web analytics

«

»

Feb 08 2009

Why I Voted Yes On California’s Proposition 8

Our votes affects our world

Proposition 8 was an initiative to change the California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex marriages. Since its passage, there has been demonstrations and intense anger from those that did not wish this proposition to be passed. Yet, it was the will of the majority of the people that brought about the passage of Proposition 8.

Why did I vote for Proposition 8? Simple. I am a Christian. I realize that the homosexual lifestyle is here to stay and I also realize that homosexuals have the same feelings and desires as the rest of us. They feel love, they feel anger, they have the same emotions as I do. They are as human as I am.

As a Christian, the foundation of my life is on my Savior. I also realize that I cannot force my views on another that does not wish nor believes that there is a need to be saved from one’s sins. It is claimed that if I realize that I cannot force my views on another, why do I vote in such a way that my views are forced upon the homosexual community. This is a valid question.

I am forever perplexed at this question. I am perplexed because they force their views upon those that do not accept the homosexual lifestyle. They teach our children in the classrooms that homosexual lifestyle is simply another way of life. The gay pride parade entails acts that would be grounds for arrest if non homosexuals we were to partake in such acts in public. We are forced not only to accept it, but it is demanded that we teach our children what we believe is wrong. It is demanded of us that we change our moral standards to comply with their standards.

I speak for myself as a Christian, but I do not demand that they accept my views. All people have a choice to live their life as they choose as long as it does not infringe upon or harm another. Yet, and interestingly, the homosexual community demands that I accept their views and in fact, desires to infringe their lifestyle upon those that do not accept it.

Again, why did I vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman? Two reasons: God teaches me that He has declared a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. As such, I cannot and will not vote for a lifestyle that God has deemed a sin. It matters not to me how many people are angry at me. One day I will stand before Him and am not willing to have to answer why I chose to vote against Him. Secondary to voting God’s will, I do not wish to have that lifestyle taught to children as a valid lifestyle. This will be forced upon children against the parent’s desires if they are unable to send them to other than public schools. Teaching and instructing children about moral and religious issues is the right and duty of the parent despite the schools infringing on that right such as when a lesbian teacher brought her young class on a field trip to her lesbian wedding.

When I stepped into that voting booth and made my choice on Proposition 8, it was a no brainer. Do I vote to allow homosexuals the right to marry or do I vote according to what God has instructed me in His word. I do not answer to the homosexuals, I answer to God. He determines my morals. I’m sorry if this makes you angry. I care more for how my actions are seen by my Savior than I do about how I displease someone. If what you want from me opposes what God wants from me, you lose. My allegiance is to my Savior.  It cannot be any other way.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bookmark and Share

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share

24 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. pastelmoon

    If you want people to tolerate your beliefs then you have to tolerate theirs. It works both ways. You’re not forced to accept homosexuality. Tolerance is not acceptance.

    1. tishrei

      I want to point out that my blog post was why I voted against same sex marriage. You made an assumption that my post was about a matter of tolerance. It was not. It simply was about why I voted against same sex marriage. But to summarize, I voted against same sex marriage not based on whether or not I tolerate homosexuals but based on the fact that God said it was a sin. Because He said it was a sin, I could not vote otherwise.

  2. pastelmoon

    “Yet, and interestingly, the homosexual community demands that I accept their views and in fact, desires to infringe their lifestyle upon those that do not accept it.”

    My comment was in regards to this statement that you made in your post.

    1. tishrei

      I’m not sure I follow. I am not demanding that that they follow my way. There was an inititive on the ballot, I voted according to my conscious and they voted according to their conscious. Turns out more people felt as I do than the other way around. Yet, I am not out there in the streets demanding that they accept my way. To be honest, I really thought it would pass and I was ready to accept the new law even though my desire was that marriage remain between a man and a woman.

  3. jantoine

    Thanks for your post. I just read your blog concerning this issue. I think it is indeed a complex issue, and I suggest that an answer might not be that simple. I have selected here a part of my paper, to show its complexity. You can follow up here: http://jantoine.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/wht-do-christians-hate-homosexuals/#comments

  4. Sigh

    “I care more for how my actions are seen by my Savior than I do about how I displease someone.”

    So basically, you voted Yes on Prop 8 because you are selfish.

    1. Tishrei

      Well, I guess if it is your belief that pleasing God is selfish, then I guess from your perspective, yes. Why would it not be selfish to care how my actions are seen by mankind? Bottom line is it is selfish because I did not vote in such a way that you would wish me to on this issue.

  5. apostaterebel

    Do any of you Christians bother to ask the question, “Why?”

    Why does your “God” forbid such things? if you continue to read your holy book, you will see in the very same book, that your God also forbids wearing mixed blend fabrics, eating shell-fish, stoning adulterers, stoning disobedient children, and other such insane things.

    Do you think about that when you wear your Sunday best mixed fabric finery, dragging screaming children to church, then after service heading to Red Lobster to gossip about Sister Smith sleeping with Brother Jones?

    1. Repent Harlequin

      ‘Rebel,

      If al you have to have offer are, if you will excuse the expression, intolerant stereotypes of what you think Christians are, what response would you accept?

  6. mandysimo13

    I’m sorry that you think denying people a basic human right is what “God” wants. I was raised in a Christian home, went to church and Catholic school and got all the same bull that you did. Difference is that I chose to believe that if God really loved us than he wouldn’t require that we deny certain people rights that should be made equal. When will people learn that revolving their lives around a book that was written decades of years after the death of Christ. Most of the book were written hundreds of years after his death. Sin s a figment of your imagination. Love is not a sin, and one day I hope you realize that.

    1. Tishrei

      Hi Mandy,

      I’m trying to get through all these responses and replying to each one individually. You obviously disagree with me on just about everything but before I respond, I want to say thank you for at least taking the time to read and respond why you disagree with me.

      There are a lot of commands in the Word of God that you will probably agree with even though people may want to do such acts. Withing the same sentence where God commands people not to enter into homosexual acts, He also commands people not to engage in acts between humans and animals. I am sure you and I could agree on a number of moral issues and these moral issues that I could name can be found in God’s Word.

      This homosexual issue that you do not agree with me on is a new issue to our time morally. No one questioned whether it was acceptable or not. As our society has become more “enlightened,” we have moved away from God’s word. You may think that’s a good thing — and I understand that you do — but the measuring stick that man uses is not the same measuring stick that God uses. In the end, when all is said and done, and we leave this earth, what man has deemed good will not help any one of us. We will be held to God’s standards.

      Actually, you can look at it in this way. What I am allowed to do in this country won’t do me a whole lot of good if I tried the same thing in another country that forbids it or vice versa.

      p.s. I’m working my way through your comments but I may not get to all of them today but I am trying.

  7. mandysimo13

    Also, have you looked at any of the other rules in Leviticus? I’ll bet there’s mixed thread clothing in your house and I’m pretty sure you’ve had shrimp at some point in your life. Hypocrite.

    1. Tishrei

      As I said to another person who commented elsewhere using that same argument, if you look at God’s dealing with Israel, it was different than He deals with the Church. Israel was a theocracy and He set apart the Israelites and it was He who was the ruler. We are not under a theocracy, we are commanded to obey the laws of the land in which we live.

      Shrimp, lobster, etc. — God took care of that for He said that we are not to take issue with what a person eats for it is not what goes in that defiles a person. A person is to eat and drink and gives thanks to the Lord.

      Paul actually took care of the issues that you are bringing up.

      In any event, homosexuality is a moral issue that was forbidden both in the Old Testament AND the New Testament. The difference is that in the Old Testament, because it was a theocracy, God instituted the punishment (criminal law) for criminal activity, and that included theft, murder, homosexuality, adultery, etc. Since we do not live in a theocracy, our laws have changed and while it was a criminal matter in our land at one time, it is no longer a criminal matter. As such, it is perfectly legal.

      But when it comes to my vote, if there ever something that is on the ballot that comes against the moral laws of God, I will cast my vote that supports what God states. That is my morality — God changes not — man does (he has many times).

    2. Repent Harlequin

      Mandy,

      Before coming out with the namecalling, which does not help your case, you might want to think about some of the meaning behind the Levitical Laws. (You may also want to contemplate how many times this “argument” has been made).

      The wearing of mixed fabrics mirrored the sewing of mixed crops and was a reminder to the Israelites that they were not to mix with the pagan Canaanites who, among other things, practiced child sacrafice. The Israelites did not follow the commandments and most of the OT covers the consequences of that.

      Homosexuality is given special treatment as an abomination, alongside betiality (Peter Singer, call your office) and I would hazard you aren’t for us to tolerate that.

      Speaking of tolerant, the proponents of gay marriage do in fact seem to think that tolerance means acceptance, or a buy in, and their words and actions tend to confirm that.

      Homosexuality is also dealt with in the New Testament as well.

      While my faith nforms my opinions, it’s also backed up by science, specifically physiology and biology. I won’t specifics but leave it there. But I will say, in anticipation, that while homosexuality can be found elsewhere in nature that does not make it natural. It makes it an anomoly. There are many of these found in nature.

      At the end of the day to excpect something to be redefined and call it a right doesn’t make it so. Homosexuals have the exact same rights as everyone else in this country. Californians chose to exercise their rights, many not from a religious viewpoint, in voting for Prop 8. Many, I’d wager, did so to protect children, theirs and others’, from having a politicized agenda foisted upon them in the guise of education. Apparently, they don’t want that.

      In Christ,
      Kent

    3. sirrahc

      Well said, Tishrei and R.H. (aka Kent).

      There was a lot in Mandy’s comments that I thought needed a reasoned response, and you guys hit on much of it.

      One thing that wasn’t responded to was when the N.T. books were written. Mandy referred to “a book that was written decades of years after the death of Christ. Most of the book were written hundreds of years after his death.” Of course, the “decades” part of that was more accurate than the “hundreds of years”.

      True, the official “canon” of Christian scripture wasn’t recognized until the Council of Nicea in the early 4th cent. (Note: No emperor, Pope, or council imposed upon the Church decisions regarding these books. The councils could only ratify what the Church had generally already accepted.) But, the original Gospels, letters, etc. of the New Testament were written from roughly a decade or so after Jesus (e.g., Epistle of James) to six decades after (e.g., Gospel of John, Revelation). As historians point out, this is not enough time for legends to develop (and accepted), especially since there were plenty of people, friend & foe, still around to point out any inaccuracies in the accounts.

      Here are a few facts: More liberal scholars (inc. Jesus Seminar) generally date all four canonical Gospels to the 1st century AD — Mark to the 60′s (or 70′s), Matthew & Luke to the 80′s, and John to the 90′s. More conservative scholars usually date the synoptics all to the 60′s and John to the 80′s (or perhaps 90 or so). Ben Witherington, for one, seems to date them a bit later, but not in the liberal camp. The hypothetical “Q” document is dated to the 50′s. Letters of Paul almost unanimously dated to the 50′s. Letter of James dated by some to the 40′s. As an example of the Gnostic writings, the “Gospel of Thomas” is dated by conservatives and many others to the mid-2nd century — perhaps AD 130 at earliest.

      Sirrahc
      aviewfromtheright.wordpress.com

      1. Tishrei

        OOPS, LOL — I guess I did make myself understood in my initial post. Sorry ’bout that.

        I understood Mandy to be upset by most of my posts on my blog. She has a different worldview than conservative Christians. What I have come to finally realize is that despite evidence, if one chooses to believe a certain way, no amount of evidence will convince them. I sure hope she comes back and reads your responses and Kent’s responses.

  8. Pttyann

    Hello Tishrie
    This is a touchy subject! Homosexuality has been “blown” way out of proportion in my opinion ! It seems as if we Christians cannot get over the truth that sin is sin and the “only” unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And as you said God did not make us robot’s,so each person has to decide for themselves if they want to accept Jesus or deny him and the help for a changed lifestyle will follow,in time.Have a wonderful day.

    1. Tishrei

      Hi Pat,

      Yeah, I agree with you, it is a touchy subject. God calls it an abomination. Whether one is homosexual or two heterosexual living together outside of marriage, both are committing sin and unless they repent, they will not spend eternity in His presence.

  9. sirrahc

    On the issue of homosexuals and same-sex marriage, I found these notes (possibly a transcript of comments made by Greg Koukl at http://www.str.org) from 2004:

    “Political liberals often accuse conservatives of trying to restrict & control others through the laws. It is no different when it comes to the “homosexual marriage” issue and whether or not they should be restricted. Curiously, it is the liberals who are trying to control conservatives on this issue.

    Marriage licenses for homosexuals give them no new liberties and denying them to homosexuals does not control them in any way. Rather, by bringing the government into play on this, the liberals are trying to get the legislatures and the courts to force social approval of an issue that most people do not approve of. They are attempting to use the machinery of government to beat into submission a populace that does not agree with them.

    Say what you want about the rightness or wrongness of the homosexual cause, but make no mistake about who is seeking to control whom in this case. People should not be strongarmed into accomodating a lifestyle that they find deeply offensive, unnatural, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. There is a good-faith, principled objection that they are making, and it has nothing to do with hate or control.”

    Sirrahc
    AViewFromTheRight.wordpress.com

    1. Tishrei

      Hi, I am unsure if I was clear in my post. I supported the same-sex marriage amendment. Fortunately, at least for now, the majority of Californians supported a constitutional amendment that kept marriage between a man and a woman (though I believe it will not last forever).

      I completely agree with you, it is the government who seeks to control and force lifestyle issues upon people. They start with the young children in schools and it doesn’t end there.

      Great answer by the way :)

  10. Harlequin

    Well, I hit “read randon post” and this is where I landed. I enjoyed reading Sirrahc’s posts.

    Recently I heard a pastor named Colin Smith on the radio giving some ground rules for tolerance that I thought made a lot of sense.

    “Tolerance is for people; not ideas.”

    That should be pretty easy for people to figure out so I’ll not expand.

    1. Sirrahc

      Thanks, Harlequin. Glad you benefited from my 2 cents. For what it’s worth, I think Pastor Smith got it right.

      1. Harlequin

        I think it was more than just 2 cents worth :-)

  11. David Clancy

    Loving the subtly irony that your blog is called ‘Fruits of the World’

  1. Depravity of Mankind – Legally Murder Newborn « Fruit of the Word

    [...] Why I Voted Yes On California’s Proposition 8 « Fruit of the Word [...]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: