Religions > Bible > DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
19 May 2005 01:31:35 AM |
| Object: |
DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
Dear friends,
Typically you know me as Bible John, but since my PC crashed, I am using my
Jornada 720 for this message. But not when my new ibook arrives.
Friends the Democrats are at it again. This time Homosexual assemblyman
Mark Leno of San Francisco has introduced AB 19 in his most wild attempt to
force homosexual marriage upon the nice innocent people of California! I'm
not 100% sure where Swarzenegger stands,but I believe he is opposed and not
opposed to homosexual marriage. I heard him once say on TV (summer 03) that
marriage is only between a man and a woman. Perhaps he said this to get the
Christian vote in the Nov 03 election. He no doubt got my vote regardless
of his modertism in some areas. But no doubt Arnold is cleaning and taking
out the trash in Sacramento and around the state. Democrats make big
messes, and I'm thankful that Arnold was given this massive job. But
honestly we all need to help take out the trash.
Regarding Leno (the coward) who could not face the voters in 2004 with this
wild homosexual marriage idea, so the coward has reintroduced his wild
bill,but this time being AB 19.
EVERYONE PLEASE STAND UP TO THIS GUY AND WRITE LETTERS TO YOUR STATE
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS TODAY!!!! AB 19 CAN BE VOTED ON ANYTIME KNOW!!!!
Please go here
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourlet.html
PLEASE ACT QUICKLY AS THE DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALREADY FLOODING THE
LEGISLATORS WITH LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS FOR THEIR BILL. PLEASE ACT
QUICKLY!!!!
If you need to know what the bible says about homosexuality, then please
email myself (johnw_94020@yahoo.com) or Jason Gastrich (jason@jcsm.org). Or
check out the works of John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraaf who are both
critics of homosexuality.
Amen
John
.
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 07:27:41 AM |
|
|
<snip>
Looks like a fake John Wolf to me.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 04:11:24 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
<snip>
Looks like a fake John Wolf to me.
Nope. This is classic John Wolf.
JM
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arizona Bushwhacker" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 03:21:43 AM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:mOWie.4485$eR.105@fe05.lga...
Dear friends,
Typically you know me as Bible John, but since my PC crashed, I am using
my
Jornada 720 for this message.
Why? Can't any of you Bible thumpers figure out how to change
a username???
But not when my new ibook arrives.
Friends the Democrats are at it again.
Before you try and convince me you have brains
enough to be right about democrats, shouldn't I
expect you to have enough brains to figure out
how to change a username???
This time Homosexual assemblyman
Mark Leno of San Francisco has introduced AB 19 in his most wild attempt
to
force homosexual marriage upon the nice innocent people of California!
I'm
not 100% sure where Swarzenegger stands,but I believe he is opposed and
not
opposed to homosexual marriage. I heard him once say on TV (summer 03)
that
marriage is only between a man and a woman. Perhaps he said this to get
the
Christian vote in the Nov 03 election. He no doubt got my vote regardless
of his modertism in some areas. But no doubt Arnold is cleaning and
taking
out the trash in Sacramento and around the state. Democrats make big
messes, and I'm thankful that Arnold was given this massive job. But
honestly we all need to help take out the trash.
Regarding Leno (the coward) who could not face the voters in 2004 with
this
wild homosexual marriage idea, so the coward has reintroduced his wild
bill,but this time being AB 19.
EVERYONE PLEASE STAND UP TO THIS GUY AND WRITE LETTERS TO YOUR STATE
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS TODAY!!!! AB 19 CAN BE VOTED ON ANYTIME KNOW!!!!
Please go here
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourlet.html
PLEASE ACT QUICKLY AS THE DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALREADY FLOODING THE
LEGISLATORS WITH LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS FOR THEIR BILL. PLEASE ACT
QUICKLY!!!!
If you need to know what the bible says about homosexuality, then please
email myself (johnw_94020@yahoo.com) or Jason Gastrich (jason@jcsm.org).
Or
check out the works of John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraaf who are both
critics of homosexuality.
Amen
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G.T." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 11:18:22 AM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:mOWie.4485$eR.105@fe05.lga...
Dear friends,
Typically you know me as Bible John, but since my PC crashed, I am using
my
Jornada 720 for this message. But not when my new ibook arrives.
Friends the Democrats are at it again.
You people are serious creeps. It's clear that the American Taliban is
alive and well.
Greg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cdnbud" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 11:51:21 AM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:mOWie.4485$eR.105@fe05.lga...
Dear friends,
Typically you know me as Bible John, but since my PC crashed, I am using
my
Jornada 720 for this message. But not when my new ibook arrives.
Friends the Democrats are at it again. This time Homosexual assemblyman
Mark Leno of San Francisco has introduced AB 19 in his most wild attempt
to
force homosexual marriage upon the nice innocent people of California!
I'm
not 100% sure where Swarzenegger stands,but I believe he is opposed and
not
opposed to homosexual marriage. I heard him once say on TV (summer 03)
that
marriage is only between a man and a woman. Perhaps he said this to get
the
Christian vote in the Nov 03 election. He no doubt got my vote regardless
of his modertism in some areas. But no doubt Arnold is cleaning and
taking
out the trash in Sacramento and around the state. Democrats make big
messes, and I'm thankful that Arnold was given this massive job. But
honestly we all need to help take out the trash.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is societies mandate to protect the
innocent from the mentally unstable homosexuals and the diseases they
spread.
When the mentally unstable begin to engage in destructive activities, like
the homosexuals do, this is necessary for society to step in and care for
these sick individuals.
I think treatment centers should be developed to show these disturbed
homosexual people the medical consequences and societal consequences of
their destructive actions and render physical and medical treatment to aid
in their recovery.
It is a shame that society wants to give these mentally challenged
homosexual people "special rights" instead of treatment.
-cdnbud
"Blame it on the Baptists"
.
|
|
|
| User: "G.T." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 05:46:10 PM |
|
|
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET...
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is societies mandate to protect the
innocent from the mentally unstable homosexuals and the diseases they
spread.
When the mentally unstable begin to engage in destructive activities, like
the homosexuals do, this is necessary for society to step in and care for
these sick individuals.
I think treatment centers should be developed to show these disturbed
homosexual people the medical consequences and societal consequences of
their destructive actions and render physical and medical treatment to aid
in their recovery.
It is a shame that society wants to give these mentally challenged
homosexual people "special rights" instead of treatment.
Either you're a moron or you're a messenger of Satan. Couldn't be any
explanation for the above other than those two reasons.
Greg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 12:22:00 PM |
|
|
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET...
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:mOWie.4485$eR.105@fe05.lga...
Dear friends,
Typically you know me as Bible John, but since my PC crashed, I am using
my
Jornada 720 for this message. But not when my new ibook arrives.
Friends the Democrats are at it again. This time Homosexual assemblyman
Mark Leno of San Francisco has introduced AB 19 in his most wild attempt
to
force homosexual marriage upon the nice innocent people of California!
I'm
not 100% sure where Swarzenegger stands,but I believe he is opposed and
not
opposed to homosexual marriage. I heard him once say on TV (summer 03)
that
marriage is only between a man and a woman. Perhaps he said this to get
the
Christian vote in the Nov 03 election. He no doubt got my vote
regardless
of his modertism in some areas. But no doubt Arnold is cleaning and
taking
out the trash in Sacramento and around the state. Democrats make big
messes, and I'm thankful that Arnold was given this massive job. But
honestly we all need to help take out the trash.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is societies mandate to protect the
innocent from the mentally unstable homosexuals and the diseases they
spread.
When the mentally unstable begin to engage in destructive activities, like
the homosexuals do, this is necessary for society to step in and care for
these sick individuals.
I think treatment centers should be developed to show these disturbed
homosexual people the medical consequences and societal consequences of
their destructive actions and render physical and medical treatment to aid
in their recovery.
It is a shame that society wants to give these mentally challenged
homosexual people "special rights" instead of treatment.
Again, I am not gay, but, aside from other issues, your mention of disease
is exactly why it is in society's interest to encourage long-term monogamous
relationships in both the gay and straight community (neither are free of
promiscuous individuals).
I do somewhat find it ironic that at a time when half of all straight
marriages (Christian ones are no exception) end in divorce, that gays would
be seeking to marry, but it is in society's best interest to allow them to
do so. It is hopeful that in their fight for the right to marry, many gays
hold a respect for the institution of marriage that heterosexuals seem to do
not, and (even more hopefully), perhaps, faced with this question, some
heterosexuals will re-examine marriage and the value and responsibilities of
this institution.
Gays, by the way, in seeking the right to marry, are not seeking "special
rights" but the same rights as others who commit themselves to each other in
this matter.
Again, this does not mean a church or the church has to except these
marriages, the church has its definitions of marriage, and the state and
society have theirs, and at this point in time, it is in the state's and in
society's best interest to not just allow, but to encourage gays and
heterosexuals to commit themselves to long term manogomous relationships
such as marriage.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Steiner" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
20 May 2005 05:40:22 PM |
|
|
In article <25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET>,
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The AMA and APA disagree with you, and they know a hell of a lot more
about mental disorders than you do.
It is societies mandate to protect the innocent from the mentally
unstable homosexuals and the diseases they spread.
Even if your premise were true, how would preventing same-sex marriages
do that?
When the mentally unstable begin to engage in destructive activities,
like the homosexuals do, this is necessary for society to step in and
care for these sick individuals.
Care for? All you want to do is destroy homosexuals.
I think treatment centers should be developed to show these disturbed
homosexual people the medical consequences and societal consequences
of their destructive actions and render physical and medical
treatment to aid in their recovery.
I think that you are more in need of any such treatment than gays are.
You are totally out of touch with reality, and are a danger to society.
It is a shame that society wants to give these mentally challenged
homosexual people "special rights" instead of treatment.
It is a shame that you can't tell the difference between equal rights
and special rights. It is a shame that you have perverted the God-given
mind you once had.
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
21 May 2005 10:30:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:22 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> spake thusly:
In article <25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET>,
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The AMA and APA disagree with you,
They do now. Yet they didn't before and in fact, there
is discussion going on about adding it to the list
again. The only reason it was ever taken off the list,
was due to political pressure, by the politically
correct fools.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
22 May 2005 08:06:43 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <imku81t8ovv1onjevlipcg7rmt3dsab6u4@4ax.com>, Pastor
Dave pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:22 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> spake thusly:
In article <25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET>,
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The AMA and APA disagree with you,
They do now. Yet they didn't before and in fact, there is discussion
going on about adding it to the list again. The only reason it was ever
taken off the list, was due to political pressure, by the politically
correct fools.
You lie.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carson West" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
22 May 2005 02:11:30 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:22 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> spake thusly:
In article <25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET>,
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The AMA and APA disagree with you,
They do now. Yet they didn't before and in fact, there
is discussion going on about adding it to the list
again.
"Discussion" by whom?
The only reason it was ever taken off the list,
was due to political pressure, by the politically
correct fools.
No, the reason it was removed is because some segments of our society, those
that become learned and enlightened, act according to the advance of human
knowledge and understanding and are not governed by the bigotry of loud and
ignorant representatives of other, less learned and less enlightened
segments of our society, that is, those represented by people such as
yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
22 May 2005 02:58:55 AM |
|
|
Carson West <carson.west@coxspambox.net> wrote in
news:BgWje.19757$ye1.8028@okepread06:
<Snip>
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The AMA and APA disagree with you,
They do now. Yet they didn't before and in fact, there
is discussion going on about adding it to the list
again.
"Discussion" by whom?
The only reason it was ever taken off the list,
was due to political pressure, by the politically
correct fools.
No, the reason it was removed is because some segments of our society,
those that become learned and enlightened, act according to the
advance of human knowledge and understanding and are not governed by
the bigotry of loud and ignorant representatives of other, less
learned and less enlightened segments of our society, that is, those
represented by people such as yourself.
Wow! This is wonderful. It shoud all be used in a course on informal
logic. So, dear readers, is there any part of the last two exchanges NOT
corrupted by some logical falacy?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking anyone, and I am not stating my
opinion on the controversy under discussion. It's just that its such a
fine exchange with impressive adjective/gerund use, and none of either
exhange addresses the real questioning, namely, the reasoning behind the
decision to removed homosexuality from some approved list of mental
disorders.
Add more if you like, but here's my list:
Ad hominem
False/equivocal causation
Appeal to (misleading) authority
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
22 May 2005 09:59:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 07:58:55 GMT, "J.W."
<J.W.@hw61.com> spake thusly:
The only reason it was ever taken off the list,
was due to political pressure, by the politically
correct fools.
No, the reason it was removed is because some segments of our society,
those that become learned and enlightened, act according to the
advance of human knowledge and understanding and are not governed by
the bigotry of loud and ignorant representatives of other, less
learned and less enlightened segments of our society, that is, those
represented by people such as yourself.
Wow! This is wonderful. It shoud all be used in a course on informal
logic. So, dear readers, is there any part of the last two exchanges NOT
corrupted by some logical falacy?
Don't you know? They are "the enlightened ones". We
are the cave men of society. :)
Isn't it a convenient argument for them? Whenever you
disagree, you're just not "enlightened and educated".
<chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
22 May 2005 02:20:21 AM |
|
|
Carson West wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:22 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> spake thusly:
In article <25152$428cc3de$97d55741$26452@ALLTEL.NET>,
"cdnbud" <cdnbud@alltel.net> wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The AMA and APA disagree with you,
They do now. Yet they didn't before and in fact, there
is discussion going on about adding it to the list
again.
"Discussion" by whom?
The only reason it was ever taken off the list,
was due to political pressure, by the politically
correct fools.
No, the reason it was removed is because some segments of our
society, those that become learned and enlightened, act according to
the advance of human knowledge and understanding and are not governed
by the bigotry of loud and ignorant representatives of other, less
learned and less enlightened segments of our society, that is, those
represented by people such as yourself.
That is a shrinking minority. There is a casino about 40 miles from here in
the heart of redneck country.
The only time I've been there was to watch a group I know. Lot's of beer,
lot's of cowboy, biker and trucker attire. Lots of tattoo's. These are
people with low income who think they will get rich gambling.
Three lesbian couples came into this place and one couple were *very*
affectionate both on and off the dance floor. Nobody paid any attention to
them.
Ten years ago they would have been run off.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 10:19:33 AM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:mOWie.4485$eR.105@fe05.lga...
Dear friends,
Typically you know me as Bible John, but since my PC crashed, I am using
my
Jornada 720 for this message. But not when my new ibook arrives.
Friends the Democrats are at it again. This time Homosexual assemblyman
Ah...you do know that there are also prominant gay Republicans, don't you?
Marriage is is at least a 3-fold issue, a religious issue, a state issue,
and a social issue and, just as at one time the Catholic Church did not
recognize marriages that took place outside the Catholic Church, the
religious definition of marriage (which they have a right to proclaim) is
not necessarily equal to the state definition of marriage.
While I am not gay, my reading of the NT tells me that Jesus would have at
least treated gays with the compassion the Religious Right lacks. In fact,
if he were walking among us today, I am confident He would tell the
Religious Right that many harlots, tax collectors and gays will enter into
the Kingdom of God while many Republicans (and Democrats) will be left out
in the heat.
Again, the state has the right to make its own definition of marriage and,
since Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, the Church would be
better served to let the state handle its affairs while the Church busys
itself with mirroring the compassion of Christ to the world. As Paul said,
we are to judge those within (the Church), but it is up to God to judge
those without. The Church's failure in modern times can be directly related
to it's substituting politics for the Gospel.
As to the Religious Right, I would challenge those without sin to cast the
first stone.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
19 May 2005 04:34:20 PM |
|
|
"Terrell D Lewis" <composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:982je.2760$VS6.619@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
<Snip>
Ah...you do know that there are also prominant gay Republicans, don't
you?
Few people are unaware of the "Log Cabin" Republicans and other "gay"
Republican groups. At least I think so. But it really wasn't his point to
blame homosexuality on Democrats. It's just that the majority Democrats in
California have always pushed their so-called "progressive" agendum, which
more recently (relatively speaking) has includes the promotion of Gay
rights. The Republicans, including "gay" Republicans, are opposed to it.
<Snip>
While I am not gay, my reading of the NT tells me that Jesus would
have at least treated gays with the compassion the Religious Right
lacks.
The issue here is not a question of compassion. Despite claims to the
contrary, no one is persecuting homosexuals in California. California
completely decriminalized homosexual behavior between consenting adults
thiry (30) years ago. California's anti-discrimination law also prohibits
discrimination based on "sexual preference" in some circumstances. A large
part of the private sector and many local governments in California provide
benefits to both homosexuals and their partners. None of the gay marriage
supporters who, last year, permitted, facilitated or participated in the
gay marriages in San Francisco were sent to jail or lost their jobs - even
though their actions violated State Law. So how is compassion, or the lack
thereof, an issue?
As to what Jesus would have done, I agree that he wold have been
compassionate, but only toward those homosexuals who repented. Jesus said
that he came "to call sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17-17;
Luke 5:32.) But he also insisted that he did not come to abolish the Law,
and that none of it would pass away until "everything was accomplished."
(Matthew 5:17-20.) The Law, as you may well know, prohibited a man from
having sexual relations with another man. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; and see
Romans 1:26-27.) So it is false to suggest that he would have accepted all
homosexuals without reservation.
As to your comments regarding the "Religious Right" please define exactly
who you think they are. After that I would like to know why you think they
have any significant political power.
That is, does the Religious Right (hereafter "RR") include people of any
faith, or only evangelicals or only fundamentalists (assuming there is a
difference the two)? Does the RR include only people of faith who embrace
Republican values (which are not always conservative), or conservativism,
or only radical conservativism? Or maybe they are just issue specific?
If the exit polls from the last presidential election indicate that only 18
percent of the people voted because of moral issues, how does that prove
the RR has any significant political power to be reckoned with? 18 percent
of the vote would never get anyone elected. Despite Pres. Bush's comments
to the contrary, the fact that 18 percent of the voters voted on "moral
grounds" hardly supports the claim they supporteed HIM. How does he or
anyone know that some or all of that 18 percent didn't vote against him
because of their moral opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? And
this RR, represented in this 18 percent figure, is then supposed to be a
group responsible for the loss of "civil liberties"? Go figure.
In addition, until you define the RR, you leave everyone clueless as to why
we should believe your claim that the RR isn't compassionate toward gays
and lesbians. I am unaware of any church that refuses admission to church
services based on sexual preference. Many conservative Christians would be
overjoyed if gays and lesbians would repent of their sinful sexual behavior
and turn to Jesus for salvation. Is this being hateful or uncompassionate?
Or are you claiming they are not "compassionate" because they stand their
ground and do not embrace those who refuse to repent of of their sinful
sexual behavior?
. . .In fact, if he were walking among us today, I am confident He
would tell the Religious Right that many harlots, tax collectors and
gays will enter into the Kingdom of God while many Republicans (and
Democrats) will be left out in the heat.
Even if this is true (and I offer no opinion on the matter), I'm not really
sure how it has relevance here. Explain why this isn't just an emotional
appeal to nominal Christians.
Again, the state has the right to make its own definition of marriage
and, since Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, the Church
would be better served to let the state handle its affairs while the
Church busys itself with mirroring the compassion of Christ to the
world.
Who or what is the State of California if not the aggregate of all People
with political power residing inside its borders? Politicians do not elect
themselves to office. Voters elect them. California, like the rest of the
50 States, is a democracy with a republican form of government. At a
minimum, that means that all political power resides originally with the
people, and they express their will through their elected representatives.
Are the People who comprise the power base of the State of California not
entitled to express their conscience at the ballot box? Are they not
likewise entitled to call or write to those who represent them to influence
their deliberations and votes? One must answer both in the affirmative.
If so, why must people of faith in California, who also comprise a portion
of "the Chuch," be required to abstain from doing these same things? I
can't think of a good reason, and you haven't offered any.
It is true that some people in "the Church" believe their only job, with
regard to good and evil, is to abstain from it themselves and, perhaps,
expose it to the light. Others are led by conscience to oppose secular
trends that promote sin - on the ground that failing to take action, when
one has the power to do so, makes one an accomplice to it. If this is the
state of their conscience, isn't it then a sin for them to act contrary to
it? (See Romans, Chapter 14 for the answer.) If so, how can you suggest
they should abstain and condemn themselves?
So who is being politically incorrect by telling Christians with the right
to vote to stay out of the political process?
. . . As Paul said, we are to judge those within (the Church), but
it is up to God to judge those without. The Church's failure in
modern times can be directly related to it's substituting politics for
the Gospel.
This isn't a question of judging within or without the Church because no
particular individual's conduct is involved. The question is one of
exposing sin to the light of day and defending the moral environment by
opposing secular trends that promote sin. It is hard enough to avoid
temptation without adding more legalized sins to the mix (not that I would
succumb to the one in question, mind you). It is also hard enough as it is
to raise children in a godly manner in an increasingly godless world. Is
it not reasonable, at least from a Christian point of view, to affect the
environment to do God's will?
With regard to your comments about the "Church's failure in modern times,"
I must totally disagree. If anything, the Church's failure in modern times
is the direct result of many individual churches groups and denominations
succumbing to moral relativism and their consequent failure to maintain a
consistent, uncompromising gospel. The goal of the Church is to spread the
gospel as given, and not as we choose to water it down. Men are not
naturally inclined toward God now. They are even less inclined toward
wishy-washy organizations that don't know where they stand from one moment
to the next on important moral or social issues.
Having said so, I will agree that it is not good for members of the
Church's heirarchy to become involved in secular politics. If God called
them to preach the gospel, then they should follow their calling. They
should allow other godly men to take up the challenge of contending for the
faith in our secular society. This is not to say, though, that preachers
do not have a right to their own opinion, or that (contrary to the U.S.
government and the IRS in particular) their right to express that opinion
is not one that should receive protection.
As to the Religious Right, I would challenge those without sin to cast
the first stone.
If the other statement wasn't an appeal to nominal Christians, this one
certainly is.
When Jesus challenged the scribes and the Pharisees with the statement that
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he was talking to people
who had sinned in the very matter before him. If you recall, they brought
a woman before Jesus who had been "caught in the act" of adultery in order
to trap Jesus in matters of the law. (See John 7:53-8:11.) What is not
expressed in the text, and what one would not understand without knowledge
of the Old Testament, is that the scribes and Pharisees sinned in the
matter by violating a number of the Mosaic Laws. The Mosaic Law refused
sanction to conviction unless two or three credible witnesses testified.
(Deuteronomy 19:15). In the case before Jesus, no witnesses were
presented, and there were no witnesses to be had, although the woman was
supposedly "caught in the act." When Jesus asked the woman where her
accusers were, and whether anyone condemned her, she replied: "No man,
lord." (John 8: 10-11.) The Mosaic Law also required that both parties to
adultery be judged an condemned. (Leviticus 18:20, 20:10.) The account in
John 7:53-8:11 discloses that only the woman was brought to Jesus and not
the man who would have equally been "caught in the act." So the scribes
and Pharisees again failed under the law. In the larger picture, the
scribes and Pharisees violated the secular law as well. The Romans did not
permit anyone's execution without the application of Roman law and
procedure by a Roman judge.
So, I ask you: what sin does the RR or any other group commit, or what law
do they break, by opposing legislation to make same sex marriages the law
of California? If they are not sinners or lawbreakers in the matter, and
are merely exercising their political and civil rights, then how dare you
condemn them for what they do!?!
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Logic" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
19 May 2005 08:43:09 PM |
|
|
....seemingly moreso than even homosexuals. I guess it prevents them
from confronting or attempting to deal with any of the actual suffering
and injustice that pervades the globe, most of it inflicted by
conservative ideology. I guess they need a major distraction since they
put a man with zero respect for the lives of others (well, except for
billionaires) and no conscience in the white house (and filled congress
with like-minded men and women). It's pathetic they lead people to
believe a couple of obscure verses trump the major themes of the Bible.
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an
angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade
as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions
deserve." II Corinthians 11: 13-15
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
19 May 2005 10:07:22 PM |
|
|
Logic <logic@powerofreason.com> wrote in news:logic-
3D0802.21430919052005@news.east.cox.net:
...seemingly moreso than even homosexuals.
That's not true by a country mile.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I guess it prevents them
from confronting or attempting to deal with any of the actual suffering
and injustice that pervades the globe, most of it inflicted by
conservative ideology.
That's a nice swipe. Care to back it up with facts?
Last time I looked the main problems of suffering and injustice that
pervades the globe is caused by the same culprits: hunger, pestilence,
disease, ignorance and hatred. Which of them have been caused by
"conservative ideology" (as if you really knew what THAT was)?
. . . . . . . . . . . I guess they need a major distraction since they
put a man with zero respect for the lives of others (well, except for
billionaires) and no conscience in the white house . . . . . . . . . .
I'm not going to defend George Bush. He was not my favorite Republican
candidate. I only voted for him because I couln't stand the idea of having
a Democrat lacking Clinton's fiscal conservativism in the White House. Not
that I came out any better with Dubya on that score. He has managed to
outspend most Democrat presidents in recent history.
I'll tell you what though: the neo-cons had better re-think their own
conservativism if they ever hope to enjoy continued popularity. They are
not very conservative at all. (But, then again, the so-called Liberals
aren't liberal at all.)
Come to think of it, both of the major parties, and even some of the
smaller ones had better start rethinking a lot of their policies fast.
People are tired of big government bleeding them to death for the benefit
of big business and misguided social engineering efforts.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(and filled congress
with like-minded men and women).
Whoa!! Guess again. The PEOPLE filled Congress. They expressed their
political will in the last several elections, just like they did in the
presidential election. If one side keeps winning, then it might be time
for the other side to humble themselves enough to admit that they do not
have what the people want. It is only by sheer arrogance that one can
claim that a political party caused all those people to come to the same
decision.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It's pathetic they lead people to
believe a couple of obscure verses trump the major themes of the Bible.
Who does? The Republicans? Not likely.
By the way, THE MAJOR THEME of the Bible is to love God, obey him and live,
- rather than rebel against him, or remain rebellious, and die. Any
intelligent reader of the Bible will pick up on that no later than Genesis
4. The same theme is repeated over and over all the way through to the
last chapter. Loving one's fellow man and looking out for him are all
basically variations on that same theme. That is, we love our fellow men
because God says so. No other reason is needed, nor asked for.
Those who believe in God and trust his word are no more or less "obsessed"
with "gay sex" than they are with preserving life or ending oppression,
poverty, disease and the effects of pestilence. Obeying God, means obeying
him without exception. You do not deny that the bible says that homosexual
conduct is anathema - you simply label the passages that say so "obscure
verses" as if they have somehow become unworthy of notice. How do you
defend that view?
<Snip>
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
22 May 2005 10:43:47 PM |
|
|
Logic wrote:
...seemingly moreso than even homosexuals. I guess it prevents them
from confronting or attempting to deal with any of the actual
suffering
and injustice that pervades the globe, most of it inflicted by
conservative ideology. I guess they need a major distraction since
they
put a man with zero respect for the lives of others (well, except for
billionaires) and no conscience in the white house (and filled
congress
with like-minded men and women). It's pathetic they lead people to
believe a couple of obscure verses trump the major themes of the
Bible.
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as
an
angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants
masquerade
as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions
deserve." II Corinthians 11: 13-15
JERRY
It's because they are mostly from closet case gays like Rick Santorum.
Is it any wonder that Dan Savage started a campaign to give the name
Santorum to that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is the
result of anal sex?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rightard Whitey" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
19 May 2005 09:23:12 PM |
|
|
Logic wrote:
...seemingly moreso than even homosexuals. I guess it prevents them
from confronting or attempting to deal with any of the actual suffering
and injustice that pervades the globe, most of it inflicted by
conservative ideology. I guess they need a major distraction since they
put a man with zero respect for the lives of others (well, except for
billionaires) and no conscience in the white house (and filled congress
with like-minded men and women). It's pathetic they lead people to
believe a couple of obscure verses trump the major themes of the Bible.
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an
angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade
as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions
deserve." II Corinthians 11: 13-15
This is a great post because there must be 20-30 anti-gay post per day
in this conference. Most of the politicians who are outed are Gay
Republicans. I'm inclined to believe there are more Gays and Lesbians in
the GOP than in the Democratic Party. The Gays that become Democratic do
so because of the rejection they get from Republicans.
We all know that God works in strange ways. Leave Gays and Lesbians
alone. If they want to marry, that's fine with me. It's really none of
my business unless I get invited to the wedding.
--
Mort Sahl: Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions.
Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
19 May 2005 11:01:07 PM |
|
|
You have to look at the tactic.
I dont think any right-tard really gives a damn about homos.
But they do give a damn about "wagging the dog"... about keeping
people's attention off the crimes that the Bush-Regime is way over its
head in.
The whole Newsweek thing is proof of how Bush-Regime is overplaying its
hand.
everyone knows that these kinds of guards
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
would not think twice about flushing a Koran down a toilet.
Yet there you have Bush-regime forcing Newsweek to take it back and the
Newsweek people even trembling in their boots dont actually say the
story is not truth.... ie that really would be a lie.
The whole homo thing is just baiting to confuse people (and some people
actually do hate gays so the right-tards want to associate themselves
as being non-gay... yet the whole Gannon thing proves that is a lie...
can you imagine what hypocritical liars gay republicans are... they
must be borderline psychotic if not stark raving mad like Norman
Bates)... like the magician who is waving one hand all over the place
to keep you looking away from the hand that is sneaking your wallet
into his pocket.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
22 May 2005 10:13:09 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:43:09 -0400, Logic <logic@powerofreason.com>
wrote:
...seemingly moreso than even homosexuals. I guess it prevents them
from confronting or attempting to deal with any of the actual suffering
and injustice that pervades the globe, most of it inflicted by
conservative ideology. I guess they need a major distraction since they
put a man with zero respect for the lives of others (well, except for
billionaires) and no conscience in the white house (and filled congress
with like-minded men and women).
Actually, last I checked, America's voters did all that.
There's a saying that is older than I am; if you don't like your
politicians, vote 'em out!
We did.
jw
It's pathetic they lead people to
believe a couple of obscure verses trump the major themes of the Bible.
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an
angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade
as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions
deserve." II Corinthians 11: 13-15
.
|
|
|
| User: "gtr" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
22 May 2005 10:47:54 PM |
|
|
In article <fgi291h1gd7n97o84ua6qr02hl2min1shs@4ax.com>, jw
<no>@yoo.com> wrote:
...seemingly moreso than even homosexuals. I guess it prevents them
from confronting or attempting to deal with any of the actual suffering
and injustice that pervades the globe, most of it inflicted by
conservative ideology. I guess they need a major distraction since they
put a man with zero respect for the lives of others (well, except for
billionaires) and no conscience in the white house (and filled congress
with like-minded men and women).
Actually, last I checked, America's voters did all that.
There's a saying that is older than I am; if you don't like your
politicians, vote 'em out!
We did.
In fairness, the doctrine (don't they all?) has to be re-written. If
you don't like your opponents, pass term-limits to ensure voters can't
re-elect them. Then spend vastly more money in lies and propaganda
inciting fear and hatred in the populace and point that at the
opponent.
It has nothing to do with issues.
Homosexuality is frightening for average Americans. They are terrified
their boys will be fruits, they girls will be whores, they'll all be
dope-heads and they will never have any grandchildren. Republicans
simply play on these fears, to great effect.
Their dominant weopon in splitting the populace was racism in the past,
and it's still there but they find it more difficult to use as a big
hammer, especially as a misread can cost them with Hispanics. So
they've doubled up on the bogus Christian/morality swill in order to
work both Blacks and Hispanics. But they still wink and nod in the
South with "crime" and "urban blight" and "we don't know want to pay
for education since we have our kids in private schools to avoid
contimination by Blacks" issues--all of which are simply racism spin
Republican style.
All of this is the truth, of course, but can't be spoken. Pay
attention only to Fox's lies and stick your fingers in your ears,
Republicans: while your overlords dessimated Christianity, of all
things, in a grab for power and money.
You'll wake up with your precious children working in a potato field,
whether gay or otherwise.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH GAY SEX; WHY? |
22 May 2005 11:02:36 PM |
|
|
gtr wrote:
jw
There's a saying that is older than I am; if you don't like your
politicians, vote 'em out!
We did.
gtr
In fairness, the doctrine (don't they all?) has to be re-written. If
you don't like your opponents, pass term-limits to ensure voters
can't
re-elect them. Then spend vastly more money in lies and propaganda
inciting fear and hatred in the populace and point that at the
opponent.
<good stuff snipped for brevity>
JERRY
A friend sent me something after the election that, while humorous, I
found a great deal of truth in.
Democrats assumed that American voters would be unhappy about an
illegal and immoral war sold by lies, an economic surplus turned into a
record deficit and a negative job creation record by the current
Administration and turn them out.
Republicans correctly surmised that American voters were more concerned
about homosexuals having abortions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Steiner" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
20 May 2005 05:54:44 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns965B943C7E640hohn@207.217.125.201>,
"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote:
Few people are unaware of the "Log Cabin" Republicans and other "gay"
Republican groups. At least I think so. But it really wasn't his
point to blame homosexuality on Democrats. It's just that the
majority Democrats in California have always pushed their so-called
"progressive" agendum, which more recently (relatively speaking) has
includes the promotion of Gay rights. The Republicans, including
"gay" Republicans, are opposed to it.
No, the Log Cabin Republicans firmly support it. There are a few
splinter gay Republicans who are against it but the rank and file gay
Republicans are for it. It's one of the few things they agree with
Democrats about.
While I am not gay, my reading of the NT tells me that Jesus would
have at least treated gays with the compassion the Religious Right
lacks.
The issue here is not a question of compassion.
Just read some of the vitriol in this thread, and you'll see that it is
at least in part a question of compassion.
Despite claims to the contrary, no one is persecuting homosexuals in
California.
What claims to the contrary?
But what do you have against equal rights and equal treatment for all
under the law?
As to what Jesus would have done, I agree that he wold have been
compassionate, but only toward those homosexuals who repented.
Repent of what? It's like asking a left-handed person to repent of
being left handed.
What did Jesus say about Homosexuality?
The Law, as you may well know, prohibited a man from having sexual
relations with another man. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; and see Romans
1:26-27.)
In context, it was talking about temple prostitution in pre-Judaic
religions. Further, it says nothing about lesbians.
<snip>
Are the People who comprise the power base of the State of California
not entitled to express their conscience at the ballot box? Are they
not likewise entitled to call or write to those who represent them to
influence their deliberations and votes? One must answer both in the
affirmative.
Are civil rights a matter for the ballot box? Our form of government is
designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
If so, why must people of faith in California, who also comprise a
portion of "the Chuch," be required to abstain from doing these same
things? I can't think of a good reason, and you haven't offered any.
Why should "people of faith" have the power to dictate how others should
live their lives, especially when it does not affect how they live their
own?
So who is being politically incorrect by telling Christians with the
right to vote to stay out of the political process?
No one is telling anyone to stay out of the political process. It is a
matter of what is suitable for the political process.
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
29 May 2005 12:16:06 AM |
|
|
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
F798D2.15544420052005@news.west.cox.net:
<Snip>
But what do you have against equal rights and equal treatment for all
under the law?
* ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ *
Nothing. What do you have against fair and unbiased questions?
I received my J.D. from Santa Clara University in 1983. I practiced law in
the San Francisco Bay Area from approximately June of 1984 until September
of 2002. Considering the nature of my case load, I was in the wrong
business if I didn't believe in equal rights and equal treatment under the
law.
But that doesn't mean I MUST agree with you. I certainly do not. In fact,
I don't think this push for the right to a Same Sex Marraige (hereafter
"SSM") has anything to do with fair or equal treatment under the law. It
is really an issue of forcing legitimacy or social acceptance on unwilling
communities.
One need not be over-cynical to think this way. Unlike some States,
California de-criminalized homosexual behavior between consenting adults
some thirty (30) years ago. Since then, activists from gay, lesbian and
bisexual rights groups have been unabashedly open about their demands for
freedom. The State and local governments have been quite accomdating thus
far. So, one must ask: If SSMs are necessary to fair and equal treatment
under the law, then why has it taken all of these years, even decades, for
gays and lesbians to say so?
The apparent reason is that gays and lesbians have always been satisfied
with the freedom and tolerance shown them in California. The lack of any
demand for SSMs all these years shows that SSMs were not and are not viewed
as a necessary element of a "gay" or "lesbian" lifestyle as the majority of
them defined or practiced it. If this were not true, it is inexplicable
how the trend toward "monogamy" (for lack of a better term) caused by the
outbreak of AIDS in the 80's, didn't also cause them to cry out for the
right to SSMs. The same is true of the total frustration gays and lesbians
suffered in California courts trying to acquire, by means of contract,
"Marvin" style cohabitation rights. Equally inexplicable is the fact that,
even when the demand for SSMs came up in the United States, it started in a
different state, and did not come to California for yet another 10 to 12
years. What is outright incredible is that gays and lesbians didn't seek
the right to SSMs while former Governor Gray Davis was still in power and
pushing his "progressive" agendum with strong legislative backing.
Too many lapses of reason and logic exist for me to accept that "equality"
or "fairness" have anything to do with the current demand for SSMs. I (and
many others) are more inclinded to beleve that gays and lesbians now seek
the right to SSMs because they covet "legitimacy" and "acceptance" - the
likes of which are not available by virture of mere "tolerance." You see,
unless one can graft a lifestyle onto the basic building blocks of society,
acceptance by a majority of the community will not follow. It is only by
breaking into a well established institution, such as marriage, that the
gay and lesbian lifestyle will transcends tolerance, and becomes "laudable"
or "exemplary" and, therefore, "legitimate" and "acceptable" - at least,
such is their way of thinking.
From a strictly legal standpoint, there is certainly no reason to conclude
that "equal protection of the laws" requires granting gays and lesbians the
right to a SSM. The concept of "equal protection" has never required a
State to treat two things the "same" when they are, for all intents and
purposes, quite different. Instead, "equal protection" is afforded when
everyone is treated precisely the same under existing laws.
That is the case with the marriage laws of California. The law defines
marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As defined, it is applied
impartially to all. Men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women.
But EVERYONE, without exception, is permitted to mary someone of the
opposite sex (provided they give legal consent too!).
In contrast, re-defining marriage to include a union of same-sex partners
based on "sexual preference" would not constitute "equal protection."
Nothing would be "equal" about it. It would give special treatment to only
a minority segment of society. If sexual preference is the guiding
principle, then no heterosexual could avail him/herself of the right to
marry someone of the same sex. Where is the symmetry and equality there?
It would also be a phony attempt to make male-male and female-female unions
the same as male-female unions - when they are clearly unequal for any
legitimate purpose of the law. Marriage laws currently protect opposite
sex unions because they can produce children and offer a better environment
for child rearing. Behavioral science has shown that children raised by
their natural parents are better adjusted, better adapted, and have a
greater chance of success in society than those raised without their
natural mother, natural father or both. In contrast, the only choices
avilable to same sex couples are adoption and the surrogate process - which
leave children detrimentally lacking one or both natural parents. Children
need both parents. Two of the same kind is not the same or equal. No
unbiased scientific study has ever challenged this conclusion. There is,
therefore, not just a rational basis for concluding that SSMs and OSMs are
not the same and, therefore, not entitled to equal treatment - but also
that a substantial reason exists for the same conclusion.
Consequently, only a dull minded, intellectually dishonest, politically
driven judge would ever come to the conclusion that SSMs and OSM are so
substantially the same that the former are constitutionally mandated. And
yes, I will make no bones about it: this is exactly what I think about
Judge Richard A. Kramer, Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
for making such a ruling (which is now on appeal). He has to run for
Office in San Francisco - which is one of the few places in the State where
such a ruling could have ever been conceivable. It is one of the very few
counties in which Proposition 22 did garner a majority of the vote.
Not only did Judge Kramer err in finding that no "rational basis" existed
for differentiating between SSMs and OSMs, he made a grevious error in
concluding that the distinction drawn by California law required
application of "strict scrutiny" review. In its last two cases involving
discrimination against gays and lesbians, the United States Supreme Court
employed the "rational basis" test. The "rational basis" test is used in
those cases where the discrimination does not involve a fundamental right
or where the the discrimination is not made on the basis of an "immutable,"
personal characteristic. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically
stated that its rulings would not mean that States would be required to
grant the right to a SSM - which translates to the conclusion that the
right to an SSM is not fundamental. The United States Supreme Court was
correct on both assumptions.
Homosexuality is not an immutable, personal characteristic. Gay rights
activists in the 60s, 70s and 80s assured everyone that being gay or
lesbian was a "lifestyle choice," and not the product of one's birth, DNA
or any other such rot. The so-called scientific studies on the matter do
not prove anything approaching scientific certainty that Same Sex
Attraction is an inborn or immutable character trait. Thus, homosexuality
is not a personal characteristic as much as it is a mind set and a pattern
of behavior. A pattern of behavior that can be changed is not immutable.
No one claims that homosexual behavior cannot be stopped or controlled, any
more or less than heterosexual behavior cannot be stopped or controlled.
Anyone who claims the contrary hasn't heard the word "celibacy."
Oh, but Judge Kramer didn't have to reach the issue of "immutability;" he
simply decided that "marriage" is a "fundamental right" and, as such,
cannot be denied to anyone on the basis of "sexual preference." Again, he
was wrong. Yes, "marriage" is considered a fundamental right. But the
U.S. Supreme Court only held that heterosexual marriage is a "fundamental"
right - and not all forms of marriage. The "fundamental" nature of the
right to marriage, as the cases show, comes from the "heterosexual" aspects
of family and child rearing - as I previously discussed. The fact the SAME
court likewise said that SSMs are not constitutionally mandated, shows that
it did not put SSMs on the same constitutional plane as heterosexual
marriage. Thus, Judge Kramer was wrong in assuming that the "fundamental"
right to marriage embraced anything other than the traditional heterosexual
form.
Enough about this stuff.
As to what Jesus would have done, I agree that he wold have been
compassionate, but only toward those homosexuals who repented.
Repent of what? It's like asking a left-handed person to repent of
being left handed.
Acts of homosexuality by gays, lesbians or others, are "SINS" of which one
must repent to see the kingdom of God. See below.
What did Jesus say about Homosexuality?
The Law, as you may well know, prohibited a man from having sexual
relations with another man. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; and see Romans
1:26-27.)
In context, it was talking about temple prostitution in pre-Judaic
religions. Further, it says nothing about lesbians.
You are wrong. Plain wrong.
Leviticus 18:22 is not about temple prostitution. The verse says plainly
and literally:
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination." (NASB)
Not a word of it makes mention of prostitution or temple prostitutes.
Without words or rules suggesting a limitation to temple prostitution, no
reasonable Israelite (3,300 or so years ago) could have believed that,
since he wasn't a temple prostitute, he could "lay" another man with
impunity and not incur the condemnation specified in this law. (And see
Leviticus 20:13.)
In contrast, when God chooses to condemn temple prostitution, he knew how.
Deuteronomy 23:17 provides: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a
cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute."
This is the provision of the law dealing with temple prostitution, and not
Leviticus 18:22. The fact that God addressed the issue specifically in
Deuteronomy 23:17, and not in Leviticus 18:22, is further evidence the
latter was meant to prohibit the conduct described therein regardless of
where or by whom it occurs.
And Jesus' view? A fair reading of Jesus' preaching shows that he taught
the New Covenant law - that is, the law that God writes on the inside, and
on the heart, of a believer. (Hebrews 8:7-13; and see Jeremiah 31:33;
Ezekiel 36:26-27, and Isaiah 59:21, 61:8.) This is a spiritual law that
searches inside the believer to preserve the substance of God's will. This
is why Jesus preached, for example, that unjustified anger earns us hell
just as fast as murder; and that lusting after a woman is a sin the same as
adultery. (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28.) It generally means that thoughts and
emotions may constitute sin without any action bringing them to fruition.
(Matthew 15:19-20: ["For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: THESE ARE THE
THINGS WHICH DEFILE A MAN . . ."] my emphasis.) As such, it is both more
exacting and simultaneously less difficult than the Mosaic Law.
That it is more exacting is shown by Jesus' condemnation of parts of the
Law of Moses. For instance, Mosaic Law permitted divorce if a man gave his
wife a bill of divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1,) The scribes and Pharisees
questioned Jesus about this provision of the law. Quoting Genesis 1:27 and
2:24, Jesus condemned this provision of the Mosaic Law - because it
violated God's decree that a male and a female, joined as man and woman,
should remain "one flesh." (Matthew 19:3-9.)
That the New Covenant Law it is less difficult is demonstrated by the fact
that it can be summed up in two principles: "You shall love the Lord your
God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind," .
.. . and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" because "[o]n these two
commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40.)
Given the foregoing, the answer - hands down - is that homosexuality IN ANY
FORM is sinful - even if the question is reduced to "Jesus hermeneutics" as
previously described. Like the provision of the Law of Moses condemned by
Jesus (given above), homosexuality violates God's decree that male and
female, joined as man and woman, is the union that God ordained to be "one
flesh." (See Matthew 19:3-9.) In addition, the overall structure of the
Mosaic Law - which is instructive as a reflection of God's purpose and will
- shows a clear intent to focus sexual relations on the marriage union of a
man and a woman - to the exclusion of other women and men, both related and
unrelated, and to the exclusion of all animals. (See Leviticus Ch. 18.)
It takes no imagination to figure out why this is so. Requiring a man and
a woman to focus their sexual love on each other, to the exclusion of all
others, so that they remain "one flesh" - preserves the nuclear family as
the basic building block of society, and it insures that men and women
fulfill the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply." (Genesis 1:28.)
From yet another perspective of the same quesiton, we must also ask: Do we
keep the law of the New Covenant by doing something that God hates? The
answer has to be: No; of course not. Doing something that God hates is
hardly loving him with all our heart, soul or mind. (Cf. Matthew 22:37.)
As such, gay or lesbian sex must violate New Covenant Law because it shows
a lack of love toward God. The Law of Moses didn't just make male-male
sexual relations illegal. It stated that such actions were an
"abomination" - something hateful - to God. (Leviticus 18:22.) God
elaborated, stating that such conduct caused the prior inhabitants of the
promised land to be vomited out; and that the Israelites had to forego that
same conduct to avoid being vomited out themselves. (Ibid., v. 27-30.) We
should not forget that God does not change. (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8.)
So, if he hated male-male sex when he gave the Law to Moses, we can rest
assured that he still does. The same is true of the breach of God's
natural order (cf. Genesis 1:27-28, 2:23-24; Matthew 19:3-9) - which makes
female-female sex equally unloving toward God.
At this juncture, I don't suppose it would come as any surprise that Paul
the Apostle came to the same conclusion. (Romans 1:26-27.) Indeed, in a
manner fully consistent with the "inner" New Covenant Law that Jesus
preached, Paul wrote: "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind
set on the Spirit is life and peace . . ." (Ibid. 8:6.)
<snip>
Are the People who comprise the power base of the State of California
not entitled to express their conscience at the ballot box? Are they
not likewise entitled to call or write to those who represent them to
influence their deliberations and votes? One must answer both in the
affirmative.
Are civil rights a matter for the ballot box? Our form of government is
designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Most definitely, YES. Civil rights are often a matter for the ballot box.
If one seeks to practice behavior that is not deemed a fundamental right,
then one must enlist the community, through its collective legislative or
initiative power, to declare such a "right" in the statutory law.
Protecting the minority from the "tyranny of the majority" is reserved to
those cases where the majority threatens a right that no minority should be
deemed to have surrendered merely by joining the society. That refers to
"fundamental rights." The right to practice homosexuality, while not
illegal in California, is simply not a fundamental right. No court of
final authority in either the Federal or California court systems has ever
said so.
<Snip>
Why should "people of faith" have the power to dictate how others should
live their lives, especially when it does not affect how they live their
own?
It takes a natural family to raise children. It takes natural families to
keep social order - and it always has. No one has ever come up with even a
close substitute. Despite the contrary DNC rhetoric, "villages" are not
able to supplant natural nuclear families in the process of child rearing
and social orientation. Right after "free love," the ethos of the "ME
generation," and "no fault" divorce laws in California, the push for SSMs
is another step toward deconstructing the natural order of the society that
has tranported people and culture across time. The very existence of the
choice of SSMs vs. OSMs would lead toward diffusion and, thus, the lack of
any certainty that enough natual families will continue in their role of
keeping society stable. Indeed, if society both condones and countenances
SSMs, there really will no longer be any principled reason to continue
banning polygamy or even marriage and sex that is bestial. This opens the
door to even more diffusion and less stability.
It is always in the nature of people to seek to build upon social and legal
"precedent." It is only by some rational line drawing that such "building"
doesn't turn into "destruction." It is not unreasonable for "people of
faith" to conclude that further destruction should stop and that the line
needs to be drawn some place before legalizing SSMs.
So who is being politically incorrect by telling Christians with the
right to vote to stay out of the political process?
No one is telling anyone to stay out of the political process. It is a
matter of what is suitable for the political process.
Good! Then the People of the State of California can get together and
amend the State Constitution, by Voter Initiative, to proclaim as our
fundamental law what we already declared was our will in Prop. 22.
Did you really think it was going to be easy? Even if, by some freak
accident, the proponents of the SSM law manage to prevail in California and
the State Constititution doesn't get amended to correct it, you will only
stoke the fire to have the matter addressed at the federal level, either in
the courts or through the push for a constitutional amendment.
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Blankenship" |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
29 May 2005 12:59:26 AM |
|
|
"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9664E288A32AAhohn@207.217.125.201...
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
F798D2.15544420052005@news.west.cox.net:
<Snip>
But what do you have against equal rights and equal treatment for all
under the law?
* ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ *
Nothing. What do you have against fair and unbiased questions?
I received my J.D. from Santa Clara University in 1983. I practiced law
in
the San Francisco Bay Area from approximately June of 1984 until September
of 2002. Considering the nature of my case load, I was in the wrong
business if I didn't believe in equal rights and equal treatment under the
law.
Homosexuality is not an immutable, personal characteristic. Gay rights
activists in the 60s, 70s and 80s assured everyone that being gay or
lesbian was a "lifestyle choice," and not the product of one's birth, DNA
or any other such rot. The so-called scientific studies on the matter do
not prove anything approaching scientific certainty that Same Sex
Attraction is an inborn or immutable character trait. Thus, homosexuality
is not a personal characteristic as much as it is a mind set and a pattern
of behavior. A pattern of behavior that can be changed is not immutable.
No one claims that homosexual behavior cannot be stopped or controlled,
any
more or less than heterosexual behavior cannot be stopped or controlled.
Anyone who claims the contrary hasn't heard the word "celibacy."
You had a good thing going until this ***** paragraph.
You obviously don't KNOW any homosexuals on a personal level or you would
KNOW it is NOT a choice.
Please list all of the homosexuals you know who can change their mind and be
attracted to the opposite sex.
Can YOU do it? Of course not. For all of your babbling about the legal
aspects, you remind me of a statement I read in a book on dysfunction, "Just
because you are a psychiatrist doesn't mean you have any insight into the
human condition".
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN WITH AB 19!!! |
29 May 2005 02:41:38 AM |
|
|
"Roy Blankenship" <biasbros@prodigy.net> wrote in
news:2Tcme.2885$rk.2748@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
<Snip>
Homosexuality is not an immutable, personal characteristic. Gay
rights activists in the 60s, 70s and 80s assured everyone that being
gay or lesbian was a "lifestyle choice," and not the product of one's
birth, DNA or any other such rot. The so-called scientific studies
on the matter do not prove anything approaching scientific certainty
that Same Sex Attraction is an inborn or immutable character trait.
Thus, homosexuality is not a personal characteristic as much as it is
a mind set and a pattern of behavior. A pattern of behavior that can
be changed is not immutable. No one claims that homosexual behavior
cannot be stopped or controlled,
any
more or less than heterosexual behavior cannot be stopped or
controlled. Anyone who claims the contrary hasn't heard the word
"celibacy."
You had a good thing going until this ***** paragraph.
You obviously don't KNOW any homosexuals on a personal level or you
would KNOW it is NOT a choice.
So, you are telling me that all of those gay rights activists were lying?
They DID say what I represented. Why would they lie like that? To get
acceptance? Hardly.
Take it for what its worth, but the Kinsey report stated that not only were
there ex-homosexuals, but that some people change their sexual orientation
more than once.
Please list all of the homosexuals you know who can change their mind
and be attracted to the opposite sex.
I had roommate who was a lesbian. She had lots of gay and lesbian friends.
She could refrain from sex any time she wanted to - and she did. She used
to say, "Just 'cause I'm cheap doesn't mean I'm easy."
So could all of her friends. Just because they were gays or lesbians
didn't mean they weren't selective. Too many of their friends died from
not being selective enough.
As to their names and identities, I will not reveal them because it would
be a breach of personal trust. You should have known better than to ask
such a question.
And since when is Same Sex Attraction behavior? I said BEHAVIOR can be
controlled. If behavior related to the mental state can be controlled,
then it is not immutable. Suffering from frustration may not be a happy
choice, but it IS a choice.
This is not the same kind of immutability that has traditionally been found
to trigger "strict scrutiny" review. For instance, non-white people, as a
general rule, can do nothing about their skin color, bone structure or
their place of birth or native language. Men and women can have sex change
operations, but they are only cosmetic changes. They do not change the
fact that men and women still have the same DNA and hormones of the sexes
they started as. THAT is immutability.
Gays and Lesbians, on the other hand, can choose not to engage in any
sexual behavior AT ALL. That makes them qualitatively different. If you
got any more out of what I said about behavior, you misunderstood me.
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
