2008 Arizona Ballot Proposition Results
Arizona Proposition 100: Protect Our Homes
About.com Phoenix Poll: 4,409 votes were cast. 69% Voted Yes; 31% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 100 passed. 77% Voted Yes
Arizona Proposition 101: Medical Choice for Arizona
About.com Phoenix Poll: 3,585 votes were cast. 69% Voted Yes; 31% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 101 failed. 50.2% Voted No.
Arizona Proposition 102: Marriage
About.com Phoenix Poll: 8,366 votes were cast. 59% Voted Yes; 41% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 102 passed. 56% Voted Yes
Arizona Proposition 105: Majority Rules - Let the People Decide
About.com Phoenix Poll: 3,377 votes were cast. 44% Voted Yes; 56% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 105 failed. 66% Voted No
Arizona Proposition 200: Payday Loan Reform Act
About.com Phoenix Poll: 3,408 votes were cast. 36% Voted Yes; 64% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 200 failed. 60% Voted No
Arizona Proposition 201: Homeowners' Bill of Rights Committee
About.com Phoenix Poll: 3,257 votes were cast. 49% Voted Yes; 51% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 201 failed. 78% Voted No
Arizona Proposition 202: Stop Illegal Hiring
About.com Phoenix Poll: 3,646 votes were cast. 51% Voted Yes; 49% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 202 failed. 59% Voted No
Arizona Proposition 300: State Legislator's Salaries
About.com Phoenix Poll: 2,256 votes were cast. 47% Voted Yes; 53% Voted No
The actual results: Proposition 300 failed. 65% Voted No
Comments
The people who voted for 102, banning gay marriage, are bigots. They cannot even argue the point–it’s the dictionary definition.
Which *personal* belief made you vote to restrict another couple’s *personal* beliefs?
When will the people of this country grow up and learn to respect everyone regardless of their race, religion, sex, age, etcetera?
DONT WORRY DAVID THIS PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT
In response to the last comment, my *personal* belief which you refrenced is that there is something inherantly wrong with sexual acts performed between males and that I don’t want the state to put that kind of diseased relationship on the level of a loving man and woman.
How are people going to stop other people from being happy. If it was a law keeping you from the person that brought nothing but joy to your life, you woke every single morning to with a smile on your face because they make you that happy, how would you feel? You are not in these people homes, not in there lives. So grow up! Get some business of your own and maybe you can find happiness one day.
David equates support for Prop 102 with disrespect for certain people. C.S. Lewis said years ago that it is not that people think wrong thoughts, It is that they think wrongly. No, support for traditional marriage does not indicate disrespect for any group or any individual. Support was/is based on a belief that the institution of marriage. It is the cornerstone of our society and is best protected and preserved by the traditional definition that it is a legal and spiritual commitment made between one man and one woman, and licensed by the state. It is possible to hold respect for an individual as person while disagreeing with the life choices they make and the political activism of people who make like choices.
102 was a waste of time and money since it is already on the books in Arizona. It was a way to enforce biased beliefs. How sad so many cannot respect those with differences from their own. Even more pathetic is that most of them walk the path of Jesus. That is the true travesty.
i’m not gay but i voted no. tough luck.
Maybe you whiners can find a state or better yet another country where this practice is accepted. Better hurry too.
I’m wrong for my early comment. I’m just a confused idot. I’m in the closet still and don’t want to come out. I know that being gay is wrong and it is a choice that i make to be one or not. I realize that i’m the bigot here. I now that all animals on this earth are male and female companions. But i wonder why are humans the only ones getting it wrong. I’m just so confused. Why do we go against nature in such a way?
People that voted yes on 102 are the reason our country is going to fall. Our country is ran by the ignorance of the american people , the same people who voted Bush back into office. We need to open our eyes and realize that there is bigger problems to worry about than same sex marriage.Get a clue
To add to what i said earler…… I did vote for bush and i’m the reason why this country falls. I’m just stupied!
Soooo we are not racist but bigots!! Awesome! I apologize deeply to anyone who wants to get married and can’t.
Daniel (3) is unintelligent (”belief which you refrenced”) — enough said. Bart (5) is forgetting that we have separation of church (the “spiritual”) and state. If a church doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage, they don’t have to. The state cannot by mandate of the FEDERAL constitution allow such inequality to exist. Eventually the U.S. supreme court will declare such state constitutional amendments to be unconstitutional, and they are. I love how all of the same uneducated, bigoted people like Bart, Bill, Ryan, and the latter (fake) David always end up showing the world who they really are… ignorant.
I am gay, and a Christian. How can I be both? Easy.
A Christian believes that the NEW TESTAMENT of JESUS is the path to eternal life. Jesus said himself that the two most important commandments are “Love thy neighbor.” and “Love thy God.” The bigoted belief that homosexuality is “chosen” and “an abomination” holds no more weight in the new testament than eating pork or shellfish in the old. Look it up. Grow up. LOVE thy neighbor, as most democrats do. I can’t wait until the Republican party wakes up and realizes that they do more harm to the world than good.
Sorry, Ryan (10) – you are correct. I misread your comment.
Equality is not a matter of opinion. The same people who believe that gay marriage should not be legal also believed (and many still do) that minorities and women should not be allowed to vote. In hindsight our children will be embarrassed by how their parents treated their neighbors, as we are today looking back before the civil rights movement.
Nathan – If you are Christian then you would know that homosexuality is a sin and despised by God. Ever heard of Sodom & Gamora? It was destroyed by the hand of God with fireballs and flame. Please read your Bible Mr.Christian. You can’t choose to believe the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Christianity is not a “I’ll take this, and not that” type of religion. It’s all or nothing. The neither Bible nor God is tolerant of homosexuality in the Old or New Testaments.
Churches that allow gays in their congregations are only trying to increase their donations.
Ummm as to the comment about All animals being partnered up in Male/female relationships.. this is simply not true. Often times in the animal kingdom animals cross over and have whats considered in human terms a gay liason. IN strait term male animals fornicate with male animals and female with female. the only difference is that in the animal world they don’t care when this type of behavior occurs. This happens often with dogs trying to show a display of dominance to other dogs. female or male doesnt matter, the dominante dog will “hump” the less dominate dog. I just dont like it when false information is used to try and prove a point.
Anonymous (15)
Do you eat mussels? According to the Old Testament they are an abomination. Why? Because if not cooked properly they kill people. Due to this lack of knowledge at the time, it was commanded that shellfish not be consumed.
Do you eat pork? Yep – also an abomination. Why? Again, many people died eating pork so it was considered to be “unclean”.
Homosexuality at the time would also have been looked down upon for the simple reason that it doesn’t promote procreation. You cannot build an army if there are no children to grow up to be good little soldiers.
The OT is mostly a compilation of history (stories with little relevance today).
Has God been talking to people in their landscaping lately?
If you’ve TRULY read and understood your Bible as you say, you’d know that the NEW LAW (the NT) REPLACES the OLD LAW (the OT).
Even in the New Testament, passages condemning homosexuality were written in the context of IDOLATRY. How many homosexuals today are worshipping false gods when they go to bed at night? My guess is not many.
Context is important, as any modern theologien will attest to.
Maybe it’s time that YOU re-read your Bible. This time do so with a little agnosticism. I, for one, feel extremely sorry for folks like you who just believe blindly what they are told. If you cannot think for yourself and interpret things in context, you really cannot believe anything at all.
The reality is that “one man-one woman” WAS the law of the land before, and what has changed is that it is now more protected from interference by the judiciary. The previous, and most recent law was approved by the vast MAJORITY of voters who obviously feel that any other combination is unacceptable. It’s just that simple. Several other states have voted similarly, including California, one of the more liberal places in the world.
Our society has a stake in recognizing and promoting traditional marriage. Though it is not always perfect, It is still a foundational institution of all western civilizations, which would eventually disintegrate without it. Therefore, it is a very dangerous thing to bastardize it and change its definition just to appease a minority of people.
Besides, once we mar or distort the identity of an institution like marriage, we have opened Pandora’s box. It would be subject to constant redefinitions by precedent and according to the whims of a few.
I’m not saying gay marriage is a bad thing or a good thing; I’m saying it’s a non-thing.
I am a libertarian (small “l”) and believe that people have a right to live the way they want to live, and love who they want to love, as long as they harm no one else while doing so. I respect the freedoms of all peaceful people. But homosexuals in this country can already live the lifestyle they choose without reprisal.
I do think that civil unions may have possibilities, and don’t necessarily have to be between only two people or of a sexual or romantic nature.
Ballot Prop. 102 has mistakenly been branded as discriminatory. It’s not. Discrimination occurs when laws apply to some and not others. If the Prop. stated that homosexuals may not marry at all, it would be discriminatory and I would not have supported it.
I’m with Feebeldoon, I also voted for John McCain, and did not win, but, I will accept the peoples majority choice and support Barack, just as you need to do same with this ammendmant. This is a democracy and not just YOU!
I must say that I am so sad at the outcome of prop 102. I do not understand how individuals constitutional rights can be restricted due to who they choose to marry. To assume privilege based on having hetrosexual sex is the worst excuse for bigotry. Look up the definition of a bigot….intolerance to differences. My husband is Jewish…can I expect his rights to be restricted soon too????And to teach children intolerance and hatred is the worst part of it all. Are these people truly the christians they claim to be…..The law didn’t pass last time because it restricted hetero domestic relationships. If you live by the dogma of religion this is a sin too…..
Poor Nathan…
Something you need to realize is when Christ came He fulfilled the Law of Moses, He did not do away with the Ten Commandments.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” That still applies today, in fact, Christ took it a step further in the NT.
What is adultery? Any sexual activities outside of lawful marriage between a man and woman.
You need to look into that a little more carefully. And for all people who claimed that those who voted for the proposition are ignorant, try learning proper english before using the word “ignorant.” Try saying “these people” instead of “this people.” You lose all rights to the word when you personally demonstrate it so well.
Feebeldoon (18)
Laws were once also on the books allowing people to be treated as goods (slavery). It doesn’t mean the laws were correct, just a reflection of the viewpoint at the time. It will change for the better some day — you’ll see. Judges exist to provide checks and balances. It’s their job to interpret the law and to determine the law’s constitutionality. Fortunately the federal constitution trumps every state’s constitution. You’ll never see such an amendment in the U.S. constitution.
fogglethorpe (19)
Dangerous? Pandora’s box? I’m the gay one, yet you’re acting like the drama queen. How is it that such a “foundational institution” results in such high divorce rates? You blaming the gay minority for that?
Subject to redefinition? By who? What’s your argument here? Please don’t say that someone is actually going to be taken seriously if they want to marry their dog.
Small “l”? How about small minded. If gay people want to call a union “marriage” just like everyone else, they have the right to — just like everyone else. The State has no right defining a word. Separation of church and state is a necessary legal doctrine that prevents people like you from telling people like me what I can call my relationship. The fact that a proposition defines what I can LEGALLY call my relationship IS DISCRIMINATORY.
Are you afraid that your marriage will be less significant if I call mine the same thing? If so, you have pretty bad problems with your relationship. I hope you can get things worked out.
Traelynn (22)
The ten commandments contain no reference to homosexuality.
You said: “What is adultery? Any sexual activities outside of lawful marriage between a man and woman.”
Please show me where the Bible gives that definition and I’ll hear your argument.
I would consider making things up to be a form of ignorance.
ig·no·rant 1 a: destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
I’m in the medical profession and have learned that not only is there a genetic reason for those that are gay but there are also differences in the shape of the brain in certain areas. If this doesn’t mean that people are born this way than I’m missing something. By the way I’m not gay but why shouldn’t just loving each other regardless of the sex be enough.
Hey Nathan, Show me where in the Constitution it says that gay people have the “right” to call their union a marriage – thereby making it discriminatory to define your relationship. And while you’re at it, show me where it mentions anything about separation of church and state.
Richard (26)
I wasn’t saying that there is such a federal constitutional amendment today… I’m just sure that there will be one some day. Our federal constitution as amended is, after all, mostly geared toward equality. When it passes, it will trump these discriminatory amendments at the state level. I firmly believe that the majority of Americans are fundamentally good, and will eventually see the error in their (your) bigoted ways.
The fourteenth amendment comes close, but as worded does not protect us “fags”. We chose this “lifestyle”, after all. Why wouldn’t we? It’s so full of equality. I just love the fact that I’ve been in a longer, more committed relationship than either of my siblings, yet they are the one’s who get recognition as the “happy family”.
As for separation of church and state. It’s in the first amendment. Do a little research before you post a comment. A simple Google search yields that result in .18 seconds.
Nathan if God was willing to let people be gay he would have let you reproduce.
Gay is not a normal biological activity. If it where you would be able to reproduce.
Reproduction is a natural act of nature and god.
John (28)
What are you to say of someone born with both sex organs? (a hermaphrodite)
And of people who choose not to marry and reproduce?
What about those who are sterile and cannot reproduce?
Your Sunday school argument carries no weight.
Defining marriage has nothing to do with “banning” gays, homosexuality, or happiness. These people still have the right to live and love how they want to. It doesn’t take marriage to be “happy”(most straight people probably consider it the end of happiness). Marriage is also not a “right”, it is a privilege.
Defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman just makes it so the state does not have to sanction a relationship that is not building on the foundation of society. Marriage is offered because it is a give-give situation. It seems gays just want to “get” from the offer. Those relationships are still allowed, and I would never advocate the banning of such. But marriage is a separate issue.
Hey Nathan, you need to chill out bud. i never called you a “fag” or any other derogatory name. And by the way, you’re the one accusing me of having bigoted views. You know nothing about me….where’s the love Nathan. I’m not feeling any love coming from you dude. And as far as separation of church and state, you’re the one who needs to do a little research pal. That’s exactly why I posed the question. There is abolutely NOTHING in the Constitution about separation of church and state! – not in the first amendment or anywhere else so I refer you back to your comment above: “ig·no·rant 1 a: destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence”
In typical liberal fashion, you obfuscate matters by glossing over things and making flippant comments that sound well thought out (but aren’t) hoping that the morons aren’t paying attention. I don’t blame you, after all it works – look what happened yesterday. Fortunately for me, I am not a moron.
Live long and prosper. Peace!
I occasionally find myself in the minority, and can’t say that I always appreciate it, but it seems to be particularly difficult, at this time, for Nathan to accept that the majority disagrees with his CHOICE. I cannot accept that, because I disagree with someone else’s opinion or choice, I am to be called bigoted by anybody.
There are reasons that there moral and legal restrictions upon citizens. For example, there are laws against running stoplights. These laws are intended to protect other people from the CHOICES others might make.
Similarly there are moral and legal restrictions against adultery and unions that are not between “one man-one woman”. Again, to protect others from CHOICES others make. Protection from such things as the deterioration of the family unit, AND from more serious threats such as AIDS (which most certainly was not introduced into the human population and spread by the union of “one man-one woman”). The cost of dealing with the AIDS threat has diverted healthcare funding that might have been used to provide care for many who otherwise could not afford it.
Wow. Why do all the religious bigots think they have the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives? Simple solution… if you are opposed to gay marriage, then marry someone of the opposite sex. What are you so afraid of, that some of the “gay” will get on your kids? Newsflash, homosexuality has been around FOREVER. And if you think there is a god that punishes homosexuals, then why don’t you let him worry about it. Not that there’s evidence that god exists at all.
(and no, I’m not gay bigots)
I voted yes on the marrige amendment. But I would like to explain it. It has nothing to do with beliefs. If gay couples can get married across the nation then it would be concidered discrimination if my church did not perfom marriges for gay couples. Then we would receive a court order mandating us to perform them. I have a right my rights too and don’t wan’t gay marrige to be forced in my church.
Richard, of course the term “separation between church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. That phrase is a metaphor from Jefferson describing the words in the Constitution which are “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
You are making an old, tired argument.
Spence, maybe it would just cause your church to rethink it’s archaic dogma. Is that a bad thing?
Nathan – Again you are incorrect. The NT does not REPLACE the OT, it is IN ADDITION TO! Otherwise, why not remove the OT if it is no longer relavant? Would you like to edit the Bible to fit your cause as well?
As for your argument of mussels and shellfish, again incorrect, as all that needed to be done is to clean and cook them. Do you eat raw mussels or shellfish? Last I recall boiling, steaming, and baking are still forms of cooking.
You can call your UNION what you wish, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to recognize it as marriage, so deal with it.
The only benefit you have of calling it a marriage is for insurance purposes anyway and that is only because most insurance companies know the expenses related in the higher illness rates for homosexuals and therefore will not insure “domestic partnerships”.
Just because you feel you have the right doesn’t mean you do. Marriage is defined from our founding fathers (based on religious beliefs) as between a man and a woman. Plain and simple.
Rethinking is okay…but force? Isn’t that your same argument. You dont want to have others beleifs forced on you.
It’s obviously not old or tired since the vast majority of the population (including you) doesn’t know what it means. Here, read this, I have to go back to work – cuz Obama is certainly not going to give me anything for free.
When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.
1)There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no “Church of the United States.” The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be “separated” from Christianity and its principles. The “wall” was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
2)The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only “forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship” but also “safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.” The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.
After reading many of these comments I would say many people worry about issues that don’t hold much weight. Although I am not gay myself I have had friends in the past that are gay. I never found anything wrong with them. They never feel that they are wrong either. Who can judge other people for how they choose to live their life. I am not a Chirstian are very religous but I am spiritulist. Some that commented about first that this prop was a waste of time I agree. These are peoples life not their taxes, not their position in work but their lifes. Their own home, personal or seperate from other society parts of life. Why should the government be invovled in something that it should not have any say over. When governements start to get more personal with its people the government is not doing its job. The job of the government is not to intervin with personal well being of people but rather something like tax or property issues. So to finish, I think that prop 102 should not have been writen or that it should have passed.
Mike (33)
God does punish homosexuals, please see Sodom & Gamorrah reference above. Also have you ever heard of AIDS? This was first introduced in the homosexual community however; some homosexuals passed it on to bisexuals, and therefore spread it to women thereby infecting heterosexuals.
Also, the Bible doesn’t say “Hey, follow this guideline until you feel it is outdated, then replace it with what you see fit”. It is a guideline for all time, teaching morals, respect and to be humble. It’s teachings are what this country was founded on.
Rik, the founding fathers intentionally made the constitution secular. It is absolutely NOT based on religious belief, no matter what their religions were (and no, they weren’t all christian). In fact, every time an attempt was made to insert god or religious wording into the constitution it was overruled. I am sick to death of hearing people parrot the “christian nation” myth that they hear from the pulpit.
Richard (31)
I never said you called me a “fag”. My use of this derogatory term was meant simply to point out the fact that there IS discrimination against homosexuals. The fact that the word exists (much like the N-word) supports that.
Where’s the love? I pose that same question to supporters of this and any similar amendment.
What constitution are you reading?
Quote: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
…otherwise known as the “separation of church and state” clause.
MOST supporters of these amendments do so under the guise of “morality” and religous beliefs… hence the unlawful support by religous organizations. We need to start taxing them again.
You chill out. The minute your civil rights are challenged, the table will be turned. Dude.
Chris (30)
It’s a privelege? Like driving? To make this correlation is absurd. It’s everyone’s right to earn the privelege to drive.
“It seems gays just want to “get” from the offer.”??
Seriously? California’s amendment prohibits gays from adopting. Those nasty gays — wanting to adopt those children that no one forgot about. Sounds pretty selfish to me… All I want from the state is the same rights that you have… or at least the same right to earn the privelege, as you call it.
Freebeldoon (32)
You can think it’s a choice, that’s fine. You’re merely showing everyone else reading exactly how simple minded and bigoted you are. If someone runs stoplights, others can be harmed — hence the need for the law. If I call my relationship a marriage and the state recognizes it legally in the same manner as a heterosexual marriage, how will you be harmed?
Thanks for pulling the AIDS card. Again, it shows your ignorance. The fact is that women, minorities, and the elderly are now the demographics with the fastest growing rates of HIV infection. Homosexual women actually have the lowest rates? Oh wait, it’s probably cool if two chicks go at it — just not two guys. Your point is counterintuitive. How will changing the definition of marriage cut down on the number of HIV/AIDS transmissions? If it will, we should pass the law everywhere for that simple fact.
Stop and think what it might be like if gay marriage WERE recognized in the same way that heterosexual marriage is. Isn’t it logical that promiscuity might actually become less the norm, thus resulting in fewer transmissions of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals?
Mike, I am waiting to hear what you have to say about my previous comment. “Rethinking is okay…but force? Isn’t that your same argument. You dont want to have others beleifs forced on you.”
Rik, if you want to believe in fairy tales like the Sodom & Gammorah story, that’s your business. But there is NO evidence to support it (excluding the bible as “evidence” of course). And if you think AIDS is some kind of punishment from god, then you should be living in the stone age. Science has already proven its origins.
Nathan,
That’s exactly my point. Your civil “rights” are not being challenged. Legally, you don’t have the “right” to marry another man. that’s just a fact. And as far as the establishment clause – read my reply to Mike above #39. The separation of church and state is a sham! But whatever dude. God bless you and good luck to you. I wish the best for you and your partner.
Rich
There is entirly too much hate being thrown around from both sides of the issue. It’s like this. I didn’t vote for Obama but, he will be our President and I will support him as such. For good or bad the marrige prop passed. Now we live with the votes. That is the great thing about our country. We get to vote. Some times we win and sometimes we don’t.
Spence, exactly… no one wants others beliefs or opinions forced upon them. But, if gay marriages were made legal, churches wouldn’t be forced to perform them. Churches are private organizations. Courts, however, would.
Quoted by Nathan (23)…
Dangerous? Pandora’s box? I’m the gay one, yet you’re acting like the drama queen. How is it that such a “foundational institution” results in such high divorce rates? You blaming the gay minority for that?
No, and why is it relevant?
Divorces occur for many reasons. Human beings are imperfect and complex. Now here’s my straw man counter question…
Are you suggesting that if gay people are legally recognized as married that they will never divorce, or will divorce less than straight couples?
Subject to redefinition? By who?
By you, of course. Isn’t that the thrust of your argument?
Small “l”? How about small minded. If gay people want to call a union “marriage” just like everyone else, they have the right to — just like everyone else. The State has no right defining a word. Separation of church and state is a necessary legal doctrine that prevents people like you from telling people like me what I can call my relationship. The fact that a proposition defines what I can LEGALLY call my relationship IS DISCRIMINATORY.
Ad hominem statements do not advance your argument, Nathan.
And, “separation of church and state” is not a legal doctrine. Besides, you are trying to make a religious issue out of something that is a legal and social issue.
You are free to live the way you wish. Have I infringed upon your freedom in any manner?
Are you afraid that your marriage will be less significant if I call mine the same thing? If so, you have pretty bad problems with your relationship. I hope you can get things worked out.
My marriage is not defined by the behavior of others. And, it is just fine, thank you.
This proposition was about whether or not the state has an interest as a whole in defining exactly what marriage is, and what it is not. The majority thinks it does.
I wish you well, Nathan.
Rik (37)
“As for your argument of mussels and shellfish, again incorrect, as all that needed to be done is to clean and cook them. Do you eat raw mussels or shellfish? Last I recall boiling, steaming, and baking are still forms of cooking.”
Yes, I suppose the Maytag man was not born soon enough to be in the Old Testament. IT WAS FORBIDDEN in the OT. Yet many Christians still eat it today! Where is the call for a constitutional amendment banning shellfish? Why is it that you are able to eat pork yet not think that it’s ok to “pick and choose” from the Bible? I smell a hypocrite and it smells like bacon.
“You can call your UNION what you wish, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to recognize it as marriage, so deal with it.”
I should have the legal right to call it the same thing that you do. You don’t have to recognize it, I could really care less if you do. The STATE should, however.
“Marriage is defined from our founding fathers (based on religious beliefs) as between a man and a woman.”
If it were defined by our founding fathers, do you think we’d have to add it now? If it’s already there, why are we adding it?
Spence (34)
The first amendment protects your church from having to recognizing anything defined by the state. The gays aren’t flocking to your church to get married… don’t worry.
Richard, true religious freedom can ONLY come from a neutral and secular government.
About the first amendment… there are two points. First, it ensures that religious beliefs – private or organized – are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government “establishes” a church – and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.
Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state – by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
I think you’d be singing a different tune if our government favored, say, Islam over Christianity. You just happen to be in the majority, not in a “christian nation”
Richard (46)
“Legally, you don’t have the “right” to marry another man. that’s just a fact.”
OK, and I suppose if you were born 100 years ago you would be fine with the fact that women and blacks could not vote. Got it.
Fogglethorpe (49)
Why is my argument that your so-called “foundational institution” results in such high divorce rates relavent?
Because if you were so concerned about marriage, you’d seek to pass an amendment fixing it in such a way that might reduce the number of divorces, not excluding people from it.
Is changing the definition of marriage the thrust of my argument? No. I was ok with the definition as it was. I’m not looking to change it at all — just looking to keep bigots like you from changing it. Call that a hateful statement if you wish… your viewpoint fits in pretty well with the word.
Have you infringed upon my freedom in any manner? Yes. You absolutely have. You say I can have the same legal rights as you… I just have to call it something else. Blacks at one time were still able to use public restrooms, they just weren’t the same one’s that whites were able to use.
“My marriage is not defined by the behavior of others.”
Then why, may I ask, do you care about redefining the word marriage? Thank you for making my point for me.
I wish everyone the best also. I hope and pray that everyone can be treated equally some day under the law.
Mike,
I’m happy to see that I can have a rational conversation with you. The problem with the establishment clause as presently interpreted is that the original intent (to prevent the establishment of a theocracy) has been bastardized into an attempt to completely remove God from our society – and I beg to differ with you Mike, but the government already dictates what can and cannot be said from the pulpit (and with ever increasing gusto)e.g. under current law, in California a pastor can be jailed just for saying anything that could even remotely be considered hateful against gays – this is one of the reasons propositions seeking to amend state Constitutions are popping up all over. Whether you agree with the biblical view on homosexuality or not, you have to admit that homosexuality would be something the church would have something to say about(and by the way, I believe that it is not my place to judge another’s behavior – it is in fact up to God – so if someone wishes to pursue this lifestyle, they should be allowed to do so in America). What I object to is the militant gay establishment trying to do away with my rights and those of my fellow Americans whose views differ from theirs. This whole “rights” thing swings both ways (no pun intended).
As to your latter point, again Mike, the reality is that political correctness in this country has already relegated Christianity to a de facto second class religion – meaning that it’s perfectly acceptable to bash Christians all day long, but God, or god help you if you say anything agains muslisms – and by the way, this country was in fact founded as a nation to be guided by Judeo-Christian values – and history is chock full of examples to substantiate my claim – for which this forum is obviously not a viable venue.
In any event, Mike, I respect your right to disagree with my views. I only ask that my views be afforded the same degree of respect.
God Bless
Rich
Richard (39) – The first amendment allows me to live a life free from religion. Propositions like 102, backed heavily by religious institutions, force me to live by “christian” laws. How is that fair?
Spence (34) – No one would ever be able to force your church to marry a gay couple if it didn’t want to. That’s the joy of the first amendment. Synagogues don’t have to marry Catholics and can require anyone being married in them to be of the Jewish faith. Your church is safe.
Because if you were so concerned about marriage, you’d seek to pass an amendment fixing it in such a way that might reduce the number of divorces…
That is too absurd to warrant a response.
Is changing the definition of marriage the thrust of my argument? No. I was ok with the definition as it was. I’m not looking to change it at all — just looking to keep bigots like you from changing it.
What, then, did you think the definition was?
I am trying to protect it by keeping it the same as it has been for thousands of years.
Call that a hateful statement if you wish… your viewpoint fits in pretty well with the word.
Fine. Just note that I have not resorted to ugly epithets so far.
Have you infringed upon my freedom in any manner? Yes. You absolutely have. You say I can have the same legal rights as you… I just have to call it something else.
You do have the same legal rights as I do. The law applies to me and to you equally. I can not marry another man, and either can you. I can marry a woman, and so can you. The fact that you may or may not want to do a certain thing does not make it legitimate or illegitimate.
“My marriage is not defined by the behavior of others.”
Then why, may I ask, do you care about redefining the word marriage? Thank you for making my point for me.
You took my statement out of context without including the followup statement about a compelling state interest in preserving the institution of marriage.
Take a breath, Nathan.
Richard, I agree with you that one of the main reasons for the establishment clause is to prevent the creation of a U.S. theocracy. I do disagree, however, that it is being used to completely remove god from our society… only from government, where it doesn’t belong. Why should a god concept be anywhere in the government… and who’s god? Christian? Muslim? The absence of god in government doesn’t make it an atheist government any more than a blank sheet of paper is atheist paper.
I also agree that government shouldn’t dictate what is said from the pulpit (short of words to incite violence or political leanings), but I don’t think that’s why proposals to amend state constitutions are being seen. I think that it is simply an attempt to validate certain religious beliefs and make them even more “official”.
No one is trying to take away your right to be a christian, only the christians’ attempt to force others to live by their standards. And by saying it’s okay to “persue this lifestyle” isn’t good enough. Why not let gay marriage be legal? What if THEY aren’t christian, should they be forced to live by your god’s dictates?
Mike,
Contrary to popular opinion, the founding fathers’ only reason for mentioning it was the prevention of theocratic rule over the people. The fact is that this country was indeed founded as a Christian nation. Again, the facts supporting this claim are too numerous to even begin to discuss here (just look at the many references to God in historical documents, buildings etc) As an atheist, I don’t expect you to agree or even understand (beyond a superficial intellectual level)what god we are to speak of, but because this country was crafted as a nation under God whose rights are given to us by The Creator, the God of the bible, not the koran is the one to which we refer. So from a legal standpoint, there is in fact precedent to argue against the separation of God from government. A simple way to put it is that the original intent of the founding fathers was to institute a government where people would have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
As to your second point, inciting hate or violence is completely unacceptable, but there should be nothing wrong with a pastor mentioning or clarifying, or simply discussing politics from the pulpit – again, that was certainly not something at odds with the original intent. And yes, the reason the propositions are being brought up is in fact to combat the aggressive agenda of the militant gays. It’s self defense. Ironically, militant proponents of the gay agenda are the ones causing people to take a serious stand against this.
Lastly, again, as someone who is not a Christian, you would not have experienced the very real efforts of the God haters to slowly and systematically root out Christianity from all corners of society. While many Christians, erroneously and fanatically attempt to force their views on others, the vast majority of us simply want to live and let live but, strenuously object to our rights being trampled. Having said that, the propositions are not the exclusive domain of the religious right. My father-in-law is an atheist and he voted for prop 102 because the issue is not based on religion, but rather tradition and the rule of law.
Again Mike, it was nice chatting with you. Take care and good luck
Rich
Sorry Nathan, God is very real and does not like homosexuality. Hell is very real. Obama winning presidency just goes to show the end of time is very near. The Beast first appears as a political leader, who will make a covenant with Israel and assume world leadership. Later he takes on the role of a religious leader who is worshipped. Supported by his sidekick – “the False Prophet” – the Beast will deceive the world. He, his prophet, and Satan will form an unholy trinity to rule all of creation.
Pray that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will soon come to pass – that you might escape the terrible slaughter and persecution of the Antichrist.
Let Us Pray Together–
PRAY: “God be merciful to me a sinner. Receive me now for Christ’s sake. Cleanse me from my sin by your precious blood, shed on the cross for me; lead me to be Baptized and fill me with your Holy Spirit. Teach me to pray each day; to read Your will for my life from your word, the Bible; and help me to worship and serve You in the fellowship of your church. I thank you Lord Jesus Christ. AMEN!
Tammy (58)
I’m sorry that your church has led you to believe in such a hateful and judgemental way. There are other churches out there that have their act together and actually know what it means to be a true Christian. Believe me — I know God is real, and my relationship is with Him.
The Antichrist? C’mon. You really think it will be that obvious? No one is to know the time or place… yet you seem to… perhaps you are the antichrist. Are you one of the same people who concluded that the world would end at 2000 or 9/11? You sound like the crazy person holding the sign in the middle of the street waiting years for the apocalypse.
Good prayer, by the way. Have you actually read the words or do you just recite it daily without even thinking about it? Me thinks the latter is true.
All I have to say is…The decision to vote yes for most people was based on religious views. Well, if you are so religious than, “though shall not judge” that’s what our father is for. If what makes others happy is wrong than when judgment day comes they will have to face that. In the mean time we should all mind our business and let others live their lives as they wish. Hey its not harming me or my family so I don’t have a problem with it. I just want people to be happy.
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
actually I was just curious about the propositions-mainly abortions-and I got caught up on the blog page. I don’t judge you Nathan but it makes me sad that people don’t believe that hell is real. I am not religious-I am a born again Christian. I dont judge because before I got saved I was into just about anything I got my hands on. My job is to witness to people and help them to make Heaven their home. I have a female friend who is bi-sexual and I witness to her all the time. I don’t judge her-I love her and care where she ends up. As for Obama winning-no comment. I am still new at the whole Christian life so I really don’t understand a lot about anti-christ but I did read about it last night and it scared me a little for the people I love who aren’t saved. Me being the anti-christ, thats funny-I wouldn’t even know where to begin. I love people, believe it or not, and I pretty much mind my own business but to say someone is a christian and a homosexual cant be right-the bible says so.
Regarding “Please Read your Bible’s” comments about the Bible. Gee, if we followed the Bible vertatim we would still have slaves Dear!
I don’t think that would be too cool. Do you?
I’m not gay but voted no on this prop. It’s unfortunate that there are those (alot of them Republican) that don’t want bigger government or have it controlling their lives but they sure think of it differently when they want to control the lives of people who differ from them.
Did that make sense?
Where did this Tammy person come from? You know personally that God doesn’t like homosexuals? Did she tell you this?
Gee, my God’s better than your God. I follow the Gospel of Mary. She was the only follower of Jesus who got it.
to unbelievable.
You can follow whatever Gospel you would like-my god is a man.
Hey Tammy, what makes you think that WE (the U.S.) as a whole isn’t the anti-Christ? George W. was definitely on the Armagedon track!
It’s so interesting how times get a little tough and there are always those who think the world is going to end. You’re not suppose to know when (if you’ve read your Bible). We’d definitely be in much worse shape if McCain the Hawk had won!
Thank God he didn’t!!!
It’s sad people don’t live by Jesus’ teachings instead of clinging to his death. I guess it’s easier to think you’ll be “saved” by just believing in Jesus and God. Much harder to live by Jesus’ words.
No one’s ever tried to live by Jesus most important instruction he gave. Just love one another. If we did that everthing would be great in this world.
to razzberries:
I have no comment on the presidential debate-I just read about the anti-christ last night and probably shouldnt have even copied from the page I read cause i really am clueless. I voted Mccain but wonder if Obama may have been the right choice since he won by such a landslide-only time will tell. I dont know when the world will end or how, but reading that last night about the anti-christ made me wonder. I am still just a baby christian but my issue was being a homosexual and christian all at the same time-doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t dislike people who live different lives, in fact I have a bi-sexual friend, but she doesn’t claim to be christian
Oops… accidently sent message before completing thought.
So, Tammy, as to the slavery point. It is in the Bible that slavery is kosher. Do you think we should continue this barbaric behavior?
to unbelievable:
actually to me, being saved means to have changed my old habits and try to live like Christ would like me to. I love people-all people. I dont mean to be judgemental but I did learn that God doesn’t like a whole lot of things we as people do. That doesnt mean he doesn’t still love us and he will forgive us if we ask him to
to unbelievable:
no, i dont believe in slavery. thats mean actually-I haven’t heard over the pulpit or read in the bible about slavery
ok goodbye. I am sorry if I said things offensive-this is my first experience with voting and all this stuff. i read stuff last night and was all proud to share my new knowledge but now i decided i really dont care-just as i didnt before last night. who knows the truth about anything? I dont. All i know is my life and i hope you all have a happy and prosperous life. maybe some day when I become an adult i can talk on a more mature level-i was just testing out the waters i guess.
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
1) Being gay is not natural.
And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
And we can’t let the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples,and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our population isn’t out of control, our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.
In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
(Did I miss the lesson where Jesus says He hates gays?)
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Bottom line…love makes a marriage!
There is too much religious talk here. We’re talking about a change to the constitution. Ever hear of the division between church and state? It’s for the very reason that our ancestors came to this country to avoid other people deciding how everyone else should behave based on their own religious beliefs.
If people want legislature making homosexual partnerships unlwful and not recognized by the state then I disagree, but it should be subject to majority rules. However, I believe this change to the constitution has crossed the line into religious beliefs being imposed on others in way that inhibits their basic rights.
This is not something that should never be subject to majority rules ad should be repeales immediately. It should never have been on the ballot.
The whole reason there is religious talk here is because the “one man, one woman” concept is a religious one. Wether they’ll admit it or not, most of the people trying to legislate what gay people can do with their lives do it because of their religious views. They are convinced it’s god’s true word, despite any rational evidence, and they are willing to force it upon those who are different from themselves.
And to Tammy… you are so convinced that god, heaven and hell are real, well then prove it. If you say you don’t need proof to believe in it, that’s fine, but you DO need proof if you want to pass legislation that forces this viewpoint on others.
has anybody heard anything about a partial birth abortion law being approved during this election?
In order for this proposition to pass, both democrats and republicans had to have voted for it… So it’s oviously not a partisan issue. I suppose the argument could be made that it’s a religious belief (”one man, one woman”), but then, we could look at China which is a nation of Atheists, who also dissallows gay marriage. The same can be said for Japan, which is by the majority, an irreligious nation. Those arguments don’t really hold too much water with me.
That being said i was dissappointed in this proposition, I want the government to define marriage as a religious insitution, period. The government shoulnd’t be in the business of saying who can and can’t get married. I feel there should be a distinction between civil unions and marriages. Marriage is a covenant between individuals and their god. It’s a spiritually binding contract. A civil union is a contract between individuals and their government, who is not GOD (unless you live in N. Korea, or China). This contract is NOT spiritually binding, but legally binding, and is NOT THE SAME AS MARRIAGE. If it were, i would have NO NEED to go to the court house and obtain a marriage licence to get married in my Church, which all religious people have to do. If marriage and civil unions were truly synonymous, than the government would not have forced me to obtain a state marriage licence before my religious wedding.
As per my religious beliefs, any civil union, homosexual or otherwise, is not a true marriage… But then, according to my Church, anyone who gets married in any other religion is also, not married.
I think there are a lot of people who feel the need to vote according to the beliefs, and there’s nothing wrong with that… because, isn’t that what we all do, regardless of religion? Vote according to our beliefs? The majority will win, and the rest of us have to deal with this unfortunate caveat of democracy. At least we have a voice, and that’s something to be thankful for.
To Tammy:
God is not a man, God is neither male nor female (with the exception of the earthly form of God the Son/Christ). God is without form, as He is beyond (outside) of physical limitations. He is also outside of time, having no age, no beginning and no end. We say “God the Father” and “He/Him/His” etc. because we view His relationship with man as we would a father’s relationship with his children, in as much as God is our keeper, our provider, our guardian and the one who diciplines mankind. This is traditionally the primary role of the father. In reality, God is also life-giving, nurturing, caring, and loves without restraint, which are the traditional traits of the mother. God is, in fact, or father and our mother. He is the complete image of “Parents”. He created us with no mate, no help. We are male and female, because it’s the best way we can simulate God’s image. We are created Male and Female in HIS image, meaning he is BOTH male and female, and in order to best fit that IMAGE, we must be male and female.
I couldn’t have said it better than David. I am married with Grandchildren so I obviously believe in marriage. But my morals will not allow me to vote in a way that restricts or condemns someone else’s choice.
When religion meddles in other’s lives, it only serves the purpose of pushing people away. It’s time for those religious right to evolve into the thinking, compassionate people they are capable of being.
No more hate laws please!!!
Hey-
I am a young gay man who feels like a second class citizen because of the way these gay marriage votes went. I have also worked closely with gay youth and its very hard to teach them to accept themselves and their lifestyle when people are passing laws telling them that their desire to form a committted relationship is wrong. I want to help and I want to know how and who we can look to for a change in these policies.
Tonya,
Here is what Wikipedia says about it. I have not verified the accuracy of that information.
Partial-Birth Abortion had nothing to with with the election in Arizona, which is (generally!) the topic of these blog comments.
(60) Nathan
After reading your comments I can see that you truly are a douche bag.
You ramble on with no objectiveness in you comments but yammer on with you holier than thou attitude admonishing any view that is contrary to your own.
Get a life, take your boy friend to the mall and have him buy you something pretty at let the adults have a healthy debate.
Jay (83)
How is it that I am not objective? Give me one just ONE example… perhaps if the table were turned and you were the one being told you had the same rights, but that you just had to call it something else and go about things in a completely different way then you would understand.
The very fact that you stereotype me by saying I should be bought something “pretty” only proves that YOU are a childish homophobe.
What makes me feel good about all this is that more than likely one day your children (if you have any) will look upon you with embarrassment, that they could possibly have such a bigoted family member in their past.
Either that or your kids will grow up to be just as ignorant and hateful as you, and the rest of the world will see them for who they are.
I hope it’s the first one and not the second.
YOU need to grow up, bigot.
Nathan and Jay,
Stick to the issues and stop the name calling, or take it outside.
thanks Judy, someone told me it was one of the propostions (didn’t see it on my ballet) so I was just wondering. Thank you for the info.
I don’t have a problem w/ gays being married. I believe that if they achieved their way on this proposition, then they would find something else to complain about. That’s the only reason I voted yes, I’m tired of hearing it. Oh, and Miss Nathan, you should be cast off into exile w/ half of the left that have just emerged in congress. You thought Bush was bad, ha just wait….
Oh, and I’m not religious either.
Jimi (87)
I just love how people post comments without supporting them with facts of any kind to back them up. Please name one other thing that the “gays” are asking for that the “straights” are not, or that the “straights” do not already have. You think that by not allowing gay marriage you are going to hear less about it? That the “gays” would stop asking for it? That’s logical.
Fortunately my half of the isle is growing and yours is shrinking. If there is going to be a side “cast off into exile”, it will be yours. Bon Voyage, sister.
I am homophobic, meaning I am afraid of homosexuality. I am afraid of what homosexuality will do to our society, and to the future of my children and grandchildren. I am afraid of all immorality, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals. I don’t care if I am labeled a religious bigot, history has proved that when a society becomes as immoral as ours is now, it will fall. If you have any doubt of this, just look at what has happened to our families. Teen pregnancy at an all time high, poverty, abortion, STD’s, and on and on — a huge increase in the last 100 years. Call me names if you like, but someone has to stand up for the right!
Jenny (90)
Just another viewpoint. Have you ever considered the fact that teen pregnancy, abortion, STD’s, etc are on the rise may also be due to the fact that abstinence programs are favored over safe-sex programs in the United States? There is significant evidence that suggests that it might be contributing to the problem, and highly respected scientific and medical groups back up that claim, favoring more “comprehensive” sex education programs.
Also, I’d like to know where you got your unbiased facts for which you base your statement that “history has proved that when a society becomes as immoral as ours is now, it will fail”. I’d like to read up and learn a bit more about your viewpoint.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education
To Nathan:
The New Testament does come out against Homosexuality. As a Christian, I do not condemn the person, but I do condemn the act. Homosexual Behavior is against all moral standards and against nature. Man and Woman were created to marry and procreate as a blessed union. Man and man, woman and woman can’t procreate. And yes, homosexual behavior is a choice. So the state of Arizona, along with the states of California and Florida voted for the correct measures against judicial extremeism and against a union which is immoral. This was caused by the Homosexual lobbyists and the California Supreme Court who turned against the peoples will. Live with it. Read the biblical verse from Romans which happens to be in the New Testament.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 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:
27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(New Testament | Romans 1:24 – 32)
Gay people are NOT discriminated against. In case you didn’t notice straight people aren’t allowed to marry someone of the same sex (or a child, or their sibling, or their parent) either! The rules are the same for everybody. Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.
Jesus did speak out against homosexuality. Click the link for a 90 second message. I’d also like to add that Christians do NOT hate gay people. We love everybody. If we condemn your behaviour it’s because WE CARE ABOUT YOU and want to see you find true everlasting love and life which can only be found in knowing Jesus. I know these words irk you but I hope you will consider what the message says.
http://media.answersingenesis.org/audio/answers-daily/volume-056/39.mp3
Byron (92)
Every passage you list was written in the context of idolatry. I already addressed that.
Scott (93)
If a “straight” person wanted to marry someone of the same sex, wouldn’t that make them gay? Just sayin.
Eric (94)
I listened to the media clip you provided (thank you). Would you also then conclude from that clip that Jesus didn’t condemn slavery or polygamy (and even condoned it)? Those things are written into the Bible as well, though not much on the subject of polygamy in the NT that I’m aware of.
Words don’t irk me. A dogmatic understanding/translation of them does.
We allow these people to serve our country, serve our communities, and function as any others do in our society, but yet we manage to find a loop-hole that allows the country and communities to avoid serving these people in return. This defies any logic whatsoever. This is the classic end result of allowing religion to interfere with state, as well as allows us to walk the same paths we have walked in the past.
When do we make these people sit at the back of the buss, or drink from seperate water fountains? Maybe, as we progress, we can remove their voting rights as well.
Have we learned nothing from our own history?
We have already walked these paths of ignorance, hate, and bigotry, and at some point, when educated men and women finally deem this as insanity, we correct our mis-guided delusions and defeat our denials. History should be one of the greatest teachers of all, but it requires sound minds to be effective.
Enough Said…
You said it well Nathan. I am both a heterosexual and a Christians and believe that God loves everyone and does not judge. If we go by the OT men would have many wives and live forever. Times have changed and people have finally had the opportunity to live honestly and not in a “closet”. I say if a person is sleeping around, whether hetero or homosexual, that is worse in God’s eyes than two people who love each other, whether hetero or homosexual, who want to make a commitment. I know many gay couples who have adopted children from heterosexual couples who abandon their children so Praise God that someone is there to love and care for them.
wow… all of this ridiculous dribble about people’s sexual preferences – yeah… here’s one for you:
STAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S INTERPERSONAL BUSINESS.
It doesn’t concern ANYone else but those directly involved.
I am am married with children, agnostic but, most of all, I am a human being. It is wrong for people to tread on others bedroom activities/preferences.
I think that we should ALL be really disappointed with ourselves that PROP 202 failed – how could that prop not make any more sense to anyone? It is a no-brainer.
I am DELIGHTED to have the amazing immigrants that have helped to shape and mold our country into what it is today. But there is a Golden Rule being broken and it is the one regarding being here illegally.
Call it “cuts-eys”" in line or “bucking the system” or whatever you like – the fact is that it is not legal and puts a strain on our census, taxes, legal system, budgets, medical care, and more.
I AM ALL FOR PEOPLE IMMIGRATING THE RESPONSIBLE LEGAL WAY.
There needs to be a responsible plan that will serve EVERYONE’S needs…
WOW! Now THAT sounds like a politician!
peace everyone… merry christmas/happy holidays/(insert politically-correct salutation here)
!
What the hell just happened? Did I miss sumthin? This IS the year 2008, ISN’T IT?
The church is allways comin up with new and impruved ways of savin yur soul by controllin yur personal life. ISN’T THAT GODS BIZNESS??!!!!!!! And the government is allways comin up with new and impruved ways of taxin yur ass. WOW. Wer’e actually being charged a different fee based on our personal relationships with others. EFIN amazing.
U Peepul kant spel wurth uh krap!!!!!!!!
uhmmmm…no this is 2009
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 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:
27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.