Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Prop 8 foes turn violent
If gay marriage is all about love, then why are some people opposed to California’s Prop 8 resorting to vandalism and violence? Last week, I interviewed Pastor Jim Franklin, the target of a Prop 8-related death threat. Both Franklin, senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Fresno, Calif., and the town’s Mayor Alan Autry, received email death threats last Wednesday. The pair had spoken three days earlier at a “Yes on 8″ rally at Fresno city hall.
According to an AP report, ”Yes on 8″ are being stolen and defaced, churches have been pelted with eggs, and cars have been parked outside the homes of Prop 8 supporters bearing the message “Bigots live here.”
Could our WMB liberals please explain this cognitive disconnect?
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top122 Comments to “Prop 8 foes turn violent”
It’s the same reason that “pro-life” advocates have caused harm to other humans in protest.
Every side of every argument has its crazies.
Report comment to moderator
It is a pretty typical (il)logical connect the dots:
1. Our position is correct, and we are the good guys for pushing that position.
2. The opposition must be wrong in pushing their position, and are thus evil.
3. Evil ought to be defeated.
4. Any means to defeating evil used by the good guys is OK, then laudable, then necessary.
Report comment to moderator
KRM – Wow. That’s scary. It’s the ssame reasoning that brings us terrorism from jihadists.
Report comment to moderator
My “Yes on Prop 8″ sign was stolen four times last week. Initially I had one of the plastic lawn signs, but when that was stolen, I printed a few from the internet and posted them. Every day, they were stolen again. Of course, there are “No on Prop 8″ signs posted all over the neighborhood.
I do have a sign posted in my window, and no one has been bold enough to break the window or deface the house. I reposted a sign outdoors this morning to try to catch the free-speech opponent criminal, but I guess she or he is on to me because no one took it at the usual hour. I did watch a woman drive by my house and give us the finger from inside her mini van. I wonder if she’s the culprit.
In any case, I sickened by the behavior of the Prop 8 opponents.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you aren’t holding your breath waiting for that explanation. You’ll be turning blue before too long.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, it’s simply, it’s like when Christians murder abortion doctors. Do you understand now?
Report comment to moderator
If gay marriage is all about love, then why are some people opposed to California’s Prop 8 resorting to vandalism and violence?
Because love is worth fighting for?
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately anger begets anger. To quote Rev. Franklin “We must be consumed with a holy anger…this is the time to fight… ” Calling it the “armegeddon of the culture war” and “He said a church should be identified as a “mega church” not by the size of its budget but by the size of “the enemy” it takes on.” , “This is a blitzkrieg moment”
I’m not at all endorsing the threats against this man, but when you use language that is clearly inflammatory and in fact war-like, in an attempt to enshrine discrimination into a state constitution, things can unfortunately get a little ugly. All one has to do is look at the threads on this blog to see just how nasty it can get.
The same question can be put to the “yes on 8″ side. Why has the language used in the campaign been the language of war? Where is the love in that?
Report comment to moderator
Well I don’t suppose Lynn would have an emotional reaction to a proposition that would outlaw her marriage, eh?
Nah …
Report comment to moderator
VOTE NO on Prop 8!
Report comment to moderator
“Lynn, it’s simply, it’s like when Christians murder abortion doctors. Do you understand now?’
If someone litigated to stop me from marrying my cousin, it would be totally different than if they passed a law that said it was ok to kill me.
Report comment to moderator
Or I’ll do you one better. If someone lobbied to pass a bill that kept me from marrying my cousin citing health reasons, it would be quite a different story if they had passed a law stating it was ok to kill my neighbor because he was the wrong color.
Report comment to moderator
The first case would be secondary due to the fact that it was love and concern for my neighbor that would drive me to oppose the second law.
Apples and Oranges.
Report comment to moderator
I think though, that to be consistent, conservatives and Christians should propose that divorce be a crime….
Report comment to moderator
See Make it Man — marrying your cousin. You just don’t get it.
Lynn
I have seen a good number of the yes on 8 ads. The tenor of the campaign angers me — why? Because the yes on 8 ads do much the same thing WMB’ers here have done. Question the morals, values etc of people and eventually they get mad about it. Some unfortunately mad enough to be violent. I thought the comparison to Christians that murder or do violence in the name of stopping “murder” was a good one. And I agree with Duncan’s observations above. To some degree I almost feel a need to quite Shylock. Prick us do we not bleed we gays and lesbians? We have tempers too. And alot of us are sick of the way social conservatives depict us and our lives.
Report comment to moderator
“Christians” who murder abortion doctors are one among millions. Opponents of Prop 8 who resort to illegal tricks and violence (and I’m not assuming that these opponents are necessarily homosexually inclined) are impossible to avoid. As I said, someone trespassed on my property, violated my first amendment rights, and committed theft four times in one week because of my Yes on Prop 8 sign. These are not honorable people.
Report comment to moderator
14 – MIM – Maybe if divorce were criminalized, people would be more careful about the choice of marriage partner they make and not enter into marriage lightly. (Not saying that everyone does, but quite a few people do). Of course, then there might be a few more Scott Petersons and Drew Petersons out there…
Report comment to moderator
#11. litigation (I presume you mean legislation) “to kill me”. What legislation (or litigation for that matter) is there out there that allows YOU to be killed?
I agree with RPN, VOTE NO on Prop 8!
Report comment to moderator
Ree, who is calling it/them honorable? I agree, it’s not honorable, but it happens. Ripping off a sign from your yard isn’t the same as breaking your window, which isn’t the same as doing property damage, which isn’t the same as hitting someone, which isn’t the same as setting off a bomb in an office. You’re right, it’s not honorable. The question is, what’s the explanation for it. I think it’s pretty simple to understand.
Report comment to moderator
please explain
Don’t Tread On Me
Report comment to moderator
2. You nailed it.
Report comment to moderator
#16
Exactly. And, when supposed “Christians” have done such things, they’ve been roundly denounced by the rest of the Christian community.
So, where are the denunciations???
Apparently, we’re only going to hear excuses about why it might be okay.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
See #12, it’s a closer analogy. It’s also a hypothetical situation, not a literal one, to illustrate my point. Comparing the murdering of abortion doctors to depriving someone of marital priveleges isn’t a good comparison.
Abortion is murder. And it’s love that drives Christians to protect the unborn. I am NOT advocating murdering “doctors” to prevent abortions.
That being said, I can see why Prop 8 opponents would be frustrated and angry. I just can’t see the right to marriage being elevated to the same importance as the right to life.
Report comment to moderator
KRM:
It is a pretty typical (il)logical connect the dots:
1. Our position is correct, and we are the good guys for pushing that position.
2. The opposition must be wrong in pushing their position, and are thus evil.
3. Evil ought to be defeated.
4. Any means to defeating evil used by the good guys is OK, then laudable, then necessary.
Well that’s a bit extreme, seeing as we’re talking about some petty vandalism and not murder.
But the general chain applies, if it does at all, to everyone who acts in such way. In the current campaign season there have been people verbally attacked for wearing Obama t-shirts, yard signs stolen or defaced, cars spray-painted. And some McCain supporters have had similar events.
We can call it a disconnect here, I suppose, but it is no more so than when it happens in the reverse. It would be nice if Lynn and some of the posters would not pretend, in all wide-eyed innocence, that it just never happens the other way around.
Report comment to moderator
SANTA BARBARA, CA (AP) — A stretch of a Southern California highway is closed this morning because of a masked man on an overpass who is holding a handgun and waving an American flag.
Police Sgt. Lorenzo Duarte says the man is wearing a ski mask and brown fatigues. He’s waving an American flag in one hand and a handgun in the other.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
Not petty vandalism: theft and silencing another’s right to speak (and also, according to the blog post, death threats).
Report comment to moderator
I think (part of) the main gist of Lynn’s post here is point out the hypocrisy inherent in liberals committing acts of intolerance.
Nobody’s really surprised if the KKK were to burn a cross or attack a black man in the street. They go around talking in hateful ways and using violent speech.
But when members of the peace & love hippie crowd who want to excuse their particular immorality under the banner of diversity and tolerance go around stifling people’s freedom of speech, it strikes one as hypocritical.
But, as we’ve all known for years and years, “diversity” and “tolerance” are nothing but Newspeak and mean precisely the opposite of their usual definitions. It’s a diversity that brooks absolutely no dissent (anecdotes abound) and a tolerance that (in Marceuse’s especially devious phrase) is “repressive.”
Report comment to moderator
#23, MIM. there isn’t a comparison between murdering an abortionist and depriving someone of the right to marry. The comparison is between murdering an abortionist and ripping down a sign or hitting them or threatening them with death. The conclusion is that like how most Christians don’t think that murdering an abortionist is the honorable and right thing to do, most prop 8 opponents don’t think that ripping down signs, hitting someone or issuing a death threat is the right thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – In any case, I sickened by the behavior of the Prop 8 opponents.
Yes. Apparently that’s why you’re for Prop 8 …
Report comment to moderator
The opponents of Prop 8 have released an attack ad that equates support for Prop 8 with support for FDR’s mandate for interning Japanese citizens in concentration camps during WW2.
No wonder so many are violent. They hear arguments as stupid and vicious as the one in that attack ad and they think they are fighting horrible discrimination. They are not. Prop 8 curbs absolutely no one’s current freedoms or rights. It merely affirms the longstanding definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
#27 So you admit that intolerance is the signature of conservatives. Interesting.
But how do you know these acts were carried out by liberals?
Maybe it was the Log Cabin Club?
Report comment to moderator
In all of US history before this current decade, the debate between all on the political spectrum from left to right has never included any attacks on or disparagement of the definition of marriage. Now the left has taken it up.
Thus, I no longer believe that the influence of those on both ends of the spectrum are qually valid or valuable. The left is now more dangerous and deceptive, as of the last decade or two.
Report comment to moderator
It definitely could be the Log Cabin Republicans….
Report comment to moderator
The opponents of Prop 8 have released an attack ad that equates support for Prop 8 with support for FDR’s mandate for interning Japanese citizens in concentration camps during WW2.
The correspondence may be inexact, but both are clearly examples of bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
p,.s. to 27: “I think (part of) the main gist of Lynn’s post here is point out the hypocrisy inherent in liberals committing acts of intolerance.”
What a stereotype-fest that sentence is!! Gays = pacifists = liberals. You live in a cartoon, David L.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G;
So by your reasoning, we shouldn’t be angered or surprised when Ake Green stops a half step short of calling for the extermination of Gays and Lesbians, because it is what we should expect of compassionate, empathetic, fair-minded religions?
Report comment to moderator
oops, sorry, that was directed at David L
Report comment to moderator
“…cars have been parked outside the homes of Prop 8 supporters bearing the message “Bigots live here.”
That’s neither vandalism nor violence nor illegal … is it?
Report comment to moderator
So, signs are torn down and the agents of tolerance say it’s justified.
Such hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
the agents of tolerance say it’s justified.
Who are the agents of tolerance that said that? Who are you talking about?
Report comment to moderator
p.p.s. “…cars have been parked outside the homes of Prop 8 supporters bearing the message “Bigots live here.”
Isn’t that also an example of free speech? If you can promote a ban on somebodies marriage, they can also call you names. Right?
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t that also an example of free speech?
Perhaps it is free speech, but it’s not tasteful.
Just like if cars were parked in front of homes of women who had abortions bearing the message “Murderers live here.” Free speech? Perhaps. But not tasteful.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s something else for you article Lynn
Meanwhile in Ventura County, a teen demonstrating against the proposition on Saturday in Thousand Oaks told authorities that someone in a car brandished a knife and shouted obscenities to the crowd.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10881780
(as if you’d ever publish news that doesn’t support your ideological aim!)
Stolen signs, threatening e-mail, cars that say “bigot” – this is not exactly the Watts’ riot!
Report comment to moderator
#42 Truly not tasteful – we agree w/ms Tomlin here – but the example appeared in an article on “violence” and “vandalism” as illustrative of a “free speech” violation.
No on Prop. 8 – it is truly in bad taste!
Report comment to moderator
Mormon Quartback and wife say No on 8 and donate $50,000
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/retired-49er-steve-young-wife-against-proposition-8
Report comment to moderator
Marriage is a a union between two persons.
This definition of marriage doesn’t alter a union between a man and a woman.
This definition strengthens and empowers marriage as an elective affinity.
Report comment to moderator
“(as if you’d ever publish news that doesn’t support your ideological aim!)”
good luck with that….
Report comment to moderator
#45
Big Woo-hoo for Steve Young saying NO to Prop 8!
Report comment to moderator
All in all, the reported events pale in comparison to the violence gays and lesbians have endured over the last several decades.
I don’t condone the violence, but I think it’s probably not bad for Franklin to learn a little lesson about how it feels, especially one that left him utterly unscathed.
At this point, no Pro-8 people have been beaten and strung up to die on a barbed-wire fence (for example), so I fail to see this side as the pre-eminent “victim” here.
Report comment to moderator
From the California Supreme Court:
While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.
Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.
Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.
In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.
Report comment to moderator
As a gay person, I feel very dehumanized every time I see all this “Yes on 8″ stuff. Step into my shoes…imagine being different, let’s say American Indian. How would you feel if there were a Proposition on the ballot that would make it unconstitutional for American Indians to get married?
It makes you feel dehumanized and it attacks the core of your self-worth and dignity. The thing that bothers me the most is not
specifically the gay marriage issue but the fervency and rabidness of the “Yes on 8″ campaign. It is obvious these people have a hateful agenda. I posses a lot of anger towards conservatives and Republicans. They have been attacking my existence as a dignified human being since day 1. They have been dehumanizing me on a daily basis. What do you expect gay people to do? Embrace Christianity? That would be like a black person embracing the KKK. Conservative Christians need to step back and put themselves in our shoes. They need to realize just how un-Christian and hurtful their attacks against gay people are. They need to realize just how much harm they have caused to millions of people. Jesus would be appalled.
Report comment to moderator
And I also forgot to mention how Christians have used a pack of lies and “quack science” to back up their anti-gay arguments throughout history. I’m a firm believer that truth empowers and with that said, my conscience is completely clean.
Report comment to moderator
RIVCUBAN, maybe the anti-gay posters here could ponder what it would be like if they were confrontined with “PROPOSITION 9″ that would prohibit evangelicals only from being married, since the state has a compelling interest in reducing the number of their whacko right-wing spawn.
I confess I would have a hard time resisting the urge to vote for such a bill!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
Stereotypes exist because people generally conform to pattern.
The cartoon remark was clever, by the way. I would say it’s beneath you, but I’d be lying.
Report comment to moderator
Actually being an “evangelical” is a choice and a belief system. Being gay is intrinsic and biological just like being heterosexual is (even though many Christians refuse to believe the truth). That said, gays would have a greater inherent right to be treated equally. On the other hand, I would never want to discriminate against evangelicals. It is not in my character to discriminate or marginalize people.
Report comment to moderator
Rivcuban says “Jesus would be appalled.”
He might be appalled by the behavior of some, but to communicate His Word is the work of a prophet. His Spirit’s job is to convict of sin, righteousness and judgement.
Sodomy is sin. Unrepentant sinners remain under the wrath of God. This has nothing whatsoever to do with your self-worth. God accepts you but cannot accept your sin.
Report comment to moderator
YES on PROP 9!
NO on PROP 8!
Report comment to moderator
Gee DAVID L.
Report comment to moderator
Gee DAVID L., I don’t engage in sodomy. I’m sure there are lots of heterosexual people who do.
Report comment to moderator
David L.
Speaking of stereotypes, you just assumed Rivcuban is a sodomite. (a favourite word here). And isn’t it up to god to judge, not you?
Report comment to moderator
Really, Rivcuban? I thought you said you were gay?
Report comment to moderator
I also noticed how evangelicals filled Qualcomm stadium in San Diego for a “Yes on 8″ pray-in. Why didn’t these same evangelicals fill stadiums to protest the immoral invasion of Iraq (which was based on a web of lies)that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children who had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or terrorism? Why do you continue to support Republican policies when nearly all Republican policies go directly against all tenets of Christianity?
Report comment to moderator
I am gay. Being gay is my being just like being heterosexual is your being. Being gay is not a sex act…it is much deeper than that.
Report comment to moderator
“Why do you continue to support Republican policies when nearly all Republican policies go directly against all tenets of Christianity?”
Who’s guilty of stereotyping now?
Report comment to moderator
Rivcuban,
That’s very interesting, because my being heterosexual is completely bound up with body parts and sexual activity and desires and expressions of that desire. It was before I was married, and it is now that I am married.
Are you saying you’re a-sexual?
Report comment to moderator
Are you saying you’re a-sexual?
———————————————————-
I’m attracted to men just like you’re attracted to women. I’ve felt that way since I was a child just like you have felt attraction to girls since you were young. I didn’t choose to be gay. Tell me, what should we do with gay people?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: No wonder so many are violent. They hear arguments as stupid and vicious as the one in that attack ad and they think they are fighting horrible discrimination.
Like the people who leave Sarah Palin rallies convinced that Obama is a terrorist and probably a Muslim?
Please come down from your high horse, because you have no credibility up there.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll say it again.
Discrimination is when different groups of people are treated differently. Marriage, per dictionary dot com, is “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. ”
Homosexuals have been doing that for centuries. The fact that a gay man can’t marry another man isn’t discrimination; I can’t marry another man, either. What’s more, because I’m married to a woman already, I can’t marry anyone else! Boy, that’s discrimination against married people. I’d like to marry my sister, because she has health problems and I have good insurance. Alas, the law forbids it. So, my sister and I are being discriminated against.
What’s more, gays want to push this “discrimination” myth to the point where it excuses property crimes. They want to be tolerated, but they offer no tolerance. Their hypocrisy is appalling.
Report comment to moderator
Rivcuban,
So you’re attracted to men but have no desire to consummate that attraction? You have no desire to be physically intimate with men?
Report comment to moderator
“The conclusion is that like how most Christians don’t think that murdering an abortionist is the honorable and right thing to do, most prop 8 opponents don’t think that ripping down signs, hitting someone or issuing a death threat is the right thing to do.”
Ok. That I can understand. Unfair stereotypes, strawman positions and all that. I get it. I’d have to agree. There are pockets of extremists in every movement.
However, don’t you think the “it serves ‘em right” attitude displayed by liberals on this blog is in the same vein?
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry STUBOB but I’ve heard MANY more incidents of conservatives defacing or removing OBAMA signs than people removing “Yes on 8″ signs. I don’t condone either side doing it. BTW…marriage is about love and commitment not about “insurance”.
Report comment to moderator
David: That’s very interesting, because my being heterosexual is completely bound up with body parts and sexual activity and desires and expressions of that desire. It was before I was married, and it is now that I am married.
When did you choose that path?
To Rivcuban’s point, I don’t need you to answer this question but just think on it … in your sex life with your wife, do you ever have any sex that isn’t potentially reproductive? That is, vaginal only and without contraception?
Because unless you do, some religious group somewhere believes you are committing a sin. How concerned are you that, assuming you use contraception, traditional Catholicism holds you to be in a state of sin?
If you ever have oral sex with your wife, some religious believers would say you are committing sin, because it is pleasure with no prospect of reproduction. Does this trouble you?
And if you are not concerned about that, why should homosexuals be concerned about your opinion of their lives?
Report comment to moderator
Rivcuban,
People who are tempted by same-sex intimacy should be treated like anyone who is tempted by sexual sin. They should be told that lack of repentance is a sign of being under the eternal judgment of God; they should be exhorted to repent and helped to live a life of repentance.
I struggle with sexual temptations, too. And like you I must flee sexual immorality and repent from that behavior. Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you’re unique in this area.
Report comment to moderator
Rivcuban,
So you’re attracted to men but have no desire to consummate that attraction? You have no desire to be physically intimate with men?
————————————————————–
Of course I do. But I am not promiscuous. I would prefer getting married to the person I love and cherish (and being monogamous).
Report comment to moderator
Right on STEVE G!
Report comment to moderator
Gotta go. It has been a pleasure! : ^)
Report comment to moderator
DavidL-
Are you attracted to men? Have you ever been intimate with a man?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I don’t think all non-reproductive sex is contrary to God’s Word. I do think that birth control, which I have used and continue to use, is a sign of unfaithfulness and a lack of love for God’s truth, but I don’t think those who use BC are under God’s wrath. I don’t worry about what other groups say, but I do worry about what God thinks, and what He thinks has been revealed to us through Scripture. Homosexual behavior is obviously revealed to be sin, while it’s not entirely clear that all birth control is sin. (I do suspect, however, that sodomy is wrong for married couples, too.)
Homosexuals should not be concerned with my opinion of their lives. You don’t really understand where Christians are coming from if you think that’s a fair summary of what’s going on here. They ought to be concerned with God’s law, and it’s an act of concern for their souls to warn them of judgment, just as it is to warn men who use pornography unrepentantly of God’s judgment upon their lives.
Report comment to moderator
Strange (and sad) how people are forever jumping into blog conversations to deliver their jibes and then running away before having to deal with arguments.
RPN:
No, why do you ask? Have you ever been intimate with a woman?
Report comment to moderator
DavidL-
No, I am not homosexual either. Some people think sexuality is a choice. I was wondering if you were one of these people.
Report comment to moderator
David-
I misread your question. I have ony been intimate with women.
Report comment to moderator
RPN,
I think sexuality is sometimes a choice (more or less unconscious) and sometimes biologically “ingrained.”
But being biologically “ingrained” doesn’t excuse it, just as my “ingrained” temper or heterosexuality doesn’t excuse me from outbursts of anger or lust.
Report comment to moderator
Honestly…it’s time to privatize marriage and take this issue out of politics. Re the legal incidences that derive therefrom marriage, either a) let ANY 2 people register for these rights, or b) let ANY # of folks register for these rights and apportion the rights that 2 people otherwise would get. And leave “marriage” totally and entirely up to private entities to define. If Unitarian Universalists want to define marriage as two men or whatever, let them. And if Joel Mark et al. want to define marriage as one man one woman, let them.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
The “right” to marriage is a rhetorical myth. Marriage is instituted in the law as between a man and a woman for the purpose ideally of the bearing and nurturing of children who deserve the complementarity of both a mother and father.
The sexual revolution in our society, which has had a disastrous and decadent influence, assumes that one makes some sort of a life style choice as opposed to conforming one’s life to a structured moral order.
The gay militants and their liberal allies suffer from a collective dementia that somehow sodomy is the right thing to do and that sodomites have a “right” to marry each other. Until rather recently no civilized society has suffered such absurdity.
Report comment to moderator
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.
- 1 John 4:18
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt…your assertion is completely fundamentally flawed.
Report comment to moderator
I thought you were leaving, Rivcuban.
What in the world are you trying to suggest with that verse?
Report comment to moderator
RIVCUBAN: your assertion is completely fundamentally flawed. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
Report comment to moderator
I think Rivcuban had a pretty good idea up there. Let the blacks embrace the KKK. If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. I bet we could all have a nice cross burning and roast some hot dogs and marshmallows. Once the blacks and whites actually got to know each other they probably wouldn’t hate each other as much. I think all the homosexuals need to go to church this coming Sunday…try to find one where there is lots of hugging and communion. If you have to hug someone it is kind of hard to hate them.
In case non of you can tell this is another subject I am just sick and tired of and at the risk of being blasted for a stupid statement…Can’t we all just get along? I really am not interested in what any of you do in the privacy of your bedroom…which reminds me of an old joke that is totally inappropriate on this site…House sex, bedroom sex and hall sex…House sex is when you are first married and have sex all over the house. Bedroom sex is after you have been married a while and have children, hall sex happens later when you just pass each other in the hall….
Report comment to moderator
KIM…Hehe! : ^)
Report comment to moderator
I thought you were leaving, Rivcuban.
———————————————-
Getting nasty is a sign of insecurity. Are you losing your flawed argument?
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t getting nasty. You said you were leaving. Isn’t inability to follow a conversation a sign of senility?
Losing an argument? I’m the only one who’s been participating in the argument. You quit in the middle.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob says:
Well, not quite. Different people are treated differently. We heterosexuals are free to marry the person we love and are attracted to, provided they are not related, of legal age of consent, and not already married to someone else. Homosexuals generally are not.
Since, in your words, “Discrimination is when different groups of people are treated differently,” it’s pretty plain that this is discrimination.
David L. says:
This seems to me to be a very low view of human sexuality. A reduction to our organs and what we do with them… Hmmm.
Report comment to moderator
If we consider it immoral behavior, why wouldn’t we question the morals of gays, CB? I don’t understand why you think we wouldn’t.
That said, I fail to comprehend why you don’t comprehend that a man and woman’s relationship in mariage is in no way analogous to the relationship between two men or two women. Call those relationships what you will, but it is NOT marriage. It is simply NOT the same.
I don’t see why homosexuals have this need to take away a unique and special relationship that exists between two people who are of the opposite sex. And there’s no reason the word marriage can’t remain public as it is currently defined. All this insistence on the part of homosexuals to redefine marriage into something it is not shows an inabillity to face reality. Marriage between and man and a woman is unique because it is between a man and a woman. The relationship between two members of the same sex is literally something else, but not marriage.
Report comment to moderator
This is why participating in blogs (and this one in particular, I’m afraid) has been losing its appeal for so many people.
Liberals and non-Christians and secularists come here, fire off a few rapid-fire insults or stereotypes or ad hominems and then run away. There’s no possibility for discussion or a mature exchange of views when the forum is constantly hijacked by children like this. They don’t come here to learn but to vent their hatred and bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas says, “This seems to me to be a very low view of human sexuality. A reduction to our organs and what we do with them… Hmmm.”
If you had read my comment in good faith, you’d recognize that I didn’t say that human sexuality was wholly defined by body parts but completely bound up in them. Sexuality is not completely defined by sexual activity, but it’s absurd to say the two are not significantly bound up in one another. To claim, as Rivcuban did, that he’s gay but doesn’t engage in homosexual acts is a distinction without a difference, as far as I’m concerned. Unless you think that by “gay,” he means heterosexual. Which is not what I think he meant.
Report comment to moderator
David L, I actually agree with you, but please be fair, it is a two way street. If you want the blog to be “Christian only” then take it up with the blog owner. Pronouncements on either side rarely foster conversation and understanding.
Report comment to moderator
“To claim, as Rivcuban did, that he’s gay but doesn’t engage in homosexual acts is a distinction without a difference, as far as I’m concerned.”
So therefore, Priests who engage in lifelong celibacy are neither heterosexual nor homosexual because sexuality is defined by what one does. Therefore a married Christian couple who loses their virginity in their 20s on their honeymoon “choose” to be heterosexual when they choose the have sex for the first time in their life….
This is where your logic takes us.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
On the first question — imagine yourself in my shoes. I pay my taxes, help little old men and ladies accross the street. If I see a kid who looks lost I ask where their parents are and try to help find those parents, etc. But along comes the social conservative and all of the sudden I am labled. Put yourself in my shoes and then perhaps you can understand the feeling.
As to the second, a committed relationship is similar regardless of whether the two people are heterosexual or homosexual. The loyalty, the love, the communication skills needed to maintain an intimate relationship are basically the same skill set. It is hard for me to understand why you think that a call for recognition of my relationship is taking away from another’s.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t think all non-reproductive sex is contrary to God’s Word.”
From a naturalistic perspective non-reproductive sex IS sodomy.
“I do think that birth control, which I have used and continue to use, is a sign of unfaithfulness and a lack of love for God’s truth,…”
Then why do you use it?
“but I don’t think those who use BC are under God’s wrath.”
How utterly convenient.
Report comment to moderator
David L: I don’t think all non-reproductive sex is contrary to God’s Word. I do think that birth control, which I have used and continue to use, is a sign of unfaithfulness and a lack of love for God’s truth, but I don’t think those who use BC are under God’s wrath. I don’t worry about what other groups say, but I do worry about what God thinks, and what He thinks has been revealed to us through Scripture.
Has it? The Bible says almost nothing about abortion, only one very ambiguous passage that may or may not refer to a miscarriage caused by an attack, and yet most conservative Christians are very sure they know what God’s will is on that topic.
On this one, the Catholics — in an extension of that same pro-life sentiment — argue that God’s will is clearly for sexuality to be used to bring new life into the world, and any expression of it that thwarts that possibility is wrong. On what grounds, other than personal desire and opinion, do you say that you are right and they are wrong?
This is my point; once you start insisting that sexual behavior be only that of which the Bible approves, you open the door to rather tedious arguments over just what that is. (Practiced Levirate marriage lately? Know anyone who does? Why not? God commands it.)
Homosexual behavior is obviously revealed to be sin, while it’s not entirely clear that all birth control is sin. (I do suspect, however, that sodomy is wrong for married couples, too.)
Why? Mind you, “sodomy” has multiple definitions … do you make a distinction between oral copulation and the other meaning of the word, or lump them together?
It’s not entirely clear that all homosexuality is sin either. The Old Testament injunction comes in the midst of a lot of other laws that Christians routinely ignore, yet they want to helicopter that one passage out and assert that it, and only it, still applies. Paul refers to “unnatural passions” in Romans, but he seems to be talking about people of heterosexual orientation feeling compelled to same-sex acts, hence his use of the word “turned.”
At least, that could be argued without doing harm to the text, which means the meaning is not as clear as you’d like it to be.
Homosexuals should not be concerned with my opinion of their lives. You don’t really understand where Christians are coming from if you think that’s a fair summary of what’s going on here. They ought to be concerned with God’s law, and it’s an act of concern for their souls to warn them of judgment, just as it is to warn men who use pornography unrepentantly of God’s judgment upon their lives.
Just as it is for Catholics to warn you of using contraception unrepentantly.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: From a naturalistic perspective non-reproductive sex IS sodomy.
First, from a naturalistic perspective heterosexual couples sometimes unfortunately are not able to have children and don’t practice the naturally disordered moral sin of sodomy.
Second, there is more to heaven and earth than “naturalism,” however regnant this narrow philosophy of life might be in modern society. Another more Biblical, sensible and rational view of life would be that we live in a created moral order that views the tendency to sodomy as a natural disorder and a grave sin.
Report comment to moderator
KRM, answered the question rather succinctly @ 2,
“It is a pretty typical (il)logical connect the dots:
1. Our position is correct, and we are the good guys for pushing that position.
2. The opposition must be wrong in pushing their position, and are thus evil.
3. Evil ought to be defeated.
4. Any means to defeating evil used by the good guys is OK, then laudable, then necessary.”
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L.: Sodomy is sin.
True. A different kind of sin than any other, however. Sodomy is the only arbitrary sin. Murder will always be wrong, but sodomy is a sin only so long as God finds it abominable. He could change his mind about it tomorrow tomorrow without violating any ethical principle. In fact, He could considerably improve his prestige by abolishing this sin. The prohibition against homosexuality is grossly unfair, because it singles out one special group for sanction for seeking sexual gratification. God doesn’t torment any other group of people in this way.
Report comment to moderator
Moth: He [God] could change his mind about it tomorrow without violating any ethical principle.
How rich. Moth is instructing the Creator on ethical principle. Our deity had better shape up His act lest Moth and his sodomite friends pout and take a hissy fit.
Report comment to moderator
Good points, up to the pouting and hissy fit.
Report comment to moderator
CB, if I met you on the street and I watched you help the little old lady cross the street, how would I know you are not heterosexual? I wouldn’t, so how do I come along and lable you? I don’t.
No, I am not in the shoes of a homosexual who has committed an immoral act, nor in the shoes of the adulteress who has committed an immoral act, nor in the shoes of a thief who has committed an immoral act. I am in my own shoes, and I answer for my own sins. What I don’t do is try to get everyone else to say my sin is a good thing when it is not. I don’t ask for a pass. That’s what you want. I don’t presume to tell God what is or is not sin.
Similar is NOT the same. Marriage between a man and a woman is UNIQUE simply because it is between a man and a woman.
My sister is a mother to her three children. She is NOT their father. Nothing she does will ever make her a father to those children. Redefining the word “father” will not make her a father. Why? Because being a father requires that a father be a man. Gender is part of the role of father, just as gender is part of the role of wife and part of the role of husband. You do not fit that bill.
You are still denying that the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, opposite genders, is unique, and you insult that relationship by insisting that what you have is the same as that. Bluntly put, you are pretending to be something you are not.
Whatever you call your relationship, it simply is NOT marriage. You ARE taking something away from marriage if you insist that it be redefined to accommodate your inability to face the truth.
And the mere fact that I disagree with you does not give you or any other homosexual the right to destroy property, which was the question of the thread. I disagree with Muslims about who God is, but I don’t attack mosques. There’s no excuse for the destruction of property or death threats.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe @ 99:
But priests don’t usually introduce themselves as gay or straight. Rivcuban announced, unsolicited, that he’s gay and offended by anti-sodomy speech. Ten out of ten hearers would immediately infer that he means he has sex with men.
I will repeat what I said in an earlier comment to someone else who made the same reading mistake that you did. No, sexuality is not entirely defined by what one does, but it is certainly bound up to a great degree in corporeality–body parts, hormones, secondary sex characteristics, etc., etc.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
“Just as it is for Catholics to warn you of using contraception unrepentantly.”
But they don’t. If they did, I might listen to them. Will you?
Report comment to moderator
Disappointing that Lynn couldn’t bring herself to condemn the sign taking on both sides, which as a citizen of California she knows very well has gone on. It’s been covered by all of the newspapers and TV stations all over California, including San Diego.
What about the “NO on 8″ signs that have been defaced with words like “Fag!” and “God Hates Fags!” on them? What about the conservative Christians who picketed outside the homes of gay and lesbian couples and called them despicable, unprintable names?
Why doesn’t Lynn condemn those tactics?
And let’s talk about “violence”…
It is the conservative Christians who have been spreading their anti-gay hatred for years and years, which has created the climate for the violence and death that gay people have suffered in America.
How about condemning that Lynn?
The question before California tomorrow is: will you allow gay people to remain as full citizens with equal protection under the law, or will you permanently enshrine their second-class status into the California constitution?
No more hate,
Vote “NO” on 8!
Report comment to moderator
You know, only one person actually gave a reasonable response to Lynns question about explaining the hatred behind the attacks against the Yes on 8 folks, and that was Rivcuban. I don’t agree with every part of his assessment, but at least he brought me into his world to help me feel what he feels.
You others, Scott, Spinoza, Duncan, RPN, Scroop, etc., I cannot believe you are paid to propagandize, you really stink at it. Didn’t make the cut for the National Enquirer? I hope you don’t make more than minimum wage cause you sure ain’t worth it to the cause that supports you.
Thank you Rivcuban for a well thought out explanation in #51.
Report comment to moderator
And thank you Dave for a well thought out statement in #27 above. My friend that worked for years at a conservative public policy organization on the east coast also faced eggings of their buildings, harrassing phone calls, and even death threats from angered homosexuals. There is a hypocrisy at work just as you pointed out.
When you try to bring that to a liberal’s attention though, they show no remorse, but instead always point to the opposition and say they are doing the same thing as if it justifies their actions (which it doesn’t). I am so tired of every time a liberal is caught doing something wrong, it is presented as if both sides are doing something wrong. Each side needs to take on accountability for their actions regardless of what the other side is doing.
How on earth will gays remain married to one another with a finger pointing mentality they seem to possess when confronted on their wrongs? Some (not all) need to grow up.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz;
While I’m disappointed that you see my postings as “propaganda”, I am glad that Rivcuban was able to reach you on some level. Cheers.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent post Anlir- 111
“Why doesn’t Lynn condemn those tactics?”
Maybe those be her SoCal peeps?
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz – 112
You write:
“You know, only one person actually gave a reasonable response to Lynns question about explaining the hatred behind the attacks against the Yes on 8 folks, and that was Rivcuban. I don’t agree with every part of his assessment, but at least he brought me into his world to help me feel what he feels.”
You must mean post 51, that was Rivcuban’s first post on this thread – SO, because you read this post you now understand what this all means? Where have you been Chalzz? -
God said a marriage was between a man and a woman – whether homosexuals stay married or not is not my concern, in fact I don’t care, and the reason is, its sin – Growing up doesn’t mean you accept sin, or compromise your beliefs according to the Word of GOD – maybe you didn’t know that, or perhaps you don’t think that matters to Believers but I can assure you it does.
Report comment to moderator
“whether homosexuals stay married or not is not my concern, in fact I don’t care, and the reason is, its sin ”
By this logic, Victoria admits she doesn’t care if Bristol Palin stays with her Baby Daddy, Levi….
I hope she does.
Report comment to moderator
NJ
I did not write that the folks who are ripping down signs have a right to do so because they are angry. I only added my 2 cents on why they are angry, which was what I took as the gist of Lynn’s question.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz: When you try to bring that to a liberal’s attention though, they show no remorse, but instead always point to the opposition and say they are doing the same thing as if it justifies their actions (which it doesn’t).</i.
No, but it raises the question of why you single out those acts when committed by one side as worthy of condemnation and never acknowledge that your own side is just as guilty. To put as, “why are the hypocritical liberals not condemning these acts of vandalism” implies that only opponents of the initiative are guilty of them.
See Anlir at #111.
Report comment to moderator
Not all vandalism was created equal. All vandalism is at least a misdemeanor if not a felony, but some vandalism is closer to civil disobedience than to crime. Consider political signs. Unlike other kinds of advertising, political signs are “fighting” speech. The whole purpose of a political sign is to influence the outcome of a contest in which some citizens win and others lose. The owners of political signs know their display can evoke strong emotions. They cannot be completely shocked if their signs are vandalized, nor do they deserve the kind of sympathy we would extend to a business owner whose commercial sineage was destroyed.
If someone rips down my political sign, I have a right to investigate and press charges, but shouldn’t expect the world to show outrage.
Report comment to moderator
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGEyNzkxNTcyYTdhZWNiNjgzYzkxOGFiMTFkYTRjYWE=
“The voices of tolerance in California are concluding their campaign against Prop 8 with this TV ad, which engages in a level of blatant religious hatred I’ve never seen in American politics. Ever.
“I don’t think its been seen in American politics since the late 19th Century attacks on Catholics, which may be why the Catholic Conference in California was so quick to denounce the ad.
“It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings. It’s ugly in the extreme.
“Remember, a vote for Prop 8 in California leaves same-sex couples protected by full marriage-equivalent civil unions. None of that matters. If you think marriage means a husband and wife you are just like a racist and you can be treated any way they want.
“Apparently people who think they are the civil rights movement of the century do not think they have to behave with even minimal decency towards those of us who disagree with them.
“These are not some outliers in the wacky blogosphere. These are the leaders of the gay marriage movement in America who made and ran this ad.”
Report comment to moderator
One day I was trying to nap in my empty apartment when a roommate entered and cranked his music up loud enough to vibrate the walls. Despite it being the middle of the day, and knowing full well he was unaware of my presence, my first thought will be familiar. Someone is going to die.
Homosexual advocates will be shocked to learn my roommate still lives. (Haven’t seen him in months actually. Perhaps someone else wrapped him in chains and chucked him off the dock.) I’m also convinced lots of married heterosexuals become frustrated with their spouses and yet refrain from adultery, although I cannot produce any statistics.
All this to say, homosexuality may be innate but it can be overcome. All sin comes from within. If people were not inclined to wrongdoing no environment could force them to it. Please do not think of homosexuality as some special point of discrimination. We all struggle with one different sins and temptations. This one just happens to have important civil repercussions.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!