Proponents of Prop. 8 don't follow Jesus' teachings

FrankieM - to repeat, Christ taught love and tolerance, not acceptance of sin. He didn't say all lifestyle choices are now acceptable, if he did, please show me where.
BTW, just because someone doesn't agree or accept your lifestyle choice, it sure doesn't mean they "hate" you. That's an irrational assumption at best and a political ploy at worst.

Christ absolutely preached acceptance of others while inviting people to follow his path. That means he wanted them to change their actions. Be it the hypocritical pharisees or the woman taken in adultery, Christ urged them all to "go...and sin no more."

Asking Christians to show tolerance by disobeying what they believe to be a universal law of love and forgiveness is probably unreasonable.

Asking Christians to show tolerance by participating in a discussion about civil rights is perfectly reasonable.

It goes without saying that a true Christian would not hate, abuse, or otherwise persecute a homosexual man or woman. Quite the contrary, a true Christian would show nothing but love to such a person, drawing a line at participating in what they see as un-Christlike activity.

If there are fringe cases where a "Christian" seems to contradict this in word or deed, it's a fringe act that's true of both sides, is explained by human nature, and points at the increasingly important role of tolerance in societal discourse.

...and it goes without saying that any such fringe act will be used by politicians for political gain.

If what you perceive as happiness may come at the cost of the civil liberties, fair treatment, and educational rights of others, I would say it's perfectly reasonable to submit that to a popular vote.

essay wrote:

FrankieM - to repeat, Christ taught love and tolerance, not acceptance of sin. He didn't say all lifestyle choices are now acceptable, if he did, please show me where.
BTW, just because someone doesn't agree or accept your lifestyle choice, it sure doesn't mean they "hate" you. That's an irrational assumption at best and a political ploy at worst.

You see, here's this whole "agreement" thing again. Do you think those that opposed black Civil Rights claimed that "they just didn't agree -- and it was not an act of hate?" How about the Women's equality dissenters ... "we're not misogynists! We just don't agree that women should have the right to vote," etc, etc... You do not agree that we (GLBT) deserve equality and equal protection under the law. That to me sounds like a far cry from "disagreeing" and way over the line into the hate-based bigotry camp. You can spin it anyway you want, but for many of us in the GLBT community, it was simple hate -- and we are VERY experienced with having people hate us.
You show me where Christ mentioned homosexuality. It was all around him -- it was a common practice back then. Where exactly did he mention it? If it was so important that it now is the sole focus of Christian legislation and political movements... you'd think he would have said SOMETHING. Find something in red print for me.

Chuck Savage,

If the 5 wives are in agreement to be married to the same man and they are all over 18, why not? People like you get so caught up in sticking your noses in other's business. You're allowed your opinion but you shouldn't be allowed to enact your opinion on others.

Chuck Savage wrote:

I'm a "bigot" because I support marraige in the fundemental way??? When can not we have our own opinions? It has nothing to do with intolerance. So, it's okay to have 5 wives too? After all, thats their opinion.

Hey! Let's take religion out of this whole thing. We have separation of church and state.

So don't let people you disapprove of get married at your church. Your church does not have to marry anyone they don't approve of. Churches often turn away men and women from marrying. All that bull about churches being forced to marry gay couples was a lie.

I'm getting off point.

The point is that legally, marriage is a CIVIL act. It is a CONTRACT between adult humans of major age. For the people to deny citizens to enter into a CONTRACTUAL agreement based on gender is discrimination. Period.

god give it up better luck next time the people have spoken and voted you act like somebody pissed in your cheerios .If people had disagreed with you all and did what u are doing now you would call that shameful.So eat your sour grapes and get on with it gay is choice not something you are born with .Thats how I feel and allways will

Haha, it still amazes me that people think that running a government or making laws on religion is a good thing. There is a STUNNING amount of evidence out there that Christianity, and just about every other religion out there, is nothing more than recycled myths of man.

For example,

Christianity recycles MANY old tales from older religions, let's just look at one!

Eve. The "first woman" of many religions were extremely similar to Eve.

Let's just summarize Eve's story.

Eve, the first woman, was forbidden from doing something (eating from the tree). Out of curiosity, she did the thing she was forbidden to do. She did not do this out of malice, but nevertheless, caused pain and sorrow to be released onto the world.

Now, let's look at another "first woman" story, from an older religion.

Pandora, the first woman, was forbidden from doing something (opening the "box", although it really was a jar). Out of curiosity, she did the thing she was forbidden to do. She did not do this out of malice, but nevertheless, caused pain and sorrow to be released onto the world.

Pretty similar, huh? Making the first woman wicked is common in old religion, because women were meant to be seen as wicked and lower than men.

From Noah's Ark to the Ten Commandments to Jesus, Christianity is riddled with recycled stories from older religions, which contained recycled stories from even OLDER religions.

Short version: Stop using your fairy tale book to justify taking my rights away.

John,

You have not spent much time studying the life of Christ if you believe that "he always included everyone in his compassionate regard and saw in all the potential of a spiritual possibility and did everything in his power to nurture and foster the spiritual awakening of that individual" meant that he accepted whatever anyone did.

He frequently called people out on their sins and when he did so, sometimes they were angry at him and at one point, almost all of his followers left him because of his words.

Gay people in California have EVERY SINGLE benefit that accrues from marriage already and you do not find Christians objecting. No. You SERIOUSLY (and I suspect intentionally) misunderstand the objection to Gay Marriage in your commentary. It is not about rejecting people. It is about protecting the nature of traditional marriage as it has existed for MILLENIA. This is about efforts to strengthen the core unit of society -- a traditional family with a father and a mother.

Chuck Savage wrote:

I'm a "bigot" because I support marraige in the fundemental way??? When can not we have our own opinions? It has nothing to do with intolerance. So, it's okay to have 5 wives too? After all, thats their opinion.

The vote did something that really hurt a whole swatch of people, and that is bigoted.

FrankieM wrote:

<quoted text>
You show me where Christ mentioned homosexuality. It was all around him -- it was a common practice back then. Where exactly did he mention it?

Your question has some hidden assumptions in it that cause it to fail as a fair question. Here they are:

1. You assume that everything Christ ever said was written down.
2. You assume that homosexuality was a "common practice", when there is no evidence that it was "common" at that time, and particularly in Judea or Galilee.
3. You assume that if he did not say something about homosexuality he must like it or agree with it.(this is the logical error called "argumentum ad ignorantiam").

People here think Jesus was accepting of everyone, but they do not realize he was sometimes a bit rough. For example the one character in the Gospels who is most likely to have actually participated in homosexual activities - namely Herod - was the only person that Jesus actually called names. Yes, imagine that. He called someone names and refused to even talk to him. THAT is how "accepting" Jesus was.

jjj wrote:

<quoted text>
The vote did something that really hurt a whole swatch of people, and that is bigoted.

I guess then, then if it gets overturned and that really hurts a whole swatch (actually a majority) of the people, that will be bigoted. At least by your way of thinking about things.

FrankieM wrote:

<quoted text>
He also taught love and acceptance of others... which I just don't see in modern "Christianity."

He taught love. He did not teach general acceptance of everything people did.

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess then, then if it gets overturned and that really hurts a whole swatch (actually a majority) of the people, that will be bigoted. At least by your way of thinking about things.

Look ******! YOUR families are not going to be ripped apart. You are not going to know that you will never be able to form a committed union again. You are not going to feel like a second-class citizen. You are never going to have to explain to your children why you can't marry their "other mommie." You just don't get that do you? You just don't realize how you took our joy away do you? You just don't get why we're angry at all do you?

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>
Your question has some hidden assumptions in it that cause it to fail as a fair question. Here they are:
1. You assume that everything Christ ever said was written down.
2. You assume that homosexuality was a "common practice", when there is no evidence that it was "common" at that time, and particularly in Judea or Galilee.
3. You assume that if he did not say something about homosexuality he must like it or agree with it.(this is the logical error called "argumentum ad ignorantiam").
People here think Jesus was accepting of everyone, but they do not realize he was sometimes a bit rough. For example the one character in the Gospels who is most likely to have actually participated in homosexual activities - namely Herod - was the only person that Jesus actually called names. Yes, imagine that. He called someone names and refused to even talk to him. THAT is how "accepting" Jesus was.

But the only time he got really steamed was at the religious leaders of his day who were perverting the religion, and at those who put down and abused others. Yes, he really blew a gasket at the temple didn't he? Something tells me that if he walked into a church today he would go nuts and do more then over-turn money-changer's tables. No, he would be a homeless, shoeless person who the religious of today would have nothing to do with and would call a "liberal-pansy." Guess not much changes with the times does it?

Chaz wrote:

John,

Gay people in California have EVERY SINGLE benefit that accrues from marriage already and you do not find Christians objecting. No. You SERIOUSLY (and I suspect intentionally) misunderstand the objection to Gay Marriage in your commentary. It is not about rejecting people. It is about protecting the nature of traditional marriage as it has existed for MILLENIA. This is about efforts to strengthen the core unit of society -- a traditional family with a father and a mother.

Oh Rubbish! It's not about the kids at all! If it was you would be more concerned about OUR kids and more concerned about the kids abandoned out there rather then trying to stop GLBT people from adopting and trying to give them good homes. You simply USE kids as a selling point to cloak your message of bigotry as Ken Star trys to dissolve our marriages as well as not allow any more of us the opportunity to marry and form loving families. You seriously misrepresent your own agenda and try to underplay the pain and despondence that your agenda sows.

fern wrote:

Olgadawg: you seem to know so much about Sodom and Gommoreah the shots you might have got to cure you from it must have affected your brain.
Dennis Scoles: You seem to be so very technical in your knowledge of the bible, thence you cannot be a humanist, where does that leave you? A technical idiot or a hate monger? Or just a parrot.
Did you read what Connecticus 5.0 had to say about this?
Chuck Savage: the well named, no you're not a bigot, it's worse.
Ben from Utah: So many kids would be so much happier and probably way more socially adapted if they didn't have parents at all especially if they're like you, go dance under the rainbow bridge.

..........

NO SHOTS HERE - May be it the fact that you might be HIV Positive that has rotted whats left or your?
.....
Also it might help you to have someone to whom can spell the next time you leave a comment.

I tried to marry Cousin It, but couldn't determine what sex "IT" was!

1noteasilyfooled wrote:

Good god, I read this mans letter then some of the
bitchy christians..
He nailed them solidly and defined them exactly as they are. They proved his point beyond ANY doubt.

That would be because John Morris is a better Christian then they are. And yeah, they do prove his point quite nicely.

Nice job, John. Unfortunately, it's hard to sway people otherwise when they have been indoctrinated for years into believing that being gay or engaging in gay behavior is a purportedly a sin. That teaching, however, is squarely in conflict with the scope and spirit of California law.

A little history is in order. Religious fundamentalists sought to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman in a 2000 ballot initiative. The ballot passed, but earlier this year the California Supreme Court ruled it unconstitional as a violation of the equal protection rights of gays, and struck it down. Frustrated by this conclusion, the religious fundamentalits introduced Proposition 8. Shockingly, they resurected exactly the same definition of marriage that the Supreme Court of California had already struck down as unconstitutional - marriage is definted as being between one man and one woman. But instead of reintroducing this flawed unconstititional definition of marriage as a statute, they sought to insert the definition directly into the California Constition itself. Why? Because they thought (incorrectly, according to Jerry Brown's most recent brief) that by putting it in the constitition itself, that would avoid its analysis under the other constititonal provisions, including equal protection clause. In other words, they knew the definition was unconstititional, but they tried to introduce it by way of a legal loophole that would enable it to pass despite its unconstititionality. Shame on them. With this background, how can anyone say that they are only being pro marriage but not anti gay when they vote for prop 8 - the California Supreme Court already ruled this definition of marriage is unconstititional and a violation of the civil rights of gays! Please. Voting for Prop 8 because you are "pro marriage" is the same thing as being anti-gay. And yes, you are bigots for doing so, whether you believe so or not.

Chaz wrote:

John,
It is not about rejecting people. It is about protecting the nature of traditional marriage as it has existed for MILLENIA. This is about efforts to strengthen the core unit of society -- a traditional family with a father and a mother.

Actually, marriage has not existed this way for millenia. It was not so long ago that women became the absolute property of men to do with as they would -- women, and all their property. Women were used as goods, to cement alliances, exhange property rights, and further political or social agendas. And if you really go back MILLENIA (or even just centuries) you find in different cultures polygamy, incest, polyandry, group marriage, and temporary marriage. Our modern notion of marriage is just that -- modern. So if you really want to revive "traditional" marriage maybe you ought to think long and hard about what those traditions really are.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, marriage under the law is a CIVIL union, not a religious one. The anti-prop 8 arguments rely solely on the tenants of ONE religion. Thankfully, the bible is NOT law in this society. If it were, I have a feeling a lot of you H8ers would be very sorry for it. I mean, have you really LOOKED at all the things that were considered deadly sins in the old testament? Just about everyone alive would be in violation of something.