Manchester is losing tons of business because he happens to support prop 8.

I don’t understand this attack on anti-homosexuals.

Here is a list of people groups whose personal choices I disapprove of (in no particular order)…

homosexuals
illegal immigrants
vegetarians
soccer fans
smokers
alcoholics
pornographers
democrats
people who paint their house green
perpetual liars
people who play loud music
starbucks drinkers
guys who wear girls jeans
polygamists
pet owners
drug addicts (prescription)
drug addicts (illegal)
drug dealers (representatives for drug companies)
drug dealers (the other kind)
raider fans

now I don’t want to make laws prohibiting the rights of any of those individuals, except of course when they might possibly be infringing upon my right to disagree with their choices.

So if my profession were, say, a doctor and I see that someone wants me to do something that I strictly don’t believe in like …
remove their eardrums so that they have the ability to listen to music at even louder volumes
or
artificially inseminate them
or
perform liposuction of their legs so that they can fit better into their jeans
or
prescribe them drugs that they would use strictly for pleasure
or
perform a surgery intentionally so that the scar will resemble the raiders logo

etc….

I should have the right to refuse to do those things.
shouldn’t i?

should they have the right to impose upon me the legal sanctions demanding that I do them?

I’m not a doctor (I just play one on TV), I’m a minister and I believe I should have the right to, without fear of penalty, exercise my religious freedoms and teach others to do as well.

so if part of my religious freedom (not to mention my freedom of speech) is to speak against sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, greed, anger, rage, malice, slander, filthy language and lying and to refuse to assist someone in their pursuits of these things then I should have that right defended by my judicial system.

When individual rights come into conflict the judicial system must be employed to settle that matter.

Sadly this judicial system has failed to maintain true justice and has instead fallen victim of the swaying pendulum of popularized fads and trends.

This is how it is and we must learn to adapt.

Daniel still prayed though it was illegal. Doctors, I’m afraid, will have tough choices to make in the future. Obey man or God. It’s a sad things for our country because we will lose a lot of good doctors.

But it doesn’t end with Doctors; many professions will be affected. Like hotel owners, successful businessmen who have contributed tremendously to our community (5 million to SDSU) will now feel the sting for obeying God.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html

Therefore, I say, don’t worry too much about gay marriage being legalized. Sure, it’s a violation of God’s law, and the people responsible will be held accountable. But it’s not like the number of gay people is suddenly going to increase exponentially.

I’m not too worried, but I think it’s going to have a negative impact on American society and culture…

1. Lower birth rate = economic and industrial slowdown = increased poverty

2. Perversion of traditional family = erosion of traditional family values.

3. Tampering with a religious rite = violation of 1st amendment. Freedom of speech is threatened, freedom of religion is violated. “If you don’t marry us we’ll sue!”

4. Wholesale public re-education (brainwashing). “My mommy told me being gay is wrong.” “Well your mommy is a liar the state of California says it is right.”

5. I think the number of gays will increase exponentially. It’s a fad. It’s a choice. The more acceptable and popular the choice is the more people “discover” they are gay.

6. Health concerns. This is more than just about homosexual activity (which is unhealthy to begin with) but also about the erosion of traditional family values, but they go hand in hand. The more people having sex with more people the more disease spreads. What is so preposterous about this is that the “planned parenthood” organizations don’t just hand out condoms, but hand out the pill. Meaning the only “sexual transmitted disease” they are truly committed to limiting is pregnancy (which takes me back to my first point).

There are many problems to legalizing gay marriage, but there’s not much we can do about it. W The world will keep getting darker, because that’s what the world does. The good thing is that the darker the world gets, the brighter the church shines.

Therefore, I say, don’t worry too much about gay marriage being legalized. Sure, it’s a violation of God’s law, and the people responsible will be held accountable. But it’s not like the number of gay people is suddenly going to increase exponentially.

I’ll tell you why gays want this sort of thing to be recognized. They have a lot of money. They’re not married, they don’t have kids, they have a tight network, and so they all get good jobs, for the most part. Gay people have a lot of money when they get older. A LOT of money. They’re definitely the wealthiest demographic in our country by a wide margin.

So you know why they want this law? So that when they die, they can leave their money to their lover, and not their family, from whom they’ve been estranged for years, ostracized because they’re gay. If they can be married to their lover, then their family can’t take the will to court and fight to get a piece of the pie. Happens all the time.

I suppose they want a certain legitimacy, but it boils down to money at the end of the day. Not just in wills, but also at tax time.

And so I say, if you want to be gay, and gain lots of money for yourself, and live what you perceive to be an elegant and interesting lifestyle, and you want to cut off all ties to your family and leave them none of your money when you die – fine, go ahead. I don’t care.

I think it’s hypocritical for the rest of us to say that we’ll have nothing to do with our gay family members while they’re alive, and yet try to go to court to get their money when they die, and win the battle because we’re related and the lover, who has lived with them for 30 years or whatever, is nothing to them.

That money has been gathered through the homosexual lifestyle. If you want nothing to do with the person, the homosexual, then you should want nothing to do with the money.

But people don’t think this way. Straight relatives of gay people usually don’t see their gay relatives very often. They are the black sheep of the family. The gay person wants nothing to do with their family, because no matter how nice they seem, they really don’t approve of homosexuality, and everyone involved knows it. So they gay person drifts from the family, eventually becoming quite bitter and jaded towards them, while the rest of the family views the gay person as a wayward child who has lost his way.

And then when he dies, they go to court, and argue that they are blood relatives, and deserve a cut of the millions of dollars of the estate. It happens all the time. And they often win, because the jury or the judge or whatever, are not gay themselves.

Is gay marriage an abomination to the Lord? Yeah. So is homosexuality.

But hypocrisy is also an abomination, and so is greed.

If you want to say, “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”, then you’ve got to actually love the sinner, rather than arrogantly think you’re better than him.

Because I’ll say this: if it were not for the grace of God to you, you could have ended up gay too. You and I are no better than a gay person. We are no less deserving of hell. God had mercy on us.

To us, marriage is something very different than what it is to them. To us, marriage is “holy matrimony”, given by God to show his glory. It teaches us about Christ and the church. To the homosexual, marriage is but a legal arrangement, so that they can leave their money to their gay lover rather than their brothers and sisters and their families when they die. Nothing more.

So then, I don’t care if gays want to get married very much. It doesn’t make my marriage mean anything less. I care much more about abortion, for example.

But here’s an interesting problem. Let’s say a gay man gets married, and then becomes a Christian, and starts going to your church. Do you tell him that he must get divorced?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080516-9999-1n16samesex.html

4 judges ruled that two thirds of the state population was wrong when it voted prop 22 into law in the year 2000.

They ruled that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the states constitution because it… ” violated the equal protection rights of citizens because they discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.”

I wrote a post on this subject a long time ago…
http://danielbalc.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/do-these-genes-make-me-look-gay/

and it’s my opinion that they key element of this ruling and decision is based on the defining of homosexuality as an “orientation” rather than a choice.

The judges ruling was based on the popular understanding that gay people are “born that way”.

This has still not been proven scientifically, medically or biologically.

Consider: if homosexuality is perceived as a choice rather than an orientation this ruling would not happen. If however it is something people are genetically unable to alter (oriented towards) and it isn’t a choice at all, in the same way that you can’t choose your race, then it is a correct ruling. Correct, even though it goes against the majority.

A decade of repeatedly calling homosexuality an “orientation” is all it took to make it so. No research. No studies. Nothing but rhetoric.

The power of spoken word.