News & Politics - CA Prop 8 Results? - Page 5

**Cristofle** · 11-06-2008, 07:18 PM

Do you really think anyone would choose to be gay? They would choose to be discriminated and mocked and victims of hate crimes? They would choose to live in a country where where they are not allowed to marry the ones they love? They would choose to live in a country where it is made incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to adopt children?

I know the Catholic claim. I went to Catholic school, and I'm a religious studies major. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." By that, they are saying that homosexuality is a sin and therefore, a choice. So being gay is a choice. There is simply no psychological evidence of this.

**sunnykerr** · 11-06-2008, 07:23 PM

I believe in a just and loving God, so I have no problem believing that God created some people to be gay, just like God created every other person on this planet. And I don't believe it is EVER a sin to follow pure love. And gay people feel that just as much as anyone else.

It's human free will that interferes with God's perfect creation.

Marriage may be a sacrament before God, but I don't see why gay people can't sanctify their love the way the rest of us do.

That's my belief anyway.

On a more mundane level, though, marriage still carries a plethora of civil rights that civil unions do not. Aside from the fact that preventing any adult human from marrying their sweetheart is inherently treating them like second-class citizens, until gay people have the exact same rights as the rest of us... how can anyone of us ever pretend that there is true equality?

***Jerry D*** · 11-06-2008, 07:27 PM

Great post Sunny, and you were actually able to post!

**sunnykerr** · 11-06-2008, 07:38 PM

The very idea that grown, consenting adults are now officially prevented from marrying each other by a law... Well, I'm sorry to put it this way because the United States is my favourite place to visit, but it makes me glad to be Canadian.

I fully respect people who believe marriage ought to be only between a man and a woman. I have no problem with people truly believing that.

But I do think it's interference to prevent others from pursuing their happiness because of a personal belief. This is why government has checks and balances in democracies. Because, yes, majority rule is the cornerstone of democracy, but never at the expense of the minority's rights. Otherwise it's mob rule.

86amanda86 · 11-06-2008, 07:46 PM

As I said in my post, it comes down to whether you believe it's a choice. You do. I used to. I don't now.

Also, I find it interesting that you would compare homosexuality to violent and hurtful tendencies such as murder and adultery. Does it not strike you as odd to compare something that physically and emotionally hurts no one (unless they choose to be offended by it) to things like murder and adultery, things that no one can argue are anything but damaging to perpetrator and the victim?

Murder and adultery absolutely, totally, and inarguably hurt everyone involved and society in general. Can you honestly say the same thing about homosexuality, really? Sure, you can argue that homosexual behavior is an abomination in the eyes of God, but even if it is, you can't make an argument that it's anyone's business but the people sinning and God.

My point is that even for someone who believes that God has a problem with it, how can you honestly believe that it is the role of government to police and enforce the will of God? The God I believe in teaches choice and accountability, and the America I believe in does not seek to interfere with choice and accountability. Since when is it the role of the US government to create and enforce laws on issues that are entirely moral? The funny thing is that conservatives claim to believe this very principle, yet it doesn't seem to extend to this issue. It's interesting that although every Chirstian I know believes that adultery is an abomination in the eyes of God, I don't see a massive movement to outlaw adultery, because people realize that yes, it's wrong, but it's not their business, and adulterers will have to answer to God in the end. They realize that the government is not in place to outlaw moral infractions. Why is it that conservatives don't follow the same thought process when it comes to the gay issue, something that has far more gray area than something like adultery? What is it about homosexuality that pushes conservative buttons so hard?

So from the view point of someone like myself, who does not believe it's a choice and therefore cannot be a sin... it's obvious why I believe marriage should the right of anyone who wants to enter into it.

But for someone like you, who believes it is a choice and is therefore a sin, great. But how do you, a proclaimed conservative, rationalize amending the constitution to govern a moral issue?

Also, I hope you realize that by asserting that you choose to be straight, you are also saying that you could choose to be gay. You are saying that you are just as attracted to members of your sex as you are to the opposite sex—that you would enjoy sexual acts with members of your same sex as much as with the opposite. Otherwise, how could you choose to be gay or straight? It's only a choice if you have an equal attraction to both sexes. Do you?

You are straight because you're attracted to the opposite sex. You were born that way. You never made a decision to be attracted to the opposite sex; you just are. How can you think it would be any different for a gay person?

**vc318** · 11-06-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

We can also not forget that God said Hate the sinner and the sin, an Christ, as a woman was about to be stoned in the streets, picked up a rock, threw it at her, and said, "Take that!" This is obviously a sign that all individuals have the right to judge other people's actions, especially when those actions don't interfere in someone's life. After all, who I marry, man or woman, has a direct impact upon your life, even if I don't know you.

Like Mary Magdalene, she was never condemned by Jesus but by other mere individuals who lived and died like her and had the nerve to judge her for her sins. Here's the link if you want to read it:

The Life of Mary Magdalene

The point is, Mary was FORGIVEN by Jesus and was never CONDEMNED.

I can't understand why people approved the ban - hopefully it was just that people didn't understand it or it was a MAJOR slip (however, do slip-ups really happen twice?). I'm guessing some people continue to walk around with their head held up high professing that they're better than others or that certain groups don't deserve the same rights as others. Only God has the right to come and take away these privileges from US. What people choose to do with their life and their body is between THAT person and God. Not voter number 1, 2 or 500.

As a Catholic, we definitely went backwards on this. But then again, a bi-racial man became our new president just a few days so there's still hope for this country.

86amanda86 · 11-06-2008, 08:40 PM

I think TheAngel was being sarcastic about the bible.

**vc318** · 11-06-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86amanda86 (View Post)

I think TheAngel was being sarcastic about the bible.

Oh really? I didn't realize the post came from her. I'm editing it now.

**Cristofle** · 11-06-2008, 08:50 PM

If you're referring to Mary Magdalene, there is less than no biblical or historical evidence that she was a prostitute.

However, I think the reference was to the adulterous woman Jesus saves from stoning. See John 8. It spurs the famous "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

**Casandra** · 11-06-2008, 08:52 PM

Ok, I have a question, switching the topic just slightly.

Those who believe in the Yes on Prop 8 vote, how do you explain the total hatred that was the vote in Arkansas that banned gays and lesbians from adopting children? To me that is unexplainable hatred, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with God defining marriage. It is a belief that homosexuals cannot possibly be a good a parent as someone who is straight. It's positively sickening. It's no better than saying an African American can't have children because the color of their skin. Or that a single mother isn't as good of a parent as having both parents, married under God.

That particular vote bothers me much more than Prop 8 actually.

**Cristofle** · 11-06-2008, 08:55 PM

It bothers me too, because I feel like innocent children who would be SO much better off in a loving home are the ones who will suffer the most for this.

86amanda86 · 11-06-2008, 08:56 PM

Well, I can tell you that my mother and father use the argument that God designed man and woman to have different qualities, which, combined, turn children into well rounded individuals. In a perfect bubble.

**vc318** · 11-06-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristofle (View Post)

However, I think the reference was to the adulterous woman Jesus saves from stoning. See John 8. It spurs the famous "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

I'm pretty sure that was Mary Magdalene who became one of Jesus followers. At least this was a Gospel reading that I recall that my priest did.

But either way, I guess some attitudes will take time to change. I mean, we only waited 219 years for the first black president to take office so....

86amanda86 · 11-06-2008, 09:03 PM

You know what I find interesting is that in the American Civil War, the liberals were considered the good, moral folk trying to put an end to something fundamentally unjust. Now, those who are trying to accomplish the same thing are considered by the far right to be perverting society...

**Cristofle** · 11-06-2008, 09:05 PM

Let me explain my response to that, lol. I'm a religious studies major, and I have a particular interest in Mary Magdalene. The concept of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute was introduced by Pope Gregory in 591 CE. All that's said about Mary Magdalene is that she was a wealthy woman who was a disciple of Jesus. There's no indication biblically speaking that she is the adulterous woman, or a prostitute. I know it's a tradition of the Catholic Church; I just take issue when it's brought up as if it's in the biblical text. It's not.

But that's OT, sorry! I feel magically compelled to speak when that comes up