DISQUS

you really want 100 comments? haha we'll get u there.

I'd say ... (b). I know a lot of my peers who are in ministry or going into ministry... but only 2 out of 15-20 are in bilingual Chinese churches. A lot of them are in multi-ethnic or AA ministries.

I do think you are human. And while you may not believe it, I value and cherish all the gay people I know and wish I had more relationships with the gay community.

I ask those of you who are gay or gay activists. Do you want to be loved and accepted by the community at large or do you only want us to accept your actions?

If you want to be loved and accepted by the community at large then why can't we just agree to disagree on this issue and put it aside? We can find what common ground (feminism, poverty etc) we do have and work together on that.

It's not my intention to make anybody angry, but why is it that if I disagree with one thing that you do in your life we can't be friends? We can't get along at all? It has to be hate?

I have to agree with everything you do otherwise I hate you?

Its not about hate. Its never been about hate. Why does the gay community have to think we hate them just because we don't approve of their lifestyle? I don't like cigarette smoke... that doesn't mean I hate smokers.

DPs do guarantee the legal rights of marriage. The California State Surpreme court even said as much. The state supreme court said that the difference between marriage and DPs were the tradition, favor and approval conferred by the term marriage. They concluded that gays should receive the favor and approval of the community.

So that's the core issue here. It's not about legal rights. It's about whether or not the favor and approval of the community is a right. Don't you think the community should be able to decide who they bestow favor and approval on?

This is what the California Supreme Court wrote in their majority opinion:

“First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples.”

Prop 8 is one matter. Activist judges are another matter. The fact remains that constitutional amendments were passed specifically regarding racial inequality long before the courts ruled to enforce them. Why is it that the gay community is not PROPOSING a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to marry? Why go to the courts first? Nobody can argue that the equal protection laws in this state were written with gay marriage specifically in mind. In properly interpreting any text, you must examine the author's intent. That's why it's judicial activism. The judges ignored the intent of the law and put their own intent into the law.

"First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples"

The key words where are "favored" and "approved." The Supreme Court of California is giving same sex couples access to marriage because marriage is "unreservedly approved and favored by the community" while civil unions are not. If this is the biggest difference between civil unions and marriage, the courts are essentially forcing the community to give favor and approval to same-sex relationships when they do not want to. If that's not judicial activism, I don't know what is.

Okay, do you believe prostitution should be legalized also? So you're a libertarian then?

This "reduce the number of abortions" thing is just rhetoric also. Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions but has he done anything as a senator or state senator to reduce abortions? No.

Its not the government's role to eliminate the need and unfortunate circumstance behind abortion. The government's role is to protect and ensure "inalienable rights." As such, it needs to pass a law to protect the rights of unborn children.

There's a huge underground market for drugs. There's untold violence due to drug trafficking, much of which could be reduced by legalizing drugs. Should drugs be legalized? Of course not.

If it's wrong then it's wrong. Abortion isn't just an "unfortunate situation." It's wrong. If you don't believe it's murder, then fine, reduce abortions. But if you believe that abortion is murder, you have to outlaw it as a matter of principle.

There are many unfortunate situations that cause people to prostitute themselves. Does this mean that prostitution should be legalized and we should merely work to reduce the amount of prostitution by providing welfare for abused women? Of course not. Prostitution is wrong and should be illegal.

Don't be swayed by McLaren and other neo-evangelicals who want to be cool and fit in with society. Sometimes Christian values just aren't cool and we have to deal with that.

The french political system is based on something similar... as are a number of other democracies I believe.