Warning: realpath() [function.realpath]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/home/hunterog/images) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/hunterog/public_html:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp:/opt/cpanel/ea-php54/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php55/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php56/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php70/root/usr/share/pear:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php54:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php55:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php56:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php70) in /home/hunterog/public_html/site/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1366

Warning: realpath() [function.realpath]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/home/hunterog/images) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/hunterog/public_html:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp:/opt/cpanel/ea-php54/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php55/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php56/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php70/root/usr/share/pear:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php54:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php55:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php56:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php70) in /home/hunterog/public_html/site/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1366
New Prop 8 poll results from CA show it passing | Hunter of Justice

New Prop 8 poll results from CA show it passing

by on October 7, 2008  •  In Elections, Marriage

Two new polls released today show Prop 8 gaining support, moving into a position that could spell disaster for marriage equality advocates. The polls reported almost identical results.  The first, according to Alex Blaze at Bilerico, was an internal poll for No on 8 by Celinda Lake, which showed Prop 8 passing by a 47 to 43 per cent margin. The second was a SurveyUSA poll commissioned by CBS affiliates:

cbs5.com

A new CBS 5 poll finds that California's Proposition 8 has picked up support in the wake of a television ad campaign that features footage of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not."

The poll conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA indicates that support for the measure to ban gay marriage has grown among voters in the state over an eleven day period — most especially among young voters.

According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.

The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters — considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters — who now support the measure after previously opposing it.

It should be noted that the poll, conducted statewide Oct. 4 and 5 among 670 likely voters, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent, and the pollster continued to label the race too close to call — just as it did eleven days ago….

About

43 Responses to New Prop 8 poll results from CA show it passing

  1. Debbie October 18, 2008 at 4:19 AM

    Dear Friends,

    According to the San Francisco Chronicle, in early October a “school – sponsored a trip to a gay wedding.” The school’s principal thought it was “perfectly appropriate” for 1st graders to attend a same-sex wedding, the children were 5 and 6 years old, and it was officiated by San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, of “the door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not” fame. The school also stated that “it couldn’t recall” if it had ever sponsored a trip to a traditional marriage. The lesbian teacher thought of her marriage as a “teachable moment.” My children, your children, your friend’s children, your enemy’s children, do not need to be forced to learn about homosexuality from the state, from society, and/or from our schools. That discussion belongs within the family. The family should be the only ones who decide how and when the subject should be discussed. Don’t be apathetic about this issue. Gay marriage will have huge effects on our society. Did you realize that a gay activist group tried to have Prop. 8 removed from the ballot? They wanted OUR VOICES TO BE SILENCED. They went to a court in northern CA shortly after they won the right to marry and argued that Prop. 8 should be removed from the ballot because the CA Supreme Court had already decided the issue. That is after 1.1 million Californians had signed a petition saying WE wanted to vote on the issue. The gay activist groups that spout “equality” and “all voices MUST be heard,” were very sneaky and tried to silence everyone in California. Did you know about the case on Oct. 12, 2008, wherein a Modesto man was “brutally assaulted” just because he wanted to hand out “Yes on 8” signs to his fellow church members. Apparently, a gay activist “yelled at him, punched him in the eye, and stole his signs.” Once again, not too much tolerance was given to this peaceful man and his voice. I don’t know if you have noticed, but I HAVE noticed that a day or two after a “YES on 8” sign has been stuck in the ground, it somehow disappears. Suspicious, don’t you agree? Is someone trying to silence another opinion, someone’s voice? Did you know about the gay activist groups’ call to boycott a hotel owner and his hotels because he donated to the ‘YES on 8” campaign due to his religious beliefs? I haven’t heard of any similar calls for boycotting business and/or public individuals because they have chosen to donate to the gay marriage side. Another incident involved a couple of wedding photographers in New Mexico, who respectively declined to photograph a gay wedding due to religious reasons and were sued. The photographers were ordered to pay the gay couple over $6000 because of discrimination. Hopefully, the case will be appealed and overturned. These are just a few of the incidents that have made me AWARE that gay activist groups DO NOT believe “all voices must be heard.” I don’t like someone trying to intimidate me. I don’t like someone trying to intimidate you. All of the incidences I wrote about are true and correct. Voting YES on Prop 8, doesn’t take away any of the rights granted to gay couples in CA. The Domestic Partnership laws are in place, voting to protect traditional one man one woman marriage does not take away any of the domestic partner rights. VOTE YES ON 8. Let OUR voices be heard!

  2. Debbie October 18, 2008 at 4:22 AM

    Dear Friends,

    According to the San Francisco Chronicle, in early October a “school – sponsored a trip to a gay wedding.” The school’s principal thought it was “perfectly appropriate” for 1st graders to attend a same-sex wedding, the children were 5 and 6 years old, and it was officiated by San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, of “the door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not” fame. The school also stated that “it couldn’t recall” if it had ever sponsored a trip to a traditional marriage. The lesbian teacher thought of her marriage as a “teachable moment.” My children, your children, your friend’s children, your enemy’s children, do not need to be forced to learn about homosexuality from the state, from society, and/or from our schools. That discussion belongs within the family. The family should be the only ones who decide how and when the subject should be discussed. Don’t be apathetic about this issue. Gay marriage will have huge effects on our society. Did you realize that a gay activist group tried to have Prop. 8 removed from the ballot? They wanted OUR VOICES TO BE SILENCED. They went to a court in northern CA shortly after they won the right to marry and argued that Prop. 8 should be removed from the ballot because the CA Supreme Court had already decided the issue. That is after 1.1 million Californians had signed a petition saying WE wanted to vote on the issue. The gay activist groups that spout “equality” and “all voices MUST be heard,” were very sneaky and tried to silence everyone in California. Did you know about the case on Oct. 12, 2008, wherein a Modesto man was “brutally assaulted” just because he wanted to hand out “Yes on 8” signs to his fellow church members. Apparently, a gay activist “yelled at him, punched him in the eye, and stole his signs.” Once again, not too much tolerance was given to this peaceful man and his voice. I don’t know if you have noticed, but I HAVE noticed that a day or two after a “YES on 8” sign has been stuck in the ground, it somehow disappears. Suspicious, don’t you agree? Is someone trying to silence another opinion, someone’s voice? Did you know about the gay activist groups’ call to boycott a hotel owner and his hotels because he donated to the ‘YES on 8” campaign due to his religious beliefs? I haven’t heard of any similar calls for boycotting business and/or public individuals because they have chosen to donate to the gay marriage side. Another incident involved a couple of wedding photographers in New Mexico, who respectively declined to photograph a gay wedding due to religious reasons and were sued. The photographers were ordered to pay the gay couple over $6000 because of discrimination. Hopefully, the case will be appealed and overturned. These are just a few of the incidents that have made me AWARE that gay activist groups DO NOT believe “all voices must be heard.” I don’t like someone trying to intimidate me. I don’t like someone trying to intimidate you. All of the incidences I wrote about are true and correct. Voting YES on Prop 8, doesn’t take away any of the rights granted to gay couples in CA. The Domestic Partnership laws are in place, voting to protect traditional one man one woman marriage does not take away any of the domestic partner rights. VOTE YES ON 8. Let OUR voices be heard!

  3. Shadow_Man October 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM

    Let us not go back to the days of discrimination. This is 2008, not the 1960′s.

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Preserve the rights of equality of the constitution. Equal rights is what our great country was founded upon.

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Our California Constitution should guarantee the freedoms and rights to everyone. Singling out a group is pure discrimination. No individual should be treated differently.

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Please don’t take away the rights of individuals. Don’t eliminate marriage for 2
    consenting loving couples. Don’t eliminate the thousands of existing marriages that would literally be reversed. How would you feel if you got married, then were told your marriage was no longer valid?

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Majority of the Ads on TV are blatant LIES and SCARE TACTICS. There is nothing that says it will be taught in schools and churches will not be taxed.

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Preserve human rights. Two loving consential adults will in no way affect your marriage. At one time, marriage was defined to be a white man and white woman, black man and black woman, etc.
    In short, interracial marriage was outlawed. Lets not go back to those days of segregation.

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Laws should treat everybody equally.

    Vote NO on Prop 8. Domestic partnerships lack many of the rights found in marriage. One group will be denied rights and be discriminated against in a country founded on equal rights.

    Vote smart, Vote NO on Prop 8.

  4. LOU October 20, 2008 at 4:09 AM

    Seriously, wake up and smell the BIBLE. Prop 8 is not gay bashing at all, we as CHRISTIANS love you all too much that we will go to war with this in order to save your soul and have a blast in heaven KAPISH? VOTE YES

    Remember no one is born gay

  5. Sam Petersen October 20, 2008 at 5:43 PM

    History – In 2000 the California voters passed proposition 22 by a majority of 61%, which said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized by the state of California”. A few years back, the mayor of San Francisco to please his constituency, declared by executive decision that same-sex marriages were suddenly legal. These marriages were later annulled by the courts because of proposition 22. Earlier this year 4 San Francisco based judges declared proposition 22 unconstitutional, thus allowing the current same-sex marriages in California. Similar decisions have come before eight other State supreme courts and traditional marriage has been upheld; so the California supreme court did not have precedence for such a decision. Almost all other states in the union have passed similar resolutions as Proposition 22. California voters who were shell-shocked by the courts decision have placed proposition 8 on the November ballots. Proposition 8 is exactly the same as proposition 22 but this time it will be a constitutional amendment, and cannot be declared unconstitutional by the courts.

    The True Issues as stake –

    1. California school children will be taught that same-sex marriage is interchangeable, acceptable, and condoned starting in Kindergarten, unless Prop 8 passes.
    a. Evidence – please view the video below.
    link to link.brightcove.com
    Grade school children in Massachusetts are taught that a boy can marry a boy and a girl can marry a girl. The courts ruled that parents cannot object to these teachings.
    b. Evidence – October 11: In the same week that the “No on 8” campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding.

    2. Faith or religious bases groups will be forced to accept same-sex marriages or face multiple lawsuits and potentially loose tax-exempt status.
    a. Evidence – Catholic charities in Massachusetts abandoned their adoption service for hard-to-place children when it was ordered to place children in same-sex households.
    b. Evidence – The multiple lawsuits against The Boy Scouts of America, for refusing to accept gay troop leaders. All federal support of this long time American association was revoked. The plaintiffs tried also to revoke the tax-exempt status of the BSA, claiming that it is equivalent to federal aid.
    c. Evidence – Christian secondary schools like Cole Valley Christian and Nampa Christian have been sued for expelling lesbian students.
    d. Evidence – A same-sex couple was turned down by a Methodist retreat center, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, when they sought to rent it for a same-sex ceremony. The center declined to allow the site to be rented for that purpose, on the grounds that the center had a “strongly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman,” according to the center’s director. The lesbian couple filed a complaint with New Jersey’s Division of Civil Rights, and won, no matter that the center is a religiously-based operation with First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and association with possessed private property rights as well.
    e. Evidence – A Jewish university was ordered to allow same-sex couples into its married dormitory

    3. Individuals will be forced by law to accept and condone same-sex marriages despite their religious beliefs.
    a. Evidence – A psychologist in Mississippi lost her case when she was sued for refusing to counsel a lesbian who was not interested in reparative therapy, and a California doctor is about to lose his case for declining to provide in-vitro fertilization services to a lesbian.
    b. Evidence – A wedding photographer in New Mexico has been fined almost $6,700, for declining to photograph a same-sex ceremony on the basis of religious belief.

    The state of California has been very tolerant of people with same-sex attraction. Such individuals can obtain a civil union which grants all of the advantages that a married couple has to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is not anti-gay and would not remove and of the advantages or rights enjoyed by same-sex couples under the law. A yes vote on proposition 8 is being called intolerant, however tolerance works both ways. Those who do not agree with gay and lesbian lifestyles should never harass or ridicule those with same-sex attractions. Likewise, gay and lesbian individuals should never seek to force other people to act against their religious beliefs through judicial activism.

    Thank you very much listening to my view point. I encourage all to vote, even those who do not agree with myself. If you do agree with me, please talk to your friends and family. This is an extremely important issue for the state of California.

  6. David Pinch October 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM

    Laws against miscegenation were “acceptable” until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. People argued vociferously that marriage between races was immoral and decadent.

    “No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainous character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution … that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratify it. … Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. … Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy”

    Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502-503.

    Few now would take a stand that banning marriage between members of different races is anything but gross prejudice. Unfortunately, people are still proud and vocal about being bigots against gay people where (at least in polite society) they cannot be vocal racists. We should have come much further than that. I recognize that some people have religious beliefs that prohibit them from marrying a member of his or her same sex, but if that is the case… don’t marry someone from the same sex. No one is forced to marry anyone under the law. On the other hand, if a person does not share that same religious prohibition, then he or she should not be prevented from marrying by anyone else’s narrow belief system. Vote no on Proposition 8. It is no crime to be gay.

  7. Jennifer October 21, 2008 at 9:10 PM

    Dear Sam,

    Everything you wrote is mere conjecture, yet you state it as fact. Don’t you feel slightly guilty lying like that? Talk about going against the Bible!

    Your “evidence” is not even circumstantial – it has NOTHING to do with Prop 8! California is not Massachusettes (um, we have unconditional opt-out which MA does not). And, oh yeah, the CA Supreme Court stated directly that their opinion does not affect religions. And most importantly, as to #3 – “Individuals will be forced by law to accept and condone same-sex marriages despite their religious beliefs.” HOW CAN THE LAW FORCE YOU TO INDIVIDUALLY CONDONE ANYTHING? No law can force me to condone your bigotry.

    Get a clue, dude. Keep your politics OUT of other peoples bedrooms. Don’t like gay marriage – don’t have one. But stop wasting my time with unconstitutional ballot proposals and please stop propogating your lies.

    Thanks,
    Jen

  8. Mark October 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people
    regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from
    your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
    many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
    homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
    them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
    abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from
    you, however, regarding some of the other specific
    laws and how to follow them:

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know
    it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The
    problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
    pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
    sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
    do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while
    she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -
    Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have
    tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves,
    both male and female, provided they are purchased from
    neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
    applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
    clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
    Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put
    to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating
    shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a
    lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree.
    Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
    God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
    that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be
    20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
    including the hair around their temples, even though
    this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should
    they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
    dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play
    football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by
    planting two different crops in the same field, as
    does his wife by wearing garments made of two
    different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He
    also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
    necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
    whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16.
    Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private
    family affair like we do with people who sleep with
    their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I
    am confident you can help. Thank you again for
    reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging

    =================================================
    Again folks…. The password is……. intolerance. If you took away all of the intolerant people in the world, we’d be rid of a lot of dead weight – Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dr. Laura, Osama, All The Al Queida, —While religion is blamed for a lot of our world issues, it is really intolerance that is truly the source of where all evil is derived.

  9. Matt October 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM

    @Mark
    Your comments about the Bible are very clever. I doubt you actually wrote them yourself, but that doesn’t matter. Here is what you fail to understand about Christianity…Christ came and fulfilled the old testament laws,thus all of your clever little critiques might tweak an Orthodox Jew, or an ignorant Christian, but they really don’t apply to a Christian. The new testament clearly states that the old testament dietary laws, etc… don’t apply any more to Christians. The laws that still apply, have been reiterated in the new testament.

    So, to the point in question for Christians is this. The New Testament clearly states in Romans 1:26-28 that

    “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”

    I don’t expect non-Christians to abide by Christian beliefs, but making Gay marriage legal WILL result in persecution for those who don’t believe it is right. It might not happen right away, but after due time teachers will be forced to teach it, kids will be forced to learn it, parents will be forced to accept it, churches will not be allowed to “discriminate”. Everyone knows this is true, but the liberals just don’t want to admit it.

  10. Dawn October 22, 2008 at 8:25 PM

    It saddens me that even today we still try to force our beliefs onto one another. I am a lesbian. I am currently married to the love of my life. November 4th may take that away from me. Remember, passing this now, even if you do believe it is immoral and so on and so forth, is not just keeping those from marrying in the future, but it is also taking away from those that are already married. I have always heard, “He giveth and he taketh away.” So I guess I just should have expected it.

  11. Guerticus Maximus October 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM

    “I don’t expect non-Christians to abide by Christian beliefs.”

    You don’t? Isn’t a vote for Prop 8 forcing EVERYONE to abide by your Christian beliefs?

    It’s hypocritical to essentially say “The Old Testament doesn’t count” though it is, in fact, part of your “Christian Bible” and is quoted extensively by Christians who are against gay marriage. I’ve personally heard and/or seen the Leviticus passage expressed that talks about homosexuality being a sin. Funny how they always stop there and don’t mention that Leviticus says gays should be put to death. Wouldn’t want to scare off anyone.

    So marriage is for having children? OK, so why don’t we add to Prop 8 that anyone who wants to get a marriage license has to sign a contract saying they will have children before the age of 55? Why not ban marriage for anyone who is infertile, or not of child-bearing age, or has had their tubes tied, or simply doesn’t want to have children? Let’s be fair, eh?

    Want to preserve the “sanctity” of marriage? Fine. Let’s add to Prop 8 that it is illegal to have a divorce. Roughly half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, which clearly destroys “the sanctity of marriage.”

    Let’s be fair here. Oh, but wait….those ammendments could affect YOUR relationship instead of someone elses. Wouldn’t want to do that….’cause that might be considered fair to EVERYONE.

  12. Diane October 23, 2008 at 3:48 AM

    Religious beliefs aside, I support Proposition 8 because I don’t think that 4 judges in San Francisco should be able to tell me what I think. In 2000, over 61% of Californians -including me – voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Then, in June of this year, four judges on the California Supreme Court in effect told me and over 4 million other Californians that they don’t care what we think. Prop 8 is not just about the rights of the gay community; Prop 8 is about MY RIGHTS as a citizen of California to have MY voice heard.

    Prop 8 does not really take away anyone’s rights because, by law, same sex couples in domestic partnerships already have all of the rights and responsibilities of married spouses (check out the California Family Code, which says in effect: domestic partners shall have all of the rights, responsibilities, etc. of married spouses). If same-sex couples feel that they don’t have sufficient rights under domestic partnerships laws, they should address that in the context of domestic partnerships, but they should not seek to change one of the oldest underpinnings of human society – family units formed by the union of a man and a woman.

    Since the beginning of organized society, marriage has meant a union of a man and a woman. Human societies throughout time have been built upon families that began with the union of a man and a woman to propagate the human race – that is why the definition of marriage matters. I fear that redefining marriage will negatively affect our culture and society as Californians and as Americans.

    Please join me in voting YES on proposition 8.

  13. David Pinch October 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM

    If we accept Diane’s logic that the definition of marriage should remain one man and one woman because “that is the way it has always been” to its logical conclusion, then we would still have slavery and the law would recognize her the chattel (property) of a man. We progress as a nation and correct injustices and wrongs. The U.S. Supreme Court rightfully decided in Brown v Board of Education that “separate but equal” is never equal. The denial of the recognition and honor that marriage brings to a relationship cannot be supported except through religious intolerance and puerile views.

  14. LH October 23, 2008 at 6:05 PM

    They should define marriage!!
    Our founding Fathers: ” We the People.. For the People… By the People..”

    Let our voices be heard!!!!!!!!!!

  15. Randall Hahn October 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM

    How many times in history have we seen these discriminatory problems, and how many times have we overcome them? Of course then it was evenly split, people thought it was wrong for people of different races to marry, people thought it was wrong for women to vote, for african americans to become citizens. But now we look back and shake our heads at how ignorant we were.
    We thought the country had grown up since then; but apparently we havent as much as we thought. But we are faced yet again with the choice to make the future better for everyone: vote no on prop 8, so that years down the road, students can learn about this controversy in their history books and shake our heads once more.
    NO on proposition 8.

  16. LH October 23, 2008 at 9:21 PM

    Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Same sex couples are demanding that society elevate homosexuality. Same sex marriages already have he benefits of traditional marriage. Get the civil unions code redefined. Homosexuality is the conduct of engaging in sodomy (homosexual relations) with members of the same sex. This is a clear definition. Civil rights, on the other hand, are also known as “natural rights,” because they are based on things that cannot be changed or chosen. Conduct is not a civil right. The whole idea of civil rights is that our civil government will respect, approve and award protected status to persons who are born with certain unchangeable qualities. This is why civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity and nationality, sex and age — all immutable characteristics. There are thousands of former homosexuals, but no former blacks or Hispanics.

  17. Randall Hahn October 24, 2008 at 12:04 AM

    How many times in history have we seen these discriminatory problems, and how many times have we overcome them? Of course then it was evenly split, people thought it was wrong for people of different races to marry, people thought it was wrong for women to vote, for african americans to become citizens. But now we look back and shake our heads at how ignorant we were.
    We thought the country had grown up since then; but apparently we havent as much as we thought. But we are faced yet again with the choice to make the future better for everyone: vote no on prop 8, so that years down the road, students can learn about this controversy in their history books and shake our heads once more.
    NO on proposition 8.

  18. Bill October 25, 2008 at 11:52 PM

    Why are so many “Christians” so obsessed with other people’s private sex lives? To read some of the postings above it would seem they think of almost nothing else. How do they get anything done in their lives? Is it some repressed longing on their part?

    Religion is always used to support the unsupportable. Move past your hate and be happier. Vote no on Proposition 8.

  19. Mike October 26, 2008 at 5:05 PM

    I don’t understand why the gay agenda trys to make this issue into a civil rights issue. This issue is not about what color your skin is or if you believe in God or not, its about choice. Its about activist judges telling me what to think. The majority of the people of California voted to pass prop 22, but oh no! that hurt someones fellings! so let the activist judges of the state courts tell the majority of California they were wrong.

  20. Deb October 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM

    Yes, ALL “religions” agree that marriage is between a man and a woman; hwowever, marriage was created to be a union between a man and a woman for family sake. It can be argued that homosexulaity is natural, if this is the case why can’t 2 men or 2 woman have children? Sex is primarily for reproductive purposes and reproduction in humans takes place by way of sperm and an egg. So, for family sake, men and woman, let’s keep MARRIAGE and for “Companion” sake let’s have a UNION put in the constitution where all couples have the exact same rights. Having rights isn’t about a majority giving up their rights so a minority can have theirs. It’s about the bottom line and if the bottom line is about homosexuals having the same RIGHTS so be it, just give it a different name so everyone can be happy, not just one group or the other. But is it about rights or just power?

  21. Deb October 26, 2008 at 7:59 PM

    One more thing……….
    Marriage by definition is: the “Union” between a man and a woman. If we change the “definiton” of this word, what’s next? Changing the definition of incest or molestation to satisfy a small cult group? By the way, Sodomy is still a crime, it’s just not inforced so we should change that law too. My point is this, we are not giving rights to individuals, we are changing the definiton of a word. If the definition of marriage changes, we need to change all the law books, the dictionaries, history no longer makes sense. This is ridiculous. Where does it end????

  22. Deb October 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM

    Why are so many “Christians” so obsessed with other people’s private sex lives? Why are so many peoples sex lives dictating how I live my everyday life is the question. Why does someones sexual preference dictate changing of laws? Since when does the minority rule? This isn’t about religion for everyone; for most it’s about our Constitutional Rights. The rights we’ve had for over 230 years as men and woman. Why are my rights being challenged by people who need to let the world know what they do in their bedrooms? Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the same legal rights for their partners, marriage and union. But this is beyond that, this is about wanting to impose sexual prefernce, it’s about acceptance and wanting to be the same. Acceptance I give, but we are not the same. Sorry…

  23. Typical Mac User October 26, 2008 at 8:30 PM

    Geesh, get a grip people.

    I am tired of all this and would have to agree with others, if you stand for example for YES on 8, it’s like your singled out for being narrow minded and such. I work in the entertainment business and have a few gay friends but am sick and tired of being bashed if I have a point of view that is different from others, meaning YES on 8 and that it should be between a man and women. The moral decay of this country is already lost. There are to many rules. In Amsterdam, there was a windmill I visited once, it had a skull and crossbones, that’s it. You walk in front of it, you’re dead.

    Here in America, light a firework, it goes off, sets someones house on fire, pass a law banning it, drink then drive, then kill someone, pass another law, slip on stairs, pass another law, wake up. Take responsibilty. Sure, in the 1700′s they probably swung both ways but if in the open, to the fire they went (or hung), let’s put it back in the closet.

    Even the natural order of Science proves this is unnatural. You don’t need to be religious to see that. The animal kingdom is straight. We are the only species that is gay.

    ALL GAY = END OF WORLD. Move to another planet. That’s what they should do, not if they are gay but if they are so radical that they insist they shove their point of view on a vast majority of the people.

    The constitution says, WE THE PEOPLE and MOST PEOPLE are PRO 8. We have spoken so quite trying to change our minds.

  24. RWS October 28, 2008 at 7:35 PM

    Obviously Mr. Typical Mac User doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.

    link to seedmagazine.com
    link to news.bbc.co.uk

  25. GinC October 28, 2008 at 11:17 PM

    God is love:

    Spanish Premier Zapatero’s Remarkable
    Gay Marriage Speech

    July 1, 2005

    When the Spanish parliament yesterday took its historic vote legalizing both gay marriage and adoption of children by gay couples, Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who put the full prestige of his office and party behind passage of the gay human rights legislation — made probably the most remarkable speech in favor of full equality for those with same-sex hearts ever delivered by a head of government anywhere, in which he quoted two of the most illustrious gay poets in history. Here are excerpts from Zapatero’s speech:

    “We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.

    “In the poem ‘The Family,’ our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda was sorry because, ‘How does man live in denial in vain / by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?’

    Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty.

    “It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone’s triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.

    “Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil, that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better society.

    “With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by the democratic change of government. Our children will look at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them that people had to stay married against their will even though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and praise.

    “Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can better themselves and can cross barriers and create tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great Greek gay poet] one century ago:

    ‘Later ’twas said of the most perfect society / someone else, made like me / certainly will come out and act freely.’ ”

  26. Jennifer October 29, 2008 at 1:21 PM

    OK – after reading all these posts from Mr. Bible Thumper…I have to speak up.

    If the yes on 8-ers are so concerned about protecting marriage, then why are so many heterosexuals divorced? Doesn’t the bible claim that marriage is supposed to be sacred? That’s something that we should probably look into as a country…what do we do – shall we get a petition going to ban divorce? *wink*

    I used to be a born-again Christian but obviously saw that all the teachings were very misleading…and it’s wonderful how all these bible thumpers quote the bible in a manner that supports their cause.

    Anyways…long story short – not trying to put anyone down but don’t we have bigger things to battle like world hunger? and peace?

    Vote NO on 8 – let’s not take away human fundamental rights.

  27. David October 29, 2008 at 10:57 PM

    For those who are quoting that our LGBT community has already the same civil rights through partnerships are wrong. For your information, immigration rights for instance are not given to LGBT American citizens under the current civil rights for partnerships. I am a French citizen and I just married my beautiful partner last week who is an American citizen. If I would be a woman, I would automatically be able to get my green card and request my american citizenship after a little while. Because of my gender, my partner cannot give me this right which is reserved to heterosexual couples only – Please get your records straights before quoting incorrect statements. Other civil rights under the federal umbrella are not given to LGBT American citizens when they have signed a “partnership” agreement. What we want is the same civil right as heterosexual couples, a marriage will help to give us these rights in the future. If this is just a matter of changing the word marriage to “gay union” or any other terms then we should change it but we should continue to fight to have the same civil rights when 2 same sex people decide to commit and love each other for life. No to Prop 8, that is the right thing to do and if there is a God, this is what he/she would want for us.

  28. mike October 31, 2008 at 12:05 AM

    GinC:
    If you like the socialist system, why don’t you move to the country of your choice. This contry was founded on the priciples of the BIBLE and the U.S.A. is set up as a republic under estabilshed law and not democracy only. In the BIBLE it states that homosexuality is not natural. Prop 8, if passed will reserve marrage for what it is intended for. Marrage was set up by GOD for one man and one woman. homosexuals have civil unions, which gives you the same rights under the so called laws. So why do you fight so hard? is it the term “marrage”? even if you win you loose. Because no matter what you try and change, GOD and his people will never accept your unholy union.

  29. mike October 31, 2008 at 12:26 AM

    Why does everyone keep calling marrage a fundamental human right or a civil right? its a Biblical right. David, congrats, in france, gay have the right to marry. in spain the government has just past a law that give you the right to marry, in Massachusetts gay marrage is the law. Why don’t you and your partner move to one of those places. prop 8 is goint to pass.

  30. DaveO October 31, 2008 at 3:49 AM

    WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
    Really, how should we define it? I propose that marriage is the most fundamental element of society, meaning it can’t be broken down any further, and that this fundamental element of society has existed for thousands of years as the safest and most wholesome environment for building the next core fabric of society, the family. Myriad studies show that children reared in homes with both mother and father role models are better adjusted and successful than those with only a mother or father figure. So why in 2008 would we want to redefine that foundational element of our society after thousands of years of acceptance based on the laws of nature? Civil unions are legal and accepted. I propose that we not succumb to the temptation to redefine the time honored tradition of marriage and take yet another step toward the dark abyss that the sexual revolution of the 1960s has already moved us as a society. For more information, research J.D. Unwin’s, “Hopousia,” New York, 194

    IRONIES ABOUND
    I find it ironic that the voice crying out for tolerance is so intolerant of the opposing view as seen by the number of “Yes on Prop 8″ signs vandalized in recent weeks. I also find it ironic that the voice crying out for the majority not to force its views or definition of marriage onto the minority is the same voice that wants to force its view or definition of marriage that has stood for 5000 years onto the majority. The only real argument the NO on Prop 8 voice is making is the equal rights argument. This voice claims a yes vote on Prop 8 is UNFAIR! DISCRIMINATORY! Yet there’s no argument there from the majority!! The majority has accepted that equal right and refers to that relationship as a civil union. There’s a hidden agenda here. The real battle is over the definition of marriage which has been defined by the church. Civil rights activists have fought vehemently in recent years to push the separation of church and state issue to extremes that were not intended by the founders of this great nation. Yet now it’s somehow okay to let the state have undue influence over the church when it comes to the Prop 8 issue. How ironic! Protect marriage. Protect the church’s civil rights. Vote YES on 8.

  31. Yo November 2, 2008 at 2:31 AM

    GinC- move to Spain. Prop 22 has already passed. Prop 8 will pass in 3 day. No judges will than be able to stop the Will of the People.

  32. marcos November 2, 2008 at 3:59 AM

    I am saddended by so much intolerance. Jesus died on the cross to save me. He loves me and I love him with all my heart. I dont pretend to understand what the Bible says on this issue. I just know and feel His love. I am gay.
    My prayer is all can receive Him into their heart and see importance of equality. To think that just a couple of hundred years ago (1700s) people of color were thought to not posess a soul. May we advance as humankind and bring happiness to all around us.

  33. Mike November 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM

    Marcos,
    I glad You love God with all your heart, ang Jesus did die for you and me and the whole world becouse he loves each and every one of us. I have one issue with you. If you love GOD you will seek his face. If you seek his face, you will read the Bible. If you read the Bible, you will see that God calls being “gay” is and abomination. Do me a favor. Stop saying that the homosexual movement should be classifide in the same catigory as being colored. As was said in a prior statment. There are thousands of former homosexuals, I’ve never seen a former Black or Hispanic.
    Read the Bible and you will no longer be gay.

  34. Jamie C November 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM

    Proposition 8 is strictly a legal issue not directed at any minority group. The gist of the debate is whether the legal meaning of the “marriage” contract should include anything other than the traditional “one man – one woman” arrangement. As noted, that is the historic basis for the family unit because it aligns so nicely with biology! Parthenogenesis is for aphids.

    From a strictly legal standpoint, recognition of same-sex marriages would open the door for a whole variety of other combinations that would clamor for equal status. A prime example is polygamy/polyandry. Right behind would be things like people marrying animals, or wanting the state to recognize marriages between animals. Once a legal term has been opened to allow something other than its traditional meaning, it’s hard to put the genie back in the lamp.

    I am something close to 100% certain the founders of this nation did not contemplate the constitution being amended for things such as this. That’s why the amendment process is burdensome, to assure that only those changes truly deserving adoption could make it. The difficult question is, given our beliefs in the moral agency of man, what is the proper role of government in such matters.

  35. Anna November 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM

    Vote YES on PROP 8…

    DON’T vote no on prop 8

  36. Theresa November 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM

    Google the word:marriage, look up the word:marriage in a dictionary, look up the word marriage in a thesaurus.

    Oh and please look up the word marriage in “The Bible”.

    You wanted your rights, you got them! Be who you are, but don’t try to change definitions, and don’t try to change the word of God. He is who put you here, he is who defines marriage. God is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. John doe November 5, 2008 at 12:36 AM

    Gays and lesbians have the same rights as straight couples. I don’t understand why their sexual preference needs to be displayed and FLAUNTED in front of my face every DAMN DAY. Please for the love of all that is holy I don’t care what you do in your bedroom with your pooh holes. I think it is sick and unnatural and biologically ridiculous. The rectum was meant for waste to pass through the human body and not for a giant projectile to be shoved up it. Why do many gays suffer from hemorrhoids?

    VOTE YES TO PROP 8. Save the gays rectums!

    I hope that all of the homosexuals and lesbians stop their parasitical feeding off us heterosexuals. Seek counseling your sickness can be overcome just like many alcoholics and drug addicts recover from their addictions.

  38. Agent Duke November 5, 2008 at 1:58 AM

    This isn’t about discrimination. It’s about morality. How stupid would it sound if opponents of Prohibition used the “discrimination card” when defending their right to drink? Being gay is not the same as being black or hispanic or even white. People can still oppose immoral actions without hate or discrimination against the people, for something they choose to do.

  39. Caity November 5, 2008 at 11:49 AM

    For same-sex couples to gain the right to wed, is far more than the legal benefits you think are already given through domestic partnership. Gay couples want to be married for the same reason straight couples do. To have a commited and acknowledged relationship in society. Its more than our constitutional rights as equals.. so much more.

    For those who claim they are christians and posts hate entrees, please re-evalutate your religious stand points. If you want to bring in the Bible to defend your case on banishing gay marriage, than fine, lets talk the Bible.

    There is no evidence that suggests homosexuality is an abomination. As Christians, we are suppose to learn from the stories of the old testimate.. However we get our lifestyle from the New. The verses your are quoting refer to prostitution and salicitation. What kind of Christians judge God’s creations? God teaches love. Point blank.

    If i had to chose between two loving mother’s, or a mother and father that can’t be around each other without fighting, i would chose door number one. Our society supports divorce, abortions, and several other sins. NO ONE SIN HAS A GREATER CONSEQUENCE THAN ANOTHER. You wanna tell me i am going to hell for loving a woman, but a mass murderer can ask for forgiveness and go to heaven? Maybe he will, thats up to God not me (or you). SO if you you want to call homosexuality a sin.. than i call you a sinner for telling me i am going to hell. Because you my friend, are NOT spreading GOD’s LOVE. you are spreading PURE HATE.

    I am an 18 year-old Lesbian Christian. And when my time comes to leave this world, it will be GOD who gets to judge my life and how i lived it. Not you.

  40. Danielle November 5, 2008 at 8:05 PM

    This is for MIKE. Who was so courteous as to write to Marcos.

    Number one.. please sir, can we meet up? because i would LOVEE for you to show me the kind of bible you are reading. Unfortunately the one i own among with every other person in this world, does not include the word GAY or HOMOSEXUAL anywhere in text. So how dare you tell that young man that “God says this, and youre an abomination.” Have you talked to God? What did he look like?

    As a Christian why don’t you do what we all as Christians ARE asked to do. That’s spread God’s love. PURE TRUE LOVE.

    *P.S. it’s spelt CATEGORY.

    VOTE NO ON PROP 8!!

  41. mike November 5, 2008 at 9:11 PM

    With the schism in the Anglican communion, the Constitutional amendment in the United States to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in light of various ‘human rights’ laws around the world that vilify those who speak against homosexuality, more Christians are asking what the Christian position towards homosexuality should be. While only a tiny percentage of people are homosexual, the gay lifestyle is becoming mainstream – at least in some circles and in the media. Let’s examine what the Bible says about homosexuality, and clear up a few myths in the process.

    First, let’s start with some fundamental groundwork. Some people, uneducated in scripture, are under the mistaken impression that all forms of sexuality are sinful according to the Bible. With this misconception, they readily disregard anything the Bible might say with regards to sexuality, choosing instead to side with their sexual desires. What they don’t understand is that they are completely wrong. Sex is a creation of God, who pronounced all His creation “good!” Sexuality is not sinful. It is a wonderful part of God’s plan.

    ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

    God put a limit on sex, though. Yes, a limit – only one. There is no long dissertation on the do’s and don’ts of sex. The only caveat to the enjoyment of sex is this: sex is meant to be enjoyed in the context of marriage – not outside of it. Unfortunately, these days we must be specific. Sex is to be enjoyed within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. That’s it! That’s the limit. Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” All sexual sins (i.e. promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are sins because they do not conform to the limit of sex being a marital activity. Now of course some of you will point out the list of sexual activity prohibited by the Mosaic laws, but let’s not address those issues of the law from which Paul said we are now free. Instead, let’s stick to those ancient commands that endure eternal. To that end, the above-mentioned single rule is how we are to judge sexual morality.

    The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”

    Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.

    Having established that homosexuality is a sin, we must now face that we live in increasingly pro-homosexual societies. The media and the schools have become mouthpieces for the gay subculture, and are working hard to marginalize those of us who take a moral, biblical stance on the issue. School sex education programs based on the curriculum developed by SIECUS champion homosexuality as being normal and healthy, while encouraging teenagers to ignore the values of their parents if their parents feel homosexuality is wrong. “Gay” television shows are popping up on networks like Bravo and on other networks as well.

    In many nations, current and existing laws are including slurs against homosexuality in the definition of hate crimes. In fact, some in Canada have found themselves in legal trouble for reading the first chapter of Romans over the airwaves. This is a pattern that is sweeping the Western world, and I predict we’ll see similar legislation in the United States within the next few years. While the Canadian Parliament claims that a religious exemption in their recent hate speech bill will protect speech of a religious nature, in practice Canadians have already been prosecuted by human rights tribunals for things as simple as listing the same Bible verses above in a newspaper advertisement.

    Even the church today is not immune to the mainstreaming of immorality. The Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church in the United States is suffering a rift because of the appointment of an openly homosexual bishop. This rift is widened because some of its leaders have deemed it appropriate to perform homosexual marriages. The Methodist Church has allowed openly homosexual ministers to retain their positions. Let me make this clear: I do not oppose allowing homosexuals to attend church. In fact, I think that’s where they should be. However, we must not condone sinful immorality by allowing our clergy to practice it openly. Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are unrepentant of their sin. If they were repentant, they would no longer identify themselves as homosexual. Just as no church would allow their minister to engage in an ongoing adulterous affair and retain his position, so we must not allow homosexual ministers to retain their positions of leadership.

    Homosexual advocates will contend that homosexuality is natural, and some will point to homosexual activity within some animal species as evidence. However, it’s not hard to figure out that homosexuality is decidedly unnatural. My wife and I used to have a couple of pendant necklaces. Each of us had half of a pendant on our necklace. When we put our two halves together, the zigzag pattern meshed together flawlessly to create a single, whole pendant (which, by the way, bore the words of Genesis 2:24). God made men and women different, both emotionally and physically. Physically, we were created to fit together anatomically much like our pendant. Our parts just match up! Remember the child’s game of matching the round peg into the round hole, the square peg into the square hole, etc.? The homosexual is trying to force two pegs together, in blatant disregard for God’s natural design! The argument above also falls flat on its face when you consider that some animal species also eat their young. I don’t think we can extrapolate that into an acceptable practice for human beings.

    These same homosexual advocates will claim that homosexuality is genetic. NOT TRUE! Nobody is ‘born homosexual.’ In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error. The fact is that after all the attempts to show a genetic cause for homosexuality, no such genetic cause has been found. A British psychologist has had enormous success in providing “reorientation” therapy to homosexuals who want to change. This is not a surgery or a medical treatment, but it is effective. How could it be effective if the cause of homosexuality is physical? Well, it couldn’t be. Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition.

    Also untrue is the label applied to those who don’t approve of homosexuality. “Homophobe” has been applied to anyone speaking negatively of homosexuality or of homosexuals. But in 2002, a study by the University of Arkansas was publicized that showed that term to be inaccurate. While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.

    God’s laws were handed down for our benefit. HIV and AIDS, while no longer exclusive to homosexuals, are still much more rampant and spreading more quickly among the gay community (at least in the western nations). Our children are at risk as well. While GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) will tell your seventh-grader during a school assembly that heterosexual men molest more children than homosexual men do, they are not telling the whole story. That statistic is only true because homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population. Statistically though, a homosexual man is 10 to 20 times more likely than a heterosexual man to sexually abuse a minor.

    A few “Christians” have hurt the cause of morality by acting out violently and/or hatefully against homosexuals. When Matthew Shepherd was killed for being homosexual,* a Baptist congregation gathered outside the courthouse during his killers’ trial. They held up banners that stated how many days Shepherd had been in hell, and used some disgusting names to describe him. They seemed to be happy that he had been brutally murdered. Hate is not the answer to anything. Every one of us is sinful, yet every one of us is loved by God. Jesus did not celebrate the death of Matthew Shepherd, and neither should we. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner,” is how the saying goes, and that applies to homosexuals as well.

    With that said, we must not be afraid to stand up and champion the cause of morality. Some will call us bigots and homophobes for our belief that homosexuality is a sin, but we cannot let name-calling soften our beliefs in God’s moral code. The pro-homosexual movement can only marginalize us if we allow ourselves to be marginalized. There are two ways we can do that: a) we exhibit hate toward homosexuals rather than love, or b) we remain silent. We must proudly champion God’s love toward the homosexual without condoning his or her behavior. Let His love shine through us, and may we all be examples of the morality God desires.

  42. mike November 5, 2008 at 9:18 PM

    above for Danielle

  43. Canadian observer February 3, 2009 at 2:26 PM

    This really seems like a pointless back-and-forth. Clearly there are entrenched views on both sides. However, it would appear the majority of the “YES” corner is primarily concerned with how the word marriage is defined (apparently it’s important to be told how to think about such things), not the practical implications with respect to rights and social legitimacy of homosexual couples (as conferred by civil unions). Maybe they should reflect for a moment on the appropriate role of government and step away from the legislative and constitutional platforms and go lobby Merriam-Webster.

    Biblical debates has no place in modern political discourse, people. Aren’t we past this as an enlightened society yet? I suppose the answer lies in the above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *