Page 7 of 9

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:28 pm
by Gman
BavarianWheels wrote:Gman...homosexuality is not going to "flourish" anymore or less as a result of Prop. 8...in fact inspite of Prop. 8, it will grow as God allows...not as we legislate.

Do I think man's laws are different to God's laws? Yes. Without law there is no sin. You think you're going to stamp out homosexuality by any means with laws?
Do any of our laws stop sin or corruption??? What I'm talking about here is endorsement. You seem to want to endorse or legitimize homosexual behavior. Unlike you I don't….
BavarianWheels wrote:Give them state rights to do unspeakable things...LOL. Are they not doing them now? What a rediculous idea...has the state all of a sudden legislated being homosexual is against the law?
Do people still steal, do rapes still happen???
BavarianWheels wrote:The religious right...without them, all of society would be dead apparently.
Maybe you should complain to God about laws then…. After all all laws are wrong according to you..
BavarianWheels wrote:Health risks? Gman...*cupping hands over mouth to amplify voice* Homosexuality exists...it's nothing new...it won't go away until Christ comes...it's here...a piece of paper will not change this.
Then go and endorse it then….
BavarianWheels wrote:Distinction between state and moral laws...I put it as best as I could. The state's paper gives the state's "blessing"...this does not give God's blessing...therein being the difference.
So you are saying the God doesn't bless the state? Maybe we should all sing, “God don't bless America.”
BavarianWheels wrote:Once again...you say I'm saying homosexuality is good for society (an unnatural perverted act) - I'm not saying that,
Don't give me that… You endorse it.
BavarianWheels wrote:however by the arguments so far, you and others are saying the EXACT same thing by staying quiet of the fornication matter which does the same and to a higher degree as there are far more heterosexuals in society than homosexuals.
Perhaps fornication should too… Why not? Is fornication good for society?
BavarianWheels wrote:You say we probably should...I would agree from the perspective of a Christian. But I would oppose any law based solely on religious beliefs. How would you feel if Saturday was mandated by the state as the only day one could worship?
Again you are confused… The Sabbath was not a moral law. The Sabbath was ceremonial law.. You do know the difference don't you?
BavarianWheels wrote:As an Adventist...I would certainly oppose such a state law! The point being...where do we draw the line for legislating laws that are based on religious beliefs through the state?
Is this really what the Adventist believe? Boy, you have a lot to learn.
BavarianWheels wrote:You're asking me to prove homosexuality is good for society and again I tell you I can't because as God has said, it's not good.
Can't prove that homosexuality is good for society huh? So you endorse it? Why? Do you wish to protect or harm society?
BavarianWheels wrote:I'll restate my ad hominem: You don't listen/read/understand.
Apparently you have the problem listening, reading, and understanding. Are you actually thinking what you are writing or just venting?
BavarianWheels wrote:It's a natural part of life that is a result of sin...not natural in a Godly sense, but natural to sin. Society has lived with homosexuality for almost as long as man has been on this earth and it will not go away as a result of a silly Prop.
Again.. You missed the point. So under your logic we should eliminate all stop signs because there will always be people that run by them anyways… So why have them?? Why don't we just eliminate all laws while we are at it as well?
BavarianWheels wrote:Is it homosexuality that's unnatural or the marriage of two in love that's unnatural? If the former, then the efforts are being placed in the wrong place. Society isn't outlawing (sp? or is that a word?)...uh...the correct word isn't coming to me atm...anyway as a society we are not even as is suggested to do with homosexuals in the Bible. I wouldn't condone that myself now anyway. God and God alone has that right. I wouldn't assume so much to think every homosexual deserves death for being homosexual as I believe we all deserve death for simply being a sinner.
We all deserve death for being sinners… That's not the point of the law.. Under the law we should all be dead.
BavarianWheels wrote:...will homosexuality not kill itself off? I suspect it's the same statistic of gay/bisexual women?
How could homosexuality kill itself off? Everyone is endorsing it… And according to you it's an ok practice to do.
BavarianWheels wrote:How are they spreading their disease to you?
The practice of homosexuality spreads diseases to society which can effect everyone… Have you read what I wrote before?
BavarianWheels wrote:I believe that homosexuality is not a choice (for almost all of them) and there's nothing they can do to change their affinity for their own gender. I don't understand it, but I can't say it's fake.
Baloney… There are numerous homosexuals who have come out the practice. In fact I know many people who have successfully abstained from having sex altogether. They made a conscience choice to do so..
BavarianWheels wrote:God hates the sin...but never the sinner. God no more hates homosexuality than he does fornication yet we as heterosexuals seem to think we can mandate their actions when we are not mandating our own! We remain quiet on the "natural" sins...but are quick to drop the gavel when the same sin is "unnatural". Just because it has "two check marks" next to it, it should be a state law also ON TOP OF a Godly law? Silly.

The fact of the matter is Prop. 8 will no more stop gay marriage as prohibition stopped drinking.
Again.. Let's just destroy all the laws then. Who needs them anyway? Silly God, telling us what to do... How dare He..

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:02 am
by Harry OK
If God blesses the state, then Obama coming into power must have been God's Will. :ewink:

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:02 pm
by BavarianWheels
Harry OK wrote:If God blesses the state, then Obama coming into power must have been God's Will. :ewink:
Fortunately nothing happens without Divine consent...I don't care for Obama, but I respect that God has, in the least, allowed him to be in power. I reserve the right to delight in everything (if anything) that goes wrong during his time.

Gman, I know you don't respect me for this (and more so for holding mostly Adventist beliefs) and put on me the cape of "advancing homosexuality". I also know you won't believe it when I say I don't condone homosexuality, but that I see a bigger picture in pushing laws of the nature of Prop. 8. It is a personal belief and with it am likely on the fringe of Adventist belief on the matter so please no one lump my belief on this as Adventist thinking.
Gman wrote:Do any of our laws stop sin or corruption??? What I'm talking about here is endorsement. You seem to want to endorse or legitimize homosexual behavior. Unlike you I don't.
No...unfortunately they don't. I don't want to legitimize homosexuality...society already has done that on the whole. I just don't see how a "marriage" will make it any bigger than it already is.
Gman wrote:Then go and endorse it then.
Fact remains, disallowing "marriage" will not reduce health risks to homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Gman wrote:So you are saying the God doesn't bless the state? Maybe we should all sing, “God don't bless America.”
Out of context. Since when does the State's endorsement = God's? The U.S. didn't turn into a Theocracy without me knowing did it?
Gman wrote:Don't give me that… You endorse it.
Believe what you may, I just don't see the point of being petty.
Gman wrote:Perhaps fornication should too… Why not? Is fornication good for society?
You tell me. Since there isn't a Prop. stating so through legislation, one must assume society thinks it's ok.
Gman wrote:Again you are confused… The Sabbath was not a moral law. The Sabbath was ceremonial law.. You do know the difference don't you?
I do...hardly the point. Point being Saturday (or Sunday for that matter) legislation through the State would be a religious law being forced on society where all of society is not of the same religious belief system. Wouldn't you oppose such a law? I would regardless of my religious beliefs! Don't we (those of us married) need a license to marry? Who gives those licences and under who's authority? Does a religious hetero couple need a State endorsed licence to be married in God's eyes? Likewise a marriage licence from the State does not necessarily imply God's blessing on a marriage. One doesn't endorse the other.
God never legitimizes a homosexual "marriage" nor does He legitimize ALL actions within a hetero marriage. In other words, just because a man and woman are married, doesn't make everything they do within that marriage blessed by God.

Is it the close relationship between two like-gendered individuals that we as a society abhor or the intimate (sexual) relationship we abhor? Which is it for God? Is it the sex or the love? I'm against the sexual connection, but I'm not against same-sex love.

So a State "endorsed marriage" between homosexuals hardly endorses homosexual sex any more than a State endorsed marriage between heterosexuals endorses sodomy.
Gman wrote:Is this really what the Adventist believe? Boy, you have a lot to learn.
Is what an Adventist belief? I think most, if not all, Adventists would oppose a State law of any worship day including Saturday...what are you offering as needed learning on this? I'm confused.
Gman wrote:Can't prove that homosexuality is good for society huh? So you endorse it? Why? Do you wish to protect or harm society?
No, I can't prove it...never set out to do such. I just don't feel same-sex marriage endorses homosexuality in light of the point just prior to the above. Same-sex marriage does not harm society in the least if society is not willing to "protect" itself from homosexuals! If society felt homosexuality was a harm, society would outlaw BEING and/or going through the motions of homosexuality. Much like society hasn't outlawed BEING cleptomaniac...but the acts of cleptomania.

I see it like this: A certain society has laws, none of which make stealing unlawful...yet the society, instead of making stealing unlawful, are making laws that keep thieves, crooks, and cleptomaniacs from creating a State sanctioned club of TCC...Theives, Crooks and Clepto's...because stealing is not good for society.
Gman wrote:Again.. You missed the point. So under your logic we should eliminate all stop signs because there will always be people that run by them anyways… So why have them?? Why don't we just eliminate all laws while we are at it as well?
No, I think you're misunderstanding. Stop signs protect people from crashing into each other at intersections. Keeping homosexuals from marrying will not keep the harm homosexuality does to society from harming society.
Gman wrote:We all deserve death for being sinners… That's not the point of the law.. Under the law we should all be dead.
I gather we possibly agree here. :)
Gman wrote:How could homosexuality kill itself off? Everyone is endorsing it… And according to you it's an ok practice to do.
In a true community of true homosexuality...there would be no offspring thus killing itself off. That's all I'm trying to say. Homosexuality will never cease to exist in a society mixed with both.
Gman wrote:The practice of homosexuality spreads diseases to society which can effect everyone… Have you read what I wrote before?
Yes...I agree. The diseases can spread to hetero society. No question.

So is it the marriage of homosexuals that is spreading the disease now or the acts of homosexual sex?
Gman wrote:Baloney… There are numerous homosexuals who have come out the practice. In fact I know many people who have successfully abstained from having sex altogether. They made a conscience choice to do so.
...certainly...but are they not still homosexual? Much like the alcoholic that remains an alcoholic even if he/she abstains from drinking.

Can and has God healed a homosexual into a full-fledged heterosexual? Maybe. Can He? Yes. Does He wish that for homosexuals? I don't think so...otherwise He would change us all into non-sinners. I believe we all have our sins and we all fall into and out of sin daily. I wouldn't wish the "sin" of homosexuality because to me, it's a true state of being, a double-whammy so-to-speak, on them. Not only are they natural sinners, but their lust can't even be justified within a marriage as the Bible suggests! A homosexual cannot just change what they find attractive (the gender). Sure they can abstain from the acts, but is not the thought of lust, be it homo or hetero the same as having performed the act itself?
Gman wrote:Again.. Let's just destroy all the laws then. Who needs them anyway? Silly God, telling us what to do... How dare He.
Silly is as silly does...instead of making silly statements such as this, why not delve a little deeper into society's unwillingness to outlaw homosexuality if in fact is is so harmful to it? ...and I agree it is harmful.

It is not God's law in question here. God forbids homosexual acts and thus is justified in not blessing homosexual marriage. The State, on the other hand, has no moral leg to stand on when it resists outlawing that which is harmful to it's society...and worse yet, the society itself apparently refuses to make such an effort. What point is there in making a law that neither fixes the problem nor helps those affected by the problem?
.
.

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:32 pm
by Harry OK
BTW, what makes you think God blessed America, a secular country, over Britain, a Christian country?

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:35 pm
by FFC
Harry OK wrote:BTW, what makes you think God blessed America, a secular country, over Britain, a Christian country?
Because the song says so, silly! :lol:

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:41 pm
by Swamper
I don't know if I'd call Britain a Christian country...they have an official church and all, but as I understand it the population is becoming increasingly non-religious...(if anyone on this board lives in Britain, feel free to correct me)

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:50 am
by Harry OK
Swamper wrote:I don't know if I'd call Britain a Christian country...they have an official church and all, but as I understand it the population is becoming increasingly non-religious...(if anyone on this board lives in Britain, feel free to correct me)
No, you're right. But remember, Britain was originally a Christian country. America was originally a secular country. But God blessed America (allegedly) and not Britain. Now 10% of the British population goes to church, and the number is dropping. Stop hogging the blessings, Americans! :pound: We need them more!

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:36 pm
by rodyshusband
Harry OK wrote:
Swamper wrote:I don't know if I'd call Britain a Christian country...they have an official church and all, but as I understand it the population is becoming increasingly non-religious...(if anyone on this board lives in Britain, feel free to correct me)
No, you're right. But remember, Britain was originally a Christian country. America was originally a secular country. But God blessed America (allegedly) and not Britain. Now 10% of the British population goes to church, and the number is dropping. Stop hogging the blessings, Americans! :pound: We need them more!
Greetings to all. It has been fascinating to read everyone's POV on these issues.
Harry is correct. America is a secular country...and it should be. The United States was born with the freedom to believe or disbelieve, freedom of choice. Christ wants us to come to Him because we choose to.
Fascinating that a "liberal" state like California voted against gay marriage. Let's not forget that the states of Florida and Arizona voted likewise.
I received an e-mail from a right-wing Christian group that is calling for a boycott of Hallmark cards. Hallmark has decided to market "same sex marriage" cards. In response to the boycott, Hallmark released a statement that said, in effect, "Where were you when we released and began selling "single parent" cards and "unmarried couples, living together" cards?"
Good question, Hallmark!
The deterioration of the American culture has been a process that began decades ago.

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:58 pm
by harth1026
rodyshusband wrote:I received an e-mail from a right-wing Christian group that is calling for a boycott of Hallmark cards. Hallmark has decided to market "same sex marriage" cards. In response to the boycott, Hallmark released a statement that said, in effect, "Where were you when we released and began selling "single parent" cards and "unmarried couples, living together" cards?"
Good question, Hallmark!
You shouldn't go boycott happy every time someone does something that you don't like. You see it all the time on TV were groups all over complain about the silliest of things. Personally I think that people should do a lot less complaining. The Christian groups have shown some good restraint if they didn't complain about the earlier Hallmark cards... But then there are times when some people do cross the line and that when you should speak out.

As for marriage in CA, I am very happy that the people were able to protect the values of marriage. At the same time, the people that are pro-gay marriage also have the right to protest the decision. The war will continue. Even though we won this battle, it is our duty to explain to them the reasons for our beliefs and that Jesus still loves them.

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:23 am
by rodyshusband
harth1026 wrote:
rodyshusband wrote:I received an e-mail from a right-wing Christian group that is calling for a boycott of Hallmark cards. Hallmark has decided to market "same sex marriage" cards. In response to the boycott, Hallmark released a statement that said, in effect, "Where were you when we released and began selling "single parent" cards and "unmarried couples, living together" cards?"
Good question, Hallmark!
You shouldn't go boycott happy every time someone does something that you don't like. You see it all the time on TV were groups all over complain about the silliest of things. Personally I think that people should do a lot less complaining. The Christian groups have shown some good restraint if they didn't complain about the earlier Hallmark cards... But then there are times when some people do cross the line and that when you should speak out.

As for marriage in CA, I am very happy that the people were able to protect the values of marriage. At the same time, the people that are pro-gay marriage also have the right to protest the decision. The war will continue. Even though we won this battle, it is our duty to explain to them the reasons for our beliefs and that Jesus still loves them.
Totally agree. Well meaning Christians too often respond to emotions without thought. Boycotting Hallmark is reminiscent of the church group who wanted to protest pornography. They purchased porno tapes and rented a steamroller, driving over them while TV cameras rolled. Not only did the church purchase pornography, to the delight of the porno producers, but they came across as "crackpots", just to "prove a point".
The point I was trying to raise is this: the best way Christians can "speak out" or "protest", is to not participate. However, our lack of participation should be explained: tell Hallmark you understand their desire to market these cards but you are not going to buy them because..

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:28 pm
by Gman
harth1026 wrote: The war will continue. Even though we won this battle, it is our duty to explain to them the reasons for our beliefs and that Jesus still loves them.
No... I don't think it will continue. Once the old guard is gone and the younger generations take the helm, propositions like 8 will most likely cease or be voted out of the mainstream.. And the people will probably rejoice in it.

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:16 pm
by Gman
BavarianWheels wrote:No...unfortunately they don't. I don't want to legitimize homosexuality...society already has done that on the whole. I just don't see how a "marriage" will make it any bigger than it already is.
You had the powers now to endorse it or not.. But you decided not to..
BavarianWheels wrote:Fact remains, disallowing "marriage" will not reduce health risks to homosexuals or heterosexuals.
And what about before marriage?
BavarianWheels wrote:Out of context. Since when does the State's endorsement = God's? The U.S. didn't turn into a Theocracy without me knowing did it?
Although it is dwindling, the moral principles that founded this nation were based on Biblical principles. Just pull out a dollar bill from your wallet and read sometime what it says about trusting God..
BavarianWheels wrote:Believe what you may, I just don't see the point of being petty.
Petty? Then why do you oppose it so??
BavarianWheels wrote:You tell me. Since there isn't a Prop. stating so through legislation, one must assume society thinks it's ok.
Fornication is not good for society. Again, there are many risks of spreading diseases, and carries a lot of emotional baggage... In other words, you are directly opposed to God for ever issuing such a command for anyone or a state or any country...
BavarianWheels wrote:I do...hardly the point. Point being Saturday (or Sunday for that matter) legislation through the State would be a religious law being forced on society where all of society is not of the same religious belief system. Wouldn't you oppose such a law? I would regardless of my religious beliefs!
You are confused about ceremonial laws vs moral laws.. The moral laws still should stand with us.. The ceremonial laws have passed. You are clearly against any moral laws then... How sad.
BavarianWheels wrote:Don't we (those of us married) need a license to marry? Who gives those licences and under who's authority? Does a religious hetero couple need a State endorsed licence to be married in God's eyes? Likewise a marriage licence from the State does not necessarily imply God's blessing on a marriage. One doesn't endorse the other.
Again you are confused...Proposition 8 is not about rights or licenses, but is about protecting marriage and families against the destruction of traditional marriage.. If marriage includes gay marriage, then it must be taught in the schools regardless of what the parents think..
BavarianWheels wrote:God never legitimizes a homosexual "marriage" nor does He legitimize ALL actions within a hetero marriage. In other words, just because a man and woman are married, doesn't make everything they do within that marriage blessed by God.
You are missing the point... You are trying to pull the issue into extremes.. So just because God doesn't sanction all marriages therefore the government shouldn't sanction all marriages either.. It either all or nothing at all... I disagree..
BavarianWheels wrote:Is it the close relationship between two like-gendered individuals that we as a society abhor or the intimate (sexual) relationship we abhor? Which is it for God? Is it the sex or the love? I'm against the sexual connection, but I'm not against same-sex love.
You are against sexual connection but not against same-sex love? In what way? We are talking about homosexuality here.. What are you talking about?
BavarianWheels wrote:Is what an Adventist belief? I think most, if not all, Adventists would oppose a State law of any worship day including Saturday...what are you offering as needed learning on this? I'm confused.
Confused about what? According to what we have been talking about, you and the Adventists believe that the government should NOT be upholding any moral laws.. It's no wonder why we have been seeing a moral decline in America with thoughts like this.
BavarianWheels wrote:No, I can't prove it...never set out to do such. I just don't feel same-sex marriage endorses homosexuality in light of the point just prior to the above. Same-sex marriage does not harm society in the least if society is not willing to "protect" itself from homosexuals! If society felt homosexuality was a harm, society would outlaw BEING and/or going through the motions of homosexuality. Much like society hasn't outlawed BEING cleptomaniac...but the acts of cleptomania.
Again... It will allow (by law) homosexuality to be taught in our schools to our children... You don't think that as being damaging to society along with the spreading of sexual diseases? Also... "If the institution of marriage is declared a right for all individuals then any laws that restrict that right will be declared unconstitutional, requiring that polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriage be made legal."
BavarianWheels wrote:No, I think you're misunderstanding. Stop signs protect people from crashing into each other at intersections. Keeping homosexuals from marrying will not keep the harm homosexuality does to society from harming society.
Endorsing it, like you have, will allow it to be taught as an exceptable practice to society and to our children. And that God's Church will look increasing wrong or evil for ever opposing it..
BavarianWheels wrote:In a true community of true homosexuality...there would be no offspring thus killing itself off. That's all I'm trying to say. Homosexuality will never cease to exist in a society mixed with both.
If you are saying that we will always sin because we are sinners then I would agree with you on that... The problem is what message are we willing to convey to the masses. Stop signs themselves are not bad, and when they are used appropriately they save lives..
BavarianWheels wrote:Yes...I agree. The diseases can spread to hetero society. No question.

So is it the marriage of homosexuals that is spreading the disease now or the acts of homosexual sex?
Both... One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal carcinoma (or cancer) which can be made present in either a married or unmarried gay males. Do you understand how the body is constructed and the way it functions? Going against mother nature (or God) has it's consequences..
BavarianWheels wrote:...certainly...but are they not still homosexual? Much like the alcoholic that remains an alcoholic even if he/she abstains from drinking.
No they are not homosexual anymore.. I would suggest you read the following links about being "born" gay by NARTH...

http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html

or Exodus.org...

http://www.exodus-international.org/
BavarianWheels wrote:Can and has God healed a homosexual into a full-fledged heterosexual? Maybe. Can He? Yes. Does He wish that for homosexuals? I don't think so...otherwise He would change us all into non-sinners.
I disagree... God would heal us only if we would ALLOW Him too....
BavarianWheels wrote:I believe we all have our sins and we all fall into and out of sin daily. I wouldn't wish the "sin" of homosexuality because to me, it's a true state of being, a double-whammy so-to-speak, on them. Not only are they natural sinners, but their lust can't even be justified within a marriage as the Bible suggests! A homosexual cannot just change what they find attractive (the gender). Sure they can abstain from the acts, but is not the thought of lust, be it homo or hetero the same as having performed the act itself?
All lusts and sins are considered wrong with God... Correct.. But just because I think about stealing doesn't mean that I've broken the state law. If I perform it however then it is wrong with the state.. With God it is both mind and body...
BavarianWheels wrote:It is not God's law in question here. God forbids homosexual acts and thus is justified in not blessing homosexual marriage.
Wrong... Why do you think God forbids homosexual behavior?
BavarianWheels wrote:The State, on the other hand, has no moral leg to stand on when it resists outlawing that which is harmful to it's society...and worse yet, the society itself apparently refuses to make such an effort. What point is there in making a law that neither fixes the problem nor helps those affected by the problem?
How about endorsing the problem, say that it is good for society, and then spoon feeding the problem to our kids?? Not me...

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:20 pm
by cslewislover
There have been a lot of protests by those who are angry over Prop 8 passing; amazingly, I could hear a huge racket from one group last night, and it was quite far away. Before the election I heard that quite a few people that had pro-Prop 8 signs in their yards got their houses egged. I really don't feel bad about voting yes on Prop 8.

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:17 pm
by Gman
cslewislover wrote:There have been a lot of protests by those who are angry over Prop 8 passing; amazingly, I could hear a huge racket from one group last night, and it was quite far away. Before the election I heard that quite a few people that had pro-Prop 8 signs in their yards got their houses egged. I really don't feel bad about voting yes on Prop 8.
Not to mention death threats... Sounds loving to me..

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613

Re: Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:22 pm
by cslewislover
Gman wrote:
cslewislover wrote:There have been a lot of protests by those who are angry over Prop 8 passing; amazingly, I could hear a huge racket from one group last night, and it was quite far away. Before the election I heard that quite a few people that had pro-Prop 8 signs in their yards got their houses egged. I really don't feel bad about voting yes on Prop 8.
Not to mention death threats... Sounds loving to me..

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613
Geez. I read WORLD, but didn't get to that article.