Please pray for California for Upcoming Election + Governor Candidate Comparison

[Jackson Lau]

Dear brothers & sisters,

Please my Christian brothers and sisters, pray for California for the upcoming election. This state has already fallen pray to much depravity.

Please pray to our Lord in Heaven that we can elect the best and most willing vessel for God so that California might repent and reform.

If compelled, please vote and share this with loved ones.

I'll let God tug you in the right direction, but here is the breakdown of the two candidates for governor:


John Cox:
> Reborn in Christ in 1979
> Anti-Abortion
> Respect people’s freedom but don’t sanction gay behavior
> Impeach judges for barring legislature prayers to Jesus
> Strongly for keeping God in the public sphere
> Strongly Opposed to gay marriage


http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Cox.htm


Gavin Newsom:
> Early supporter for gay marriage.
> Pushed Proposition 64, legalizing adult use of marijuana
> Strongly opposed to keep God in the public sphere
> Pro-abortion

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gavin_Newsom.htm

 

[church mouse guy]

Why does California have a jungle primary?

 

[ChasingChrist]

> Respect people’s freedom but don’t sanction gay behavior
> Strongly Opposed to gay marriage

These two platforms are in direct and incontrovertible contradiction with each other. How is it possible to give the(edit) the same freedoms as heteros' without allowing gay marriage? If marriage is a freedom that Americans should be able to freely enjoy, then wouldn't taking away the freedom to get married be the polar opposite of respecting and protecting people's freedoms?

 

[Shoostie]

These two platforms are in direct and incontrovertible contradiction with each other. How is it possible to give the fags the same freedoms as heteros' without allowing gay marriage? If marriage is a freedom that Americans should be able to freely enjoy, then wouldn't taking away the freedom to get married be the polar opposite of respecting and protecting people's freedoms?

Freedom means letting people do as they wish (ending when they start to impose on the freedom of others). Sodomite marriage is not an issue of freedom, except in Leftist propaganda. You don't need the government involved in our life, or bedroom, to be free. In fact, freedom is sort of the opposite of that. Government-recognized sodomite marriage is nothing but a foundation to take away the freedom of others who would choose not to support sodomite relationships.

Anyway, California is a lost cause. Conservatives should be trying to break California up into at least two states, not foolishly hoping to win state-wide elections there.

 

[ChasingChrist]

Freedom means letting people do as they wish (ending when they start to impose on the freedom of others). . . . Government-recognized sodomite marriage is nothing but a foundation to take away the freedom of others who would choose not to support sodomite relationships.

Per your quote here, allowing the (edit) to do as they wish and marry each other is precisely your definition of freedom. As far as their freedom supposedly imposing on your freedoms, if you're not a (edit), then how does (edit)marriage relate to your freedoms at all? You saying that giving rights to (edit) is equivalent to taking rights away from heteros is not logically sound. You have a constitutional freedom only to voice your opinions, not to require the government to cater to them. Thus, the electoral process. Otherwise, the government would not be able to resolve any disagreement between two people with differing views of what policies it should pass. For example, a (edit) could easily make the same argument you did about government-sponsored fag marriage to say that her right to choose not to support hetero marriage is currently being infringed upon. And as for your idea that your freedoms should never be imposed upon whatsoever, you are voluntary doing exactly that if you support the ongoing War on Terror. When the USA PATRIOT Act was passed after the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda, the US people voluntarily gave up many of their rights to data and telecommunications privacy in exchange for safety. To this day, your rights to privacy being restricted is precisely what is keeping you safe from potential terrorists. There is a balance to be struck; this black-and-white thinking of yours will prevent you from being able to effectively navigate the gray areas of the world, Shootsy.

 

[poor-in-spirit]

Homosexuals affectionately refer to themselves as (edit) so don't let this troll fool any of you. I know this from my own brother who is homosexual, unrepentant and reprobate but I still love him and witness to him every time we speak. This man or woman or it is simply a leftist troll, disregard it and it won't last long.

 

[ChasingChrist]

If you would like a full explanation of my identity, then please refer to my post on the White Nationalist thread in this board.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Per your quote here, allowing the fags to do as they wish and marry each other is precisely your definition of freedom. As far as their freedom supposedly imposing on your freedoms, if you're not a fag, then how does fag marriage relate to your freedoms at all? You saying that giving rights to fags is equivalent to taking rights away from heteros is not logically sound. You have a constitutional freedom only to voice your opinions, not to require the government to cater to them. Thus, the electoral process. Otherwise, the government would not be able to resolve any disagreement between two people with differing views of what policies it should pass. For example, a fag could easily make the same argument you did about government-sponsored fag marriage to say that her right to choose not to support hetero marriage is currently being infringed upon. And as for your idea that your freedoms should never be imposed upon whatsoever, you are voluntary doing exactly that if you support the ongoing War on Terror. When the USA PATRIOT Act was passed after the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda, the US people voluntarily gave up many of their rights to data and telecommunications privacy in exchange for safety. To this day, your rights to privacy being restricted is precisely what is keeping you safe from potential terrorists. There is a balance to be struck; this black-and-white thinking of yours will prevent you from being able to effectively navigate the gray areas of the world, Shootsy.

Such a position is neither logically nor morally sound. There is no need whatsoever for homosexual marriage. Those who live such a lifestyle should not be allowed to expose children to it. Arguing otherwise is like condoning Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Shoostie]

You have a constitutional freedom only to voice your opinions, not to require the government to cater to them.

That is why it's wrong for anyone to argue sodomite freedom requires the government to cater to them. Freedom is the absence of government.

For example, a (edit) could easily make the same argument you did about government-sponsored fag marriage to say that her right to choose not to support hetero marriage is currently being infringed upon.

Until sodomite marriage was enacted to be a weapon against our freedom, I'm not aware of any laws forcing anyone to support heterosexual marriage. If a sodomite doesn't want to support heterosexual marriage, that should be its right. But, the two are not equal. Heterosexual relations perpetuates the human race, and heterosexual marriage does it with the lowest socioeconomic cost. Sodomite marriage has no value, and by nature is immoral.

 

[Walter]

Freedom means letting people do as they wish (ending when they start to impose on the freedom of others). Sodomite marriage is not an issue of freedom, except in Leftist propaganda. You don't need the government involved in our life, or bedroom, to be free. In fact, freedom is sort of the opposite of that. Government-recognized sodomite marriage is nothing but a foundation to take away the freedom of others who would choose not to support sodomite relationships.

Anyway, California is a lost cause. Conservatives should be trying to break California up into at least two states, not foolishly hoping to win state-wide elections there.

You are absolutely right!