cynic wrote on Nov 30, 2008 4:43 AM:
" Reread his letter, Brooke, HE didn't condemn anyone - he quoted scripture. You don't have to agree with him, but don't put words in his mouth. He quoted the Bible, You either believe it or you don't - but Dale didn't say it - the Bible did. "
Jarred wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:17 AM:
" Take a look at Deuteronomy. Do we still believe that men who have their genitals severed can't get into heaven? That's in the Bible. The Bible permits slavery, and yet we have to "suffer" from the passing times. Do we stone our children to death for behaving like idiots? Of course not.
So, if we're allowed to _conveniently_ disregard certain portions of the Bible because of society has deemed it okay, why not same-sex marriage? "
cynic wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:43 PM:
" Yeah, there's some crazy stuff in the Old Testament - but we are no longer under the old law. The old law died on the cross - Galatians 3:24, 25, Romans 7:6. Christians don't "conveniently" disregard the Bible, but we LIVE by the New Testament. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:16 PM:
" To: Jarred wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:17 AM:
Because the majority of Californians as per demonstrated in 2000 and again in 2008 do not disregard same sex marriage the way they do those other items you mentioned Jarred.
It doesn't get much simpler than that, how's business at Subway? "
Christina_Ambrosi wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:31 PM:
" Well said Brooke!! Well said "
jeff wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:40 PM:
" Cynic,
You said “The old law died on the cross” does this mean you don’t believe in the Ten Commandments? You also said “Yeah, there's some crazy stuff in the Old Testament” Are you calling God crazy? Was he just having a lapse in judgment when he wrote the OT or are you saying the Christian God is fallible and prone to making mistakes?
The only part of the NT that mentions homosexuality is Corinthians and that is only in the NIV and NKJV. Why is it if God knows all you have to keep trying to figure out what he said and then change it to suit your needs? Corinthians also says drunks won’t inherit the kingdom of God, yet any drunk with enough cash for a marriage license can get married. Corinthians also explicitly states “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.”
Apparently from a religious perspective the only safe stance to have is to not have one. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:43 PM:
" To: Brooke Westlund
Ask yourself even if you are the one wiedling the knife with your pen in hand. Just read these comments and you find a controversial message at best. You concemn the comdemers then you condemn wisened men at the same time. What a hypocrite.
Condemning people who don't share your views is wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Main Entry: 1wiz·en
Pronunciation: \ˈwi-zən also ˈwē-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): wiz·ened; wiz·en·ing \ˈwiz-niŋ also ˈwēz-; ˈwi-zən-iŋ also ˈwē-\
Etymology: Middle English wisenen, from Old English wisnian; akin to Old High German wesanēn to wither, Lithuanian vysti
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
: to become dry, shrunken, and wrinkled often as a result of aging or of failing vitality
transitive verb
: to cause to wizen "
Alihandero wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:14 PM:
" Well now, Those with Words of Wisdom:
Don't tell the Jews that the Old Testament law is now invalid.
Unless you are trying to diminish them too, of course.
You wouldn't want to be accused of being antisemitic now . . . "
Devil's Advocate wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:15 PM:
" Romans Chapter 1 speaks to the origins of homosexuality. "
Melissa wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:36 AM:
" Cynic, you know what I said the same thing to Jacks_Mom and one other person (I can not recall which one at this point) about Christians living by the New Testament because the old law died on the cross and they told me i was wrong, nevermind the fact I grew up in church and knew I was right, at any rate thank you for pointing that out. I feel I must point out to you as well that while Dale may have been quoting scriptures, not everyone believes in the bible. So to someone who does not believe in the bible, Dale was condemning them using something they do not believe in. "
mommyme wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:04 AM:
" Well written & well stated Brooke! Keen insight for one at a tender age. Brooke is intelligent, witty & beautiful from the inside out. Rock on Brooke!
I love you girl,
Mommyme
P.S. think about it, you know me & you've been to my home:) "
cynic wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:50 AM:
" Yes, Melissa, it's nice to hear somone else understands the dif between the O.T. and the N.T. - but if you don't believe, then don't get so worked up. If a book I didn't believe in condemned me, I'd just laugh. It's the people who do believe, but want to twist what the Bible says to meet their lifestyle that seem to get the most worked up. "
jeff wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:11 PM:
" D.A.,
That is highly debatable, many religious scholars don't even agree with that. That passage is about idolatry not gay sex. Even if you believe Romans 1:24-27 is speaking about homosexuality it doesn't say that it is wrong. One could also make an argument that Romans 1:24 and 26 shows that God was directly involved in creating homosexuality if you believe that Romans 1 is talking about the origins of homosexuality. "
cynic wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:47 PM:
" Good one Alihandro - the Jew (Jesus) I follow says the Old Law has passed away "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:12 PM:
" To: Melissa wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:36 AM:
I wonder if you'll have those same feelings come judgement day? "
RobertD wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:49 PM:
" "One day, free-thinking will prevail over the age-old moral code written by wizened men." Does anyone else see danger in such beliefs? Exactly what defines "free-thinking?" I have the gut feeling that to some it means anything goes-- anarchy. I would suggest that if we as a society went back and truly learned what the "wizened men" were preaching we may be better off for it. By this I do not mean any religious leader but the political, social, and economic theorists that formed this nation--Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Smith, etc. "
RobertD wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:59 PM:
" I agree with momyme that Brooke is an intelligent young lady that expresses herself well; however she adopts the falacious view that anything traditional, old, etc. is flawed. She wrote, "One day, free-thinking will prevail over the age-old moral code written by wizened men." A few "wizzened men" about 220 years ago set the ground work for our notion of liberty and "free thinking." But they had the wisdom and foresight to understand that our rights are not absolute. There are restraints, because if there are not then our democracy would devolve into anarchy. These old men realized with liberty comes responsibility. I hope our educators are teaching that fundamental understanding; if not, then we are doomed. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:37 PM:
" If it doesn't fit today's liberal anything goes society the younger generation doesn't want to learn or study the possibility just throw it out like all the other recyclable material of today.
I guess it is true we are a throw away society, we finally made it what doesn't go in the landfill goes into the recycle bin for another round of being destroyed for a useless purpose.
They call this progress????????????????? "
Angie wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:41 PM:
" Free thinking will prevail? When I read this it reminded me about that scripture in the Bible that talks about the narrow path that leads to righteousness and the wide path that leads to destruction. "Free thinking" is walking on that wide path. Those people that think that you can do whatever you want as long as you are not hurting anybody but they don't realize that you ARE hurting somebody. You are hurting yourself.
Those that have what the world would call a "narrow minded" way of thinking because they don't believe in abortion, homosexuality, etc....
are on the narrow path. Now, don't get me wrong, there's more to being a Christian than just thinking a certain way. Christianity is a lifestyle but all this talk about "Free thinking" is almost scary. "
Melissa wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:45 PM:
" cynic again I agree with you that those of us who do not believe in the bible should not get worked up, and I can only speak for myself as to why I do. It effects me when a majority of people use their belief in a man written book to pass a law to take away civil rights of citzens that are not different than them. We pay taxes, we work here, we live here, we have our families here, the only difference between us and those is that we love the same sex. Majority that voted Yes did so because of their religion not because there is a true legal reason to keep us from having the same rights they do. It is outrageous to me that in a country where there is separation of Church and State, that religious beliefs can be used to pass discriminatory laws against fellow citizens. To me that is where the "worked up" feeling comes from. My life is being decided by a religion I do not believe in. It is up to civil courts now, yet relgious fanatics are crying to remove judges if they do not get their way. "
Melissa wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:55 PM:
" Watchdog Fred I stand by my beliefs no matter what, my God loves me. What are you going to say to your God on judgement day? According to the bible you are not to judge, you are to treat others as you want to be treated, what do you think he is going to say to you? Do you think that because you are baptized you can sin because Jesus died for your sins and you are now exempt? Fred you are defying your own religion by coming on here and putting people down, judging how they live their lives yet you have the nerve to ask me about judgment day? I put my faith in God not a book written by many men that has been translated so many times who knows what it actually read. My God loves all his creations. I do not believe I have to jump thru hoops to please my maker. My maker knew who I was before I was put on this earth, he knew who and what I was going to be and he still put me on this earth. God does not make mistakes. "
Melissa wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:17 PM:
" Watchdog Fred cont...Romans has been brought up concerning homosexuality, Those verses state God let them continue to do what they wanted to do in that very next Chptr Romans 2 vs 1-3,5 it says that you who judge are just as guilty and will recieve punishment the very same, so tell me Fred according to your very own religion and bible it states you are not to pass judgement on those who sin, those who sin are to be left to Gods judgment and those who judge sinners will answer to him on judgement day. So I ask you again, since you have had a few nice things to say about the LGBT community what are you going to say to your God on judgement day? "
jacks_mom wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:26 AM:
" if we do not have enough money for the foods we want that week just steal it? if we like our friends husband better than we like ours just go do him? ok so there is your "FREE THINKING" Brooke & Mommyme. so where does the "free thinking" stop and common cence step back in!
give me a break, as for "age old morals" thats why it's called morals. I am a Christian , I am against two of the same sex getting married, and I am NOT judging any one!!!! thank God that we dont have to...thats HIS job! "
Howie wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:06 PM:
" To add on to your point, like everything else like ethnicity, gender, skin color, etc, orientation is natural and cannot be forced. Like my friend Steven said, "How can you choose who you are naturally attracted to?" It is all hormones job. And there is always an economic controversy (orthodox versus progressive), but i would rather live my life being happy and living in the current world rather than living at the rules of laws that were written over 2,000 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I still keep the morality of the Bible like not stealing, not killing, the seven virtues, etc. because those morals respect other people's boundaries (alluding to Austin), but since marriage is given to some and not others, it intrudes onto other people's liberties. :) "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:36 AM:
" To: Melissa wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:17 PM:
"So I ask you again, since you have had a few nice things to say about the LGBT community what are you going to say to your God on judgement day? "
I will first say "Thank You God I am glad to be here and oh by the way I voted Yes on Proposition 8 and he will say welcome son and thank you for helping me."
What are you gonna say; you protested in the streets of Hanford for the No on 8 group, he's not just watching me Melissa he's watching us all. "
O. G. wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:35 PM:
" It’s ironic that those who most frequently quote, “Judge not” in condemnation of others are demonstrating their judgment on others not to mention they seriously quote it completely out of context. Jesus clearly defined the meaning when He said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” To top it off Brooke Westlund’s shameful letter itself reeks of judgment. Judgment that the Bible isn’t applicable for today, judgment that believers in the Bible should disqualify themselves from voting because its ‘judgmental’ and judges that ‘fornication’ is perfectly acceptable. May I suggest that if you’re going to quote scripture to scold others, then it’s perfectly fitting you should abide by it yourself; anything else is hypocrisy. "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Dec 8, 2008 2:55 PM:
" to O.G. continued, but rather than support those ideas or even Mormons or Muslims being allowed to have more than one wife as their religions proclaim, they are alright to keep all of those kinds of laws. Then they go on to say how we only want to pick out the parts of the bible that we want, then they quote portions, i.e. Job's daughter's sleeping with him, but forget what was the judgement set upon them by GOD. I voted yes on Prop 8 and am still proud of my actions. I am not a homophobic, nor am I against people being allowed to pick and choose whomever they want to help in their needs, but just change the institution of marriage itself when they see that it hurts so many others. How many other peoples rights do they want to take away just so they can have their way. "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Dec 8, 2008 5:21 PM:
" I know this is off subject, but none of the current active subjects would be on subject, so here is a link for some light hearted (hopefully) reading:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18994/ "
Melissa wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:12 AM:
" NotHomeGrown How many more peoples rights do YOU want to take away so YOU can have your way? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 9, 2008 6:32 AM:
" To: Melissa wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:17 PM:
Every weekend in Hanford during the summer there are races ran at the fair grounds. Those people in the audience are observers, enthusiest, fans call them what you will, but mostly it boils down to the fact that they are obervers. Observers aren't always judges but they can be pretty good witnesses during a train wreck should it occur. So don't be so fast to call everyone a judge when in fact they are not claiming to be one.
All any of the Yes on 8 voters are guilty of is choosing to take advantage of the right guaranteed to us in this state and in this country to vote and have our opinions heard. That is in no way an infraction of anyone's law or is it discrimination, it is according to the laws of the land as established by brave men hundreds of years ago. Just because voting has a long and fruitful history does not mean it is outdated or the wrong way to decide important issues. As I've stated before every bill before the Senate is voted on. "
Melissa wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:38 AM:
" Watchdog Fred that is also why there are courts to protect minorities when the majorities opinion becomes unconstitutional. See you are guaranteed the right to vote how you want you are correct, but when your beliefs and that of the majority impose on the constituional rights of others then we have the right to take it to the courts and plead our case. Just because you and majority(a slight majority at that) of the voters believe something is wrong does not mean it is, just because you think we should not have the same rights as you does not mean it is constituional and does not mean I can not fight to have the same rights as you. "
jeff wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:18 PM:
" NHG,
You don't even know how your rights are being taken away. You can't complain about something if you don't understand it. You're making up a complaint that doesn't exist. Plus, what about everyone else's right to believe gay marriage is legal? If you're complaint is that your belief is being taken away why do you feel it's OK to take away other people's beliefs?
The only way your "Beliefs" can be taken away is if a law is passed that says it's illegal to believe in something. Making gay marriage legal takes no ones rights away. "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Dec 10, 2008 5:17 PM:
" to Jeff: quoting you: "The only way your "Beliefs" can be taken away is if a law is passed that says it's illegal to believe in something"
So if a law is passed that says Gay marriage is legal, then you have passed a law that has taken away my belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman, therefore illegal to believe in. And based upon that then the Bible would have to be banned from this country as it would be considered a discrimanatory doctrine? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:14 PM:
" To: Melissa wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:38 AM:
Can you imagine the anarchy if everytime the Senate passed a bill into law if someone stood up and said that is discrimination. Nothing would get passed into law and there would be no measure by which to determine lawfulness within this country What you are wanting to undermind by disallowing a second unanimous majority vote is consequentially the same thing. The majority populous of this state has voted not to allow same sex marriage, not once but two times now. If you don't like the results of the election move to a state that allows same sex marriage and be as happy as you want, they allow it, they support it, therefore they should have all LGBTQ's who want to be married residing within their boundaries and paying their taxes. Bye Bye bus train or plane it's your choice. "
jeff wrote on Dec 11, 2008 2:24 PM:
" NHG,
Legalized gay marriage says nothing about what you can or cannot believe. You can believe as much as you want that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. No one is regulating your beliefs. If the law was that only gay marriage should be legal you would have an argument but that is not what is happening. The Bible is a discriminatory doctrine but it doesn’t have to be banned. The KKK exists in our country and guess what, black people can’t join that club. They publish a lot of reading material that says black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, work, marry white people or be considered citizens. Our country does not agree to these beliefs yet they have somehow found a way to retain their beliefs. Medical marijuana is legal in California; does that mean you have to believe marijuana is good for people? I imagine you are a Republican but it is legal to be a Democrat, does that mean you have to believe in Democratic political ideas? Your own personal beliefs contrast with many legal things in this country; it doesn’t mean your beliefs are taken away. "
RobertD wrote on Dec 12, 2008 3:07 PM:
" Jeff,
I find your "belief" argument very interesting. The problem is beliefs are not rights. As you correctly pointed out some people believe marriage is between a man and woman and some believe otherwise. Our beliefs translate into our votes, and apaprently the majority believes that the definition of marriage in California is a union between one man and one woman. So let's stop debating this issue and move on to more pressing national problems. "
jeff wrote on Dec 12, 2008 5:57 PM:
" RobertD,
You are 100% correct, beliefs are not rights and I have never insinuated they are, in fact that’s kind of my point. What I find to be the problem with your argument is this. Until the 1960’s segregation was legal in this country and the majority wanted to keep it legal at that time. Was segregation correct or moral simply because the majority liked it? What about slavery? What about black people not being able to vote? What about women not being able to vote? At one time the “Majority” was in favor of all of these. Does that make them right? "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:57 PM:
" to Jeff, I don't really think that it was segragation in all of the land in the 60's, some Southern states, but not all of the rest, but in a sense there is still legalized segragation, it is called school boundaries. The big thing that was really the problem back then were two things, yes in some places blacks were not allowed to attend a school that might have been right across the street from them. But the biggest issues wasn't that, the biggest issue is that the funding for education for blacks was not equal to that of the predominantly white schools. But again that was true in every state of the union. I didn't know what racism was growing up, admittedly we only had a few black students at my high school, but we had quite a few orientals, and some Native Americans. There was no racism from my side, we were all students that were attending the same school. "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:03 PM:
" to Jeff, continued, I still don't comprehend how you can agree at one point that gay marriage is a belief, and then say that I am denying someones rights. Yet if I say using the same points you do, then you say it isn't my right to marriage being a man and woman, but my belief. Then based upon that how am I denying anyone's rights if I am against their belief of gay marriage? You try to use true forms of discrimanation and twist it to maike homosexuality a right? As I have said, how do I know that someone is gay? There is nothing on the outside that identifies anyone as gay, but other discrimanations are sometimes easier to be identified, i.e. against a race, or against a gender. Do you realize that I am discriminated against every day? I am left handed, yet nothing requires everything to be just as acessable to me as it is to right handed people. Do you know that to me a clock is backwards? What is being done to correct the descrimination against me? "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:12 PM:
" to Jeff, continued, I could go on with ways that I am discrimanated against, but I don't. Did you have teachers try to change you? I did. Do you know what kind of problems that created for me? My teachers could tell right away that I was left handed, could those same teachers based upon observation only tell that someone was gay? Again if you don't tell me that you are gay, then how am I to know that you are and therefor I could "descriminate" against you.
Again marriage is an institution, not a right, nowhere are you guaranteed to be married in the consitution, but you are guaranteed your right to practice the religion of your choice. So again I do not belief that I am denying anyone a right, nor am I keeping anyone from having a marriage between a man and a woman. "
Subscribe Now
Mobile Site
Place an Ad
E-Edition
Email Updates
Obituaries
Classifieds
Find a Job
Find a Car
Real Estate
Contact Us
RSS HanfordSentinel.com