Video: Michelle on the “insane rage” of the anti-Prop 8 mobs
posted at 6:01 pm on November 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A video companion to her column this morning, soon to be rendered irrelevant by judicial decree. The California Supreme Court decided within the past hour to hear the constitutional challenge to Prop 8; doubtless the referendum will be struck down, thus restoring Californians to a blissful, undemocratic, mob-free existence and sparing Anthony Kennedy the unpleasant task of Doing What Must Be Done.
Exit question: Is Cali prepared for the inevitable backlash among rampaging Mormon hordes?
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
If I am bisexual can I demand to marry two other people?
Geochelone on November 19, 2008 at 11:15 PM
I don’t know the specifics of your example, but I can say that one never used to have to worry about being propositioned in the men’s room. Depending on where one is, that is no longer the case. And I am not talking about any specifically gay area. The Larry Craig case illustrates this.
That said, many ivy league schools have co-ed bathrooms in their dorms (which I find to be really, really repulsive). The funny part is that these co-ed bathrooms came into being because of stinginess; all-male dorms were made co-ed and the schools didn’t want to build new bathrooms for the women so they decided to just be “progressive” and have co-ed bathrooms.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Since marriage is not a right…
…and homosexuals have, in Civil Unions, the same exact state rights and privileges that married couples have…
…what exactly is the problem?
Religious_Zealot on November 19, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, but “protecting yourself from the inevitable questions it would raise if people saw that, far from being a sin…” you are a liar as well.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I appreciate your help, thuja, especially as it goes against your own position. I owe you one.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 11:27 PM
These people are demented. Many suffer from severe psychological problems. They hate themselves so much they lash out at the ones they envy the most. Looking at zombitimes photo essay on the Gay Fair, one can only think,
Do they go home and think what a wonderful time at the fair they had? I can only see a life of self-loathing. They are like babies smearing the poo-poo all over the wall. None of this behavior should be tolerated. They should be arrested and all shipped off to Alcatraz Island and they can do all they want. However, then they would not have an audience and mommy would not yell at them for smearing the poo-poo.
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/
tessa on November 19, 2008 at 11:31 PM
While I don’t agree that marriage is not a right, I think we more or less in agreement. I don’t see any reason not to call gay marriage “civil unions” until people get tired of having two different words for the same thing.
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Be assured that I respect you even if we disagree on this topic.
thuja on November 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Irrelevant, the fact that they used the Bible as their starting point for our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, is beyond dispute. They seemed to have had little trouble interpreting the basic meaning of the biblical text, why do you?
How about any version used by the english speaking populace? A good translation would be best, but a paraphrase could be used in a pinch. They both say the same thing about homosexuality – it’s still a sin in God’s eyes. Sorry.
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM
If the direction of your sexual attraction is the only thing giving you a “fulfilled” life…
…then you’ve got bigger issues and problems then whether or not the state calls your relationship a marriage or a civil union.
Heck, if SEX (homo- or hetero-) is the only thing giving you a “fulfilled” life, then you really, really need to seek professional counseling.
Religious_Zealot on November 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Not that I am in total agreement with the post you are responding to…
…but since there are no significant theological differences in ANY major translation of the Bible, then it doesn’t really matter which version you use.
Religious_Zealot on November 19, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Any ‘translation’ would work, but stay away from ‘paraphrases’ because the people writing them insert or omit things (e.g. The Message).
Religious_Zealot on November 19, 2008 at 11:39 PM
This would have been the smart tactic for the homosexual lobby.
They had been making plenty of slow progress, but got greedy and have almost ‘jumped the shark’ through some of the blatant attempts to end-run the legal system and now their petty and violent temper tantrums.
Religious_Zealot on November 19, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Likewise. On this issue we are on opposite sides, and it will get a little heated at times, but I’m always interested to hear your arguments.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Oh, without a doubt. My only point was that every translation and every paraphrase (good or bad) will declare the truth in God’s Word, i.e., homosexual behavior is a sin against a Holy God, period.
Of course, the unbeliever will inevitably say, “well, I don’t believe the Bible.” So what? I don’t believe in Black Liberation Theology, but Jeremiah Wright sure does. So, who’s right? Mao was a huge believer in Marxism, but I hate it and would never believe in it. Who’s right?
No matter where you turn, someone is telling you what to think and how to behave. I’ll stick with God’s Word for my epistemological starting point. His Word tells me what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s good and what’s bad, what’s better and what’s best. Human beings, to be frank, can’t even make up their minds about who killed Kennedy, much less about which government is the best. Or whose morality is best.
I’ll stick with God. Oh, and by the way, the framers of our Constitution and form of government would have agreed with me, even if they didn’t believe the gospel of Jesus Christ as I do. They knew what was best for a society to succeed. Today’s liberal says he knows better than God or the framers, does he?
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM
To SC Charlie, on the issue of gays in the military (openly) I tend to look at the Sacred Band of Thebes as the example. But that force was entirely gay and in pairs, which is something that no one would allow for us.
I would also add that we do have a need for gays serving in the military, since there is definitely a need for gays in our spy organizations and it would be best to have seasoned military people – elite soldiers. On that note, however, one who had to keep some secrets during his service would be best prepared for spying. I just thought I’d throw that in.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Unfortunately, there are many paraphrases out there that do NOT declare the truth in God’s Word.
The Message is probably the most famous (and sadly, popular) example wherein the writer (Eugene Peterson) adds and subtracts things almost at will. For example, in the two most famous(?) verses in the NT that decry homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10), Peterson actually removes the word “homosexual(s)” from the verses (and adds, out of nowhere, “abuse the earth” to the list of sins).
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Heterosexuals have degraded marriage more than any gay union ever could. Contraceptives, no-fault divorces, drive-thru weddings, weddings officiated by Elvis, 50% divorce rate, etc… If any group should lose the right to marry it’s the heterosexuals.
Noneya on November 20, 2008 at 12:01 AM
I guess then we would then simply revert to Civil Unions which have the same exact rights and privileges as being married.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:06 AM
I can see you haven’t done much thinking on this have you?
Let’s try your argument on for size shall we?
Pedophiliacs love children more than parents. Parents beat, sometimes starve, embarrass, and dominate their children. Pedophiliacs only love children. They actually love children in a way parents would never understand. If any group deserves to have their children taken away from them, it’s parents!
or, how about this?
Doctors often commit inexcusable crimes against their patients (fill in the crime or abuse here), therefore, we should take their medical license away and give them to the faculty of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford.
When you find the perfect, blissful, satisfied, heterosexual couple let me know, I want to meet them. Being a pastor myself, I have yet to meet one.
Including my own.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Religious_Zealot on November 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM
I shouldn’t have checked the thread again. Dangit. I don’t think what I posted is what you think I posted. My own fault for being too general. The “only thing?” No. But it’s part of life. Homosexuals certainly aren’t going to be fulfilled pretending they’re not gay.
***
Marriage is the ultimate affirmation of romantic love -its cultural meaning is what differentiates it from civil unions.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry another dude. It’s easier than you might think.
Take the Bible out of the equation and there’s no rational reason to exclude gays from marriage. Basically, you’re forcing the rest of society to practice the most trivial part of your religion. That’s wrong.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM
1) Well, it wouldn’t be the FIRST time I didn’t understand someting! ;)
2) Again, being fulfilled in life should not solely be dependent upon sexual orientation or sexual activity. I’m not saying it isn’t important – but there are plenty of other ways to find fulfillment in life outside of the bedroom.
1) My first problem with your statement is that marriage hasn’t always been about “romantic love” (and still isn’t in many parts of the world).
2) My second problem is that the “cultural significance” of a label neither adds nor subtracts to the depth, character and worth of a relationship. Some anti-Prop8 posters have asked the question of how would we heterosexual married people feel if we woke up one day and the legal definition of marriage had been changed to exclude us. I replied by saying that no legal definition or label would change either my relationship with my wife or the fact that in the eyes of God I was still married.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:28 AM
The point is you must accept and think exactly as they do! You will be assimilated!
This is the front lines of the Culture War, people! They want it to be thought of as exactly the same thing, even though only a tiny fraction of gay people actually want to “get married”. They just want to have the “right” if they feel like it one day…
I’ve brought up the idea of banning the use of the words “husband” and “wife” before. Think about it; I introduce my significant other as “my wife”. There is no ambiguity about what that means. When a man and a woman are living together (not married) you say “my girfriend”. It is understood. However, when two dudes are married, what are they going to say? Saying “partner” doesn’t go far enough. If they have to explain that they are married, then that proves that it really is not the same thing. If they say “this is my husband” or “this is my wife” then that implies that one or the other takes it in the ass. I don’t want to know about that!
These people that are violently protesting are bitter, sniveling bullies with many issues that would take only one punch in the face to clear up.
I don’t care about them. I care about having a safe and stable environment to raise my family. Their issues can get in the priority line which happens to be way down at the bottom during these times.
yubley on November 20, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Opposition to gay marriage is not restricted to the religious. I am secular and I oppose it on the grounds that it would have a major adverse effect on society and would open the door to so many other forms, which would also have to be called marriage, along with many other consequences to the structure of our society, as to destroy the institution of marriage in toto and throw society into disarray.
The foundation of our society is not “trivial” and is not restricted to any religion.
progressoverpeace on November 20, 2008 at 12:37 AM
“Take the Bible out of the equation?” Oh, no doubt, that’s what you and the rest of the anti-God, left wing faction want. The Bible threatens your life because you know that if it is indeed the Word of God, then you’re in deep trouble. That’s why you hate it and want it removed from the public square.
The only one forcing anything is you and your crowd. The country has always based it’s laws on the Judeo/Christian value system gleaned from biblical precepts. You are the one forcing secular humanism down the throats of the rest of society. That’s why you lose at the ballot box on issues like this time and time again. The country isn’t Christian, but it does tether it’s morality to biblical values, especially black voters, as was seen in the Calif. election.
Moreover, what we see happening in Minnesota (I urge everyone to take a look at RedState on what Franken is doing out there) is the only way you can get your way – lying and cheating. The people don’t want your morality, but you will find a way to force it down our throats by any means necessary, including black robed judicial “brown shirts.”
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Fascists….
DL13 on November 20, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Excellent points! I think you speak for the majority on this issue, whether they are religious or not.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 12:46 AM
How do you separate cultural significance from personal significance? Other than that, I think I’m content to let my arguments and your objections rest on their own merits. Have a good night, sir.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Gays can fornicate at will so they don’t need a law for that.
.
They want rights to get a piece of the insurance pie which grants special rates to couples. If they are legal, they can force the insurance companies to provide this reducing the overall available money and thereby hurting the straights.
.
The special rates that currently exist are to endorse a relationship that has been the foundation of population growth and the heterosexual marriage with children has led to the family structure which provides the best background for raising productive and happy human beings.
.
They also want the law to force their behavior down our throats and not allow us to distance ourselves from their healthy and, to many, immoral life style choice.
.
Homosexuality is not a race. Its not a biological imperative. It’s a choice like doing drugs is a choice.
.
If love between people is the driver, then polygamy and even bestiality should be endorsed where minors are not involved. Insurance coverage should be provided for your loving collie.
FactsofLife on November 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM
They also want the law to force their behavior down our throats and not allow us to distance ourselves from their UNHEALTHY and, to many, immoral life style choice.
FactsofLife on November 20, 2008 at 12:52 AM
The same way I separate what I think and believe and what others think about what I think and believe (i.e. I’m not very dependent on what others think about me).
Too many people predicate their own personal happiness on the acceptance and adulation of others.
Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find anybody who can consistently and ultimately find true and lasting happiness there.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM
What am I forcing on you? Nothing. Will it be any harder for you to be a good Christian if you wake up in the morning and gay people can get married? No. It won’t change your life at all. The only people it will affect are homosexuals, and it will have a positive impact on their lives and their culture.
You’re a free man. Keep your Judeo-Christian values. Most of them are good and noble, and the worst of them are merely anachronistic. I won’t stop you.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I really am starting to struggle to not hate homosexuals… clicked on the site of the Foldom street fair and now am completely depressed and disgusted. I only saw a few pics but it was enough to make me feel that these people are evil, debased, degenerate disgusting…
CCRWM on November 20, 2008 at 12:59 AM
progressoverpeace on November 20, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Well, I don’t think the facts bear that out. I also think allowing gay marriage would have a transformative effect on gay culture, eliminating many of the social problems that disproportionately affect them. It’s good for them, it’s (at the least) not bad for us. Everybody wins.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM
If anyone should have their internet rights stripped away, it should be morons like you.
Noneya on November 20, 2008 at 1:05 AM
.
It certainly is bad for us. It puts a strain on insurance funds and will reduce the amount available and raise premiums.
.
It will force straights to have to interact with people who engage in a lifestyle that they find to be unhealthy and offensive.
.
It definitely is a loser for straight people.
FactsofLife on November 20, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Oh god I just visited one of the millions of heterosexual porn sites and I feel the same way. But I’m just going to give in to my hatred of you, no struggle here.
Noneya on November 20, 2008 at 1:12 AM
But it doesn’t feel the same!
I firmly believe in making reasonable accommodations where possible, even when I don’t believe what a group is demanding is justifiable in itself.
But redefining what marriage is in order to accommodate people who would rather have a same-sex relationship is not reasonable. If you want a same-sex relationship, you can do it. If you want to call it marriage, you can call it a marriage. Really. It’s not like anyone can stop you.
But you cannot demand that anyone else recognize it as a marriage. And that is the heart of the whole issue. The issue is not to allow the people in these relationships to call them marriages, since free speech already covers that right. The issue is to make others accept these same-sex relationships as marriage.
And that’s the killer of the issue. Christians who actually believe their Bibles will never accept same-sex relationships as marriages, or indeed as anything other than sinful, no matter what the laws say. So if all gays want is acceptance of their lifestyles, they still won’t have it. What they will have is a cudgel to use against those who refuse to acknowledge their state-sanctioned “marriages.”
(I’m aware there are those who will say, “I’m a Christian, and I see nothing wrong with it.” But that’s irrelevant. There have always been those who call themselves Christians while refusing to abide by the teachings and morals of the Christian faith.)
theregoestheneighborhood on November 20, 2008 at 1:14 AM
I’ve already exposed you and your crowd for the lying charlatans you are, pretending the argument wasn’t made won’t help you.
Let’s try this on your foot shall we?
Can’t help you there, pal. Everything you and your crowd stand for seeks to take away my freedom and outlaw my values. Your values are not good and noble, and they are anachronistic. They were eliminated, and/or rendered futile as a viable form of governance in 1945, 1946, 1953, 1975, and finally in 1992
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:19 AM
You’re the one who made the argument, ace, not me. Don’t like your argument being taken to it’s logical conclusion? Take better care to think before you post.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Was it really that hard to follow the reduction ad absurdem argument here?
theregoestheneighborhood on November 20, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Look, you’ve already embarrassed yourself twice tonight, why go for the hat trick?
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
So a gay parade through the streets of San Francisco is equivalent to a heterosexual porn site? I think you just unintentionally agreed with CCRWM.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
You are spot on my friend. Well said!
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Not at all. Accepting the logic of gay marriage requires one to accept a stream of consequences for consenting adults:
gay marriage => polygamy/multi-partner gay marriages => communal hetero and gay groups
All of these must also be given the title and benefits of “marriage”, which includes the right to adopt, rights for foreign partners/members, full familial rights to all involved, … if one subscribes to the logic being offered for gay marriage being a “right”. Once you take the genders out of the marriage contract, the 2 is only a number. It doesn’t represent anything distinguished. It’s nothing more than an artifact of quaint times gone by. The 2 is meaningless. It all just gets too nutty at that point, and however nutty it would be, the public schools would be sure to teach it to 5 and 6 year olds. I don’t like that picture.
If you don’t accept those other arrangements, then you don’t follow the logic of gay marriage as a “right”, or as anything that is somehow found in the statutes of regular marriage. That’s just how it is. Now, people can live in communes, if they want. They can have sex with each other, too, but that is not a marriage and never will be, as I see it.
And don’t think, for a second, that these other weird arrangements won’t be trudging into court for their recognition. Heterosexual polygamists have more right to claim the word ‘marriage’ than any gay couple. There are rich histories of polygamy in almost every culture, at one time or another.
progressoverpeace on November 20, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Rampaging Mormon hordes? Naw. Not their style.
But I could see them preparing to evacuate the whole San Andreas fault zone.
Confutus on November 20, 2008 at 3:31 AM
There’s only one way to make Prop 8 LAW!
Release the Muslims!
Kini on November 20, 2008 at 3:40 AM
Hey, we can rampage!
Well, okay. We can parade.
And pageant. That’s kinda rampagy. There’s singing, but it’s frequently off-key. Very menacing.
sulla on November 20, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Somewhat OT & FYI…I was just watching “ARNIE” on F&F discussing the auto bailout….
He said we should do the “will” of the people …
What a hypocrite …how about Prop 8 Arnie?
jerrytbg on November 20, 2008 at 6:54 AM
I saw a sign held up in the clip that said “Mormons breed hate”.
The problem with the right in this country is that it doesn’t believe in an eye for an eye. There should be people counterprotesting with signs that say “Mormons breed hate? No, homosexuals breed AIDS”.
RWLA on November 20, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Until the right can organize and protest like the left I fear we are at the mercy of the liberal media and the screeching leftist protestors.
The will of the majority will be over ridden by a few thousand angry protesters who apparently don’t have day jobs.
….and we on the right continue to sit by on the sidelines and politely twiddle our thumbs.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Mr Purple on November 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Listen carefully, I know how difficult this is…
But the definition of marriage, since the beginning of time, is one man, one woman (and in some instances, one man and many women).
Societies for tens of thousands of years never considered man to man marriage or women to women marriage.
So the word means what it means…from the beginning of time.
That fact you don’t want to admit that, shows that facts and history mean nothing to you.
Now answer this question: How many legs does you dog have?
And you will have your definition of marriage answered.
right2bright on November 20, 2008 at 8:35 AM
And how do you know this site was owned by a heterosexual?
right2bright on November 20, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Good grief, the Bible people sure hit this thread hard. I guess that I am just going to have to go back in the closet. And, get used to the idea that I am going to hell.
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Here’s a question for the folks out there. If your reason for opposing gay marriage is that homosexuality is a sin, then shouldn’t all sinners be bared from marriage? Why is this particular sin unacceptable? Why should atheists be allowed to legally marry, or for that matter Jews/Muslims or anyone else who doesn’t profess Christ as their Lord and savior which is the quickest ticket to hell according to Christianity. Murderers and every kind of criminal is allowed to marry, is that less of a sin than homosexuality? What’s the deal?
DeathToMediaHacks on November 20, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Parents divorcing and breaking up the home has a much greater and public impact on the stability of straight families than making a distinction between marriage and civil unions for gays.
Few straight families will dissolve because a parent wants to gay marry someone else. Many have and will because of extra-marital affairs and eventual divorce.
In the Gospels Christ explicitly condemned those who divorce and remarry as adulterers. In Corinthians adulterers and sodomites are listed together among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Why have U.S. law focus on the sodomites but ignore the adulterers?
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM
No no…Don’t you know we “chose” to be gay? We’ll just have to go back to being straight.
meh, it’s not even that it’s the “bible people”…it’s the fundamentalist/evangelical crowd. They love to judge.
Whew, I’m glad I missed this thread last night.
Excellent point.
JetBoy on November 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Amen, DTMH.
As I have stated here many times in the past whenever this issue comes up, I think many people here are confusing the double meaning of marriage. Right now we have religious marriage and civil marriage. Most people here are equating the two.
Religious marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, usually formalized in a church. Civil marriage is a contract granting certain rights and responsibilities to two people.
I believe that we should separate the two by changing the term used for civil marriage. Let states call the contractual agreement a civil union and offer it to all couples who wish to enter into this contract, gay or straight. This would level the playing field for everyone.
Churches will continue to marry whomever they want and would not be forced to recognize the civil unions of same sex couples. Thus they could then claim that the traditional institution of marriage has not been redefined.
I can understand the anger of people on this issue, but I think this represents a fair compromise. The anger seems to be so focused upon the word marriage.
DCGamer on November 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Um, no. Marriage has been between a man and a woman in every culture and every religion since the dawn of time. It’s not an exclusively Jewish or Christian institution.
Bobbertsan on November 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM
No, the religious argument against same-sex marriage is NOT based on homosexuality being a sin (which it is)…
…rather it is based on God’s specific and succinct definition for marriage: 1 man, 1 woman:
(Matthew 19:4-5)
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM
——-of course all porn websites are owned by homosexual tycoons.
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 9:36 AM
But you cannot demand that anyone else recognize it as a marriage. And that is the heart of the whole issue. The issue is not to allow the people in these relationships to call them marriages, since free speech already covers that right. The issue is to make others accept these same-sex relationships as marriage.
theregoestheneighborhood has NAILED IT! Nicely done sir!
max1 on November 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Personally, I think adultery SHOULD be criminalized.
I also think that for those who are pro-same-sex marriage…
…that comparing same-sex marriage to adultery is not exactly a smart thing to do and it certainly doesn’t help your argument.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 9:44 AM
It probably doesn’t. It is entirely another issue. There is a lot more adultery being committed and most people just don’t give a darn about it. I wonder how many men are not making their child support payments ………. and, how many children don’t know who’s their father? With all the wonderful support that “normal” people get in this life, they can sure screw things up.
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Again, great work Michelle. As mentioned conservatives experience a set back and they look at their loss as an opportunity to correct. However, when liberals loose they blame everyone except themselves.
What is the difference – maturity. As the idiom goes, “A liberal is a conservative, that has been mugged.”
Admitting ones ideology is outside of social norms has the same affect as being mugged for a liberal. Unfortunately, liberals can never admit they are wrong because it is as painful as being mugged, and they are afraid of pain; unless they are inflicting it on others to their benefit.
MSGTAS on November 20, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Kind of makes you wonder why homosexuals want to get in on all this ‘fun.’
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Question for you fundamentalists out there… If Americans cannot go 200 years without amending our foundational charter, how can you expect the world to go over 2,000 years without re-interpreting its holy book? An omnipotent God would understand that his children would evolve and grow. What worked 2,000 years ago (slavery, for instance) does not work today.
There are not many places in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned, compared to usury or adultery. Also, where mentioned, it does not refer to same-sex couples in a loving, monogamous relationship. In the past, even if so inclined, a man had to take a woman as wife in order to create children to whom he could pass his property.
Recognizing that the Earth is growing very crowded, could an omniscient God have created more homosexuals in order to prevent over-population? Is it not possible? Maybe, or maybe not, but my point is that we cannot know for certain God’s will. People who claim with certainty to know it make me very nervous.
Back to the Bible…God knew the world would change in ways impossible for man to conceive 2,000 years ago. When he inspired men to write the Bible, he had to make it understandable to the people of the time. He could not include contingency clauses and amendments for the future.
Like the U.S. Constitution, some things will not/cannot change. Murder is always wrong (except for war, I guess). Other things have/will change. Slavery is now outlawed everywhere (except in some Muslim areas).
DCGamer on November 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Ah, I love when non-Christians try to argue on or about the Bible.
Anyway, the difference is very simple and profound.
The Constitution is the word of men.
The Bible is the Word of God.
And while men change, God is the same yesterday, and today and forever.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 10:08 AM
O All-Hearing, All-Seeing
In 2000 prop 22 won by 30% points.
In 2008 prop 8 by 4%.
Cultural and demographic evolution spell eventual doom to this tactic.
dy/dx
Does anyone doubt that mixedsex marriage will be eventually made legal in the exact fashion that mixedrace marriage was?
The Mormons and Christians have a won one battle, but they WILL lose this war.
Is the illwill and negative-branding this action engenders among the youth demographic worth a small and temporary “victory”?
matoko_chan on November 20, 2008 at 10:11 AM
There are some things I very strongly object:
1.) Labeling sexual orientation when someone isn’t finished yet. What I mean by that is people are not fully-formed until their late teens–or even into their twenties. A pre-adolescent or adolescent “crush” does not sexuality make. I think that-that is heinous.
2.) Hyper-sexuality in general makes me kind of sick to my stomach. Promiscuity is very risky and causes all sorts of problems in a society. Orientation doesn’t matter in this case. Promiscuity is destructive to the individual and to a society. It is not a freedom; it is a lack of self-restraint, of self-worth and it destroys the essential trust which must exist for healthy culture. People get used, then used up, then discarded. The heart of promiscuity is predation.
Much of religious doctrine is based upon direct observation of the consequences of behavior. It is an attempt to pass empirical information on to following generations. Nothing in the essential human experience is new–people seem to think that previous generations are collectively retarded.
3.) Unlike so many others, I think that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” was unusually wise. Yes, it depends upon the maturity of command–and of the individual soldier–as so many things in the military require, but the emphasis is upon the cohesiveness of the soldiers in the unit. That cohesiveness is necessary for the survival of the soldiers in a combat situation. There are soldiers who are absolutely trusted and absolutely integrated with their units–who happen to be gay (it’s not something which could be secret for very long.) These men/women have earned respect and trust by their behavior as a soldier and gave those around them time to expand their teen/twenty-something comfort zones to accomodate them. (This is something which takes time; a luxury which is not always available.) It is imperfect at best; you cannot command emotions, reactions and trust in late teens and early twenties.
4.) The argument of semantics–which is totally false–when it comes to the word ‘Marriage’. The word ‘Marriage’ is an intimate part of religious doctrine. It is not a trademark or copyright like “Band-Aid”. You cannot play games with religious doctrine; period. Either you establish a STATE RELIGION (or State mandates of religious docrine) or you don’t. End of story. There is no “debate”. My family came from England for that very reason. We signed the Mayflower Compact. We killed our countrymen for the freedom from State mandated religion. It is THE core, THE foundation and THE REASON for the settling of the first Colonies which became the USA. Don’t you people remember that the early Colonies at settlement had 50% die-off during the first winter? At Roanoke, it was 100%. Why do you think families were willing to take that risk?
I am dumbfounded as to why people are surprised at the resistance of the people to the courts interference with doctrine.
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I agree.
I think all this violence and throwing of temper-tantrums by the anti-Prop8 crowd will not help their cause in the long run.
Wait…
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Sorry, MSGTAS, it’s not that easy. I am a conservative who is very much in favor of same-sex “marriage.” While I oppose any violence or vandalism committed by those marching to overturn Prop 8, I have no problem with those who are protesting.
I equate these protests with the civil rights protests in the 1960s. Gays feel discriminated against, and they are protesting for the same rights that straight people have.
Conservatives are definitely capable of protesting. In fact, living in Washington, DC, I have been to a few. The Gathering of Eagles protested the anti-war weirdos. How about the pro-life marches every year in DC?
I very much believe that same-sex “marriage” should be a conservative issue. Conservatives should support same-sex “marriage” for the same reason that they support straight “marriage.” It provides a stable situation for two people to take care of each other and, in some cases, raise children. Without the taming effect of marriage, anything goes. Is not straight promiscuity just as bad as gay promiscuity?
DCGamer on November 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM
How many times does God have to say “DON’T DO IT!!!”…
…in order for us to understand He means it?
Actually the Bible doesn’t specify ANY kind of context.
Thus the only way it would approve of a “loving, monogamous relationship” is if there were no sexual activity in it.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM
RZ, you assume I am non-Christian because I am not as narrow-minded as you are on this issue? On the contrary, I pray daily, attend Church weekly, and try to live a moral life.
You and I both know that the Bible is full of contradictions. There is plenty of room for interpretation. However, the Bible should not play a role in the discussion of the civil institution of marriage. As I proposed above, we should get the government out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the churches.
Yes, God is unchanging and man is imperfect. However, God gave us free will and a mind to reason. If slavery is permitted in the Bible, then why have we outlawed it today? Are we more merciful than God? Of course not. We reasoned that it diminishes both the slave and the slaveholder.
I believe that gays are born gay. Since that is true, then how can we not expect gays to love another person the way straight people do?
DCGamer on November 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Religious Zealot, I deplore extremism and expressed hatreds on both sides.
However, consider how this might affect a Mitt Romney run on the presidency.
This last election, or as I prefer to term it, the extinction event at the K-T Boundary, has proven that white married christians are now a minority in the electorate, and will go on decreasing as a proportion of the electorate.
In order to ever win again the GOP has to court many demograhics that are very opposed to religious interference in the State.
The actions of the Mormon church have created a memetic landmine for a Romney presidential run.
matoko_chan on November 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM
DCGamer: The Civil institution of quote MARRIAGE unquote can easily be redefined as a “Civil Union”–which could have exactly the same legal rights, authorities, and responsibilities as a “civil Marriage”. Just don’t use the word MARRIAGE in government documents anymore. Simple.
EXCEPT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS WANTED BY THE GAY ACTIVISTS.
THEY WANT THE WORD MARRIAGE REDEFINED!
Two. Different. Things.
A civil union between two males or two females is not equivalent in a RELIGIOUS context–or a social context when many of the people have religious beliefs in the group. This tiny minority want to OUTLAW RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. Or, the teaching of children that–according to their religious belief–homosexuality is wrong.
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Guys, if I may:
This issue is not about civil rights for gays, nor about religion, nor about homosexuality. It’s about law and individual liberty.
The California court and the Prop 8 opponents are trying to overturn a law by the simple expedient of redefining a word in the law. The word “marriage” clearly applied only to cross-gender relationships when the law was written. The Court redefined the word. Prop 8 does nothing but assert the correct definition of the word.
It seems obvious to me that if words can be made fluid in the manner they (and the California Supreme Court) have attempted, then no law has any meaning, no liberty has any protection, and no citizen is safe from government. If that can be done, then there’s very little point even in passing laws in the first place; the mere fact that words can be redefined at will makes the passing of laws irrelevant, and makes absolute despots of whoever has the power to define the words.
Ours is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men. This is how our liberties are protected. If words have no fixed meaning, then ours is a government of men, not of laws, and none of our liberties are safe.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Many behaviors are legal and tolerated that are sinful under various religious teaching.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM
To your first point, yes! Give everyone – gay or straight – a civil union from the government. Let straight people marry in a church.
I am not so sure about your second point. I think they just want the same exact thing that straight people have. If everyone had a civil union from the government, that should solve the problem.
If I am wrong and most gays want to force churches to recognize their “marriage,” then I would be on your side. I would absolutely oppose any effort to force churches to act against their doctrines.
DCGamer on November 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
We change definitions in laws all the time from speeding to IRS regulations–yet enforcement continues. We even changed the meaning of “men” in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
matoko_chan:
80% of the black vote was for prop 8.
70 odd % of the Hispanic (sic) vote was for prop 8.
“White” people? Not so much. A little less than 50%.
Let’s average that out mmm-kay?
That is 66.67%. A bit more than necessary to win an election–don’t you think?
Most are in favor of legal and civil rights for same sex unions. No problem. Just don’t redefine a word with ties to religious doctrine.
How can you be so schizophrenic as to use the argument of separation of church and state over the use of a WORD which has its inception in religious doctrine?
Are you MacNamera’s love child?
JEEZE!
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
No, I assumed you were a non-Christian because you didn’t know a basic, fundamental Christian truth.
I mean, if you really can’t tell the difference between The Bible and the U.S. Constitution…
…then you really should go back and really STUDY the Bible.
1) It has SOME contradictions, it’s not FULL of them.
2) There are NO contradictions on basic theological truths.
This reminds me of one of those old “God Speaks” billboards – the one that said “What part of ‘Thou Shalt Not’ don’t you understand?”
In other words, no, there really ISN’T much room for interpretation.
While I don’t think one can separate religion from the discussion of marriage (which had major religious underpinnings)…
…I do agree that I think the solution is to leave ‘marriage’ to the churches and ‘legal unions’ to the states.
“Permitted” is not the same thing as “approved.”
No where in the Bible will you come across something like “Thou shall have slaves.”
Instead, it dealt with the present reality and told masters how to TREAT their slaves.
Although, the Bible also has several places where it speaks against slavery (Year of Jubilee, book of Philemon).
Thus the slavery argument doesn’t really hold water.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Utter nonsense. We allow courts to interpret the intent of the legislature when the meanings are unclear. That’s not the same as changing the meanings of words to change the sense of the law.
The Declaration of Independence is not a law. You’re making an idiot of yourself.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM
When the argument against gay marriage is based on the Bible condemning homosexual acts and defining marriage as male-to-female, resolving that principled argument with the Bible also condemning divorce and remarriage is problematic.
I’m not making the case that we should implement Biblical law directly into U.S. law. I’m trying to understand why those who look to the Bible contend that the part against gay marriage is critical but the part against adultery is something U.S. adults can decide for themselves.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Go to one of the blogs which are strenuously in favor of redefining marriage and try to make the argument of the use of “Civil Union” on all govt. paperwork and see how far you get. There will be a few who will agree with you–but they will be shouted down. The others will call you a bigot and other things.
Do a “funnel-close” argument with them and you will get the most vehement of the commenters to admit they want to make the teaching of children in religious dogma a form of child abuse.
This is strickly about the use the word MARRIAGE. And, an attack upon religious belief.
dedalus:
No other incidence of “unchristian” behavior which has become mainstream–wants as its final solution the elimination of the church; ie. the use of the legal system being used to excise unwanted areas of church doctrine.
I have debated and investigated. It all comes down to useful idiots being “played” by those with a deeper/greater agenda.
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 11:17 AM
For me (an agnostic) it has nothing to do with the Bible.
It has to do with granting special benefits to what I believe is the best environment to raise children.
I would be for eliminating these benefits for couples who do not have children before I would be for granting these rights to gay couples.
…and when the gay community stops degenerate sexual behavior such as random, anonymous sexual encounters in public parks perhaps my opinion will change on what benefits they should be granted.
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
Mr Purple on November 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Look, this is simply not a good tact to take for the pro-same-sex-marriage folk.
1) You are arguing on someone else’s terms. One invariable looses an argument when you allow your opponent to set the terms.
2) By putting adultery and same-sex-marriage in the same sentence they are drawing comparisons between the two. Most people don’t listen all the way through an argument, so they may simply believe that the same-sex folks are conceding the point that there is something inherently morally, ethically WRONG with same-sex marriage.
3) It allows the argument to be won by your opponent when they say “You’re absolutely right! And when we’re done fighting same-sex marriage we’ll get to work on making adultery illegal. One thing at a time, though.”
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I can’t get past the peoples’ vote not counting.
bridgetown on November 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM
What’s religion got to do with this issue? There has been no instance of a nation or culture in the history of the planet that has defined marriage as being anything other than the union of opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. There are variations in the details of the practice, but the cross-gender part is universal, with no exceptions.
The cross-gender nature of marriage is not a RELIGIOUS definition, it’s a HUMAN definition.
Don’t let the grotesquely dishonest gay activists and their brainless minions in the progressive movement turn this into a discussion of religion. Religion has nothing to do with it. It’s just their dishonest attempt to try to marginalize their opponents.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM
You are contending that the meaning of words either in law or in a social context is fixed. A look at history shows otherwise. My argument is not that a Court should redefine marriage, rather that voters should change the laws of their states.
The Declaration served a different purpose than the U.S. Constitution, but it is a foundational document that Presidents and even the Supreme Court have invoked in governing the country. The fact that the use of the word “men” has changed is meaningful.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 11:24 AM
No, it’s not SOLELY about religion…
…but neither can one completely remove religion from the discussion.
While I believe that there is persuasive secular reasons to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman, I also think that the religious influence on this issue in intractable.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Gay facsism.
Wow.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The argument is sufficient when someone says that gay marriage can’t happen because the Bible says so. If Prop 8 had been a referendum on whether the Bible should be the basis of CA law it wouldn’t have passed.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I just saw on Fox News where a small town had issued over 700 massage parlor licenses in the last three years. I wonder what is going on there?
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Al Gayda strikes again.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »