Skip to content

YES on Prop 8, part 2 (response to comments on previous post)

November 3, 2008

So the two main themes I hear in the comments about Prop 8 are:

  1. Children won’t feel safe if homosexuality is challenged
  2. God should be the one who judges homosexuals, not us

(And it was also mentioned that this is “my opinion.”)

Since election day is tomorrow, I feel I need to post a response right away and not wait until I have the time to adequately address it, so this will be the best I can do on my lunch break!

First of all let me say that Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Prop 8 is not a hate agenda, it is simply defining marriage as being the way that God created it.

  1. To say that children will feel threatened by Prop 8 is absurd to say the least. If anything, the homosexual agenda in schools today will make children feel confused and frightened. I wish I could attach the video clips that I have on this issue, but they are not letting me open them right now! Children of all ages today are being told that having two moms or two dads is normal and that if they want to like someone of the same gender that is quite okay. They are being taught that what their parents have taught them is wrong and that they should be “tolerant” of anyone who is “different” than them. They are even being encouraged to explore their own sexuality to see which gender they prefer! Children as young as three and four are NOT even thinking along those lines yet, and to put those ideas into their heads is clearly sin. (Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.)
  2. If you are so concerned about the safety and wellbeing of children, then maybe you should focus your attention on statistics such as the numbers of rapists and child molesters who do little or no time for their crimes and are then put back out on the street to most of the time commit the same crime again and again! (Again, time does not permit me to find the exact numbers, but I have researched them before and they are ridiculously high)
  3. Another danger to children is the number of drunk driving fatalities that occur each day in our nation!
  4. And domestic violence (which interestingly enough have their highest number of occurrences among homosexual couples!!) The list could go on, children’s real dangers in this world are hardly addressed, and yet you are concerned that they might not “feel” safe if their “parents” are not allowed to “marry?”
  5. Children are not dumb, they can figure out that boys were made to like girls and vice versa. A simple anatomy class is enough to realize that we were made the way we were for a reason, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why God made us the way He did (even IF you have never read the Bible and seen where God made Adam and Eve in Genesis) To confuse children and force the homosexual agenda upon them (and that is just what is being done, it is shocking! I will post the videos if I am able to get them to work) is unthinkable and despicable.
  6. This issue is not about the children at all and to try and use them to make a point is just wrong.

Secondly, homosexuals are not born that way, God did not make some people homosexual and some people heterosexual. We are all created equal, with a sin nature and a tendency to lean towards that sin nature. We are ALL sinners. But just because we are sinners is no excuse for our sin. (And the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and calls it sin. Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.)

Again, homosexuals are not born that way, they are choosing to live out their sinful desires, just as the adulterer or child molester is. If the homosexual is “born that way,” what about the child molester or the rapist, should we be “tolerant” of their sin as well? Where does it stop? Do we throw all morals to the wind just because people don’t by nature like having their sin challenged?

So yes, in answer to the whole “it’s God’s job to judge sin,” God WILL judge them for their sin, but as He has done in the past (Sodom and Gomorrah), He quite possibly could judge a whole nation for their sin as well. There are still some of us who do not want America to be judged for the sins of others.

Just because someone wants to live a certain way does NOT make it okay, or make it simply an alternative lifestyle that we should respect. What if I want to live my life stealing from stores? What if that is who I want to be? A thief. Who are you to tell me that I can’t live my life that way? Who are you to throw me in jail? Just because YOU don’t want to steal doesn’t mean you can discriminate against me! This is FREE country, I can live how I want to live. Who are you to pass LAWS that say I can’t steal? How can you be so hateful? Why can’t you just be TOLERANT? It would be ridiculous for me to say that, and yet…it sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

If marriage is not defined as “one man and one woman,” where will this end? Can I decide to marry my car if I want to? I really do love it! Can someone say they want to marry their dog, or marry three people if they want? Why discriminate against them? If we are just making up our own ideas (as opposed to following the Bible and God’s plan) then we should be able to do whatever we want. God is who created “marriage” as a man/woman relationship, it is His design and His definition. What if I want to say that “marriage” is when I sit down to eat lunch, like I am doing right now? I am partaking in “marriage.” Who are you to say that my definition is wrong? Clearly our definition of marriage comes out of the Bible and how God created it. We are not the ones who instituted marriage, God is. Therefore HE is the one who defines it, not us. And that said, my views on Prop 8 are not simply “my opinions” but rather God’s.

As a side note that I do not have time to get into, American was founded as a Christian nation, and I can prove that with quotes and facts. If you want to live a homosexual life with unlimited restraints, then you have many choices of countries in which to live. America happens to be a nation founded on Christian principles and guidelines and those guidelines came straight from the Bible, therefore it is the prerogative of that nation to continue to live out those principles.

21 Comments leave one →
  1. Becka permalink
    November 3, 2008 1:43 pm

    Amen. That was an excellent post and I feel that you covered the arguments well. Very clear and straight forward presentation of the issue.

  2. November 3, 2008 1:54 pm

    Jen, thanks for putting your neck out and writing this! You did a wonderful job arguing for prop 8.

  3. Lee permalink
    November 3, 2008 5:02 pm

    All of the this is very confusing to lot’s of people. As a christian I keeping remembering the things I learned early in my life in my Sunday School classes. The Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and Judge not least you be Judged. Seems we ought to take these values seriously since they are the basis for our faith.

  4. jenmarie permalink*
    November 3, 2008 5:38 pm

    Voting yes on a proposition to say that marriage is between one man and one woman is not judging anyone. It is simply reiterating what Californians voted on and passed a few years ago. Prop 8 says nothing negative against homosexuals, all it does is say positively that marriage is between one man and one woman, simple as that. The Golden Rule is NOT the basis of our faith, God’s Word is the basis of our faith, and HE is the one who says that homosexuality is a sin. I did not write the Bible! And you can love someone without loving what they do, or what they act like. Jesus still loves us in spite of our sin, and He is our example. He does not condone sin, even though He loves the sinner. That is the example we are to follow. I do not hate homosexuals, but I do not agree with their sin. The same way I don’t hate myself, but I do hate the bad things that I do.

  5. S.J. permalink
    November 3, 2008 10:38 pm

    Hey Jenny!
    Good job. After reading your last two blogs about prop 8, I was gonna comment on the first one. Man, those first two comments were a doosy (spelling?) and I really wanted to comment on them. But alas, when I clicked that submit button I forgot to enter my email and I gave up altogether. lol

  6. Scott Daniel Luna permalink
    November 4, 2008 1:12 am

    Hi, i just thought you all should know that the original christian church performed same sex marriages until the Roman Catholics made it a sin. You should really Know all of your history. What is it hurting you if two men or two women love each other in a sexual way? Being a thief takes away from other people, its against the law. it is not punishable because it is a sin, that is just coincidental. Separation of church and state. Does anyone remember what that is? Who are you to push your religion on me because we live in the same country? That is unconstitutional and UNAMERICAN. Oh, I didn’t know it was so wrong to teach our children to be tolerant of people different than us. Like why should we let our children go to school with kids of different races? It’s despicable is it not? Or to let kids of different religions go to the same schools as our christian boys and girls?

  7. Simon permalink
    November 4, 2008 8:12 am

    Just thought I would throw in this article. You say they are “Teaching our kids to be tolerant of gays.” Yeah right. More like teaching our kids to support gays.

    “Hayward – California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign “pledge cards” in support of gays.
    During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.”

    Hey Scott Daniel Lunatic,
    Why don’t YOU tell us where Seperation of church and state came from. I bet you know nothing about the history of Separation of church and state.

  8. Simon permalink
    November 4, 2008 8:28 am

    “What is it hurting you if two men or two women love each other in a sexual way?”

    That is the dumbest logic I have ever heard.

    Using that logic I have a couple questions too. What is it hurting you if a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl want to have sex? What is it hurting you if I want to smoke weed? What is it hurting you if I sell drugs at an elementary school to kids who want them? What is it hurting you if some 12 year old kids want to go buy beer?

  9. jenmarie permalink*
    November 4, 2008 9:05 am

    Thanks, “Simon”, good arguments. And obviously Scott Daniel is among the majority of Americans who DO NOT know where the term “Separation of church and state” came from. I will give you a hint, it’s not in the constitution. And it IS in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to a pastor in which he said that the church should have influence and say in the affairs of the government, but not vice versa. I challenge you to read the letter in it’s entirety and then see if you still think you can make the separation of church and state argument! I daresay it will make you want to stay away from the whole separation of church and state argument, because it is certainly not making the case that you want it to!

  10. Scott Daniel Luna permalink
    November 4, 2008 1:00 pm

    The first Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Simon tell me how two men in a marriage hurts you or anyone else? Is it rape, like it would be for that 50 year old man and 10 year old girl? and it doesn’t hurt me if you smoke marijuana, it should be as legal as alcohol. selling drugs is illegal, and to corrupt a little kid is disgusting. why is it people always drag the kids into it? 12 year old kids aren’t legal adults, so they are not allowed to buy alcohol. we as a people established those laws not as a christian nation. in many other countries you can buy alcohol legally at 16 and can drink alcohol privately no matter what the age. If you say God says homosexuality is wrong and then make it a law banning gay marriage, you are saying my religion is wrong if i don’t believe in your god. That is not what America is about. The first settlers that came to the Americas came to get away from religious persecution.

  11. jenmarie permalink*
    November 4, 2008 1:07 pm

    Long story short, yes, if your religion does not line up with the Bible, it is wrong. That is not my opinion, that is what God says. The first Amendment says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion (forefathers didn’t want a state church, but rather freedom of religion) or prohibiting the free speech thereof (OF that religion). I don’t see how that proves your point at all. Did you read the letter by Thomas Jefferson?

  12. Scott Daniel Luna permalink
    November 4, 2008 1:21 pm

    Can you help me find that letter? I looked for it, what was the pastors name?

  13. aleassa permalink
    November 4, 2008 2:13 pm

    Great job, love it! Lol, love the part about marriage meaning you are eating lunch. Nice little bits of humor in a very well stated argument. 🙂

  14. jenmarie permalink*
    November 4, 2008 2:27 pm

    Scott, I will have to get back to you on this. I have a copy of the letter, but not the documentation on where it is cited. It is from an 1802 letter, and at the moment I don’t have the name with me. But I will post the info on here when I get it!

    Thanks Aleassa, and cute pic!!

  15. Simon permalink
    November 4, 2008 3:05 pm

    Are you telling me that selling drugs to children is disgusting but gay sex isn’t?
    If a kid wants to do drugs how does that affect you? Shouldn’t it be legal since it doesn’t hurt anybody else?

    By the way, I was talking about a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl who both wanted to have sex. If it was consensual, acording to your logic, it is nobody else’s business. So shouldn’t that be legal too?

  16. Scott Daniel Luna permalink
    November 5, 2008 1:50 am

    Simon, answer how gay love hurts you. Ten isn’t a consenting age. We have established the legal consenting ages. if a 50 year old man wanted to have sex with an 18year old then ok that may be frowned upon, but legal. That is rape what you are talking about even if it is consensual.I don’t know the exact age for consent and it is not worth the trouble to look it up for your meager argument. Your arguing from the wrong point. At least jenmarie is using intelligent arguments even if i do not agree with her opinions.

  17. jenmarie permalink*
    November 5, 2008 12:53 pm

    I think what Simon is saying is that if we start changing the definitions, when will it stop? And if we say it is discrimination for homosexuals to not be allowed to marry, why then is it not discrimination to determine at what age two people can have sex? (i.e. 10 years old) Who determines consensual age? I believe in Sweden the consensual age is 14. Are we then discriminating against 14 years olds in America who want to get married, or have a, as Simon said, 50 year old boyfriend? If we are just making up our own rules, why even HAVE rules? I have to say that the argument “it’s not hurting anyone else” just doesn’t work. It certainly breaks down at some point. Try telling that to the officer who pulls you over for speeding. “But Officer, I’m not hurting anyone by speeding!” Well, too bad, it’s still the law. And homosexuality DOES hurt other people. It certainly hurts the homosexual themselves. For one thing, AIDS, for another, domestic abuse is rampant among homosexuals. Okay, I really don’t have the time to get into this right now.

    Still trying to get the documentation!

  18. Scott Daniel Luna permalink
    November 5, 2008 1:09 pm

    Speeding is illegal because it is a danger to other people, as well as yourself. AIDS isn’t just a disease for homosexuals. Drug addicts, and heterosexual people get AIDS as well. Explain to me how homosexuality affects you? Answer that question please. It is a moot point now because prop 8 passed. Simons point is ignorant and idiotic. As a people, we have chosen our legal consenting ages. Domestic abuse is rampant throughout the slums and projects of America as well, should there be a law stopping poor people from getting married along those lines of thinking? Ever pull up the statistics on domestic abuse in minorities?

  19. jenmarie permalink*
    November 5, 2008 1:20 pm

    Speeding only has the potential to hurt me, or anyone else. I don’t have the time to keep going back to these comments, although I wish I did! I think though that since we have stooped to name calling, it is time to end this discussion. I will still post the article link when I get a chance, but that is it. Thanks guys, interesting discussion.

  20. Simon permalink
    November 5, 2008 1:58 pm

    Scott, you keep saying that we, as a people, have chosen a legal consenting age. Well, we, as a people, chose that gay marriage is illegal too. So I guess your point is ignorant and idiotic too.

    By the way, you still haven’t showed us where in the constitution you found Separation of church & state.

    One more thing. In the beginning of this discussion you asked, “How does gay sex hurt you?” I’m just wondering if you think this is a valid argument. If something doesn’t hurt other people should it be legal since it doesn’t hurt other people?

  21. jenmarie permalink*
    November 7, 2008 9:58 am

    This is what I was able to find, I can’t access the original letter online. This is an abstract from an academic journal.

    The controversy surrounding Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists is rejoined in this forum occasioned by new evidence presented by Library of Congress archivist James Hutson in 1998. The original draft letter, in which Jefferson responds to Connecticut Baptists’ concerns about local Federalist officials exceeding their authority regarding government involvement in matters of personal religious conscience, contained inked-out lines that were recently recovered by Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory techniques. Hutson’s analysis of the recovered material underscored Jefferson’s intention of using the letter to reemphasize the 1st Amendment’s provision for separation of church and state and as a political vehicle to respond to Federalist defamatory rhetoric. Jefferson’s letter includes the phrase ‘a wall of separation between church and state,’ often pointed to by strict separationists as the definitive statement on the nature of relations between the two institutions intended by the drafters of the Bill of Rights. In Robert O’Neil’s view, the fact that Jefferson’s restatement of the church-state principle in such unequivocal terms may have had a political motivation in no way lessens its value as a Founding Father’s position on the proper relationship between government and religion. Thomas Buckley notes, however, that appreciating the political context of the ‘wall of separation’ clause, merely reinforces his personal conviction that the clause, unqualified by context, has often been inappropiately cited as constitutional dogma by judicial and political partisans who care little about the Founding Fathers’ intent. That political context is important is accepted in Edwin Gaustad’s position, and he points up a Jeffersonian obsession with Congregationalism and the fear of it becoming a ‘protestant popedom.’ Daniel Dreisbach sees the Danbury letter as both a political statement and a restatement of principle designed to respond to Jefferson’s critics and strengthen his Republican constituency. He argues that it also draws a distinction between the proscription against religious establishments by the federal government and the issue of state government involvement in church matters. Isaak Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore believe Hutson’s background paper to be misleading on several grounds, including its focus on what was deleted from the original draft instead of what remained in the letter that was sent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: