Jesus Steals This Show
December 3rd, 2008, 8:32 PM EST
And isn’t too fond of Proposition 8.
Playbill News: Conceived and written by Hairspray Tony winner Marc Shaiman, the three-minute video was directed and staged by Adam Shankman, who helmed the “Hairspray” movie musical. The video also boasts an array of theatre and stage stars: The “California Gays and The People That Love Them” are played by Jordan Ballard, Margaret Cho, Barrett Foa, J.B. Ghuman, John Hill, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Rashad Naylor and Nicole Parker. See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die.
The video is funny and I like most involved with it.
It seems the major point is that religious people follow certain sections of the Bible, but not other sections. (such as- eating shrimp.)
To me, this is like redirecting the “finger” so that it points somewhere else.
The State of California gave people a chance to vote on the issue of gay marriage and we see the results.
What is wrong with people voting for what they believe in?
Millions of Americans will vote for environment laws. Isn’t that an example of “voting on a belief”..??
I would much rather see the states vote on these issues, then to have a few people in black robes mandate new laws from the bench.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
The people voted, and they voted to keep marriage between a man and woman. Isn’t that how our country is supposed to work?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Notice Hannity doesn’t complain about automakers wanting bailouts, because he is a spokesman for GM going back to 2005. You think it would be important letting the audience know about that. It’s the reason he mentions he drives a hybrid SUV from GM like 20x a show.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Jimmy,
I have heard him mention that more than once.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
In 2000, the people voted, and they voted for Al Gore but were awarded by the supreme court with George Bush. That’s how our country is supposed to work?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
12/3/08: Alan, As a Republican Catholic, I was happily married to a wonderful Jewish man who was killed last year by a careless driver. After 52 years, I was devestated and called on my priest with the query of will my husband be in heaven, as he didn’t accept Jesus as did I. He looked shocked, then said”surely you know you don’t need a card saying “I am a Christian” to get into heaven. If he was a good man, he is waiting for you there, and is right beside you helping you to get there. I respect Rick Warren’s message, but the exclusivity of heaven is not his, or of only “born agains”. My husband was the finest husband, father, son, brother et all; indeed, I would not want to be in heaven without him.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
The radical right just had a hemroid on this puppy…..
It will be entertaining to how they try and treat this with some sort of reality check…it may even get close to that sacred slug, the war on christmas or some other windmill chasing scheme of theirs….it will be fun to watch.
Thanks for the laugh….
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
TDRO,
It never ceases to amaze me that democrats are still whining over something that never happened. Hanging chads, dangling chads, dimpled chads….give it a rest.
Bush won not once, but twice. Gore lost. Lost, lost, lost. Elections are not supposed to be decided by a court, but by votes. And it was, and Gore lost.
One thing you are supposed to make sure of before you cast your vote is that you know what you are doing. Right? There are no do-overs, no oops can I have another please. You do it right the first time.
It is a myth that the election was stolen.
Can you move on and live in the present? I have never seen a party who just elected a guy on their side gripe and whine so much about something that happened 8 years ago.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
VCutler:
Please don’t listen to anybody who says you need to be a Christian in order to get into heaven. This is simply a marketing tool the fanatics use to attract new recruits to their religion.
I believe your husband is peacefully waiting for you up there.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
“I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me” John 14:6.
If you don’t believe in the Bible then I guess you don’t believe that accepting Christ is required to enter heaven. I for one take this verse literally.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
It just meant that he has the gate key…some of us plan to use a ladder and go over the fence…we hear they have an amnesty program….kewl
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
UGH. It doesn’t work like that.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“Can you move on and live in the present? I have never seen a party who just elected a guy on their side gripe and whine so much about something that happened 8 years ago.
Let’s review what has happened since the supreme court declared Bush the president 8 years ago, shall we?
Escalating unemployment, two unnecessary wars, a failing economy, corporate bailouts on taxpayer money (in other words, corporate socialism).
Illegal wiretapping U.S. citizens, outing a CIA agent, torture, etc, etc….
But I guess in your world, everything is peachy! After all, that is what Fox “News” is instructing you to believe.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
It might work like that…how do you know…you been there?
Anyway, the musical is great theater and wonderful comedy….Jack Black looks just like the real thing…
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Robert,
I haven’t been there, but I do believe in what the scripture tells us.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“If you don’t believe in the Bible then I guess you don’t believe that accepting Christ is required to enter heaven. I for one take this verse literally.”
Of course you do! And I’m sure you also believe that God hates the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, gays, etc, etc. You know, all of His children.
Hey listen, I have a bridge in New York I’d like to sell you – cheap!
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
In CA Marriage is as defined a man and a woman. CA has AB205 Domestic Partner for same sex couples. A domestic partner has the same rights as a spouse under CA Law. Alan get the Facts right! Prop 8 does not deny rights to anyone.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
TDRO,
I don’t think God hates anyone. he gives us all the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in and follow him.
You can keep your bridge. I already have a path to follow thanks very much.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
T. Mason – you are a monster.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
well thanks Jake. That took a lot of time to come up with.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Hi Alan-
Jesus is The Way the Truth and the Life …But I have it on the “Highest Authority” that God is the only “reader of hearts”, and everyone gets a chance at Salvation…That is the message of Jesus (True God and True Man)…That is what heaven desires: the salvation of all souls…
All souls to come to God through Jesus.
But don’t worry, just ask God to show you His truth.
He will when the time is ripe.
Also, God only looks at our efforts in love, not our results…so all sins are wiped clean when we turn to Him and ask Him in. That is the “Graced” Part.
Since the Judeo-Christian beliefs are very theologically alike (compared to the other religions) just try to obey the Commandments, Pray more, Love more and NEVER give up on God.
GOD WILL DO THE REST !
God gave us Jesus to show us the extent of His Love.
If you were the only person on Earth, Alan, Jesus would have come to earth ,taken on the form of a man, died and rose from the dead JUST FOR YOU !
No Greater Love. God’s Mercy is as boundless as His creations are…and it endures forever. Not too worry.
Peace be with you.
Shalom.
JESUS MARY WE LOVE YOU SAVE SOULS.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Sure He does! Pat Robertson said so! Jerry Falwell said so. Why, he’s up in heaven sitting next to God hating all the gays!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Oh great! We’ve attracted all these holier-than-thou “my religion is right and everybody else is wrong” fools.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
“A domestic partner has the same rights as a spouse under CA Law. Alan get the Facts right! Prop 8 does not deny rights to anyone.”
Wrong again, moosebreath…. <== that was a joke from SNL
They don’t…especially in insurance (life insurance), most contractual law, in hospitals, and air lines frequent flyer miles, the IRS (you can’t file a joint return).
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Robert,
In hospitals everyone is on equal ground. you don’t have to be married to be someone’s durable power of attorney. There has to be a living will, durable power of attorney.
Even married couples who don’t have a durable power of attorney run into trouble if other family members have differing opinions on the care their loved one is to receive.
Can a man and woman who are just living together file a joint tax return?
And I think, but not sure that you can leave your life insurance to whomever you choose? I mean some spouses don’t even leave their insurance money to their husband/wife for whatever reason.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Alan,
For a long time now I have watched you on the debate show with Hannity, while I disagree with you on most fundamentals, I have derived from watching both you and Sean a way of seeing beyond the rhetoric of both sides. I like to think I am intelligent enough to stay informed about current issues, and vote my beliefs without worry that my “liberal” neighbor is just waiting to pounce on me for something I believe. Its funny actually, but in recent days in my Political Science class we have had our own debates, and I tend to quote you a bit, as well as Sean, but people who insult you, or Sean, or anyone because they cannot get past their arguments. To drag someone through the mud, calling them names and the like has no place. I just hope that you’re leaving the Show of your own free will, and not being fired or demoted.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I’m a devout christian and I’m disappointed that my christian brothers and sisters are judging others who don’t believe what we believe. It’s not our responsibility to make people believers. We have one responsibility and that’s to love one another. Those who called in sound brainwashed. Regurgitating what they hear from there pastors without really understanding what they are saying. Read the Scriptures Please. Love!!!!!!!Love!!!!!!!!Love!!!!!!!!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
shut up! You bunch of morons! What god in his right mind
would want anything to do with you?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:44 am
“DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE WICKED WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? DO NOT BE DECEIVED: NEITHER THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL NOR IDOLATERS NOR ADULTERERS NOR MALE PROSTITUTES NOR HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS NOR THIEVES NOR THE GREEDY NOR DRUNKARDS NOR SLANDERERS NOR SWINDLERS WILL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
DON’T BE LAX IN YOUR LIFESTYLES. YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:57 am
ohh, that’s painful. i’m on the gay rights side, but that was painful. i watched better than half of it, and that’s enough.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:37 am
TDRO,
Hey, about your post last night on the 2000 election. First, Al Gore went about it all wrong. Instead of asking for a statewide recount he only ask for a recount in a few very heavely democrat leaning counties.
After all the hanging chads, dimpled chads, etc. he was still behing in the Florida vote. He wasn’t happy so he sent his lawyers there to have a re-recount. When it still didn’t come out his way he had his lawyers take the process to the State Supreme Court. After a few rounds with the St. Court, it went to the US Supreme Court and they just stopped all this nonsense. Bush won the Florida vote and thusly was awarded the Florida electoral vote which put him over the top.
Now, in case you don’t know, the electoral college was set up to give states, such as Wyoming with what, 1 to 2 electoral votes basically equal footing with much more populated states. So, you can actually receive more popular votes but still lose an election. By the way, Hillary had more popular votes than Obama. Any problems there?
Back to Gore. He is the one who actually brought all the lawyers in to creat that fiasco in Florida.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:42 am
That,s the main reason we should seperation of church and state. Being a stright male,i will admit,i have no concept of a gay frame of mind. The religious right views gays as if they are without sin and the left uses them as politcal tool. I feel this issue will come to head very soon. GAY people are not going to go away. Most of all,these people are AMERICANS and need to be treated as AMERICANS. Are they being treated as AMERICANS ?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Gays were always treated as Americans. They are still treated as Americans. What they are avocating for themselves is to be regarded and a special group that is victimized by the American system.
Back in my day you didn’t know whether your neighbor was gay or straight. We didn’t want to know, it was not my business. Then they started getting into everyone’s face about their sexual preferences. Now they are interrupting church services to spew their agenda. How’s that for winning friends and influencing people?
When you can get yourself recognized as a group that is victimized then you start to special rights for your group. That is wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!
December 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
As full AMERICANS WILLY ? The gov,t prying in their bedrooms. Insureance companies won,t give them the coverage like man and woman couples in married. Fighting for our country and being kick out for being gay. They are not being treated as AMERICANS.I will confess,i even made fun of them and so forth. We as non gay don,t take these people serious enough.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
steve,
the government isn’t in their bedrooms any more than thy are in mine. I don’t go around saying “i’m straight, i’m straight”.
the people voted NO. why won’t that sink in? marriage is currently defined between a man and woman. the people of california voted to keep it that way. Didn’t California go to Obama? So one would surmise that a majority of folks there are either democrats or left leaning repubs and independents.
I would say those forward thinking, intelligent, well informed folks…the same ones who elected obama….knew what they were doing, so we should respect what the voters want.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I accept their right to vote for prop 8, but I don’t respect their decision, nor do I respect them. Besides, is their a respectful way to say “useless bigots”?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
*is there
December 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
WFG,
you don’t have to respect their decision, you don’t even have to understand it. They aren’t useless bigots. They believe what they believe for the same reasons you believe what you do.
Are you saying that many of the same people who elected your guy president are useless bigots?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
ok, you got me. they have a use.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Still bigots, because I don’t accept, or doubt the legitimacy of, the bases for their arguments, and consider the decision itself to be hateful.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
That,s my whole point. They voted on prop 8. Gay lives are based on votes. That alone makes them 2nd rate people. That,s the gov,t controling people because from other people saying they are not equal.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
In a Pluralistic society many sides must co-exist
Mocking or attacking Christianity will not make you friends in the community.
In fact it instills and validates the worst fear of religious people
That radical gay agenda wants to force its values on people., and that it will lead to religious people being persecuted for there faith
Remember being Black is morally neutral telling me someones color tells me nothing about there actions or behavior. That cannot be said of someone Homosexual therefore trying to force someone to agree with you on what you do in the bedroom is just as wrong as the right forcing prayer in school etc.
Sexual morals are personal
All this radical reaction to Prop 8 is counter productive to the Gay Agenda
And the country is not ready for gay marriage
Just like the country is not ready for a pro life law and it may never be.
Especially when you see these kind of attacks…
If Prop 8 went teh other way and religious groups protested at gay bars and clubs and organizations the way gays are against teh church
Imagine the outcry
I agree with Obama on Civil Unions but against Gay Marriage.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I have no problem with civil unions. They should be recognized.
Whether the churches want to marry two guys and two gals in front of their congregations is up to them.
The heteros have made a hash out of marriage already, anyway. Look at Gingrich.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I agree with Obama on Civil Unions but against Gay Marriage.
The civil part is all that matters. Churches already decide whether they marry same sex couples or not. It’s just the governmental goodies/responsibilities that matter at this point.
We already have gay marriage, in every state. It’s just that the gvt. doesn’t recognize those marriages, so they don’t get the rights and responsibilities that go along with them.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
T. Mason,
I think the problem is that there are/have been so many holy books throughout the ages each with their own proprietary way to the afterlife, that many folks believe there are probably multiple ways to get there.
Heck, some Christians think that only their specific church is going to make it (Church of Christ comes to mind).
December 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Under Civil union in NY employees give benefits etc
A living will also currents same benefits
Marriage by Guys is desired for one reason-Validation
And acceptance, the desire to force values o society
you have it on the right and left
December 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Where do you get that idea from? What makes you think gays have this one reason to marry? Their resons for marrying are as varied as heterosexusals, Denny.
I doubt many of them think that ‘if only I get married people will accept us’. And they are already getting married, in every state in the union – whether they get the rights and responsibilities that go along with it or not.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Um-Cara
Civil Unions with full benefits would fit the bill
There would be no cause to push for Marriage unless
you want recognition and acceptance. No benefit to it
Like you said anyone could have a religious ceremony so why push for state validation
Some states offer full benefits.
when you see the reaction in California it send a Red Flag.
I don’t want forced values on EITHER side.
Just like anti Abortion bills failed people are not out attacking planned parenthood.
We live in a representative democracy and
The hear of our democracy desires Pro Choice laws and anti Gay marriage laws but pro Civil Unions.
The constitution does not guarantee state sanctification only equal rights benefits etc.
I am for that but state sanctification I am against
Look at the pro Choice law. the Government does not say Abortion it ok it allows the choice that is not sanctification. Gay marriage is actual sanctification of a relationship therfore anyone against it for religious moral reason is called names etc.
Live free but why you need me to validate t i don’t understand.
Maybe the state should get out of the marriage game altogether and allow individual to get married through there own religious or secular ceremonies.
Just like the state recognizes a Priests/pastors credentials but does not sanction it
Maybe that would solve the problem
who knows
December 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Live free but why you need me to validate t i don’t understand.
I suspect the overwhelming majority of homosexuals who marry care not one whit whether Denny Smith ‘validates’ it or not. (and by that I mean the average Joe on the street, not just Denny Smith). As far as validation, I suspect for the most part they want their friends and families to support their unions, which has nothing to do w/ the rights granted by the government.
I just think it is silly to talk about ‘civil unions’ as if that ‘protects’ marriage from homosexuals. Gay marriage already exists, denying the rights granted to opposite sex couples in no way changes that.
We don’t need a ’separate but equal’ vehicle where some marriages get one set of rights and responsibilities, and another set of marriages gets the same rights and responsibilities – but the name of ‘civil unions’.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Fact is;
1-It is not what America wants we live in a democracy respect that the way I respect Pro Choice laws.
2-Foundation of marriage is religious even Freud said Religion helped lead us to Civilization.It taught us right and wrong.
3-Gay are not denied the right to live there lives and like you said have religious ceremonies already available.
4-Show me a Gay Ghetto?
5-Gays have one of the highest standard of livings in this country.
6-Were do we draw the line on marriage do we allow multiple spouses? If so is this not separate but unequal foe couples who believe in this?
Do you condemn some of the tactics like breaking up religious ceremonies etc? Don’t you think A peaceful MLK approach would speak better of the gay community.
Thanks
December 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I believe the his a live therefore deserves equal rights
that is my believe but society does not agree.
What should I do?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I believe the his a live therefore deserves human rights
that is my believe but society does not agree.
What should I do?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Hey Steve,
Love the sinner, but hate the sin. That is basically where I am on this whole gay issue. And why did they take a perfectly good word like gay and attach it to their lifestyle. (Just wondering)
I do not understand their lifestyle, but I know it is wrong. My beliefs tell me it is wrong. They were never discriminated against as long as they kept their sexual life out of the public eye. Heteralsexuals don’t throw there sexual preferences out there for the whole world to see.
Just my two cents worth Steve.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
If the Foundation of marriage is religious , then the government has no right to allow the estate of one person to transfer tax free to another (one spouse to another) based on a religious institution. Same with allowing tax preferences and a bunch of other legal rights afforded spouses.
We either give every married couple the same legal rights, or we remove them for everyone.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Harry the gay Jew died and went to heaven – God took him on his orientation tour.
“This is where the Jewish guys tend to hang out” he said as Harry saw Jack Benny, Rabbi Schnierson and William Kuntzler sitting having a bagel playing cards in Mother Reilly’s Harvey Milk memorial halal kosher pizzeria.
“There is the Muslim hangout” – The Prophet Muhammad, Anwar Sadat and Malcolm X were eating schawarma at the next table.
“And here are the Hindus and Buddhists” said God pointing to the next table where everybody was sitting cross-legged quietly meditating. Everybody’s children were playing together outside the store without a care in this wonderful paradise.
Then Harry noticed a room at the back with a very heavy wooden door and no windows.
“What’s that” he asked.
“Oh,” said God “Keep your voice down as you pass here – behind this door is where the born-agains reside. They think they are the only ones here.”
December 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Very funny short. Although it is sad as well, it tells the story and the truth of what religion is about. Either all laws in the bible should be followed, or don’t follow any of them. Why is one law more moral/sinful over another? If god wrote them all shouldn’t they all be followed? Or is there a verse there that I don’t know about that says you can pick and choose?
Did you realize if you followed your bible, it makes it clear that chastity, not marriage, should be the primary focus of a god-loving christian. Even though Paul says it’s okay to be married, he and jesus clearly state giving up all carnal pleasures-even those between husband and wife, is the best course. 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 For if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. It is good for a man not to marry. 1 Corinthians 7:32-38- So then he that giveth her marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not marriage doeth better. He even recommends being “sexless” Matthew 19:10-12- He that is able to receive it let him receive it. Even in the resurrection marriage will not exist. Matthew 22:28-30- For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of god in heaven. The only purpose god has for marriage is to keep you from burning in hell. That’s quite a testament to the sanctity of marriage.
Since we, as a nation, do not follow one religion, marriage should be allowed by all, marriage is no longer a religious symbol. What with divorce and adultery, they have desecrated it and it no longer has the meaning it once did. Marriage- two loving people, legally bound together, who want to share in lifes’ experience as one and share in all the civil and legal rights that it affords.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Denny,
1-It is not what America wants we live in a democracy respect that the way I respect Pro Choice laws.
Tyranny of the majority is not cool.
2-Foundation of marriage is religious even Freud said Religion helped lead us to Civilization.It taught us right and wrong.
OK, sure – and many gay folks are married in religious ceremonies. Quite a few Christians don’t see homosexuality as a sin. I know gay couples married in Christian ceremonies. So I really don’t get this point you are making (and many, many other people make)
3-Gay are not denied the right to live there lives and like you said have religious ceremonies already available.
Yep – it’s just the governmental rights and responsibilities missing, and no good reason for it. Surely gay folks deserve more rights than just the right to live?
4-Show me a Gay Ghetto?
5-Gays have one of the highest standard of livings in this country.
Well, there are plenty of poor gay people, but sure – the whole double income no kids thing some gay professionals (and straights, for that matter) have going on can lead to high standards of living. The somewhat true stereotype is that broke artists congregate in a depressed neighborhood because they can afford it, then gays move in because it has become cool, their DINK status leaves them enough income to fix up the properties – raising overall property values until ‘hip’ young straight couples move in, improving the remaining properties, etc….
But none of that has anything to do with gay marriage.
6-Were do we draw the line on marriage do we allow multiple spouses? If so is this not separate but unequal foe couples who believe in this?
The same argument could be made against straight marriage. ‘If we allow a man and a woman to marry, where does it go next? Pretty soon you will have people wanting multiple spouses. Better to nip it in the bud and do away with marriage entirely’.
Slippery slope arguments don’t do much for me.
Do you condemn some of the tactics like breaking up religious ceremonies etc?
I’ve stated before on this blog that I think protests are useless. And protests which break up religious ceremonies are shameful, and I would think illegal. Some of those folks should have been arrested.
Don’t you think A peaceful MLK approach would speak better of the gay community.
The vast majority of people within the gay community are peaceful. Not all the folks in MLK era were peaceful, not all gay folks are sane. Those kooks breaking up religious ceremonies do not contribute to my opinion of gay people – they just tell me that those particular protesters are jerks (and worse). I certainly don’t view all folks with anti-abortion stances in the same light as abortion clinic bombers.
You seem like a good guy, and I bet if you had a gay neighbor you would treat him neighborly. I am sincerely curious – what do you have against gay marriage? Other than slippery slope arguments, and your personal religious view, why do you care if two people who love each other get married enjoy the civil benefits and responsibilities of that marriage?
(I’m not dismissing your religious view as being valid for your personal opposition to gay marriage, I just don’t think it relevant for law making)
December 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Um,
the Church of Christ is the only protestant church I can think of that requires you be a member of their church to go to heaven.
That’s fine if others think their religous book tells them other ways to get to heaven. I disagree with it.
The majority of Americans believe marriage should be between a man and woman, and that’s how they voted in california. I suspect if states had the opportunity to allow their citizens to vote on a state by state basis, most if not all would continue to define marriage between a man and woman only.
The ironic and hypocritic part to the whole story is the fact that those who are in favor of gay marriage continue to call those of us who are not in favor of it, ignorant, stupid, hate mongering bigots.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
T. Mason,
The majority of Americans believe marriage should be between a man and woman, and that’s how they voted in california. I suspect if states had the opportunity to allow their citizens to vote on a state by state basis, most if not all would continue to define marriage between a man and woman only.
Thank God the US is not a pure democracy and we don’t have to live under the tyranny of the majority.
The ironic and hypocritic part to the whole story is the fact that those who are in favor of gay marriage continue to call those of us who are not in favor of it, ignorant, stupid, hate mongering bigots.
Where have I done that? I am mostly curious as to why anyone cares if two same sex folks who love each other and marry are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
T. Mason,
the Church of Christ is the only protestant church I can think of that requires you be a member of their church to go to heaven.
These guys are pretty sure everyone but their one little church is going to hell. (no I don’t think they are at ALL representatives of Baptists, or Christians in general)
December 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Personally, I believe marriage is between a man and woman, and I am not alone in my belief. I don’t care what you do, who you live with, sleep with, etc…but I do have a problem with the government mandating and changing laws that in my opinion are immoral and not at all indicative of the definition of marriage we have had for eons.
Once again, my belief, my opinion…but i am not in the minority. It isn’t tyranny. It is the rule of law. you may not agree with it, but it is what it is.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
MASON,that law needs to be changed. I have no concept on why some people are gay. In fact,i don,t wanna knoe. However,they pay taxes,buy goods and so forth. Yet the gov,t makes gays 2nd rated. Yee without sin ,cast the 1st stone. The right always says less gov,t, but imposed gov,t on gays.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Um Cara-
Did you actually read anything on that link you provided? I do believe, if hell does exist that’s where the lot of them are going. Nasty, disgusting remarks and they should be ashamed of themselves. They’re too busy preaching hate they forgot to love thy neighbor as thyself.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Faith,
Yea – I saw a whole documentary on that group (a guy from the BBC lived with them for about six weeks).
They are NUTS – they also protest at funeral services for soldiers who died in Iraq. They have their 6 year old children protesting with them.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Uma cara
I a have say your post was eloquent and fair.
I don’t agree with al of it but it was good dialog.
I think one of the major issues is what a democracy is ready for and what it is not.
This is not a life and death issue or an issue that keep Gays from living there lives
I am against abortion and think the Fetus is a life and even for those who don’t believe that at 10 weeks it is a form of live to say the least (heart beating)so you are stopping a heart beat no matter what And if that does not bother anyone I don’t know what will.
But a majority of Americans feel it should be legal that is the heart and soul of our democracy so i live with it but morally speak against it. Many Innocent lives are killed each year by Alcohol influence but we have seen what outlawing that did (Prohibition)
Even in our Electoral representative democracy standards society wants Abortion legal and Gay Marriage not that is clear.
And Abortion is viewed by many as a life and death issue so by the Gay Agenda we should be more dogmatic on the issue…. Who cares what the majority wants in almost every state RIGHT?
It is clear where the country is at this point and pushing further is only going to cause a backlash against the gay community. Years ago most were against civil unions now many are for it be glad about the progress and take it slow.
People have a right to there own sexual morals
.
Someone who is against adultery does he/she hate adulterers?
Against Fornication hate fornicators?
If that was the case we all would have to be Moral Relativists in order to not hate which would mean we stand for nothing.
I admit this is a tough issue. But in Canada a preacher cannot even stand up and preach against homosexual BEHAVIOR without it being called hate speech that is the slippery slope… Ant-Religious conservative laws
So you are wrong when you say they do not care about my opinion they do….
Forcing people to accept what you do in the bedroom as moral is forcing values no mater how you look at it
And no matter you take a religious Natural Science Logical approach to it the fact is the plumbing does not fit.
Even if no God would creation?Evolution create such a perfect reproduction/sexual system between male and female and not give the same gender the same type of systems. The male and female match perfectly.
It just makes no sense at all…….
It would mean Evolution screwed up. Or God did….
Again there is no comparison between Color of skin and sexual orientation one indicates a behavior the other tells me nothing about a person except there skin color.
Again this is not a hill to die on for gays…
There is no comparison between the way gays live today and the way black did 40-60-Years ago (Or even today)
They have a higher standard of living and higher salaries then most Black Americans. All studies show this.
Accept the soul of our democracy.
Blacks have always been religiously conservative and politically liberal. But if you attack the black community it will be a lose for you and your causes.
Thanks
December 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The majority of Americans believe marriage should be between a man and woman, and that’s how they voted in california. I suspect if states had the opportunity to allow their citizens to vote on a state by state basis, most if not all would continue to define marriage between a man and woman only. – T.Mason
The majority of Americans in 1919 didn’t think women should vote. Aren’t you glad the Supreme Court ruled in Leser vs. Garnett that the 19th Amendment was valid?
Also, voting on a state by state basis in the 1950’s would have kept the schools segregated in my state. The SUBSTANTIAL majority of the people wanted to keep the races separate.
A good democracy will not allow the ‘will of the majority’ to opress the minority.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
So if the plumping fits screw it? Yeah I just made that up. I will be here all weekend dont forget to tip your waiter or waiteress. Also logic wont work in an agrument when replaced with belief.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Matthew 19:10-12 jesus recommends being “sexless” “he that is able to recieve it let him recieve it.
jesus recommends
Why do you refuse to capitalize a proper name?
Scripture twisting again are we?
If I had to guess I would have to say that you prefer buffets/cafeterias where you are allowed to pick and choose, as you have conveniently chosen to ignore, the bulk of Mathew 19;
1NOW WHEN Jesus had finished saying these things, He left Galilee and went into the part of Judea that is beyond the Jordan;
2And great throngs accompanied Him, and He cured them there.
3And Pharisees came to Him and put Him to the test by asking, Is it lawful and right to dismiss and repudiate and divorce one’s wife for any and [a]every cause?
4He replied, Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparably) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?(A)
6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (separate).
7They said to Him, Why then did Moses command [us] to give a certificate of divorce and thus to dismiss and repudiate a wife?
8He said to them, Because of the hardness (stubbornness and perversity) of your hearts Moses permitted you to dismiss and repudiate and divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been [b]so [ordained].
9I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery, [c]and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
10The disciples said to Him, If the case of a man with his wife is like this, it is neither profitable nor advisable to marry.
11But He said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given.
12For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.
19:12, let him accept it.
Since all cannot handle it, (v.11) Christ is not enjoining celibacy here. Rather He makes it entirely a matter of personal choice, (free will), except for those who are physically unable to marry, either thru natural causes or because of the violence of other men, and that for those others that might find it pragmatic not to marry for the good of the kingdom, (a foreshadowing of Paul who was celibate, and who would write a considerable portion of the NT), but in no way did Christ suggest that celibacy is superior to marriage.
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
Giving approval to someone for not practicing sex is not giving approval to all forms of sex.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The SUBSTANTIAL majority of the people wanted to keep the races separate.
OK, sexuality is behavior, and not racial, the people are allowed to decide what behavior will be legally acknowledged and what behavior will not.
Why is that so hard to understand?
December 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Since we, as a nation, do not follow one religion, marriage should be allowed by all, marriage is no longer a religious symbol. What with divorce and adultery, they have desecrated it and it no longer has the meaning it once did.
Then why don’t you make the argument to dismantle marriage?
Marriage- two loving people, legally bound together, who want to share in lifes’ experience as one and share in all the civil and legal rights that it affords.
Why just two?
Since we, as a nation, do not follow one religion, marriage should be allowed by all
Think how much stronger it would be if more people were involved.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“Why do you refuse to capitalize a proper name?” Well, according to you I have free will and choose not to, besides, proper implies real or genuine, and I don’t believe jesus/god is either, now that’s the third time I’ve answered that question, I hope there’s no need for me to answer it again.
Actually, I prefer a nice restaurant, while I still can “pick and choose” my meal, it is of much better quality. Now how does that relate to scripture?
I have no need to twist scripture, your scripture does that all by itself. The whole bible is contradictory. You conveniently left out the other scriptures I quoted, you conveniently deny other laws in the bible, you follow some not all.
He does believe celibacy to be superior to marriage.
1 Corinthians 7:1-(I’m condensing) it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2-to avoid lewdness, every man a wife, every woman a husband, 7(big one here)-I would that all man were as I myself. but every man hath his proper gift from god 8-I say to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to remain as I 9- but if they cannot contain it is better to marry than to burn
Even an athiest like myself can understand his sanctioning marriage is only keeping you from burning in hell.
7:32-but I would have you without anxious care. he that is unmarried, is anxious for the things that belong to the lord, how he may please the lord. 33-but he that is married is anxious for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. 38-So he that giveth her in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
Which scriptures are not the truth?
I didn’t say he was approving all forms of sex, I was talking about marriage in general and how religion thinks it’s such a big sanctity of god, when, by these scriptures, he approves, only to keep you from hell.
There were many people in your bible that had multiple wives, I’ve answered this before as well, polygamy doesn’t bother me as long as children aren’t involved and no body was coerced.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Hey ellen combs I have a few comments:
1) Please sescribe wht the fags do to each other and call it love including sucking on the penis and inserting their penis’ in each others butts!
2) Is that person you call your wife really a man – sex change perhaps?
3) If you put her on tv again please give a warning so we can change the channel/put a bag on her head to protect the children – she is legally ugly and obviously facially challenged!
4) Are you really a homosexual? Do you dream about being in the limo with larry sinclair & barackback mountain doing crack and each other?
5) Have you and the wo-man have any children aborted? I would support abortion in this case!
6) When you were born in idaho were you hung with a potatoe?
7) I hope you don’t fade off into the woodwork – sean has carried you for years – but I think you probably have to retire! What a pity!
8) Maybe barney frank and you will become butt brothers! One can only hope you remarry elmer fudd!
9) Since you are a jew would you be against ovens for muslims? Would you fight for Isreal? Or would convert to save your butt?
10) I forgive you for being a piece of human debris but you are very funny!
December 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Steve,
Is the government also making men with multiple wives, and people who simply live together 2nd rate citizens too? How about the people who can’t afford a divorce but wanna get married to someone else?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Good Points T. Mason.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I just don’t see thsi second class citizen issue
One of the highest standard of living
No Gay Ghetos that I see
Civil unions with Benefits will give you all the rights and nothing stopping you from having a religious ceremony so what second class? Because the state does not santion it? They don’t santion many things…
Maybe another amendment protecting groups against attacks like those done by Gat activistis would help
But wait we already have that the constitution and Bill Of rights and that did not stop attacks on religious freedom
ceremony
Now do you understand the fear?
This has hurt your cause no matter how you look at the issue.
What would be your argument against Multiple spouses are they not denied equal standing?
Thanks
Thanks
December 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
What would be your argument against Multiple spouses are they not denied equal standing?
I guess you would have to ask someone arguing for or against polygamy. We’ve been talking about the state recognizing married homosexual couples.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
T. Mason,
Is the government also making men with multiple wives, and people who simply live together 2nd rate citizens too? How about the people who can’t afford a divorce but wanna get married to someone else?
I think you may have posted to the wrong blog or something. I’m not sure where folks have been talking about the topics you and Denny are interested in – but we have been talking about the state recognizing same sex married couples here.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Um,
No, it’s the right blog allright. If you want to make an exception for homosexuals who are supposedly being treated as second rate citizens as others have posted here, then you need to be ready to open pandora’s box.
The argument is, they want the same “rights” as everyone else, which really means healthcare and other benefits. If you are willing to do that for homosexuals, then what about the above listed folks I mentioned who also love each other, but are “treated as 2nd rate citizens”
December 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Um Cara
You are ignoring the obvious slippery slope
Are you for or against the state recognizing
polygamy relationships if not why not ?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Denny and T. Mason,
I’m not ignoring slippery slope, I just don’t buy slippery slope as a good argument. Might as well say ‘well if we let one man marry one woman, pretty soon one man will want to marry two women, and then three… Oh where oh where will it all stop? We must not allow a man to marry a woman or it will lead to polygamy.’
So, anyway, as far as polygamy goes, you guys will have to talk to someone who is arguing for or against it. I’m in favor of recognizing married gay couples, polygamy is a whole ‘nother issue.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Might as well say ‘well if we let one man marry one woman, pretty soon one man will want to marry two women, and then three… Oh where oh where will it all stop? We must not allow a man to marry a woman or it will lead to polygamy.’
Historically this concept is accurate, there has been polygamy, in the United States, and laws have been passed to prevent it.
Your premise implies heterosexual marriage has never been compromised by polygamists, your premise is false.
Homosexual marriage is illegal.
Oh where oh where will it all stop?
That is precisely the point
The issue is the redefining of marriage.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Faith says;
polygamy doesn’t bother me as long as children aren’t involved and no body was coerced.
Here’s your slippery slope um cara. There is no denying it, it is very real and tangible.
You cannot allow for one, homosexual marriage, and disallow the other, polygamy.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
1st Corinthians Historical and Theological Themes.
Even by the pagan standards of its own culture, the city of Corinth was so morally corrupt that its very name became synonymous with debauchery and moral depravity.
To “corinthianize” came to represent gross immorality and drunken debauchery.
In 6:9-10, Paul lists some of the specific sins for which the city was noted and which formerly had characterized many believers in the church there. Tragically some of the worst sins were still found among some church members. One of those sins, incest, was condemned even by most pagan Gentiles (5:1).
Although the major thrust of this epistle is corrective of behavior rather than of doctrine, Paul gives seminal teaching on many doctrines that directly relate to the matters of sin and righteousness.
In one way or another wrong living always stems from wrong belief.
Sexual sins for example, including divorce, are inevitably related to disobeying God’s plan for marriage and the family(7: 1-40).
Proper worship is determined by such things as recognition of God’s holy character (3:17), the spiritual identity of the church (12: 12-27) and pure partaking of the Lord’s Supper (11: 17-34).
It is not possible for the church to be edified faithfully and effectively unless believers understand and exercise their spiritual gifts (12:1- 14:40).
The importance of the doctrine of the resurrection, of course, cannot be overestimated because if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
And if Christ is not risen then preaching is empty and so is faith. (15:13,14).
In addition to those themes, Paul deals briefly with God’s judgment of believers, the right understanding of which will produce right motives for Godly living (see 3:13-15).
The right understanding of idols and of false gods, in general, was to help the immature Corinthians to think maturely about such things as eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols (8:1-11-1).
The right understanding and expression of Godly love was mandatory to the right use of the gifts and even to right knowledge about all of the things of God (13:1-13).
Chastity is a gift given to some believers for the purpose of a closer relationship with God, so that they may serve Him, without distraction, and in so doing lead others to faith.
This document in no way condemns those who live in marriage as instructed; the admonition is against those who practice ungodly living.
You shall Know them by their fruits, a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I’m sorry Faith but I’m not seeing your big gotcha point here, and that’s even including your condensation, all I see is a failure on your part to comprehend what you read.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Homosexual marriage is illegal.
Do you want the government to prosecute pastors who marry same sex couples?
Your premise implies heterosexual marriage has never been compromised by polygamists, your premise is false.
I don’t really have anything to say about polygamist marriage, hopefully someday, someone on this blog will be interested in discussing polygamist marriage with you, it just isn’t me. I was merely stating that slippery slope arguments can just as easily apply to heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Sure you can, just ask Massachusetts and Connecticut. Or Canada, or the Netherlands, or Belgium…
And, of course, there are countries where polygamy is legal but homosexual marriage is not.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Uma carra
That was not the question are you saying it is denying right of Gays the same argument can be said for muti spouse situations ithere is no way around it
The fact you refuse to answer is an answer. I doubt you are an agnostic on the issue…
You don’t answer because you realize the slope it leads to and try to avoid it but you cannot not.
So I can I ask or they denied equal rights….
And where do you draw the line on allowing amrriage and way.
You cannot just say I defend “a” Yet have no logical framework to do so and no bondaries
STOP RUNNING
December 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
How are two adults in a homosexual marriage different than two adults in a heterosexual marriage?
December 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Hmmmmmmm, lets see,
How are two adults in a homosexual marriage different
Both of them are the same sex, two men for example,
different than two adults in a heterosexual marriage?
And here we have two individuals of the opposite sex.
Didn’t we play this game in kindergarten?
Some of these things are not like the others, which are the same and which two are brothers?
And I have a question for you,
Who are we to deny the right to marriage and happiness to a few people?
In this case three?
One man and two women, or three men, or maybe three women.
If they all love each other who are we to discriminate?
December 9th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Didn’t we play this game in kindergarten?
It’s all coming back to me now, here’s how it went……..
Some of these things are not like the others, which two are sane, and which two are brothers?
December 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Your assumuption is that your version of marriage is more right than the same thing with homosexuals.
Others saw the same problem with interacial marriage…it had nothing to do with incest or polygomy.
Many see it as the same thing.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Interacial lets see woman and plumbing fits
Sperm Egg yea thats natural Gay sperm sperm ohhhhhhNO
See the difference
God say let women and man become one flesh that is impossible with gays
You can’t make it fit
Whether you believe nature/God made it or not
If meant to be there would be a match look at the universe our brains our reprodutive systems amazing so nature just forgot to give gays the same advantage straight people have COME ON YOU CAN’T REALLY BELIEVE THAT. Instead Gays have to have surgery yea thats natural of God or whatever you believe in.
Men and women perfect match
No argument for it
Just does not work or make any sense
December 9th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
So old Lefty prove Sperm to Sper is more natural then Sperm to egg
Or Male/Female intercourse equla to MALE MALE OF FEMALE FEMALE
Go ahead prove it Biologically and physically scietificall
And answer the typical slippery slope
on Pologamy UMA Cara has ran from such questions wil you?
Yes you are right our form of marriage is better Prove me wrong on these isues
I don’t think God would make such an error Or evolution whatever
The marvel of creation speaks against you
December 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm