Who supported Prop. 8?
So, who supported the traditional marriage initiative in California?
Black and Latino Obama voters, according to exit polls.
Here:
California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, provided key support for a state ban on same-sex marriage. Christian, married and older voters also helped give the measure the winning edge, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.
Proposition 8 overturns a May California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay nuptials and rewrites the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Exit poll data showed seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed the ballot initiative, while whites and Asians were split.
Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.
Obama has said he is not in favor of gay marriage but supports civil unions. The president-elect opposed Proposition 8.
Religious voters also were decisive in getting Proposition 8 passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Ninety percent of voters who said they had no religious affiliation opposed the measure, but they were a much smaller portion of the electorate.
Denise Fernandez, a 57-year-old African-American from Sacramento, said she voted for Obama but felt especially compelled to cast a ballot this year to support Proposition 8.
“I came out because of my religious beliefs. I believe a Christian is held accountable, and we have to make a difference,” Fernandez said.
Keep this in mind when you hear liberals ranting about the homophobic, intolerant California voters who oppose gay marriage.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Babalu Blog
» Greece is BurningPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsNice Deb
» Former DEA Chief Tells Fox News: 3 Other Federal Agencies Knew About Operation ‘Fast and Furious’Gateway Pundit
» Notre Dame Tells Obama: HHS Mandate Is a ‘Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’AmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
And has that ideal collapsed in Massachusetts? Or Spain? Or Belgium? Or Norway? No, it’s still there. Children still do best in marriages – the gender is not important, at least not as important as to warrant stripping gay couples of access to marriage.
As you’ve said, marriage isn’t considered “cool” any more. People think it’s unglamorous and just ties one down. Divorce has devastated marriage. And yet gay people still want access to it. Gay people still want to give it a shot just like I did, and as you did. Shouldn’t we be applauding them, not bullying them?
I’ll not argue with the devil.
out
Did you notice the parsing in that AP story on Prop 8? Obama does not support gay marriage, but he opposed Prop 8? What’s that supposed to mean? Oh, he’s voting “present” again.
Where, Omu, does the Constitution explicitly say marriage is a right?
And – if it does, even in a vague manner – how do you reconcile the right of gay marriage with the fact the Constitution explicitly protects the rights of people to speak and worship freely?
Because I see nothing in the gay rights’ movement that is in any way tolerant of the very real rights of people to disagree with them. Especially the rights of the religious.
Funny how blacks are now bigots. Does this include President Obama?
I am not a bigot. I simply care about your soul, and pray that you would turn from your sinful lifestyle.
I am not happy that “gays” are upset. I wish they would take the chance to experience true freedom and happiness by turning from their sin and embracing the grace of Christ.
What “right” did they truly deserve? The definition of marriage has revolved around one man and one woman… and you still have that right. The definition of marriage is applied consistently across all groups. If you are male, you have the right to marry a female. If you are female, you have the right to marry a male. Nothing has been stripped, or removed.
We have simply prevented a re-definition of marriage for the selfish application to justify a sinful lifestyle.
I have a basic question.
In every major religion, marriage is instituted by God: i.e. God the Father, Yaweh, Allah, etc. Thus, marriage is a religious act.
How can the State, being godless, perform a “marriage?” If you stand before a judge, you take no vows to your god. How can that be a marriage?
What the state calls the act they perform is their business. But they should not call it a marriage, nor should they be allowed to issue a secular piece of paper called a marriage certificate.
The younger voters know quite well just how horrific homosexuality actually is because they can see it and experience its destructive impact within their own schools and social networks. The youth are not going to allow the loud and raucous LGBTers to push the homosexual agenda anymore than blacks, latinos or old white folks did this go round.
What the homosexuals just don’t want to admit is that their behavior is not only self-destructive but culturally and societally destructive — and history has demonstrated time and again that acceptance of homosexual and other perverted forms of sexual behavior is directly linked to the decline of nations.
yeah it has, look at the netherlands…
link
Many people who don’t live in California assume that the entire state thinks like the bay area and western Los Angeles. As the most populated state, there are millions of people who live in the burbs and in rutal areas who don’t agree with the bay area liberals. Even in the bay area, there are pockets of conservatism such as Daly City with a huge Filipino population that is predominately Catholic that refuses to go along with the “program.” I wasn’t shocked by the vote on 8. The locals who were shocked were the residents of the Castro and the college kids.
Marraige is between a man and a woman, period. You wanna go prance around in the woods together, fine. Leave marraige alone. silly fairies.
If you’re looking for a collapse overnight, it won’t happen. But when you slowly chip away at the important cornerstones of society, it will eventually crumble. Traditional marriage is one of those cornerstones.
Nature abhors a vacuum, Omu. Once you eschew the Gospel, you don’t get nothing. You get anything.
The more our culture pushes away from encouraging the norms of society and actively seeks to crush those norms, the closer we edge to a time when we lose everything.
from further down in the article…
The decline of marriage in the Netherlands in tandem with the growing success of the Dutch movement for gay marriage is the clearest example of gay marriage’s impact on marital decline. Badgett does her best to evade the problem by claiming that the increase in non-marital births began before Dutch registered partnerships took effect in early 1998. That is a weak argument, since an increase of two-percentage points in the out-of-wedlock birthrate for seven consecutive years is rare. It was anything but inevitable that a two-percent increase in non-marital births in 1997 would be followed by six consecutive increases at the same level. In any case, the final vote to establish registered partnerships took place in 1997.
Stop making this into a “liberal vs. conservative” thing. It isn’t. We’re talking about people here for cryin’ out loud. It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.
By the way, right4life, there’s more to being a conservative than opposing abortion rights for women and hating gay people. In fact, I’m almost certain that conservatism in every other country and even among many Republicans is not about that at all.
You may have shot yourself in the foot with this statement…
Homosexual marriage is one warning sign of a decline of family values.
Since you mentioned these areas specifically, what is their average reproduction rate? Remember, the rate needs to be above 2.1 to be stable, where children are replacing adults over time. My strong suspicion is that all of the areas you mentioned are actually declining… which is the opposite of the point you are trying to make.
I disagree. So there.
OMU
Having seen your posts here in the past, you never were a conservative and you’re use of the word “hate” to describe us, is of your own invention. Hate has nothing to do with it, and you know it. It is the will of the people YOU hate, because it doesn’t suit your political, yes, political agenda. As was mention here earlier, the majority vote is ONLY valid if it suits your purpose. Well, the minority was never meant to decide what becomes law. Your referencing certain “Christian” denominations that support the GLBT agenda doesn’t mean it’s Judeo /Christian doctrine.
I hate to burst your bubble, Omu, but a gay marriage amendment would NEVER have passed in MA. Why do you think they bypassed the public and went to the courts?
In case you are unaware, MA is a blue a state as you can get. All Democrat, all the time.
So who is the “bigot” here? It definitely cannot be conservatives? There are six of us here in MA.
How about CA. Polls verify that it was the blacks and hispanics that tipped the scales. Are you going to say they are conservatives? They all voted for Obama, so they are Dems by definition.
A real sticky wicket for you guys, huh?
first people who oppose gay marriage do not ‘hate’ gays. but you gays SURE AS HELL HATE those who oppose you.
the people you talk about are moderates…please.
I agree. But you’re confused about what “rights” really are.
Rights and freedoms are not the right or freedom to not practice constraint. Which is what the left wants.
It is a liberal v. conservative thing. Liberals are always falling on the side of people who don’t want to take responsibility for themselves, who blame everyone else for their bad decisions, and who want the government to force others to share their wealth or give up their rights to “not offend” some group.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the Constitution clearly spells out what are and aren’t rights, and pretty much in order of importance when you look at the Bill of Rights.
By the way, dominigan is absolutely correct – the birth rates in Europe are well below replacement level. So the collapse of civilization doesn’t happen over night, but is dragged out over years.
Guess who’s filling that void? The radical Islamists who migrate to Europe in droves.
Omu -
Two people together does not a family make. Family comes from “bearing” children…you know, “offspring?”
You show me just one homosexual couple that can produce children the traditional way…by natural, physical insemination (male vs. female sex coupling)…the way ALL of us were created, then I will support efforts to label their union “marriage.”
I assume Omu is conflicted by her support for homosexual “families.” Her insincere emotional plea for the homosexual couples “families” is fallacious. The liberal “mainstream” has shown their preference that there should be no unwanted children available to adopt, since abortion would make it impossible.
I just made the point a few comment up that gay rights is not a conservative/liberal thing. And you’ve just proven that for me even further. We agree, it seems
And would you hire a Calculus teacher who couldn’t solve 2+2=4?
If you can’t get the basic things right, how can you be expected to get the more complex ones right?
Ideals build on others. If you can’t understand that a person has a right to life… a right clearly, accurately stated in our Declaration of Independence as a foundational right… how can you understand the other rights that build on it?
Ahhh, the UCC or the Episcopal Church USA. Google Bishop Spong and the ECUSA Diocese of Newark. They actually host Spong’s denial of the Divinity of Christ. A fine church that is.
We should ignore both Jewish scripture, which forbad homosexual relations, but Christian scripture like The Acts of the Apostles, where Greek converts were told they didn’t need to follow Jewish dietary law, but did need to follow the sexual morality of the Jews. Or Paul’s letter to the Gentiles at the Church of Rome.
Certainly, lets no let God or Scripture get in the way of what we want.
The moral of this is that those who believe that Americans shifted their politics leftward in electing Obama are in for a rude awakening. Obama was elected as punishment for Bush’s fiscal incompetence that contributed to the financial meltdown. The percentages of Americans who view themselves as conservatives, liberals and centrists haven’t changed from the previous election.
I just made the point a few comment up that gay rights is not a conservative/liberal thing. And you’ve just proven that for me even further. We agree, it seems
So, are you honestly going to claim that this is a direct result of an acceptance of gay people? It has nothing to do with wealth, careers, birth control or anything else like that?
Nah, it will be multiples next. Take all Omu’s arguments and apply them to greater-than-two-people marriage arrangements, and they hold up. How would you like to be persecuted simply because you want to be married to two women at once? Hey, some religions aren’t so oppressive that they forbid multiple spouses. And polygamy is in the Bible and practiced by some offshoots of Christianity. Furthermore, many other countries permit multiple spouses. (Far more than permit gay marriage, after all.) Why shouldn’t our government recognize such arrangements? It’s only faaaaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrr. It’s their riiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhttttt.
I don’t hate gay people. I don’t find the mechanics of gay sex (see Zombie’s pix from the San Francisco “Up Your Alley” street festival) particularly appealing, but I do believe that consenting adults can do what they want in the privacy of their homes. I have no problem with them having similar unions, or having legal papers written giving each power of attorney and the right to make medical decisions.
That guy from Doogie Houser in Howard & Kumar, I have nothing against him.
This idea that opposition to gay marriage means hatred of gays is quite specious.
Truth be told, I’m disgusted that gay “families” would try to use the court system to override the will of the California voters.
The next step in the sexual normalization agenda is the children. I mean between grown ups and children. It will start with complaints about the age of consent. Just a gut feeling I’ve had for some time.
Polygamy will come with the normalization of Islamic values. Easily.
Mornin’ Ed.
My feeling is that giving marriage rights to gay people, and expecting them to become monogamous and committed is a bit like the theory that if you give out mortgages to financially irresponsible people, they’ll suddenly become responsible.
And we all know how well that scheme worked out.
Nothing prevents same-sex couples from having wedding ceremonies. Nothing prevents same-sex couples from making contractual arrangements that give one another access to each others property. But I think we can withhold the state’s imprimatur from such arrangements until we have a better idea that there is a state interest in recognizing them.
BTW, in so enlightened Europe, where traditional marriage is not supported, birth rates are dropping below levels needed to sustain the population.
Great, if you are thinking about saving the planet and all, but in reality, as the population ages, and people retire, there aren’t enough workers to provide basic services, or, for that matter, pay the taxes that fund the welfare state.
So in Europe, they encouraged immigration. Some, the Indians and Caribbeans, are generally assimilating. Those of Islamic beliefs, don’t believe in assimilation.
Being publically gay in Amsterdam is getting to be risky business with mobs of young Muslims wandering the streets.
You should read Mark Steyn sometime. Might do you some good.
Besides I which, I believe that, as a Mormon, since Prop 8 passed I am now entitled to barge into the houses of lesbian couples and take their stuff. Or so this ad from the No on 8 crowd led me to believe. So, when do I get my stuff?
I posted the research from Stanley Kurtz which you totally ignored…
truth hurts.
Omu
SLIPPERY SLOPE. Do iI need to say more?
opps; Do
iI need to say more?Hello.
Biden even appeared on the Ellen show, said the very same thing and DeGeneres just shakes his hand and thanks him.
But Palin is the homophobe….amazing.
I suggested to the commenters on LAist that they should be marching in Leimert Park and blocking churches there, rather than preaching to the choir in WeHo.
One responded back with, “that might be interpreted as racist”.
You simply cannot reason with these people. It’s their way or the highway.
Meanwhile, they’ve scheduled yet another protest tomorrow in front of the Mormon temple on Santa Monica.
Clueless……utterly clueless.
You can’t win an argument with Americans by referencing other countries. Our exceptionalism gives us immunity. :0)
It is not about the “acceptance of gay people”, it’s about the erosion of family values… where the sanctity of marriage is preserved and promoted.
Why does the “acceptance of gay people” require re-writing the definition of marriage?
I suspect it has less to do with raising families, and more to do with trying to get their lifestyle accepted as normal.
On a side note… I think you need to try and articulate the difference between acceptance and tolerance. There may be no difference in your mind, but there is in mine.
Y’see, I could really use some new power tools.
Socky- do you wear the traditional Mormon coarse fabric boxer shorts?
When I lived aboard the USS Chuck Wagon (CVN-70), ET1 Jason Lowe lived in the rack (bunk) directly above me, and he had the special LDS boxers.
I don’t ‘cos I don’t have a Temple Recommend.
Hey omu go crawl back under your gay rock you creep…You talk loud but say nothing creep!!!
Omu, you miss the point. Nowhere, anywhere, in ANY Christian scripture does Christ say “I approve of homosexual behavior.” On the contrary, the traditional Bible expressly forbids the acts. Thankfully, the Law of Moses, which didn’t approve of the behavior and advocated the death penalty for its practitioners, was fulfilled in Christ, who replaced immediate repercussion with choice and accountability.
Never confuse Christ’s delayed consequences and the ability to repent for sins with “acceptance.” Christ is a loving God, but if I went up to his face and blasphemed, cussed him out, told him I wasn’t interested in Him or his doctrine, he wouldn’t save me–because I wouldn’t want it, not because he couldn’t.
Those who misunderstand Christianity, and in fact use their misunderstood and personally-interpreted Christian “talking point Gospel” (i.e. “God is Love”) as a weapon against Christians are disingenuous at best.
Back on your point: The Yes on 8 crowd is not saying they “disapprove of the existence of gays” only that they disapprove of the unnecessary political agenda and attempts to legitimize fringe behavior into mainstream society. Gays have all the “rights” that traditional couples have: visitation, property continuation, etc. What they are trying to do, for whatever odd reason, is to hijack an institution to somehow legitimize their deviance from established principle.
I disagree with your “statement”.
I appreciate that Omu came here and attempted reasoning. Nothing will come from calling Omu names and sending him/her away. Such an action only reinforces the negative, and mostly inaccurate view of conservatives.
I view this as a way to explain our core values. If I (and others) persuade Omu, then great. But keep in mind that it is not just about us and Omu. A lot of people lurk in these threads and we should not squander such an opportunity with name calling.
nbarry, spoken like someone who doesn’t bother to let the facts get in the way. The economy was doing fairly decently until the whole mortgage meltdown hit. What most libs like to ignore is that it lies squarely at the feet of the Democrats. It started back in the Clinton years with Greenspan making it cheaper to get money, and the Dems removing restrictions, while McCain was speaking up and saying oversight needed to be tightened up. Then, you have idiots like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters saying in the past couple years how there were no problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Top that off with Franklin Raines being one of Obama’s finance advisers, and you get the picture.
So contrary to what you want to insist, the facts are, the Democrats screwed up big time, and as usual, don’t have the guts to admin it. And we can be certain that people like you and the MSM won’t hold them accountable.
And where, exactly, does he say that homosexuality is an evil beyond any other? In which verse, exactly, does he condemn homosexuals to hell? I must have missed the part where Christ attacked vulnerable groups – in fact, as I recall it, Jesus Christ spent most of his time helping these maligned minorities. Don’t lecture me on the Bible, sir – you are the one who has failed catastrophically in your attempt at understanding even the basic tenets of Jesus’s life.
#140, #141: Let’s keep it respectful, please.
The reason LDS folks wear those articles of clothing on the inside seems to stem from their desire to keep what the consider sacred from becoming common and a matter of ridicule.
I respect that just as I do a Catholic priest and his attire or a nun and her habit–even though those are both external manifestations of an internal commitment.
I’m not sure that sort of thing has a place on a thread discussing proposition 8…IMO.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
and please don’t tell me Jesus didnt’ say this…He is behind all that is written in the bible.
Did anyone else notice this part:
It just goes to show that, when the nonreligious turn out, it helps the Democrats, and it helps the decline of society.
Do you want a strong economy, a strong defense? Then we need a strong family. True, you don’t need to be religious to be pro-family, and pro-life. But sadly, all too often, the duty of standing up for the family and life fall upon the shoulders of those who believe in God.
A thoroughly secular society will either be weak (Europe), or authoritarian (China). That is just the way it is.
I’m not sure where what you questioned above was said, but it certainly didn’t come from me–as those are not views that I share.
What he does say is that he doesn’t look upon sin with any allowance. Supplanting the punishments of the Law of Moses did not signify allowance of the behaviors proscribed by said Law, rather the dawning of a higher law–that of the Gospel.
No longer was sin immediately punished via stoning, etc., but the agency of man was allowed to work and bring the penitent to repentance and reconciliation with their Savior.
I don’t presume to lecture anyone on the Bible, but I’m fairly certain in my assertion that Christ was a “love the sinner” (hence the affiliation with “maligned minorities” who had no place in Pharisiacal Judea) but “despise the sin” individual. I know this because, as a sinner myself, I see and feel his love for me evident in so much of my life. I extrapolate that on a global scale as I know God doesn’t change, but remains constant.
I’m sorry that you feel under attack, but there have been plenty of men and women before me–better than I–who have been equally maligned for their Christian beliefs. It would seem that Christian-bashing is the world’s second-oldest profession. I’m afraid it’s our own imperfection that makes us targets. I would hope that our desire to perfect ourselves makes us worthy of scorn–and perhaps emulation by the pure in heart.
In many many different places, across both the Old and New Testaments, homosexuality is described as a sin.
While Jesus did hang out with sinners, he did not condone their sinning. Quite the opposite. He told them to “repent” and “turn from sin”.
Jesus was also quite explicit in describing what awaited those who refused to turn from their sin.
Do not cherry-pick among Jesus’ words. ALL of them matter… not just the ones that speak of love and charity… but also those of heaven and of hell, of sin and judgment.
The passage of prop 8 was foretold as an unintended consequence of the Obama get out the vote campaign. File it under “becareful what you wish for – it may not be what you get”.
dominigan: succinct. You have a gift for brevity that sadly escapes me. As a consultant, I get paid by the word. It’s my curse.
Hating gay people…you know, this whole if you disagree with me you are a hater or racist is done. There is an African American as president now, go cry about being a victim somewhere else. I don’t buy on to this bs of i’m a victim and if you don’t give me everything i want then you’re a hater anymore. Californians do not hate gays, they want their children to be able to go to school and learn math and writing, not about homosexuality. That is a subject that needs to be discussed in the home and not civil engineered in the school. If prop 8 was a purely civil rights issue, i would have voted against it. It is not, it is a we will force you to accept our lifestyle or we will litigate you into non-existence. Bring back a prop that only deals with what people do in the privacy of their own homes that does not interfere with other institutions and i bet you it passes in California.
Omu
Slippery slopes must have legal boundaries or you have no law.
sorry, president elect, and not to his color of skin but to his society views i can still hope something non-violent happens that makes him cede the job.
During the earthly ministry of Jesus, (in which He lived under the Law of Moses) what if someone asked Jesus about homosexual behavior? What might He have said?
Interviewer: Jesus, what do you think about Leviticus 20:13, which says:
Do you agree with this, and the rest of the teachings of the Law of Moses?
Jesus: Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
frontierguy: salient points.
I think a sizable portion of California that voted yes on 22 came out to vote yes on 8 because they were tired of their voice being discounted by the handful of judges on the bench.
It’s another example of the loudmouth (we’ll yell loud enough and long enough until you give us our way) minority forcing their views on the respectful (we’ll take it through the democratic process) majority.
It has failed three times in my recent memory–and two of those times were disrespected by the judges, and the third looks like it’s headed that way.
Trollman: Simply excellent. Not only did you quote the scripture, but managed to capture the essence of his answers. So many times, he would answer questions by pointing back to the law… and making the questioner investigate for themselves. They could not “trap” Jesus when the law was clear…
Omu:
The reason that Prop 8 passed is that the gay agenda folks once again tried to push the gay agenda into our schools. Our grammar schools for cryin out loud.
What is it with you people that you think you have the right to teach homosexuality to kindergarten aged children?
Most Californians were ready to withdraw their children from the public schools because the gay groups wanted to teach the children all about homo sex.
Don’t tell me that was not a recruitment effort by the gay agenda folks.
The fact is that homosexuals are abbynormal and we are not going to let you corrupt our children.
BOO FRIGGIN HOO
cosmo, i think unfortunately this issue will have to go to SCOTUS to be resolved. I do not like any state or U.S. Constitution having to take on a subject like this, but since democracy no longer counts it will have to. Anyway, this is precedence of any group not getting their way to litigate it to death all courtesy of the taxpayers. Can you imagine groups like ACORN and CAIR and what they will get away with while the dems have complete control of the government? I shudder to think of it. They are going to bring the country to its knees and we get to pay for it. HOORAY!!
Absolutely right, jwm. I contend that there is a social conservative majority in California (including minorities). There is an element within the Republican party (I can’t quite put my finger on it) that seems to want to ignore the conservative views of westerners. I suspect they are money grubbers that hide behind the skirt of the Republican party to mask their own greedy pillaging of the American public. They are the people that secretly support illegal immigration so they can hire cheap labor for their own corporate gains. Many Hispanics out west are opposed to illegal immigration and would support Republican candidates if their handling of this issue were’nt so pathetic.
This is ridiculous. There was no word in any language that described homosexuality when the Bible was written. This is a simple fact. That you would rewrite the Holy Bible to suit your own bigotry is an outrage.
Absolutely, but my point is that it is the conservatives which take the hit on anti gay bigotry, right? Ask your average joe in the street, and say “anti gay” and they will say “Republican or conservative.”
That is what I am ticked off about. That is the glass house the liberals have built for themselves.
Maybe we can both work together to show the disparity.
Listen to yourself. You’re lying and it actually appear as though you believe your own lies. That’s delusion.
Prop 8 wasn’t a partisan issue, its the denial of validation for community understood perversity.
The opposite of ACLU determination of American moral principles.
Its not necessary to hate in order to maintain values of right versus wrong.
This is a fair point, I suppose. But it is undeniable that the Republican agenda is anti-gay while the Democratic agenda is pro-gay. So, in that respect, I suppose the distinction is accurate, yes?
you’re an idiot. seriously deluded and stupid. you don’t think they had homosexuality in biblical times? your ‘simple facts’ are simply lies….like everything else you say.
Omu,
Would you care if I came into your place or work or class, sat down 6 feet from you and smoked a cigarette?
If yes, why? If not, why not.
How about this as a description…
22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)
And please feel free to read the entire chapter if you wish context.
But do not claim that homosexuality is not a sin.
Republican agenda…Democrat agenda…gay agenda…anti-gay agenda…it’s all BS. Just to shut a few people up, I’m a lesbian and I’m conservative–I get more hatred from the gay community and liberals who think my politics are wrong than I do from conservatives who don’t like my orientation. It’s always been that way, so just shut up about it.
I hear a lot of people on these comments talking about how this is what you believe according to the bible and that’s why you believe it a moral imperative to pass these laws. I believe, too, but I don’t wish to write my personal faith into the law. Come up with a better reason for it and get back to me. It is unconstitutional to legislate based on religion because you want to save my soul somehow.
And to those of you who are slinging the word “hate” around when speaking to the aforementioned supporters of these amendments…shut up. You sound like idiots. You cheapen our cause by accusing them of hatred and bigotry. I’m tired of hearing it and I’m not willing to sit by and listen to that crap anymore. I refuse to look like a fool because you don’t know how to use your damned heads!
(right4life, we all know there was homosexuality in those times; he’s saying that there was no word to describe it in any language. Get a grip.)
I know the chapter well. It also forbids eating shellfish, crab or prawns, scaled fish, handling the skin of a dead pig, piercing, tattooing, and other such cultural practices.
Forget being gay…I’m going to hell for having tattoos! You’re talking about the ceremonial law there, dude. Pick something else.
Omu said:
1st Corinthians 6:9 uses the Greek word arsenokoites.
Arsenokoites is defined, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, as “one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomoite.”
Next.
No, I would not appreciate that. Second hand smoke is dangerous, and smoking is unpleasant. What kind of horrifically misplaced point are you trying to make?
Are you able to type a coherent sentence without using petty name calling? You really should knock that off. Try proper grammar, too – that’s usually the best way to write the English language.
I didn’t say homosexuality did not exist in the times of Christ (homosexuality has existed for as long as it could possibly have existed, in all kinds of animals, including humans), my point is that until the mid 1800s there was no word in a major language that described homosexuality. Thus, it would be impossible for such a word to have been used in the Bible. And so YOU and the pathetic, hateful, immature nasties that think like you are rewriting holy scripture in order to justify your own bigotry. Is that right?
as my friend trollman demonstrates there was a word for it..please…
and I get tired of being called a bigot, hater, etc from a bigoted hateful and downright evil lying piece of trash like omu.
compared to the drivel that spews from your keyboard? please, the grammer is proper, as are the sentiments. as far as ‘petty name calling’ you call me names all the time, and everyone else who dares disagree with your hellish ideology.
well, as trollman shows, you’re a liar.
again you’re a liar, you piece of trash.
To add to what Omu just said, the word “Arsenokoite” was actually coined by Paul and likely meant something more like a male prostitute or a man who pimped out young boys. That was also rampant then, and there was no word for it, either.
I know you wish it was that easy, but it isn’t. The truth is that the meaning of arsenkoites is far from being properly known.
Again, when supposed “Christians” start warping and bending their holy text just so they can hate gay people even more, you know something has gone wrong.
No respectful church hates gays. So get over that. You do realize that calling people “haters” and “bigots” and “racists” over and over and over again really undermines the meaning of those words, right?
Thanks for proving my point – that it’s not about tolerance, but forcing others to accept something they deem sinful. This comment proves, in spades, that any church that teaches homosexuality is a sin hates gays.
Which is rich, because that means any church that teaches drinking is a sin hates everyone who drinks, any church that teaches fornication is a sin hates – well – pretty much everyone. See how that’s a totally bogus argument? Sin has nothing to do with the people, but the actions.
It is the actions, not the person, that we call into question and do not like. And – once again – this attitude proves that the modern liberal party is not so much about freedom as it is about license. Whether inherent or a choice, the fact remains that one who is homosexual can abstain from that behavior. Many do, in alignment with their religious beliefs (and they are, of course, rideculed for it).
If you remember, Jesus stopped the mob from stoning the prostitute, but then he turned to her and said, “Go, and sin no more.”
He didn’t look at her and say, “Go, and do whatever makes you happiest.”
I always marvel at the fact people who pretty much detest everything about actual Christianity and know nothing of the same have no problem defining what is and isn’t Christian. And that they have no problem arguing since Christ didn’t explicitly say “x”, it can’t possibly be a sin.
God created man and woman to be married and have children. That is the natural design and natural law.
Even though some will argue that homosexual behavior exists in the animal world, it is not the norm and those that don’t engage in normal sexuality end up dying out without leaving future generations.
And, once again, it’s been shown traditional, heterosexual marriage is the best arrangement for all involved.
Dude, get over yourself.
How many times have you used “hate” in this context. And how many times have any of us focused on anything other than behavior and not people?
Those of us who actually GO TO CHURCH, READ THE SCRIPTURES, and PRACTICE OUR FAITH do not need someone like you forcing false theology down our throats, thank you very much.
You can stop cowering Trollman’s flimsy (to put it mildly …) “evidence” for the existence of a word describing homosexuality.
thats another lie. no one is ‘warping’ scripture other than you.
Bingo.
Omu, you need to be a little more tolerant yourself. ‘My kind’ (Is that your term for a ‘bigot’?) don’t hate gay people, in fact, like God commanded, we love all sinners. However, true to God’s Word, we are also supposed to hate and not tolerate the sin.
Just because some churches have taken a side-road and are ‘tolerant’ of the sin doesn’t mean we who are true to God’s Word are not tolerant. I have read the Bible through many times and homosexuality is still called an abomination. What does your Bible say? More importantly, when was it written and by whom? Full disclosure, I read the KJV – 1611.
Off-track, but not much: There are those who oppose the death penalty because the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” However, they don’t accept that it actually means “Thou shalt not murder.” God commands that those guilty of the heinous crime of taking another’s life are to be put to death.
Both murder and homosexuality are dealt with very plainly in the Bible — unless you are in a church that has “dumbed” down God’s Word.
more delusional thinking. trollman quotes a greek lexicon, and you give us an article on some blog…written by a gay activist no doubt.
please. this is getting funny!
right4life: Name calling will not help.
Onu:
The Bible is clear on this subject. You have been given clear scripture from both the Old and New Testament as proof of God’s view of homosexuality.
If you choose to reject God because you cannot divorce yourself of the sin, then that is your choice and I will stop wasting my time throwing “pearls” before someone who refuses to give up their sin. God gave us free will because he loves us… even if we decide to choose death over life, sin over grace, and hell over heaven.
Ultimately, the choice is, and always has been, yours. Even if your choice leads to “wailing and gnashing of teeth”. Make no mistake, God will not be mocked, and all will be called to judgment…
…even me. For I have been a sinner, and I deserve hell. It is only through His grace… I have accepted the ransom that Jesus has paid. And I follow His leading and Word, as someone under grace.
I will pray for you, as I do my other friends. May God change your heart as he changed mine years ago.
No, I will not stop calling those who oppose rights for gay people “bigots” or “haters”. That’s exactly what you all are. There is no legitimate reason beyond an irrational hatred of the “other”, in this case gays, to deny marriage equality (or at the least, some form of recognition) to gay families. It is hatred and history will judge it as such.
and I won’t stop calling you a liar and an idiot, becasue thats what you are.
you are the one filled with hatred, its so obvious.
Just for the record, I’m not gay. I married my wife 10 years ago, a right that the gay couple (who have been together for 15 years) next door were just robbed of by the cruel voters (led by YOUR movement) in California.
Omu, you sad creature. History just records what happened over time. God will judge each of us and I have no trouble with that.
You on the other hand…
Do I hate people who strive to make life as hard as is possible for perfectly innocent gay men and women. Right now, I guess I do.
why just 2? why not any number? why not pedophiles marrying their kids? for this is what your gay ‘marriage’ leads to, along with the persecution of christianity, the silencing of christianity, and the dissolution of traditional marriage, which results in children losing the protection of marriage..which makes their recruitment by gays all the easier…
Omu said:
Let me get this straight (because liberal logic baffles me), you claim we can’t be certain what the word means, but it can’t mean “homosexual,” since there was no word for that. Uh-huh.
Arsenokoites is made up of two Greek words: arsen and koite. Arsen means “male,” and koite means “bed.” It ain’t rocket science, buddy.
Next time, try to respond to my earlier post – where Jesus affirmed the whole Law, which would include the parts condemning homosexual behavior (a man lying with another man, like he would a woman – “male-bed”).
And Jesus did teach about same sex marriage, marriage to animals, etc. when He explicitly taught that marriage was between a man & a woman. By necessary implication, it rules out anything else being labeled as “marriage.”
your ‘innocent’ gay people want to eliminate christianity and christians from this country. they’re a bunch of brown-shirted fascist thugs.
Ah, so I am hell bound because I refuse to go along with the mentality that simply making life unneccesarily hard for gay people is (gasp!) unfair and petty? If God would send me to hell for treating people with respect and dignity, then He is not the God I know!
There have been some comments that Massachusetts has suffered no ill effects from homosexual marriage. To my knowledge, there has been no study and, in any event, that study should be conducted over a decade or possibly a generation. There are certainly plenty of indications that homosexuality is correlated with sexual excesses of all kinds, and the result is not positive for a society.
I have noted in the past that there are numerous studies showing the destructive impact of homosexuality. The homosexual supporters, of course, ridicule the studies by saying that they are not serious science or they are “Christian”. The problem is that the homosexuals can’t produce a single study showing a positive benefit to the homosexual lifestyle – disease, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, child molestation, rampant hypersexuality, and more are conditions associated with the homosexual lifestyle, or more appropriately deathstyle.
What on Earth are you talking about? You do understand that most gay people are Christians, right? Because they are. They don’t want Christianity to disappear, they only want that their relationships are recognised as being just as loving and as important as that of straight couple’s. It’s not about religion. For crying out loud, right4life, stop injecting these needless red herrings all the time. It’s distracting.
Omu, does the NAMBLA guy across the street then have the ‘right’ to marry a 7-year old boy because they are in love? Does the 80-year old down the block have the ‘right’ to sex with a 9-year old girl, because he has ‘needs?’
What if these were your children? Would that make a difference or could you then be called ‘intolerant’ and ‘bigoted?’
It is a slippery slope when you start giving ‘rights’ that never existed.
Omu said:
You got this part correct.