing the word of God while the changes made by the Church of England be closer to the word of God than what churches had used for more than a thousand years? Christ lived, taught, died and was resurrected, but he needed the Roman Empire to fall and for Great Britain to build a new empire which then broke with the Roman Pope before, 1600 years after his death, a set of scholars created the one and only valid copy of the Bible?
Perhaps the scholarship and technology improved by 1611, but couldn’t changes since then be due to improvements in scholarly tools during the past 400 years?
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Not only is that horribly presumptuous, it is also one of the most blatantly intolerant things I’ve seen on this blog. You have pronounced the Bible to be invalid, Christians to be worthless and yourself to be the only arbitrator of truth, in such a few short words. And you think our side is intolerant?
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Once again, there’s that “there’s only one REAL sect of Christianity, and it’s the one I belong to” canard. I’ve poked a finger in the eye of the most closed minded and intolerant sects of Christianity.
How have I pronounced the Bible to be invalid? Literal interpretation of the Bible is for idiots. There’s some good stuff in there, but it certainly breaks no new ground. As a history it is invalid. As a book for future predictions, it sucks. It has a place, but people sure shouldn’t base governmental decisions on the Bible.
As for being the sole arbiter of truth, I’m flattered.
Krydor on November 12, 2008 at 9:29 AM
I am not condoning sodomy! I was playing devil’s advocate with your asinine homosexuality is dangerous to the community comment. Your 8th grade debate tactics sound really impressive, but just repeating “circular logic” and other $10 words do not impress me.
We agree on this issue so just let it go and I will remind myself never to engage you in debate ever again.
carbon_footprint on November 12, 2008 at 9:36 AM
READ UP on the KJV errors…
JetBoy on November 12, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Did God create our capacity for lust? If not what causes arousal? What causes people to have erotic dreams? We probably agree that nearly all people experience lust, and that misdirected lust is wrong. Why though do only a small percentage of people experience lust for the same sex. It isn’t as though straight people have to resist a temptation for the same sex.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Aside from what the Bible says, which i stand by every word, a free and public vote was taken on this issue. The People have chosen to uphold Prop 8 and ban gay marriage.
From what i saw of the video, the older lady being interviewed as well as the reporter could and should if they did not, file charges of assualt, battery and the intent there of to do so, against the people in the crowd.
I’m sure if things had gone pro Prop 8, you would never have seen this kind of demonstration. To forceably pull a cross and stomp on it, from an older womans hands and then to aggressivly shove her about. That is what i take offense to. You don;t hit a woman. You don;t accost a woman. You don;t treat a woman, especially as i have seen, with anything but respect.
Of course any type of civil action or legal action won;t take place, since this was against gays, or preceived there of.
Orion Prime on November 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM
If a hetro is attacked by a homo is that a hate crime?
MM2 on November 12, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Nice find. Very interesting.
ronsfi on November 12, 2008 at 9:53 AM
No. It’s a Date Crime.
ronsfi on November 12, 2008 at 9:54 AM
blockquote>Did God create our capacity for lust? If not what causes arousal? What causes people to have erotic dreams? We probably agree that nearly all people experience lust, and that misdirected lust is wrong. Why though do only a small percentage of people experience lust for the same sex. It isn’t as though straight people have to resist a temptation for the same sex.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Very, very interesting post. I admit, when you brought up Leviticus, I thought “Here we go”, but you covered it in a very objective manner. Leviticus is often a horrid point of contention given that not only are certain activities such as polygamy heralded, but such things as planting two different crops next to each other, or touching the skin of a pig, are treated as death-worthy offenses. I appreciate you discussing it in a neutral manner.
The thing is, I like the Bible in terms of being a guide for living, but not a text that should be taken word for word by any stretch of the imagination. People I’ve talked to often say that, for all intents and purposes, modern Christianity is based on the New Testament, hence the “Christ” in “Christ”ianity. Some people worship Christ, some people worship god, and as we’ve seen in this and many other posts, some people worship a book. The latter is disturbing, in my opinion. Any worship of material objects makes me leery. Not as much as Scientology, but still.
If I could be so bold as to note: you left some questions unanswered, didn’t you? You brought up the notions of polygamy and incest, and how they were respectively promoted and unavoidable according to the Bible. Do you then see the Bible as the word of god? If so, do you see those passages as outdated, or merely wrong?
I hold the same views as you in relation to STDs being cross-sexual in terms of groups, and in the paradigm of man and man’s nature being a product of god. A poster before you simply says that man “fell away”, and dismisses not having that notion as a lack of theological study, which my years at Catholic school might have some contention with, as well as the priest which I discussed the topic at length with. Personally, the idea of man being able to “fall away” immediately shows that god is capable of flawed design, and therefore the infallibility of god flies right out the window. The last time I mentioned that, however, several people started labeling me atheist swine, and the conversation became, shall we say, untenable. What’s your opinion on the “fell away” idea?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:05 AM
There are no hate crimes. There are crimes. Hate sometimes is a component of them. Crime is crime, regardless of emotions felt at the time.
Whoops, silly me. Being rational again.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM
.
There’s the fly in the ointment. Who defines and by what right? Is there a manual in the Bible?
ronsfi on November 12, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Some have told me that hummers send you to hell.
Gonna be hot.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:13 AM
For every argument the homosexual activists want to throw our way refer to the above. Yet let’s be clear about what’s really happening in CA. Liberals have NO regard for American Democracy and for decades now have been slowly chipping away at our Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it have any language even vaguely discussing the rights of homosexuals to marry. Since there is no language the matter is then taken to the individual State to be decided on per the 10th Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The people of CA, AZ and FL have spoken.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM
That is not so hard if you quit trying to find a way to make the Bible and God fit within your view of what it and He should be.
Sex is universal in all species. It is the act of species regeneration. Thus the term “normal” can easily be understnad to mean sed that is part of that process, even though the process does not always result in reproduction. The pleasure sex contains is part of the process.
Is there a manual in the Bible? The Bible IS a manual. If people were to live by the concepts of the Bible, even if God did not exist, about 99% of the problems of the world would dissapear overnight.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I am gay. I think that these marches are totally counter productive.
SC.Charlie on November 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM
…and a lot more people would end up dead. The Old Testament doesn’t fool around.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Furtunatly there is also the New Testament; so you don’t have to only have that aspect of God. That said, even the harshness of the Old Testament tends to prove that if people would live within the confines of God’s purpose and quit trying to reinvent the world in their image, most would have far less trouble.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Clearly, though, the sexual attraction that a man feels for his wife is the same source of lust that he feels for other women during his life–it turns on long before he meets his wife and stays on long after he is married.
Gays are different in that they don’t experience “lust/attraction/desire” for the opposite sex. A straight man might channel his sexual desire for many women into a full life of devotion for one woman, who becomes his wife and mother to his children. A gay person should channel their sexual desire into…what? Saint Paul would argue celibacy, but that seems unrealistic as the only alternative for ordinary Americans.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 10:30 AM
So do we live by the New Testament alone, or both parts? Kind of hard to “love one another” after you’ve finished stoning your neighbor for working on a Sunday.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM
So true MikeA…the Bible is a gift because God knew that left to our own folly we would eventually destroy ourselves and everything around us. The Old Testament was the first go-round and God saw that we werent ready in our spiritual evolvement to stay within the laws. He then gave Christ to us for salvation as a way to shake our awareness of what we doing and if we acknowledged our sins and asked for forgiveness we actually had a chance to become part of His Kingdom. Like a parent tells a child not to do something because they are trying to protect them from harm, so did God give us the Bible to protect us from spiritual death.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 10:35 AM
If Christ addresses the issue, which he did concerning stoning “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, then you refer to the New Testament.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 10:38 AM
We have a ton of non-Christians here. Allah is our resident atheist. And really, I’m just glad you’re so well liked at Ace’s.
It should.
They did far more than yell at her.
List of other things that occur in nature:
Cannibalism
Incest
Pedophilia
Murder
Eating your own sh!t
That’s a horrible argument, really the worst ever on this issue. Animals do all kinds of things that we would never want to legally sanction.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Exodus 35:2 -
Is Jesus contradicting this by saying you can only carry out the word of god if you’ve never sinned? Then why did god make the rule in the first place regarding work on the sabbath?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM
The states are subject to the rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution. It is debatable whether SCOTUS would find a right to gay marriage in there. However, they found a right to interracial marriage in 1967 and overturned the will of the people in several states, largely based on their interpretation of an amendment written 100 years earlier. Is your point that the court in 1967 should have abided by the will of the majority in each of the states?
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Isn’t the last thing you listed equivalent to eating at Hardee’s?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM
So in the internet age I am supposed to replace the words of St. Paul with those of a person on the internt going by the name dedalus?
And why do you question my choice of the word “normal” and then you try to slide by the idea that gays are “ordinary” Americans? Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel.
One of the problems we face today is that millions of people have been trained to think that whatever they want to be acceptable to God will be. If you accept that the Bible can say whatever you want it to say and still be true, what is the point?
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM
The tax break thing is really a myth. We actually pay more taxes. And all of those rights are granted to Civil Unions, which they already have in California.
They’re fighting over marriage.
That alone could make it worthwhile.
Dude, if you can get Osama to do anything, get him to shoot himself, on video.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Wow, one full thread.
My two cents: government sanctioned marriage is not a right, but an subsidy for the production of new citizens, and sexual behavior is learned (how is complicated, but it doesn’t just spring out of your genetics).
Count to 10 on November 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Hey, Madison
Thought you would like to know…
Ed banned Christoph for Trolling this morning.
Great discussion…please continue….
kingsjester on November 12, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I’ve spent too much time on this thread, but I want to leave you with a last statement that those of you who are gay will just have to accept at some point. If you are participating in homosexual acts, it is sin. No matter if you want it to be or not, it is. No matter if you can persuade a majority of Americans to pass a law saying it is not, it is. Even if you could get me to reconsider and decide it is not, it is. Nothing will ever change that no matter how many demonstrations you have or how loud you shout. I’m sorry for you in that regard, but that is the hard reality of this issue.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM
That’s messed up, Jet, and I generally respect you.
Sorry for pasting the whole thing, but I agree completely here.
If people want to argue that being denied the right to marry the person you want is to be denied a basic right, then what about all of the other groups who are denied that right?
Those who specifically want gay marriage and nothing more are limiting churches and government just as you claim people who don’t want gay marriage are doing.
Were I from California, I wouldn’t have voted on this issue, but I personally don’t agree with radically changing our definition of marriage only to include the latest group with the least amount of taboos.
Either it’s a fundamental right, or it’s not.
If it is, then all consenting adults should be given that right, no matter their preference. If it’s not, then who’s to say that we can’t deny marriage to homosexuals?
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Such a shame. I’ll miss being called a liar for quoting what he said.
We can’t. The prick’s dead. And our special forces troops took turns beating and mutilating his and urinating on his corpse, and it will still never be enough.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
The point of Exodus 35:2 is that you put one day aside within a 7 day period to rest and honor God. God commanded this not for himself but for the rest and well-being of his children, the livestock who toiled, etc. The Jews see their Sabboth on Saturday and the Christians on Sunday..there is no hard fast rule that says it has to be a specific day just that you make time in your life for at least one day. As far as being but to death, when you don’t honor or acknowledge God, you are slowly putting yourself to spiritual death. Exodus is warning you.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
If you can find Saint Paul commenting on a blog, you can and should ask him directly. You can also accept the written words of Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 who says that celibacy is best for straight people but probably too difficult so they should marry in order to avoid fornication.
I don’t recall questioning the word normal–other than contending that the source of a man’s sexual desire for his wife is the same source of desire that causes lust for other women.
Gays are normal Americans who pay the same level of taxes and break no laws due exclusively to the sexual desire they experience for the same sex. Being gay no more reduces one’s ability to contribute to the country than skin color does.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Which exactly what you then go on to do. The fact is it is not so “easily understood” since many creatures engage in sexual behavior which is not related to procreation including incest, homosexuality, promiscuity, masturbation, etc.
My question to you is why you think it’s your God Damned business to define “Normal Sex” for all of us and why you even care? And please don’t come back with the idiotic canard of Child Abuse and Rape etc since those aberrations are about other pathologies entirely.
ronsfi on November 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
You’re sidestepping the issue. Either god is commanding the death of that person, or he isn’t, and as someone just claimed that 99% of our problems would vanish by following just the Bible, a book – not a deity or our hearts, that command creates a number of problems for those who need others’ toil on that day of the week.
The book doesn’t say spiritual death. It says death. Either we observe it or we don’t.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM
You’re missing the obvious here. Of course they weren’t at that protest. Those are also the type of people who wouldn’t go to a rally like that, so it’s not surprising at all but rather typical.
Then quit quoting scripture. You disgrace yourself and Christianity with your hate. Did you forget that Christianity is, above all, about love. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
If you can’t do that, then don’t bother with the rest. Jesus said exactly that.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
If the Supreme Court finds probable argument for or against something due to interpretation it doesnt matter what I think or how the people voted. My personal opinion is that they were right in their interpretation. And who knows…this prop 8 matter may be taken to the Supreme Court who would probably boot it back down to the State. Also, there are certain truths in life that hold the same today as they did 100 years ago.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM
No, I’m not side stepping the issue. You want it plainly, then death is death. Nowhere does it say that God will put you to death on the spot right at that moment. Death can be in a day, a year, in 50 years. The point is that you are put to death in His eyes because you are not living His laws. You may be walking, breathing…but you’re still dead to the Kingdom of Heavan. When your physical bodies dies, your soul has nowhere to go. Dead.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the anchor in the studio at the end say that there was obviously a lot of hate and anger on both sides? Was he getting his make-up retouched while the video was running under his nose?
bryanmyrick on November 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Yes, though it took about 100 years after the 14th Amendment before “separate but equal” and anti-miscegenation laws were overturned.
dedalus on November 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM
OK, I’ll try to answer your question, although you do pose it in a most awkward and hostile manner.
I don’t think it is my business to define any of this. I have already said, repeatedly, that I don’t care what you do or who you do it with. But the question being put before us is an effort to get us collectivly to affirm that homosexuality is OK in the most relegious sense possible by saying we approve it on the same level as a hetrosexual marraige. If gays do not want to know what we think, why ask the question? Obviously the intent is becoming more clear daily that gays do not want to know what we think; but to demand that we think what they want us to think. In today’s news we are seeing that play out in some graphic ways.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
…so all of those “put to death” commands that people followed in the old days, now we just ignore them? Doesn’t that set up the Bible as largely relative in terms of the word of god? More than a few people have said the Bible is not at all relative, or even up for the slightest bit of interpretation.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
You really do tend to take both sides of an issue don’t you? I think you just like to argue and don’t really care about any of this.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM
You’re wrong, so I don’t care what you think. If you’re offended by my asking questions, maybe you should try some yourself.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM
No, amused.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Everything changed with the Christ and the New Testament. If Christ addressed the old ways in the Old Testament, you go by what Christ says. And of course there is interpretation of the Bible that continues to this day…there has to be because of the issue of languages and meaning of words in different cultures. But interpretation can also muddy up the true meaning of the Bible if left up to people who don’t have open hearts. The Bible is an awesome book to study. I personally believe that if done with the Spirit in your heart, truths become apparent. What you do with those is between you and God.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I like your style. Glad to know you’re not a literalist.
Now, addressing your point about the need for interpretation because of the issue of changing cultures: Do you believe it’s limited to languages and meanings of words? Per se, if two gay people have the Spirit in their hearts, and feel the commitment to each other that others who marry do, do you consider their love to be truth, sin, or both?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM
And Republican is the new Gay.
I’m sure that big violent gay stomping on a cross and intimidating an old lady is a great PR move for their cause. Not that it matters since in California activist judges decide laws, not the majority of the citizenry. Obama’s thugocracy demonstrated what’s to come.
Buy a gun now, before it is too late. Oh, and have a nice day!
Maura O on November 12, 2008 at 11:52 AM
The woman was incredibly brave and, given the way she was treated, did not seem to be terribly daunted.
The faggots, on the other hand, were a-holes and all I can say is, where is Lizzie Grubman when you really need her?
D2Boston on November 12, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Jesus never condemned insider trading either. But here is what Saint John wrote:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
Fortunately, Saint Paul was more specific.
manwithblackhat on November 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM
At least one? Personally, I believe in specializations in marriage.
I agree.
Or to go even further, what risk is homosexual behavior to anyone who doesn’t have sex or share needles with homosexuals?
I wouldn’t know, but I’ll take your word for it.
Nothing can be. That man deserves the worst we can offer.
Esthier on November 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I refer more to the language more than the cultural habits. Here’s my feeling (emphasis mine) about homosexuality. The Bible states that the act is an abomanation. Can you be homosexual in your heart and still come to Christ? Yes, as long as you don’t engage in the act of homosexuality and ask forgiveness for the past sin.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality
So, if the love is based in homosexuality, my opinion is that it is a sin.
Wileygrl3 on November 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
That’s gonna leave a mark.
MikeA on November 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »