Bring It On!

Jesus Says NO to Prop. 8

October 16th, 2008 | by Ken Grandlund |

If you use religion to deny equality, how does that NOT make yours a religion of HATE?

(original video by Ken Grandlund- cross posted at Common Sense)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 13 Responses to “Jesus Says NO to Prop. 8”

  2. By steve on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    You guys baffle me. Why is this called hate when you don’t believe something is right?

    The issue was put before the state of California on the ballot and it lost 61% to 39%.

    Some judges make up their own rules for it and it becomes legalized. Those judges were appointed, not voted for, and they do not represent all of the people in the state of California.

    We had judges that ruled over a vote for President in 2000, I seem to remember quite of you pissed off about it over Florida. The Supreme Court people are not elected, they are appointed and they serve to whom ever
    appointed them.

    The Yes on 8 people are not out hating anyone. They are standing up for what they believe in and they are voting for what they think is right, period… because they are getting the chance to decide with their vote.

  3. By Ken Grandlund on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    Sure Steve, no hate involved in denying people equal rights, just like it wasn’t hate that upheld segregation laws or laws against interracial marriage. Nope, no hate there…just good old fashioned “We don’t think it’s right.”

    People who seek to deny equal rights to all other people do not do so out of a driving desire to make the world a better place, they do it out of a deep seeded insecurity that the world is not a reflection of themselves.

    People who seek to deny equal rights to other people often couch their opinion in religion or some other subjective criteria without regard to the base value of said religion.

    People who seek to deny equal rights to other people are haters, plain and simple.

    It’s one thing to deny certain rights to convicted rapists or murderers. It’s another altogether to deny equal rights to law abiding citizens who only want to show their love for another person within the confines of legal marriage.

    The campaign of the “Yes on 8″ people is steeped in irrational fear, based on twisted religious ideology, and has no real place in a modern, tolerant society.

    I have no problem with people believing that homosexuals are gross or evil. I have a big problem with them trying to legislate that belief into law.

  4. By steve on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    Equal Rights?

    No one says gay people cannot get married. They absolutely can just like everyone else can. What rights are we violating? Again, we are not saying, ‘Hey, Mr. Gay, back of the bus’ or ‘Hey, Ms Lesbian, you can’t vote or drink from that water fountain because you are gay’. No one is saying that.

    The campaign of the “Yes on 8″ people is steeped in irrational fear, based on twisted religious ideology, and has no real place in a modern, tolerant society.

    I think the hate is on your end Ken:

    http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=5477a37a-561a-488a-875b-35a385186839

  5. By Ken Grandlund on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    “No one says gay people cannot get married.”

    Actually Steve, that’s EXACTLY what Prop 8 is about- denying homosexuals the right to a legalized, same as heterosexuals can get, marriage.

    As to your article for comparison, how many shall I dig up to prove that hate against homosexuality-again, steeped with religion- is the force behind the Yes on 8 vote and hatred against homosexuals in general? Because I can likely find dozens, if not hundreds to support the point of view that people hate gays-irrationally so-and actively seek to do them both physical harm and legally discriminate against them.

    Do I have hate? Yes, Steve, I do. I hate vile acts of violence for instance.

    I hate the fact that some people think that their religious worldview should be followed by everyone else and seek to codify that into law. Actually, I think you hate those kinds of people too. Especially the ones who strap bombs onto themselves in the name of their religion. (Oh, yes- those folks hate gays even more than Americans.)

    And I hate the fact that someone got beaten up for putting up yard signs. That is wrong.

    I also hate when national politicians pump their rally crowds into a fury to the point that some start yelling “Kill him” in response to comments about that rally leaders opponents.

    My hatred for those kinds of things never stopped anyone from living their lives in a loving manner though.

  6. By steve on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    “Actually Steve, that’s EXACTLY what Prop 8 is about- denying homosexuals the right to a legalized, same as heterosexuals can get, marriage.”

    How? Am I missing something?

  7. By Ken Grandlund on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    Prop 8 text says:

    “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    That is the crux of the prop, to have that language added to the California state constitution.

    How more clear can it be that Prop 8 will deny the rights of homosexuals to have a legal marriage with the same rights and recognitions as heterosexuals?

  8. By windspike on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    Steve, you are smoking too long and hard on the GOP Crack Pipe again. Prop 8 is not about embracing equality for all. It’s an irrational proposition based on fear and hate. Why would you be against two elderly women getting married after a lifetime of partnership? Have a look: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/16/MNDB118S9N.DTL Of course Del Martin just died, but at least she died married, which Prop 8 would not allow. Why would you have that marriage be undone by a bunch of wrong thinking people.

    What is it about heterosexual marriage that is tarnished by gay marriage? Zip. Don’t let the tyrany of the majority lace bigotry into our Constitution. Oh, and while I’m at it, simply because a judge makes a decision that you don’t like doesn’t make them an “activist.” They may well have made the correct decision - as did the California Judges that opened up marriage just recently. Rescinding that decision would a step back into the dark ages. Ask you gay friends what they think of your opinions.

  9. By steve on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    Thanks for proving my point Ken. A gay man can marry a woman, a gay woman can marry man under the old system. Which rights do you think are being violated if Prop 8 passes? No on Prop 8 gives gay the privilege to marry each other but doesn’t take away a right already have had whether it be a church marriage or a courthouse one. You are taking something that has existed culturally for thousands of years and turning into something else for a very small portion of the population that actually gives a shit.

    “Ask you gay friends what they think of your opinions.”

    I don’t have any gay friends.

  10. By Chris Radulich on Oct 16, 2008 | Reply

    I have yet to get anyone to explain how gay marriage effect heterosexual marriages. It is all bound up in religion, the essence of which is fear.

  11. By Paul Watson on Oct 17, 2008 | Reply

    steve,
    And under the old laws, a black man could get married to a black woman, so what was the problem? They could still get married. Guess those laws weren’t founded on racist hatred, either.

    Could you explain why it’s important to define marriage this way? Could you explain why a gay couple marrying hurts you so much?

    I think Republicans shouldn’t marry. It’s not hatred, I just don’t think it’s good for society to have the hypocrites getting special favours. They can still marry, as long as it’s a Democrat or Independent. So that’s not a problem, right?

  12. By steve on Oct 17, 2008 | Reply

    Paul:

    Piss off… seriously, piss off. :) It was the Republicans in this country that ended slavery and gave blacks rights. Would the Democrats vote for Abraham Lincoln-type candidate today?

  13. By Paul Watson on Oct 17, 2008 | Reply

    More to the point, would the Republicans? ;-)

  14. By Chris Radulich on Oct 17, 2008 | Reply

    You are taking something that has existed culturally for thousands of years

    So was/is slavery

    So was/is stoning for adultery.

    So, Steve, I guess your ok with them too.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel